Pennsylvania LP blasts state's 'socialistic' budget

www.lp.org ^ | 1.2.04 | lp.org

[freepatriot32]

The new budget approved by Pennsylvania politicians is a victory for bigger government and special interests -- but a setback for ordinary taxpayers, the state LP has charged.

"The message is clear from both parties: Government needs to grow," said LP State Chair Ken Krawchuk. "And you, the taxpayer, need to feed [politicians'] insatiable hunger for power and control."

Governor Ed Rendell signed the $21.3 billion budget on December 23. The spending plan calls for a 10% increase in the state income tax, a new $500 million tax on cell phone companies, and higher taxes on cigarettes.

Krawchuk, who was also the LP's gubernatorial candidate in 2000, said the higher taxes and costly government programs will hurt state residents.

"Two years ago as the LP candidate for governor, I proposed a rollback of state spending over a four year period to accommodate the inevitable shortfall in revenue and to avoid a budget crisis," he said. "Sadly, the two major parties chose crisis and higher taxes.

"This will only lead to a decrease in business activity, an increase in joblessness, and more reasons to leave Pennsylvania."

The new budget is also saturated with spending for powerful lobbying groups, said Krawchuk, including subsidies for medical malpractice, expanded prescription drug coverage for seniors, and more educational spending.

"Chalk one up for the insurance industry," he said. "Chalk up a Daily Double for senior citizens. Score another big win for the state teacher's union. The true beneficiaries of this budget are special interest groups."

In fact, said Krawchuk, there is only one good thing about the budget: "It's becoming increasingly clear that the Libertarian Party is the only answer to reverse the socialistic nature of our current politicians."

[freepatriot32]

dont worry alll you gotta do is vote republican and when they get into officethe y will shrink the sizeo f the goverment and get spedning under control they wont vote for and sign into law the largest spending bill in the history of the country or anything like that ......oh wait um er nevermind

[FormerLib]

"LP?" What the heck is that?

[Hacksaw]

Well, I have to agree with the LP on this. The GOP has the majority, and had no reason to pass Rendell's tax hike. Rendell said he would veto any budget without the funding he wanted - so why not let him veto till the cows come home?

[BlkConserv]

Uh, Libertarians have to get ELECTED first. It's nice to stand on the sidelines and b!tch but it really doesn't get you any support other than from lucid pot-heads.

[Dane]

I know I am being nit picky, but the following statement by Mr. Krawchuk only perpetuates the LP as being a bunch of pot smokers.

Krawchuk, who was also the LP's gubernatorial candidate in 2000, said the higher taxes and costly government programs will hurt state residents.

"Two years ago as the LP candidate for governor, I proposed a rollback of state spending over a four year period to accommodate the inevitable shortfall in revenue and to avoid a budget crisis," he said. "Sadly, the two major parties chose crisis and higher taxes

Uh there was no gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania in the year 2000.

[ServesURight]

This is when Libertarians are at their best - when they focus on the meat-and-potato issues that resonate with people instead of worrying about the WOD.

They're 100% spot-on here. Rendell and the PA RINOs should be ashamed of themselves.

[ServesURight]

Uh there was no gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania in the year 2000

Hey Dane - two years ago was 2002. PA had a gubernatorial election in 2002. LOL!

[cake_crumb]

"Uh, Libertarians have to get ELECTED first. It's nice to stand on the sidelines and b!tch but it really doesn't get you any support other than from lucid pot-heads"

Amen to that. I want to get rid of Red Tape Rendell as much as the next gal, but have never ONCE seen the libertarian party manage to do anything other than stand on the sidelines, insisting they won't vote or will vote Democrat for reasons of 'principle' and loudly complain about everything, all the time.

Isn't lucid pothead sliding close to an oxymoron?

[freepatriot32]

the libertarian party www.lp.org

[Dane]

Oh yeah and also, the so-called gubernatorial election in 2000 was a little bit over three years ago, not two years ago.

Soemething to remember Mr. Krawchuk when you post again on FR, that's if you can put down the bong down long enough.

[Dane]

Hey Dane - two years ago was 2002. PA had a gubernatorial election in 2002. LOL

From the article posted above.

Krawchuk, who was also the LP's gubernatorial candidate in 2000

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

So he misspoke. He probably meant to say 2002. Give him a break - Lots of Republicans make inaccurate statements too, you know.

[cake_crumb]

"Uh there was no gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania in the year 2000"

LOL...SHHHH!

[Chris Tucker]

The 2000 gaffe statement wasn't made by Krawchuk, it was made by whoever wrote this press release for the Libertarian Party.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Yeah you're right. Looks like I jumped the gun.

[freeeee]

Uh, Libertarians have to get ELECTED first.

I tell ya what. Why don't you Repubs surprise us and throw the CINO's and RINO's out come primary time, and put some decent real conservatives on the ballot. Doesn't need to be an libertarian, doesn't even need to shrink the government for now, the only thing I ask is do not increase the size, scope, cost or intrusiveness of government one tiny bit beyond its current level, and I'll quit voting for Libertarians and go Republican.

This isn't an unreasonable request, but I bet pigs will fly before it happens.

[Dane]

The 2000 gaffe statement wasn't made by Krawchuk, it was made by whoever wrote this press release for the Libertarian Party

JMO, with bong in hand.

[BlkConserv]

Why don't you pressure the CINOs and RINOs to enact conservative legislation rather than going to a corner and sulking, threatening to vote 3rd party if you don't get your way?

[freeeee]

Why don't you pressure the CINOs and RINOs to enact conservative legislation rather than going to a corner and sulking, threatening to vote 3rd party if you don't get your way?

Good question. Let's look at it further: "Why don't you pressure the CINO's and RINO's..."

The pressure we exert on them is the threat of our vote. They don't care about anything else. It's the only language they understand so we have to speak it to them. RINO's will only be shaken from the party when they prove to be a liability, and that means they have to lose when they run, even just once to send a message.

[Dane]

It's the only language they understand so we have to speak it to them.

Yep the language of winning. No doubt about that. Either you compromise in a difficult political situation and declarer victory, or be like you freee, declare principle uber alles and lose all the time.