Austerity

The current situation we find ourselves in with respect to the financial situation of the Federal Government is one that should be of grave concern to all Americans. This problem did not arise over night; this has been a slow and gradual step up the rungs to financial insolvency.

One example is the enormous amounts of money we have spent on the War on Poverty. We were told that this would “end poverty as we know it”, and it did, it made it worse.

The extreme failure of the War on Poverty has done nothing to pull people out of poverty, because the poverty that exists is not monetary, it is a cultural poverty. It is a poverty that no government can fix; it is one that requires individuals to be responsible for their actions. Through hard work and dedication one can pull themselves up out of their own situation by attaining success through learning from their failures and doing what is right.

The culture of dependency has nearly destroyed the soul of our country. The welfare state is wrought with fraud and failure. It has deprived generations of their dignity and few ever break out of the cycle. They have become enslaved by dependency and are trapped under the giant footprint of government.

Big Government solutions only lead to more misery, with more people identified as “poor” and it places a heavier burden on hard working taxpayers. The Keynesian Economic examples of Greece, Italy and Spain are a brief glimpse into America’s near future if we do not make drastic changes now.

The successful examples of Austerity, which have been implemented into a variety of forms in the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, are prime examples of responsible government solutions. These countries are on the road to recovery after slashing government spending and in Latvia’s case they eliminated nearly half of their government agencies. Latvia did borrow money from the European Union, but that was coupled with significantly reducing the size of its government.

Even if we look to the north at Canada, they have seen strong economic recovery from reducing taxes and government spending while responsibly reducing their debt and their deficit.

When coming back home and looking at America’s situation we have to honestly look at our situation and recognize that it is not sustainable. There is no longer a tax base available to sustain increases in taxes to maintain our current levels of spending. We must accept that this is the greatest threat to our National Security and that when addressing these issues there cannot be any sacred cows.

We must begin the era of Austerity in America by eliminating wasteful and fraudulent programs and agencies. We must begin the era of Economic Liberty by lower taxes and eliminating stringent regulations on businesses.  We must begin the Era of A Smaller Government Footprint.

www.boda4congress.com

Your View: Libertarian agenda is to give you back control

Can we afford it? I suspect you’re way ahead of me here. I won’t try to discuss the national debt, beyond that it’s rising faster than I can write about it, much less get this into print. We are running this country as if we hold it on an interest-only mortgage, and we’ve been seeing how well those generally work out.

On any given issue, even if we can do it and we should do it, that doesn’t mean we can afford it right now. The idea that we can simply borrow or print more money won’t carry us forever. Better we end those practices while we still have hope of being in control of the situation rather than waiting for disaster to dictate to us.

This will be my last letter before the election, so let me urge you all to vote. If you want government to take care of you (and run your life, which ultimately must follow), either the Republicans or the Democrats are happy to accommodate — it just depends on whose format you prefer.

If you want to run your own life — and correspondingly, take care of yourself and your loved ones — then right now, the Libertarian Party is the only one seeking to give you the greatest possible opportunity. I won’t claim it will be quick or easy, but if you can imagine a future where the federal government doesn’t even try to control everything — vote Libertarian.

Dr. Richard J. Davis, Hurlock
Davis is a Libertarian candidate for Maryland’s 1st Congressional District. — Editor

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"This is an issue on which many Libertarians differ, because the very first question we need to resolve is whether there is one life at stake or two. Because I believe there are two lives involved, I believe each life deserves to be protected from any physical harm caused by the other. I recognize, of course, that many good people disagree, and in some states they may be in the majority. But the federal Constitution simply does not settle this issue, and we should restore the states' autonomy over abortion regulation."

Mark Grannis

Candidate for Congress, 8th District

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"We need to end the war on drugs. Those who want to use are already using. We are just creating a black market which creates crime. If we end the war on drugs we could save over $13 billion dollars. As a cavat I would add that the same liberty that give a person the right to use drugs also give an employer the right to drug test and fire anyone who test positive for drugs. An employer has the right to conditions for a contract for employment."

Dan Massey

Candidate for Congress, 6th District

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"PEACEFUL people should be able to cross borders PEACEFULLY for PEACEFUL purposes. What's going on along the southern border between the United States and Mexico is not an open border. I am tired of hearing that it's an open border. We don't have an open border any more than Sarajevo had open streets when people had to dodge bullets from snipers on rooftops. What we have on our southern border is chaos, mayhem and horrific crimes.

People's property is being invaded, people are being kidnapped and murdered; women trying to cross the border (admittedly illegally) are being raped. The march across the border becomes a death march. Who does this benefit? I guess the people whose only goal is cheap labor. It has some benefit for those who make it in, IF they make it on the death march through the desert, since they can work, etc. "

Candidate for U.S. Congress, District 2: Lorenzo Gaztañaga

Dr. Richard Davis' interview with the Daily Times

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians - Dan Massey

"There is NO role for the federal government in education. Education is most productive when it is handled at the local community level. Spending money has been shown not to improve education levels. The most effective way to improve education is to let the local leaders and the principle control their own budget. School choice would add free enterprise into the system and kids would flow to successful schools and those unsuccessful schools would lose their funding."

Dan Massey
Libertarian for U.S. Congress
District 4, Maryland

Scott Spencer on Being a Libertarian

"As a Libertarian, I believe in personal liberty and personal responsibility. Libertarians favor an end of the use of government force to enact the policies of special interests, regardless of their place on the political spectrum.

Ultimately, this is based on the principle that no person should deprive another of life, liberty, or property through the initiation (or threat) of force or fraud.

Vote Libertarian, and help us renew the American values of freedom and independence."

Scott Spencer

Libertarian for U.S. Congress

District 7, Maryland

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"It's time to take a good, hard look at what the Federal Reserve does, and at what it has done to both to the economy, and to the US dollar.

If, after careful examination, it is determined that this is an institution that has done more harm than good (a position stated in Ron Paul's End the Fed, and in Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed), then it should be abolished."

Scott Spencer

Libertarian Candidate for Congress

District 7, Maryland

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"Our country is bankrupt. Our representatives in Congress and the Senate don't want to talk about it, but it's true. This is a greater threat to our national security than any terrorist organization, and it's a threat we have created ourselves. Acknowledging the fact that we're bankrupt will allow us to start fixing it. We need the right person in Congress -- me."

Lorenzo Gaztañaga
Libertarian Candidate for Congress 
District 2, Maryland

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians - Lorenzo Gaztañaga

"The "war on drugs" has cost billions of dollars, ruined lives, and made all Americans less free, while doing nothing to help the addicted. It's alcohol prohibition redux, and we bleed the billions. The facts are there, and I'm willing to discuss it with anybody."

Lorenzo Gaztañaga
Libertarian Candidate for Congress
District 2, Maryland

Libertarianism and the Poor

Date: 

Mon, 09/20/2010

Author: 

Mark Grannis

We know free markets produce more prosperity, and we know government spending is often ineffective or worse.  But many are nonetheless reluctant to embrace libertarian ideas because of their commitment to social justice.  Without the welfare state, how would Libertarians take care of the poor?

The short answer is:  Voluntarily.  Libertarians know as well as anyone that many people in our society sometimes find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of their own.  We are as likely to believe that looking out for least fortunate among us is not only compassionate but essential to a healthy community.  And many of us, including this writer, come from religious traditions that leave no room for doubt about the obligation to help the poor. For most of us, then, the question is not whether to help the poor, but how.  And our historical experience strongly suggests that government programs just don't improve the welfare of the poor as well as voluntary assistance does.

The first problem with government aid is that it is easily misdirected.  Government anti-poverty programs may be intended as boons for the poor, but they tend to become boondoggles for the powerful.  This shouldn’t surprise us, because when we make charity part of a government budget we inevitably place it in competition with other budgetary priorities.  In a politically driven process, if it’s the nameless needy versus failed Wall Street banks, the needy don’t stand a chance.  The working poor would have a much better chance of getting ahead if they were simply permitted to keep more of what they produce.

Don't we need a strong government to protect us from business?

by Mark Grannis- Libertarian Candidate for Congress in Maryland's 8th District

Yesterday we looked at how liberty creates prosperity, and how government interference with our economic liberty distorts investment decisions and makes us worse off. But some people think we need a strong government to protect us from powerful economic interests. That theory sounds reasonable—if you don’t know what it’s like to run a business and you don’t pay any attention to how government works in practice.
But in practice, even large businesses don’t have anything like the power screenwriters give them in the movies. As the late Harry Browne used to say, “No matter how big a business is, you don’t have to deal with it; there’s always an alternative—including not buying at all.” Show me a business that treats its customers the way the Post Office and the Motor Vehicle Administration do, and I’ll show you a stock you should short.

And in practice, career politicians and industry regulators almost always use government to advance the interests of the largest and most politically connected businesses rather than their smaller competitors or their customers. Indeed, when I ask people to give me an example of a business from which they need to be protected, most reach for government-sponsored monopolies, like the old AT&T. Occasionally someone mentions a firm that figured prominently in the credit meltdown of late 2008, but those firms would no longer exist if it weren’t for their political clout. As a purely economic matter, the free market was all set to discipline those firms with bankruptcy until the government stepped in.

How Liberty Creates Prosperity

by Mark Grannis- Libertarian Candidate for Congress in Maryland's 8th District

Most people in the United States take for granted that free-market economies “work” better than centrally planned economies. That is, almost everyone in any domestic political debate will agree, without thinking about it much, that placing the government in charge of how many shoes get made, and what the price of corn should be, and where we all work, would be disastrous for everyone.  We've seen other countries try it, and we know it doesn't work.

It’s good that we don’t have to argue about this. But an unfortunate side-effect of not arguing is that many voters don’t really understand why free-market economies are more prosperous, or why government interference usually makes us poorer even when it falls well short of total centralization. And that makes these voters suckers for politicians who promise to “improve” unpopular economic outcomes like high gas prices or electricity brownouts. So let’s look in very basic terms at how liberty creates prosperity.

Economic reporting often focuses on arcane aggregate statistic of dubious reliability and uncertain meaning, so I think it’s important to emphasize that economics is about how to solve the very real and very human problem of how to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves. Humans have material needs, as well as a natural drive to satisfy those needs. We also have a natural inclination to satisfy our needs with as little effort as possible. The overriding goal of all economic activity is really only this: to satisfy human needs as abundantly as possible with the minimum amount of work.

... In Their Own Words - Special Guest Dr. Richard Davis

Dr. Richard Davis is a dentist from Hurlock, Maryland.  He is the Libertarian Candidate for Congress in the First District of Maryland.

"...In Their Own Words" is designed to provide a format where news makers on the Lower Shore of Maryland can provide the public with answers about themselves or information on a variety of topics at a deeper level. There are no canned answers, time limits or talking points.

This video was produced by www.nowbeingserved.com

We have to shrink government,whether we want to or not.

Over the last ten years, Democrats and Republicans alike, in Congress and in the White House, have borrowed and spent us into the worst economic conditions in living memory. The government only admits to an unemployment rate of just under 10%, but surveys and better private estimates show that about 20% of us who want full-time work can't find it. The unprecedented amount of paper money we're pumping into the economy is not actually creating jobs or generating wealth.

That's bad enough, but a recent study from the Bank of International Settlements gave us the really bad news: Our total national debt and our future entitlement liabilities, taken together, are so large that we will be in danger of national default (like Greece) unless we take drastic action immediately. How drastic? The BIS estimates that in order to achieve the very modest goal of taking our total debts back to 2007 levels over a 20-year period, we would need to move from a deficit equal to 7.1% of GDP, to a surplus of 2.4 % of GDP, and keep the budget that way for 20 years. That would require almost $1.4 trillion per year in deficit reduction, starting now. That's some serious budget-cutting.

Unfortunately, our elected officials are not yet having a serious conversation (at least not in public) about how we're going to cut spending consistent with our national priorities. Here are some conversation starters:

End the Bush/Obama bailout and stimulus policies. We should never have gone down that road, and no one should be surprised that these policies didn't work; after all, if it were possible to get richer by going deeper and deeper into debt, we wouldn't have experienced a downturn to begin with. Now that we know the policy is a flop, we need to swear off any so-called "stimulus" programs -- no more "cash for clunkers," "cash for caulkers," or cash for any other fill-in-the-blank interest group. We also need to restore some necessary fear of failure on Wall Street by repudiating the "Too Big to Fail" doctrine and declaring that the era of No Banker Left Behind is over.
Get rid of corporate welfare and other gimmicky tax credits. These tax credits proliferate under Democrats and Republicans alike because they're easy to hide in our sprawling 5.5-mllion-word tax code, and people don't usually pay a price at re-election time for giving away tax breaks. But the fact is that Congress routinely uses the tax code not just for the legitimate purpose of raising revenue, but for the less admirable purpose of throwing bones to politically connected interest groups. One recent estimate says these "tax expenditures" amount to about $1 trillion per year.
Scrub the budget with Article I in mind. We need a federal government that stays within the limits of the dozen or so powers that are granted in Article I of the Constitution. Toward that end, we should demand that Congress specify in each spending bill precisely which part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to act in that area. A few hints: Bank bailouts and investments in failing automakers are not in Article I. Neither are free colonoscopies or free prescription drugs.
Eliminate, transfer, or privatize programs we don't need. Farm subsidies are a great example of this. They were originally conceived as a way to help farmers survive low food prices, at a time when farmers typically had lower incomes than non-farmers. Now, however, farmers are on average wealthier than non-farmers, and in 2003 55% of the subsidies went to just 6% of the recipients. Yet we still spend $30 billion per year on these subsidies. The Cato Institute figures we can save $108 billion per year in the Department of Agriculture alone. Cato has some other great ideas for savings as well.
Sunset everything. Here's the good news: If you were starting from scratch and your job was to think of enough important government functions to cost $3.8 trillion dollars per year, you would almost certainly fail. You couldn't possibly dream up that much government, let alone that much necessary government. Thus, the budget problem is not that there is not enough money to fund the things we need; it's that there is so much money sloshing around in Congress that our representatives have not been very diligent about insisting on a strong showing of need each and every time a program is reauthorized.
Refocus defense spending on defense. We've gone too long thinking that fiscal policy and foreign policy are entirely separate issues. The fact is that we cannot afford our worldwide empire. I say much more about reorienting our military commitments elsewhere, but suffice it to say here that the amount we need to spend on defense is much less than the amount we currently spend.

Mark Grannis
Libertarian for Congress, Maryland District 8

Grannis explains why Libertarians are different

Q&A: Why should someone who distrusts both major parties believe the Libertarian Party is different?

Last week on Mailbag Monday, we discussed where Libertarians fit along the popular but not-very-informative left-right spectrum. This week we discuss the logical follow-up that should appeal especially to the 20% or so of 8th District voters who have learned to hate both major parties: How can any party be trusted? Why should anyone believe the Libertarian Party is different?

I love this question, because it was my question for most of the last decade. The short answer is that while most parties exist to promote the electoral success of their candidates, the Libertarian Party exists to promote Liberty, win or lose. We would rather be principled than powerful. And that’s what makes it safe to trust us with power.

As we saw last week, the Libertarian combination of views looks like an ungainly hybrid to people who are used to arranging political views along a single left-to-right spectrum. By combining fiscally conservative and apparently “pro-business” views on economic matters with socially tolerant and anti-war views, Libertarians can look to some people as if they are trying to sew an elephant’s head onto a donkey’s torso.

But if we pay closer attention, we see that the part of each major party that Libertarians combine is the principled part. Libertarians oppose government interference with individual liberty for any purpose other than to protect the person or property of another individual. This is known as the “non-aggression principle,” and it is more fundamental for Libertarians than any particular plank of the party’s platform. Thus, what may look at first blush like a mixing and matching of standard R and D positions is actually a much more consistent application of a principled preference for individual liberty over government coercion.

Neither major party accepts the non-aggression principle, but that’s not the only way they differ from the Libertarian Party. In practice, there is no political principle to which either major party is committed more strongly than it is committed to winning elections. The two major political parties exist, first and foremost, to win elections. They are private clubs that exist for the purpose of electing their members, and if they believe that changing their policy positions or even their political philosophies will help them elect more members of their club, they will change positions in a heartbeat. This has actually happened many times in the history of the Republicans and the Democrats, as any good history of those parties makes clear. (For anyone who wants to check this out, I can recommend Lewis Gould's Grand Old Party.)

Libertarians are different. If you don’t believe this, go to the Libertarian Party’s website, http://www.lp.org/, and try to join the party. Before the party accepts your membership (or your money), you will be asked to take the following pledge: “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” Libertarians don’t all agree on exactly what the pledge means, and there is sometimes room for reasonable minds to differ about what counts as protection of person or property rather than a “political or social goal." The value of the pledge, though, is that it anchors the debate around a principle that is much more protective of individual liberty than the perpetual, poll-driven pursuit of power practiced by the major parties.

The first time I thought about joining the Libertarian Party, I stopped at the non-aggression pledge. It was so broad that, even if it sounded good in theory, I wasn’t sure it would succeed in practice. After a few more years of watching the clown show we call Congress, I came to understand that it’s the unchecked pursuit of electoral power that is the ultimate practical failure. After spending years as an “unaffiliated” voter, it now seems to me that the pledge is the only reason I could consider joining any party again. It is the pledge, and the party’s principled commitment to non-aggression, that makes the Libertarian Party more trustworthy than the others.

by Mark Grannis

Dr. Richard Davis Campaign Updates

Annapolis, MD:  In an article that was published in the The Capitol, Dr. Richard Davis is mentioned in an article about the upcoming heated race in the First Congressional District.

Crisfield, MD:  On July 21, 2010 Dr. Richard Davis, Libertarian candidate for Maryland's First Congressional District, will be in attendance at the 34th Annual J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake.   The event is held the third Wednesday every July and usually attracts politicians by the dozens in an election year.

J. Millard Tawes was the 54th Governor of Maryland and a Crisfield native.  The event was named in his honor and is held at Somers Cove Marina.

Less We Can!

Mark Grannis is the Maryland Libertarian Party's Candidate for Congress in the 8th District.

Please visit his website and get a
good picture of what the Libertarian Party stands for on the issues.

Dr. Davis On The Issues - The Series

In a series of questions we have sent to Dr. Richard Davis, the Libertarian Party's Congressional Candidate for the First District, he responds with candor and honesty. Here is the first series, focusing on the reason for running, Congressional work habits, and ethics.


1. To be elected by the citizens of your district is a great honor. What is the reason that caused you to decide to run for Congress?

I decided to run for Congress when the chairman of the Maryland Libertarian Party called me in January, 2008 and asked me to run. I had no thoughts in that direction prior to his request, but I felt it was a civic duty to run when asked. I much appreciated the opportunity to publicly express my concerns with the way the political process has currently been operating in this country. Apparently the party was pleased with my performance and asked me to run again, and I felt that doing so would reinforce the sincerity of my concerns with the process and my commitment to pushing for change.

2. The work habits and rare appearances of congressmen and congresswomen in their districts seem to peak near election but the rest of the time you rarely hear a peep. What type of session schedule for Congress would you like to see? How would you schedule your appearances in your district and what would you focus on?

I would like to see Congress in session for the two months prior to passage of the budget to focus on budget issues. For the rest of the year my ideal would be to have Congress normally in session two weeks out of each month and the rest devoted to time in individual districts, with sessions in Washington extended only for national emergencies. Ultimately I would like to see Congress reduced to a part time system like many state legislatures, with congressmen returning to their districts even more of the time and even to part of the time to “real world” jobs to keep them more in touch with the lives of their constituents. I do not believe service in Congress should be a career, and if the federal government were to be eventually reduced to the limits prescribed by the Constitution I do not believe service in Congress would normally need to be a full time job.

While at home in my district, I would anticipate dividing my time between several (probably three or four) offices widely separated due to the geographic size of the first district. I would, time allowing; prefer to have at least one “town meeting” type of forum quarterly. If Congress and the federal government were to ultimately be reduced to their Constitutional limits, I would hope to maintain part-time practice in my current profession. (In such a situation I would also advocate a corresponding reduction in Congressional pay and benefits.)

3. Becoming a congressman is a position where great trust is placed in you. What changes in ethics rules that govern Congress would you work to change?

I believe any conviction for any breach in ethics should result in automatic expulsion and replacement, whether the breach is directly related to work in Congress or not. In such cases Congressional pension benefits should also be forfeit. (Actually, I would advocate the phasing out of Congressional pensions altogether, as I do not believe career positions in Congress are in the best interests of the nation.