They Can't Even Answer a Simple Question

Did you notice at the debate the other night that neither Obama nor McCain, even when pressed over and over, would answer a simple question: how would a Wall Street bailout of $700 billion affect your spending/budget plans?

Their bobbing and weaving was a disgrace. Had Bob Barr been in that debate, we know first of all that he would have answered the question, and, second, that he not only wouldn't be supporting a bailout but would be slashing federal spending to actually take a chunk out of the deficit, not increase it, like the other candidates will.

There is only one reasonable choice for fiscal conservatives: Bob Barr.

Let's Keep This Simple: NO!!!!

Fiscal conservatives who believe in the free market shouldn't be supporting a bailout of Wall Street. Bob Barr makes that clear in this press release from his campaign:

Congress Should Vote ‘No’ on Bailout, Says Bob Barr

September 29, 2008 12:59 pm EST

Atlanta, GA – “The leaders of both the Republican and Democratic Parties are rushing ahead with their $700 billion bill,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “Without a single hearing and without considering other solutions, Congress is preparing to put the typical American family on the hook for more than $8,000. Legislators in both parties need to stand up for the American people and say no,” says Barr.

“If bailouts are the answer, why hasn’t the $300 billion housing bailout worked? What of the $100 or more billion bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?” Barr asks. “This bailout package doesn’t resolve the underlying problems. It merely transfers the liabilities to the taxpayers,” he observes. “Instead, we need to make Wall Street take the hit for its irresponsible investment decisions.”

“The process will be painful. Some companies will go bankrupt. Some firms will go into receivership. Healthy companies will take over failing institutions,” Barr adds.

“Instead of bailing-out banks and investors, Congress should address the causes of today’s economic mess. The first is to end government pressure for irresponsible lending. That means privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and repealing the Community Reinvestment Act. It also means depoliticizing the nation’s money supply. The Federal Reserve cannot continue artificially inflating the money supply, which creates the illusion of a boom that is inevitably followed by a bust,” observes Barr.

“The government needs to investigate and prosecute fraud. It also needs to adjust accounting rules, such as ‘mark-to-market,’ which threaten the balance sheets of sound companies. We need to streamline complicated regulations that have not created transparency for customers and investors. And we need to look at any rules that make it harder for companies to make the necessary adjustments themselves,” says Barr.

“The bailout bill is not only bad because it forces innocent taxpayers to pay off irresponsible bankers and investors, but because the bill creates an excuse for more extensive federal economic meddling—setting corporate salaries, receiving stock in companies, and 'adjusting' mortgage terms. Once the government gets into these areas of the economy, it isn’t likely to get out,” Barr warns.

Finally, Barr explains, “we must force the federal government to get its fiscal house in order. The national debt already is $9.5 trillion. Social Security and Medicare currently threaten us with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities,” Barr says. “Just where will this new $700 billion come from?”

“With the economic crisis upon us, painful adjustments are inevitable. Instead of bailing-out those who made the mess and slowing down the adjustment process, Congress needs to get out of the way. Its job is to fix government policies that have made things worse. The job of the American people is to replace those politicians who created the failed policies—and who today think the answer is to conscript the public’s money to pay off failed businessmen. Only by voting for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party will the American people be voting for the change that is necessary."

What About Spending????

If you take a serious look at either McCain's or Obama's proposed budgets, neither one is taking spending or the deficit seriously. Bob Barr says that we need a "surge" in fiscal responsibility. Again, he, not John McCain, is taking the classic Republican approach to the issue. Read about it here.

Stop the Bailouts!

This government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should convince you that neither Democrats nor Republicans favor small government. The Barr campaign had this to say about it:

" I am sure you must be as angered as I am by the government take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This taxpayer rip-off is guaranteed to cost you and me billions. . . and who is to benefit?

First and foremost, THE BANK OF CHINA. That's right, the government bank in the People's Republic of China. Among others, numerous countries in the middle east and institutions around the world are also benefiting. Billions and billions are being sent overseas at our expense.

What do Senators McCain and Obama say about this government nationalization of our home lending system? They are both reported to be supportive.

I can tell you unequivocally, that Presidential candidate Bob Barr opposes this bail out!

Why? Because our tax dollars are being used (once again - remember Bear Stearns?) to fatten the bank accounts of speculators who bought bad loans. This is a case of the government rewarding those who took high-risk investment positions and were about to lose. . .

And where is Congress through all of this? Today they are back from a six week vacation and after just three more weeks, they quit work for the rest of the year! Between lengthy paid vacations, you can be sure they will be privately encouraging federal regulators and bureaucrats to bail out their friends. You see, Congress is paid handsomely - in the form of campaign contributions and other gifts - to make sure that the wealthy are protected from their own mistakes.

Do you need still more evidence that the only ones to benefit from this bail-out are foreign investors and Wall Street, check out all the major stock exchanges TODAY and you'll see massive gains that you are paying for.

John McCain and Barack Obama support this. No surprise there. Bob Barr is alone in blowing the whistle on this multi-billion bail out."

"But What Would the Republicans Actually Do?"

After Sarah Palin's speech last night, Bob Barr asks, and answers, that question here.

Sarah Palin Tried to Ban Books??

If this is true, and it is reported in Time magazine, not on Daily Kos, so it has the ring of truth to it, one of Sarah Palin's first acts as mayor was to try to ban certain books from the local library. Book-banning is about as antithetical to freedom and liberty and about as big-government as you can get.

Talk is cheap, Governor Palin. You speak of small government, but try to ban books? No person who loves freedom and liberty should vote for McCain/Palin.

Sarah Palin, a.k.a. Don't Get Sold a Bill of Goods

There are certainly things for conservatives to like about Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice for VP. She is, generally speaking, a fiscal conservative and has shown a fair measure of independence from the more doctrinaire party types in her state. However, let's keep in mind a couple of critical points before John McCain suddenly becomes your candidate instead of Bob Barr:

(1) Sarah Palin is horrendously underexperienced. Right now the Democrats have nominated a candidate for president who has not yet finished his first term in the US Senate and who was, not very long ago, just another state legislator in Illinois. The Republican Party, apparently keen to throw away the lack-of-experience argument, has nominated someone whose views may mesh with your own more than, say, Barack Obama's, but good Lord, she is actually less experienced than Obama. Do we know a thing about this person's foreign-policy views or her qualifications to address foreign-policy issues? This is not a game of "pick the attractive candidate who occasionally says the right things." Selecting a vice-president is serious business. With John McCain a cancer survivor and already 72 years old, Sarah Palin could very well be carrying around the nuclear briefcase in the near future. That ought to worry you...a lot.

(2) The top of the ticket is still John McCain, and that should to be a deal-breaker for conservatives and all those for whom liberty is the main issue. As I've written over and over, McCain is no friend of freedom. He is a big-government type eager to spread his "national greatness" theory (perversely and incorrectly labeled "conservatism") around the world. He has brought us the debacle of campaign-finance reform, a foreign policy that is positively expansionist in its reach, and a disdain for individualism and liberty that is staggering.

There has been some talk in the media that the Palin pick is meant to bring home conservatives to the GOP, and, presumably, away from Bob Barr's candidacy. Don't believe the hype. If picking a first-term governor who occasionally walks the walk (e.g., her record on gun rights is excellent) on the issues, but has not a clue about foreign policy--and quite possibly not much more about national domestic policy--would be all John McCain needed to do to get your vote, I would immediately wonder how likely you were to cast a vote for freedom and liberty in the first place. True conservatives were more principled and intelligent than to accept John McCain as their president before he picked Sarah Palin for VP, and they still are in the wake of this puzzling nomination. Vote Barr '08 and stop the nonsense.