The following letter was sent to our three area Congressmen (Barletta, Marino, & Thompson, as well as Senators Toomey and Casey. Feel free to borrow from it in your own admonitions to our representatives in Washington...
Dear Representative,
The members of the Tea Party in your district would like to express our most sincere wishes that you vote "NO" to raising the national debt ceiling. No matter the concessions offered, raising the debt ceiling can only indicate a willingness of the citizens to suffer more government borrowing. We give no such consent under any circumstances.
Thomas Jefferson admonished, "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." The public credit has already been tapped beyond any reasonable ability to repay within the current generation. This has invariably committed the youth, and even the unborn, of this nation to a liability that they had no hand in creating and were given no possible voice in opposing. This amounts to taxation without representation and is a treacherous malfeasance toward both our founding principles and our posterity.
We are facing a serious and imminent danger to our currency and our future ability to provide even the core, basic government functions as a result of the exponentially growing national debt and unfunded liabilities. For the past few decades, the United States has enjoyed the unique advantages of issuing the reserve currency of the world, including unnaturally low interest rates despite our inflationary practices. But all good things must come to an end, particularly when abused. The Federal Reserve is now actively buying U.S. Treasury notes by expanding the money supply – the last recourse of banana republics!
The U.S. national debt is the biggest subprime adjustable rate loan of all time. The average Treasury debt maturity is just 4.6 years. The current teaser rate of 2.99% cannot and will not last even under normal circumstances, let alone when the Fed is engaging in "quantitative easing". Already, commodity prices are off to the races. Measured in gold, oil, cotton, or wheat, the U.S. Dollar is quickly losing its value.
The last time we had significant inflation, 5-year bonds in 1981 averaged 14.25%. If rates rise to similar levels again -– which is not only possible, but likely -– then between refinancing of current debt and new borrowing to meet ongoing deficits, the annual interest on the national debt could rise to more than $3 trillion inside of five years. That's more than the government receives in total revenues! In other words, the entire budget will go solely to debt service with nothing left over for any agencies, entitlements, or military whatsoever.
But there will likely be a run on our sovereign debt long before it even gets that far, just like in Greece. But unlike with Greece, there is nobody to bail us out. We will either default or we will hyperinflate -– i.e. print money to cover our debts, with devastating results. Neither course is acceptable.
The only path to the future solvency of our nation is through austerity. We simply cannot afford to take on any more debt. Even Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have acknowledged that the national debt is the greatest threat to our country –- greater than any foreign military, extremist group, or social injustice. We must take no measures off the table when it comes to figuring out how to live within our means. Every agency, program, entitlement, and military endeavor must undergo rigorous cost-benefit analysis to determine which will receive funding and which will be cancelled. If we do not cut a large portion of them now, then we won't be able to fund any of them in the very near future.
It has recently become obvious that there is no political will on either side of the aisle to make significant enough budget cuts to avert dire consequences. Neither Republican nor Democrat proposals reduce the deficit by any meaningful amount.
We believe that a Balanced Budget Amendment is critical to the permanent fiscal health of our government. But even the hope of passing such an amendment does not trump the need to cap our debt at present levels right now. The current House proposal, H.J.RES.2, would not take effect until 2016, even if it passed and became the law of the land, which is by no means assured. As we have seen, 2016 may very well be too late to fix our runaway debt.
It is therefore imperative that you fight to prevent the debt limit from being raised. No consequence from doing so can possibly compare with the catastrophic fiscal collapse which will result from maintaining our present course.
Thank you for being a true representative of the citizens you serve.
|
Congressman Glenn Thompson (joined by Congressmen Tom Marino & Tom Reed) discussed and read from the Williamsport Tea Party Scroll, which I authored, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 9th:
Click here to view the video on C-SPAN
I was very pleased to have our grievances aired in this manner to the government. And I liked how he prefaced his discussion with talk about unintended consequences. However, I think our message is only being half told in regard to the unintended consequences of government interference. And in some cases, we are probably only half telling it as well, with unfortunate results. Please follow me as I explain.
Most of you know or have a deep suspicion that government interference in the economy is not the solution to our economic problems, but the very cause of them. Every time government interferes, it creates widespread unintended consequences. These consequences are often hard to directly link back to the action which caused them because they may be many levels deep from the initial action rather than the immediate consequence.
For example, let's say that government hypothetically institutes a price cap on corn because consumers find corn-based products getting too expensive. Level 1 reaction is that prices stop increasing (yea for consumers!). Level 2 reaction is that farmers suffer losses on corn crops because costs exceed revenues. Level 3 reaction is that farmers stop planting corn and move on to more profitable crops. Level 4 reaction is that there are shortages of corn relative to demand. Level 5 reaction is that there are shortages of corn-based ethanol (which is required as an octane booster in all gasoline). Level 6 reaction is that ethanol prices increase substantially. Level 7 reaction is that gasoline pump prices increase substantially.
At level 7, only 1 in 100 people realize that higher gas prices are caused by government interference in corn prices. So little is it understood -- so few can follow the chain of events -- that those who don't understand it call those who do "conspiracy theorists". They instead blame "greedy oil companies" for the prices instead of the true culprit -- government. The populist response is then to demand that government "do something" to fix it. This of course compounds the problem. Government institutes price controls on gasoline for instance. And subsidizes corn farmers. These actions likewise cause ripples of unintended consequences, not the least of which is increased taxes on consumers. Moreover, a black market emerges to circumvent these actions. The true solution is for government to repeal their existing interference and stop making things worse. When government interference goes awry, the solution is to stop interfering. That means stopping the "stimulus" and "bailouts" and "subsidies" and "regulations" and letting people keep their own money and make their own financial decisions.
I hope you're in agreement so far. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance or outright denial amongst many conservatives though in understanding that this very same principle applies to foreign relations as well. The world will normally go about its business in a relatively free market fashion such that our trade partners view us positively (because of what free trade with us provides for them) and others are ambivalent or neutral. Nobody else in the world much cares how free/enslaved, rich/poor, moral/amoral, etc., we may be, other than in their decisions to immigrate or not. This is why our founders urged us to remain free of foreign entanglements and to peacefully trade with those who wished to do so. But when our government goes out and interferes in the world, it creates ripples of unintended consequences.
For example, let's say that the government hypothetically sends agents into a country to launch a coup because the democratically-elected government there instituted trade barriers which made their products costly to American consumers. Level 1 reaction is that a military dictatorship is established at the cost of many lives. Level 2 reaction is that trade barriers are repealed making the products cheap again (yea for consumers!). Level 3 reaction is that the dictatorship institutes repressive domestic policies with American-supplied resources, killing many of that country's citizens and provoking anti-American sentiment. Level 4 reaction is that an insurgency forms, plotting to overthrow the dictatorship. Level 5 reaction is that the insurgency realizes that the dictatorship is too strong so long as it has American support. Level 6 reaction is that the insurgency hatches a plan to sever American support through strategic attacks on non-military targets, as attacks on military targets are far too difficult to successfully execute. Level 7 reaction is that a "terrorist attack" kills thousands of innocent Americans.
Once again, at level 7, only 1 in 100 people realize that the terrorist attack was caused by government interference in a foreign country. So little is it understood -- so few can follow the chain of events -- that those who don't understand it call those who do "conspiracy theorists". They instead blame "religious extremists" for the attacks instead of the true culprit -- government. The populist response is then to demand that government "do something" to fix it. This of course compounds the problem. Government institutes unconstitutional search, travel, speech, and other anti-freedom controls on its own citizens. They may even launch a war against the foreign dictatorship which they helped institute and finance in the first place. These actions likewise cause ripples of unintended consequences, not the least of which is more killings and terrorist attacks. Once again, the real solution is for government to repeal their existing interference.
The U.S. has helped overthrow countless governments, many of them democratically elected. Our government has provided aid to countless oppressive regimes in order to support our interests (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, the Khmer Rouge, King Abdullah, Pervez Musharraf, Shah Pahlavi, and many others). Our government has over 600 military bases, with millions of personnel, located in almost 60 separate countries. Our government has our military conducting operations or exercises in some 100 different countries. These actions have caused blowback. The solution is not to impose more government interference -- neither at home nor abroad. When government interference goes awry, the solution is to stop interfering. That means stopping the "police actions" and "humanitarian aid" and "nation building" and bringing our troops back to our own borders.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the House Homeland Security Committee today that the terrorist threat is at its highest level since 9/11. That's interesting timing considering the Patriot Act is up for renewal and the TSA is suffering significant public outrage. The Patriot Act, contrary to its name, is among the most unpatriotic, unconstitutional, anti-freedom laws ever to come out of Congress. And the TSA is no less intrusive than the Gestapo; and also apparently beyond judicial oversight. Is it any wonder that the chief beneficiary of those powers is trying to scare us into acquiescing to their abuses? BTW, President Obama is all in favor of those abuses now that he's in control! He wants the Patriot Act extended through the end of his term in office. But as limited government advocates, why would we persist in allowing this pervasive interference which is contributing to the very problems they claim to address?
Our newly elected Republican majority -- declaring adherence to Tea Party principles, espousing the need to remove government intrusion from our lives -- has nonetheless voted overwhelmingly to extend the Patriot Act provisions otherwise set to expire! Thankfully the measure failed since it was a special expedited procedure, a "suspension of the rules" (meant to prevent any debate of the topic!), which means that it required two-thirds majority. But they failed that by only seven votes. And the method they used to try to pass it is polar opposed to the legislative responsibility we have demanded and to which they have paid lip service.
You cannot fight terrorism by taking away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens any more than you can fight an economic depression by taxing and borrowing. Terrorism is an unintended consequence of government interference overseas. The solution is to end the interference. End the undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Close down the vast majority of our overseas military bases, especially the ones most opposed by the native populations, such as in Saudi Arabia.
The presence of U.S. troops and American support of the ruthless king in Saudi Arabia was the self-declared reason #1 why Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. Our occupation of the Muslim "holy land" is a provocation of the entire Muslim world, particularly those -- Al-Qaeda -- dedicated to overthrowing the dictatorial regime governing it. Bin Laden's fatwa stated this clearly: "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."
Sanctions against Iraq was the self-declared reason #2 why Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. He called it "the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known". Most Americans never even knew the effects our sanctions wrought, but they were devastating -- hyperinflation, poverty, and malnutrition which claimed upwards of a million lives. In all honesty, how can such a thing not provoke consequences?
We must face facts. We are not at risk of terrorist attacks because the FBI doesn't have enough power to search Americans without warrants any more than we're at risk of a double-dip recession because the Federal Reserve needs greater control over our bank accounts. Our problems come from big government over-reaching and failing to consider seven levels of consequences from what they do. Our issue is not too little government, but too much.
The Patriot Act expands the government's ability to search your private property without notice and to look into your records held by third parties, including your internet browsing behavior, financial documents, phone records, medical history, library usage, travel patterns, etc. The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," meaning that all of this expanded authority is not restricted to investigations of foreigners, but to citizens like you. The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written. Maybe even this email. And BTW, law enforcement has tried to label Tea Party groups as potentially terrorists! Having a copy of the Constitution in your possession or citing the Constitution is considered a suspicious act!
FBI director Robert S. Mueller III conceded in 2007 that the bureau had improperly used the Patriot Act to obtain information about people and businesses. He said that national security letters, which allow the bureau to obtain personal records from telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit companies, and other businesses without a judge's approval, were improperly and illegally used, sometimes even against the wrong people by mistake. They used "exigent letters", under the guise of emergencies when no emergency existed, to obtain records. They infiltrated phone companies, permanently stationing employees there. The abuses go on and on, all without any judicial oversight or consequences. And this isn't just a few times either -- the Electronic Frontier Foundation obtained records through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which revealed upwards of 40,000 abuses of spying powers! The situation did not improve with Inspector General audits the following few years either, even though the FBI, Congress, and everyone were aware of what was going on. And never mind the confessed abuses -- the "legal" uses of the Patriot Act infringed on Americans' constitutionally-protected privacy hundreds of thousands to millions of times!
There's a reason why we have a Bill of Rights. The founders knew what they were doing. Jefferson said that if we had a government of angels, we would need no Bill of Rights. Clearly our government are no angels!
Even the authors of the Patriot Act had some inkling of how dangerous it was. They specifically intended parts of it to sunset (i.e. expire) after the immediate threat of 9/11 had passed. But of course government never wants to give up any power or get any smaller, so these provisions have been renewed year after year, through both Republican and Democrat majorities. This has gone on far too long. We must demand that Congress respect the sunset provisions and allow them to expire. Moreover, we should insist on a full repeal of the entire can of worms!
The bill to extend the Patriot Act is almost certain to come up again very soon under normal procedures which only requires a simple majority to pass. The three provisions will otherwise sunset on February 28th. Our representatives failed the small government test the first time around. Thompson, Marino, and Barletta all voted in favor of the extension. If we are to defend the Constitution, retain our natural rights, and stop the expansion of government, we must draw a line in the sand here. The Patriot Act shall not be extended.
I know that our Congressmen can be morally courageous and oppose the will of leadership in order to represent their constituents. We just have to make sure we tell them that we will no longer suffer unconstitutional infringements on our natural rights in the name of safety.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
On this we cannot budge. The Patriot Act was passed through fear by a Congress that did not read it. It is contrary to everything we hold dear. I'm not terrified by the exceedingly remote prospect of being injured or killed by a foreign guerilla fighter. I'm terrified by the prospects of government gone wild. And hundreds of thousands of warrantless searches directed at innocent Americans only makes us more at risk of terrorist attacks, not less, as the FBI is consumed with power lust instead of genuine concern for our safety.
Abraham Lincoln said it well: "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
No terrorist bomber can ever take our Constitution away from us. That can only be done by our elected officials. And that is the only way our nation of freemen will perish.
If our Tea Party bills -- Read the Bills Act, Write the Laws Act, One Subject at a Time Act, and Enumerated Powers Act -- were law, the Patriot Act could never have been passed. Nor could this extension attempt have been pushed through while "suspending the rules". This clearly demonstrates why we cannot be content with mere House rules to enforce legislative responsibility. We need laws with actual teeth to make sure that bills are read by everyone who votes on them, that they are posted online a week before any vote is cast, and that they cite their constitutional authority. And until our bills become law, we should expect our Congressmen to cast their votes as if they were law -- i.e. oppose anything brought to vote under a suspension of rules, anything which fails to cite or have any constitutional basis, and anything which has not had plenty of public notice and debate.
I and the Williamsport Tea Party are working with these Representatives to sponsor the above cited legislation which will support the principles discussed in our scroll. We are also reaching out to Congressman Lou Barletta and Senator Pat Toomey, among others, to form a coalition to make real legislative reforms to help shrink government.
Sincerely,
Thomas Anderson
|
| DAVID R. MILLARD (REP) | 10,991 | 64.91% |
| DAN RAE (DEM) | 4,980 | 29.41% |
| THOMAS ANDERSON (LIB) | 940 | 5.55% |
As I truthfully expected, I did not win the seat in the General Assembly. That's the immediate take away from these results. However, there's much more to learn from them and to consider overall. But first, I'd like to thank my few but tireless volunteers for their valiant effort. In the polls that we manned, we received plentiful positive feedback. Many people were sincerely appreciative for an alternative to the two big government candidates. And quite a few only learned of that option outside of their polling location thanks to our volunteers.
What that means is that if we were to attempt this again, we would certainly need more volunteers to cover all of the locations. But also that we would need much more outreach prior to election day too. The lack of these things stemmed from too small of an organization, too little experience, and not enough time or resources.
For the most part, besides the appreciated help collecting signatures in May and June and at the polls on election day, and the people who placed signs in their yards, this campaign was a one-man-show. I wrote all of the position statements, letters to the editor, press releases, blogs, etc., built the website, designed the postcards, business cards, and signs, ordered all materials, placed most of the signs, dealt with all correspondence, planned all appearances, researched and prepped for debates, established online ads, paid for everything out of pocket, and on and on. All this while also working full-time, running a business part-time, actively participating in the planning and execution of a Tea Party rally, directly managing my stock portfolio, building a house, practicing self-sufficiency measures, and planning for my first child. I say this not to brag or to seek pity, but to point out that this is not an efficient or practical way to run a campaign. Needless to say, I didn't sleep much during the past month or so. If I were to be a candidate again, I would require significantly more dedicated help up-front.
This election also confirmed all of my assumptions about running as a third party. Even if we got all of the above right, we still would not have fared significantly better. Well, maybe three times better, but still short of winning the seat. I can say that absolutely because Tim Mullen ran a superbly organized campaign in the 120th district, complete with fancy office space, tons of volunteers, lots of donations, door-to-door campaigns, phone banks, signs galore, et cetera. The incumbent Democrat was visibly frightened. Still, Mullen garnered just 15% of the vote. So long as we have a winner-takes-all system (as opposed to an instant run-off system, for example) we cannot fight the "wasted vote" or "lesser evil" syndromes. Many people told me they had to vote for either Rae or Millard so that the other wouldn't win, even though they preferred me to either of them. If we couldn't overcome this issue during this election, at a time during which people are uniquely frustrated with both big parties, I'm afraid it's just not possible without changing our voting system.
Even when one of the two major parties isn't running a candidate, such as in the 64th district where Libertarian Vance Mays went up against a Republican only, the Libertarian still only got 16% of the vote, probably because Democrats voted straight ticket instead of voting against the Republican for a socially liberal, pro-choice alternative. As if most voters even bothered to learn the candidate's positions...
Also, while the turnout was spectacular for a mid-term election, still less than 50% of registered voters actually cast a vote. If we couldn't get people interested even in light of the Tea Party movement, how can we possibly engage the disenchanted and discouraged majority? I submit that won't happen until we shrink government enough so that politicians aren't bickering about which constituency to steal from in order to provide which other constituency with special benefits. But that's a Catch 22. How to shrink government if the people won't elect downsizer candidates? The only method I can imagine is to give them little other choice.
In 2012, I hope and expect that Ron Paul will again seek the Presidency. As with in 2008, I will switch parties in order to vote for him in the primary. Ron Paul was also once a Libertarian. He surely came to the same conclusion I did above, which is that it's just not possible to be elected in our system as a third party. And while the Libertarian Party perfectly fits my philosophy, pragmatism necessitates that if I am to run again, it should be within the two-party framework. As such, if I were to run in 2012, it would be as a Ron Paul Republican. That means that I would have to challenge David Millard (if he seeks re-election) in the primary. This means that, if elected in the primary, then I can be the "lesser evil" instead of the spoiler in the general election. That's what I meant above about giving them little other choice.
If you would like to see me run in 2012, I first ask that you please register on this website so that I have your contact information. I won't even consider running unless I have at least 30 people register their contact info. This will be a pool of potential volunteers. When the time nears to start thinking about the next election, I'll contact everyone and ask for at least a minimal commitment. I won't run unless I have at least 15 committed volunteers, one of which will be campaign director and another treasurer. If I have this in time to mount a serious primary challenge, then I will do so.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. We did accomplish much in this election. For one thing, approximately 1 in 18 people voted for me. That's really not too bad. And although I will not represent you in the General Assembly, I did steer the focus of this election and forced the candidates not only to debate on my terms, but to actually adopt some of my positions. That's a huge win. It was great hearing David Millard start talking more like a libertarian on some issues. Now let's ensure he doesn't forget. We need to keep the pressure on. We need to be vocal about our demands. This election was not a mandate to support big government Republicans. It was a knee-jerk reaction to big government Democrats. If Republicans want continued support, and if our representative wants to actually represent his constituents, then they and he must support measures to downsize government, not just forestall more growth. That means repealing State laws and nullifying unconstitutional Federal laws. It also means no new taxes, especially a gas severance tax. We must demand more liberty and free markets. I got lots of press coverage during the campaign which exposed many libertarian ideas. Let's not let up on that... we must continue to submit letters to the editor and otherwise make ourselves heard. I will be doing this to the best of my ability and I would appreciate other voices as well. A good media campaign well in advance of the next political season will prepare voters for the ideas I will present again as a candidate, allowing us to hit the ground running with a deep base of support.
When viewed in this light, the present election was an excellent learning opportunity, a vehicle for voter education and outreach, and also significant preparation for another run in 2 years -- if and only if you indicate your commitment to help in that endeavor.
|
No More Lesser Evils We have had a duopoly of political machines in this country for far too long. They have molded the mechanisms of politics via gerrymandering, debate commissions, ballot access, campaign finance laws, media relationships, and other means to secure their permanent entrenchment against the popular will. It has gotten to the point where only 40% of people vote because the other 60% can't bring themselves to vote for a lesser evil.
It's time for this voting block of discouraged, disillusioned patriots -- who merely want the option to vote for constitutional government -- to stand up and assert themselves. I'm providing the means for you to do so. You can vote for someone who will strictly adhere to the limits set forth in the Constitution and who will defend individual liberty against the relentless onslaught of big government.
You have a choice this election between the two wings of the big government party represented by Mr. Millard and Mr. Rae, or your smaller government alternative represented by me, Thomas Anderson. It’s a choice between the status quo which got us into our present economic mess, and someone who will take us back to our founding principles which made us great in the first place.
Both Mr. Millard and Mr. Rae have shown no reservations about wanting to impose a gas severance tax on you. And make no mistake, it is a tax on YOU. A severance tax will very likely prevent most of this region from ever receiving a gas lease. And in those places already leased with drilling planned, a severance tax will take 10% of your royalty payments – that’s on top of your 35% federal income tax, 3% state income tax, municipal and school property taxes, and then 6% of whatever you actually have left to spend!
And where do your big government politicians want to send YOUR money? Not to protecting the local environment and roads. Less than 8% will be earmarked for that. They want to send your money, our regional economy’s money, to Harrisburg and the general slush fund, most of which will end up in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh.
Contrary to Mr. Rae’s naïve opinion that the government taking from some people and redistributing to other people creates a magical 11-fold trickle-down economic effect, government redistribution does NOT create wealth. Do you know what does create wealth? Productive industry and natural resource extraction. Our region – and that includes everyone, not just land owners -- stands to receive a windfall from this natural gas boom, so long as we’re not so greedy and short-sighted as to nip it in the bud before it gets started by imposing a severance tax.
We can responsibly drill for gas and protect our environment by enforcing strong contracts and private property rights. By levying sufficient gas well permit application fees and increased bonding requirements, we can ensure gas drillers’ financial responsibility. We do not need and cannot suffer a severance tax. We are taxed enough already!
Vote for me November 2nd, and I will vote against the severance tax and for wealth creation for you. Who you send to Harrisburg will determine whether our region wallows in recession or prospers like never before.
Some have accused me of being an anarchist. But nothing could be further from the truth – I support limited, constitutional government. What we have today is anarchy! When a politician can stand before you and promise you anything he likes, or threaten to take from you anything he likes. That is anarchy. How do you plan for that? Mr. Millard and Mr. Rae support the socialism of our liquor stores. Both of them happily consent to the socialization of our health care system. How do you know that YOUR industry isn’t going to be socialized next? How do you plan for retirement? You have no idea how savings and assets will be treated in the future. Maybe the government will decide to socialize your 401k or IRA in order to pay state pensions or federal social security, both of which are bankrupt under government management. That’s anarchy. And that’s exactly the opposite of what I want.
I want stability. I want to protect your fundamental inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. To make sure that you do no harm to others, but otherwise leave you free to pursue your own goals and opportunities. I want you to be able to pursue a productive enterprise or career knowing that the government isn’t going to take it over or regulate you out of business. I want you to be able to plan for a stable, very low level of taxation which encourages savings and investment.
You have a choice before you to either support the status quo, which is a society mired in big government, or to opt for the kind of society our founders designed for us; one of limited government and maximum liberty. If, like I do, you prefer freedom, stability, and constitutional government, then please vote for me, Thomas Anderson, November 2nd to be your State Representative.
|
|
|
|
Quote of the Day
Are you libertarian, conservative, liberal, centrist, or statist?
|
