I’m sure we’ll hear an awful lot about “limited government” from the mouths of CPAC politicians over the next few days. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said “limited government” and didn’t mean it, I’d be a very rich man.

Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don’t want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases “limited government” and “small government” like a hypnotic chant.

It’s interesting that conservatives only notice “big government” when it’s something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn’t count.

• If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn’t count.
• If a conservative wants a 700-billion-dollar bank bailout, that doesn’t count.
• If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn’t count.
• If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn’t count.
• If a conservative wants to “protect” the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn’t count.
• If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn’t count.

It’s truly amazing how many things “don’t count.”

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can’t ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.

Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.

Conservatives like George W. Bush — well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.

Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.

Some people claim that these big-government supporters aren’t “true conservatives.” Well, if a person opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes the War on Drugs, opposes border fences, and opposes mandatory Social Security and Medicare, it’s hard to believe that anyone would describe that person as a conservative at all. Most people would say that person is a libertarian (or maybe even a liberal).

Obviously, most liberals don’t want limited government either. It’s just that their support for big government leans toward massive handout and redistribution programs.

The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.

An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt’s average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan’s average was 22.3 percent of GDP. (Source: White House OMB data)

Other articles that you may enjoy

• October 23, 2008 -- With $605 million already, Obama wants more (0)
• August 7, 2008 -- US prepares for nuclear terrorism (0)
• September 11, 2008 -- Third-Parties and the philosophy of Liberty (0)
• September 18, 2009 -- Libertarian leads repeal of anti-gay law in Missouri (1)
• May 4, 2008 -- If I were President (0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other articles that you may enjoy

• May 8, 2009 -- Libertarian party growing, beating trends (2)
• May 16, 2009 -- Pro-Obama group demands Socialist media (0)
• November 13, 2009 -- Army says morale down among troops in Afghanistan (0)
• December 29, 2008 -- Transition and hope (0)
• February 15, 2010 -- Biden says Iraq war wasn’t worth `horrible price’ (0)

The New York Times recently published an article that considered Kennedy’s effect on the January 19 election. While some claim that Kennedy will steal votes from Republican Scott Brown, others think his strong support for civil liberties and his anti-war position will cause him to steal votes from Democrat Martha Coakley.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the LP, commented, “In fact, no one is ’stealing’ anything. The votes belong to the voters, not the candidates. If voters choose Kennedy over Brown, it’s probably because they understand that Brown is a typical big-government Republican. If voters choose Kennedy over Coakley, it’s probably because they understand that Coakley is a typical big-government Democrat.”

Benedict added, “If the next Massachusetts senator gets elected with less than 50 percent of the vote, blame the foolish plurality election system implemented by Republicans and Democrats — not Joe Kennedy.”

The LP is offering an online poll on its website regarding Kennedy’s candidacy.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• August 25, 2008 -- National Poll: The media love affair with Barack Obama (0)
• December 27, 2009 -- How liberty makes health care virtually universal (3)
• August 17, 2009 -- Looks like the “public option” is no longer essential (1)
• November 4, 2009 -- The Elections: A turning point, swiftly reached (0)
• September 12, 2008 -- America needs “surge” in fiscal responsibility, says Bob Barr (1)

In 2008, then-Senator Obama promised at least eight times on the campaign trail to have open, transparent negotiations regarding a health care overhaul bill. That promise has been broken. Most substantive negotiations have occurred behind closed doors, not “on C-SPAN” as the President repeatedly promised.

The LP urges President Obama and Congressional leaders to hold all future negotiations in an open, televised format, as the President promised.

William Redpath, LP National Chairman, commented, “The President has no power to force Congress to hold televised negotiations, but he is clearly the driving force behind the health care legislation being considered by the Congress. Unfortunately, the President doesn’t want to keep his promise. And, we all know why. Public approval of health care overhaul is down to about 40% and is sure to plummet further once a little sunshine is inserted into the legislative process.”

Redpath continued, “Open negotiations would let Americans see how esthetically pleasing sausage making is when compared to Congress’ negotiation process and the details of the health care legislation. The public would gain a much better understanding of how horrible this legislation is. President Obama and Democratic Party leaders probably think open negotiations would create a public groundswell that would effectively kill their ill-considered remake of one-sixth of the American economy that would likely bring the day of our next financial crisis that much closer.”

Redpath concluded, “Government has an enormous cost estimate credibility problem. When Medicare Part A started in 1965, the projected cost in 1990 was $9 billion. It turned out to be $67 billion. When Medicaid’s special hospitals subsidy was added in 1987, it was only supposed to cost $100 million per year, but, by 1992, it cost 110 times that amount. If the government is wrong by a factor of 7.5 or more this time, the result will truly be catastrophic for the US economy.”

The LP opposes both the House and Senate versions of the current health care overhaul bill.

On the subject of health care, the LP Platform states:

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• May 4, 2008 -- Only a miracle can save America now (1)
• September 16, 2009 -- ObamaCare will nullify much of the Bill of Rights! (1)
• January 7, 2010 -- What is new in the British police state? (0)
• January 4, 2007 -- Al Qaeda’s man in Washington? (0)
• September 29, 2008 -- $920 Billion more to bail out the world (0)

The LP Texas reports that 193 candidates filed.

There are three statewide offices for which no Democrat filed, meaning that the race will probably be between a Libertarian and Republican. Libertarians filed for those office as follows:

Mary J. Ruwart, an At-Large Representative of the Libertarian National Committee, filed for Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Bristol Myers and J. Randell Stevens filed for Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 2.

Dave Howard filed for Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 5.

Since state law requires 5 percent of the vote in a statewide election to retain ballot access, the LP Texas is virtually assured ballot access through 2012.

In 2006, the last mid-term election, Texas Libertarians in two-way races for statewide office received an average of about 809,000 votes. Their average percentage was 24 percent.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• March 19, 2010 -- Troops return to US Capital after 10 months in Iraq (0)
• June 23, 2009 -- Government-run health care MORE expensive than private care (0)
• February 20, 2010 -- Like it or not, government health care looms (0)
• January 12, 2009 -- Stimulating our way to rock bottom (0)
• November 12, 2009 -- The triumph of socialism (0)

Their solution? More government, of course.

But why does the cost of health care keep going up so fast? Most other products and services don’t have this problem. Food prices don’t skyrocket every year. Electronics don’t either. What is so special about health care?

I think the problem boils down to this: the government subsidizes health care very heavily. When you subsidize the purchase of something, the price goes up–that’s Economics 101. Then, since politicians use the higher price as an excuse to give even higher subsidies, you get into a vicious cycle, and prices keep rising endlessly.

Michael Munger, 2008 Libertarian candidate for North Carolina Governor, commented on this in a recent op-ed.

If the government would just get out of the health care subsidy business, I think we would see health care–drugs, doctor visits, tests, surgeries, everything–become much more affordable.

Of course, there are other problems too: too much regulation, malpractice lawsuit abuse, and so on. Libertarian Mary Ruwart has written about some of these problems in a recent article.

You won’t hear Republicans or Democrats call for ending government subsidies of health care. That would mean getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid, programs which politicians of both parties support strongly. I think they love this situation: increasing government now guarantees they’ll have an excuse to increase government even more in the future!

Republicans are railing against the Democrats’ current plans, but that’s only because the Democrats are in charge. When the Republicans had the majority, they couldn’t wait to pass their giant Medicare expansion, costing over $1 trillion (entirely debt-financed, by the way). LP Chairman William Redpath pointed this out in his response to President Obama’s health care speech.

Many congressmen are home for the recess. If you have time and are looking for ways to promote liberty and the Libertarian Party, please call your congressman again and tell them you oppose this plan, as we suggested before. Every call helps, even if just a little bit.

If you want to magnify the power of your voice 10,000 times, and have newspapers and television stations quoting you, then run for U.S. Congress.

For example, Libertarian Joseph Kennedy is participating in debates and getting plenty of press coverage as he runs for U.S. Senator in a Massachusetts special election.

Only the Libertarian Party wants the government to get out of the health care business. Only the Libertarian Party recognizes that government intrusion into health care is what causes most of the problems. I hope you’ll support us today.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• August 5, 2009 -- Iraqi government to censor Internet content (1)
• January 17, 2010 -- The missing word (1)
• June 30, 2009 -- US hands over control of Iraqi cities (0)
• February 18, 2010 -- Tea partiers should get serious (1)
• December 21, 2009 -- Payoffs for senators typical in health care bill (1)

The report also indicated that 41% of voters nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people, and that 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree that a new party is needed.

Tea parties and similar events have been held in numerous American cities over the past couple of years. Members of the Libertarian Party of Illinois (“LP Illinois”) have been instrumental in many of these gatherings:

• LP Illinois members coordinated and spoke at the fall 2008 Chicago Tax Protest
• LP Illinois members began organizing a 2009 Tax Day Tea Party BEFORE Rick Santelli called for it on television
• LP Illinois members helped to plan and coordinate the 2009 Chicago Independence Day Tea Party
• LP Illinois members coordinated and spoke at the 2009 Chicago End the Fed Rally

These demonstrations illustrate citizens’ loss of patience with politics as usual. They were about excessive taxation and runaway spending and were grassroots efforts by those in favor of limited government. The Republican Party cannot lay claim to being for small government, with its tremendous growth and the passing of the PATRIOT Act during the administration of George W. Bush.

The answer lies with the Libertarian Party. For nearly 40 years, we have adhered to the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, personal freedom, individual responsibility and a non-interventionist foreign policy. We are the true alternative for voters looking for a new direction. With so many career politicians on both sides of the aisle remaining in office for decades, how can change ever be affected without a new landscape?

Despite unfair ballot access laws in the State of Illinois passed by the Democrats and Republicans which make it time consuming and expensive for third parties to appear on the ballot, LP Illinois fully expects to field a slate of energetic candidates for the 2010 state-wide elections. We welcome the debate and the opportunity to offer the answer so badly needed.

The Libertarian Party of Illinois is a political home for those who value honesty, fairness, respect, responsibility and compassion.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• December 12, 2009 -- Are Republicans serious about fixing health care? (1)
• December 14, 2009 -- Secretary Hillary Clinton faces diplomatic security challenges (0)
• September 15, 2009 -- Senate adds $2.5 billion for C-17s to spending bill (0)
• January 14, 2007 -- Terrorist gets 30 year sentence in New York subway bomb case (0)
• August 19, 2009 -- Democratic investigators target health insurers (0)

Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the LP, said, “Rush Limbaugh should buy Obama a nice cigar. The liberal president has done exactly what the conservative leader wanted: escalate the war.”

William Redpath, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), commented, “This is further evidence that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are, at most, rhetorical. This president, whose votes made him the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, has just announced an escalation of a foreign war. His campaign promise of ‘Change’ now sounds a lot more hollow.”

Redpath continued, “Some congressional Democrats may make a rhetorical show of opposing Obama’s decision, but that is all it will be. Obama is guaranteed to get the additional troops and funding that he wants.”

Redpath continued, “Instead, Congress should re-assert its authority in matters of war, by passing legislation that terminates the president’s authorization to make war in Afghanistan, and that calls for an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. If the president vetoes it, Congress should override the veto.”

In September 2008, the LNC adopted a resolution calling for a military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Benedict commented further, “One problem with the president’s strategy is that it demonstrates a hyperinflated fear of terrorists. When we act worried and threatened, we make the terrorists feel like they’re having their intended effect, which encourages them to keep doing what they’re doing.”

Redpath continued, “According to the Cato Institute, ‘the U.S. military’s counterinsurgency doctrine says that stabilizing a country the size of Afghanistan would require far more troops than the most wild-eyed hawk has proposed: about 600,000 troops.’ President Obama is proposing to put a total of about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, which won’t come close to accomplishing anything.”

Redpath concluded, “The president’s speech was surprisingly content-free. The speech was nearly all platitudes, which is typical for politicians, particularly presidents. Will someone please restore substance to American political discourse?”

Other articles that you may enjoy

• January 18, 2008 -- Islamic charity and former Congressman indicted for terrorist financing (0)
• August 21, 2009 -- How Obama miscalculated on health care (0)
• January 1, 2010 -- Reports: Taliban suicide bombing hit CIA nerve center (0)
• June 17, 2007 -- Not our fathers’ America (0)
• July 22, 2009 -- Obama admits he’s “not familiar” with House bill (2)

In a speech on November 21st, Susan Gaztañaga stated, “A Gaztañaga administration will be a transparent administration in which citizens will know exactly where their tax dollars are going. The double burden of excessive taxation and intrusive regulation is keeping the neediest citizens of Maryland from starting businesses, creating jobs, and building a thriving economy.” She continued by saying, “If the State government sticks to its basic responsibility of providing a safe, secure environment in which people can conduct their business, maintaining our infrastructure of roads, bridges and tunnels, and providing an emergency response system, I am confident that Marylanders will be able to feed, clothe, house, educate and care for themselves and their loved ones.”

The MDLP also has five other candidates running for office in the 2010 elections. Dr. Richard Davis is running in the 1st Congressional District and Lorenzo Gaztañaga, Susan’s husband, is running for Congress in the 2nd District. For the House of Delegates Justin Kinsey is running in District 5B and Brandon Brooks has stepped up for District 11. Darlene Nichols is a candidate for Prince Georges County Council.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• December 16, 2009 -- Obama signs $1.1 trillion spending bill into law (0)
• August 5, 2009 -- Iraqi government to censor Internet content (1)
• March 15, 2010 -- States distancing themselves from the federal government (0)
• October 22, 2009 -- State issues boycott of unconstitutional federal laws (2)
• September 15, 2009 -- Senate adds $2.5 billion for C-17s to spending bill (0)

In November 2003, almost all Republican senators voted to pass the “Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003.” That was the horrible humongous Medicare expansion that ended up costing about $1.2 trillion. It was a huge federal intrusion into health care. Republican darlings like Kay Bailey Hutchison and James Inhofe were among those who voted for it.

Now Republicans are saying they oppose government expansion into health care. What a joke. A few years ago they thought it was the greatest thing in the world. Messages being sent out by the Republican National Committee are telling people that the current bill is bad because it will “cut Medicare”!

There’s only one party that really opposes government health care, and that’s the Libertarian Party. We’ve always been against it, and we’ll always be against it. But that doesn’t mean we want to force your health care into the hands of big insurance companies or big pharmaceutical companies, or subject it to the monopolizing effects of today’s licensing laws.

As our platform states, “We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.”

Thanks to everyone who called your Congressman a few weeks ago. The bill still got passed by the House, but maybe it will be weakened or killed in the Senate. I certainly hope so.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• August 11, 2009 -- Drooping polls undercut scripted protest claims (0)
• February 6, 2009 -- CBO: Obama plan damages our economy (0)
• November 13, 2009 -- Army reports possible increase in suicides for October (0)
• February 15, 2010 -- Time for question time? (0)
• February 18, 2009 -- Bank nationalization gains ground with Republicans (0)