The Freedom Bulletin

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Check out the Plan to Restore America if you haven’t already. What I love about Ron Paul is that he doesn’t just talk about balanced budgets, freedom, and the Constitution; he actually has has concrete, bold ideas to change America for the better. Paul’s budget plan would…

• Cut $1 trillion in federal spending in one year
• Eliminate the departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior
• Eliminate the TSA
• End foreign aid
• Repeal the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)
• Audit the Federal Reserve
• Allow people to opt out of Social Security

None of these things is surprising if you are familiar with Paul and his libertarian brand of Republicanism, but it’s great to see them all spelled out together in one report, with graphs and tables to support them. Bruce Fein wrote a great column explaining the plan.

At a private meeting today, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) reportedly said, referring to the Tea Party movement, “We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Vice President Joe Biden allegedly agreed with him.

Expressing a slightly different but similar sentiment, the New York Times laments that the debt ceiling compromise “demonstrates the effectiveness of extortion.” Robert Kuttner complains, in a long-winded editorial at the Huffington Post, about the “extortionate terms of the far-right,” the ”politics of extortion by the Tea Party,” and the “perversity” of their policies. In an interview on CNN, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin concurred, saying, ”it’s political extortion.”

Terrorism, extortion, and perversity are awfully strong words to describe a movement that believes in a smaller government that spends less and provides fewer services. After all, our nation is over $14 trillion in debt. Even the most conservative proposals that have been put forth for increasing the debt ceiling merely involve cutting the deficit, which means that the debt will continue to get bigger, only more slowly than before. In order to actually shrink the national debt, we will need to have surpluses each year, and that will require adopting more radical proposals than the one that just passed the House. And when considering whether to create these surpluses by raising taxes or cutting spending, its is important to consider that the social programs that Democrats support so strongly are based upon the idea of giving free things to people who (usually) did nothing to earn them while forcibly taking money from people who (usually) earned it. In my opinion, the policies favored by the Tea Party movement are a good start toward solving America’s financial woes. I can think of a few words for the Tea Party: rational, reasonable, just, brave, and correct.

August 2 update: And the Tea Party bashing continues. Joe Nocera at the NY Times takes the cake, claiming that the Tea Party has “waged jihad on the American people.” This letter to the editor in the Baltimore Sun calls them “thugs.”

In 2009, Massachusetts began charging people $25 to appeal traffic tickets to a clerk magistrate, and an additional $50 to appeal to a district court judge. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that these fees are constitutional, denying the appeals of Vincent Gillespie and Edward Hamel, who challenged their tickets in Northampton.

This got me thinking about whether fees to use the court system are, in general, a good idea. In all levels of the court system, people are regularly charged money to file civil suits or to appeal decisions. Supporters of such policies say that the fees raise needed funds and deter frivolous lawsuits, while preserving access to the courts because fee waivers are available for poor people.

While the court system undoubtedly is strapped for funds, and the last thing we need is more taxes, I don’t think that fees to appeal traffic tickets (or other rulings) are a fair method. Charging money to file an appeal punishes everyone, whether their appeal is frivolous or legitimate. And while indigent people might be able to get an exemption from the fee, this is not fair to everyone else who is deemed wealthy enough to pay. Even if the majority of traffic ticket appeals are without merit, the fees are an injustice to people who do have a good reason to appeal. It is wrong to force people who are unjustly ticketed to pay money in order to overturn a fine that should not have been imposed in the first place.

Being able to access the court system is a right, not something that people should have to pay for. Although the courts need money, this is not the best way to raise it.

Late Friday night, barely averting a government shutdown, President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reached a compromise budget deal which included $38.5 million in cuts. While this is not as much as the $62 million that Tea Party members pushed for, or the $100 billion that Speaker Boehner mentioned after the 2010 election, it is a victory for small government.

The good things about the budget:

• The $32 billion in cuts that Boehner originally proposed were called “extreme” and “draconian,” yet Democrats ended up agreeing to even more
• The budget bill requires audits of many of Obama’s programs, denies additional spending on the IRS, and cuts $2 billion from the Department of Defense
• It is the largest spending cut in American history

The bad things about the budget:

• It does not cut Pell Grants, medical research, the Race to the Top initiative, PBS, or NPR
• It only slightly cuts foreign aid
• $18 billion of the cuts come from programs whose budgets “run largely on autopilot” and might not actually be spent anyway
• The debate about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood still has to be resolved

Considering our national debt of $14 trillion, the budget deal might be a baby step toward solving America’s money woes and restoring freedom and justice, but baby steps are better than nothing. Instead of our leaders arguing about how much additional spending to add, they are arguing about how much to cut. Now that is an encouraging change.

Congress seems like it’s actually been getting some things done lately. In addition to the Senate repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell today, both houses recently passed, and President Obama signed, a compromise bill to both cut taxes and extend unemployment benefits. While anything that involves tax cuts is a good thing, it’s disturbing that neither Congress or Obama is taking any serious measures to reduce our national debt.

Here are the main points of the tax deal:

• The “Bush tax cuts” will be extended for 2 years.
• Unemployment benefits will be extended for 13 months.
• Workers who make $106,800 or less will pay 4.2% of their wages to Social Security instead of 6.2%.
• The estate tax will continue, but at a lower level.

The bill has some of what Republicans want (lower taxes) and some of what Democrats want (free stuff for people), but anyone with common sense can see that these are not a good combination when it comes to long-term financial success. As W.E. Messamore explains, cutting taxes without cutting spending will eventually result in higher taxes in the future. Compromise is often a good thing, but compromises between Republicans and Democrats have resulted in more spending without more taxes, and therefore a national debt of $13 trillion and counting. I’m no supporter of raising taxes – which I think are way too high to begin with – so I think that the just way to pay down the national debt would be to leave taxes as they are and significantly cut spending. Politicians need to be brave enough to make the unpopular choices that will put our country on the right financial path.

In both 2002 and 2008, the Center for Small Government sponsored a ballot initiative to eliminate the Massachusetts income tax. Unfortunately, it was defeated each time. Now, they are sponsoring an initiative – Question 3 – to roll back the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. This is a much more modest proposal, and not quite as exciting for small government people like me, but hopefully this makes it more likely to pass.

State government simply spends too much and taxes too much. Taxes have gone up and up. Tax increases that are supposed to be temporary end up being permanent. I cannot remember any tax in Massachusetts ever going down in my lifetime. The only way that Massachusetts politicians will ever cut spending is if they are forced to.

Question 3 will cut approximately $2.4 billion from the $52 billion state budget – not as good as the $11 billion that ending the income tax would cut, but a good start. It will allow each household to keep an average of $900 more of their own money each year.

If you live in Massachusetts, please, please vote yes on 3. Even if you don’t like any of the candidates for governor, it is worth going to the polls just to vote on this question. We need to stop this unsustainable spending trend and send Massachusetts in a different direction.

The Milwaukee teachers’ union is suing for health insurance plans that cover Viagra. This is happening as the district is in the middle of a budget crisis and has laid off 482 teachers. Taxpayer-funded Viagra would cost $786,000 or enough for 12 teachers to keep their jobs.

The lawsuit claims that excluding Viagra from insurance coverage discriminates against men. According to MSNBC…

“In recent years, several lawsuits have claimed that employer health plans discriminate against women when they cover Viagra but not contraceptives or infertility treatment.

But the Milwaukee union says males are treated unfairly here. In one brief, its lawyers argued that vaginal cream, anti-bacterial medicine and estrogen replacement medication for female sexual dysfunction are covered. Other options such as penile pumps and implants included in the plans “are far less desirable than oral medication,” the filing said.

District spokesman Philip Harris said school officials won’t comment because “we just want to leave it alone.” But Miriam Horwitz, an attorney representing the board, argued in court filings the drugs weren’t necessary to treat life-threatening disease or have children.”

I have an idea – none of these things should be covered! The only things that should be covered by health insurance are things that people need in order to be healthy. This is especially true of plans that are taxpayer-funded.

You don’t need to have sex or have children to be healthy, so contrary to the opinion of the school board’s lawyer, neither Viagra nor infertility treatments (or maternity care, for that matter) should be covered. Whether to have sex or have children is a choice, and it is unfair for people who choose not to do these things to subsidize the decisions and preferences of those who do.

No Viagra, no infertility treatments, no penis pumps, no contraceptives, no maternity care, and no estrogen replacements. Discretionary procedures and medications should never be covered by health insurance, no matter what the person’s gender. Paying only for things that are medically necessary is the fairest policy for everyone.