Mediaboss Marketing

Another major milestone has been reached in the Syracuse mayoral election. Democratic hopefuls have submitted their petitions to stay in the race. There are five Democratic candidates: Joe Nicoletti, Juanita Williams, Alfonso Davis, Raymond Blackwell, and Marty Masterpole. But getting enough signatures doesnt mean theyll all be on the ballot. Onondaga County Board of Elections Commissioner Dustin Czarny says there are two main reasons candidates can be knocked from the race: If they failed to collect enough signatures from registered Democrats within the city, or if their witnesses to those petitions were not qualified.

"Every candidate has had a general objection filed against them, which means that the possibility of specific objections against a any candidate could come in against any candidate over the next week or so. In all likelihood, maybe one or two won't survive, but we just won't be able to tell until the end of thechallenge weeks."

While parties and candidates must encourage voting, Czarny says the Board of Elections will engage with local media to remind citizens of registration and voting deadlines. Czarny is hopeful that the circumstances of this primary could motivate more participation from the people of Syracuse.

"Primary elections tend to be the most low-turnout elections. My hope is with the number of candidates and the open mayoral seat, we'll see a higher turnout in this primary than we would have, say, four years ago."

The Board of Elections has found that in years with an open mayoral seat like this one, more people vote in primaries. However, Czarny believes that political tension nationally could also contribute to greater local voting interest.

"What could be different this year is you see this wave of activism sweeping the country now. Even special elections are getting higher turnout. The increasedawareness of local elections and elections in general could translate to higher turnout numbers in the fall."

One candidate who will not be on the Democratic line is Chris Fowler, who didn't submit the 1,000 required signatures from party members to secure a spot on the ballot. He recently gained the Libertarian Partys nomination, but now must gather more than 1,300 signatures to create a Libertarian Party line on the ballot. Also running for mayor are Republican Laura Lavine, Green Party's Howie Hawkins, and Independent Ben Walsh. Primary elections are September 12th; the general election is November 7th.

Follow this link:
Syracuse Mayoral Democrats Turn in Petition Signatures; One Candidate Switches to Libertarian Party - WAER

There are around 7,000 seats in the upper and lower houses of all the state governments in America, and of those, 4 are currently held by representatives of the Libertarian Party. This statistic provides a simple explanation to why third parties, in general, have such a hard time in elections, particularly the presidential election. In 2016, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson pulled in 3.27% of the national vote, making him, based on numbers, the most successful Libertarian and third party candidate to ever run for president. Today, now over five months into Republican President Donald Trumps term, many officials in both the Democratic and Republican parties are changing their tune and switching their affiliations to be with the Libertarian Party.

The state of New Hampshire has become in a sense the epicenter of Libertarian activity, its state motto of live free or die clearly aligning with the partys principles. The past year has seen three state representatives switching to the party, two coming from the Republicans and one from the Democrats. In a statement regarding why he chose to change, Rep. Brandon Phinney shared that he felt the Republican Party was pressuring him to push certain ideas that didn't align with his own principles. Rep. Joseph Stallcop, the Democratic convert, said that the primary parties goal is simply to expand government and their own agendas, ignoring the protection of the peoples rights. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is now gaining ground in passing legislation that aligns with their values too, hoping to soon create laws that legalize recreational marijuana and outlaw the death penalty.

While there are currently no Libertarian officials in Congress, the party has their eyes on certain representatives whose work aligns with the partys values. Many analysts and speculators see the strategy as people running to be elected in one of the primary parties with the motive to convert to the Libertarians once elected. Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke, the first to officially change to the third party says that this is the wrong strategy, as it could result in the person not getting elected at all. Instead, she sees the opportunity to work with sitting officials who seem to lean their way. While the funding for third party candidates election and reelection campaigns isn't nearly as great as the primary parties, Ebke and others are confident that if their party can be willing to put aside small differences with voters but agree on key points, they have a strong chance at increasing their numbers in state and federal legislatures as well as in the presidential race.

View post:
Libertarian Party Gaining Ground as Primary Parties Lose Support - The Conservative Nut (blog)

As the American healthcare system continues to seeminglyspend more and get ranked lowerthan other developed countries, many progressives have suggested a shift to single-payer healthcare as a solution.

Such attitudes have been exacerbated by recent Republican attempts to reign in government healthcare spending,prompting 52% of Democrats to say they support a government takeover of healthcare (this is up from 33% in March 2014).

The shortcomings of the US status quo (and any potential Republican reforms) are greatly exaggerated, and adopting a single-payer system is likely to only worsen our quality of care.

Under the guidance of politicians with absolutely no background in healthcare, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, the left wing has epitomized the success stories of Nordic nations, such asSweden and Denmark (which are ranked second and first, respectively, by US News).

Little do they realize, however, that following these nations examples would undercut the rest of their proposed domestic policies.

The reason Nordic countries can spend so little on healthcare and still score highly on health metrics is because theyspend substantially more on social safety net services, like unemployment coverage, education, and foster care.

When these are taken into consideration,Nordic countriesactually spend more than the US per citizen; keep in mind, all this spending falls on the governments tab (i.e. the taxpayers), while in the USthe majority of healthcare spending is still paid by the individual.

Such high spending is only possible with proportionally higher taxation, but to stay globally competitive, these nations must maintain low corporate tax rates, so the tax burden is shifted to individuals, whopay taxes as high as 60% (incidentally, the amount that the rich contribute is actually less than that of the US).

This social redistribution scheme, where everyone pays in eagerly, is only possible because Scandinavian countries havesmall, homogenous populations, without any commitment to supporting historically impoverished and/or oppressed minorities.

In fact, quite to the contrary, the Nordic countries have some of the most nativist and anti-immigrant policies in Europe, going so faras to build a wall to protect against illegal immigrants and Middle-Eastern refugees. Sound familiar?

American progressives cant have it both ways: you either have a strong social safety net along with border protection and homogeneity, or neither.

A single-payer system has never been attempted in any country as populous and diverse as the US.

Those European nations, like the UK or Germany, that did implement some softer version of universal healthcare have seen mixed results:the UK is often ranked no better than the US, whileGermany has a rampant two tier system, with those able to afford private care receiving far better service than those on the public option.

The healthcare spending is supplemented, once again, by extensive social spending.

These countries are currently struggling with an unsustainable influx of immigrants and refugees (thanks to theSchengen area visa-free travel), which adds an even more unmanageable burden onto their already strained safety nets.

Combine that with the obligations that Germany has towards sustaining the rest of the European Union, who are themselves mired in their own debt crises, and the big picture becomes clear: Europes spending is not sustainable for a growing, diverse population.

The increased taxation and debt that European nations are facing in order to take in these immigrants has fomented nativist sentiments, leading to far right political victories (like Brexit), more walls and fences, and even aggression towards refugees.

This, in turn, has only fanned the flames for the already ostracized populations of Muslims, resulting in the horrific acts of terrorism that have become nearly synonymous with daily news in Europe.

Strained social relations and opposing political agendas, goaded in some part by single-payer healthcare, is not just endangering national finances its costing lives.

The dangers of single-payer medicine in Europe should leave us weary of adopting similar measures in our own country.

We have likewise witnessed arise in racism and xenophobia, which is often justified and exacerbated by the belief that our minority populations are draining our resources.

In expanding our social safety spending, the US would further these nativist sentiments to retreat back into its shell, abandoning the embrace of immigration and economic competitiveness that our nation was founded upon.

In the short term, our poor may be lifted up, but in the long term, such an Elysium would not be competitive globally and eventually collapse under its own weight.

The strong social safety net necessary to improve our national health metrics would alsoperpetuate poverty by disincentivizing work, thus emboldening negative stereotypes about lazy minorities.

To be lasting and self-sustaining, economic mobility (and the improvement that follows in the lifestyles and health outcomes of the impoverished) must come from the free market.

Considering the plethora of options around the globe that businesses have (for where to conduct business), the US must lower taxes if it is to remain competitive and augment said growth.

The American public must, in fact, look to Europe- but not as the city upon a hill which some progressive politicians paint, but as a case study in what not to do.

Single-payer is deceptive in theory and in name: although those like Bernie Sanders would have you believe the rich would be the single-payers, in reality,allof us(and our posterity) would pay dearly.

There is nothing singular about the suffering that would be brought on by single-payer healthcare.

* Adam Barsouk is a student of medicine and health policy at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. As the son of Soviet escapees, he values the opportunity and freedom that America provided his family, and as a cancer researcher and aspiring physician, hopes to share his commitment by liberating others from the chains and suffering of disease.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:
The Perils of Single-Payer Healthcare - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

The Minimum Wage What Are We Thinking Being Libertarian The truth is it is impossible to live, what many people have as an expectation of the lifestyle they want to live, on a minimum wage; but, it is possible to live. Yes, you will have to live with roommates and you most likely won't have much spending ...

View original post here:
The Minimum Wage What Are We Thinking - Being Libertarian

Libertarians must cast off their niche-party shackles and embrace more moderate stances to compete in the political arena.

The plight of third-party presidential bids in recent United States history have been, to put it in blunt terms, a series of major disappointments. The current Democratic-Republican two-party alignment has been extremely resilient to challenges from any alternative perspectives. Many of the ideological shifts in the American electorate have caused not a new political party to emerge, but rather strategic shifting of the two-party oligopoly to accommodate these new ideals.

Libertarians should observe the current shifting of the Democratic and Republican parties with concern, perhaps even fright. The days of the Reagan coalition, where conservative leaders like William F. Buckley gave a voice at the table (though not a full endorsement) to libertarian thinkers like FA Hayek and Milton Friedman, is long over. Modern right-wing politics now shares no more in common with the ideals of classical liberalism than does the progressive wing. From the neoconservative interventionism of George W. Bush, to the anti-market, anti-civil rights populist-nationalist Trump presidency, any tentative alliance between Republicans and libertarians that may have existed is now dead and buried.

Should libertarians consider a shift to the left? The outlook there is getting more and more concerning as well. An avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, came within inches of earning the Democratic nomination in 2016. On the horizon, far-left Elizabeth Warren has her crosshairs aimed at the 2020 election. If either of these two candidates grabs the agenda of the Democratic Party away from the more reasonable Clinton-era members, it will represent a major underlying shift in the economic philosophy of the party. No longer will government intervention be deemed a necessary step to correct for perceived market failures or inequities. These far-left ideologues believe, rather, that the government actually does a better job in managing goods and services than does a private market.

Advocates of free markets and personal liberty face a potential political future in which the only two established political choices are between a pseudo-authoritarian and pseudo-socialist party. Neither could be further from the ideals of this countrys founders, save a true shift to pure fascism or communism. What should the only remaining US political party with access to the ballot on all 50 states do? The only strategic answer that makes sense is to flank from the center.

While Gary Johnsons failed 2016 presidential bid was a disappointment given his polling numbers earlier in the campaign season, a quick look at the voters who supported the Libertarian ticket explains a great deal about where the support was coming from. The ANES 2016 survey reveals that voters who went for Johnson identified politically as more moderate than Trump or Clinton supporters. They take more centrist stances on trade, the environment, and many other partisan issues. The 4 million+ people who were drawn to the Johnson-Weld candidacy were not libertarian ideologues, driven by the writings of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Rather, they were primarily moderates; dissatisfied with both Clinton and Trumps candidacies and voting in protest of the two major parties. In a time of increasing political polarization, a possible revolt of moderate voters ostracized by the far-left and far-right seems very possibly on the horizon. This opportunity for vote gathering cannot and should not be ignored by the only other US party with the resources and organization to achieve electoral success.

If the Libertarian Party wants to gain relevance and bargaining power in 2020 and perhaps beyond, participants and party members must drop some of more unpopular and radical party positions. Arguments for legalizing all drugs (not just marijuana), a complete elimination of minimum wage laws and regulations, and the complete abolition of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are without a doubt well-principled, and in keeping with an ideal libertarian vision of society, but they are not yet supported by enough of the population to be realistic campaign promises. For too long, ideological purity has superseded more pragmatic, measured goals for the Libertarian Party. They have been acting as a niche party, and this needs to change.

I propose that a center-libertarian party one that espouses the ideas of moderately limited government, social progress, and globalization is the best chance true libertarians have in order to push back against the radicalization of the Democratic and Republican parties. By positioning as the reasoned middle-ground, the party can work to advance some ideological interests that are largely popular (free trade, LGBT rights, lower taxes, reasoned budget cuts, school choice, and a restrained foreign policy to name a few) while offering a solid option to so many moderate voters within the US that while perhaps not true card-holding libertarians are concerned about either the growing authoritarian tendencies of the Republican party or the rapid expansion of economic interventionism and massive budget deficits offered by the left-Democrats.

Many of my libertarian friends will no doubt argue that what I am asking for is a step too far. For too long, I have heard, libertarians have had to choose between the lesser of two evils. A centrist party with only a classical liberal bent would be a return in their eyes to choosing a distant compromise over their preferred ideal ends. But this kind of thinking ignores reality and the pragmatic constraints of an electoral system, and the nature of strategic political bargaining. There are simply not yet enough true believers in minarchist policy for a presidential ticket espousing elimination of nearly 85% of government services to be electable. As political entrepreneurs, the libertarians must act pragmatically: not only is a centrist platform preferable to the options currently tabled by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is where many of the undecided or ostracized voters are likely to lie in 2020.

If libertarians continue to exist on fighting from the fringe of politics, there will be no opportunity to pose any political threat to the rise in statism that we see in the current political climate. The Libertarian Party and its donors must seize this opportunity, and work towards electoral success. The war against tyranny must be fought from the middle, not from the fringe. If we cannot make the adjustments and decisions necessary to compete electorally in a system already so stacked against third party challengers, then we too are equally culpable in the horrifying direction that the American political parties are heading.

* Colin French is a PhD student of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He has taught economics, history, and politics at both the secondary and post-secondary levels.

Like Loading...

Link:
A Case for Centrism - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian