Less Government? Don’t Vote Dole

* Alfred J. Lang, who urges Libertarians to vote for Bob Dole for president (“Orange County Voices,” Oct. 13), has it exactly backward. Democrats and Republicans who want to reduce the size, cost and intrusiveness of the federal government, and increase liberty and opportunity for all Americans, should support Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate.

A vote for either Dole or Bill Clinton is wasted. Under both Democrats and Republicans, the federal government has grown in size, taxes have increased, meddling in your private affairs has increased, as has regulation of all aspects of your business and financial affairs. In 1980, the federal budget was under $600 billion. Now it is $1.6 trillion. Both Dole and Clinton want the federal government to keep growing, take on more programs and mandate more costly benefits in the workplace. The tax burden on families approaches 50% of what two working parents make. Social Security is headed for collapse early next century, as are Medicare and Medicaid. The insane war on drugs is an absolute and destructive failure.

Dole and Clinton are lifetime politicians. Neither has the slightest respect for your rights, your abilities, your hopes and desires, your property nor the limits that the Constitution places on the federal government. They are not likely to change.

A vote for either Dole or Clinton only tells them that you like what they’ve been doing to you and you want more of the same. Now that’s a wasted vote!

Significant vote totals for alternative candidates put pressure on politicians to consider the values expressed by the alternative candidates. Your only meaningful vote is the one for the candidate that best represents your views. Don’t vote out of fear of the greater evil. Vote for what you believe in, for what you really want. That’s the only way to got your real message to the politicians.

DAVID BERGLAND

Costa Mesa

Editor’s note: The writer was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1984.

* Alfred J. Lang may be a registered Libertarian, but if people followed his advice and voted for Bob Dole, they would achieve decidedly non-Libertarian results: a much larger government.

Why? Because Dole is not in favor of “smaller government and lower taxes,” as Lang suggests. During the first presidential debate, Dole admitted that President Clinton will increase the cost of government by 20% over the next six years, while Dole wanted to increase it by “only” 14%. (Hint: A 14% increase means larger government.)

By contrast, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne supports dramatic reductions in the size and cost of government. When elected, Browne will get the federal government out of all activities not specified in the Constitution--welfare, education, health care, housing, transportation, agriculture, and crime control--all the areas in which the government has created such a mess during the past 30 to 60 years.

What do taxpayers get in return? By combining all these spending cuts into a single package, Browne can offer the largest tax cut in American history--the total repeal of the federal income tax. Most people will save far more in taxes than they lose in government handouts.

The problem with Lang’s argument is that if the Republican Party wins with candidates like Dole, they have no incentive to offer anyone better. If Republicans lose this year, they may be motivated to figure out why--and offer someone next time who really believes in smaller government.

BILL WINTER

Director of Communications

Libertarian Party

Washington, D.C.