Libertarian seeks tax-raising Republican's Oregon House seat

www.lp.org ^ | 3 28 04 | www.lp.org

[A CA Guy]

I understand why they had happen what they did and they do need to rectify it.
They budgeted like the stock market tax gains would never stop and they got burned.

It is a spending problem. A balanced budget amendment and a bond to be paid off would be the only way to avoid state bankruptcy that I could see them doing.

[A CA Guy]

First off JMC813, the Governor has nothing to do with abortion law and couldn't do a damn thing about it if they wanted to.
They are powerless, so putting a crazy libertarian person who happens to be pro-life will do nothing for that state.

I don't love a pro-abort Republican in general, but they can't practice that politics in their job as governor, so their is no consequence of their position that falls upon the people of his state.

It is a non issue in that case.

You made a pointless point, congratulations... LOL

Don't worry, I've had my own as we all have here at FR at one time or another.

Did you read my abortion views here or on another thread by the way?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

There is a budget limit in place and next year things get cut or all take a cut, but we don't continue like we did under Davis.

And when they don't?...

I will post this once on abortion and will not be responding to it.

You wrote: "First off JMC813, the Governor has nothing to do with abortion law and couldn't do a damn thing about it if they wanted to."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/california.html

In California, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of December 2003:

California does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions—such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions—often found in other states.

http://www.californiaprolife.org/legislation/taxpayer.html

Unborn Children Exterminated at the Expense of Taxpayers-- 1998:
Approximately 110,295, which includes 54,885 fee-for-service abortions, plus approximately 55,410 non-fee-for-service abortions which occur in Medi-Cal funded Prepaid Health Plans and other managed care programs.

Tax Dollars:
$34,519,905, which includes $17,176,575 for fee-for-service abortions, plus approximately $17,343,330 for abortions in the other plans.

...

Policies of the Federal Government and the Other States
The federal government pays for abortions only when necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

It was the policy in twenty-seven states to fund abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered until the Clinton administration through threats and law suits forced funding for other exceptions in several of the states. (AL, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT)

Eight other states choose to fund abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered or when the baby has been conceived by rape or incest-- several also fund when the baby might be born with handicaps or for other exceptions. (CO, IA, NC, PA, TN, VA, WI, WY)

Eight states pay for abortions by order of their state courts. (California has been so ordered, but subsequently moved into the next category.) (CT, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, WV, VT)

Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)

There are a number of things the governor can do to stop state-funded abortions. Just because the republicans in California or New Jersey or the other states that provide taxpayer-funded abortions don't have the intestinal fortitude (read: guts) to do anything to stop it doesn't mean there's nothing that they can do.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

And, let's not forget that your gov, Ahnold is pro-abortion, anti-gun and pro-medical marijuana...

[A CA Guy]

Again Dan, this topic regarding abortion and Governors have nothing to do with each other in real life.
It has been brought up here at FR many times that it is a Federal issue, not a state issue, so the abortion leanings of a Governor are not critical as they would be with a Congressman or Senator.

It would be nice to have a pro-life person, but to find a nutty libertarian one isn't going to do a state any good. Better a capable person, rather than a libertarian.

[A CA Guy]

Many are pro medical if they are used for cancer patients and if we can get the libertarians to keep trying to get doctors to legalize their personal use.

Also, as I said, Arnold has nothing to say about abortion as governor. That is a federal issue.

[Sweet Land]

Many are pro medical [marijuana] if they are used for cancer patients and if we can get the libertarians to keep trying to get doctors to legalize their personal use.

I take it you mean "stop trying"? True-blue libertarians also support legalizing nonmedical use of opiates; does that mean you oppose the legality of their medical use?

[Sweet Land]

I think anything in the Oregon budget that could be cut would probably come close to 10% of the needed Billion plus dollars.

So you accept without question the Rat/RINO claim that those billions were "needed"?

I understand why they had happen what they did and they do need to rectify it. [...] It is a spending problem.

So the 10 Oregon Republicans who voted to raise taxes instead of rein in spending were wrong to do so, correct?

[The Libertarian Dude]

Not all libertarians are pro- abortion or gay marriage. But that's the thing about our party... we don't have to pass litmus tests.

Personally, I have problems with a few things about the LP... the war on terrorism being one. The LP needs to revise its thinking about that, and perhaps put property rights as a major focus - thanks to Neal Boortz for that idea.

I'm wasting my vote on Bush. If he wins or loses, it'll still be a wasted vote, because the ONLY thing he's worth a damn at is this terrorism war. That "tax cut" wasn't nearly even a beginning, when we need tax REFORM, but why point out the obvious? And why won't he tell Ted and the gang to STFU about Condi testifying? None of their damn business when Clinton invoked exec priv, same goes here. Get some stones, George, and start slappin' these liberals around. They're gonna dog you no matter what, so go on the attack.