Libertarian Party Responds to Republican Weekly Address on Unemployment, Jobs Training

Carla Howell, political director for the national Libertarian Party, made a statement to Press TV on April 6 in response to Republicans attacking President Barack Obama about high unemployment. It can be listened to here.

Here’s a summary of what was said:

On April 5 in the Republican weekly address, Sen. Tim Scott criticized President Obama because unemployment in the United States remains high. He said that Obama’s job-training programs have produced no measurable results.

But the Republican called for replacing Obama’s 35 government-run job-training programs with one government-run job-training program.

Republicans are saying that we need another government program. They presume that the government is qualified to train workers in the private sector.

Libertarians say government bureaucrats are not qualified to dictate who is or is not qualified for a job. Only employers can and should make that decision.

Libertarians say the free market — through private programs and classes, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training — is far more capable of producing qualified workers for jobs than any government-run or government-funded program.

Big Government in the U.S. — put in place by both Democrats and Republicans — is causing high unemployment. It’s the reason so many Americans are out of work.

High taxes, government overspending and debt, bailouts, unnecessary wars, government regulations and thousands of failed and wasteful Big Government programs — including phony jobs training programs — are precisely why the U.S. is losing its competitive edge in world markets.

Government regulations prohibit employers from hiring people who are qualified.

This includes minimum wage laws, which prevent poor people from working and prevent small businesses from hiring the help they need to survive.

This includes government requirements for college degrees, “continuing education” and other state-mandates that block qualified workers from getting jobs.

Libertarians say the only way to create jobs is to get government out of the way.

Libertarian candidates running for office this year say:

•cut taxes
•dramatically cut government spending
•stop piling up government debt
•repeal thousands of unneeded laws, regulations and red tape that get in the way of economic progress.
•repeal the minimum wage

This will create tens of millions of new, productive, private-sector jobs in America.

This will allow poor people to get jobs they want and need.

It will remove the justification that politicians use for endless extensions of taxpayer-funded unemployment insurance.

When we get the government out of the way, we’ll have plenty of jobs, preserve the wealth of Americans, and keep our country at peace with our world neighbors.

Source

6 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Responds to Republican Weekly Address on Unemployment, Jobs Training

  1. George Phillies

    “Libertarians say the free market — through private programs and classes, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training — is far more capable of producing qualified workers for jobs than any government-run or government-funded program.”

    You mean my students whose tuition is covered with guaranteed student loans — a government program — are magically learning different amounts than students whose parents are paying the bill? You did say ‘any’ government program.

    The claim that the Federal government is deciding which people a private company should hire is also rather whacked.

  2. Karl

    You cannot do everything on that list…they will work against each other. You can’t lower taxes and cut debt, for example…that’s like saying: “Hmmm…let’s see, I’ll get a job that pays less, and magically have more money to spend on getting my debt down…”

    In the real world, we will either have to increase taxes or increase debt…’cuz spending won’t decrease until we remove government corruption…which isn’t mentioned in this rant.

    Which regulations are you talking about?

    I would like to see regulations like this one. It harms the economy by rewarding a few, while cutting everyone else out. Thus cutting out competition and investment into 21st century technology. This type (and other like it) encourage investment in “legacy”/19th century technologies…helping a few billionaires at everyone else’s expense.
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/10/cheneys-fracking-halliburton-loophole.html

    I suppose you like tax cuts like these – that help a few and make the rest of us pay more in taxes? Send all the money and jobs out of the country and you’ll be happy, right? The government shouldn’t have anything to do with protecting American business and American jobs, like it did from 1779 until the 1980s!!! Are you sure?
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324787004578495250424727708?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324787004578495250424727708.html

    Smaller government is usually a code word for giving away a public function to a private corporation. We the People still pay for it, but there are fewer government employees, so it can technically be called a smaller government. But, it usually costs more. And we get less services, because they aren’t profitable. Some like it because the jobs shift from union, government jobs to private, non-union jobs…and some cronies get to rake in tons of profits after they buy a few politicians.

    Not everything works out well when privatized…
    http://www.thewaterblog.org/bolivia-water-privatization

    I just found this blog…I didn’t realize it was the Heritage Foundation!

  3. From Der Sidelines

    “You can’t lower taxes and cut debt, for example…”

    Yes you can, if you also cut spending, which you conveniently forgot about. Your liberalness is showing…

  4. paulie

    cuz spending won’t decrease until we remove government corruption…

    That is the whole point. And it’s not so much the corrupton of government as the corruption that is government.

    Are you sure?

    Very, very sure. If you think protectionism makes us better off at the national level, how about the state level? County level? City level? Neighborhood level? Block level? Husehold level? Individual level…would you be better off without trading anything with anyone? Would you even survive? The logic is exactly the same at each level.

    Smaller government is usually a code word for giving away a public function to a private corporation.

    Not in our case. Government does far more to prop up big corporations than to rein them in. We would cut all that out.

    I didn’t realize it was the Heritage Foundation!

    It isn’t.


    “Libertarians say the free market — through private programs and classes, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training — is far more capable of producing qualified workers for jobs than any government-run or government-funded program.”

    You mean my students whose tuition is covered with guaranteed student loans — a government program — are magically learning different amounts than students whose parents are paying the bill? You did say ‘any’ government program.

    There’s nothing magical about it. The presence of loans is not the deciding factor on the quality of education being provided. The claim, which is correct, is that an education market free of government interference and distortion would produce far better results.

    The claim that the Federal government is deciding which people a private company should hire is also rather whacked.

    Really? The feds don’t intervene at all in whom companies may or may not hire or under what terms?

  5. Karl

    It is interesting how you talk about the US losing it’s edge AND you don’t want protectionism?

    We currently have government regulations that should end. I’ll agree with you on that.

    We need to end the “free trade” deals…like GATT, NAFTA, (soon to be) SHAFTA…er…TPP…which benefits all the oligarchs of the world – who may or may not be American. At least with protectionism – our government cared about the American oligarchs and the American People got more crumbs.

    We need to stop pumping trillions into the petroleum industry. We need to end the socialism of nuclear power. We need to cut off the war profiteers…they take more of our tax money than anyone.

    Again, without ending corruption of the political process, our government will continue to benefit only a few global oligarchs and hurt the rest of us. Size doesn’t matter, as long corruption remains. We could get our government down to 20 employees and it would still suck IF the corruption remains.

    In recent decades, we have seen our government return to policies that benefit a very small fraction of the population, despite efforts to make a more civilized country in the 1950-1970s.

    Here’s more regulation we should end:
    Our tax policies were altered to send money from all Americans to overseas bankers.
    Our trade deals were structured to create a huge trade deficit (I don’t see that anywhere in your talk – a much worse issue than the debt).
    Our trade deals encourage and reward employer who hire people in other countries.
    Our drug war created a new batch of American slaves.

    Which regulations would you end? Lemme guess? ObamaCare, right?

  6. paulie

    “Free trade” deals =/= free trade, they are actually bureaucratically managed trade agreements. American people don’t get more with protectionism, all sides lose when trade is artificially prevented. See http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/case-unilateral-free-trade-open-immigration/ and http://www.amatecon.com/etext/cftoi/cftoi-toc.html

    We need to stop pumping trillions into the petroleum industry. We need to end the socialism of nuclear power. We need to cut off the war profiteers…they take more of our tax money than anyone.

    Correct! Fully agreed.

    Again, without ending corruption of the political process, our government will continue to benefit only a few global oligarchs and hurt the rest of us.

    That will always be the case as log as politicians have power. The answer is to take the power to give out favors to their corporate partners and crime away from the political thug bosses.

    The “trade deficit” is a phony non-issue and total errant nonsense.

    Our drug war created a new batch of American slaves.

    You got that one right.

    Which regulations would you end?

    As many as possible.

    Lemme guess? ObamaCare, right?

    Absolutely. Forcing people to buy insurance from big corporations? Since when are you progressives for fascist horseshit like that? You should be ashamed.

Leave a Reply

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