Libertarian response to Bush’s State of the Union

Yesterday, I received in my inbox an email from my friends over at the Libertarian Party discussing the Libertarian response to President Bush’s State of the Union speech.

I am not (yet) a member of the Libertarian party, and cannot endorse their comments without reservation, but I do think the piece made some interesting points, specifically:

…the President’s health care proposal to replace an unlimited employer health care expense deduction with standard deductions for individuals, while not perfect, is a large step in the badly needed direction of breaking the link between employment and healthcare in this nation. It would stop federal tax discrimination against people who are not covered by employer-provided insurance.

I think every self employed person I know would agree with this.

The President touched on another of his unpopular and failing big government solutions: No Child Left Behind. Not so very long ago, the Republican Platform called for the elimination of the federal Department of Education. Today, Republicans and Democrats compete over which big government programs and mandates can be forced on state and local governments. No Child Left Behind should not be reauthorized.

There is nearly universal agreement that the No Child Left Behind program is an underfunded, misguided intrusion by the Federal government on our local schools. It’s mind boggling to me that Bush even brought it up in his speech.

and finally

…the President is attempting to force new fuel economy standards on automobile manufacturers. Additionally, he is tampering with the free market in order to reach the probably unachievable goal of “energy independence.” If we want the lowest possible energy prices and alternative energy sources to develop, we need to get government out of the energy business and let the free market work.

This concept here is one of my ultimate pet peeves. The US government is subsidising the oil industry while forcing better mileage standards. They are spending money on both ends of the problem when a free market would likely balance everything out.

I encourage you to read the whole response. You may not agree, but it definitely makes you think…