September 28, 2013
Libertarian Party calls for permanent government spending slowdown, defunding Obamacare
There is no impending government shutdown — only a government slowdown. The threat of a "shutdown" is designed to scare voters while avoiding scrutiny of reckless government overspending.
If federal lawmakers do not pass a budget or a "continuing resolution" (CR) by Oct. 1, a government spending slowdown will take effect. This could halt almost $1 trillion in annualized spending that the CR would authorize, which is the size of the current federal deficit. If made permanent, this would cut annual federal spending by approximately 27 percent to $2.7 trillion — the current level of revenues coming in.
In other words, a federal slowdown — if allowed to take full effect — would balance the federal budget. This would greatly benefit the U.S. economy.
For Immediate Release
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Libertarian Party Chair Geoffrey J. Neale today strongly opposed any U.S. military intervention in the civil war in Syria.
"There is no Constitutional justification for America to unilaterally use force in Syria," Neale said.
"Syria is not threatening our country," he added. "We have no national interest in intervening there. There are no reasons for the U.S. to support either the Assad dictatorship or the opposition warlords."
Neale reaffirmed the party's longstanding foreign policy of nonintervention, quoting part of the National Defense plank of the party platform: "The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world."
He also quoted from the International Affairs plank, which says, "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
By Justin Raimondo. This article originally appeared at antiwar.com and is republished here by permisssion.
Asked about the national debate unleashed by the Snowden revelations, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie declared war on libertarians:
“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”
Asked if he was referring to Senator Rand Paul, Christie said he is “one of them," and went on to sneer:
“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this. These esoteric, intellectual debates – I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.”
The 2013 Farm Bill needs to be reconciled between the Senate version and the House version. Let’s think about this. The Farm Bill incentivizes farmers to be unproductive in order to drive up food prices. This was instituted during the New Deal in the 1930’s.Thirty years later the Foods Stamps program was passed into law as part of President Johnson’s Great Society agenda. Presumably this was to help lower income people afford the food that the federal price supports had made so costly.
Did anyone in Washington, DC ever notice that the goal of capitalist, free market system is to create innovative methods of production and distribution so as to make so as to make goods more affordable and accessible to the masses? Occam’s Razor demands that farm price supports be lifted so that an abundance of affordable food can be provided to a hungry world.
I wonder who’s paying for all this anyway?
As a perplexed Ricky Riccardo might lament, “Lucy, you have some ‘splainen to do”.
Has anyone other than me ever noticed the ever declining prices of flat screen TVs, computers, smart phones, tablets and such?
Perhaps it’s time we had a TV Bill, and a Computer Bill and a Smart Phone Bill? Are you listening, Washington?
It’s been just over a month since the NSA’s dragnet surveillance program was leaked to the public. Tomorrow, Congress is voting on an amendment that would block funding for NSA programs that collect the call records of innocent Americans.
A win tomorrow may start a chain reaction – but it won’t happen unless we speak up. We have one day to convince Congress to act.
Congressional Switchboard Number: (202) 224-3121
A critical vote is happening tomorrow, July 24th, on the Defense Appropriations Bill in the House of Representatives. The bill gives taxpayer money to fund defense programs, including NSA surveillance.
In a recent Star Ledger column, Paul Mulshine, argues that opponents of the current bill that raises the legal purchase age of tobacco products from 19 to 21 are “crackpot libertarians.” He makes an accurate and convincing argument that tobacco use is not good for anyone, and I certainly don’t condone the use of tobacco by anyone, regardless of age. However, mandating the use of government power to control the behavior of consenting adults is wrong.
The age of majority has traditionally been 18 in the United States. At 18 you can vote, be treated as an adult in the criminal justice system and be shipped off to a foreign country to fight a war for our politicians (even forcibly via conscription). Yet at the age of 18 one can not make the choice of what they can do with their own bodies? It doesn't matter if the age of adulthood and responsibility is being dictated by the State or by the Federal Government. Either you own yourself, or as Mulshine is arguing, the government owns you.
According to NJ.com, Somerset County shall be commencing a crackdown on peaceful people who have chosen not to wear their seat belts. The state has provided grants to towns across New Jersey for the purposes of initiating force against anyone caught not wearing their seat belt. Expect to see these shakedowns across the state.
The actual law (39:3-76-2) part j. reads: "A person who violates section 2 of this act shall be fined $20.00," yet the fine, as the photo shows, is often quite higher than this.
The recent IRS scandal reminds us that the income tax was, is and will always be an immoral thing. When it is progressive, it is even worse.
When you go to the grocery store, the movies, or anywhere else, no one asks how much money you make and then adjusts the price accordingly. You pay whatever you believe that the fair price should be whatever your earning power. Why should it be different when it comes to government services?
Let’s agree as reasonable people that, if government provides essential services, we, as its recipients, should pay for them. Why then should those who are smarter, harder working or more productive pay more? Many of America’s high earners achieved their success by astutely paying the most advantageous price for the goods and services that they acquire. That is behavior that should be rewarded, not punished.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) died in the Senate yesterday, according to a statement from a representative of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The bill, which had already passed the House, would have allowed the government to snoop on private emails by granting companies the right to disseminate individuals’ sensitive, private information — like medical records — without their knowledge or consent.
Although CISPA likely won't be passed in its current form, Republicans and Democrats have a bad habit of resurrecting terrible Big Government legislation like this. This is the second year in a row that CISPA has been considered by Congress, and lawmakers have already said they're working on drafting new cybersecurity bills.
The Libertarian Party issued a release condemning CISPA earlier this week, which included this statement from Chairman Geoffrey J. Neale: "The provisions of CISPA are abhorrent and unacceptable in a free society. We must not only trash CISPA; we must repeal the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and every other law that violates our Fourth Amendment rights."
Why is it not surprising that in the wake of the horrific attacks in Boston, some in and elsewhere are clamoring to put the brakes on the first real attempt at much-needed immigration reform in years? Some are even going so far as to call for a “suspension” of student visas, which have absolutely nothing to do with the chain of events that resulted in two crazy guys killing four people and injuring hundreds more.
When something bad happens, blame immigration. It is just too easy politically to conjure up images of foreigners coming here — legally or illegally — as the cause of our problems. Make no mistake, our current immigration system is broken. If it wasn’t, we would not today be wrestling with the very real and very difficult question of how to deal with the 11 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the country today. If it wasn’t broken, the arbitrary annual ceiling on visas for highly-skilled workers would not have been hit in only five days. If legal immigration levels were allowed to be set by the marketplace, rather than by artificial limits negotiated by politicians and labor unions, maybe we wouldn’t need as much of that border “enforcement” everyone seems to love so much.
The Political Book Club monthly meeting will occur at the Lawrence Branch of the Mercer County Library on May 7th at 7:00 PM.
A member of the Libertarian Party will be on hand to discuss Libertarian philosophy.
Books to be discussed are For a New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard, and The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure by John Allison.
All are welcome.
A free audiobook version of a For a New Liberty is available at mises.org.
“On Thursday January 25th, New Jersey police officers entered the apartment of Keith Pantaleon without permission, warning, warrant or explanation. After entering the apartment, they apparently had suspicion of him having a weapon, though none were visible. The police then searched his home and found multiple firearms. Keith is a legal gun owner who is registered and has permits for his firearms in multiple states. According to his close friends is currently going through the process of obtaining his permits for New Jersey.”
He was released from jail on February 28th and is facing multiple charges.
On February 19th the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police can conduct warrantless searches based on the police interpretation of a search dog. The court ruled that the dog doesn't even need formal certification.
The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforcement units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accurate drug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources. - U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 9, 2013
In 2010 the University of California, Davis conducted a test of the effectiveness of drug and explosive testing dogs. Out of 144 searches of an empty room the dogs alerted 123 times - an 85% false positive result.
The courts have been watering down our Fourth Amendment rights for quite some time - almost always over the possession of a banned substance that shouldn't be illegal anyway.
- Carrol v. United States. In 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that automobiles can be searched without a warrant as long as the officer had probable cause. the search was limited to only the items the officers had probable cause to suspect. The rationale was that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile and that because an automobile may be moved a search may be necessary to preserve evidence. The case stemmed from federal officers pulling over a vehicle they thought contained alcohol.