Jo Jorgensen: Trump, Biden and their parties collaborate to balloon federal spending

JoJ2020.com:

GREENVILLE, S.C.— “Donald Trump promised American voters that he would drain the swamp,” said Dr. Jo Jorgensen, who was nominated Saturday to be the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president. “But the swamp under Trump’s presidency is brimming.”

In February, Trump released a $4.8 trillion budget for fiscal year 2021, creating nearly one trillion dollars in new spending, every year, since he became president.

Trump took even less time to drive the deficit to over one trillion dollars, which it hit in in 2019.

In addition, President Trump shattered those records last month when he signed the CARES Act, which adds another $2.2 trillion dollars in federal spending.

Democrats in the House passed the HEROES Act, which proposes yet another $3 trillion in new spending. So far, Trump and the Republican senate have not shown willingness to enact it.

“This is how Republicans justify reckless and destructive government overspending,” said Jorgensen. “They jointly drive up government spending in lock step with Democrats. Then they oppose the last leg of the increase and claim to be fiscally conservative.”

“Being the more frugal of the two old parties is like being the soberest drunk in a bar,” she said.

“I’m running for president to drain the swamp by moving water and sludge out of it, not pouring more in,” she said. “The federal government is long overdue for dramatic downsizing.”

Jorgensen proposes dramatic cuts in federal spending, ending the income tax, and balancing the budget.

“Taking money and control out of government and returning it to the American people will create millions of new jobs, and will give back over $12,000 to the average taxpayer, every year.”

On Saturday, May 23, delegates to the Libertarian Party national convention voted Jo Jorgensen to be the nominee for president in an online convention. The in-person convention planned to be held in Austin, Texas this weekend was canceled due to restrictions imposed in response to the coronavirus.

###

Dr. Jo Jorgensen is the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, and was the party’s 1996 vice-presidential nominee. She is a businesswoman, entrepreneur, and senior lecturer at Clemson University. She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology.

68 thoughts on “Jo Jorgensen: Trump, Biden and their parties collaborate to balloon federal spending

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    So no CARES Act.,,what should the federal government have done? Nothing?

  2. LibertyDave

    Anthony Dlugos, of course the government should have done nothing. Haven’t you been paying attention to history.

    This is what Harry Brown was talking about when he said “The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, ‘See if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”

  3. Anthony Dlugos

    in the metaphor, the initial “leg-break” was perpetrated by the virus, not the government.

  4. paulie Post author

    in the metaphor, the initial “leg-break” was perpetrated by the virus, not the government.

    Only in part. The government had a lot to do with it. They bungled the initial availability of testing with their red tape, allowing the virus to spread in ways that could not be tracked and that private entities could not adequately respond to. They have artificially limited the availability of everything from PPE to hospitals (certificate of need laws, etc) to drugs (FDA overzealotry) to medical professionals with their mountains of red tape.

    Of course there are many real problems in the world – infectious diseases, poverty, terrorism, drug abuse, pollution, and many others. But when government wages its “wars” on these problems, it always bungles it badly, ends up making them worse, and causes new ones. It does indeed help break our legs and take undue credit for a poor quality, overly expensive crutch. That doesn’t mean we would not have real problems without government, just that people working together voluntarily through free enterprise and mutual aid can find much better solutions in its absence.

  5. LibertyDave

    In the metaphor, the initial “leg-break” was perpetrated by the government when they shut down the economy.

  6. paulie Post author

    That was yet another leg break perpetuated by the government that was made “necessary” by their earlier bungling as well as their long term contributions to the relative lack of market and cooperative preparedness for such things.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    The NBA shut down its season because one player tested positive, long before the various governments started locking things down. One player. Didn’t die, didn’t get sick.

    They have not restarted yet.

    David Boaz over at Cato had a good article with graphs showing stuff life restaurant reservations in NYC going into a steep decline while the government was still pooh-poohing the threat.

    The leg break was perpetrated by the virus, the government is the doctor bungling the diagnosis and treatment afterwards.

    The idea that life would have gone on like normal if the government did not get involved is farcical.

    Libertarians’ job is to present a set of protocols that our hypothetical doctor would enact to respond better to the broken leg…based on libertarian philosophy…and to make sure the treatment is not worse than the disease.

    But we do have to present a treatment.

    Without refinement to a message like this, we are headed for far fewer than 500,000 votes.

  8. LibertyDave

    Anthony Dlugos, your so funny, saying that politicians pretending to be doctors and interfering in health care is better than politicians getting out of the way of real doctors and letting them present a treatment.

  9. Jared

    I asked her a question about government’s role in public health. It was phrased generally, but she gave a narrow answer that the federal coronavirus response has been inefficient and counterproductive. I don’t disagree, but I was hoping she would tackle whether in principle any federal response, under any circumstance, might be warranted. Jorgensen knows just how much to say that will appeal to both pragmatists and purists, which I think helped her clench the nomination. Criticizing government actions is easy for any Libertarian, but I do wish she would address some of the underlying philosophical issues and state positively how she would respond. Amash said he would’ve redirected the spending to individuals burdened by state and local edicts. If Jorgensen’s answer is, “Do nothing,” she wins a gold sticker from the radicals but disappoints the pragmatist wing and nearly all reachable voters outside the party. Admittedly, I haven’t read or listened to everything said during the campaign, but I can’t tell whether she believes a federal acknowledgment of COVID-19 would even be appropriate.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    “I don’t disagree, but I was hoping she would tackle whether in principle any federal response, under any circumstance, might be warranted. Jorgensen knows just how much to say that will appeal to both pragmatists and purists, which I think helped her clench the nomination. Criticizing government actions is easy for any Libertarian, but I do wish she would address some of the underlying philosophical issues and state positively how she would respond. Amash said he would’ve redirected the spending to individuals burdened by state and local edicts. If Jorgensen’s answer is, “Do nothing,” she wins a gold sticker from the radicals but disappoints the pragmatist wing and nearly all reachable voters outside the party. ”

    100% agreement

    what’s more problematic is that its clear from her campaign that she thinks that’s a compromise.

    it may be a compromise in a philosophical sense. but in the real world of electoral politics. its a surefire way to lose the 99.6% of the normals in order to hold onto the .4% of diehard Libertarian voters.

    She’ll find this out soon enough. Doubtful she’ll change. The dogmatics are predisposed to doubling and tripling down on dogma.

  11. robert capozzi

    Blame it on Cain, don’t blame it on me.

    The problem with stringing together past errors is that most don’t necessarily connect dots in the same way. Amash had it right: There was going to be some form of relief. And then there is the takings-clause argument, that some sort of compensation needed to be made once events had made the turn that it did.

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    someone with her campaign posted on Facebook in the last couple days that she is in favor of abolishing the CIA and NSA, since the military has their own intelligence services.

    It doesn’t appear from that statement that she has a clue what the NSA, CIA, and military intelligence specialize in, or at least she doesn’t care.

    What’s ironic is that even THAT platform message wasn’t good enough for some of the purists in the thread, because any intelligence service is infringing on someone’s right SOMEWHERE.

    Your prediction of 500,000 votes may end up being optimistic.

  13. robert capozzi

    It’s a ceiling more than a prediction. Very possible that J/C will reach Berglandesque 0.2% levels…

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    ouch. just checked wikipedia. .25%. That is brutal.

    were you at the convention that nominated him?

  15. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yep. Ruwart threw her support to Bergland over a sane Georgetown prof, Ravenal. I witnessed Bergland in the hallway tell a TV reporter: “Some of us are anarchists and some of us are minarchists.” While a true statement, 99% of viewers probably heard that as: “We are crazy people who use words that no one else does.”

  16. NewFederalist

    Capozzi conveniently forgets that the Bergland/Lewis ticket was only on the ballot in 38 states and DC. They missed some big ones that year including Texas and Florida. Also missed CT, GA, KY, ME, MA, MO, OR, SD, VA and WV. I suspect at worst the Jorgensen/Cohen ticket will be closer to Barr/Root numbers which weren’t all that great.

  17. robert capozzi

    Yes, NF, David Koch closed his checkbook, seeing how wack Bergland was. I voted for him to maintain support for the LP. I won’t vote for NAP Fundamentalists any more, as I don’t wish to encourage them nor support their continuing damage to the cause of liberty.

  18. NewFederalist

    Well I didn’t vote for Bergland. Since joining the party in 1974 he is only one of two nominees I didn’t vote for. I couldn’t because I lived in Texas and he missed petitioning onto the ballot and also the write in declaration deadlines.

  19. robert capozzi

    NF,

    Fortuitous for you. I’d not fully grokked back then that NAP Fundamentalism is to L-ism as Opus Dei is to Catholicism.

  20. Anthony Dlugos

    RC & NF,

    It will be interesting to see (if it can be determined by exit polling and the like), if there is any carryover of voters who stick with the party label, as a result of GJ I and II.

    I can’t expect it will be much, but maybe enough to keep the LP above Bergland ‘84.

  21. NewFederalist

    It will be. This year will be woeful but despite the fact that 50 state and DC ballot status is unattainable this ticket will outperform Bergland/Lewis just because it will be on more than 38 states.

  22. Bondurant

    CARES Act bailed out airlines but said airlines won’t provide refunds for flights they canceled. CARES was a massive giveaway to corporations and the gullible public was given $1,200 to pay rent. Amash was one of the few to take a stand against. Heck, may have been the only one.

  23. ATBAFT

    “how wack Bergland was.”
    Compared to whom? The Party’s almost candidate, Hornberger, claimed he would cut off S.S. to everyone “tomorrow.” Bergland’s plan was to reduce benefit payouts based on age groups, with those over 56 still receiving 100% of what was promised. One can quibble with facets of his “solutions” but as Bergland was fond of saying “Utopia is not an option.” Bergland was a NAPster, but a pragmatist at the same time.

  24. dL

    The NBA shut down its season because one player tested positive, long before the various governments started locking things down. One player. Didn’t die, didn’t get sick.

    They have not restarted yet.

    David Boaz over at Cato had a good article with graphs showing stuff life restaurant reservations in NYC going into a steep decline while the government was still pooh-poohing the threat.

    That’s more or less true. The media and social media reports(particularly from Italy) and the initial JAMA paper(20% clinical, 5% severe, 1% fatal with a R0> greater than seasonal flu) created a panic that preceded the en masse local government shelter in place orders. Of course, In the past(before internet and, particularly, before social media), there never would have been any en masse shelter in place orders. You might have seen a quarantine in New York City, and that’s about it.

    But we do have to present a treatment.

    A treatment for what? Novel covid-19? Shit, I hope you are not referring to that. Broken leg? Well, a $1200 check to cover expenses for 4+ months of lost wages is equivalent to rub some dirt on it.

  25. dL

    oh, well:

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/libertarians-decide-to-become-a-joke-in-2020.html

    Taking advice from Ed Kilgore is like the democrats taking advice from Jerry Falwell, Jr. Kilgore has had a long time spur up his ass regarding libertarianism(particularly libertarianism as a challenge from the left). It doesn’t matter what you do, he is going to mock, belittle and despise you. He is not an honest interlocutor. You need to find someone else to serve up crocodile tears.

  26. dL

    I asked her a question about government’s role in public health.

    Government’s role in public health is to vigorously prosecute the right to self-medicate in order to overcrowd prisons with a population susceptible to covid-19 viral load, thusly inflating infection & mortality statistics from what they otherwise would be.

  27. dL

    It doesn’t appear from that statement that she has a clue what the NSA, CIA,

    Totalitarian domestic surveillance and torture.

  28. dL

    Criticizing government actions is easy for any Libertarian, but I do wish she would address some of the underlying philosophical issues and state positively

    That’s essentially what libertarianism is: a positive critique(i.e, what it is, not what it should be) of the state as actor. Fairy tales of about what the state ought to be or should do is liberalism. Libertarianism is the real world. In this case, those who are in need the most of direct cash assistance are the very ones who won’t receive it because the DA goes to tax filers, and people who are at the margins don’t file taxes. ~ 50% of the adult population does not file income tax. 25% of the adult population is unbanked or under banked. That’s the real world, Jared. The Stimulus package was basically just another Wall Street/Corporate/401K bailout that managed to keep the stock indices from completely cratering. I imagine those who were in dire need of immediate direct assistance filed for unemployment.

  29. dL

    Amash had it right: There was going to be some form of relief.

    Amash didn’t vote for The Cares Act. What’s your point, Bob? Sometimes it’s ok for the perfect to be the enemy of the inevitable?

  30. dL

    She’ll find this out soon enough. Doubtful she’ll change. The dogmatics are predisposed to doubling and tripling down on dogma.

    Dlugos, you spent last week pimping Jo Jorgensen and, now, just a mere few days later, you are tearing her down. Is it all just schtick for you, or are you that much of a flake?

  31. dL

    over a sane Georgetown prof, Ravenal.

    Before my time, but based on this late 1970s interview with Reason, I can see why he didn’t win
    https://reason.com/1978/04/01/reason-interview-earl-c-ravena/

    Real Politick crackpot. All those serious questions about how the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal challenged the precepts of libertarianism…of course, the USSR would only last another 10 years. Ravenal didn’t see that coming…

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    “A treatment for what? Novel covid-19? Shit, I hope you are not referring to that. Broken leg? Well, a $1200 check to cover expenses for 4+ months of lost wages is equivalent to rub some dirt on it.?”

    Excellent.

    In electoral politics, that’s Step One: criticize the plan of the party in power.

    Next is Step Two: propose an alternate plan.

    If you truly believe the response to ANY issue is, “not the government, never the government,” (even if that is your implicit argument by criticizing any government policy tried or proposed) may I once again suggest that you may be right, but that you’re in the wrong arena.

    Why would one run for office if they honestly think government is never the answer? Why even put yourself in the midst of a conversation where it is assumed that there is a government component to the answer?

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    “Dlugos, you spent last week pimping Jo Jorgensen and, now, just a mere few days later, you are tearing her down. Is it all just schtick for you, or are you that much of a flake?”

    I thought she was better than the disastrous alternatives of Hornberger and Boot on Head, which she is.

    Now I can start criticizing her for the comically utopian & unmarketable policy positions she’s been taking.

    Nothing contradictory there.

    If she can’t take the heat from one guy posting on the internet, not only can she respond by quitting her campaign, I would suggest that she does, because no one that weak willed is cut out for the office.

    The decisions aren’t going to get any easier for her.

  34. Anthony Dlugos

    “That’s essentially what libertarianism is: a positive critique(i.e, what it is, not what it should be) of the state as actor.”

    You lose that argument when you decide to run for office.

    A political party can’t ever make that argument. No one is forcing anyone to enter the arena of electoral politics.

    I’ll buy the argument that this means libertarians should disavow the political process entirely. I’ll not buy the argument that you can run for office and make that argument sincerely.

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    “Taking advice from Ed Kilgore is like the democrats taking advice from Jerry Falwell, Jr. Kilgore has had a long time spur up his ass regarding libertarianism(particularly libertarianism as a challenge from the left). It doesn’t matter what you do, he is going to mock, belittle and despise you. ”

    Doesn’t make his argument in this particular article any less valid.

    He’s right to fear a libertarian challenge from the left.

    He’s right that we decided to become a joke this year. The picture with the article demonstrate that.

    He might criticize us anyway. Its pretty clear if you operate in the political world, you’re gonna get criticized. Lets not make it easy on our opponents by putting forth a joke candidate.

  36. ATBAFT

    Bergland a “whack job”, NAP fundamentalist? Bergland’s remedy for social security bankruptcy was to set up a tiered approach to receiving eventual benefits. As I recall, those over age 56 would still receive 100% of what was promised. Sounds to me like even NAPsters can be realists when proposing policy solutions.

  37. Anthony Dlugos

    ok, lets just realize that even THAT solution to the social security mess is out on the extremities of the debate on reform of that program. If that Bergland plan included an eventual elimination of ss at any point in the future, then its in the 1% or less support extremity.

  38. robert capozzi

    Around,

    Ya know, I don’t recall the SS position you cite. My general impression is that Bergland was a hyper-literalistic NAP Fundamentalist. I’m pretty sure MNR was one of his advisors, and even he advocated for “transition plans,” so I’m not surprised that Bergland sometimes made bows to reality.

    In a sense, the LP has degenerated to pre-1980 levels of delusion with abolitionist candidates like Hornberger and Kokesh garnering significant support. (Thankfully, Vohra didn’t, as his twisted views were largely rejected.)

    It seems completely futile to hope for the LP to advance the cause of liberty instead of playing with NAP science-fiction ideas.

  39. Jared

    dL: “That’s essentially what libertarianism is: a positive critique(i.e, what it is, not what it should be) of the state as actor. Fairy tales of about what the state ought to be or should do is liberalism. Libertarianism is the real world.”

    Then we define libertarianism differently. Censuring overactive, inefficient, corrupt government is the inevitable duty (and favored pastime) of libertarians only in consequence of our political values and objectives, what we believe about a free society and the state’s role in it. But critique isn’t what makes us libertarians.

  40. Anthony Dlugos

    yes, the only caveat being…no one but the .4% of die-hard libertarians voters (and probably less than that) thinks that means government shouldn’t have done anything at all.

  41. ATBAFT

    RC, you are correct Bergland was close to a fundamentalist NAPster but he did advocate the S.S. plan I cited in Chapter 11 of his book “Libertarianism in One Lesson.” He also noted in Ch. 6 that discussions of issues in the following chapters “are presented from a libertarian point of view and the analysis will contain both moral and practical considerations.” He barely hedged his immigration position in Ch.7, calling for removal of all immigration barriers with caveat “so long as they will take responsibility for themselves.”
    Thirty six years have passed since the publication of his book, yet much of the discussion reads as if it was written yesterday, and – while virtually all those LP founders of the first decade are gone from the Party – it’s obvious that inter-Party fencing over principled vs. practical are far from being resolved.

  42. robert capozzi

    Around,

    Agreed. It’s obvious. That’s why I lapsed my membership. NAP Fundamentalists convinced me that I was unwelcome, and that the Bylaws contain “depth charges” making reform impossible.

  43. paulie Post author

    The idea that life would have gone on like normal if the government did not get involved is farcical.

    Agreed. But why did it get to that stage? Government interference with availability of testing, PPE, medical equipment and personnel had a lot to do with it.

    Once we did get to that stage, as you point out many people, businesses and private institutions were already practicing social distancing, charity, mutual aid, stepping forward with entrepeneurship, etc. Government interfered in hamhanded ways spawning a backlash and took time to shut down smaller businesses while allowing big box competitors which provided competing products to stay open. Small and family owned restaurants were shut down while fast food chains with drive throughs stayed open, and so on.

    Small business loans ended up going to big business instead. All of the money clumsily redistributed by government, much of it to people who needed it the least and very little of it to people who needed it the most, will be repaid in the form of debt and inflation for many years and decades to come as a highly regressive tax.

    So, multiple leg breaks here.

  44. paulie Post author

    saying that politicians pretending to be doctors and interfering in health care is better than politicians getting out of the way of real doctors and letting them present a treatment.

    Yep.

  45. paulie Post author

    CARES was a massive giveaway to corporations and the gullible public was given $1,200 to pay rent.

    Yes, which they’ll have to repay at a high interest over years and decades through higher debt service payments, higher prices, and less available and lower quality goods and services.

  46. paulie Post author

    The Party’s almost candidate, Hornberger, claimed he would cut off S.S. to everyone “tomorrow.”

    It’s one reason he did not get a lot of additional later-round votes. Even as an anarchist, I’d prefer a softer landing.

  47. paulie Post author

    Broken leg? Well, a $1200 check to cover expenses for 4+ months of lost wages is equivalent to rub some dirt on it.

    At best.

  48. paulie Post author

    Government’s role in public health is to vigorously prosecute the right to self-medicate in order to overcrowd prisons with a population susceptible to covid-19 viral load, thusly inflating infection & mortality statistics from what they otherwise would be.

    Yes, and other things which are just as “helpful.”

  49. paulie Post author

    It doesn’t appear from that statement that she has a clue what the NSA, CIA,

    Totalitarian domestic surveillance and torture.

    True.

  50. paulie Post author

    In this case, those who are in need the most of direct cash assistance are the very ones who won’t receive it

    True.

    The Stimulus package was basically just another Wall Street/Corporate/401K bailout that managed to keep the stock indices from completely cratering.

    Bingo.

    I imagine those who were in dire need of immediate direct assistance filed for unemployment.

    Some, but not all. And of those many had to spend a great deal of time applying and lost housing, relationships, etc while they waited.

  51. paulie Post author

    If you truly believe the response to ANY issue is, “not the government, never the government,” (even if that is your implicit argument by criticizing any government policy tried or proposed) may I once again suggest that you may be right, but that you’re in the wrong arena.

    Why would one run for office if they honestly think government is never the answer? Why even put yourself in the midst of a conversation where it is assumed that there is a government component to the answer?

    To counteract the influence of the people who always come up with government “answers” and invariably make things worse.

    If we abandon politics to those who want government “solutions,” we just get more of those counterproductive government “solutions” than we would otherwise.

    I see government “solutions” as themselves being a problem. I don’t solve that problem by ignoring it.

  52. paulie Post author

    If that Bergland plan included an eventual elimination of ss at any point in the future, then its in the 1% or less support extremity.

    What poll data are you using?

  53. paulie Post author

    yes, the only caveat being…no one but the .4% of die-hard libertarians voters (and probably less than that) thinks that means government shouldn’t have done anything at all.

    Again what poll data supports this?

  54. paulie Post author

    Thirty six years have passed since the publication of his book, yet much of the discussion reads as if it was written yesterday

    Agreed. I would say the same of Ed Clark’s campaign book.

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    “Totalitarian domestic surveillance and torture.

    True.”

    The NSA also intercepted a phone call that mentioned one of the initial meetings of the 9/11 planners. That was what got the government on the path to realizing something big was afoot. (which they definitely dropped the ball on.)

    If Jo actually got any mainstream coverage on her position here, that’s all a journalist would have to bring up in order to torpedo her campaign.

    As egregious as some of the NSA activities have been, if you think that abolishing it because of them is a good idea or politically marketable, you’re crazy.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    Surely not.

    But if you think the snooping engenders public support for abolishment?

    Nope.

    Not to mention the fact that the NSA, as Wikipedia points out, “is responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign and domestic intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, specializing in a discipline known as signals intelligence. The NSA is also tasked with the protection of U.S. communications networks and information systems.”

    Military intelligence doesn’t have the capacity to do all that,not even close, as Jo implies with her idea to abolish the NSA and CIA and let the military handle intelligence collections.

    And a government without that information might be more dangerous than one with it. We might fall headlong into war after war, assuming the worst about foreign actors that we no longer have information about.

  57. paulie Post author

    Well, thank goodness we are not falling headlong into war after war and making erroneous assumptions about foreign actors now.

  58. paulie Post author

    Luckily, we have the CIA and NSA, which have greatly curtailed the US government’s prior habit of getting into many more ill considered wars.

  59. Anthony Dlugos

    I’m only arguing against the idea of outright abolishment of said agencies and their duties.

    I know abolishment sounds nice, but you are assuming that a Cold War waged without the CIA and NSA would have been less hot. I’m not so sure.

    I see value in some of the intelligence the NSA and the CIA collects.

    Envisioning a US government without any of that information seems to be a very bad idea.

    I know this ruins the fantasy of fully privatized defense agencies.

  60. paulie Post author

    I’m not aware of any positive aspect of the history of these agencies. Even if there were, there are many more negative aspects to outweigh them.

  61. Anthony Dlugos

    When the CIA started, it wasn’t the paramilitary organization that it is now. It really was an intelligence gathering agency that delivered a daily briefing to the president on potential threats.

    As Wikipedia notes, the NSA’s origins are traced back to a cipher decryption unit during WWI, and something called the Signal Intelligence Service (SIS) that decrypted communications of the Axis powers.

    These tasks have value.

    Saying we should abolish the agencies is simply being naive and predictably dogmatic.

    Reformed? Of course.

  62. dL

    I know this ruins the fantasy of fully privatized defense agencies.

    That suddenly has become a much more popular position…in case you haven’t noticed.

Leave a Reply

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