New American magazine quotes LP’s attack on Mitt Romney's High Government Spending record in Massachuse​tts

Libertarian Party Executive Director Carla Howell is quoted in the current issue of the New American which suggests that many Tea Party members remain unaware of Republican Mitt Romney's voting record (as well as that of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich) - all Big Government:

 

Carla Howell pointed out, "The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when (Romney) took office in January of 2003. When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion — plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took 'off budget.' (Romney never reminds us of this fact.) The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending — and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.”

 

2012 Libertarian candidates for federal office, and especially the eventual Libertarian presidential nominee, have a huge opportunity to inform voters of how Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of reckless, dangerous high government spending.

 

Libertarian candidates will offer Tea Party enthusiasts and voters everywhere a real choice for much lower government spending, lower taxes and a more stable dollar - all conditions that promote private sector job growth.

 

##

 

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party with a mission to give voters a choice to downsize Big Government, to do so in the most humane way possible, to greatly reduce taxes, and to slash high government spending. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can simply make a contribution.

Citizens United annivesary​: take action to amend

January 21 marks the one-year anniversary of the US Supreme Court’s notorious Citizens United decision declaring “corporations are people” and allowing corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money, without disclosure, in political campaigns.We have seen the results.

Since then a grassroots movement has grown across the country to reverse the decision including by amending the US Constitution.

 

This is a fundamental battle for democracy. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads has already pledged to spend at least $240 million in the elections of 2012. The extreme right-wing billionaire Koch brothers and other Wall Street corporations will spend hundreds of millions more to influence election outcomes.

 

The ruling laid out for all to see the corruption of the US Supreme Court and the ruthless goal of the top 1 percent: put a stranglehold on legislative bodies at every level to elect candidates that rubberstamp pro-corporate and rightwing policies.

 

The anniversary of the Citizens United ruling is a day for the 99 percent to stand up to Wall Street and big money!  Take action with millions to undo the damage, including building the movement to amend the Constitution.

 

Move to Amend is planning a National Day of Protest to Occupy the Courts on January 20 at Federal courthouses in 100 cites. Find a local protest here.

 

United for the People is also organizing demonstrations across the country. Find a local protest here.

 

City councils are already passing resolutions and efforts are being made to get initiatives on state ballots in 2012. The campaign initially will target three states -- Colorado, Massachusetts and Montana. Recently, the Montana high court challenged Citizens United and upheld ban on corporate cash in elections. Read Peoplesworld.org coverage.

 

People united can take back our country!

 

John Bachtell

CPUSA vice chair

Source: e-letter from CPUSA

LP Monday Message: Mitt Romney = Big Government

I ran for governor against Mitt Romney in 2002 in Massachusetts. I read his every press release, read every major newspaper article about him, and followed his every move throughout his governor campaign -- and in each of the four years he served as governor.

Mitt Romney IS Big Government -- to the core.

Which is why I nearly fell off my chair one day when I was asked by a libertarian, “Aren’t you glad to have Mitt Romney as your governor? He’s pretty libertarian, isn’t he?”

It is critical that voters know the truth about Big Government Mitt Romney. Please forward the below column to every voter you know who would consider voting for him.

Thank you for helping to set the record straight.

In liberty,

Carla Howell

Executive Director

Libertarian National Committee

Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government

By Carla Howell

Is Mitt Romney the “economic conservative” he claims to be? Especially when it comes to tax and spend policies?

Now that he’s running for president, let’s compare his words with his deeds.

Taxes

Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even “took” a “no new taxes” pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. “Took” is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn’t necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he’s a man of his word.

But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.

Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn’t get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.

Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a “no new taxes” governor. The media refused to set the record straight.

But that was only the beginning.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn’t. He claims he only raised mandatory government “fees.” But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees. Romney’s new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.

In addition to scores of new tax-fees, Mitt Romney also increased several other taxes by:

-“closing loopholes” to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax

-passing legislation that enables local governments to raise Business Property Taxes

-enacting a new tax penalty that raises Income Taxes on both individuals and small businesses.

This, he claims, is not raising taxes.

I suppose you could say Romney merely enacted bills that force taxpayers to hand over billions of dollars – which end up in the coffers of the government.

Quacks like a tax increase?

In 2008, Romney boasted that he was the first presidential candidate to sign a “taxpayer protection pledge,” in which he promised to oppose “any and all efforts” to increase income taxes on people or businesses.

So he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is president, the IRS will collect this money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

Government Spending

Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by “$2 billion.” Sometimes he claims he cut it “$3 billion.” The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even many fiscal conservatives and libertarians assume it must be true.

But these “cuts” were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.

In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.

When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)

The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.

He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it’s a “tough state” for poor “conservatives” like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.

But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he’s not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion in new government spending. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.

Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.

The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases. Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending – after he had already given away the store!

The Romney-Kennedy Alliance

But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney’s version of socialized medicine.

By his own admission, he didn’t plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.

During Romney’s governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax-and-spend policies, he said.

But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.

Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.

When Romney ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, his campaign popularized the derogatory term “Kennedy country” to describe the devastating effects of Ted Kennedy’s “liberal social programs” on poor neighborhoods in Massachusetts.

Yet Mitt Romney stood proudly with Ted Kennedy while he signed RomneyCare into law.

Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney’s bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance.

Welcome to Massachusetts: Romney-Kennedy country.

Romney’s socialized medicine law mandates everyone who doesn’t have insurance to buy it – or suffer income tax penalties. Both individuals and small businesses face steep fines if they refuse to give up their freedom to make their own health care choices. There’s yet another “off budget” Mitt Romney tax increase.

Romney’s mandate will cost individual taxpayers many thousands of dollars every year in health insurance premiums for unwanted policies – or force them to pay sizable tax penalties.

The total cost of RomneyCare in mandates and new spending? At least several billion dollars every year – to start. It will rise from there, as socialized medicine programs are wont to do.

Romney’s law went into full effect in 2009. It’s harmful effects were not felt  until after the 2008 presidential election was over. Romney’s time-release tax increase.

Romney’s Words Versus Romney’s Deeds

Smart moms tell their kids, “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

That advice saved me a lot of heartache. And it will do the same for anyone who is leaning towards voting for Mitt Romney.

Candidate Romney campaigns for president with the words we’re aching to hear. Words we want to believe. Candidate Romney tells us that he is a: 

“fiscal conservative”

“friend of small business”

“tax cutter”

“waste fighter”

“opponent of runaway spending”

“tough leader who vetoes new taxes and needless government spending”

Let’s follow Mom’s advice: ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds.

What does he do when he’s elected?

Mitt Romney hits up taxpayers with a variety of new taxes – while pretending he doesn’t.

Mitt Romney jacks up government spending as much as any Big Government Democrat would.

Mitt Romney champions massive Big Government Programs – that made Ted Kennedy proud.

City of Boston shuts down Occupy encampment

By Kate Randall
 
At about 5 a.m. Saturday morning, at least 100 Boston police officers swept into Dewey Square to shut down the Occupy Boston encampment, making 46 arrests and removing tents and other equipment. On Thursday, a Boston judge had lifted a temporary restraining order that had barred the city from moving against the group, clearing the way for city authorities to evict the protesters.
 
Protesters project their message
 
The protest in the city’s financial district was one of the largest and longest running of the anti-Wall Street protests still in existence, having begun September 30, not long after the start of the protest in Lower Manhattan. In recent weeks, city administrations across the country have moved against numerous encampments, evicting protesters in often violent assaults by police and making thousands of arrests.
 
The Boston protesters had received a warning that they faced a midnight Thursday deadline for vacating the encampment, but authorities waited until early Saturday morning to act. A crowd of about 1,000 protesters and their supporters gathered in Dewey Square Thursday night in anticipation of the eviction, but the midnight deadline came and went without incident.
 
By the time of the Saturday morning raid, many of the protesters… (Read more)
 
Source: World Socialist Website

Born from humble beginnings, the National Guard celebrates its 375th birthday

By Bill Boehm

National Guard Bureau

 

ARLINGTON, Va. (12/12/11) – The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1630. More than 5,000 men, women, and children made the two-month voyage to the New World, leaving the relative comfort and safety of England behind in an effort to break free of religious intolerance, and to manage their communities the way they saw fit. In doing so, their actions tread new ground in the country that would become the United States of America.

 

The military organization we know today as the National Guard came into existence with a direct declaration on December 13, 1636. On this date, the Massachusetts General Court in Salem, for the first time in the history of the North American continent, established that all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to join the militia. The North, South, and East Regiments were established with this order. The decree excluded ministers and judges. Simply stated, citizen-soldiers who mustered for military training could be and would be called upon to fight when needed.

 

Laws often evolve from well-intentioned actions, yet sometimes prove themselves to be ineffective. Given such odds, how could this possibly work?

 

Owing to many failures in the time that English settlers had attempted colonization in the Massachusetts frontier and elsewhere in North America, leaders decided that a proactive and ready state of mind must be kept by all citizens, particularly those training in military tactics. Being part of citizenry in the small villages meant that a price must be paid for the freedoms that could potentially be enjoyed, were the colony to ultimately succeed. That price exacted meant taking responsibility for defending the settlements of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

 

The settlers of the new outposts experienced austere surroundings. With no established or familiar conventions upon which to rely, the colony relied upon male pioneers to provide food, shelter, and defensive protection for the women and children present, as well for themselves. Even with all available hands working, this was a difficult task. Worse, the nearby Pequot Indian tribe proved a restless and unpredictable neighbor, leaving the Massachusetts colonists vulnerable to guerilla-style attacks that could decimate the fledgling settlements. In an environment rife with disease, poor sanitation, and harsh weather conditions, all able-bodied members of the Massachusetts colony pulled together out of necessity.

 

Self-sufficiency proved instrumental. In a new land, hiring mercenary fighters in the European tradition to ward off Indian attacks would be impossible. For one thing, the colonists had no money. Other foreign interests in the New World such as the French or Spanish, even if they were available for defensive purposes, did not share English views on religion and political matters. They would have seriously undermined the stability of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Governing and policing the settlement would have to be left to the colonists themselves. Therefore, the militia system of self-defense brought from England had the best chance of succeeding for the colonists.

 

And it did succeed. Soon after the establishment of the militia in Massachusetts, the entire New England region defended itself against the aggression of the Pequot nation. Other colonies such as Connecticut and Rhode Island mustered militia units to fight the Indian tribe, and succeeded in forcing the Pequots to capitulate in 1638. Ultimately, the militia enlisted from the many small villages proved a strong component in building confidence for the settlement as a whole.

 

Although other colonial settlements in North America such as those in Florida, Virginia, and New Mexico that would become part of the United States utilized military protection in order to allow settlers safe passage and to defend against aggressors, Massachusetts proved to be the first entity to have its government establish and raise a militia. Nor did these other colonies’ militia service remain continuous. The tie to legal precedent in this manner remains to this day. That record of service has remained continuous and unbroken, no matter the change in each unit’s function as a part of the militia or the National Guard.

 

This distinction qualifies it as the birthplace of the militia in the United States. With the North, South, and East Regiments established, its exemplary military tradition continues through this day with four Massachusetts National Guard units – the 101st Engineer Battalion, the 101st Field Artillery, the 181st Infantry Regiment, and the 182nd Infantry Regiment. The tradition born in Salem continues today.

 

Today, Massachusetts’ population numbers 6.5 million people, and the Commonwealth figures prominently as a center of manufacturing, electronics/technology, and finance. Much has changed since 1636, but one thing has not: the National Guard still consists of Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen providing protection from natural disaster, training regularly to uphold high standards of readiness, and also deploying to far-away countries to protect the United States’ national interests abroad. Although the country’s growth and expansion has made it a large military force around the world, the National Guard still remains a community cornerstone – just as it did when it was given birth on December 13, 1636.

Justice Department to Monitor Elections in California, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that the Civil Rights Division will monitor elections on Nov. 8, 2011, in Alameda County, Calif.; Springfield, Mass.; Humphreys, Leflore, Panola and Wilkinson Counties, Miss.; Lorain County, Ohio; and Jasper, Texas.   The monitoring will ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the election process on the basis of race, color or membership in a minority language group.

 

 Under the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department is authorized to ask the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to send federal observers to jurisdictions that are certified by the attorney general or by a federal court order.  Federal observers will be assigned to monitor polling place activities in Humphreys, Leflore, Panola and Wilkinson Counties based on the attorney general’s certification and in Alameda and Lorain Counties based on court orders.   The observers will watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations, and Civil Rights Division attorneys will coordinate the federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

 

 In addition, Justice Department personnel will monitor polling place activities in the cities of Springfield and Jasper.   A Civil Rights Division attorney will coordinate federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials in each city.

 

 Each year, the Justice Department deploys hundreds of federal observers from OPM, as well as departmental staff, to monitor elections across the country.  To file complaints about discriminatory voting practices, including acts of harassment or intimidation, voters may call the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.

 

Visit Justice.gov/crt/voting/index.php for more information about the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws.