Carla Howell, Executive Director of LNC, Comments On Sequester On Press TV

The following is a text from a March 5th entry on lp.org: 

Far from being a set of real spending cuts, the sequester amounts to phony political showmanship that only hikes taxes and spending further, said Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee,from a Press TV article on Monday:

“When both Democrats and Republicans so-called come together, what we get is more tax increases and more government spending increases and that’s exactly what we are getting.

“The Republicans are putting up false resistance when in fact they have gone along for years with racking up trillions of dollars in new government debt, increasing taxes and increasing current spending.

“The sequester is the latest manipulation by both Democrats and Republicans to avoid government spending and to raise government spending. They’re using this drama to try to scare Americans into believing that spending cuts are bad … the exact opposite of the truth.

“The Libertarian Party is the only party in America dedicated to dramatically downsizing Big Government, and making government small. We must dramatically and immediately cut government spending to balance the budget, then keep cutting — removing every Big Government program that’s doing more harm than good. This will stimulate economic growth and create millions of private-sector jobs.”

Join the Libertarian Party today to fight back against Big Government by supporting real solutions that slash government spending and regulation immediately.

Here is the original article and short video with Carla Howell:

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/291932.html

60 thoughts on “Carla Howell, Executive Director of LNC, Comments On Sequester On Press TV

  1. Zapper

    “The sequester is the latest manipulation by both Democrats and Republicans to avoid government spending and to raise government spending.”

    Edit before pulishing, please.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    I wonder how the nonarchist Ls took this message. She said Ls want to keep “government small.” This implies, employing Rothbardian logic, that government is legitimate and even necessary and desireable!

    I’d think that CH has committed a heresy here.

    Back in the day, I remember a Rothbardian GMU prof who objected to the term “limited government.” He preferred “limiting government,” for the reason that “limited government” implies some level of monopoly aggression.

  3. Zapper

    @4 IPR does not allow editing by posters.

    So, yes, you gotta love it … or leave it.

  4. Dave Terry

    ““The Libertarian Party is the only party in America dedicated to dramatically downsizing Big Government, and making government small. ”

    Everything that Ms Howell says WAS true, at one time, and is STILL” mostly” true of Libertarians in general.

    HOWEVER, a large grain of salt is required when we recognize that there is a loud vocal fifth column of “activists” with an EXTREMELY
    “un-libertarian” vendetta, NOT to make government SMALLER and better , but to destroy it altogether.

    As long as these folks enjoy the luxury of being
    recognized as “leaders”, much less as members in good standing of the Libertarian POLITICAL Party, (including representation on the LNC) WE the overwhelming majority of libertarians will be consigned to moving forward with our legs tied together.

    The recent events at Sandy Hook have moved the idea that if guns cause harm, they MUST be eliminated. Clearly if fire is a dangerous tool and and fearful master, it was ALSO be banned!

    No doubt that government is a dangerous tool AND and fearful MASTER!. Are we to simply caitulate and FREEZE to death?

    Inquiring minds and free spirits REALLY want to know.

  5. Dave Terry

    RC (2)
    >”I’d think that CH has committed a heresy here.

    I guess this would depend on WHO are the heretics here.

    The Anarchists have borrowed the biblical injunction; “To those who believe, no explanation is necessary; to those who DON’T believe, none is possible.”

    Of course it isn’t since they change the meaning of every single word they use to fit their purpose.

  6. Dave Terry

    RC (2)
    >”I remember a Rothbardian GMU prof who objected to the term “limited government.” He preferred “limiting government,” for the reason that “limited government” implies some level of monopoly aggression”

    Can you identify this lunatic?

    “limited” is an “approximate” term. It has NO meaning outside the context of what and how it is compared to that which it is modifying.

    Again, the anarchist’s symantic ojiji board?

  7. paulie

    . She said Ls want to keep “government small.” This implies, employing Rothbardian logic, that government is legitimate and even necessary and desireable!

    I don’t think it implies that. I’m an anarchist, and I like limited government as opposed to the far less limited government we have.

    He preferred “limiting government,”

    So do I, but I think that is what Carla means when she says limited government.

  8. paulie

    Hopefully, everyone knows better than to believe the nonsense Dave Terry is spewing. I don’t think it’s worth replying to.

  9. Q2Q

    Why is the LP Executive Director on an Iranian owned news channel? I find it very suspicious that she conveniently was being interviews by the Iranian Government’s English language TV network at the same time our government legitimizes drone attacks on US soil. Is this a conspiracy to discredit the LP?

  10. paulie

    How does appearing in an interview with any network discredit the LP? It’s just a way to get our message to more people than would hear it otherwise. We’re not so big that we can turn down interviews.

  11. Q2Q

    The network is own by the Iranian Government. Press TV = Iranian Government. Iranian Government=crazy islamic extremists. Appearing on that network could make it look like the LP supports crazy islamic extremists. Or that the Iranian government endorses the LP. Both scenarios are bad for the LP.

  12. paulie

    So if we get interviewed on NBC does that mean we are fans of General Electric? If we get interviewed on Fox are we then fans of Rupert Murdoch? If we get interviewed on PBS are we fans of US Gov?

    Are they fans of the LP if they interview us?

    Your statement makes no sense.

    For this purpose they are just a media outlet like any other, regardless of who owns them.

  13. Q2Q

    Press TV is different, IT IS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN TO PROMOTE A PRO-IRANIAN MESSAGE. JESUS!!!

  14. Robert Capozzi

    P, right. The term of art is “limited government,” which as a practical matter means “limiting government” with no specific destination.

    Perhaps I am out of step with the current LM, but I would point again to the SoP, where the authors felt the need to use the phrase “government, when instituted,” which to me is nonarchist linguistic torture, since governments ARE “instituted” and always have been in some form.

    Perhaps, though, the nonarchists among us are becoming more flexible and tolerant of language that could be construed as accepting some government for at least the foreseeable future.

    I’ll take glacial progress over none all day long!

  15. Dave Terry

    Paulie (9)
    >”I don’t think it implies that. I’m an anarchist, and I like limited government as opposed to the far less limited government we have.

    Clearly, Paulie doesn’t have a clue WHAT he is!

    Doesn’t he know that an anarchist opposes ALL government and a “miniarchists” are those who
    “like limited government that is far more limited than the government has currently.

    Make up your mind Paulie!

    Funny that he ALSO doesn’ recognize nonsense when HE is spewing it.

  16. paulie

    The only nonsense is coming from DT.

    I know exactly what I am.

    I oppose all monopoly government, and I favor less of it as opposed to more in the meantime.

  17. paulie

    @15 Putting your argument in all caps with multiple exclamation points does not make it correct. You are still wrong.

  18. Dave Terry

    Paulie (18)
    > “I oppose all monopoly government, and I favor less of it as opposed to more in the meantime.”

    So what kind of government is NOT a monopoly government?

    I’m on my neighborhood “watch committee”;
    does THIS constitute a “government”?

  19. paulie

    So what kind of government is NOT a monopoly government?

    One that does not maintain a territorial monopoly. Medieval Iceland and Ireland for example.There’s a whole body of literature on this. Read it, or not, but either way stop pestering me. I have no interest in communicating with you.

  20. Dave Terry

    Paulie (12&14)

    Holy Cow, Paulie, I agree with you! Hadn’t you better change your position? :>)

  21. paulie

    No. I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. Actually, I would prefer if you would stop addressing me or anything I write.

  22. Oranje Mike

    If you support government, you support oppression and tyranny of the majority.

    True story.

  23. Dave Terry

    Paulie (26)

    The ONLY way THAT will happen, is if you stop posting garbage and nonsense on this list.

    It is up to YOU!

  24. Oranje Mike

    #28,

    No government, self-reliance and goodwill to others. Government has never and will never exist in a limited form. The possibility of a Constitutional government is as real as a unicorn.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    31 OM, hmm, unicorns, huh? “No government” doesn’t fall in the same bucket?

    Love the allusion of “goodwill to others,” but I wonder what the OM plan is for, say, the stockpiles of WMD…for starters. Will the unicorns wrest simultaneously raid the silos and bunkers ’round the world in a mass, instantaneous disarmament program?

    Hamlet:
    “To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
    For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
    When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
    Must give us pause: there’s the respect
    That makes calamity of so long life;”

  26. paulie

    It’s too bad this thread is about the tired old anarchy/minarchy argument and the ownership of the press outlet that the interview took place on, rather than the substance of the interview.

  27. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 7, 2013 at 9:55 am

    It’s too bad this thread is about the tired old anarchy/minarchy argument”

    I wonder how many hours have been spent by Libertarian Party members debating anarchy vs. minarchy since the party’s inception. I bet that it’s a heck of a lot.

    Now just imagine if just a fraction of that time had been spent on Libertarian Party outreach to the general public. We might actually be a bit closer to the point where anarchy vs. minarchy was a more relevant discussion than it is now since we are so far from having either.

  28. Robert Capozzi

    Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends…

    I agree, tho, A and P. With more outreach and less internal debate, the LP might have 20K instead of 15K. I liken it to palliatives that keep a cancer patient alive a bit longer with cancer.

    However, going back and REMOVING the tumor not only extends the person’s life, but it dramatically improves the quality of life (which is the more important consideration).

    Strike the root and all that…

  29. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Mar 7, 2013 at 10:32 am

    Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends…”

    LOL!

    “I agree, tho, A and P. With more outreach and less internal debate, the LP might have 20K instead of 15K.”

    I think that with a greater emphasis put on reaching out to the general public with less time spent preaching to the choir and debating minutia, that the Libertarian Party could be a lot bigger than 20K.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    a, 20K is a placeholder. My judgment is that IF a third-way movement and party is to become a playa on the stage, it needs to rid itself of the false and commit itself to the true.

    Burdened with fringy and false ideas, a liberty party might still grow to – what – 1MM, but even that is not going to get the job done, IMO. We’d need 10s of millions to do that.

  31. paulie

    I think that with a greater emphasis put on reaching out to the general public with less time spent preaching to the choir and debating minutia, that the Libertarian Party could be a lot bigger than 20K.

    Bingo.

  32. paulie

    a liberty party might still grow to – what – 1MM, but even that is not going to get the job done, IMO.

    Even a hundred thousand would force huge changes in government policy.

    You are talking about dues paying memberships. Even the Democrats and Republicans are only in the hundreds of thousands of those.

  33. Andy

    Paulie said: “Even a hundred thousand would force huge changes in government policy. ”

    I think that the Libertarian Party could have 100,000 dues pays members. I think that even more than this is possible. It’s not going to happen though without more people in the party changing the way they do things.

    Stop wasting so much time preaching to the choir and debating minutia. Do more outreach and have a more balanced outreach approach, as in, do outreach to more than just computer geeks and disgruntled Republicans. Put some focus on some winnable races where Libertarians can get noticed and make an impact, like seats in state legislatures and county sheriff.

    The Libertarian Party has the potential to be a lot bigger than it is, but this is not going to happen unless a lot of people in the party work to make it happen.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    P, false analogy, since the Rs and Ds have the reigns. Their structure is not especially relevant.

    Look, if you think the small tweaks to L theory and practice that’ve been made over the 4 decades is sufficient, then you do. I don’t. Maybe you are right, and things can congeal in the near term. I am highly skeptical, but would LOVE to be proven incorrect.

    Knock yourself out.

  35. Wyoming Territory Foundation

    The theory is fine.

    The practice, as Andy correctly suggests, is what needs a lot of work.

    All hands on deck!

  36. Dave Terry

    OM (31)
    >”No government, self-reliance and goodwill to others.”

    “Hare Krishna, Hare Hare, Krishna Krishna.”
    “kumbaya my lord, kumbaya”
    “Love, peace and goodwill to men”

    HELP! The LP is overrun with flower children!

  37. Dave Terry

    Paulie (32) >”It has existed in relatively more limited forms in some places and times than others.

    YES! And disappeared as soon as confronted with the first group of ‘heretics’ with sticks, stones, clubs, swords, bows & arrows, muskets, riffles, bayonets, grenades, canons, howitzers, machine guns, bombers and guided missiles.

    Rave on! FLOWER POWER!

  38. Deran

    I just have to point out. Press TV is the television channel of the Iranian theocratic dictatorship. I find it dubious when people stoop to getting media coverage from places like Press TV and Russia Today. Both are state controlled media outlets. At least the BBC and Al Jazeera have a actual amount of very real press independence.

  39. Dave Terry

    Andy (35) >”I wonder how many hours have been spent by Libertarian Party members debating anarchy vs. minarchy since the party’s inception. I bet that it’s a heck of a lot.

    Actually, twice as much in the last five years, than in the previous five years and twice as much in the previous five years than the five years prior to that.

    Throughout MOST of the history of the LP, the “flower children” were ALL Democrats! EXCEPT, of course, when the the Democrats were getting us active in Korea, Vietnam & etc.

  40. paulie

    And disappeared as soon as confronted with the first group of ‘heretics’ with sticks, stones, clubs, swords, bows & arrows, muskets, riffles, bayonets, grenades, canons, howitzers, machine guns, bombers and guided missiles.

    Wrong again, as usual.

  41. paulie

    I just have to point out. Press TV is the television channel of the Iranian theocratic dictatorship. I find it dubious when people stoop to getting media coverage from places like Press TV and Russia Today. Both are state controlled media outlets. At least the BBC and Al Jazeera have a actual amount of very real press independence.

    Russia Today has some of the best coverage of international news (that is anything outside of Russia).

  42. paulie

    Andy (35) >”I wonder how many hours have been spent by Libertarian Party members debating anarchy vs. minarchy since the party’s inception. I bet that it’s a heck of a lot.

    Actually, twice as much in the last five years, than in the previous five years and twice as much in the previous five years than the five years prior to that.

    Throughout MOST of the history of the LP, the “flower children” were ALL Democrats! EXCEPT, of course, when the the Democrats were getting us active in Korea, Vietnam & etc.

    Dave Terry is spreading misinformation (but what else is new?)

    Anarchists have been heavily involved in the LP from the very beginning and all throughout its history, and if anything there are fewer now than there have been historically.

  43. paulie

    Sorry for responding to Dave Terry. Hopefully, people here already know he is full of crap and will ignore him from now on.

    I’ll try to, although I’m not good at letting it go (to put it mildly).

  44. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I like both Press TV and Russia Today, although the latter is the best in my opinion when it comes to, like Paulie said, covering international news (albeit Russia). They are way more open and fair then any lamestream media source here in the U.S.

  45. Dave Terry

    Paulie (42) >”You are talking about dues paying memberships. Even the Democrats and Republicans are only in the hundreds of thousands of those.

    WHOA!!!! Do I hear the voice of ‘heresy”? Do you think that “dues paying memberships” are MORE effective and relevant than hangers-on?

    Just WAIT, until the Wagnerites hear THIS!

  46. Dave Terry

    Paulie (51)

    DT> “And disappeared as soon as confronted with the first group of ‘heretics’ with sticks, stones, clubs, swords, bows & arrows, muskets, riffles, bayonets, grenades, canons, howitzers, machine guns, bombers and guided missiles.

    >”Wrong again, as usual.

    Examples?
    Where are they now?

  47. paulie

    I don’t have time or inclination to provide you examples, and I’ve already provided some before. Some of them latest hundreds of years.

  48. Dave Terry

    Paulie (53) >”Anarchists have been heavily involved in the LP from the very beginning and all throughout its history, and if anything there are fewer now than there have been historically.

    I see! How about some examples; PLEASE?

    Present at the Creation; David Nolan? John Hospers? Tonie Nathan? David Bergland? Michael Dixon? Pipp Boyls? John Daniels? Richard Gentry? Keith Jones? Mark Frazier? Bill Danks? Mark Coleman? Dale Nelson? Susan Nolan? Eric Westling? Luke Zell? Myrna Culbreath? http://web.archive.org/web/20020601180018/http://archive.lp.org/lnc/lnc19711211.min.html

    Everyone of these founders were considerably MORE “pro-state” than I am. In fact, prior to the Portland Convention, as a consequence of Dr. Hosper’s bolting the LP and supporting GW over our own candidate Badnarik, I announced that if Hospers elected to speak at the convention, I would lead a walk-out. Fortunately for us all, he chose not to attend.

  49. paulie

    I see! How about some examples; PLEASE?

    Steve Trinward, for example, if you want to go all the way back to Nolan’s living room.

    Or if you think early 1970s is close enough, how about Murray Rothbard?

    Sam Konkin mentioned splitting with the LP in 1973. That implies he was involved prior to that.

    You may have heard of the Dallas Accord? That refers to an understanding reached at the 1973 convention between anarchists and minarchists in the LP that the LP would not be explicitly one or the other but would include both.

    Or take

    http://libertariantimes.com/component/content/article/18-libertarianalliancewordpresscom/45850-the-battle-for-the-cato-institute-politics-personalities-washingtonian :

    Although he had been active in California libertarian politics, Crane didn’t appreciate the movement’s diversity until he attended the Libertarian Party’s first national convention in 1972. At the Radisson Hotel in Denver, Crane mingled with anarchists dressed all in black and Ayn Rand devotees carrying long cigarette holders. “It was like a Star Wars bar scene,” he says. Wearing a jacket and tie, Crane stood out. Three years later, he gave up a career in finance and moved to Washington to manage the 1976 presidential campaign of Libertarian candidate Roger MacBride.

    Are you seriously going to want me to believe that you have been involved with the LP all these decades and this whole time have been under the illusion that anarchists only recently entered the LP?

    I don’t believe that you could possibly be that ignorant for one second.

    And that’s proof right there that David Terry deliberately spreads misinformation and is a malicious troll, if any such proof was still needed by anyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *