Left And Right Politics

WASHINGTON – Libertarian Party (LP) Chairman William Redpath issued the following statement today in response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address:

“Tonight’s speech was a reminder that, for decades, the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike have failed. Libertarians are asking people to take matters into their own hands. Instead of just complaining, we’re encouraging ordinary Americans to step up and run for Congress on the Libertarian Party ballot line.

I can say exactly the same thing about President Obama’s speech tonight that I said about George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech in January 2008: ‘Tonight’s State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government’s intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy.

I am weary of the President’s unspoken premise that only government–indeed, only the federal government–can accomplish good in our society.

President Obama seems to be totally blind to the concept that government can cause problems rather than solve them. His speech was filled with ‘More’: more handouts, more spending, more programs, more bailouts, more regulations. We Libertarians want less government, not more.

Not to be outmatched by the Democrats, the Republican Party conveyed its lack of seriousness in addressing this nation’s government spending problems by having Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor for eleven (11) days, deliver its rebuttal to the President. If they were really serious about addressing the dire fiscal circumstances of this nation, they would have had Paul Ryan, a six-term congressman from Wisconsin, who has proposed the most serious plan of anyone in the two older parties to keep us from going off a fiscal cliff.

Last week, Alan Auerbach, Professor of Economics and Law at UC Berkeley and US government fiscal policy expert, said that the Democratic and Republican parties are in a ‘death embrace’ with their government spending. The only political party that is rationally and forthrightly addressing the need to cut government spending and end our culture of ever expanding entitlements is the Libertarian Party.

As Americans lose hope in Obama, we Libertarians are warning voters against running back to the Republicans who got us into such big messes in the first place. Republicans started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans made the false intellectual case for bailing out banks and car companies. Republicans argued that deficits don’t matter. Republicans gave us the giant Medicare expansion bill.

The President’s suggestion of a ’spending freeze’ was especially ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of Americans. The amounts involved are minuscule, and Congress won’t accept them anyway. Will Obama sign the spending bills that ignore his ‘freeze’? You bet he will. Instead, the President should demand across-the-board cuts in all areas, including entitlements.

The President talked a lot about jobs. Unfortunately, the policies he supports are responsible for most of the unemployment we see today. High taxes, minimum wage laws, hiring regulations, firing regulations, mandatory unemployment benefits, and other government interference make it much more difficult for businesses to hire and keep employees. As expected, the President’s prescription is to increase the dosage of this government poison.

While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work.

Finally, on the matter of political rhetoric, I call upon the two older parties to stop spoon feeding politics to the American people as if we are a bunch of overgrown children. These are difficult times that call for more than rhetorical flourish or positioning a group of diverse people around a politician. Older party politicians need to be specific about their proposed policies, as Libertarians are.

And, I know I’m probably just wasting electrons, but can’t we go back to the days in which the President sent a copy of his speech to Congress and left it at that. The speech last night took 1/7000th of an entire year. I think the vast majority of the American people would agree that we have better ways to spend our time.”

William Redpath has served as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party since 2006. For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties.

Tags: America, American, Bush, civil liberties, Congress, federal government, foreign policy, free markets, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, libertarian, libertarian party, Libertarian Party, Obama, Political, politicians, Republican, republican party, republicans and democrats, state of the union address, taxes, Washington

Related posts

• Looking For A New Party? (0)
• Townhall Meetings Going Through The Motions (0)
• The Democrats And Republicans Have Done Enough Damage (0)
• Taxes On The Middle Class (0)
• Universal Health Care Hasn’t Worked Before (1)

It’s amazing that a candidate will spend 100 times more money than what the position he is running for even pays. Look at how much money Mike Bloomberg spent to run for his third (and unconstitutional) term. He spent over 85 million dollars of his own money for a job that pays $200,000 per year. If we want to change the mentality of elected officials, we need to change the laws. Unfortunately, it’s easier said than done. How can you get someone to vote for something that will level their advantage over their competition the next time they run for office. Let’s be for real though… The powers-that-be are not going let that happen because they most likely know that they lose control over the election process. Third party candidates currently don’t stand a chance to run against the Democrats and the Republicans with the laws that are in place.

The current laws in regards to campaign contributions are very screwed up. Look how much money was funneled into President Obama’s campaign. Unknown contributors and questionable entities made it possible for Obama and his henchmen to carry out one of the greatest campaigns in American history. If Obama is so much for equality for all Americans, then he should lead by example in the next election in 2012.

How that could be done is to eliminate all contributions for all campaigns. The media (newspapers, TV and radio) should be regulated to have equal coverage of each candidate. All candidates should be required to be involve and participate in any and all debates. No more commercials for candidates, instead have each news and talk show have these candidates come on at different points of the election cycle to “pitch” their policies. No one candidate gets more air time or a better time slot than another. As for raising money for running the campaign trail, there is no more campaign trail. If all the candidates are interviewed and participate in debates, there wouldn’t be a need to be on a campaign trail. If all news outlets are required to have these candidates on in equal time, how can the American voter NOT know what they stand for. As for the debates. Have at least two every month through the primary and then step it up to once a week through the general election.

All the repetitive speeches and slandering of the opponent has taken up too much of the campaigning along the trail that it’s not even worth for a voter to go to one of these “campaign rallies”.

No matter at what level of government the candidate is running, it should be done in this type of manner.

Tags: American, american history, constitution, Government, Media, Obama, Republican, third party candidates

Related posts

• Taxes On The Middle Class (0)
• Libertarian Response To State Of The Union Address (0)
• Townhall Meetings Going Through The Motions (0)
• Obama: Welcome Back Carter (0)
• Made In The USA (1)

Interesting article from Investors.com. A poll of 1,376 practicing physicians, chosen randomly throughout the country, said they oppose the medical overhaul plan and would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if universal health care were passes.

“The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul. It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.”

“More than seven in 10 doctors answered “no” when asked if they believed “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better.”

“This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.

The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better”.

Read the rest of the article at the link above.

Tags: America, American, Congress, Government, Health Care, Obama, universal health care, White House

Related posts

• Libertarian Response To State Of The Union Address (0)
• Universal Health Care Hasn’t Worked Before (1)
• Townhall Meetings Going Through The Motions (0)
• The Eradication Of Individual Rights (0)
• Taxes On The Middle Class (0)

All the talk about universal health care has caused a major ripple in the political sphere. With 46 million people uninsured, the government is trying to have us believe that it’s necessary for health care reform. The question is though…will it really work?

Let’s take a look at the state of Maine. A state that had 128,000 citizens that were uninsured in 2003. At the time, Governor John Baldacci (D) signed into law a state-wide health care plan to combat the situation. By the time 2009 arrived, it would cover all of Maine’s citizens. The system would help keep control of hospitals and physicians to hold down insurance premiums. It was sold as a way to provide everyone insurance as well as save business and patients money. To top it off, it was stated that there would be no increase in taxes.

Well after five years of the program, not only has the program not save any money, but it has also cost the taxpayers of Maine $155 million and is still rising. Here’s how the program was supposed to work. There were to be two government programs that would cover the uninsured. The legislature greatly expanded MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid program. Today Maine families with incomes of up to $44,000 a year are eligible; 22% of the population is now in Medicaid, roughly twice the national average.

Then the state created a “public option” (where have you heard that lately?) known as DirigoChoice. The plan would compete with private plans such as Blue Cross. To get lower income Mainers to enroll, it offered taxpayer-subsidized premiums. (again, this sounds familiar) The plan’s original funding source was $50 million of federal stimulus money the state got in 2003. Over the years, the plan was to be “funded by the savings in the health-care system.”

During the peak of the program in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has now dropped to below 10,000, according to Maine’s own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the subsidized public option. So instead of the 128,000 that were uninsured, the actual number is only 3,400.

Most of what is in Maine’s health care program is actually in the Obama-care bill. So why bother with trying to have a national health care program when they can’t even get it to work on a small scale? If Obama and his friends are so into this bill, then may I suggest that we do a test on the actual program on the state level. Sort of like a “try it before you buy it” program. Try it in California for five years and let’s see how successful it is at that point. If it can survive without a constant need of federal stimulus money, then I say we go ahead with it on a national level.

I know it will never work. One because that it has already been tried in Maine as well as Massachusetts and Tennessee and each time it failed. Currently in Maine, a healthy single male at the age of thirty, pays a monthly premium of $762 while a citizen in the same condition in New Hampshire only pays $222.

This bill (HR3200) needs to be stopped and the discussion of health care reform needs to be re-focused to look at tort reform. A major part of health care costs come from malpractice insurance that the doctors need to have to protect themselves from from major law-suits. The lawyers have pushed the price of health care up from the class-action suits to individual cases. As for class-action suits, no one benefits from this type of practice other than the lawyers. Lawyers will pocket millions of dollars while the people who are affected by the situation only get a few dollars each as compensation.

Will Universal Health Care really work here in America? The answer is no. If you don’t believe it, then you need to go look for the information like I did.

Tags: America, Get Involved, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, health care reform, Obama, Political, stimulus, taxes, universal health care

Related posts

• Libertarian Response To State Of The Union Address (0)
• The Eradication Of Individual Rights (0)
• 45% Of Doctors Might Quit If Obama Care Passes (2)
• Taxes On The Middle Class (0)
• Some Links Of Interest (0)