No Means No Posted by tnerenz

Posted 02/25/10

http://timnerenz.com/content/no-means-no

There are only two types of people who can convince themselves that "no" means "yes", and that "she wanted it" is a reasonable excuse: rapists and liberal Democrats.
The American people have quite clearly said they do not want government-run health care. Polls consistently show only a third or less of us support ObamaCare in any of its mutant forms. No means no to the public.
Running against government-run health care, Republicans have won a string of special elections in deep-blue Democrat states that Mr. Obama won handily - Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. No means no to the voters.
Even Democrats like Rep. Bart Stupak and 41 others in the House stood firm against ObamaCare over the inclusion of abortion funding into health care reform. Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman and others steadfastly rejected public option. No means no to a few brave legislators.
Last week Anthem announced that California premiums will shoot up 39% this year, an increase mandated by regulation and approved by government. The latest ObamaCare proposal is so vague, the CBO refused to even estimate what it will cost taxpayers. No means no to the Congressional Budget Office.
But "no" means "yes" to the socialist Democrats calling the shots. Prepare to be violated. Knowing full well that what they propose is unconstitutional, unwanted, and fiscally suicidal, these maniacs are going to ram it down our throats anyway.
They will do so with as much anger, hatred, and loathing for their victims as any rapist could ever muster. Harry Reid's response to objections over his use of the reconciliation process - forced entry - was, "quit crying". Sorry our mascara stained your blindfold, Senator.
And they will justify their actions by telling us we wanted it, we needed it, it was good for us, we should enjoy it even. They will say we deserved it; we had it coming to us. They will claim we provoked them; prancing around half-uninsured and begging for it. It's our fault they couldn't constrain themselves - we are health sluts.
Too many Republicans want to negotiate with them, offering up groping and fondling in trade. This week they should have boycotted the crime scene; instead they will give the President and his media accomplices just the photo-op he needed to claim the act was consensual. Anything to avoid being called the "Party of No".
Libertarians don't want to be called the Party of No, either - we are the Party of Hell No.

We don't negotiate with political rapists; our message to the brutes is unequivocal: keep your filthy hands off me. And not just our health care; we want the federal government's filthy hands off our wallets, our guns, our stuff, our families, our schools, our jobs, our businesses, our churches, our clubs, our homes, our lifestyle choices, our energy, our data, and all the sovereign nations of the world.
We are tired of Democrats putting our money where their mouth is. We are equally tired of Republicans forcing us to show the courage of their convictions. Economic interventions at home and military interventions abroad have brought us to the brink of economic ruin, and the rise of the welfare state has eroded individual responsibility and deprived us of our dignity.

A century of government expansion has dimmed the memory of liberty and created an elite ruling class whose primary allegiance is to the power they stole, not to the people they stole it from. They are hoping we will forget what it means to live free and thank them for making us well-cared-for slaves to the state.

We have an answer for them: No. Hell No. Kicking and screaming and clawing at your eyes all the way to November, Buster - that's how it's going to go down.


Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Obama's Tax Strategy Posted by dutch lee

Posted 02/24/10 Last updated 02/24/10

 Progressives say Obama's tax plan won't cost tax payers more. Conservatives, reply that it's really a huge tax increase. They give examples to validate the increases, such as fees to respond to 9-1-1 calls. This argument is quickly dismissed by progressives as being states' irresponsibility, not an effect of federal tax policy. The fact that the 9-1-1 system is itself an unfunded federal mandate, seems to be of little relevance to these people, nor germane to the argument of fair taxation, or of states' inability to manage federal programs. "The Feds didn't impose this, the States chose this," seems to be their only refutation to the argument of new fees, as if it's somehow the states' fault that there is a direct, negative effect on state service fees, when the federal government shifts taxes to states.

This simplistic argument fails when we examine the affects to existing state revenue, and service fee structures, under the scrutiny of existing, unfunded, federal mandates.  Decade after decade, increases to state service fees have primarily been a direct result of states' responses to federal mandates, and the cause of much voter backlash. The states are already acting as federal agents when they enforce mandates, to now demand that states also act as revenue agents, is not only unconstitutional at the federal level, but also violates state constitutions, and usurps state authority. These new tax shifts will be an additional burden to an already over taxed citizenry, and will further inflate already bloated state bureaucracies. States will mindlessly scramble to snatch more of a dwindling revenue supply, even as the federal government scrambles to co-opt more state authority, by proxy, through the coercive use of, "creative," taxation by bloated state bureaucracies.

Additionally The vat tax, is a remarkably just and equitable tax system, but only in an environment where no other taxes can compete. However, I believe the vat tax will be the next source of additional taxes to the federal government, but only as an addition to the current tax structure. The unfortunate outcome of such events, will be a lasting, negative, impression that fair tax systems cause government failures. Capitalism will again be a victim of the misapplication of it's principles. If ALL governments were required to pay for ALL services from a single source of revenue, a super tax if you will, the only equitable point of just taxation would be at the point of sale. All other taxes are inequitable, and adding additional taxes, equitable or not, does not mitigate the injustice of the original tax.   Theodore "Dutch" Lee
Madison, WI.

Government Transparency Posted by Greg L

Posted 02/21/10 Last updated 02/21/10

Transparency is the buzzword for the first part of 2010.  Everyone is calling for more transparency in government. 

When C-Span called President Obama about campaign promises for access to health care meetings Fox News, conservative talk radio, and right wing bloggers were quick to attack.  When the White House changed course and invited republicans to come over for a telecast discussion the same crowd was quick to say the Republicans should turn down the invitation.  (My thoughts are that they should have accepted on the condition that before they start discussion on health care reform they go over exactly what areas of health care the Constitution even allows them to reform and how ... but that is a topic for another day) 

Before transparency became the hot buzzword for 2010, before then candidate Obama used it on the campaign trail in 2008, there was Illinois Government Transparency Advocacy Group  and it's founder Adam Andrezejewski. 

The mission of the Government Transparency Advocacy Group is to bring transparency, accountability, efficient service, and frugality to Illinois governments.  Andrezejewski's organization spearheaded the financial transparency movement.  His pet project was 'open books' or having government put a copy of their check register online. His biggest success was with school districts when he was able to partner with other citizen groups.

Last year Andrezejewski resigned from and announced his candidacy for Governor.  With Obama looking to distance himself from former Governor Rod Blagojevich abd the selling of his Senate seat.  With Obama looking to turn a leaf and be seen as one in favor of bipartisanship, fiscal responsibility, and government transparency it would seem like a natural move for him to step across party lines and endorse the man with a funny sounding name who has all the qualities he wished to adopt.  Obama never did that, instead it was another Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa. 

Despite being the lone true conservative in a crowded field Illinois Republicans favored career politicians Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard who are separated by only 200 votes. 

The Huffington Post sees this as a setback the TEA Party movement.  The truth is TEA Party candidates, and those who oppose government as usual, will almost always be the long shot.  They are not the career politicians, they are not members of the political establishment, they enter with little money, little name recognition, and lots of enemies in those who feed at the government trough.  To some extent just finding someone who is willing to put up the nonstop personal smears from the liberal press is a victory. 

This is not a loss is Andrezejewski if he refuses to be defeated.  It is not a loss if he uses his new found popularity to push even harder for policies which will make government more transparent.  It is not a loss if he inspires more citizens to become watchdogs who hold government accountable for their actions.  This is not a loss if Andrezejewski is able learn from this and comes back to fight the establishment with even more vigor.

You Might Be A Libertarian Posted by tnerenz

Posted 02/16/10

http://timnerenz.com/content/you-might-be-libertarian

Keep your money, keep your guns, keep your stash - any two out of three and you might be a libertarian; all three and you might be in the Libertarian Party.

This slightly irreverent pitch was how I was introduced to the Libertarian Party many years ago. It doesn't mean we advocate tax cheating, violating gun laws, and taking drugs, but it is useful shorthand to describe the three basic strands of libertarianism: economic liberty, constitutional government, and personal liberty.

Most Libertarians start out from one of those three reference points and then discover that all three are inseparable. Personal liberty and economic liberty are two sides of the same coin, and the Constitution constrains the government from taking it away.

Libertarianism (small letter "l") is a political philosophy that places Liberty - the absence of government in choice - as its first principle. This was the bold American ideal, the noble purpose for which our nation was formed, the reason we prospered. It was radical at first, then mainstream, and is now radical again.

George Washington used the phrases "liberty of conscience" and "immunity of citizenship" when describing the uniquely virtuous relationship between the American people, their government, and the Constitution that protects the former from the latter. That is eloquence that can not be improved upon.

And I believe that Liberty is still the first principle of most Americans, whether they identify themselves as Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or Independents; and especially if they are political agnostics.

Most Americans want government to keep us safe, protect our rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we see fit. Most of us do not want government to tell us what we can and can't do, what is good for us and bad for us - we have many other sources much better qualified to give us guidance in these matters.

Most of us do not want to criminalize our neighbors' choices; but neither do we want to pay for them. We treasure natural diversity, and we hate forced conformity. Look at how we dress, decorate our homes, accessorize our cars - we will spare no expense to be different. You have to confiscate our money and use it to impose uniformity upon us by force, we won't accept it voluntarily.

Most Americans want to live a Dutch Treat life - each making our own choices and paying our own way. Equality of opportunity is a buffet, while equality of outcome is prison food. This is a buffet nation; we hate prison food.

Most of us want a stout defense of our nation, but we do not want to defend any others; and we don't wish to impose our will on them by threat of force. We want to buy and sell things with other countries, not keep them dependent on our foreign aid. We want our troops brought home - defending us here, not fighting abroad for years in undeclared wars where there is no clear strategy for victory.

There are libertarian Republicans and libertarian Democrats, although it is getting more and more difficult to find them. Most Libertarians started out as one or the other of these and then decided to drop the second half of the label when they became unwelcome in their own party. Libertarian independents aren't welcome in either party - except, of course, on election day, when even candidate Obama promised to cut their taxes.

But you are all welcome in the Libertarian Party. Whether your thing is personal liberty, economic liberty, or constitutional restraint of government, you will find that the Libertarian Party is the Party of Principle, just as we claim. Today's Republicans and Democrats bear little resemblance to the parties of Goldwater and Kennedy; the divergence began in the late 1960's and led to the creation of the LP in 1971. We haven't changed; they did.

In my congressional campaign, I have used the acronym FLIP - Free trade, Limited government, Individual liberty, and Private property - to convey to people the basic pillars of my libertarian political philosophy. It is easy to remember, and more respectable than "keep your stash", especially when children are present.

Does FLIP describe your political philosophy? Have you taken the World's Smallest Political Quiz? You can find it at www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html and it only takes a minute.
You might be a Libertarian and not even know it. That's where we all started.


Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

In Exchange For What Posted by tnerenz

Posted 02/16/10

http://timnerenz.com/content/exchange-what

There are three ways to get what you want: you can a) exchange for it, b) steal it, or c) beg for it. One is morally defensible; the other two are government.

Government confiscates the earnings of productive individuals, then divvies out the spoils to those who have the most skilled lobbyists begging for them. Political Science majors will spend 4 years learning how to call it something else.

The confiscation comes in two forms: taxation of earnings, and devaluation of currency. Congress takes as much as it wants (fiscal policy), and then the Federal Reserve makes what you have left worthless (monetary policy).

The begging also comes in two forms: to gain unearned benefits for your self (social justice) or to force someone else to stop doing things you don't like (public good).

The two establishment parties differ at the margins over who to take it from, who to give it to, and who to punish; but both Democrats and Republicans embrace the steal/beg/punish model of big government. The machinery itself doesn't offend them; they just want to be the ones pulling the levers.

Libertarians are different; we reject the model; we want to dismantle the machinery. We think stealing is wrong, and begging is de-humanizing.

We believe that individual rights are inviolate. We believe your only entitlement is the pursuit of happiness; no one should deny it to you, and no one is obligated to buy it for you. It's not complicated.

This year, the federal government will confiscate $2.4 trillion of your current earnings and another $1.4 trillion of your future earnings (deficit) so it can spend $3.8 trillion of your money. In round numbers, that is $12,000 per person, $48,000 per family of four.

As Dagny Taggert famously said in the novel, Atlas Shrugged: in exchange for what?

Less than 13% of it, about $480 billion, goes for the things that we authorized the government to do in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). That's only about $1,500 apiece; freedom is not expensive.

That leaves the other 87% of federal spending going for things that are either extra-constitutional or flat out unconstitutional. Those cost us about $10,500 apiece; socialism is very expensive, a luxury good.

Imagine for a moment that taxes worked that way: only the first 13% were mandatory, and that the other 87% were voluntary. That family of four has $42,200 left over, so what does the government offer in exchange?

Would you invest in social security or would you choose a personal savings account instead?

Would you purchase private health insurance or pick Medicare knowing it was just a few years from insolvency?

What are you willing to pay to defend Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the Balkans, Iraq, and 100 other nations into perpetuity? How much for the UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, and foreign aid payments to regimes around the world?

Would you send your money to Department of Education or to your local schools? Private schools maybe, since you have $42,000 to spend as you see fit.

Would you rather fund the Department of Energy or use that money to buy some? Ditto the Agriculture Department? Go down the list: Commerce, Labor, HUD, Transportation, HHS, NASA, DEA, INS, ATF - well, maybe ATF if they gave us alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

You get the point. If we had a choice, there wouldn't be very much government, would there? We wouldn't buy all those other things with our own money, would we?

Well, it IS our money; and we DO have a choice. That choice is Tim, Not Tammy.

Like it says on my campaign website - I want to be your Congressman, not your mommy. I am not going to Washington to bring home the bacon; I am going there to shut down the slaughterhouse.

Which would you rather have - all that extra government telling you what you can't do, or the $10,500 you are paying for it? The choice is yours; I'm just running to make sure you have one.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.