Category Archives: Big Government

Vote for Gary Johnson for Less Government

Posted on by Standard Reply

Just to be clear:a vote for Gary Johnson for President is a vote against Hilary Clinton – and a vote against Donald Trump.

Hilary Clinton promises new federal aid programs to deal with education, healthcare, and law enforcement. This will burden a federal government already 20 trillion dollars in the hole. In less than two decades, the Clinton brand has gone from “the era of big government is over” to Bernie on a budget.

Of course, Hilary Clinton has a record of support for big government. During her 8 years in the Senate, she voted for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the bank bailout – initiatives by President Bush intended to give the federal government new powers for law enforcement, education, and financial control. As President she will continue to promote government as the solution to social and economic problems in America.

Hilary Clinton also favors active government in international affairs. In the Senate, she voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. She joined with 29 other Senate Democrats to vote in favor of George W Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war, based on faulty intelligence. In 2009 she left the Senate to become Secretary of State. As Secretary of State she pushed for interventions in Libya and Syria.

George W Bush’s pre-emptive war on Iraq resulted in more than 4000 Americans dying, more than 40,000 with life-changing wounds, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. The Iraq war has cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars, and the costs continue to rise – medical care for wounded vets, reconstruction in Iraq, and interest on the debt which resulted from the multi-trillion dollar war. The Iraq war has not made America safer and has not brought peace and order to Iraq, where fighting is going on today between Iraqi Shi’ite militias and the Islamic State.

The intervention in Libya has ended the tyrannical reign of Muamar Qaddafi, but it has also led to chaos and violence as constant companions for the Libyan people. The Libyan chaos has made room for extremists who may threaten nearby countries in the future, and an end to chaos is nowhere in sight.

Syria is engulfed in a civil war, with more than two sides. As Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton lobbied for direct intervention and aid to Syrian militias that might be induced to fight both the Assad regime and the forces of the Islamic State. Currently, the C.I.A. is supplying weapons to several rebel groups, including at least one with ties to Al Qaeda. The Pentagon is providing aid to several other extremist militias in Syria. US intervention in Libya and Syria is taking place after the disaster of the intervention in Iraq, and before any real plan to bring freedom to the Libyan and Syrian people has been developed.

Hilary Clinton has a record of support for active government at home, and military and political intervention in the Middle East. As President, Hilary Clinton will be guided by this faith in government, and all Americans will pay the price.

Donald Trump does not provide a real alternative. Mr Trump proposes costly new government powers to deal with illegal immigration. His plan to deport up to 11 million people would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and involve a massive increase in federal police powers. Building a wall along the border would cost more billions.

Mr Trump proposes very high tariffs – 35% to 45% – directed against America’s biggest trading partners. Donald Trump’s anti-trade policies would devastate American business, prompt retaliation, and throw many out of work.

Immigration restrictions, mass deportation, and limits on international trade form the core of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Donald Trump’s crusade against immigrants alienates Hispanic voters as well as liberals and conservatives who favor a liberal immigration policy. His calls for punitive tariffs directed at China and Mexico drives away business owners. Donald Trump cannot beat Hilary Clinton; conservatives need to look at another choice.

Gary Johnson has a record of cutting taxes and holding the line on government growth. He and Governor Weld have the experience to deal with the financial mess that is the federal government. American taxpayers cannot afford to pay for all the programs that the politicians promise. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote in favor of downsizing the federal government, and a vote for two former Governors with the experience to cut the power and the cost of the federal government.

A vote for Gary Johnson and other Libertarian candidates will build America’s third party, and lay the groundwork for a real challenge to bipartisan statism in 2018, 2020 and beyond. Vote Libertarian, Tuesday, November 8!

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

California: Vote No on Debt and Taxes!

Posted on by Standard Reply

On Tuesday, November 8, Californians will vote on whether to issue 9 billion dollars in bonds to pay for school facilities, and whether to extend temporary tax hikes on high earners.

Proposition 51 authorizes the state to issue 9 billion dollars in bonds to pay for construction and repair of facilities for public schools, charters schools and community colleges. The bonds will cost the taxpayers 8.6 billion dollars in interest, for a total cost of $17.6 billion dollars. The state will have to collect a half billion dollars a year in taxes for 35 years to pay back these bonds.

Governor Jerry Brown opposes this new bond issue, because the state has too much debt already. Libertarians favor a system of private schools for all, with scholarships for those who need help paying tuition. This will guarantee access to education for all, while transferring the capital cost of school construction from the taxpayers to private and corporate educational businesses. Governor Jerry Brown and The Libertarian Party urge you to vote No on more debt, Vote No on Proposition 51.

Proposition 55 will extend for 12 years income tax hikes on residents earning $250,000 a year or more. Governor Jerry Brown promoted temporary tax hikes in 2012, and he favors letting the tax increases expire. California already puts a high cost on success, making the state less welcoming to successful individuals and successful companies. We must create a business climate that promotes economic growth in order to keep Californians working and productive. We need tax cuts for economic growth, not tax hikes. Governor Jerry Brown and The Libertarian Party urge you to vote against high taxes, Vote No on Proposition 55.

Proposition 53 is an amendment to the California Constitution that will require voter approval of revenue bonds if the issue exceeds 2 billion dollars. The Constitution now requires approval by the voters for bonds dedicated to funding specific projects, but does not require voter approval for general purpose revenue bonds. Proposition 53 will make it harder for the state to go more into debt. The Libertarian Party urges you to Vote Yes on Proposition 53.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

David Stockman “Clueless Carly———Crony Capitalist Warmonger With Flash Cards”

Posted on by Standard Reply

Carly Fiorina proved at least one thing last week. Namely, you don’t have to be a career GOP politician to come across as a war-mongering neocon and abortion-bashing statist demagogue. She took the stage fully formed as a frightul modern-day Torquemada, threatening to bring fire and brimstone down on anyone running afoul of her righteous indignation and crystal clear grasp of the Truth.

That included about everyone on the world stage, save for the presumably sainted Bibi Netanyahu. As for the others, Putin was to be given the silent treatment and a stiff dose of NATO encirclement, while Iran was to be occupied by US inspectors at “every military and every nuclear facility…….. anytime, anywhere……”

Full expose by David Stockman @ http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/clueless-carly-crony-capitalist-war-monger-with-flash-cards/?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mailing+List+AM+Wednesday

de Rugy:”Overseas Private Investment Corporation is ripe for termination”

Posted on by Standard Reply

Now that the Export-Import Bank’s charter has expired, it’s time to examine other programs that should follow in Ex-Im’s footsteps. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a federal agency that subsidizes U.S.-owned overseas businesses with taxpayer-backed financing, is ripe for termination when its charter expires on September 30.

Immediately focusing on a new target on the heels of Ex-Im’s expiration is important. As Heritage Foundation’s analyst Diane Katz expressed to me in an email, “We should certainly celebrate the success of blocking Ex-Im from doling out yet more subsidies, but the victory may be temporary and is certainly incomplete. Ex-Im is only one of dozens of corporate welfare programs, such as OPIC, that must be ended.”

In the Washington Examiner, Timothy Carney explains what OPIC does and why it should go. “Want to set up a factory in a different country? OPIC can make it cheaper for you. For instance, a Brazilian granite business gets an OPIC subsidy, even though that hurts its U.S. competitors.”

The parallels between OPIC and Ex-Im are chilling: two government agencies that focus on artificially propping up U.S. companies in the name of economic growth and job creation by providing cheap financing to companies that could find capital on their own. In the process, both agencies transfer large risk to taxpayers.

Full post by Veronique de Rugy @ Reason http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/02/beyond-the-export-import-bank-more-crony#.flnehs:UOTr

Drug Policy Alliance releases report on Asset Forfeiture Abuse in California

Posted on by Standard Reply

Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses in California is a multi-year, comprehensive look at asset forfeiture abuses in California that reveals the troubling extent to which law enforcement agencies have violated state and federal law. Civil asset forfeiture law allows the government to seize and keep cash, cars, real estate, and any other property – even from citizens never charged with or convicted of a crime. Because these assets often go straight into the coffers of the enforcement agency, these laws have led to a perversion of police priorities, such as increasing personnel on the forfeiture unit while reducing the number of officers on patrol and in investigation units.

What emerges in the new report is a picture of a handful of relatively small cities clustered in Los Angeles County that lead the state in per capita seizures (Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, Gardena, Irwindale, La Verne, Pomona, South Gate, Vernon and West Covina). The report’s analysis of fiscal records finds that many of these cities were providing false or inconsistent reports to the Justice Department, while some other cities appeared to be engaged in budgeting future forfeiture revenue, despite this being explicitly illegal under federal law.
Full Report by Drug Policy Alliance @ http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Drug_Policy_Alliance_Above_the_Law_Civil_Asset_Forfeiture_in_California.pdf

Rahn:”Abolish the IRS”

Posted on by Standard Reply

Abolish the Internal Revenue Service? IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has said the government must have an IRS to collect the taxes to fund the government. Mr. Koskinen is right that no matter what kind of tax system we have, there needs to be a tax collection bureau. But those in favor of abolishing the present IRS are correct in that the United States certainly can get along perfectly well without the politicized, abusive and rights-trampling tax agency the IRS has become.

Mr. Koskinen and others who defend the IRS claim the problem is with the tax law, which is written by Congress. A tax system ought to be designed to obtain the necessary revenue with the least amount of damage to the economy and the civil liberties of the citizens. The present tax system gets a failing grade on both accounts. Promising special provisions to those who will provide campaign funds is a temptation that some politicians seem not to be able to resist.
Full Commentary by Richard Rahn @ Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/abolish-irs

Tuccille:”Eric Garner’s Murder Reveals the Ugly Core of Government and Law Enforcement”

Posted on by Standard Reply

…they really didn’t want one of their strong-arm men put out over the murder of Eric Garner. The grand jury in that case declined to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo in what seemed a clear-cut case of over-the-top brutality. Even the Medical Examiner ruled Garner’s death a “homicide.”

Here we have Garner, a guy allegedly selling loosies—single cigarettes—which are a perfectly legal product. Why is he supposedly selling loosies? Because New York officials inflict on their long-suffering subjects the highest cigarette tax in the country at at $4.35 per pack, plus another $1.50 levied in the city itself. It’s not a popular tax, with smuggled smokes making up 60.9 percent of the market. So the powers that be unleash the cops to enhance revenue by tracking down shipments of smuggled cigarettes and, on occasion, putting the occasional small-time street vendor in an illegal chokehold.

Which is to say, Eric Garner was murdered for the purposes of revenue enhancement.

And also, let’s be clear, because when you unleash armies of thugs on the population to enforce every petty law, they’re soon going to acquire an attitude. Eventually, telling a cop, “Please just leave me alone,” as Garner told the cops rousting him, becomes an unacceptable act of defiance. It’s interpreted as an invitation to swarm a man suspected of selling handfuls of untaxed cigarettes and wrestle him to the ground.

Jerry Tuccille looks at the progressive police state that is New York City, and sees America’s future if we don’t stop it @ http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/04/eric-garners-murder-reveals-the-ugly-cor

Sen. Rand Paul:”We Must Demilitarize the Police”

Posted on by Standard Reply

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

Sen. Rand Paul puts the Ferguson, Missouri tragedy in the context of increasing militarization of police and police practice of unfairly targeting non-white young people. Full column Time Magazine @ http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

Why is Government so Punitive?

Posted on by Standard 2

It is almost the end of February, and many are still preparing their federal income tax. Perhaps you are also. And while you prepare to render unto Caesar, you have to make some decisions. Do you have an Individual Retirement Account? If so, how much will you pay into it? Do you have a Medical Savings Account? A decision about that also must be made near the beginning of the year.

If you save for retirement in an Individual Retirement Account, your tax bill is deferred on the amount you contribute to the account. But if you need access to some of the money before you reach the age of 59 and a half, you have to not only pay the income tax on the amount you withdraw, you must also pay a penalty to the federal government.

If you have a Medical Savings Account, you can pay for incidental medical expenses, co-pays, and your deductible, with money not subject to income tax. But be careful! If you put more into your account at the beginning of the year than you use in the year, you lose the balance. You cannot roll it over, even though that would help provide money for larger medical bills in the future.

Why is government so punitive? I guess they justify the tax penalty on Individual Retirement Accounts on the premise that if you withdraw money before you retire, the account is not serving its purpose of providing for your retirement. But paying a penalty to the federal government will not help you save for retirement either.

There is no justification for the “use it or lose it” rule for Medical Savings Accounts. Everyone knows that medical costs rise year after year, and saving year after year can be important when a major medical procedure is needed.

The Affordable Care Act also has its punitive side. By now, everyone has heard horror stories about big jumps in the cost of an insurance policy, mitigated somewhat by federal “subsidies.” Of course, the subsidies are really tax credits. The federal government will allow us to keep some of the money we earned, in order to pay the inflated premiums, and they expect us to be grateful for their “generosity.” The purpose of the tax credit “subsidies” is to disguise how much government rules have driven up the cost of medical insurance.

The Affordable Care Act mandates that every policy include a variety of benefits, each of which adds to the cost of the premium. In many cases, individuals are required to pay for benefits that they don’t need; older people who don’t need birth control subsidize the contraceptive benefit for younger people. At the same time, restrictions on raising premium rates for older people result in young people subsidizing older people. Ultimately, the choice is taken from the consumer, who is not allowed to choose the benefits for which he is willing to pay a premium, and all consumers lose.

While the ACA mandates a minimum list of benefits, and prohibits the sale of policies that don’t include the full list, you can also be punished if you buy a policy, or your employer provides a medical policy that includes too many benefits. The Congress imposed a tax on “Cadillac” policies, which provide a rich menu of benefits. This tax was included in order to help provide funding for the “subsidies” that the ACA provides, but it shows a complete contempt for Americans. You are required to buy the policy the government mandates – nothing less, and you are taxed if you buy more.

All these policies illustrate the basic fact that government is based on punishing those who do not find government mandates beneficial. Government does not try to persuade by showing benefits, but by threatening punishment. As George Washington noted long ago: “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant.”

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Glaser:”Don’t Get Too Comfortable With the GOP’s New Love For Libertarians”

Posted on by Standard Reply

In what many described as yet another indication of a monumental shift happening in the Grand Old Party, the Republican National Committee last week passed a resolution calling for an end to the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records.

But the party’s apparent shuffling to a more limited government, civil liberties-conscious platform may not be as genuine as some believe.

The RNC’s resolution, which passed by an “overwhelming majority,” declares “the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

These are strong words for the party that stood by President George W. Bush when he secretly (and illegally) ordered the NSA to spy on the domestic communications of Americans without any warrants at all. Time magazine’s Zeke Miller branded the RNC’s resolution “the latest indication of a growing libertarian wing of the GOP.”

After noting these unexpected statements in defense of Freedom, John Glaser points out that prior to 2000, Republicans criticized big government and foreign interventionism by President Clinton, then elected George W Bush who expanded government even faster, and started two wars that continue to cost the American taxpayer years after he left office.

Mr Glaser also notes that Democrats criticized President Bush for his war, his deficits and his attacks on freedom, and now defend President Obama as he continues to expand government power.

Full commentary by John Glaser @ Reason http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/02/dont-get-too-comfortable-with-the-gops-n