Samizdata

Carla Howell is not a woman to rest on her laurels. After running the most successful Libertarian Senatorial campaign in history she followed it up by successfully placing an initiative to end the Massachusetts income tax on the ballot for this fall.

Today she declared for the Governorship of Massachusetts.

There is little I could say that Carla can’t say better, so with no further ado, here is her full statement of candidacy:

Massachusetts government spending has more than doubled in the last 10 years.

Democrat Governor Michael Dukakis’ last bloated budget was $10 Billion.

Republican Governor Jane Swift’s first budget is $23.5 Billion. Republican Governor Jane Swift increased last year’s budget by $1 Billion.

Massachusetts government is Big Government. Bi-Partisan Big Government.

Massachusetts Big Government is bossy, nosy, clumsy, abusive, and intrusive. And outrageously expensive.

Massachusetts Democrat and Republican politicians are laboring day and night to:

— make our state government bigger,
— increase state government spending,
— expand state government power and authority, and
— seize the few remaining remnants of our gun freedom.

Do you believe Massachusetts government is too Big?

Do you believe Massachusetts Taxes are too High?

I do.

That’s why I’m running for Governor of Massachusetts.

I’m running because … small government is beautiful*.

I’m Carla Howell, Libertarian candidate for Governor.

I’m the only candidate for Governor who has signed the small government pledge:

“I vote small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Small government is beautiful* … and it leaves our families alone.

Small government is beautiful* … and it leaves our income alone.

Small government is beautiful* … and it leaves our guns alone.

I am the only candidate for Governor who will boldly advance our cause of personal responsibility, individual liberty, and small, constitutional government.

I represent the forgotten taxpayer. The forgotten worker. The forgotten gun owner. The forgotten voter.

I represent responsible individuals. People who work for a living, pay their bills, and support their families. People who are good neighbors, and caring members of their communities.

The Big Government Candidates for Governor

Every Democrat and Republican Candidate for Governor is a Big Government Politician.

Every one of them supports today’s $23 Billion or more in state government spending.

Every one of them proposes more state government programs, more state government spending.

If you like today’s Big Government spending in Massachusetts, pick your favorite flavor.

The Republican: Governor Jane Swift.

The Democrats: State Senate President Thomas Birmingham. State Senator Warren Tolman. Democrat Party Fundraiser Steven Grossman. State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien. Secretary of State William Galvin. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.

Here’s what each one of them offers: More laws. More government programs. More taxes. More government.

If you want Ever-Growing Greedy Government, if you want Big Government, take your pick.

Because there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.

Why They Fail the ‘White Out’ Test

What’s the ‘White-Out’ Test?

Get an issue of the Boston Globe, the Herald News, or another Massachusetts daily newspaper. Find an article about each of the Republican or Democrat candidates for Governor. Find a proposal or program advocated by each candidate. Clip them out.

Take a bottle of ‘White-Out’ and blot out each candidate’s name. And ‘white-out’ the word “Democrat” or “Republican” — if it’s even mentioned.

Take these political proposals or programs and put them in front of 10 people chosen at random. Ask each person to correctly match the candidate for Governor with his or her proposal or program.

They won’t be able to do it.

Why do these candidates fail the ‘White-Out’ Test?

Because their positions, proposals, and programs blur and blend into the same Big Government mush.

That is why the Big Government Democrat and Republican candidates for Governor must spend millions and millions of dollars to publicize and advertise their campaigns.

Voters can’t remember who they are. Voters can’t remember why they’re running. So they subject voters to endless mind-numbing rote repetition advertising.

Carla Howell: The Only Small Government Candidate

I score A+ on the ‘White-Out’ Test. My proposals for making government small are dramatically different. I stand in stark contrast against the Big Government candidates.

If you want small government, if you want to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts, there’s only one choice: Carla Howell, Libertarian for Governor.

And only one issue: small government. A vote for Carla Howell is a vote for small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

— A vote for Carla Howell is a vote to make Massachusetts government so small it doesn’t need an Income Tax.

— A vote for Carla Howell is a vote to give back $3,000 each year to 3,000,000 working people in Massachusetts by Ending the Income Tax. On November 5th, when voters go to the polls to End the Income Tax, they can vote for Carla Howell, Libertarian for Governor.

— A vote for Carla Howell and small government is a vote for 100% Gun Freedom. I am the only candidate for Governor who will shred every Anti-Gun Freedom Law on the books in Massachusetts. Immediately repeal Chapter 180. Immediately repeal and remove every Anti-Gun law, restriction and regulation on the books. More guns means safe communities.

Governor Carla Howell will do everything in her power to repeal, remove, erase, and dismantle destructive and expensive Massachusetts

Governor Carla Howell’s most powerful weapons: the Veto and a Shredder. The Veto to stop new laws, stop new taxes, and stop new government spending. The Shredder to remove every vestige of Big Government in Massachusetts. To make government small.

The News Media knows. When I ran against Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate in the last election, here was a typical comment:

“If Hollywood needed to invent a challenger to Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, they couldn’t have created anyone whose views differ more than Libertarian Carla Howell.”
— Front Page, Sunday Edition, MetroWest Daily News, November 7, 1999

I champion small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

Gun Owners know. Ask any gun store owner in Massachusetts what Carla Howell stands for. Ask any gun club. Ask any gun owner.

During my campaign against Ted Kennedy, I handed out over 10,627 fliers that explained why “small government is beautiful* … And it leaves our guns alone!”

Taxpayers know. My Committee for Small Government filed 75,629 petition signatures for our Ballot Initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts. The Secretary of State has certified our petition signatures — and we’re headed for the ballot.

Our Ballot Initiative is entitled “The Small Government Act.” It’s designed to reduce our state budget from $23 Billion to $14 Billion. And give $9 Billion back to taxpayers.

Ending the Income Tax in Massachusetts will give back $3,000 each to 3,000,000 working people in Massachusetts. Every year. To People like you. Your neighbors. Co-workers. Family and friends.

Carla Howell For Governor

Small government is beautiful*. I’m running for Governor to make Massachusetts government small.

Ending the Income Tax in Massachusetts will help make government small.

Repealing every Anti-Gun Freedom Law on the books in Massachusetts will help make government small.

Exposing the fatally-flawed, wasteful, and destructive Big Government Programs in Massachusetts will help make government small.

A vote for Carla Howell, Libertarian for Governor, is a vote for small government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

A vote that says, “small government is beautiful*.”

Carla immediately needs canvassers to collect 25,000 signatures. She also needs a war chest to get things off to a fast start. Donations of up to $500 per person are allowed under Massachusetts bureaucracy.

It goes without saying that I endorse Carla’s candidacy without reservation.

In a recent posting on Transterrestrial Musings Rand asked:

Yet there seems to be a growing consensus in the punditocracy that the Enron debacle is going to result somehow in the passage of campaign finance legislation a la McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan.

Can someone, anyone, explain this to me?

It means the Libertarian Party (and others) are starting to raise enough money to be an annoyance. Vote tallies for Libertarian candidates in a number of election races in November 2000 were actually greater than the margins of victory. Many think we would have done even better if not for the onerous regulatory requirements. Harry Browne was prepared to make a constitutional challenge against the very existance of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) but was unable to do so, partly due to internal party bickering.

The existing regulations prevent small parties from getting a leg up, but they are of little or no consequence to the Demopublicans.

So my take? It’s just another excuse to shore up their monopoly of power. If they can generate good vote-acquring “moral” and “ethical” soundbites while they are at it, it’s an even bigger win for the two faces of the monopoly party.

I just have to share this recent item reported by the Opinion Journal.

Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher reports on the case of eight-year-old Dusty Miller, who was almost expelled from the Montgomery County, Md., school system because he brought a “most dangerous object” to Burnt Mills Elementary School. The object? “A 99-cent nail clipper, available at any dollar store.” Writes Fisher:“Last week, the county, flummoxed by conflicting accounts of the clipper incident, decided to allow Dustin to return to school after nearly a month of sitting at home. But at no point in the hour-long hearing did anyone question the wisdom of rules that make it possible to expel an 8-year-old for having a nail clipper in his pocket.”

Where do they find people like this? Are they grown in a secret government vat? Is there a reason they are deathly afraid of getting their nails clipped? Is this a job for Mulder and Scully?

For those looking for some sanity on the issue of Enron Corp’s spectacular fall from grace, take a look at a fine article by Robert D. Kaplan in What next? over on Slate. One of the main things to be drawn from this article was that the top brass at Enron sought to approach not just George W. Bush and his political allies for help, but large numbers of senior Democrats as well. Of course, this will not stop some leftist comentators from trying to tarnish Bush and co with the Enron affaire.

The USA will possibly face the most punitive trade sanctions in the history of the World Trade Organisation if the European Union is granted the right to act on a WTO ruling that US tax breaks for exporters are a violation of global trade rules.

This is entirely a self inflicted wound for the USA. Unlike the vast majority of the rest of the world, the USA claims tax from companies based on their global activities. Quite apart from the fact this is manifestly iniquitous, it is also pretty damn stupid economically. Although EU nations do not attempt to tax globally, the European states tend to subsidise their favoured companies in various ways (which is also stupid from a macro-economic perspective). This in turn has lead the US to deduce for the last 31 years that certain businesses operating in competition with subsidised EU companies should be given tax breaks to help them compete more evenly. There is just one problem with that: making special cases in that manner violates WTO treaty rules.

The solution for the US is of course simplicity itself: just abolish all US taxation at the water’s edge like the rest of the world does… no special cases therefore exist. Result? American businesses overseas flourish without the absurd and wildly expensive accounting gymnastics needed to avoid actually paying very much tax to the American IRS on corporate operations in Mongolia (or wherever).

The fact is, of the medium and small businesses I know of run by Americans overseas, the reality is that they successfully shelter the vast majority of their operations from the US tax man. So why not just recognize that there is no justification for this very hard to enforce ‘taking’ by the IRS… what reasonable pecuniary interest does the US state have on economic activity beyond its shores? Scrap this extraterritorial intrusion and not only is justice served, the WTO problem simply disappears with a loud ‘poof’!

On Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds touches on a matter in which true justice does seem to have prevailed. But this is indeed an issue which has long made me of the view that of the many splendid and admirable things about the United States, the US system of justice is most certainly not one of them.

As a sheer matter of practical justice, it cannot be right that the winner of a legal action can nevertheless be reduced to penury by having to pay legal fees, particularly if they were not the party which brought the action. Unlike most of the rest of the western world, who operate upon the principle that the looser of an action pays the legal costs of the winner, in the United States both parties to an action are responsible for their own legal costs regardless of who wins or loses… thus a person can be unsuccessfully sued and still end up bankrupted by their own lawyers as they cannot always recover their costs.

I cannot help thinking that the overweening power of the Bar in American politics is the reason this has never been addressed. The ‘pay your own costs’ principle is a licence for speculative law suits of dubious merit, a veritable ambulance-chaser’s charter, removing the cost incentive to only litigate when the merits of the case make success highly likely. Surely introducing the ‘looser pays both sets of legal fees’ principle across the board in the USA would, at a stroke, reduce the flood of absurd ’emotional distress’ and ‘tripped on a mat’ litigation as well as making it less attractive for well funded individuals and corporations to use the threat of bankruptcy-through-legal-fees to intimidate those who are less well funded. Also, less wealthy defendants who nevertheless have solid cases can approach far more capable (and thus expensive) defence counsel as upon seeing off the accusations in court, they can recover costs from the other side.