From the Cato Institute:
There is plenty of disagreement on whether a big-government stimulus project is the best way to bring the United States out of recession. The Cato Institute purchased a full-page ad in major newspapers across the country listing the names of several hundred economists who object to massive deficit spending as an economic stimulus. Cato scholars and ad signatories have made their case on television since the spending program was proposed.
Published on cnn.com:
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- When libertarians question the merit of President Obama's stimulus package, a frequent rejoinder is, "Well, we have to do something." This is hardly a persuasive response. If the cure is worse than the disease, it is better to live with the disease.
In any case, libertarians do not argue for doing nothing; rather, they advocate eliminating or adjusting policies that are bad for the economy independent of the recession. Here is a stimulus package that libertarians can endorse:
American Business Has Sold Its Soul to the Devil: Exhibit A- Obama Warns Companies Not to Book Event
- Category: Selected Blogs
Government is filled with people who couldn't get a job in the private sector. Why on earth would we put them in charge of our economy? If they knew anything about running a business, they'd be running a business. George W. Bush was a failure at virtually everything he ever did in the business world- except buying the Texas Rangers. He succeeded at that because of his family connections and wealth. Anyone could make money buying a baseball team- if you have the connections and millions of dollars necessary to buy one in the first place. Then Bush proved his lack of business skills by running our country into the ground, ruining our economy, and increasing our debt dramatically.
The Democrats have adopted the behavior of George Bush with the Big Spending/Corporate Welfare Bill being rushed through congress. George W. Bush used 911 to increase executive power and to immensely increase the size government. Now Barack Obama is using the same tactics with the financial crisis. I at one time had hope for Obama. Boy was I wrong.
George W. Bush made the same mistakes as Herbert Hoover, and Obama is making the same mistakes as Roosevelt. During Obama's speech last night he clearly believes that Rooselvelt's New Deal worked. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Myth of the Laissez-Faire Bush Years
By Anthony Gregory
One of the most pernicious misconceptions of our time is that the Bush administration represented an era of free-market capitalism. By wrongly blaming the financial crisis and economic woes associated with Bush on his alleged devotion to laissez-faire, many in the mainstream press, academia and political life are misdiagnosing the problem and prescribing the wrong solution: More government, which will in reality only make things worse.
Published on FreedomWorks.org:
By: Matt Kibbe
When you get beyond the rhetoric of change, it is astonishing how close President Barack Obama is following his predecessor in economic policy. Just as George W. Bush attempted to jump-start the economy with a jolt of hundreds of billions of dollars, Obama is doubling down on the bailout bets. In the Troubled Assets Relief Program process, the legislative branch is authorizing nearly a trillion dollars in spending.
But isn’t this backward? Doesn’t Congress have the sole power to authorize executive branch spending, and the president, the power to veto congressional spending authorizations?
Published on townhall.com
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, was set up to combat fraudulent practices. The SEC's website explains that "Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s." It goes on to say, "Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the 'rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul' principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses." That is how the SEC described the recent Bernard Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme, "a stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions."
A Ponzi scheme does not generate any wealth whatsoever; that is why it ultimately collapses. As Circuit Judge Anderson said in the 1922 Lowell v. Brown case, the Ponzi scheme was "simply the old fraud of paying the earlier comers out of the contributions of the later comers." So long as the number of late comers – you might call them suckers – grows, the fraudulent scheme has life.
Originally published at http://lp.org
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger doesn't point out congressional Republican voted against the stimulus, not out of opposition to Big Government, but in spite of it. They simply wanted their pork included.
But Henninger does ask the question no one on Capitol Hill wants offered -- if this $1.2 trillion Frankenstein's monster of wealth transfers and exploding spending is supposed to create jobs and help families, why then does it do more for Pennsylvania Avenue than for Main Street? And he takes Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to task for playing along with Obama's dreams of exponentially-expanding government.
I recently received a message from the New Jersey Republican Party urging me to lobby my Senators to vote against the so-called "stimulus plan". While I certainly oppose this legislation, I found their position so obviously hypocritical that I was insulted. Here is my reply to them.
Originally published at Campaign For Liberty
Dear pro-Obama friends,
I got a call from one of you the day after the election. You were so happy. You had "not been so proud to be an American for... decades!" You're living overseas, and you told me about watching the results in a bar with other Americans and how you were all hugging and crying you were so happy. As I hung up the phone, I found that I felt happy for you too.
Most of you know that I supported neither McCain nor Obama, that I view them as equally opposed to peace and freedom and equally ignorant of sound economic principles. I wasn't going to be happy with the election results no matter who won, so I can at least be glad that some of my friends are happy, and I am. And after his first few days in office, even I have to admit that Obama has done some very good things for which he is receiving well-deserved praise. It is not my intention to dismiss these accomplishments, nor is it my intent to rain on anyone's parade. But I do want to ask you all a big favor.
Originally published at http://lp.org
Syndicated columnist Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger expresses his surprise today over reports the Republican Party has discovered fiscal conservatism again.
As Mulshine points out, the Libertarian Party and its 2008 presidential nominee, former congressman Bob Barr, opposed taxpayer-funded bailouts and explosive government growth back when the GOP was espousing it as bedrock principle.
More than a little miffed about Republicans suddenly painting themselves as fiscally responsible, Mulshine decided to give Congressman Barr's office a call:
ANDOVER TWP. -- Andover Township is expected to be the latest municipality to make its government records more financially accessible to the public.
The Township Committee unanimously introduced an ordinance Monday night significantly lowering costs of all paper documents and audio recordings of meetings.
Paper copies will cost 7 cents per page, and CD audio recordings of meetings will cost 40 cents each, if the ordinance is approved.
Andover Township also added another layer of transparency to its meetings, by explaining the individual topics of their executive session to the public Monday evening. A general rundown of those privileged topics, which often involve personnel issues or litigation, is a goal of many open government advocates such as O'Shea and John Paff, who chairs the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project.
"The government is bailing out the banks...but who's going to bail out the government?" asks Texas cotton farmer Ken Gallaway, a vocal critic of agricultural subsidies that cost U.S. taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars a year in direct payments and higher prices for farm goods.
Agricultural subsidies were put in place in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when 25 percent of Americans lived on farms. At the time, Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace called them "a temporary solution to deal with an emergency." Those programs are still in place today, even though less than 1 percent of Americans currently live on farms that are larger, more efficient, and more productive than ever before.