Politics | Talk Of Liberty

Congress Ponders Football II

On June 11, 2010, In Thoughts, By Matt

This week, a few big college football teams announced that they will switch conferences. Some pandering politicians don’t accept that:

“Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) … said his staff is exploring options through nonprofit and antitrust laws to approach the realignments.

‘I’m concerned about what’s happening the Texas universities and the PAC 10 and what would possibly be leaving some Big 12 teams out in the cold,’ Grassley said in a Wednesday conference call. ‘All I can tell you is my staff’s looking into what can be done from a non-profit, anti-trust standpoint.’”

When will Congress realize private sports leagues are none of their business? Amazingly, big government fan Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) seems to get it:

“I just don’t know if this is a proper place for Congress to get involved…”

Those words are wonderful to hear from a Democrat. Oops — then Harkin finishes his sentence:

“…unless there is something dealing with anti-trust or something like that, like interstate commerce.”

Pushing for a thorough audit

On June 10, 2010, In MyFavoriteBlogs, By Matt

By Matt Hawes

Latest press release from Dr. Paul’s congressional office:

Paul Urges a Full and Complete Audit of the Federal Reserve
Conferees to the Financial Reform Bill have an Opportunity to Demand Full Transparency

Washington, D.C. - House Conference Committee members, which will reconcile the House and Senate versions of the financial reform bill, have been announced. Congressman Paul is pleased to note that 15 out of 31 total conferees are cosponsors of HR 1207, his bill to audit the Federal Reserve Bank.

The House-passed version of the financial reform bill contains the basic language of HR 1207 (in the Paul-Grayson amendment). However, a similar amendment offered by Senator Vitter to the Senate version was rejected by the Senate. Thus, it is essential that conferees consider adding the undiluted language of the Paul-Grayson amendment when reconciling the Senate and House versions of the Financial Reform Bill. Only the full language of the Paul-Grayson amendment will insure a thorough, complete, and ongoing audit of the Fed.

“This Financial Reform bill is set to grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, which has made a mess of our economy. If my colleagues insist on expanding the power of the Fed, the very least they can do is require the Fed to be transparent rather than secretive in its actions,” stated Congressman Paul. “Luckily, many of the conferees already have demonstrated their concern about transparency by cosponsoring HR 1207, and hopefully those conferees will insist on full transparency in the conference report.”

The House Conferees are: (Democrat/Republican) Representatives Frank, Kanjorski, Waters, Maloney, Gutierrez, Watt, Meeks (NY), Moore (KS), Kilroy, Peters, Peterson, Boswell, Waxman, Rush, Conyers, Berman, Towns, Cummings, Velazquez, Shuler, Bachus, Royce, Biggert, Capito, Hensarling, Garrett, Lucas, Barton, Smith (TX), Issa, and Graves.

Presentations on the Budget and Economic Outlook – The Prosperity Caucus was described in a recent article in The Hill newspaper as a group founded in 1986 with the purpose of “gather[ing] libertarian-minded economists, Hill staffers and academics … to hear someone talk about the …

Tagged with: Economic ideologies • Entertainment/Culture • Libertarian Party • Libertarianism • Philosophy • Political philosophy • Politics • Thought

A Voluntary FDA

On March 31, 2010, In Thoughts, By Matt

A Voluntary FDA would lower health care costs and give us access to better service and products. For argument and research sake, I really recommend everyone watch Stossel and see how the FDA Kills far more than it saves.

The best point made is when a new drug is approved and everyone celebrates how it will save 50,000 people a year. That means that for the 15 years of testing, it killed 750,000 by not being available.

The FDA should be voluntary just like Underwriters Laboratories or UL. Who are they? Look at nearly every single thing you plug in to the wall that is more than just a wire. That charger is UL tested. Everyone does it even though it is completely voluntary.

If the FDA were voluntary, anyone wanting only FDA approved would have that option. It would be the Gold Standard of approvals. If you are willing to go without the FDA it is your choice, some will some will not. By having different voluntary levels of accreditation would allow us to judge how thoroughly tested it has been. Liberals read this and say, “I would be smart enough to make a good decision but others are not”.

Matt

http://talkofliberty.com

Tagged with: FDA • Food and Drug Administration • Health/Medical/Pharmaceuticals • John Stossel • Politics • Research • UL • Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated • United States

Some Libertarian Misconceptions Answered

On March 28, 2010, In Thoughts, By Matt

There is a war of ideas going on right now. The GOP is working to reinvent itself into the hero of smaller government and appeal to the TEA PARTY movement for less government. Many leaders and important figures of the Republican Party have downplayed the important message of Libertarians. Those who try to smear the message of a Libertarian always have the role of government to a Libertarian all wrong. Let’s address this today.

Do Libertarians want zero government?

This is the biggest misconception people who have not educated themselves on Libertarian values label the party with, however it is completely false. Those people have confused Anarchist with Libertarian; however this is why they have separate names. Libertarians do not believe in Anarchy or no government, we believe in limited government. Limited means government’s role should be, protecting individual’s property. In the eyes of a Libertarian, that property extends much further than just my home. My property is my body, my labor, my car, anything I have ownership of is my property. When I put in 60 hours a week to better my life, that paycheck is my property.

Libertarians are not foolish enough to think bad guys do not exist. I believe they do, and that is why we have a strong judicial system where those who commit a crime are to be punished. This is exactly what government is intended for. If a country wishes to invade us, clearly we would need a strong national defense to repel them. This translates to all levels down to the local level. Local government is best for protecting its local citizens from local threats like thieves, rapist, and murderers.

When a contract is created, we believe that contract represents both parties claim to property rights. If a contract is not being honored, government should enforce that contract in order to keep both parties accountable, again a very reasonable expectation of government.

We believe in smaller government for most other things. Almost any other function of government should be considered for privatization. I recently heard of the Yellow Page test. If there are three or more companies offering a service, government should not be in that business. I will post more on how I privatization of services should be embraced, but that is for another day. Until then, if you are a true Republican, then you are a Libertarian.

Matt

http://talkofliberty.com

Tagged with: Economic ideologies • Libertarian Christianity • Libertarian Party • Libertarian socialism • Libertarianism • Libertarianism in the United States • Local government • Political philosophy • Politics • Republican Party • Social philosophy

How Will Republicans Save America From Big Government?

On March 22, 2010, In Thoughts, By Matt

I have been watching the country get driven into socialism and crushed further into debt. So now on TV they (conservatives) are saying it is going to be up to the Republicans to get voted in and save us all from socialism this November. My question is what has a Republican done to shrink government? I do not believe in Republicans anymore, they have failed me.
In my life I have seen bigger government and more spending each every step of the way with Republicans. You have Republicans like Scott Brown who votes for jobs bills spending more Keynesian spending that has never worked in history. How will Republicans cut spending and balance the budget?

Republicans still believe in the Laffer Curve from the Reagan days. The biggest misconception with the Laffer Curve is not that lower taxes are better, instead the Laffer Curve is a tool to figure out what the maximum tax rate the government can get away with. Common sense says a tax rate of 0 would be best economically. Yes I understand we do need government and military, but the point is we need a smaller government not the largest one we can get away with.

Are Republicans willing to balance the budget in 2012 if they win the majority back? Are they willing to cut the military spending in half? Can a single Republican tell me how they will balance the budget and or what they would be willing to cut? I have not found a single one who can. Republicans may be a big winner in November, but unless we get leaders like Governor Chris Christie who is taking the Unions head on and slashing spending, we will continue down the road to serfdom.

I saw Sean Hannity stumped when asked what would he cut from the budget, yet he is the first to say he hates deficits. I am skeptical the Republicans will practice what they preach.

Tagged with: Arthur Laffer • Big Government • Business/Finance • Chris Christie • Common Sense Trust II Emerging Growth Fund • Economic theories • Economics • Governor • Laffer curve • Politics • Republican Party • Ronald Reagan • Scott Brown • Sean Hannity • Tax cut • Unions head

The Hidden Costs Of Health Care Reform 2 Trillion?

On March 18, 2010, In Thoughts, By Matt

The CBO has returned with the estimated cost of the next ten years of health care reform. A mere $940,000,000,000.00 dollars for ten years. This is likely to be completely wrong and end up costing far more for Americans since it will destroy even more levels of competition through oppressive new regulations and mandates.

One overlooked fact regarding this comprehensive reform package is how it will basically cost $1 trillion dollars to cover an extra 31 million people. I question the idea that those 31 million do not have coverage since half of them are young in between jobs youth who probably do not even need coverage. Regardless, the average cost per person will be a staggering 3000 dollars per year for ten years to cover them for ten years, but the reality is it will cover them for 6 years meaning it is closer to $5,000 per person. Keep in mind, half of this pool is a low risk pool with little cost to cover.

The second overlooked cost of HC reform is the fact that the trillion is the cost of 31 million extra to be covered. What about the other 200 million people who already have insurance? Democrats state that this will lower the cost of insurance for employers to pay for or individuals to buy. I ask how? This bill changes nothing regarding competition or reducing regulations which drive up prices. The only thing in this bill is more coverage mandates. This will no doubt cost everyone more in the bigger picture over the next ten years. Let’s be extremely gracious to the democrats plan and only assume this bill adds additional costs of $100 dollars a year to everyone else, it would add an additional 2 trillion dollars in cost. This is an additional 2 trillion dollars that will pay for red tape not creating a job or healthier people.

Because there is nothing in this bill that increases competition and it was written by pharmaceutical executives, that means this bill can only lower costs through price controls which have never succeeded and always lead to rationing with less supply than demand. This bill will most likely suck at least another 3 trillion dollars out of our economy and divert it to unproductive areas, lowering the overall capacity of wealth generation in our economy. Small businesses will likely be crushed initially since it will takes months to find loopholes around regulations rather than pay for them.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Tagged with: Economics • Finance • Financial economics • Health care in the United States • Health care reform in the United States • Health/Medical/Pharmaceuticals • Healthcare reform in the United States • Insurance • pharmaceutical executives • Politics • USD

Peter Schiff For Senator Of Connecticut

On March 17, 2010, In Thoughts, By Matt

As a big fan of Peter Schiff, I am confident he is exactly what Washington needs right now. I hope you voters in Connecticut realize what an opportunity you have to send an incredibly intelligent person who understands how government is destroying jobs.