By Harry Browne

Wednesday, October 11, 2000

Tonight George W. Bush and Al Gore square off in their second debate.

They will argue over many things. But underlying their arguments will be many false assumptions. Since the assumptions are wrong, their proposals are meaningless, and you should be forewarned.

Here are 8 such fallacies . . .

The Budget Surplus

Fallacy #1: "There is a budget surplus."

Each candidate will tell you how he plans to use the surplus -- proposing a combination of tax cuts, new spending programs, paying down the national debt, saving Social Security, and so on.
But there is no surplus, and so all those plans are meaningless.

Here are the federal budgets for the past ten
years:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Federal Budget, 1991-2000

Please click on this link to see the chart: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20001011_xchbr_brownegraph1.gif

(All figures in this article are taken from the August issue of Economic Indicators, a monthly publication of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The deficits are shrinking, but there still is no surplus. The Social Security receipts are larger than Social Security payments, and the excess is being lent to the general fund to create a phony surplus. Ignored in any discussion of the "surplus" is the fact that the overall federal debt continues to rise year by year.

Neither Al Gore nor George Bush will say "When we have a surplus;" he'll act as though the surplus already exists. So you shouldn't pay any attention to what he plans to do with the surplus.

If either of them really wanted to generate a true budget surplus, he'd propose reductions in government spending. But only a Libertarian President is likely to do that.

Social Security

Fallacy #2: "We are saving Social Security."

Whatever plan Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore offers to make Social Security safe, it's a misrepresentation.
You can't save something while you're stealing from it. Since all the excess Social Security receipts are being used to paper over the deficit in the general fund, there's no cash in the Social Security Trust Fund for future payments.

When Social Security payments begin to exceed
receipts in a few years, money from the general budget will have to pay off the IOUs held by Social Security. But the politicians will have used up the phony "surplus" with spending increases and tax cuts.

Social Security will be "saved" or reformed only when it's taken completely away from the
politicians, and you're allowed to keep the money yourself -- to do with as you think best.

That's why a vote for a Republican or a Democrat is truly a wasted vote. Only Libertarians are proposing that you should be completely free from Social Security.

Welfare Reform

Fallacy #3: "Welfare reform was a great triumph."

Both major parties are trying to take credit for the welfare reform program the Republican Congress passed and the Democratic President approved. They want you to believe that this "reform" has reduced
considerably the terrible burden of welfare
spending.

But here's what the federal government has spent on welfare over the past ten years:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Welfare spending, 1991-2000

Year Welfare Spending*
1991 170
1992 197
1993 207
1994 214
1995 221
1996 226
1997 231
1998 233
1999 238
2000 253

* In billions of dollars. (All figures in this article are taken from the August issue of Economic Indicators, a monthly publication of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Oh yes, you've heard that the number of welfare recipients has declined. But politicians don't stop spending money on a shrinking program. In fact, in many parts of America, federal, state, and local governments are _advertising_ for new
welfare recipients.

Welfare must be taken completely out of the hands of the federal government. Otherwise, the politicians will continue to defraud you and take your money.

Tax Cuts

Fallacy #4: "My tax cuts will save you money."

Between the general fund and Social Security, the politicians have budgeted $1.8 trillion in expenditures for the 2000 fiscal year. (The 2001 budget will be even larger.)

Who's going to pay the $1.8 trillion? The
Russians? The Martians? Of course not. You and I and almost every other American will have to cough up $1.8 trillion for that obscene budget.

Unless there is a decrease in spending, any "tax cut" simply rearranges the burden of big government; it doesn't reduce it. "Tax cuts" are a shell game, pure and simple.

Neither candidate is proposing to reduce
government spending. Neither one has called for the elimination (or even reduction) of any government program, department, or agency. Quite the contrary, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are proposing to increase the size, expense, intrusiveness, and oppression of government.

You will get real tax relief only when you get real spending relief. Again, only Libertarians are proposing real reductions in government spending.

National Defense

Fallacy #5: "I will strengthen (or preserve) our national defense."

Today America has the strongest national offense in history. Our government can annihilate any country of the world, bully any nations into doing our President's bidding, terrify our allies and enemies alike.

But we have a very weak national defense. We can't protect this country against any two-bit dictator who gets his hands on a nuclear missile. And neither major candidate has any kind of workable plan to make us safer.

Both candidates claim to support a missile
defense. But the Defense Department has spent $100 billion and 17 years trying to create one, with very little progress. We must realize that the Defense Department is just another bureaucratic government agency -- the Post Office in fatigues.
It is the least efficient place to turn for a
missile defense.

If I become President, I will post a reward of, say, $25 billion -- to go to the first private company that actually produces a missile defense and proves that it works. I think we could have one within three or four years.

To make this country safe, we must quit meddling in other countries' affairs, so we quit creating enemies and terrorists; we must reduce the number of offensive weapons that are terrifying the world; we must bring the troops home from nearly a hundred foreign countries (we are not the Roman
Empire); we must have a defense against incoming missiles; and we must have a smaller but better-qualified and better-paid fighting force that can defend us in the event of a surface attack.

All this should cost much less than is being spent now, while making you and your family much safer. I do not want your children to fight and die in a foreign war.

Supreme Court Justices

Fallacy #6: "There's a significant difference in the Supreme Court justices Bush or Gore would appoint."

In fact, there's very little difference between them -- just as there's very little difference between Republican judges Anthony Kennedy and David Souter on the one hand, and Democrats Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsberg on the other.

Mr. Bush, for example, says he'll appoint "strict constructionists" to the bench. But in Texas he has appointed a number of activist judges -- the very kind Republicans claim to oppose.

All we want from a Supreme Court justice is the ability to read and understand the plain words of the Constitution. When the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." that's what it means -- and thus it is unconstitutional to censor the Internet, prohibit tobacco advertising, or limit political advocacy. When the 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,"
that's what it means -- and thus all the
gun-control laws on the books are
unconstitutional.

You will get Supreme Court justices who will honor the Constitution and restore your liberty only when you get a President who believes more in your liberty than he does in big government. So we'd better get started now doing whatever is necessary to elect such a President -- no matter how long you think it might take.

Smaller Government

Fallacy #7: "One or the other candidate is for smaller government."

Neither candidate has proposed any plan to make government smaller. In the first debate neither candidate uttered the word "liberty" or the word "freedom" even once.

Both candidates have emphasized over and over the new programs they want to impose upon you. As a few examples, they both want to add a boondoggle prescription drug plan to the disastrous Medicare program, Bush wants to enlarge welfare by giving your money to private charities of his choice, Gore is proposing a new pre-school program -- and both want to expand the Department of Education, as well as step up the insane War on Drugs.

Both are big-spending politicians. Bush enlarged the budget in Texas, Gore was named the #1 big spender in the Senate by the National Taxpayers Union. Neither has ever done a single thing to get government out of your life. And neither is proposing anything specific or realistic to do so now.

And don't look to either party to pressure its candidate to reduce government. The Republicans have increased spending during their five years in control of Congress at a rate of 3.2% per year, while the Democrats in the previous five years increased spending by 3.9% a year -- hardly a significant difference. Spending during George Bush, Sr.'s four years as President increased by 4.3% per year, while spending during Clinton's seven years in office has increased by 3.2% per year.

You will get smaller government only when you vote for and elect a candidate who believes that the federal government should be prohibited from doing anything not authorized in the Constitution -- someone who has the will and determination to reduce government dramatically. Neither Mr. Gore nor Mr. Bush qualify.

I am the only candidate determined to restore
limited, smaller, constitutional government. I have no grand schemes to promote, and don't
pretend I know what's best for you and 270 million other people.

Character

Fallacy #8: "There's a difference in character between the candidates."

This may be the biggest fallacy of all. Bush and Gore are each trying to sell you on the idea that his character is superior to Bill Clinton's.

But Clinton's biggest moral flaw is his inability to tell the truth. And neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Gore has demonstrated any regard for the truth. The fallacies I've listed here (and a more complete listing would make this article far too long) show that neither one is reluctant to perpetuate fraudulent assumptions. The only excuse either can offer is that he isn't aware that the assumptions are false -- in which case his ignorance makes him unfit to be President.

It's simple: both Al Gore and George Bush are too dishonest to be considered, or too ignorant to be qualified. You aren't going to get what you by electing a politician won't even tell the truth about the current state of government or his intentions for the Presidency.

What Do You Want?

You have to ask yourself what you want in a
President. Do you just want someone -- _anyone_ -- from the party you've voted for in the past. If so, either Bush or Gore qualifies.

But if you believe government is way too big, too expensive, too intrusive, and too oppressive, you're making a terrible mistake by voting for either of these two men. Neither one will reverse the trend toward bigger government. In fact, either one will continue it.

You can not go East by moving toward the West.

You cannot get smaller government by electing a big-government politician to the Presidency.

You cannot make a politician or a party reform itself toward smaller government by rewarding it for making government bigger.

The only way you will ever get what you want is by voting only for those who offer specific proposals to make government smaller -- and whose proposals are not contradicted by a history of making government bigger.

Libertarians want you to be free of the income tax by making government so small there's no need for an income tax. They want you to be released from Social Security immediately and completely. They want to end the insane War on Drugs that is tearing our cities apart with violence, and serving as an excuse to deny every American citizen the Bill of Rights -- _every_ American, not just those involved with drugs.

You may not win this year by voting Libertarian, but you'll be helping to get closer to the day when you _will_ win -- when you _do_ get smaller government. And when you leave the voting booth, you won't feel as though you need to take a shower.

But by voting for big-government Republicans or Democrats, you're guaranteeing that you'll _never_ be free.

Which do you want? Isn't it time to take a stand?

---

Harry Browne is the Libertarian candidate for president.
His answers to the presidential debate questions can be
seen and heard at http://www.FreedomChannel.com . And
more of his articles can be read on his web site at http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org/lw .