Libertarians support free markets -- and the voluntary flow of labor services across borders. 

     However, we do not support ‘subsidized’ labor – low-wage foreign workers entering the United States and using income supplements and public assistance from taxpayers.  When the taxpayers are forced to pay for emergency-room costs and other state services for foreign workers present in the United States, this situation is not a free labor market, it is a subsidized market activity. 

     Although Libertarian candidates support and welcome foreign visitors wishing to enter our country to work, invest in real estate, start businesses, and make purchases, we oppose all forms of subsidies to these markets.  

     Welfare assistance and other support services are the responsibility of the country and the national government from which the visiting worker originates, not United States taxpayers.  

     I strongly support renewed efforts to enact Prop. 187 style legislation.  I will work to protect taxpayers from being forced to pay for foreign worker subsidies, such as health care, housing and other public assistance.  

     Foreign visitors to the U.S. should not receive subsidized tuition for education services; they should be required to pay the full costs of these very expensive and scarce services. 

I strongly support increased border controls to protect us from dangerous materials, weapons and criminals entering our country.  I also support laws to prevent entry of people into our state for the purpose of utilizing welfare services, health care or other public assistance instead of work -- and support new legislation and allocation of resources to help to identify, process and deport those already residing in California for that purpose. 

U.S. businesses currently employing foreign workers should, where feasible, increase market wages to a level sufficient to eliminate the need for intermittent welfare services and public assistance from taxpayers.  If this can be done, the businesses should be allowed to continue hiring those workers.  If market conditions do not support the internalization of these costs, these visiting "workers" should be returned to their own country of origin for the public assistance, education & other social services they need.  Alternatively, these workers could be allowed to remain in the U.S. and enhance their skills at local schools and universities - but should be required to pay the full cost of utilizing these expensive services.

Allowing foreign "workers" to access "free" health care, state welfare services and public assistance is in fact a form of corporate welfare.   It allows domestic U.S. businesses to hire foreign employees at artificially-reduced wages (subsidized costs), and enjoy much greater profits at the end of the year - at the expense of CA taxpayers.

On the issue of Education 

     Your tax money or a 'school voucher' should be returned to you, so that you may use it for the public or private (non-profit or for profit; religious or secular) school or college of your choice. 

     Many public school teachers today send their own children to private schools; and test scores and parental satisfaction (especially among poor & minority groups)  have been measured to rise while costs per pupil fall, when competition is allowed into the education sector.  You should have your public funds returned as a voucher so you are empowered to make education choices for your own children from a competing array of schools.   

On the issue of Public Services

     Public sector unions are protected from competition. 

     These legally protected labor cartels should be eliminated so that taxpayers and college grads looking to exercise entrepreneurship in the public sector may benefit from free entry, greater competition, and more innovation in the provision of public services.

     90% of our American economy runs successfully without compulsory unionization and protected input markets.  Our state government can, too.   

     The key to a better California is not to "elect the right official" or "increase spending on services," but to make government operations highly competitive and privately accountable to bring out the best in all of us. 

     When the government (public workers, civil servants or federal employees) provides services without competition and something goes wrong, we are told that it is "everyone's fault," because the public, the voters are ultimately "responsible."   We 'do it to ourselves,' and there is no accountability but plenty of finger pointing.  We saw this happen very tragically after 9-11.  

     This extremely frustrating political situation is removed when public services are outsourced to competing firms. 

     When public services are outsourced or privatized, one or more firms or management companies is constantly allowed to replace another -- as a new firm has a lower cost method or a better product for the taxpayers.

     It is a process of competition and betterment, not public finger-pointing and acrimony.  That is what competition is about.  Poor performers are let go in favor of better performers.  Accountability is placed directly on the group hired.   A desire to retain the public contract pushes the company to continue performing at high levels, or they lose the contract to a superior producer. 

     Where U.S. prison services have been outsourced to private firms for example, public costs have fallen for taxpayers and the quality of the services provided to inmates (food services, sanitation, health care, training, and other services) significantly improved.  When water supply services were privatized in areas of Argentina, water quality improved -- and childhood mortality fell 8% overall.  It declined 24% in the poorest areas receiving privately managed water services.  The introduction of school choice & competition (school vouchers) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin led to an 11% increase in student Math scores, and 75% of low income minority families demanded to be allowed to keep their "school vouchers" program.  When U.S. airports hire private companies to screen luggage for hazardous materials, the private firms do a better job of detecting dangerous objects than do government screeners.

     Competition brings out the best in us.   Just as the professional sports rivalries we follow each year push athletes to perform to their very best abilities, the same occurs when honest and open competition to provide services is allowed.  Government is there to provide a 'referee' function, ensuring that written contracts are followed and ensuring that fraud and corruption are prevented.

     I fear we are gradually losing public appreciation of this important, noble and honorable quality in our personal economic conduct.

     People sometimes "complain" about prices or companies - instead of starting their OWN company - and competing with that firm.  People often feel they are entitled to a job or to the same (or a rising!) wage-&-benefits package forever, and should never experience a disappointment due to the success of a more efficient competitor.

     That is not what competition is about.  This is the United States -- and we value a competitive economy in which the best person or company wins, and the defeated organization comes back stronger the next time.  And this is what freedom of choice for both consumers and California taxpayers is about. The consumers and taxpayers are 'kings.'  They call the shots.  They decide who is retained and who is not, and they select the most efficient producers, not the sellers, vendors or labor unions. 

    Many politicians take campaign contributions from these groups - and as a result fail to allow competition because the contributing groups want regulatory protections from open competition. 

    I will not take money from these groups.  As your Lt. Governor, I represent the consumers and the taxpayers, those that use the services provided.  Private corporations and public sector organizations exist to serve us; not vice versa.  Consumers and taxpayers should be able to select and benefit from the public services provided.  They should have the freedom to choose the vendors that provide the best public services at the lowest cost.  Public sector contracts should be opened up to a competitive bidding process to ensure cost efficiency and increasing quality in services.

On Corporations & Business Taxation

     Many people forget that ordinary laborers, people with pensions and growing retirement accounts, represent the bulk of "investors" in California and US businesses. 

      I point this out because when people complain about 'investors,' 'greed' and 'profit' they in fact are 'complaining' about themselves.  It is ordinary workers who own pensions which are invested in private firms, large & small. 

    Both profit AND loss are price signals of consumer demand for desirable versus inadequate products.  Profit is a beneficial short-run signal.  It attracts more sellers, competing products, and increased supplies of the desired product over time.  And as suppliers in the market increase, the good's price falls and the profit "signal" which has served its purpose is dissipated, until the next, "big" manufacturing technology or product innovation idea is discovered and signalled with a profitable outcome again.

    Criticism both from the public and from politicians about "investor greed" and "profit" suggest a growing ignorance of how the competitive economic system operates. 

  These attacks are worrisome. They should be stopped if we want rapid growth in California's economy.  Profit is compensation for the risk of exploration of potential manufacturing techiques, green technologies and valuable new product innovations. 

    If we want our communities to become more efficient and successful, we should encourage saving and reduce taxes on businesses and corporations taking expensive risks investing with very limited capital to improve our material standard of living and our environment. 

     Both public and private workers have their life savings heavily invested in competing American firms.  When California Democrats insist that we tax "corporations" and "wealthy investors" this hurts our workers, including public employees who have pensions invested in private companies.  

    For example, public sector unions themselves recently complained they would FIGHT a new windfall-profits tax on energy companies -- because it would cost ordinary workers thousands of dollars in net returns to their public pensions. See 

 http://www.windfallprofitstax.org/

     In short, pensioners are 'investors.'  A higher tax on businesses is a tax on ordinary Americans who have invested their life savings in these companies.   We need to be careful how we design, expand and change our tax system.  State policies can have unexpected and negative effects on the well being of the average Californian trying hard to be responsible and plan his or her future.

On the issue of State Pension Systems

     Defined-benefit pension systems (in which public employees are "guaranteed" a constant retirement payout) represent cruel-&-unusual punishment for taxpayers. 

     Taxpayers are not financial wizards, yet we are expected to contribute taxes to support stable and unvarying retirement flows to public employees even as our private economy fluctuates due to normal changes (consumer price signals) that are part of a growing economy. 

     Public employees certainly enjoy the 'BENEFITS' of our competitive markets - the "upsides" (better technology, new products and cost cutting).  They should be willing to shoulder the risks of a dynamic economy as well.  They cannot have "benefits" -- without the occasional risks.  "That's not how it works," to quote Senator Obama. 

     Public employees need to manage their own financial resources, buy insurance, limit the number of children they have, and take care of their own retirement plans rather than asking taxpayers to "back fill" when the market fluctuates. 

     The last activity in which State government should be engaged is BORROWING to support defined-benefit pension plans, though this is indeed what took place under Democrat Governor Davis.  

    Retirement is the time to use the SAVINGS (defined contributions) one has accumulated - not borrow money from future generations, our kids and young working adults, by raising state taxes or issuing more public debt.  A pension is not a 'pay check,' it is a savings account - to be carefully managed after retiring.   Unfortunately, too many public employees have come to view it as the former.

     As your Lt. Governor, I will oppose policies that continue to protect producer and labor groups from competition.  I will support the Governor in opposing corporate welfare, state subsidies and pork (your tax money) to influential businesses and labor unions.  I will not move to Sacramento to continue to protect public unions or politically connected businesses from competition.  I have two goals:  Increase competition in provision of essential public services; and return much of your tax money so you can spend it on the school of your choice, the local charity or aid organization of your choice - or your retirement savings. 

     Only a handful of government operations are essential to a free society - and these should be provided by our state using a low sales tax or flat tax:  the courts, law enforcement, fire protection, and well-maintained streets and highways.

Other Issues

     I am a long-time member of the National Rifle Association and a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment Rights.  However, anyone committing a crime using a firearm should be subject to the most severe criminal sentences and jail time. 

    I also support the right of any individual to use medical marijuana without state restrictions.  I support the rights of the terminally ill to exercise end-of-life choices and decisions without government interference. 

    I opposed the Supreme Court's  Kelo decision, which allows cities looking for tax revenues to take your home - and give it to a commercial developer or business without your consent.   That is, I support legislation protecting homeowners with life savings tied up in their main asset, their home, from unethical city governments and their influential corporate friends. 

I also support gay marriage and civil unions.   I am pro-choice on the issue of reproductive decisions, although no state funds or state programs should be used to support this difficult personal choice. 

If elected I will work hard for smaller and more efficient government, lower taxation, protection of individual and minority rights, and economic freedom (open markets and equal opportunities).  

If you share these goals I would appreciate your support.  I look forward to your vote in November.

Thank you for your support!

Pamela J. Brown, Ph.D.

College Educator

San Fernando Valley resident

Candidate for Lieutenant Governor,

California Libertarian Party