Author: Campaign For Liberty Blog

By Matt Hawes

From the Center for Freedom and Prosperity come two new videos dealing with taxes.

The first takes a look at the costs involved in complying with our massive tax code.  Americans spend countless amounts of money and time worrying about meeting the requirements for and actually filing their taxes – money and time that could be put to much more productive use making a better life for themselves and their families.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=XX8EswfGKQw

The second video makes the case for a flat tax (which is also mentioned near the end of the first video).  Let me clearly state up front that Campaign for Liberty believes, along with Congressman Paul, that we need to do completely away with all taxes on our income and that the government can still operate on budget levels seen even a little over a decade ago if there were no income tax.  Of course, returning government to constitutional levels would automatically massively reduce the budget, help one day eliminate the debt, and bring down the cost of living.  This video makes an honest, intellectual case for why the flat tax would be better than the current system, and on this day of triumph for the state, I think it’s good for us to consider all arguments as we individually defend and articulate our positions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=nhUOpNve1bY

By Matt Holdridge

Lately I’ve found myself struggling to understand the devotion Republicans/conservatives have to war and anything remotely related to the military. 

I’ve had numerous conversations regarding this topic with friends and family members who are regular talk-radio type conservatives that believe in small government yet promote war; the great state centralizer. 

I know they’re good people who mean well but I can’t logically square their ideals. How can you want lower taxes, less regulation, and fewer government programs but get upset when NASA is cut? 

The best explanation I’ve seen was on blogcritics.org in an article called, Understanding Pro-War Republicans. In the piece the author says,

While there are a small number of Stalinistic, pro-war expansionists in the GOP, their viewpoint is alien to the party and is not shared by most Republicans. Most Republicans who support our current wars do not do so because they are in favor of war or of imperialism, but because they are unquestioningly pro-America. They may believe in a strong national defense, but they do not believe in wars of conquest and occupation. They oppose the anti-war position, not because they like war, but because they dislike those who take issue with the actions of America as a nation no matter what the reason.

They operate from the perspective that our government is good, not because government is good, but because our government is American and America is good. They therefore assume that the actions of our government, including making war, must be good and right actions because they are the actions of an American government.

While I take issue with some of the author’s points, I think he may be correct on that particular item; it’s an irrational devotion to anything quote “American” that drives what appears to be rank-and-file Republicans’ support of current US foreign policy; not a desire to make war for the sake of empire.  

This assessment brings to mind Sean Hannity’s proclivity to call people “great Americans” or the wild chants of “USA” at rallies. Logic doesn’t play a part in this phenomenon, it’s strictly based on emotion and years of thought conditioning. 

What is your opinion? 

By Tim Shoemaker

The Daily Caller is live-blogging the Tax Day Tea Party in Washington, D.C.  As mentioned previously, Campaign for Liberty is a cosponsor of the event today and Ron Paul will be addressing the crowd later this evening.

We want you to share your stories with us from local Tax Day events!  Post the pictures and stories on your blogs to let us know how things went in your community.

By minnesotachris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzO_D8TjvKw

By Matt Hawes

Campaign for Liberty is an official cosponsor of the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party in Washington, D.C. tomorrow.

The event, which takes place on the Washington Monument grounds, will start at 7 pm eastern and end around 9:30 pm.  Dr. Paul has confirmed his attendance as a speaker.

There are also many activities planned for Thursday morning.  Click here for more details.

Don’t forget to take along an “End the Mandate” flier!

By Matt Hawes

Click here to get a PDF of our H.R. 4995 “End the Mandate” flier and spread the word at any tax day events you may be attending tomorrow!

Two half sheet fliers will print per page.  We’ve also included a “I share the mission!” form you can put on the reverse side to sign up new members for Campaign for Liberty.

By Matt Hawes

Thomas still doesn’t have the text up, so here is the language for H.R. 4995:

To restore the American people’s freedom to choose the health insurance that best meets their individual needs by repealing the mandate that all Americans obtain government-approved health insurance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “End the Mandate Act of 2010.”

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL AND EMPLOYER MANDATES ENACTED BY PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

(a) PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.-Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, subtitle F of title I of such Act, as amended by title X of such Act, is hereby repealed.

(b) HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.-Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, sections 1002 and 1003 of such Act are hereby repealed.

Thousands of pages to take away your freedom – two to get it back.

By Matt Hawes

Here’s Congressman Paul’s official statement introducing HR 4995, the “End the Mandate Act.”

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the End the Mandate Act. This legislation repeals the sections of the recently-passed health reform bill that force all Americans to purchase federally-approved health insurance plans.

Forcing every American to obtain health insurance is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders of this provision claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives Congress the power to mandate every American obtain a federally-approved health insurance plan. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance.

Forcing every American to obtain a congressionally-approved health insurance plan is not just unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.

Madam Speaker, the new law requires Americans to have what is defined as “minimum essential coverage.” Some people may claim that the requirement to have “minimal essential coverage” does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim.

First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.

Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain “minimal” for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasingly subsidizing health insurance for an ever increasing number of Americans.

When the cost of government-mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals, small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will reimburse.

Madam Speaker, Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. I therefore ask all of my colleagues to join me in correcting this mistake by cosponsoring the End the Mandate Act.

By Tim Shoemaker

Tomorrow is April 15th, and Americans around the country are scrambling to finish their taxes, hoping and praying they don’t owe the Federal Government any money, and crossing their fingers for a refund.  However, thanks to ObamaCare’s numerous taxes and fees around every corner, according to Grace-Marie Turner, everyday will feel like April 15th.

New taxes on investments, taxes on medical supplies, taxes on drugs and health insurance, and taxes on you if you are just breathing… the list of taxes Americans will face just got a lot longer thanks to ObamaCare.

The health overhaul plan just enacted represents the largest tax hike in U.S. history – $569 billion over 10 years through a dizzying array of taxes and fees that promise to frustrate taxpayers at every turn. ObamaCare will make every day feel like April 15th.

And despite President Obama’s campaign promise that no one making $250,000 or less would see a tax increase, Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation confirms that these tax hikes will hit millions of middle- and working-class families who are struggling to make ends meet.

Read the rest at the Washington Examiner.

Over the next 10 years, unless ObamaCare is fully repealed, Americans will find themselves surrounded by skyrocketing health care costs and shortages of care providers.  

One way to eliminate what Grace-Marie Turner calls the “Breath Tax” would be to pass Congressman Paul’s H.R. 4995 – the “End the Mandate Act of 2010“.  Contact your Representatives today and urge them to cosponsor this important piece of legislation!

By Gary Howard

According to Rasmussen:

Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. Read more…

It may be suprising to some in the establishment, but for some of us it’s not a surprise.

By the way, CNN polls show that Obama beats just about every other GOP prospective contender by good margins.

What about the hypothetical general election matchup in 2012 against President Obama?

The poll shows Obama topping Romney 53 percent to 45 percent, beating Huckabee 54 percent to 45 percent, defeating Gingrich 55 percent to 43 percent and topping Palin 55 percent to 42.

Interesting enough, in that same poll, Republicans have Congressman Paul coming in fifth against those same contenders who lose to Obama in the presidential poll.

According to the poll, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, another 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, would be in fifth place, with eight percent.

Well, it seems that if it were up to GOP elites, they would continue to nominate only those with no chance of winning.

Should be interesting to see how THIS poll is discredited by the establishment.

By Matt Hawes

Congressman Paul has officially introduced his legislation to repeal the federal health insurance mandate.  The bill (officially titled “End the Mandate”) number is HR 4995, and the text should be on the Library of Congress’ Thomas website very soon.

By ArickStall

One big aspect of the new healthcare reform was forgotten: the doctors.

While there are those of us who want to pull the “I told you so line,” it would be best just to present the facts. Now, under law, more Americans will be insured. It’s just unfortunate there will be no one to treat them.

The Wall Street Journal says experts are now estimating a “shortage of 150,000 U.S. doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.” And quite frankly, the medical school supply of new doctors is not going to keep up with the demand of expanded coverage.

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007….

You can continue reading this article here.

What will be some consequences of this so-called “healthcare reform?” It seems an obvious one is spending dubious amounts of money on a new system where the coverage is present, but the doctor is not. I foresee a future where excessive amounts of money are pumped into the new system to give breaks and grants to those that want to go into the medical profession. What would be the effects of this idea? I imagine doctors will not be educated as well and being in the medical profession will lose its prestige.

How will the shortage of doctors be covered in the short-term, though? Outsource! Give incentives for foreign medical doctors to practice in the United States. And the ugly cycle of wasteful spending continues while the rest of the world, including Fidel Castro, applauds Obama, considering the healthcare reform a “success” of his administration.

By Matt Hawes

On Monday, Congressman Paul will appear on CNN’s American Morning around 7:10 am eastern.

Update:

By Matt Holdridge

From the Boston Globe:

A Suffolk Superior Court judge yesterday denied a request that would have let six Massachusetts health insurers go forward with double-digit rate hikes for tens of thousands of small businesses and individuals, setting up a protracted battle that could become a test of government’s role in controlling health care costs.

Judge Stephen E. Neel’s decision against granting the preliminary injunction sought by insurance companies means the state’s rejection of 235 proposed rate increases stands for now. The higher rates would have taken effect April 1.

The judge rejected the companies’ contention that the insurance market would be thrust into chaos if they could not quickly institute the higher rates. But the ruling is not the final chapter in the battle. Insurers are pursuing appeals within the Division of Insurance. If their appeals are turned down, the court would take up the case later this spring.

This is likely a look at what is to come nationally – health insurance as a regulated monopoly, special commissions to monitor prices, and ultimately lower quality for consumers. 

Although, as we’ve pointed out numerous times, there hasn’t been a free market in health care for at least 50 years, and the recently passed bill only makes that situation worse. 

As Gennady Stolyarov II states in his article Why Public Utility Monopolies Fail, 

…because the government is a coercive monopoly, it is immune to competition, having barred all prospective competitors from the utility market via the threat of force. The government cannot know what the true cost of its service is, since it did not allow the competitive process to discover it. Rather, whatever value the government designates to be the “cost” will be an arbitrary number.

In a competitive market, private businessmen — driven by the profit motive — would have continually discovered better ways to provide utility services. They would have figured out hitherto unknown ways to cut costs, increase productivity, and eliminate waste.

The government, by restricting competition, prevents these discoveries from taking place and relegates all the consumers of public utilities to having to pay far more than they otherwise might have.

We must continue to fight on. 

By Tim Shoemaker

Paul Singer, writing for Roll Call, has an interesting article this morning that should be raising some eyebrows.  Thanks to a Korean War-era law regarding Congressional travel, members of Congress and their staff are able to travel abroad without footing the bill.

When a Congressional committee holds a field hearing in Wisconsin or a Member of Congress flies to a conference in Arkansas with a few staff members, those travel costs are paid for out of the annual budgets of either the committee’s or the Member’s office.

But when a Congressional delegation travels overseas, the accommodations are made by the State Department and billed back to a government account that automatically refills itself and has no spending limit attached.  [emphasis added]

So you may ask, where does this ‘magical’ account receive its funds from?  Good question…

For years, the Treasury Department used revenues from sales of grain abroad or the income from foreign assistance loans to pay for Congressional travel, but in 1977 the U.S. comptroller general ruled that practice out of bounds.

So Congress amended the provision in 1978 to establish that “whenever local currencies owned by the United States are not otherwise available” to pay for local travel costs, “the Treasury shall purchase such local currencies as may be necessary for such purposes, using any funds in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.”

Translation: The government can use whatever funds it has lying around to pay the travel costs of Congressional delegations overseas.

You will definitely want to read the rest to find out just how well some of our “public servants” are living when they travel abroad… How does $250 ‘petty cash’ per traveler per day sound?

By Phil Giraldi

The People’s Republic of Maryland is considering legislation that would install a device in the automobiles of drivers who have been convicted once of “driving under the influence.”  The device would sense alcohol on the breath of the driver using something similar to a breathalizer device and would disable the car ignition.  I know that many will consider the measure to be appropriate as drunken drivers kill a lot of people, but I have to wonder where it will all end up.  One could plausibly argue using the same logic that someone who has had a drink and who has not been convicted of DUI could equally get into an accident and kill someone, so having a drink and getting into a car must be prevented.  So the next generation of this law will be to install the device in ALL vehicles and anyone who goes out and has two glasses of wine with dinner will return to his vehicle only to discover that it will not start. 

We can then install devices in people’s houses that will result in an automatic fine if you smoke a cigar in your house because it is bad for the health, like the truck driver in Canada who was fined because he was smoking in the cab of his own truck.  And then we can legislate all other behavior.  What bothers me is that there is a definite movement in the direction of controlling the lives of citizens to a point where the only thing safe to do will be to sit at home staring into space. 

By Matt Holdridge

From the Washington Times: 

States say they’ve been kept afloat during the economic downturn by critical federal aid, but, with stimulus money set to run out soon, a report from conservative economists argues that another infusion would postpone, and could worsen, states’ eventual reckoning with troubled budgets.

Last year’s stimulus bill designated hundreds of billions of dollars to states, either directly or indirectly. The aid peaked this year before dropping dramatically. States say they’re still hurting, though, and Congress is trying to figure out how much more aid to extend, and for how long.

The article continues, 

Jonathan Williams, director of the tax and fiscal policy task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, said continued federal aid will only feed “the do-something disease in Washington,” where the federal government sees a problem and decides taxpayer money can help.

In a new report on states’ fiscal stability, Mr. Williams and several other conservative economists said the stimulus amounted to a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for state lawmakers who let their budgets grow too fast while the economy was strong but were reluctant to make cuts during slimmer times.

“The recession should have been the wake-up call: Pull back on spending. Unfortunately, the stimulus money is interfering with this normal, albeit painful, corrective step to get states permanently back on more sustainable spending paths,” they said in their report.

This underscores the importance of being involved in your local and state government. We can solve a lot of problems in Washington by being active outside it. 

By Matt Hawes

We’re pleased to announce today that Bob Murphy, adjunct scholar for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, C4L contributor, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, The Human Action Study Guide, The Man, Economy, and State Study Guide, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal will be joining us in Des Moines for our Iowa Regional Conference!

Tickets for our Conference grassroots training are at their lowest price ever – just $59! – so sign up today and reserve your spot!

We have also secured a special discounted rate at the Embassy Suites on the River – where our Conference is located – for our members.  But this offer is for a limited time only.

Dr. Murphy will be speaking as part of our open to the public Forum on the Future of Conservatism in America on Saturday, May 15.  We will also have a private reception, where you will get a chance to meet and spend personal time with Dr. Murphy and our other speakers.

Stayed tuned for more announcements!  Be sure to check out our Iowa Regional Conference page for more information.

By Matt Hawes

Campaign for Liberty is currently holding a “banner bomb” until midnight on April 19 (the 235th anniversary of Lexington and Concord’s “Shot heard ‘round the world’”) to raise funds to place Audit the Fed banners on key sites like Drudge Report, CNN, MSNBC, and others.

The ad campaign will target ten states whose senators are key to passing S. 604.

Click on the graphic below to contribute to the effort and help turn up the heat on Congress to Audit the Fed!

Here is a breakdown to give you an idea of how many ad buys your donation can help achieve:

$18.71 ~ 9,000 views on Drudge Report.

$37.29 ~ 11,000 views on Rasmussen

$61.48 ~ 19,000 views on Human Events

$81.62 ~ (best value) 31,000 views on Drudge Report

$142.55 ~ 70,000 views on Fox News

$237.36 ~ 85,000 views on Rasmussen

Click here to contribute.

By Doug Bandow

Resisting encroachments from the federal government is never easy.  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is one of the state attorneys general who is suing the federal government to block ObamaCare.  

He explains his efforts:

There are very good reasons that the federal government has never, in the last 221 years, used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a vehicle for requiring citizens to purchase goods or services from other citizens.

The first is textual. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that “the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States.” Although there have been disputes about just how far this should reach into commerce that is entirely intrastate, until now, it has been recognized that this constitutional provision deals with regulation of commerce – that is, with the use of law to impose reason and order on the voluntary commercial actions of citizens, as well as on activities that substantially affect commerce. An individual mandate to purchase health insurance is not regulation in that sense.

Another good reason this has not been done before is that it turns the Commerce Clause into an alternative, off-books funding mechanism. According to the “findings” section of the law itself, the mandate achieves economies of scale, but in reality, it achieves income redistribution. The law caps the amount that insurance companies can charge based on age, and forbids them to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. As such, the young and healthy people the law forces to buy insurance are overcharged for the purpose of subsidizing the old and those with pre-existing conditions.

Virginians who believe in individual liberty should back AG Cuccinelli’s efforts and send him a warm congratulations for standing up for the Constitution and limited government