Libertarian Party Says Obama Plan Based on Failed Economics

[brucefan]

Tuesday, January 13, 2009
If Obama's Plan Doesn't Seem to Make Sense, it's Because it Doesn't

Libertarian Party Says Obama Plan Based on Failed Economics



America's largest third party says that President-elect Barack Obama's spending plans are based on flawed economics. "If you think Obama's economic plans don't make sense, it's because they don't," says Libertarian Party National Chairman William Redpath.
"Americans are taking a look at Obama's economic plans and scratching their heads," says Redpath. "And, there is good reason to do so. The theory behind his plan, Keynesian economics, has been unsuccessfully tried by multiple presidential administrations in the past. It didn't work for President Hoover in the early 1930s. It didn't work for President Roosevelt in the Great Depression. It didn't work for President Ford in 1970s. Why does Obama think it will work for him now?"
"Just look at the last eight years," says Redpath. "President George Bush did more to increase government spending during his administration than any president in American history. Yet, this is the same period in which we entered into economic decline. Is there any reason then to believe that more government spending will pull us out of this decline?"
"Keynesians believe that government can jump-start the economy by creating artificial demand through massive spending projects," says Redpath. "This debt is later repaid with magic money borrowed from foreign countries, printed out of thin air or from tax increases. But, unfortunately, government can't spend billions of dollars without incredible amounts of waste, through fraud or worthless projects. So, much of the money taken out of the economy, in order to jump-start the economy, is lost, leaving American taxpayers with a flat economy and even more debt to pay."
"Politicians like Keynesian-based spending plans because it makes it easy to bring pork projects back to their districts, and they'll be out of office before they ever have to worry about paying down the debt," explains Redpath. "It's all about power. It's not about helping the American people."
"Obama's plans will put the United States another trillion dollars in debt while doing nothing to pull us out of the recession," says Redpath. "Taxpayers have good reason to be skeptical of the stimulus plan because it is their money backing Obama's multibillion-dollar boondoggle."
The Libertarian Party recommends permanent tax cuts for individuals and businesses as an alternative to government spending projects, which have proven records of economic stimulation. The Party also states that any cuts in taxes must be offset by cuts to spending.
For a detailed explanation of the failed logic behind Keynesian economics, please visit here for a video produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please email Andrew Davis at andrew.davis@lp.org, or call (202) 731-0002.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom

 

[Dilrod]

Of course it is, the entire system is designed to collapse. It's all about bail-outs and stealing from the working class.

 

[brucefan]

Ron Paul at the Financial Services Hearing 1/13/09

Posted January 14th, 2009 by freedom1776
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/0cy1pnbvACE&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

 

[billbeater]

no family or person in the world spends themselves out of debt........... but america can?
hno:
ron paul may be the smartest man on capital hill, he should have stayed away from the legalizing drug thing. you just cant get elected if you piss off religion here. i think he knew that and wanted to be heard some BUT not elected.

 

[guitarjosh]

no family or person in the world spends themselves out of debt........... but america can?
hno:
ron paul may be the smartest man on capital hill, he should have stayed away from the legalizing drug thing. you just cant get elected if you piss off religion here. i think he knew that and wanted to be heard some BUT not elected.

The sad thing is that what Dr. Paul says doesn't take much to figure out...

 

[gtc08]

ron paul is a theorist. he bases all of his beliefs off things that have never been practiced.

 

[rolltide]

well gtc, the American Constitution has NEVER been practiced in your lifetime and certainly not by your savior. RP bases his "theories" off of a document that worked pretty fucking well until Woodrow Wilson was handed power

 

[brucefan]

The sad thing is that what Dr. Paul says doesn't take much to figure out...

How true

 

[fletchisrhsm]

ron paul is a theorist. he bases all of his beliefs off things that have never been practiced.

hno: I cant believe you typed this.

 

[brucefan]

One of the realities of an economic downturn is declining government revenue – and how elected officials nearly always fail to properly address it.

That failure is becoming starkly clear in this current recession and its effects on government-run education. The non-partisan Center for Education Reform reports government spending on education is at an all-time high, doubling in constant dollars from $3,931 in 1971, to $7,524 in 2005.

Spending on government education has doubled, but test scores have declined. Clearly, more spending isn’t going to make government-run education work.

In fact, it’s making it worse. Faced with crippling budget shortfalls brought on by irresponsible spending, politicians are gutting classroom budgets, protecting administrative paychecks and letting education suffer. Fattened on booming tax revenues, politicians spent as though the money would never stop flowing. Once it did, the children were left to bear the brunt of the pain as classroom spending is slashed while administrators still enjoy lush salaries and taxpayer-funded travel.

It's something I saw far too much of in nearly seven years as a government chief of staff.

The fiscally responsible, and more educationally effective, approach is already working in many cities – expanding school choice by allowing parents to “shop” with their tax dollars or scholarships.

Such a reform could be adopted in several ways – making education expenses deductible from property taxes, adopting education tax credits or school vouchers or allowing companies to deduct primary education scholarship contributions from commercial property taxes to fund education for children whose parents do not own a home.

Not only would allowing parents to pick their children’s school give the next generation access to the best education possible, it would also put an end to one of the dirty secrets of government-run education. Grouping children into government schools by attendance districts, or not allowing lower- and middle-class families to spend their own education tax dollars, leads to de facto segregation and unequally funded schools.

Parents with children trapped in failing government-run schools would finally have the finances to give their kids a better education -- simply because they get to spend their education dollars instead of the government.

But most importantly in these times, school choice saves taxpayers money.

The non-partisan Center for Education Reform points to a June 2003 U.S. Department of Education report finding “29 percent of all private schools charge tuitions less than $2,500 and 76 percent of them cost less than $5,000. The average private school tuition is $4,689, while the average (government) school expenditure per pupil was $7,392, more than 50 percent higher than average private school tuition costs.”

In fact, in most areas of the United States most private schools have lower per-student costs than the local government schools.

With education at private schools costing less than government schools, leaving tax money left over, school choice may even help save government education. The Center also reports under “Milwaukee’s school choice program, both per-pupil and overall funding for the government schools increased significantly under school choice. Between 1990 and 2002 – the MPS reaped this 32 percent increase in spending, enrollment grew by only 5.4 percent, and local residents saw their property tax burden decrease by over 30 percent.”

Research by the American Legislative Exchange Council finds that in Cleveland and Milwaukee, cities with two of the oldest choice programs, the savings realized by the program actually increased funding in the government school system.

If it costs a local government $7,500 to educate a child, for example, but that child leaves the system and takes $5,000 with him, that leaves behind one less student to teach but an extra $2,000 in the government's pocket.

I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer that money be given back to the taxpayers. Either way, it completely debunks anti-choice myths intended to preserve government's failed monopoly on education.

School choice’s track record is clear. It saves taxpayers money and gives a bright future to lower and middle-class children who may otherwise be stuck in an underperforming school.

Delivering the finest education available to our kids, ending quiet segregation and saving billions of tax dollars in an economic downturn can all be easily accomplished – if politicians would simply let parents spend their own education tax dollars.

You can make it happen, by helping elect Libertarians. Join us today!

With optimism,

Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National CommitteeDonny.Ferguson@lp.org

 

[brucefan]

Why government should stay out of the business of businesshno:

posted by Donny Ferguson on Mar 17, 2009


Remember last year when the automakers came crawling to Congress for a taxpayer-funded bailout, and lawmakers demanded they be forced to make more hybrid cars because that's what people want?
Well, that turns out to be another great example of why Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans are wrong when they tell private businesses what to sell.
And if American automakers do go out of business, throwing millions into unemployment, it will be because of government.
From today's Los Angeles Times:

...But the slowdown has been particularly brutal for hybrids, which use electricity and gasoline as power sources. They were the industry's darling just last summer, but sales have collapsed as consumers refuse to pay a premium for a fuel-efficient vehicle now that the average price of a gallon of gasoline nationally has slipped below $2.
"When gas prices came down, the priority of buying a hybrid fell off quite quickly," said Wes Brown, a partner at Los Angeles-based market research firm Iceology. "Yet even as consumer interest declined, the manufacturers have continued to pump them out."
Last month, only 15,144 hybrids sold nationwide, down almost two-thirds from April, when the segment's sales peaked and gas averaged $3.57 a gallon. That's far larger than the drop in industry sales for the period and scarcely a better showing than January, when hybrid sales were at their lowest since early 2005...
...Yet automakers believe they have little choice but to make more hybrids. Though car buyers are losing interest, politicians are pushing them as key to reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and limiting the global-warming gases that cars emit into the atmosphere.
In January, President Obama called on the industry to "thrive by building the cars of tomorrow" and prepare for federal and state regulations that could push average fuel economy above 40 miles per gallon by 2020.
"The automakers are in the situation of needing to pacify politicians that are in the position to bail them out with expensive fuel-efficient cars," said Rebecca Lindland, auto analyst with IHS Global Insight. "But shouldn't it be more about satisfying the needs of the American consumer?"

​

 

[brucefan]

Record number of voters back LP tax approach

Rasmussen poll finds highest-ever number believe tax cuts spur growth



WASHINGTON – A record number of voters agree with the Libertarian Party that tax cuts would help spur economic growth, America’s third-largest party notes Monday.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released March 26 finds 63 percent of all voters now say tax cuts will help America’s economy. That’s an increase from the 56 percent measured in February and the highest number since Rasmussen began tracking the question in the mid-1990s.
Among unaffiliated voters, the number is even higher – 68 percent.
“Libertarians have been cutting taxes since the day we elected our first official nearly 40 years ago,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chair. “Republicans and Democrats have been working together to drive up spending and taxes, and a supermajority of voters agree with over 200 currently elected Libertarians that this is wrong.”
“No wonder interest in the Libertarian Party on the rise. Voters prefer the very popular Libertarian policy of fiscal responsibility and limited government to get the economy moving,” said Redpath.
President Obama is doing little to assuage fears his tax hikes will hurt the economy. The Rasmussen poll also finds 51 percent of voters believe increasing taxes hurts the economy, the highest number since early January.
The Rasmussen poll also finds 52 percent of voters think they already pay their “fair share” of taxes, and more voters prefer a candidate who opposes all tax increases (43 percent) than one who only wants to raise taxes on the rich (42 percent.) Last month, voters preferred the “tax-the-rich” candidate by a 44 percent to 40 percent margin.
A majority of voters, 54 percent, also agree with Libertarians that a tax policy that helps the economy grow is more important than the Democrat/Republican policy of making sure “everyone pays their fair share.” Only 39 percent of voters believe punitive taxation is more important than pro-growth taxation.
While Obama promised to raise taxes only on families whose combined income was more than $250,000 a year, as well as a tax cut for “95 percent of working families,” Americans are skeptical. Sixty-six percent of voters think Obama will raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669, 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom
​

 

[punter]

I dont know whose economist are right but how come the Libertarians never get any votes to speak of?

 

[punter]

He tried it once and found that without a party base that you have no chance.

Your points are spot on as to why they cannot build a decent base.

 

[brucefan]

What Capitalism Really Looks Like
Thursday, April 2, 2009, 08:50 AM
By Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee

I woke up yesterday morning and got a chance to see what capitalism really looks like. You see capitalism- for better or worse- is alive and well in Las Vegas, Nevada. The headlines in the Las Vegas paper were filled with pain, losses, doom, gloom, bankruptcy and…CAPITALISM. Station Casinos reported they might file for bankruptcy by April 15th. Bally's Hotel announced they were closing their Race & Sports book until next fall. The Riviera Casino Hotel and Hooters Casino Hotel both missed interest payments and could file for bankruptcy soon. Herbst Gaming is already in bankruptcy. None of the bad news in yesterday's headlines even included news about the three biggest gaming companies in the world. Harrahs, MGM Mirage and Las Vegas Sands (Venetian) are all multi-billion dollar conglomerates on the verge of bankruptcy (with stock prices off by more than 90%). And to top it off, one of the biggest developers in Las Vegas, James Rhodes, also made headlines yesterday by filing a petition for bankruptcy on behalf of a multitude of his businesses. It's all just another day at the office in the midst of the worst economic crisis since 1929. And I have a feeling- with Obama's tragic economic policies soon to take effect- we are heading for an economic crisis worse than 1929. This folks is what a full-fledged depression looks like.

But there is one good thing to come out of all these depressing (and shocking) headlines- they prove that in Las Vegas, we still practice capitalism. You see failure is a natural (and unfortunately, necessary) part of capitalism. Failure plays just as big a part in a capitalist system as success. Companies succeed and fail every day in a capitalist system. Companies are allowed (and are supposed) to go bankrupt without the government jumping in to save them. Bankruptcy serves a useful purpose. It doesn't mean that a company is going out of business. It might mean that the company is restructuring and shedding unprofitable contracts, or bloated union contracts under the protection of bankruptcy court. It might mean that the company is becoming leaner and meaner. It might mean that a competitor will buy the company out of bankruptcy.

That's precisely how capitalism has worked for centuries. That's precisely why capitalism works. In a free market capitalist system, businesses and businessmen are allowed to succeed and fail without government interference. Some people soar, while others flop. That's precisely how you figure out the winners and losers- you leave companies (and people) alone and allow them to succeed or fail. If they fail, someone new will come along to pick up the pieces and do it better. How would anyone learn from these failures and mistakes, if government doesn't allow anyone to fail in the first place?

There is risk inherent in business. You cannot take risk out of the equation, or it isn't capitalism anymore. To change that equation produces government-controlled Socialism. In the long run, government interference in business is a disaster. Yes, in the short term it might avert a sudden panic or market crash. But in the long run, allowing a company to fail is healthier for the system and the economy. Ask Cuba…or the old Soviet Union (who had to build a wall to keep people from escaping)…or the People's Republic of China of 30 years ago. Under communism China was once one of the poorest nations in the world. Today, under a capitalist system, it is one of the richest. Asking government to save businesses, to choose winners and losers, distorts the free market system and kills capitalism. In the long run it costs millions of jobs to artificially prop up failing companies. In the long run it damages GDP (Gross Domestic Product) just as Obama's own Congressional Budget Office now predicts that Obama's trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus plans will decrease GDP over the next decade.

Worse, government has no idea how to run a business. Most of the people working in government couldn't get or keep a job in the private sector. Now we suddenly want them to make life and death decisions about how to save or run major companies or industries? How preposterous. Failure is natural. It is part and parcel of the capitalist system. It is actually…HEALTHY. If government would just leave the banks, AIG, and the "Big 3" automakers alone, we'd all be far better off in the long run. When TWA and Eastern Airlines failed, we all survived. As a matter of fact, out of the ashes rose Southwest Airlines- and flying got better (and more profitable). When the U.S. television manufacturing industry failed, somehow we all survived. We found new companies to make better television sets at cheaper prices- Sony, Sanyo, Samsung, etc. We should all keep this in mind when we discuss the options for companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler. No one is too big to fail.

Is failure really bad? Or do good things come out of failure? Look no further for proof than the housing market in Las Vegas. Housing prices have collapsed, down 50% or more from just 2 years ago. I'm certainly not happy about it. The Las Vegas economy is downright painful. It has already put one of my businesses out of business. My home is down as much as 50% from its high value. My ownership in two casino stocks is down over 90%. But I haven't asked government for a bailout. I haven't asked government for a dollar, or a favor. I've been too busy restructuring my life. It's called initiative. It's called ambition. It's called creativity. It's called tenacity. It's called being RELENTLESS.

I want and expect nothing from government. I don't believe in handouts. I believe in free markets, self-reliance, and personal responsibility. I didn't complain to my government when my home went up 50%; what right would I have to complain when it goes down 50%? But this is called free market capitalism. We've had 25 straight years of economic boom and expansion (since the amazing economic recovery orchestrated by President Ronald Reagan). A bust is to be expected after a quarter century of boom. Government can't change that (but they can make it far deeper and far worse).

But this housing crash isn't bad for everyone. What's happening right now in Las Vegas is proof positive of why government should keep its hands off of free markets. Some people are cheering the drop in Las Vegas housing prices. Like those who have been priced out of the housing market for years- some for a decade or longer. New buyers, first-time buyers, and young couples are thrilled at the Las Vegas housing collapse. They are finally able to buy homes at prices that reflect reality. The result is a housing BOOM in Las Vegas. Residential real estate sales have doubled from this same period a year ago. Doubled! Remarkable. Las Vegas homes are flying off the shelf. Yes, most of them are foreclosures. Yes, $500,000 homes are selling for $200,000. So what? That's good for the buyers. This could be the greatest buying opportunity in history. In capitalism, one man or woman's terrible loss can sometimes be another's fantastic gain.

But if government interferes it screws up the natural cleansing process. If government stops homeowners from losing their homes, then new buyers will be locked out of the process. And landlords who want to rent homes to those who lost their homes will suffer. Worst of all, government will be unnaturally propping up home prices- thereby risking a new housing bubble. Only a free market can and should determine the price of a home.

Wall Street is no different. With casino stocks like MGM Mirage and Las Vegas Sands selling for $2 per share, down from a high of $150 per share (or higher), some investors are cheering. These stocks are affordable for the first time in years. Other investors have made a fortune selling them short all the way down. In each of these cases, there were winners and losers, and none of it was the government's business. To ask the government to get involved would distort the free market, and favor one group over another. It would kill capitalism. Stock investors have a right to profit or lose on the way up, and on the way down. The problem is that no one complains on the way up, but sore losers and whiners complain bitterly on the way down. They want to keep their massive profits, but demand government take action to take away their losses. I have news for them- that's not how capitalism works. Worse, government involvement in business is the very definition of “conflict of interest.” You can bet whoever President Obama or Congress chooses to “save” will be chosen by the size of their past and future campaign contributions.

Bankruptcy in the business world works the same way. Government has no right- according to the Constitution- to get involved in bailouts, managing corporations, limiting salaries of executives, or firing CEO's. The answer is to leave these companies alone and let the free market and private investors figure out a way to save them, fix them, improve them, or let them go the way of the Edsel. Am I worried about the futures of Las Vegas companies like Harrahs, MGM Mirage, Las Vegas Sands, Stations, Herbst, Hooters or the Riviera? Sure. I want them to succeed. I'm rooting for them (excuse the pun). But in the end, it isn't government's job to get involved. It sure isn't government's job to use taxpayer money to choose winners or losers (based on legal bribes called "campaign contributions"). These gaming companies will either find a way to survive, get restructured, or get bought by a competitor. That's called capitalism. I'm proud to say it's alive and well in my hometown of Las Vegas, Nevada. We don't ask for bailouts. We don't need no stinkin' bailouts. Here in Nevada we believe in capitalism, free markets, self-reliance, rugged individualism, personal responsibility, and the American way. We've done pretty well so far with this Frontier Spirit. I think we'll stay the course.


Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. His new book will be released by John Wiley & Sons this Spring entitled, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” The book is available for pre-sale at Amazon.com. For more of Wayne's views, commentaries, or to watch his many media interviews, please visit his web site at: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

 

[brucefan]

<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --><!-- message -->Press Release
For Immediate Release
Friday, April 3, 2009

LNC Chair statement on FY10 budget passage

WASHINGTON – Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Chair William Redpath released the following statement Friday concerning the passage of a $3.5 trillion budget by Congress last night:

“Yesterday’s passage of a $3.5 trillion budget, stuffed full of wasteful and unconstitutional spending and funded by prosperity-killing tax hikes and deficits, will drive up inflation and is a defeat for families, taxpayers and employers.”

“This budget not only racks up unsustainable levels of spending, it burdens our already-suffering economy by running a $9.3 trillion cumulative deficit over 10 years – three times higher than the deficits run up by George W. Bush.”

“The measure also contains troubling provisions that could expand government control of health care and install a so-called “cap and trade” system that is actually a $646 billion national tax on consumers that drives up the cost of utility bills and will destroy jobs in the midst of an economic recovery.”

“The Libertarian Party will continue to fight to elect candidates who will vote only for budgets that adhere to constitutional restraints and sound economics. Libertarians support a budget that authorizes only essential, constitutionally-authorized programs funded only by minimal taxation.”

“That is the policy that at one time made our United States the most prosperous and free nation the world has known. It is the only realistic and sustainable policy to restore our prosperity and liberty.”

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669, 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

 

[brucefan]

Budget Expands Government as Economy Contracts


Last week the House passed another budget that increases federal power, raises taxes, and increases the national debt. I voted against it, and was pleased to see that not a single Republican representative voted for it. Legislators often see bipartisanship as constructive, but I disagree especially where the destruction of our economy or our liberty is concerned. There has been too much bipartisan consensus on expanding government far beyond the bounds of the Constitution which we all swore to defend and uphold. Because of this, I have never been able to vote for a budget. However, it was good to see Republicans come together on this important vote, even if their alternative budget was almost as bad.
Despite the deterioration of our economy, this is the largest budget ever passed, at $3.6 trillion. Gross domestic product and tax receipts are shrinking. The government has less money to spend this year, and so it spends more - $1.5 trillion more - than it has. When the economy expands, the government expands. Worse, when the economy contracts, the government expands more. Even more troubling is that even though the size of the budget boggles the mind, it is never the final word on federal spending. No allowance has been made for future bailouts and stimulus plans that are highly likely. There are always supplemental bills passed later in the year. War spending is one of those. Spending on Afghanistan is only partially included in budget, with a supplemental request expected in the future. History shows that true costs far exceed estimates. So even though these numbers sound appalling enough, I predict spending will top $4 trillion this year, raising the national debt by over $2 trillion when all is said and done.
Some may notice that the neo-conservatives who masterminded the policy of global interventions are not complaining about the level of military and foreign spending. This is because rather than drawing down our costly interventions, Obama is largely staying the course on these issues. In fact, this week a group of leading neoconservatives met to discuss how best to support the President on foreign policy! I am disappointed and concerned that, in spite of a change in leadership, we will remain the policeman of the world, placing ourselves at grave danger in many ways.
As our mountain of debt is projected to double with the new budget, many are wondering how long our country can keep this up before serious repercussions are felt. Obviously we can’t continue down this road indefinitely. Certainly, no country has ever prospered when their public sector spent half or all of the nation’s GDP. Yet we are saddled with leadership that seems unwaveringly convinced that the key to prosperity is public spending. This will be exposed for the lie that it is when our creditors wake up and call in our debt. The temptation at that time will be for the government to simply print up dollars in the amount needed. This type of debt repudiation could signal the end of the dollar as its value sinks to zero. We are seeing all the signs that this could happen. Certainly there are no signs of the alternative, which is paying down debt and taking the path of fiscal responsibility.
Tragically, it is those who save their dollars, the most prudent and responsible among us, that will be hurt most by this irresponsibility in Washington.

Posted by Ron Paul (04-06-2009)


WAKE UP AMERICA!

http://www.the912project.com/
<EMBED src=http://www.campaignforliberty.com/flash/banner.swf width=580 height=120 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true">

 

[brucefan]

US. Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Tea Parties were "despicable" and "shameful"

posted by [/B]Donny Ferguson on Apr 16, 2009


U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) blasted millions of Americans yesterday, labeling the Libertarian Party-inspired "Tax Day Boston Tea Party" movement "despicable" and a "shameful political stunt."
According to Schakowsky, the millions of angry Americans coming out to oppose higher taxes and spending were all part of a conspiracy and acting on secret orders from businesses, lobbyists and Fox News. Schakowsky is an advocate of higher taxes, bigger government and the nationalization of health care.
She may be reached at 202-222-2111. Tea bags may be mailed to 2367 Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC 20515.

 

[brucefan]

Did you hear? Obama’s cutting the budget!

Unfortunately, it’s only $100 million, which barely comes out to three percent of the $3.6 trillion in spending he is imposing on current and future taxpayers. Much of it is simply things like buying office supplies in bulk, or one-time cuts that do nothing to cure long-term spending problems.

And according to senior White House official, speaking to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, "said Obama will point to cuts already being proposed."

Obama’s budget calls for around $11,755.00 in spending for every man, woman and child in America. But his “cuts” -- which aren't even new reductions -- come out to only around 32.7 cents per person.

Yes, Obama believes that by cutting 32.7 cents off the price of an $11,755.00 financed purchase, he’s offering you a great deal.

Well, Libertarians know better. Obama is doing this out of desperation, and there’s a reason he’s scrambling to take credit for tiny spending reductions other people came up with.

Outraged Americans gathered in parks and town squares across the country last week to vent their outrage at his and the Republican Party’s out-of-control spending. Twenty House Democrats voted against his budget because even they couldn’t stomach his economy-crushing deficits.

Less than 100 days into office and much of Obama’s out-of-touch agenda is already on the ropes. His big-spending, big-governing Republican counterparts aren’t faring much better. Despite plummeting approval ratings for Obama, the GOP is still hugely unpopular.

Americans are looking for a party with a plan to reduce spending, eliminate deficits and restore prosperity.

It’s certainly not the Republican Party. Their “alternative budget” released a few weeks ago continued the Bush policy of expanding the size of government and running up deficits. The only difference between theirs and Obama’s budgets was that theirs was only a close second in the race to expand government the fastest.

That’s why the Libertarian Party is proposing real, specific spending reductions --- reductions that will go much, much further to reduce taxes on our children than Obama’s raindrop-in-the-ocean repackaging of already-proposed cuts.

So what are they? How are Libertarians going to reduce the size and cost of the federal government and stave off trillions of dollars in higher taxes on our children?

Here are just a few of the reductions we back. You can find more in the Cato Institute’s “Handbook for Policymakers, Seventh Edition.”

• Avert the oncoming fiscal crisis in Social Security by indexing initial benefits to changes in prices, instead of wages. Saves $47 billion annually by 2018. Without reforms like this, the program will go bankrupt or force trillions of dollars in destructive new taxes or borrowing.
• Turn Medicare into a block grant and freeze federal spending, forcing states to pursue cost-cutting reforms. Saves $227 billion annually by 2018.
• Eliminate the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration, a $352 million corporate welfare program.
• Eliminate the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, another $369 million in corporate welfare.
• Eliminate the Energy Department’s nuclear energy research programs, $695 million in welfare that should be undertaken by nuclear energy investors.
• Turn Head Start over to private charities, saving $687 million annually. Since its inception Head Start has shown no substantive increase in inner-city literacy rates.
• Eliminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs, saving nearly $2.5 billion a year.
• Eliminate funding for the United Nations and other international programs, saving nearly $1.6 billion annually.
• Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, saving $350 million annually.
• Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, $278 million a year in welfare for wealthy arts patrons.
• Eliminate the Small Business Administration, $530 million in welfare for businesses.
• Eliminate the $935 million a year in Postal Service subsidies and force them to further privatize operations.

Those are just a few cuts, a “twelve step program” if you will, which alone save taxpayers $282.3 billion. That comes out to $921.78 in savings for every man, woman and child in America, and there would be a lot more savings than that to come with even more reductions.

Compare that to Obama’s piddling 32.7 cents.

The Republicans had 14 years to do it, and instead exploded spending every year. Obama is happy to spend even faster. Libertarians are the only candidates with the willpower, and the concern for their children and grandchildren, to do it.

That leaves the Libertarian Party as the only party with a rational, sensible program to stop the destructive explosion in federal spending. Government growth, spending, taxation and borrowing are out of control, and it threatens not only our prosperity and freedom, but that of our children.

Obama’s 32.7 cent dog-and-pony show, if it even happens, does nothing to avert the oncoming bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, or head off the trillions of dollars in new taxes he and the Republicans are heaping on future generation.

The only way to get real fiscal reform, starting with $282.3 billion in common-sense reductions, is to elect Libertarians.

With optimism,

Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National CommitteeDonny.Ferguson@lp.org

 

[rolltide]

"$100 million there, $100 million here, pretty soon, even in Washington, it adds up to real money," the president insisted @)

really can't make this stuff up. 100M is as relevant as Rosie O'Donnell losing an ounce of weight yet I don't see 1200 news stories about that.

for the real perspective on what 100M means...let's just say it will be gone by 5:30 EST

"the federal government will spend more than $4 TRILLION this year alone. That works out to $7.6 million in spending -- per minute. It will take about 13 minutes for the Federal Government to spend $100 million."