Some Weekend Legal Reading.....

IMS Health v. Sorrell, July 14, 2009 (PDF, 234 KB)
Vermont passed a law prohibiting the exchange of a variety of socially important information. Most notably, the law outlaws the transfer of doctors' prescription history to facilitate drug companies' one-on-one marketing — a practice known as "detailing" — because it believes detailing drives up brand-name drug sales and, in turn, health care costs. The state knew that the First Amendment prevented it from banning detailing itself, so it made the practice more difficult indirectly. Yet data collection and transfer is protected speech — think academic research, or the phone book — and government efforts to regulate this type of speech also runs afoul of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Solveig Singleton, "Privacy as Censorship: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector". The First Circuit had earlier upheld a similar New Hampshire law, somehow finding that the statute regulates conduct rather than speech and that, in any event, the judiciary should defer to the legislative branch's judgment. When the Supreme Court declined to review that case (which cert petition Cato supported), Cato joined Pacific Legal Foundation, the Progress & Freedom Foundation, and two trade associations on a brief asking the Second Circuit to split with its First Circuit brethren and reject this dangerous narrowing of protection for free expression. Our brief argues that the Second Circuit should strike the Vermont law for three reasons: 1) the law regulates speech, not conduct, and thus is worthy of First Amendment protection; 2) the law abridges a range of expression that is not "commercial" speech — which, by Supreme Court precedent, is not fully protected; and 3) even if the law regulates "commercial" speech, that speech merits protection under the Court's Central Hudson test.

Posted on Cato.org

President Obama's Dishonest Demagoguery on So-Called Tax Havens

Bad Reform Is Worse Than No Reform

by Michael D. Tanner

This article appeared on cato.org on July 24, 2009.

President Obama came to Cleveland yesterday to sell his health care reform plan. As usual, he was deeply eloquent in describing the problems facing the American health care system and the need for reform. But the actual reform proposal that he is pushing is a deeply flawed product that even the best salesman can't disguise.

If one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health reform bill–the income tax surtax, the penalties on businesses that fail to provide and individuals who fail to buy the governments prescribed health care plan, as well as other frees and taxes–the cost to American taxpayers will top $800 billion. On top of that, studies suggest that the plan could increase insurance premiums by 75-95 percent.

Combined with President Obama's plan to allow President Bush's tax cuts to expire and state taxes, Ohio residents would face a top marginal tax rate of 51.2 percent. That's a big price tag for a health care plan that will likely lead to Americans receiving less and lower quality health care.

Let's look at what Ohioans would be buying.

First, the president supports an individual mandate — a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want or are morally opposed to, such as abortion services.

And that doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans. READ THE REST @ CATO

New Documentary on Brooklyn Eminent Domain Abuse

Posted at Reason.com on July 24, 2009, 6:27pm | Damon W. Root

Filmmakers Suki Hawley and Michael Galinsky have just released a 6-minute trailer for their new documentary Battle of Brooklyn, which tells the story of a group of Brooklyn, New York property owners who have waged a five-year battle against state and local officials that want to seize their land on behalf of real estate developer Bruce Ratner. The cause of this eminent domain abuse is the so-called Atlantic Yards project, a 22-acre redevelopment boondoggle centered on a new sports arena for the New Jersey Nets, a professional basketball team that just happens to be owned by Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner. Watch the trailer here. And click here for Reason's Atlantic Yards coverage.

Paying the Price for Obama's Lack of a Trade Policy

by Daniel J. Ikenson and Scott Lincicome
This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 24, 2009.

President Obama is neither a committed free-trader nor a hard-core protectionist. But his continuing failure to commit to a pro-trade agenda amounts to de facto protectionism and subverts his economic and foreign policy objectives.

Reacting recently to a provision in the climate change bill that would impose trade penalties against nations that do not limit carbon emissions enough, the president said, "At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals."

In that mild rebuke of protectionism lingers the essence of the administration's nascent trade policy: conditional, ambiguous and not particularly reassuring.

Earlier this year, the president suggested that Congress avoid language in the stimulus bill that could provoke a trade war. Congress responded by pruning the bill's most overtly protectionist provisions. But "buy American" fever has nonetheless permeated the government procurement market. Uncertainty surrounding the arcane rules has caused contractors to render their own judgments about what qualifies. Not only have eligible foreign firms been excluded from the market, but U.S. firms that use imported raw materials (including California's entire steel industry) also have been shut out. READ THE REST @CATO

MATT WELCH AND NICK GILLESPIE ON WHY THE OBAMA HONEYMOON IS OVER

2nd Amendment Fridays - Dedicated to the Gunpowder Chronicle

2nd Amendment Fridays is dedicated to The Gunpowder Chronicle. Tim has good article up right now. Check it out.

Government care in action: Oregon recommends suicide for patients

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 24, 2009

Patients turning to Oregon's state-run health program for assistant were denied treatment and urged to consider suicide instead.

53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., looking for assistance to pay for his prostate cancer treatment, turned to the state-run Oregon Health Plan. Plan administrators responded with a letter informing Stroup the goverment would not cover his treatment, but it would pay for physician-assisted suicide.

"It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told FOX News. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?"

The letter, which follows guidelines set by Oregon's state legislature, has been sent to other cancer patients, urging them to consider suicide rather than compete with other patients for the limited pool of taxpayer money.

The Obama health care takeover currently being written in the House includes a section requiring the sick and elderly to attend meetings on "end of life planning."

CNN: Five freedoms you'd lose to Obama's health care scheme

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 24, 2009

CNN and Fortune posted an interesting blog today titled "5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform." Editor-at-Large Shawn Tully lays out the case against Barack Obama's proposed government takeover of medicine, writing in part:

"If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

"In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction."

He goes on to list five specific freedoms you would lose if Obama is granted his expensive government takeover, the freedom to choose what's in your plan, the freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, the freedom to choose high-deductible coverage, the freedom to keep your existing plan and the freedom to choose your doctors.

Click here to read Tully's blog.

Paul Harvey Tackles Gun Control & Health Care

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"

Paul Harvey 8/31/94

Texas and Montana Tell the Government "Get your damned hands off our guns!!"

Bernanke doesn’t know where $500 billion went

Taxpayer Confronts Democrat Senator Ben Cardin on Barack Obama Health Care Plan FOX News

WASHINGTON -- Dr. Richard S. Kerr, M.D., a West Virginia Libertarian Party member and a retired doctor with 36 years experience, asked President Barac

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 23, 2009

Richard Whitehead, Washington County, Ore. Libertarian Party Treasurer, was recently elected to the Local School Committee for Beaver Acres Elementary, Position 3. Whitehead accomplished the rare feat of being elected as a write-in candidate.

Libertarians now hold seats in four School Committees in Washington County. Libertarians are especially needed on school boards, where the majority of government spending takes places in most localities, where the Party's commitment to fiscal responsibility and quality education best serve our friends and neighbors.

"Voting Rights and Wrongs" featuring Abigail Thernstrom

Doctors demand Obama apology

Pitching government control, President falsely accuses doctors of conspiring to make children sicker

WASHINGTON -- Dr. Richard S. Kerr, M.D., a West Virginia Libertarian Party member and a retired doctor with 36 years experience, asked President Barack Obama Thursday to apologize for comments made in his Wednesday night press conference accusing doctors of conspiring to make children sicker for profits.

“President Obama should be ashamed of himself for trying to scare Americans into supporting his government takeover of medicine by falsely accusing doctors of making children sicker. I have never heard a more disgusting or blatantly phony conspiracy theory. We treat our patients with the respect, care and concern you will never find in Obama’s government-run rationed care bureaucracy,” said Dr. Kerr.

“On behalf of my colleagues, I respectfully ask President Obama to apologize for such a slanderous lie and ask him to stop engaging in sickening conspiracy theories to push his government-run scheme. These cheap scare tactics are beneath the dignity of the office of The President and perfectly illustrate why more and more Americans are losing faith in Barack Obama.”

In his Wednesday night press conference, Obama claimed, “…you come in and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.”

“For President Obama’s information, pediatricians do not perform tonsillectomies. If he doesn’t know that, then he has no business centrally planning your family’s health care,” said Dr. Kerr.

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 or 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 http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Wisdom from Thomas Jefferson

"Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'."

Thomas Jefferson

Ron Paul: "The Federal Reserve is a Government Unto Itself"

NRA News Minute

2nd Amendment Quote of the Day

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)

Ron Paul on CNN American Morning

Health Care News on Cato

Remember to stay up to date with the TRUTH on Health Care visit the CATO Institute's Health Care Section. In depth studies and analysis on the Health Care issue include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

What most in this argument forget is that in a few years the baby boomers begin to retire and drawing on the system. This is approaching fast and it is one that politicians do not have the intestinal fortitude to face. Unfortunately it may be too late to save the failed system.

Libertarians decry defeat of concealed carry amendment

S. 845 would have protected constitutional rights

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Wednesday criticized senators voting against an amendment establishing concealed carry reciprocity between all states and reminded them voters have a record of holding gun rights opponents accountable on Election Day.

“Libertarians are no-compromise defenders of your constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “I find it ironic that many of the senators who rightfully believe one state’s same-sex marriage licenses should be recognized in all states are now not willing to extend that same courtesy to concealed carry licenses.”

“Your rights of free speech, free worship and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure do not end at the state line. Neither does your right to keep and bear arms without government infringement,” said Ferguson.

S. 845 follows Congress’ congressional authority to enforce "full faith and credit" so states recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state (Article IV). The bill protects a citizen’s right to carry when traveling to another state if the traveler has “a valid permit or if, under their state of residence ... are entitled to do so."

It failed narrowly, 58-39, two votes short of the 60 needed to adopt the amendment under Senate rules.

“We look forward to holding those 39 senators accountable for once again treating America’s gun owners as second-class citizens,” said Ferguson. “America’s 90 million gun owners vote, and you can bet Libertarian candidates will be discussing their unabashed support of the Second Amendment.”

Voting against the amendment were Democrats Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Roland Burris (D-IL), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Edward Kaufman (D-DE), John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), McCaskill (D-MO), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) Independents Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Republicans Richard Lugar (R-IN) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

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 or 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 http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Libertarians respond to Obama press conference

WASHINGTON -- Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson issued the following statement Wednesday night, in response to President Barack Obama’s press conference:

“Tonight’s press conference by President Obama, complete with scare tactics and wildly inaccurate claims, perfectly illustrated why more and more Americans are losing faith in his promises of prosperity through government control.

“Libertarians, and all Americans, aren’t buying President Obama’s ludicrous claim that handing control of your health care over to the federal government keeps costs down. Congressional Budget Office reports show the Obama health care takeover sends costs skyrocketing and further explodes his own record-shattering budget deficits. That not only thwarts job growth but also threatens health care itself. The fiscally irresponsible core of government-run health care is why virtually every such system must eventually resort to cruel rationing to contain its unsustainable and damaging costs.

“Under no rational model whatsoever does the Obama government takeover reduce costs and make health care affordable. The damage the Obama plan does to our economy, however, is real and hits Americans directly.

“Americans also lost trust in President Obama when he accused doctors of conspiring to intentionally let children with illnesses get worse, and that government must seize control of health care to stop doctors from performing medical procedures he doesn’t approve of. President Obama was perfectly clear. He wants the government to seize control of your health care because he thinks government accountants in Washington are better at medicine your own family doctor.

“As he did with the so-called “stimulus” package, President Obama is exploiting people’s fears and insecurities to push his agenda of unquestioned and economically unsustainable government expansion. That is yet another disappointing failure from the man who promised to end “the politics of fear.”

“But no amount of wild claims and inaccurate statements can hide the facts. Along with making health care rationed and unaffordable, the Obama government takeover currently being written in Congress outlaws private insurance (page 16,) sends government agents to your home to monitor your parenting (Section 44) and forces the sick and elderly to sit through meetings with government employees on how to end their life (page 425.)

“Libertarians have a better idea to make health care accessible and affordable. To start with:

* Allow taxpayers to deduct the costs of their health insurance from their income taxes.
* Repeal health insurance mandates that force Americans to pay for treatments they won't ever use.
* Scrap unneeded and unnecessary regulations that keep life-saving drugs and treatments off the market. Such regulations are often supported by health care lobbyists and are intended to freeze out competing products and companies.
* Allow Americans to shop for health insurance across state lines, forcing insurers to compete.

“Americans deserve health care that is affordable, effective and universally available. President Obama’s plan fails that test on every count, and he fails our trust. Only Libertarians are proposing the reforms we need to fix our broken health care system.”

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 or 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 http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

As Cat announces factory shutdowns, Libertarians want Obama explanation

More jobs lost as ‘stimulus’ bill delays economic recovery

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Wednesday asked President Barack Obama to explain to the American people why his $787 billion “stimulus” government expansion plan has once again failed to deliver on even its most basic promises.

“If he has time to explain why Congress should outlaw private health insurance and force Americans into expensive, rationed care he has the time to explain why exploding the deficit and expanding government isn’t creating prosperity,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.

“...if Congress passes our plan, this company [Caterpillar] will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off...,” said Obama in a Feb. 11 speech at Caterpillar’s Peoria, Ill. corporate headquarters, promising that passage of the government expansion plan meant “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed all across America.”

That promise contrasts sharply with statements released Tuesday by Caterpillar, not only announcing the company would suffer a "challenging" third quarter,” but that it would begin a rolling shutdown of its factories. The Dow Jones industrial average fell and the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 added losses upon hearing the news.

“This week’s news that Caterpillar continues to suffer losses, instead of the great leap forward Obama promised, proves yet again the so-called ‘stimulus’ bill must be repealed,” said Ferguson. “Obama promised jobs, but has only produced rising unemployment, rolling shutdowns of factories and a record-shattering federal deficit that will only destroy more jobs. We will eventually recover. The only question is how long will Obama delay our recovery by exploiting fear to radically expand government.”

“Libertarians have a better idea to create the jobs Americans need. Cut taxes on employers and consumers, cut taxes on investments, pursue more open markets to sell American goods and repeal unneeded and unnecessary regulations that prevent job creation,” said Ferguson.

Caterpillar earlier laid off 2,450 workers in three states Mar. 17, one month after Obama got his government expansion plan that was supposed to spur hiring at that company and others. The White House report created to sell the “stimulus” program said passage of the bill would keep the national unemployment rate below eight percent. It has instead sent unemployment rates skyrocketing to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent.

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 or 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 http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Obama Hopes No One Realizes a Long-Winded Question-Dodge is Still, In Fact, a Dodge

Posted on July 22, 2009, 10:47pm | Peter Suderman

Obama's prime-time health-care press conference tonight only lasted an hour, but it felt longer than a double screening of Gone With the Wind next to a date you're planning on dumping the minute it's over. But Obama rambled on and, like Rhett Butler, just didn't seem to give a damn whether or not anybody else cared.

Of course, the long-winded responses seemed to be part of strategy. According to the American Spectator's Phil Klein, he answered only ten questions during the hour—or, perhaps more accurately, he responded to only ten. Obama seems to have decided ahead of time that when faced with an uncomfortable question, the best idea is to grind away at tangentially related statistics, anecdotes, and talking points until everyone's forgotten what the actual question was anyway. Faced with a number of unpleasant facts about his administration's lack of transparency, for example, Obama did a little dance, sang a song, performed a magic trick, and then said "next question." Well, not really, but the dodging, non-answer he did give was roughly as useful as if he had.

Meanwhile, much of what he did say—particularly about the deficit—was rather suspicious. Over at the Spectator, Phil Klein even goes so far as to call Obama a liar. We'll see tomorrow when the transcripts come out. In the meantime, the truly dedicated can waste bandwidth watching the President's Festival of Dull in stuttering streaming video form here.

Great American Quotes

"We need a national refresher on the theory of democratic government, which tells us that secret government is always undemocratic and generally unwise."

Benjamin H. Friedman

Libertarians: No need for ‘Iraq war rush’ to government-run medicine

Obama demands for immediate action, little transparency are hallmarks of bad legislation

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Tuesday urged Congress to take its time deliberating the proposed government takeover of the nation’s health care system amid pressure from the White House to quickly adopt the troubled proposal quickly and with minimal debate. Libertarians oppose the plan, which deepens the federal budget deficit and leads to the rationing of basic health care.

“As confidence in President Obama’s plans for a federal government takeover of medicine plunges, the White House is pressuring legislators to rush to judgment while the plan can still be salvaged,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chairman. “We urge Congress to deliberate this massive government takeover carefully, take their time to allow Americans to read the full bill and then vote down this legislative disaster.”

A poll conducted independently by the Gallup organization, not for any party or group, and released today shows disapproval of the Obama plan tops approval among adults by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin. Among political independents, the gap grows. Fifty-five percent of independents disapprove of Obama’s plan. Only 40 percent approve.

“The more we find out about the Democrat plan, whether it’s the language on page sixteen outlawing private insurance or Section 440 empowering government to visit your home and monitor your parenting, the more obvious it becomes why President Obama wants as little transparency as possible. As we saw during the rush to the Iraq war, nothing good can happen when the president demands Congress give him what he wants immediately and without debate,” said Redpath.

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 or 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 http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right

by Ron Paul

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middleman. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

Rob McDonald on the Founding of the United States & The Desire to be Left Alone

Those Awful Afghans

by Lew Rockwell on July 21, 2009 03:25 PM

From the London Times:

“There is barely an important piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another,” the commander said. “Nevertheless, much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centres, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory that we seize.”

He added: “Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land, where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills.”

They could have been the words of a Nato general in the past few days. In fact they were spoken by Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, commander of Soviet armed forces, to the USSR’s politburo in the Kremlin on November 13, 1986.

Those awful Afghans; they don’t want to be occupied by alien armies, Russian or Nato. Imagine that. (Via Antiwar.com)

Quoted

"[L]abour union lobbies and their political friends have decided that the ideal defence against competition from the poor countries is to raise their cost of production by forcing their standards up, claiming that competition with countries with lower standards is “unfair”. “Free but fair trade” becomes an exercise in insidious protectionism that few recognise as such."

Jagdish Bhagwati,

"Obama and Trade: An Alarm Sounds," Financial Times. January 9, 2009.

Is Your iPod Unpatriotic? Why America Shouldn't "Buy American"

What Is Justice?

by Butler Shaffer

"Every man loves justice at another man’s expense."

~ Anonymous

One of the emptiest words in our culture is "justice." Its vacuous quality is what makes it so popular: it requires little in the way of focused, intelligent explication to employ it. To those on the political "left," justice" gets translated into a demand for money to be taken from some and bestowed upon others. Those on the political "right" use it as a plea for the building of more prisons and the hiring of more police officers to ferret out more persons to fill them. When people tell me "I demand justice," my response is to warn them to temper their insistence, as they might just get it!

When pressed for a definition, I reply that justice is the redistribution of violence. In its simplest form, X commits a wrong upon Y, for which Y demands retaliation against X. In its more complex form in our collectivized world, fifteen Saudis, two men from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian, and one Lebanese join in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings. As these men were killed in the process, the demands for "justice" led most Americans to accept the bombing and killing of innocent men, women, and children in such unrelated places as Afghanistan and Iraq! Justice and rationality have little to do with one another.

The death of Robert McNamara brought home the meaningless nature of this concept. This war criminal – like so many others of the home-grown type – was, perhaps more than any other, responsible for the deaths of more than a million innocent victims during the Vietnam War. He knew the war to be bogus and unwinnable, yet continued to insist upon more lives being invested in this evil scheme. His co-conspirator, Lyndon Johnson, helped to cover up their evil deeds by awarding McNamara with a Medal of Freedom. If Americans had been as self-righteous in punishing the crimes of their own leaders as they insist inflicting upon foreign monsters, both these men would have ended their careers on the gallows.

The same fate would have awaited the likes of Churchill, Truman, Stalin, and other perpetrators of "allied" crimes. The head of the British RAF Bomber Command in the latter half of World War II was Arthur "Bomber" Harris (also known as "Butcher" Harris even within the RAF). Harris – later awarded a knighthood – was responsible for the saturation bombing of German cities that had not the slightest military significance; his purpose, rather, being to inflict massive death as an end in itself. The firebombing of the beautiful city of Dresden – so well captured in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five – was rationalized on the grounds that there were no other German cities left to bomb. Harris, along with Churchill, would surely have swung from the gallows if "justice" had meant anything other than sanctimonious revenge visited upon the losing side, or what others have called "victor’s justice."

Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the purpose of warning the Soviet Union of the state of American destructiveness, merited his trip to the scaffold. Octogenarians – with their "U.S.S. Missouri" baseball caps – continue to babble the line that this act of butchery inflicted upon a civilian population was necessary to end the war and save American lives. That Japan was trying to surrender before these cities were attacked, and that American POWs were among the thousands of victims of this attack, refutes the lie.

A date with the hangman should also have awaited the likes of Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and . . . well, you begin to see the pattern: deaths visited upon the men, women, and children of other countries are to be excused, even honored, when carried out by American political leaders. READ THE REST AT LEW ROCKWELL

Juan Carlos Hidalgo discusses Honduras on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight

Dan Mitchell discusses taxing the rich on CNN's Your Money

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin

by William L. Anderson

In the wake of your decision last week to step down from the governor’s chair in Alaska, I must admit to feeling somewhat relieved. Despite the regular hatefest aimed at you from the New York Times and the Huffington Post for the past year, you were standing gamely, as there really was a constituency out there that liked and respected you.

Even though David Letterman thought you were an idiot, you wowed the crowds last year, giving some life to the moribund John McCain campaign, which before your appearance was playing to a few hundred diehards at the regular stops. Now, I cannot exactly praise you for accepting McCain’s nomination, given that McCain is a person for which no good deed goes unpunished.

You were a breath of fresh air to the political scene, dominated by women who have had their shares of facelifts or catty writers like Maureen Dowd who in saner times at best would have been writing obits for a small-town weekly in Iowa. Unfortunately, the modern political times are not conducive to decent people entering the political ring; look at the abuse that Ron Paul has received (and continues to receive) at the hands of the media and other Republicans.

(If Paul ever becomes a real electoral threat to his party, look for every ethics investigation, not to mention an attempt by U.S. attorneys to frame him. Being that federal criminal law is little more than a tool for politicians to eliminate their competition, I believe that if Ron’s ideas every truly catch on, the government will come after him with all guns blazing.)

In my letter to you, I am going to advise you to do something that would be unthinkable in modern politics: leave the political arena altogether. The United States no longer is salvageable, and no politician – not even Ron Paul – can save this country. The original American Experiment in limited government with constitutional boundaries is over, and has been over for many years. Like you, the Constitution could not survive the assaults that were thrown at it beginning in the early years of the Republic and continuing on to the present day.

Moreover, as John Fund so aptly noted in his recent article, the political classes have so many weapons to use against anyone who threatens them that one person cannot bust through the system. From ethics complaints to federal prosecutors looking for a Big Scalp, it is impossible today for anyone who might be seen as going against the grain.

Now, I am not saying that you were another Ron Paul. You never have articulated the kind of understanding of economics and politics that we have seen from him, and you were the running mate of a man who made sure that any public support of Paul shown at the Republican National Convention last year would be mercilessly stamped out. You seem to have some good instincts, but you don’t have the same solid compass that Paul and others of free-market orientation have, and the semi-conservative populism that you seem to have embraced easily morphs into outright tyranny. Moreover, your support for the disastrous U.S. interventions abroad demonstrates a lack of understanding of just what these wars are doing to us. READ THE REST AT LEW ROCKWELL

Americans oppose Obama takeover of medicine

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 21, 2009

A poll released just minutes ago by the Gallup organization is the lastest to highlight a troubling trend for the White House. Among all Americans, disapproval of Obama's proposed government takeover of medicine tops approval by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin.

The news gets worse for Obama. Among voters not affiliated with either party -- the voting bloc that delivered him the White House and whose support is needed to get anything done -- disapproval grows to 55 percent and approval drops to only 40 percent, a disapproval gap of 15 percent on what is supposed to be Obama's best issue.

Keep in mind those numbers are among "adults." Polls of registered voters, and then likely voters, typically show even less support for expansions of government. Even among the best possible statistical sample, Obama cannot muster majority support for his radical experiment in government-run medicine.

The more people find out about the Obama health care scheme, whether it's page sixteen outlawing private insurance, Section 440 empowering the government to enter your home and monitor your parenting or the Congressional Budget Office research showing it explodes the deficit or the countless studies showing similar proposals always lead to rationing of care and higher death rates from treatable diseases, the more people agree with the Libertarian Party. The best way to make health care affordable and universal is to repeal regulations implemented by health care lobbyists to preserve profits and remove the barriers between patients and doctors.

Rob McDonald on Thomas Jefferson, Slavery & the Declaration of Independence

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"We consistently elect people to Congress and the Senate who become nothing more than patsies for their lobbyists and party bosses. We have given these two parties too many chances and we simply cannot afford them anymore."

Muir Boda

Dem governors: Obama health care scheme is a massive "unfunded mandate"

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 21, 2009

The Washington Times editorializes today on the Obama plan for government-run medicine, pointing to Congressional Budget Office reports showing it radically explodes the size of the federal budget deficit and achieves so-called "savings" only by forcing doctors and hospitals to make less.

Click here to read the editorial, or if you are in the metro D.C. area, pick up a copy of The Washington Times. The Times writes, in part:

...States are worrying about the fiscal impact of changes to the health care system. Governors from across the political spectrum realize they will have to pick up a major part of the tab for these supposed cost savings. In the Senate Finance Committee plan, the federal government would pay for the expanded Medicaid costs of the new health care benefits for possibly five years. After that, the states would have to carry their normal Medicaid cost share of 43 percent.

Gov. Haley Barbour, Mississippi Republican, warned at the annual National Governors Association meeting on Sunday that the change to expand the Medicaid system, "would increase spending on Medicaid by 50 percent, and that's money we don't have. And other states don't have it either." Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee worried the program would be "the mother of all unfunded mandates."

Montana's Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer hit the nail on the head. "The governors are concerned about unfunded mandates. . . . Well if they want to reform health care," he said about big spenders in Washington, "they should figure out what the rules are and how they are going to pay for it." Unfortunately, that's not how policy is made in the nation's capital.

Micahel Swartz vs. Frank Kratovil - The Cap & Tax You Some Bill

Michael Swartz at Monoblogue goes blow by over Frank Kratovil's response to his vote on "Cap & Tax" and why he voted for it. I truly believe this vote puts Frank in trouble. We will see where he falls with Health Care soon and if he will be a part the "Ramrod" legislation.

Check out Michael's article.

Audit the Fed Update

The Virtues of Supreme Silence

Why Supreme Court nominees should avoid their own confirmation hearings

Steve Chapman | July 20, 2009

Millions of Americans tuned in last week to Sonia Sotomayor's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. What did they learn? "Nothing," Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe told The New York Times. Actually, we did learn something—that we should stop inviting Supreme Court nominees to testify in confirmation hearings.

Sotomayor is reputed to be a lively woman with strong opinions and a sometimes aggressive demeanor on the bench. But appearing in place of the veteran federal judge was an android copy of her, lacking any recognizably human quality except extreme caution. She makes Ben Stein look like Jim Cramer.

Her appearances before the committee proved a couple of things. One is that she can look interested while listening to a pinstriped gasbag declaim at length about some topic that a dozen other pinstriped gasbags have already pronounced upon.

Another is that pointed questions bounce off of her as though she has a personal anti-missile system. Someone could have asked, "Do you think the Constitution gives the Department of Motor Vehicles the power to deep-fry parking violators in vats of lard?" and Sotomayor would have paused thoughtfully and replied, "Senator, I think it would be inappropriate for me to address hypothetical questions on a matter that may come before the court."

Sotomayor declined to answer any inquiry in a way that would reveal anything. Asked about affirmative action, the Second Amendment, foreign law, and abortion rights, she smothered each question in thick blankets of gray verbiage. READ THE REST AT REASON

Perils of Obamacare: The Three Big Lies

by Michael D. Tanner Added to cato.org on July 20, 2009

This article appeared in the New York Post on July 20, 2009.

In making his case for a government takeover of the US health-care system, President Obama is going far beyond the usual Washington truth-stretching.

Take a look at just a few of the most common claims:

"If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it." Even White House spokesmen have said that Obama's oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn't meant to be taken literally. The reality is that millions of Americans — perhaps most Americans — will be forced to change insurance plans.

First, the president supports an individual mandate — a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want or are morally opposed to, such as abortion services.

And that doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.

Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit.

READ THE REST AT CATO

Checking Workers, Binding Employers

Union bosses will be the only winners under the Employee Free Choice Act

Shikha Dalmia | July 20, 2009

Big Labor is on a roll. With the installation of Minnesota Democrat Al Franken to the Senate, and another change of heart by Sen. Arlen Specter, the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has just scored two more votes. To secure the remaining votes for a filibuster-proof majority, unions staged a massive rally in Arkansas to pressure Blanche Lincoln, the state's Democratic senator who has withdrawn her support for the bill, to pull a Specter and change her mind yet again.

Arkansas is ground-zero for unions because it is a right-to-work state with low union enrollment. EFCA's elimination of secret ballot elections for unionization has garnered most of the critical attention. But the bill contains another controversial provision: compulsory arbitration. This would be no less destructive to the rights of employers and workers, and the economy as a whole. Exhibit A: Michigan.

In 1969, the Wolverine State embraced a form of compulsory arbitration nearly identical to the one proposed in EFCA to resolve disputes with its police and firefighters. Years later, Detroit mayor Coleman Young—who had authored the original law as state senator—rued what he had done. "We now know that compulsory arbitration has been a failure," he lamented to the National Journal in 1981. "Slowly, inexorably, compulsory interest arbitration has destroyed sensible fiscal management and has caused more damage to the public service than the strikes it was designed to prevent."

Most citizens agree. Just seven years ago 54 percent of Michigan voters turned down a union-sponsored ballot proposition to extend compulsory arbitration to all state employees. Nearly every newspaper in the state—liberal and conservative—editorialized against it. Why?
READ THE REST AT REASON

Libertarians are coming to bookstores and TVs near you

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 20, 2009

YOUR MONDAY MESSAGE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

Dear friend,

For Republicans and Democrats, the summer is often a slow time. Not for Libertarians.

Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee, has a new book out today. “The Conscience of a Libertarian” lays out the case for libertarianism and lets you know what you can do to help build a free country.

“The Conscience of a Libertarian” won’t be one of those books you have to be on an obscure website to find. Not only is it a brisk seller on Amazon.com. it will be on special display in 300 Barnes and Noble stores, right where millions of people can see it.

Root will also be a guest on Sean Hannity’s radio program July 30th to promote the “The Conscience of a Libertarian” and spread the libertarian message.

That means that not only will libertarianism be on display in one of America’s busiest bookstores, but also on America’s second-biggest talk radio program. If you’ve ever had a friend ask you just what the Libertarian Party is all about, tell them to pick up Root’s book.

But Root isn’t the only one spreading the libertarian message in the mainstream media with “The Conscience of a Libertarian”. Glenn Beck, popular Fox News Channel personality and host of one of the country’s biggest radio programs now proudly declares he’s becoming “more and more libertarian.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, an avowed Libertarian, hosts a weekly program called “Freedom Watch” on FoxNews.com’s Strategy Room. In fact, if enough people watch the online broadcast each Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, Fox News will consider broadcasting it to millions on the Fox News Channel.

Yep, an explicitly libertarian show with libertarian guests and libertarian topics could be on the nation’s most-watched news channel.

Here at LPHQ, we are scoring big coverage in some of the nation’s largest newspapers, and we are talking with producers about upcoming appearances on major cable news networks.

With a hot new book out and some of America’s most popular broadcasters giving air time to libertarian principles, more and more Americans are finding out about the Libertarian Party’s principled message of smaller government and more freedom.

If you haven’t yet become a Sustaining Member of the Libertarian Party, click here to join a growing number of your friends and neighbors. If you’re already a Sustaining Member, don’t be surprised to see your principles on display in bookstores and on the air as talented libertarians spread our message.

With optimism,

Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian Party
Donny.Ferguson@lp.org

Libertarians, Barr applaud repeal of "Barr amendment"

WASHINGTON -- Last week's passage of a House appropriations bill without a rider prohibiting the District of Columbia from implementing the results of a 1998 referendum legalizing marijuana for medical purposes is applauded by Libertarians, namely the author of the original amendment itself.

Known as the “Barr Amendment,” the rider was first enacted in 1998 to prevent the District from honoring the results of “Initiative 59,” legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Sponsored by then-Congressman Bob Barr, it requires “none of the funds contained in the Appropriations Act may be used to conduct any ballot initiative which seeks to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties” for marijuana use.

Barr has since renounced the amendment and was the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nominee. Barr has sought to repeal the rider and the House of Representatives last week passed an appropriations bill without it. If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama, the District could implement the results of Initiative 59.

“Last week’s vote by the House of Representatives lifting the 11-year old prohibition on the District of Columbia from taking steps to pass and implement any measure decriminalizing or legalizing the sale or use of marijuana in the District, represents an important step in the direction of individual freedom and properly limiting the power of the federal government,” said Barr in a statement.

“While I in fact sponsored the initial appropriations limitation in 1998, the years since then have witnessed such a dramatic increase in federal government power and an unprecedented decrease in individual liberty, especially since 2001, that I have come to realize that such limitations as the so-called “Barr Amendment” are not and cannot be justified. It has become necessary to reevaluate the power of the federal government that I and others once were able or willing to justify, and do what we can to roll back the tide of government control.

“I have applauded also the indications by Attorney General Eric Holder to begin easing federal efforts against individuals in states that have moved to decriminalize or legalize the use of marijuana, and the fresh approach to the federal anti-drug effort as articulated earlier this year by Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the so-called “Drug Czar”),” said Barr.

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 or 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 http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Great Libertarian Quotes

"You don't need a treaty to have free trade. "

Murray Rothbard

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"[W]hen it comes to claims about the wondrous new world of government-run health care, a bit of skepticism might be in order."

Michael D. Tanner

The Obama and Congressional Plans

President Obama has called upon Congress to pass legislation that will transform the American health care system. The reforms rest upon four distinct pillars:

1. Mandates for employers and individuals
2. Subsidies for the middle class
3. Increased insurance regulation
4. A government-run health care plan, like Medicare, that will compete with private insurance.

While it appears the White House will not be putting forward its own specific plan, major components likely to emerge from Congress can be clearly identified, and include:

• Employers would be required to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a fee (tax) to subsidize government coverage.
• Every American would be required to buy an insurance policy that meets certain government requirements. Even individuals who are currently insured, and happy with their insurance, will have to switch to insurance that meets the government's definition of "acceptable insurance."
• A government-run plan similar to Medicare would be set up in competition with private insurance, with people able to choose either private insurance or the taxpayer-subsidized public plan. Subsidies and cost-shifting would encourage Americans to shift to the government plan.
• The government would undertake comparative-effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research, and use the results to impose practice guidelines on providers — initially, in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but possibly eventually extending such rationing to private insurance plans.
• Private insurance would face a host of new regulations, including a requirement to insure all applicants and a prohibition on pricing premiums on the basis of risk.
• Subsidies would be available to help middle-income people purchase insurance, while government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be expanded.
• The government would subsidize and manage the development of a national system of electronic medical records.

Individually, each proposal could have an extremely negative impact. Collectively, they are harmful to taxpayers, health care providers, and to the quality and range of care patients would receive. CLICK HERE TO DO MORE RESEARCH AT CATO

Pat Dixon, Texas Libertarian Party Chairman, Talks with MHD

Lindsey Graham Tears Into Barbara Boxer On The Senate Floor

Bob Barr's Editorial in the Atlanta Journal Constitution

Health care Never Never Land
by Bob Barr
as published in The Atlanta Journal Constitution
Monday, July 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM

In "Sicko," iconoclastic filmmaker Michael Moore extols the virtue of health care in such liberal "paradises" as the United Kingdom and Cuba. Leaving his audience to wonder where he would choose to go for treatment if he were facing a life-threatening illness — the People's Hospital in Havana or the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. — Moore exhibits the same Alice-in-Wonderland delusion that has settled over the Obama administration.

A majority of members of Congress, too, seem to believe that if only enough bureaucracy and taxpayer dollars are thrown at the health care "crisis," then everyone in the country will have their every medical need met, when they want it, and at much reduced cost. Such a mind set turns Peter Pan's Never Never Land into a reality show.

For starters, advocates of the House legislation might want to talk to governors of those states, like Massachusetts, that have already implemented "universal" coverage plans. Increasing program costs, coupled with decreased state revenues as a result of the economic downturn, are causing serious fiscal problems and are forcing those states to consider cutbacks in coverage.

However, witnessing the irrational, "gotta-do-this-now" push in our nation's capitol to pass comprehensive health care "reform" within the next few weeks, it is obvious the proponents of Obama-care are not interested in anyone throwing the cold water of fiscal reality on their parade.

The House version of the legislation, unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week, includes substantial mandates on American businesses (including a severe, 8 percent payroll tax on any business that fails to offer health insurance coverage to its employees). Still, the Pollyannaish Pelosi claimed (with a straight face) it would "lower costs to businesses." This is government logic at its finest — you lower the cost of doing business by raising taxes on those businesses.

Pelosi's obvious inability to grasp even the most basic of economic concepts was further displayed when she claimed that the "costs to consumers," too, would be lowered. Apparently, this would be accomplished by placing a new surtax on those American consumers whose income exceeded the levels deemed worthy by the legislators.

Analysts of the 1,000-plus page legislation calculate its 10-year cost to exceed $1 trillion. Other experts fear such a figure greatly underestimates its true cost. Even the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the government subsidy for health care coverage will amount to some $6,000 per person within the next decade, which figures to more than $1.8 trillion.

Pelosi's bill would also create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Such a scenario, of course, is never a fair "competition," because the government "owner" can always print money, spend borrowed money indefinitely, operate without regard for cost-benefit analysis, and threaten legal sanctions for those who fail to comply. None of these remedies are available to businesses (except, of course, for the "new" General Motors).

The smoke-and-mirrors approach is evident also in the fact that high-income taxpayers, who would already be taxed in order to pay for the "universal" coverage for their less-well-off compatriots, would face escalating taxes if the government fails in the years ahead to achieve targeted "savings" in Medicaid and Medicare. In other words, the government will set "savings targets," but if it fails to meet them, it is taxpayers who will pay the penalty, not those members of Congress or federal bureaucrats who decide how much to spend on the entitlement programs.

Other industries, including pharmaceuticals, will face increased taxes as well, in order to pay for this "reform." The more successful drug makers will pay a higher percentage tax than their smaller, less successful colleagues. Once again, success in the business arena is punished in the government arena.

Truly, this bill is a monstrosity.
###

Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.


-- Post From My iPhone

Barbara Boxer meet Dr. Evil

The Philosophy of Spending

"When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else's money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn't care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn’t care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you. "

Milton Friedman

Monday's Prohibition Quote

"You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws. "

Ron Paul

Monday's Image and Lesson: How NOT To Run A Government.

Now California's troubles were coming way before Arnold became Governor. California has been the true test of government run everything and what happens when you offer everyone everything. It is a failed "Socialist Experiment" that has put that Government on the brink of disaster, actually they are already there. Too many promises that they will not be be kept and they have no answers for their woes. With the exception of offering I.O.U.'s instead of tax refunds.

They can't raise taxes anymore because there is nobody else to tax. Businesses are leaving the state, especially ones that create jobs. They regulate all the other businesses and treat them like crap. The entertainment business thrives yet many films are being shot elsewhere, even in Canada because they are much more friendlier to them.

When the text books on how to run a government are updated maybe they should change the names to "How NOT To Run A Government!" Other states that are close behind are Maryland with the "How to Blow A Billion Dollar Surplus In 10 Days", New York's "We Control and Tax Every Aspect of Your Life", and of course Massachusetts with "Government Run Health Care Didn't Work Here, So Let's Do It for the Country Anyway."

Harry Alford: Barbara Boxer is a racist

The hole is getting deeper for Barbara Boxer.

Is an Independent Fed Better?

by David Boaz (Cato's executive vice president)

Rep. Ron Paul now has a majority of the House of Representatives supporting his bill for an independent audit of the Federal Reserve System. He presented his case at a Cato Policy Forum recently, with vigorous responses from Bert Ely and Gilbert Schwartz.

Now more than 200 economists have signed a petition calling on Congress to “defend the independence of the Federal Reserve System as a foundation of U.S. economic stability.” The petition seems implicitly a rebuttal to Paul’s bill.

Allan Meltzer, a leading monetary scholar and frequent participant in Cato’s annual monetary conferences, declined to sign the petition and explained why: “I wrote them back and said, ‘the Fed has rarely been independent and it strikes me that being independent is very unlikely’” in the current environment. PLEASE VISIT CATO FOR THE REST

Sam Adams on a Sunday Afternoon

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ...or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."

Samuel Adams (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, p86-87)

My Letter to the Editor In Sunday's Daily Times

My Post from Friday is in the Daily Times today. Here is the Link

Sunday's Libertarian Sermon

"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. "

Henry George

Sunday Truth

"The American experiment has come and gone. Whatever freedoms the people still might have as their own, are monitored and registered and taxed at virtually every turn. "

Jeff Baxter