This is in reference to the most recent debate, but it has important points for cpunks to consider (though some of these will be pretty obvious).
---------------------------
L i b e r t y W i r e

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

(The following column by Harry Browne appears today on
 WorldNetDaily.com ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com ):


Beware of These 8 Fallacies in Tonight's Debate

    By Harry Browne

Wednesday, October 11, 2000

Tonight George W. Bush and Al Gore square off in
their second debate.

They will argue over many things. But underlying
their arguments will be many false assumptions.
Since the assumptions are wrong, their proposals
are meaningless, and you should be forewarned.

Here are 8 such fallacies . . .

    The Budget Surplus

Fallacy #1: "There is a budget surplus."

Each candidate will tell you how he plans to use
the surplus -- proposing a combination of tax
cuts, new spending programs, paying down the
national debt, saving Social Security, and so on.
But there is no surplus, and so all those plans
are meaningless.

Here are the federal budgets for the past ten
years:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Federal Budget, 1991-2000 

Please click on this link to see the chart:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20001011_xchbr_brownegraph1.gif

(All figures in this article are taken from the
August issue of Economic Indicators, a monthly
publication of the Joint Economic Committee of
Congress.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The deficits are shrinking, but there still is no
surplus. The Social Security receipts are larger
than Social Security payments, and the excess is
being lent to the general fund to create a phony
surplus. Ignored in any discussion of the
"surplus" is the fact that the overall federal
debt continues to rise year by year.

Neither Al Gore nor George Bush will say "When we
have a surplus;" he'll act as though the surplus
already exists. So you shouldn't pay any attention
to what he plans to do with the surplus.

If either of them really wanted to generate a true
budget surplus, he'd propose reductions in
government spending. But only a Libertarian
President is likely to do that.

    Social Security

Fallacy #2: "We are saving Social Security."

Whatever plan Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore offers to make
Social Security safe, it's a misrepresentation.
You can't save something while you're stealing
from it. Since all the excess Social Security
receipts are being used to paper over the deficit
in the general fund, there's no cash in the Social
Security Trust Fund for future payments.

When Social Security payments begin to exceed
receipts in a few years, money from the general
budget will have to pay off the IOUs held by
Social Security. But the politicians will have
used up the phony "surplus" with spending
increases and tax cuts.

Social Security will be "saved" or reformed only
when it's taken completely away from the
politicians, and you're allowed to keep the money
yourself -- to do with as you think best.

That's why a vote for a Republican or a Democrat
is truly a wasted vote. Only Libertarians are
proposing that you should be completely free from
Social Security.

    Welfare Reform

Fallacy #3: "Welfare reform was a great triumph."

Both major parties are trying to take credit for
the welfare reform program the Republican Congress
passed and the Democratic President approved. They
want you to believe that this "reform" has reduced
considerably the terrible burden of welfare
spending.

But here's what the federal government has spent
on welfare over the past ten years:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Welfare spending, 1991-2000

   Year    Welfare Spending*
   1991         170
   1992         197
   1993         207
   1994         214
   1995         221
   1996         226
   1997         231
   1998         233
   1999         238
   2000         253

* In billions of dollars. (All figures in this 
article are taken from the August issue of
Economic Indicators, a monthly publication 
of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Oh yes, you've heard that the number of welfare
recipients has declined. But politicians don't
stop spending money on a shrinking program. In
fact, in many parts of America, federal, state,
and local governments are _advertising_ for new
welfare recipients.

Welfare must be taken completely out of the hands
of the federal government. Otherwise, the
politicians will continue to defraud you and take
your money.

    Tax Cuts

Fallacy #4: "My tax cuts will save you money."

Between the general fund and Social Security, the
politicians have budgeted $1.8 trillion in
expenditures for the 2000 fiscal year. (The 2001
budget will be even larger.)

Who's going to pay the $1.8 trillion? The
Russians? The Martians?

Of course not. You and I and almost every other
American will have to cough up $1.8 trillion for
that obscene budget.

Unless there is a decrease in spending, any "tax
cut" simply rearranges the burden of big
government; it doesn't reduce it. "Tax cuts" are a
shell game, pure and simple.

Neither candidate is proposing to reduce
government spending. Neither one has called for
the elimination (or even reduction) of any
government program, department, or agency. Quite
the contrary, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are
proposing to increase the size, expense,
intrusiveness, and oppression of government.

You will get real tax relief only when you get
real spending relief. Again, only Libertarians are
proposing real reductions in government spending.

    National Defense

Fallacy #5: "I will strengthen (or preserve) our
national defense."

Today America has the strongest national offense
in history. Our government can annihilate any
country of the world, bully any nations into doing
our President's bidding, terrify our allies and
enemies alike.

But we have a very weak national defense. We can't
protect this country against any two-bit dictator
who gets his hands on a nuclear missile. And
neither major candidate has any kind of workable
plan to make us safer.

Both candidates claim to support a missile
defense. But the Defense Department has spent $100
billion and 17 years trying to create one, with
very little progress. We must realize that the
Defense Department is just another bureaucratic
government agency -- the Post Office in fatigues.
It is the least efficient place to turn for a
missile defense.

If I become President, I will post a reward of,
say, $25 billion -- to go to the first private
company that actually produces a missile defense
and proves that it works. I think we could have
one within three or four years.

To make this country safe, we must quit meddling
in other countries' affairs, so we quit creating
enemies and terrorists; we must reduce the number
of offensive weapons that are terrifying the
world; we must bring the troops home from nearly a
hundred foreign countries (we are not the Roman
Empire); we must have a defense against incoming
missiles; and we must have a smaller but
better-qualified and better-paid fighting force
that can defend us in the event of a surface
attack.

All this should cost much less than is being spent
now, while making you and your family much safer.
I do not want your children to fight and die in a
foreign war.

    Supreme Court Justices

Fallacy #6: "There's a significant difference in
the Supreme Court justices Bush or Gore would
appoint."

In fact, there's very little difference between
them -- just as there's very little difference
between Republican judges Anthony Kennedy and
David Souter on the one hand, and Democrats
Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsberg on the other.

Mr. Bush, for example, says he'll appoint "strict
constructionists" to the bench. But in Texas he
has appointed a number of activist judges -- the
very kind Republicans claim to oppose.

All we want from a Supreme Court justice is the
ability to read and understand the plain words of
the Constitution. When the 1st Amendment says
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." that's
what it means -- and thus it is unconstitutional
to censor the Internet, prohibit tobacco
advertising, or limit political advocacy. When the
2nd Amendment says, "the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,"
that's what it means -- and thus all the
gun-control laws on the books are
unconstitutional.

You will get Supreme Court justices who will honor
the Constitution and restore your liberty only
when you get a President who believes more in your
liberty than he does in big government. So we'd
better get started now doing whatever is necessary
to elect such a President -- no matter how long
you think it might take.

    Smaller Government

Fallacy #7: "One or the other candidate is for
smaller government."

Neither candidate has proposed any plan to make
government smaller. In the first debate neither
candidate uttered the word "liberty" or the word
"freedom" even once.

Both candidates have emphasized over and over the
new programs they want to impose upon you. As a
few examples, they both want to add a boondoggle
prescription drug plan to the disastrous Medicare
program, Bush wants to enlarge welfare by giving
your money to private charities of his choice,
Gore is proposing a new pre-school program -- and
both want to expand the Department of Education,
as well as step up the insane War on Drugs.

Both are big-spending politicians. Bush enlarged
the budget in Texas, Gore was named the #1 big
spender in the Senate by the National Taxpayers
Union. Neither has ever done a single thing to get
government out of your life. And neither is
proposing anything specific or realistic to do so
now.

And don't look to either party to pressure its
candidate to reduce government. The Republicans
have increased spending during their five years in
control of Congress at a rate of 3.2% per year,
while the Democrats in the previous five years
increased spending by 3.9% a year -- hardly a
significant difference. Spending during George
Bush, Sr.'s four years as President increased by
4.3% per year, while spending during Clinton's
seven years in office has increased by 3.2% per
year.

You will get smaller government only when you vote
for and elect a candidate who believes that the
federal government should be prohibited from doing
anything not authorized in the Constitution --
someone who has the will and determination to
reduce government dramatically. Neither Mr. Gore
nor Mr. Bush qualify.

I am the only candidate determined to restore
limited, smaller, constitutional government. I
have no grand schemes to promote, and don't
pretend I know what's best for you and 270 million
other people.

    Character

Fallacy #8: "There's a difference in character
between the candidates."

This may be the biggest fallacy of all. Bush and
Gore are each trying to sell you on the idea that
his character is superior to Bill Clinton's.

But Clinton's biggest moral flaw is his inability
to tell the truth. And neither Mr. Bush nor Mr.
Gore has demonstrated any regard for the truth.
The fallacies I've listed here (and a more
complete listing would make this article far too
long) show that neither one is reluctant to
perpetuate fraudulent assumptions. The only excuse
either can offer is that he isn't aware that the
assumptions are false -- in which case his
ignorance makes him unfit to be President.

It's simple: both Al Gore and George Bush are too
dishonest to be considered, or too ignorant to be
qualified. You aren't going to get what you by
electing a politician won't even tell the truth
about the current state of government or his
intentions for the Presidency.

    What Do You Want?

You have to ask yourself what you want in a
President. Do you just want someone -- _anyone_ --
from the party you've voted for in the past. If
so, either Bush or Gore qualifies.

But if you believe government is way too big, too
expensive, too intrusive, and too oppressive,
you're making a terrible mistake by voting for
either of these two men. Neither one will reverse
the trend toward bigger government. In fact,
either one will continue it.

You can not go East by moving toward the West.

You cannot get smaller government by electing a
big-government politician to the Presidency.

You cannot make a politician or a party reform
itself toward smaller government by rewarding it
for making government bigger.

The only way you will ever get what you want is by
voting only for those who offer specific proposals
to make government smaller -- and whose proposals
are not contradicted by a history of making
government bigger.

Libertarians want you to be free of the income tax
by making government so small there's no need for
an income tax. They want you to be released from
Social Security immediately and completely. They
want to end the insane War on Drugs that is
tearing our cities apart with violence, and
serving as an excuse to deny every American
citizen the Bill of Rights -- _every_ American,
not just those involved with drugs.

You may not win this year by voting Libertarian,
but you'll be helping to get closer to the day
when you _will_ win -- when you _do_ get smaller
government. And when you leave the voting booth,
you won't feel as though you need to take a
shower.

But by voting for big-government Republicans or
Democrats, you're guaranteeing that you'll _never_
be free.

Which do you want? Isn't it time to take a stand?

---

Harry Browne is the Libertarian candidate for president. 
His answers to the presidential debate questions can be 
seen and heard at http://www.FreedomChannel.com . And 
more of his articles can be read on his web site at
http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org/lw .



------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Before you buy.




