Friday, December 23, 2011
When the Republican Party won back the entire Congress in 1994 for the first time since 1952. They quickly discovered that they liked being in power and went about figuring out how to keep it. Even though I'm a Liberal Democrat I believe the 104th Republican Congress of 1995-96 did a pretty good job. As far as laying out and passing their Conservative Agenda and even though Newt Gingrich. Was an anchor pulling down the GOP Popularity down, especially with the Government Shutdown of 1995. And almost cost them the House in 1996 Speaker Gingrich was able to get a lot done as Speaker. He had a very good Legislative Record, House Leader Dick Armey deserves a lot of credit as well, as far as passing Legislation and seeing it become law. He learned from the Government Shutdown and was able to work with the Senate and Clinton Administration. And was able to pass things like eliminating Unfunded Mandates, Welfare Reform, Tax Cuts, Medicare Reform, Balance Budget Act. And had the Congressional Republican Party stayed down this road, especially during the Bush Administration. Where from the 2003-07 they had all the power, Democrats held the Senate from 2001-03 and then won Congress back in 2006. Had they sticked with what Speaker Gingrich was doing, to lay out with the Contract with America. And kinda kept the Religious and Neo Right at bay and sticked with Economic and Foreign Policy. The Republican Party would be in much better shape today.
If the Republican Party just stayed with the Contract with America and built off of that. Perhaps George W. Bush doesn't become President and they go with John McCain who would've beaten Al Gore in 2000 I believe. And they would still be the Goldwater/Reagan Conservative Republican Party. But in 1999 when Dennis Hastert became Speaker of the House and you had Trent Lott Leading the Senate. Getting elected and reelected became the GOP's top priority. Even if that meant moving way from their Conservative Values and this just became more apparent when George W. Bush became President in 2001. We hate Big Government from the Democratic Party but Big Government coming from the Republican Party, not so bad. So you got things like exploding Congressional Earmarks, breaking Federal Records that Tip O'Neil could only dream of accomplishing. No Child Left Behind of 2002, giving the Federal Government more power in the Education System. With 9/11 giving the Federal Government more power with the War on Terror with things like the Patriot Act. 2003 the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, borrowing 500B$ to pay for it. Warrantless Wiretapping, Indefinite Detention. A Christmas List for Big Government Neoconservatives.
As the "Southern Avenger" says someone who's a real Classical Conservative maybe even Libertarian. The Republican Party when it use to be a Conservative Party, was about using Conservative Values. To get elected and into power this is what we would do if elected. Which is what Ronald Reagan did in 1980 but 1999 or so the Conservative Movement to the Republican Party meant. Do what we need to do get elected and reelected to keep Democrats out of office. Which is where the Modern GOP is today, as long as Democrats aren't in Power. We'll have a Conservative Government whether we govern as Conservatives or not.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Ron Paul For Dummies: "Ron Paul Against Current Racial Discrimination in Judicial System- The Anti-Racist Candidate"
|Source: Ron Paul For Dummies-U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas-|
Ron Paul makes a good case as a Libertarian. That if you really are a Libertarian and don't just call yourself that to defend either economic or civil liberties, that you can't be both a racist and a libertarian. It has to be one or the other, because if you're a Libertarian, you believe in individual liberty because you believe in individualism. But if you're a racist no matter which race you're a member of, you judge people as groups generally in a negative way. I definitely believe Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a racist, but he's made some statements in the past about Israel and other Jews that could be viewed as racist and has been associated with people that have made racist statements about African-Americans that could be viewed as racist. However he's been associated with these groups, loosely or otherwise, that he's going to have to explain in a satisfactory way for him to have any chance of being elected President of the United States. Or even win the Republican nomination.
Because the Republican Party is not going to want to defend someone who's viewed as a racist. They don't want another Pat Buchanan or David Duke, they want to move past that. A lot of Republicans in the past some for good reason, have had to defend themselves against charges that they are racist. Like Pat Buchanan for his statements about Jewish and African-Americans and David Duke obviously for being with the Ku Klux Klan. So if you're a Libertarian Republican like Ron Paul, you're in the best position possible for a Republican to fight off those charges. Because Libertarians aren't racist. We obviously need to work to build a society especially in our criminal justice system. Where individual liberty sometimes for the rest of people's lives is at stake. Where we don't judge suspects by their race or ethnicity or who they hang out with or how they dress or talk. But what they do and arrest people for committing crimes. Not because they were the closest person to the crime.
We do have a lot of African-Americans in the criminal justice system as far as their percentage of the overall population and some of them may be in their because they were given unfair trials, had racist law enforcement or whatever the case may be. But a lot of them are in the CJS because of bad decisions that they made in their lives. One bad decision after another that built a road that they took to prison. Coming from a low-income, probably single-parent family in a rough neighborhood. Being stuck in bad schools where they weren't educated properly, those things aren't their faults. But dropping out of school, getting involved in organize crime at a young age and then committing crimes that landed them in prison, are their faults. So what we need to do instead is make sure these kids get a better shot at education in life, give their parents choice in where they send their kids to school, empower their parents to go back to school to get a good job so they don't have to live in rough neighborhoods and can move up to the middle class. And get to what's called "At Risk Youth" early on before they make mistakes that land them in prison. Make sure they get the counseling and education that they need to be able to go onto college. Or the next step in life for them after high school, to become productive citizens.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
|Source: Liberty Pen- Tom Woods-|
If you look at what limited government and what federalism is, it's about limiting what government can do. Which is how we protect our constitutional and individual rights.
So government couldn't break in our house with out a search warrant or for no reason. Couldn't take our property away from us, force us to live somewhere. In an attempt to limit how big government can be how much authority it has.
So Individuals have the individual liberty to make these own decisions in how they live their own lives. And limit the Federal Government to what authority it has in the U.S. Constitution and leave the rest of the power up to state and local government's as well as the private sector to make these decisions. To prevent the Federal Government from doing things just because they believe it's a good idea. And by limiting what the Federal Government can do, which is one thing that Limited Government is about. We can limit the amount of money that they can take from us by limiting its growth.
That's why limited government is so important, to figure out what the Federal Government should do. And giving it the resources to do those things in a fiscally responsible way, because it simply can't do everything. It's not very good at the things that it does right now, like the so called War on Poverty excellent example of that.
We are defending countries around the world that have the resources to defend themselves.
We have Federal departments that can't be audited we don't know the size of their budgets.
If we really have a limited government and technically we still do because our Federal courts have thrown out some of the laws that Congress has passed making government even bigger as unconstitutional, but what we really need is a more limited government. Get back to the U.S. Constitution and figure out what the Commerce Clause means. Because Congress and the administration always use the Commerce Clause to justify new laws and programs.
And then also figure out what the Federal Government should be doing and then only limit it to those things and nothing else. Cut back, eliminate things that it shouldn't be doing that they are currently doing. Or pass them down to the states, or Privatize them and turn them into non profits.
Which is what I would like to do with the safety net including the big entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. For me my limited government as far as the Federal Government is concern, would be national security, foreign policy, interstate law enforcement, control of the currency and Regulation. The Federal Government is very good at national security, foreign policy and interstate law enforcement. Use to go a good job of regulating when regulations were simple and could be understood. So so great with currency right now with the FED. Limit the Federal Government and eliminate a lot of the junk it does now, privatize the safety net to be run as non-profit community services.
A more limited Federal Government and Federalist system and using the safety net to empower low-income workers and low-skilled non-workers, would be a big boost to the non-profit community service sector. Send more power back to the states like with emergency management so this can be in place as soon as it needed. And you can have enough resources on the ground when they are needed. Instead of having to call Washington for reinforcements, we could have a much more efficient and affordable Federal Government. And be able to keep our taxes down by limiting Governmental Power. I've blogged this before, but is very important. Not in favor or interested in small government or big government. But ab effective limited government at all levels doing only the things that we need it to do that they have the constitutional authority to do. And fund it with the taxes that it needs to perform those services well that is consistent with a strong growing economy. Which would be smaller than your typical social democracy, or authoritarian regime. But bigger than essentially having no government at all.
Monday, December 19, 2011
At first when I heard of Rand Paul running for Senate in 2010, I though he could be interesting a Libertarian Republican. Then as we was getting closer to being elected to the Senate and that was really never in doubt. His opponent Democrat Jack Conway despite being the Attorney General of Kentucky wasn't very strong. I started hearing things that Dr. Paul was a Social Conservative, well in American Politics. That means you believe in an Authoritarian Big Government with limited Social Freedom. Which is the opposite of my liberalism and I'm a liberal across the board, I don't like any form of Big Government. But lately when I've heard Sen. Paul speak against the Patriot Act and against Indefinite Detention of Terrorist Suspects and other Suspects, that gives me the impression. That Sen. Paul is serious about being a Social Conservative for real, meaning someone who believes in Conserving Social Freedom. Not subtracting from the current Social Freedom that we have, which is what Religious and Neoconservatives and Authoritarians believe in. That we have to limit Individual Liberty in order to protect National Security. Rand Paul is not Jim DiMint or Michelle Bachmann, he truly believes in Individual Liberty. He's closer to his father Ron Paul or Sen. Mike Lee or Ron Reagan or Barry Goldwater. Then Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz or any other Neoconservative you want to name.
I'm with Sen. Paul on a lot of the Fiscal Challenges that we face as a country and the need to cut Federal Spending. And Decentralize the Federal Government, I'm to the left of Sen. Paul on abortion, Marijuana Legalization and I'm sure a few other issues. I also wouldn't completely Privatize Social Security and allow people to invest all of their Payroll Taxes. In Private Accounts or the Stock Market but I do support Social Security Plus. Keeping the base Social Security Income in place but allowing people to invest their own money. To prepare for their own retirements, that their employers would match at Tax Free for both sides. That this money could only be used for retirement. I also wouldn't convert Medicare into a Private For Profit Health Insurer but allow Senior Citizens to stay with Medicare. Or opt out for other Health Insurance, Healthcare and Health Insurance to me at least is about Freedom of Choice. Not Uncle Sam knowing what's best because a lot of times he doesn't. I'm a Liberal Democrat so I probably wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, unless he was running against a Socialist Democrat. But the thing is you would have an easier time finding a an ocean in Kentucky then a Socialist. You can count them on one hand and not need all of the fingers.
Rand Paul to me represents the Future of the Republican Party if they ever get passed Religious and Neoconservatism. Sen. Paul also represents the Future of the Tea Party Movement again if they ever get out of bed with the Religious and Neoconservative Movement. And drop people like Michelle Bachmann and Jim DiMint like sack of potatoes and get back to Goldwater-Reagan Classical Conservatism.
Friday, December 16, 2011
|Source: Jack Hunter-|
Actually, I agree with Neoconservatives that say libertarianism isn't conservative and its certainly not part of the modern conservative movement. Libertarianism is clearly not neoconservative and part of that movement which a lot of modern Conservatives are today, along with Religious Conservatives. Who tend to be statist except for when it comes to the welfare state, to me any way.
I'm a liberal, so it might sound strange hearing me speak up for conservatism especially in this very partisan environment. Where you have the two major political parties trying to destroy the other to obtain absolute power. These so-called modern Conservatives aren't actually conservative as far as I'm concern and as far as a lot of Conservative-Libertarians and Libertarians are concern as well. But Religious Conservatives in America who are basically Christian Theocrats, are authoritarians and statists wanting to use the Federal Government and in Michigan the state government there, to protect people from themselves.
Statists on the Far-Right, got this idea that free societies are dangerous when people are free to live their own lives. And you need government to police people from themselves. Just like people who are called modern Liberals aren't Liberals. Because they are Statist as well when it comes to economic policy as well as gun control and free speech. People who are called modern Liberals are basically Democratic Socialists and in some cases Neo-Communists, if not Communists all together.
Libertarianism to me anyway is basically a diverse political ideology. With Classical Libertarians like Ron Paul, who are basically anti-government and basically just one step away from being anarchists. Then you have Conservative Libertarians who are very worried about governmental power especially power coming from the Federal Government. But aren't anti-government. They do believe in things like law and order, they just don't want government trying to protect people from themselves. And tend to be tougher on foreign policy as well, but that civil liberties are also important in national security.
Conservative Libertarians like Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan, Bill Buckley and others. And there also Liberal Libertarians like Gary Johnson and I would add Jon Huntsman to that list. Who are also very worried about governmental power, especially coming from the Federal Government. Who don't believe in dismantling the safety net but would like to see more competition as well as privatization in it. And that the Federal Government shouldn't be running the safety net and trying to solve every problem on its own. I'm pretty close to being a Liberal Libertarian myself.
Conservatism to me at least in a political sense, is about conserving individual freedom, individual rights, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution. Letting free people live their own lives in a free society. Its not just about national security and even using government to protect people so much, like looking after what they read and who they talk to and locking suspects up indefinitely, because you're worried they might be found innocent. And not just about economic liberty as well. But its the whole ballpark when it comes to individual liberty. The right of free people to live their own lives freely in a free society. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with what they are doing. If you look at the word Conservative, it means someone who believes in conserving. And in a free society that means conserving freedom. Something so-called Religious and Neoconservatives don't understand.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
|Source: Sidewinder 77- Professor Milton Friedman-|
The reason for capitalism or in America the reason for American capitalism, is that in an economy like that, its assumed that the people can make it on their own if given the opportunity. That there’s a limit to what government can do and should do. The whole point of constitutional law and limited government and federalism. That government doesn’t do everything right and when it tries to do too much, like taking so much out of the economy to take care of its people, doing things for the people that they can do for themselves. Like run a business, make their own health care decisions, plan for their retirement, decide where to send their kids to school, etc. And you can go down the line.
That if you give the Federal Government all that responsibility to go along with defending the country and other areas and then you add things like trying to run the lives of people, that you would get in a Marxist-Socialist system like in North Korea. That government will be too expensive and inefficient. Trying to make the decisions for people it doesn’t know. But if you give the people the power to make these decisions for themselves, they’ll be able to make much better choices for themselves, because they know who they are and what they need. Which is what we’ve been in America for 235 years now in this liberal democracy. And that you need profit motive in a liberal democracy. Perhaps not in every area of the economy, but in most sectors, so people have incentive to succeed to be as productive as they possibly can, to be as successful as they can.
You have profit motive in a liberal democracy so people know they can be as successful as they can based on their education, qualifications and production and you have a safety net. Not there to take care of people, but to help then when they fall down to get themselves up. So they know they’ll have to take care of themselves, because government won’t be there indefinitely to take care of them. Just to help them in their need. Which is different from government taking care of people. Which assumes that people in need having nothing to worry about, because government will always be there to take care of them.
But with a safety net you only have that there for people who are in need to help them sustain themselves in their time of need, but also help them get back on their feet. Take profit motive out of the economy, what do we have instead, you want government controlling everything with everyone dependent on government to take care of us? Do you want to make government an absolute power with no one to answer to like they have in North Korea? Or do you want a system where everyone has an opportunity to be as successful as possible based on what they put into the country.
I prefer the last approach and history proves that works better. It’s the old Jack Kennedy line, “not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. Which is why we need what’s been called a world-class education system where everyone in the country has an opportunity to be successful in life. That’s how we win the so-called War on Poverty. By moving people out of poverty into the middle class and to become self-sufficient. Not by having them dependent on government their whole lives. And not allowing for their kids to be dependent on government their whole lives. Living on people who take care of themselves and are productive.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The best way to have the best economy possible, is to have an Economic System that creates the right Infrastructure Investment. For one so people can get around and be safe doing it but also it creates jobs. And benefits the Manufacturing Industry because supplies will be needed to do those projects. You also need an Education System that can produce as many Educated Workers as possible so a lot of people can be qualified for good jobs. You also need a lot Individual Liberty in the System so people can have the Liberty to go out, get a good job start their own business's. And be as productive as possible to make as good of a living as possible. You need some type of Safety Net to help people get back to work and help them survive while they are down. It doesn't have to be Centrally Controlled but it has to be sufficient enough to get the job done and be Financially Affordable. You need a Tax Code thats fair and doesn't take too much money out of the economy and is simple. You need Foreign Trade so you can sell as many products as possible to as many customers as possible. To produce as much wealth as possible to create as many jobs as possible. And you have to be able to regulate well enough to punish and prevent abuses in the system but not regulate too much. That you make it difficult for company's to comply and stay in business, spending a lot of money on lawyers and so fourth.
You need all of these things in an Economic System for it to be successful. And these are things that America as a country use to do very well that we've gotten away from. Apparently Michael Parenti is arguing that wealth creates poverty, a socialist couldn't of said that any better. But its not true, what creates poverty, is a lack of education and infrastructure and under regulation. Spend some time in a Third World country or even spend some time in some of the poor States in America or poor areas. And you'll know exactly what I mean and the answer to bringing down poverty, we'll never eliminate poverty. But we can bring it down to a much lower level, is by creating more wealth. Through Infrastructure Investment and Education in the under served areas, so those people can get the skills that they need. And be able to get around and be able to build their own wealth, you don't eliminate poverty just through Welfare Checks. All those do which is important, is help sustain people while they are still living in poverty. How they get out of poverty is through Education so they can get themselves on their feet and again create their own wealth.
Unless your a socialist American Capitalism is a great thing because it allows people to take out of the system what they put into it. And keep a lot of the rewards that they produced for themselves. And for the people who don't produce very much, chances are it has to do with a lack of education. So if you empower them to get themselves a good education, then they'll have the skills that they need. To go out and get a good job, be productive and create their own wealth.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
When people on the Front Line of the War on Drugs, the so called "Drug Warriors", say that the War on Drugs is failing or failed. We should listen to these people because they are fighting the War on Drugs for us. They are our "Drug Warriors" who fight this Failed War for us that was declared by President Nixon forty years ago. And all we've gotten out of this War is 1T$ spent and turning Drug Addicts into criminals and throwing people in prison for what they do to themselves. Even if they haven't hurt anyone else with what they are doing. Thats exactly what Big Government is about whether it comes from the Far Left or Far Right. In the War on Drugs case the Far Right, Big Government is about power, the Power of Government to be able to control how its own people live their lives. Some people especially on the Right who tend to be Economic Libertarians. But not Libertarian on Social Issues, say Big Government is about money, take a lot of peoples money away from them. For the government to control in order to control society and make people dependent on Big Government. But money is just the tool, a big tool but a tool to Finance the Power of Big Government. The War on Drugs case in point its all about power the power for Big Government to control how individuals live their own lives.
The War on Drugs is stupid and counterproductive because criminalizes people for what they do to themselves. Which has had a major negative impact on our Criminal Justice System with all the overcrowded jails and prisons we now have as a result. And its hypocritical because it allows people to use drugs that are just as if not more dangerous then marijuana. First of all my answer to the War on Drugs and what I would do instead. Is not go from a system where all of these narcotics are illegal. Except for alcohol and tobacco, to a system where everything is legal, because of the negative effects it would have on our Healthcare System. Thats already way to expensive but what I would do is Legalize Marijuana but then Regulate it like Alcohol. 21 or over to smoke, grow or sell, can't operate as a doctor or vehicles while high etc. And then criminalize people who break these laws like we would criminalize people. For drinking, selling or making alcohol underage and without a license. Get the Bad Actors out of the system and let the people who comply with the Drug laws go about their business. And then instead of sending people and addicts who use heroin, cocaine, met etc, force them into Drug Rehab instead at their expense. We would save a lot of money and space in out Criminal Justice System with an approach like this.
Just because you make something illegal and government says its the wrong thing to do. Doesn't mean it goes away, it just means it goes underground if there's a market for it. Again the War on Drugs case in point narcotics are now more available in 2011 going into 2012 then they were in 1971. When the United States officially Declared War on Drugs, its time we recognize this and change course in how we deal with narcotics. Before we lose any more lives with this misplaced War on Drugs.
Monday, December 12, 2011
The last thing that Mitt Romney needed with both Newt Gingrich who more and more looks like the favorite. To win the GOP Nomination for President and with Ron Paul also on his tail. Flip Flopper now trails both Gingrich and Paul in Iowa, was another bad mistake something else to make him look more out of touch with Working Class Voters. Especially in a State like Iowa where basically the whole State is Blue Collar, even the Religious Right there. The 10K$ bet he proposed to Rick Perry Saturday Night on whether Romney supports or supported a Federal Healthcare Mandate. Was his George HW Bush 1992 looking at his watch moment in the debate. Who am I and what am I doing here moment, Mitt Romney's appeal is that he's electable. That he's a solid Economic and Foreign Policy Conservative that can win Independent Voters. You don't win Independent Voters who tend to be Middle Class and can't afford to make 10K$ bets casually. By doing things like that. In 1994 Ted Kennedy when they were opponents for Sen. Kennedy's Senate Seat. Said that Romney wasn't Pro Choice on abortion but Multiple Choice. Seventeen years later that line still hurts Romney with positions he's changed his mind on. Four years ago Mike Huckabee, who I might not even agree with on the weather. But who has an excellent Sense of Humor, said that Romney looks like the guy who fired me or my father something like that, the big bad CEO. And now he has all of this baggage, talk about Newt Gingrich's baggage, you don't have enough bags to store the baggage of either Newt or Mitt. Plus he's Flip Flopper and now the causal bet.
Mitt Romney on paper is the strongest Republican Presidential Candidate the GOP has in a General Election. If he can get the Republican Party fully behind him, working and voting for him. Because he's solid on both Economic and Foreign Policy in the GOP but liberal enough on Social Issues. That he wouldn't scare Independent Voters plus he was Governor of a major Democratic State. To go along with having a very solid record in the Private Sector and not being addicted to Congress. He's clearly an outsider to Washington as well as with the Tea Party and Religious Right of the Republican Party. Plus he's very intelligent and can speak to and debate all of the major issues that the country faces. Which is why I don't like him because he could beat President Obama in the Presidential Election and would beat him. If the economy is not clearly improving with strong Economic and Job Growth. With a strong economy but or at least solid improvements in the economy, the President beats Romney 52-48. Where the election comes down to three States but with a sluggish economy, Mitt could win the election 55-45 win 35 plus States. But he has to get the Republican Nomination first and stop shooting his foot off until he runs out of toes. And in this campaign alone he's shot off two toes alone, "Corporations are People" back in Iowa and the 10K$ bet.
The way the Republican Party knocks off Flip Flopper who they clearly don't like, like how kids feel about their Evil Stepmother. That their father married, at least half of them. Because he'll say just about whatever he needs to, to help him politically. Is by beating him in Iowa and New Hampshire. That means someone other then Mitt wins those first two contests. Gingrich or Paul in both contests with the other winning the other State or one of them winning both States. And then the GOP would be able to knock out Flip Flopper in South Carolina. If Mitt wins either Iowa or New Hampshire, he's still the favorye to win the Republican Nomination.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The next time I hear a republican say he's against any Tax Hikes what's so ever but supports letting the Payroll Tax Cut expire. I going to get someone to stick their head in the toilet after they just used before they flush it. Of course I would never do something like that, without the money being right but thats how mad I would be. Cutting the Payroll Tax is a Tax Cut by definition so letting it expire, your letting the Payroll Tax go back up. Which is what a Tax Hike is by definition, so if your against extending the Payroll Tax Cut, your by definition supporting a Tax Hike. And House Republicans were gambling about letting the Payroll Tax Cut expire, that it wouldn't be notice because it benefits a lot of people that need it. That don't normally support them because the Republican Party for good reason looks like they are in the bag of wealthy people. Not carrying about people who are struggling and can use a Payroll Tax Cut. I would argue for making the Payroll Tax Cut permanent, because its a Regressive Tax on people in the Middle Class. And especially on Low Income Workers and makes their lives harder because they have less money. Especially on top of the Income Tax which is one reason why I support scrapping the Federal Income Tax as well. And replacing it with a Progressive Income Tax but thats for a different blog. The Payroll Tax Cut has to be extended to prevent a huge Middle Class Tax Hike. A punch to the economy thats still fragile but improving that it can't afford to take right now.
Nick Gillespie of the Reason Organization, a Libertarian Advocacy Group does have a point about the Payroll Tax in how it effects Social Security. That the Payroll Tax is suppose to be dedicated for Social Security and Medicare, like spouses are suppose to be dedicated to each other. When we have a 50% Divorce Rate in America, Congress sometimes goes out of their way to spend Payroll Taxes on their Pet Projects, when they don't feel like paying for things. Which is about as often as thieves, which is again why I support turning Social Security over to the States. And let them collect those taxes but have fifty different versions of Social Security in America. With each State having their own Pension System, expanding what Social Security could do. For people in their retirements to go along with other Pension Plans they may have. The only good idea well I've heard two good ideas from Rick Perry so far a Presidential Candidate. Turning Social Security over to the States and requiring the countries we give Foreign Aid to. To apply for any aid that they receive from us, my Social Security plan would be different. Because each State would have their own Social Security System but they wouldn't be running it. It would be a Semi Private Non Profit Well Regulated Retirement Insurance System.
We should make the Payroll Tax Cut permanent, to help out the Middle Class and Low Income Workers because its a Regressive Tax. While we are making High Earners pay more into the system and taking less out to fix the system. And establish Social Security Plus to the system that would still have a floor of income in it. That would be the Payroll Tax by allowing people to increase their own Payroll Tax, if they decide to. To give more people Financial Independence in how they plan for their retirement and how they live in their retirement. Once they retire.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
I like any Social Security or Pension Reform plan that expands Freedom of Choice in how people can plan for their own retirement. As long as there's a Floor of Income that people could count on. That under my plan would be 125% of the Federal Poverty Rate or roughly 25K$ a year right now. So if people were to blow their Retirement Fund through bad investments or business deals, bad economy whatever. They would at least have the Social Security Minimum that they could count on. Which today is 14-15$ a year which to me seems way too low, thats only around 60% of the current Poverty Level. And some people rely on that for all of their income and then have to rely on Public Assistance and Private Charity to make up the rest. Get that up to around 25K$ a year and that would help take some of the strain off our Public Assistance and Private Charity. My plan is what's called Social Security Plus which is a plan that was developed early in the last decade or even before that in late 1990s. When the last Bi Partisan Commission on Social Security was established that didn't produce a Final Product. Newt Gingrich's plan is similar to this but he would allow people to put their Payroll Taxes in the Stock Market and other investments. What I would do is leave the Payroll Taxes in the SS System but allow people to increase their own Payroll Tax. That their employer would match and they could use that revenue not to spend. Unless they pay a 100% Penalty on their consumption that would go into the SS System. But they could use that money to invest in the Stock Market or other Business Ventures. Like their own business, investing in a business, a side business to go with their regular job, money they make in Real Estate. Any Lawful Investments they may make and it would be their choice.
Social Security Plus that then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle endorsed back in 2004 when the Bush Administration. Was looking at Social Security Reform, and they developed a similar Plan to the Gingrich Plan. Won't save Social Security on its own but it would reform our Pension System by giving people the Freedom of Choice to plan their own retirements. And so people aren't so heavily dependent on Social Security and have more Retirement Security when they retire. Because if your completely dependent on Social Security to pay your bills, your living in poverty. Your making around 15K$ a year and probably living off of Public Assistance. So this is why SS Plus would be beneficial for those people who are the Working Poor. Not Poor Workers but Workers who live in poverty because we could expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to allow them to be in SS Plus as well. But to save the Social Security System, we have to fix the financing and turn it into more of a Welfare Retirement System. For the people who need it, by increasing Payroll Taxes on people who afford it and only having people who need it collect from it. And lowering taxes on the people who get hit hard by the Payroll Tax. And making the floor of Social Security Benefits 125% of Poverty so they can survive easier.
I don't agree very often with Newt Gingrich especially on Social Issues and the War on Terror. But he tends to come up with good and interesting ideas on Economic and Education Policy as well as Social Welfare Policy. And his goal of giving people Freedom of Choice in Retirement Income, is solid and worth considering. Even though its different from mine but at least he's put a plan on the table and if Mitt Romney did something like this. Months ago maybe he would have the Tea Party behind him and not trailing in the polls right now. Having republicans believing he's a centrist.
Monday, December 5, 2011
One of the reasons why the United Kingdom and European Union as well as the Imperial Republic of Japan have such large Welfare States. To put it simply, because they can afford to but the better question is why do they have such large Welfare States. Compared with the United States is because their Defense Budgets, are about 1/5 of ours as part of their GDPs. And a good question would be why is that, because not only are we responsible for the National Defense of America but I would argue North America as a whole. As well as Britain, Scandinavia, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Korea and Japan. All Developed Nations that have the resources to defend themselves but American Tax Payers spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to defend them. Now I'm not arguing that we cut our Defense Budget by 200B$ a year or so, so we can have a Welfare State like Europe, far from it. But to point out that we shouldn't have to pay for the National Security of countries that can afford their own defense. Let their Tax Payers pick up the bill for their own National Security, bring our Tax Revenue home that we spend. Defending other countries and lets pay down down our Federal Debt and Deficit as we are Rebuilding America. And work with our allies jointly on intelligence and Humanitarian Missions, like in Libya. NATO being an excellent example of this and let Developed Nations defend themselves. We have a National Debt of now 15T$ and a National Deficit of 1.8T$, we spend over 700B$ a year alone on defense. We also spend around 200B$ a year defending Developed Nations. The Defense Budget has to be on the table in Deficit Reduction.
American Foreign Policy should be about defending American National Interests, not interfering in Civil Wars. Unless there's genocide going on there and we can play a role along with our Regional Allies. And have a good chance of success there with our limited role, Libya being an excellent example of that. I would argue Neoconservatism doesn't really work anywhere, as much as the Heritage Foundation advocates for it. But especially in Foreign Policy where we had eight years of it in the Bush Administration and to a certain extent. Still have it in how the Obama Administration is conducting the War on Terror. You can't build and design nations for people and what type of government they should have. Which is what we tried to in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have to do that for themselves. Now you can help them with resources and sorta thing like in Foreign Aid. But they have to do the work for themselves And figure out what type of country they are going to have on their own. They live in the country, they know their own people, culture and land. They have to do the work on their own. Afghanistan and Iraq both have been examples of how not to conduct Foreign Policy. We were sorta making it up as we went along and only have had success lately because we've changed course.
American Foreign Policy needs to be based on our own National Security Interests. We are just one country and are simply not capable of governing and defending the rest of the World. And we certainly can no longer afford to defend large Developed Nations that have the resources to defend themselves. Which is why they should do that for themselves and America get back to Rebuilding America. And we do some of our own Nation Building with our own money. Instead of trying to build other nations for them and deciding what type of countries and governments they should have.
Friday, December 2, 2011
What is the role of a Safety Net and again I emphasize the term Safety Net which is different from a Welfare State. Safety Net to catch people who fall through the cracks of the economy. Not to encourage people to fall through those cracks, a Welfare State is basically designed to take care of people. So when you have a Safety Net, the idea is to have as many Working Adults as possible taking care of themselves. And being Self Sufficient, not quitting their jobs even if they are Low Skilled to go on Public Assistance. And not be expected to work again and for the people who don't have the skills to be Self Sufficient. And are physically and mentally capable of working, empower those people to get themselves the skills. That they need in order to get a good job so they can take care of themselves and their families. Not encourage people to quit their jobs, especially people with kids to go on Public Assistance. Not pay people more on Public Assistance then they would collect in the Private Sector. Based on the skills that they have for working, which is why I believe Welfare and Unemployment Insurance. Should pay less then the people on these programs would've made with a job. So these people have as much incentive as possible to go out, go back to school and get a job. People should not be making a good living collecting Public Assistance, thats just there to help people sustain themselves when they are in need. Not take care of them so they don't feel the need to go back to work and earn a living.
What we should do instead is reform our entire Social Insurance System in America and with the debt and deficit we face. That we are going to have to address, this is the best time to do that. To get our debt and deficit under control and cut some of the expenses of the Federal Government. First by getting the Safety Net off of the backs of the Federal Government and the Federal Budget. By turing all of our Social Insurance Services over to the States in the short term. Not to be eliminated because all of them perform a critical roles and are needed. But to be run closer to the people and so Congress and the Administration can't mess with them. And to cut some of the Red Tape so they don't have to call Washington for permission to make reforms. And then the States would set up their own Social Insurance Systems but then tern their Social Insurance Services, that are affiliated with the Federal Government. Over to the Private Sector to be turned into Semi Private Non Profit Self Financed Community Services. And the Federal, State and Local Governments would serve as regulators with all of these Community Services. That are only in the business to help people in need sustain themselves but also empower them to get themselves on their feet. That would have to meet basic Federal Standards in how they operate.
People who aren't eligible to receive Public Assistance, shouldn't receive it obviously. People shouldn't be encouraged to quit their jobs to collect Public Assistance instead. Public Assistance is for people that need it for whatever reasons can't take care of themselves. And its there to help while they are in need and help them get up on their feet. So they become Self Sufficient and can take care of themselves and their families. Not to be paid out to people who don't need this assistance and not to encourage people who are taking care of themselves. To quit their jobs and go on Public Assistance.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The main reason why I don't like Term Limits in Congress, even if they are generous. Is because I don't like the idea of Government limiting who we can vote for, as long as we meet basic qualifications. We are alive, free, American Citizens and meet the basic Age Requirement to Run for Office. The reason why Term Limits makes sense for Executives, Presidents, I would add Vice Presidents, Governors , County Executives and Mayors. Is because there's a lot of power given to Executives, Individual Power and you don't want them in Public Office. Indefinitely making decisions based on how to get reelected but if you Term Limit Executives. That gives them the Political Freedom, until their term is over. To make decisions that may not be popular but may be the right thing to do. And of course they can make unpopular decisions that are the wrong thing to do. Like pardoning murderers that are clearly guilty and that sorta thing. But thats why we have Legislatures to step in and try to convince the Executive not to do those things. And can threaten Executives with impeachment and that sorta thing. Term Limits aren't the answer, what we need is Congressional Reform as well as Campaign Reform and we need to try to force these things on Congress. Things like Full Disclosure on all Campaign Contributions as well as people who lobby them, as well as their activities in Congress. Who they talk to, what are their positions, their Voting Records, what bills and amendments to bills they've offered and sponsored. And allow their constituents to take their whole record in consideration on whether they should reelected them or not.
Congressional Term Limits are popular and have appeal to them, especially amongst Independent Voters and Members of Third Parties. Because they see it as their shot to get to Congress and to hold Congress accountable. But our Founding Fathers got it right for the most part when they set up. How long Members of Congress would serve, Representatives who serve in the House serve two years at a time. Because the House moves quickly and responds to issues quickly and can write and pass a lot of bills quickly. Whether they become law or not and they wanted the House to have to answer their constituents quickly. Where in the Senate, Senators have to respond generally to a broad range of people throughout a State. Unlike. Reps. who tend to represents a small segment of a State that tends to be pretty partisan. And each State only gets two Sens. and the Senate moves slowly and you usually needs Bi Partisan cooperation to get anything done. So they figured that people should give Sens. six years before they decide whether they should go back to Congress or not. Because they have to speak and answer to a whole State, not just a Partisan Faction of a State. One of the reasons why so many Senators run for President because they feel they can speak to a wide range of people. A lot of Reps. run for the Senate so they can get Elected Statewide and widen their base.
Term Limits aren't the answer they are an attempt at a quick fix to a much larger problem with Unintended Consequences. Like limiting who voters can vote for when we already have enough limits. What we need instead is Congressional and Campaign Reform so we can do a better job at holding our Members of Congress more accountable. I would go even farther by making the Leadership in both the House and Senate, Majority and Minority. At Large Members of Congress and make them National Leaders, meaning the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House. Wouldn't also Represent a House District but just hold their Leadership Post and do the same thing in the Senate with the Leader and Minority Leader. To cut back on these Leaders using their Leadership Positions to benefit their District or State. And instead having them take more of a National View in performing their jobs.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
|Source: Nutsare Fancy-|
This little somewhat childish debate that's going on in the Republican primaries about who is the constitutionalist, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul. Is kinda pointless, because I believe they are both constitutionalists. At least to a certain extent, but I would give the edge to Representative Paul, because he's a constitutionalist the whole way. And Speaker Gingrich leans more to being a Neoconservative on the War on Terror as far as how America should deal with it's terror suspects. But other than that Newt is the closest thing to Barry Goldwater or Ron Reagan as far as the major GOP presidential candidates right now. Except for being a bit farther right than Goldwater/Reagan on social issues. Like with school prayer and calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in America. A couple of reasons why the Religious Right loves Newt and why Representative Paul is more of a constitutionalist than Newt.
Ron Paul believes these controversial social issues should be left up to the states under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. So again edge to Ron Paul on the Constitution, fine. But unless that turns into votes for Paul in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't believe it means a hell of a lot politically. But constitutionalism is not really a political ideology, but a view of the Constitution that it takes precedent because it guarantees all of our individual liberties. What Ron Paul really is, is a Classical Libertarian a big believer in the 10th Amendment to keep the Federal Government from getting too big. So the rest of our individual liberties are protected and I believe Newt Gingrich generally speaking supports this concept. But he's not a libertarian of any kind and more of what I would call a Classical Conservative. Except for on the War on Terror, church state issues and homosexuality Issues.
And when it gets to the War on Terror where I believe Newt believes the Federal Government has more leeway to do what it feels it needs to do to protect our national security, even if that means violating some of our individual liberties and this is what separates Newt from Ron Paul. But I'm a constitutionalist as well, I'm just not a Libertarian or Conservative, but a Liberal. And a big believer in limited government as well, again to stay in line with the U.S. Constitution. But also to insure that our individual liberties are always protected. My views on the Constitution are somewhat similar to Ron Paul, but different like on the Commerce and Welfare Clause. I believe our safety net is constitutional, but that it shouldn't be run by the Federal Government, to use as an example. I believe Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are the two strongest GOP presidential candidates right now as far as their major candidates. Gary Johnson and John Huntsman are their two best candidates, but neither of of them are getting much play. I wouldn't vote for either Gingrich or Paul as a Liberal Democrat. But because I'm a Liberal Democrat I would consider Johnson and Huntsman and I hope Paul wins Iowa and Gingrich wins New Hampshire. Because that would increase the likely hood that Mitt Romney won't win the presidential nomination. Being 0-2 and behind two major candidates.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
My favorite parts about the Republican Presidential Debate about National Security last week and I admit I'm not a republican. I would be an insult to the current Republican Party, so my favorite moments in last weeks debate. Are obviously limited but my 2nd favorite moment from that debate, was when a Neoconservative from the Heritage Foundation. Are there any other type of conservatives working at Heritage right now but one of their employees. In that debate asked Newt Gingrich as we are going through Deficit Reduction right now, with how important our National Security is. Should the Defense Budget be off the table in Deficit Reduction and Speaker Gingrich simply put said no. And then he explained why his answer was no and that no part of the Federal Budget should be off the table. In Deficit Reduction, where ever there's waste in the Federal Government. We should eliminate it, including in the Defense Department, which is something that apparently only Neoconservatives don't understand. But my favorite part of that debate was when Rep. Ron Paul the father of Sen. Rand Paul was asked about Enhance Techniques used against Terrorist Suspects. And I'm paraphrasing here but Rep. Paul answered that once we surrender our Individual Liberty. The Terrorists have won because thats exactly what they want us to do.
There's no such thing as National Security without Individual Liberty, you can't have one without the other. Goes without saying you can't have Individual Liberty without National Security. Once you surrender or lose one, you've lost both because without Individual Liberty. We become Prisoners of the State for them to be able to do to us as they please. Because we don't have the Individual Liberty to stop them from doing to us as they please. And without National Security we don't have the Individual Liberty to live our own lives. Because we would be in fear of being in Physical Danger. Which is the argument that Sen. Rand Paul the son of Rep. Ron Paul was making on the Senate Floor today, unfortunately for Sen. Paul. He was speaking to a majority in both parties that disagree with him, that now we are in a "War on Terror", we may have to surrender. Or have some of our Individual Liberty stricken from us in order to secure our National Security. What people who tend to make this argument, generally Neoconservatives. Fail to understand is that not only we can't have Individual Liberty without National Security and Vice Versa. But these same Enhance Law Enforcement and Military Techniques that we use against Foreign Prisoners and Domestic Prisoners. Those same techniques can be used by Foreign Nations against our Military Personal. Which is a point that Sen. John McCain a former Vietnam POW makes all the time.
I don't agree with Paul's on everything but on Individual Liberty and National Security, I believe they are generally dead right. This is not about being Soft or Strong on Terror but being Smart on Terror. Which of course requires us to be strong but not to the point where we give up our Individual Liberties. Any of them to protect our National Security, which I believe was the point that Sen. Paul was making today. And I believe he did a damn good job of making that case.
Monday, November 28, 2011
"Common Sense Capitalism Salutes Socialist Lawmaker Barney Frank": The Distinguished Gentlemen from Massachusetts
Today in case your unaware or perhaps don't follow politics very closely or perhaps just had other things to do. Rep. Barney Frank Progressive Democrat from Massachusetts and one of the best spokespeople. For Democratic Socialism in America announced that he's retiring from the House of Representatives after his 16th Term expires in 2013. When I think of terms like "Distinguished Gentlemen", thats used all the time in Congress, both in the House and Senate. Whether the man is gentle or distinguished or not. Or a grouchy old bastard who should've left Congress twenty years ago. When I think of the term "Distinguished Gentlemen", I think of Barney Frank because he was exactly that. Whether you like him or not and I have mixed feelings about Rep. Frank both good and bad. I love his honesty but I'm not crazy about how he talks about people who disagree with him. Easily one of the most Partisan Animals in Congress and also one of the effective in Congress in either party, a bit too partisan for my taste. But when he's right, its hard to disagree with him and he do would do it with such great humor as well. Off the cuff which is really impressive to and would do it in a way that would even make the people he's critiquing. Laugh at what's he saying, he would say things like and I'm I don't know if Barney Frank actually said this or not. Just trying to give you a sense of his humor but that Newt Gingrich or someone like that. The Gentlemen from wherever has a ability of making you believe something thats untrue the truth, because of the conviction of his argument. Or the Gentlemen knows so many things that aren't true. Barney Frank's Sense of Humor which I'll miss, reminds me of Ron Reagan, he's just as funny.
Actually I wish Barney Frank was still Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, because that would mean that House Democrats. Would still have the House Majority, but not because I agree with Rep. Frank on a lot of issues. Because I probably disagree with Rep. Frank as often as I agree with him. Like on Deficit Reduction, the Role of the Federal Government but on Foreign Policy and Social Issues. Rep. Frank probably agrees more often with Rep. Ron Paul a Libertarian Republican and Presidential Candidate. Then he disagrees with Rep. Paul and I'm similar with Paul on that but I disagree with Frank and Paul on Economic Policy. Barney Frank represents to me exactly what a Democratic Socialist or Socialist Libertarian should be. Same thing with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, very liberal to libertarian on Social Issues, same thing on National Security and Foreign Policy. But of course socialist on Economic Policy, which gives Rep. Frank the ability cross the isle with Rep. Paul or Rep. Walter Jones. On National Security or the War on Drugs or Decriminalization of Marijuana a bill he has with Rep. Paul. But then work with the Progressive Caucus on Single Payer Healthcare or trying to pass a 1T$ Works Projects bill. Or letting all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire to invest in Infrastructure Investment.
The Distinguished Gentlemen from Massachusetts is retiring but his Sense of Humor will live on. And maybe when he's up in Maine at his Vacation Home, he and Bob Dole will get together. And write a book about great Political Humor or Congressional Humor, that will teach today's politicians. Not to take politics too seriously especially themselves and once you lose your Sense of Humor in Politics. Or don't even have one to begin, then its time to leave politics. Because then politics just becomes about work studying CBO Reports and FED Charts. Instead of serving the people.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
|Source: Liberty Pen-|
Prohibition of gambling to me is a perfect example of what big government is. Because what is big government and what is it about. I believe Neoconservatives and the Christian-Right see big government as about money and the welfare state. And high tax rates are about funding big government, but that regulating how people live their own lives. Like how they can spend their own money and what they can watch and read to use as examples. The New-Right sees big government as being about national security because government is used there to protect people from themselves and the state. But thats not what big government is about.
Big government is about power. Money is just the instrument to fund power, the power to control how free people live their own lives. What free adults do with their own lives with their own time and money. And prohibition of gambling is the poster child of big government, controlling what free adults do with their own time and money. There are a couple of problems with this.
For one, the big government problem but also the double standard of it. Because a lot of states already have legalize gambling, its just not private gambling but public gambling. In the form of state lottery's. A lot of States don't mind gambling if they can receive a profit from it. Putting money in the stock market is also a form of gambling but thats legal anywhere in America. There of course is also some skill involved there but its also a form of gambling.
Again I've made this point over and over but to pat myself on the back and to make it again because its so true. If people want to do something bad enough, they find a way to do it. Without regards to the consequences and they might not even be addicted to whatever they want to do with their own time and money. They may just really enjoy what they are doing. Feel its worth the risk or they won't get caught. Gambling is a perfect example of that. Instead of breaking into private homes to break up poker games in someone's living rooms or basements, why don't they break up murder for hire rings, or get rapists or con artists off the street. Better for society because we would be safer and better for the economy to have less con artists and thieves on the street.
Just because you prohibit gambling in one state, doesn't end it. It just means its done differently and behind closed doors in back rooms tax free. Any fan of big government should hate the idea of people profiting tax free, or its done in other states. People can't gamble in New York, so they drive down to New Jersey to gamble there. Money leaves the Empire State and heads down to the Garden State where New Jersey collects taxes off of it. To help pay for their roads, schools, public safety, etc.
Instead of trying to protect people from themselves and contracting our economic and tax base by outlawing other activities, lets instead decriminalize things like gambling and other activities. If you read my blog you know what those other activities are and regulate how people interact with each other instead. Expand our economic and tax base and have more revenue to actually put away dangerous criminals instead.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tomorrow as most of America celebrates Thanksgiving or try to celebrate Thanksgiving, a National Holiday that we celebrate by stuffing our faces with food. Lets take the time to at least think about the people who won't be able to stuff their faces with food. Or who may eat but not have enough food to eat and may even go hungry. Lets even if we can do something about this problem, lets take some time out of our great days. As we are celebrating one of the greatest holidays in the World, to drop by a Grocery Store, donate some grocery's to the Salvation Army. Buy some grocery's to take over to a Food Bank or a Homeless Shelter, give to a church. Or bring some extra food that we have at home and take that food to one of those places. That are only in the business to help people who can't take care of themselves, volunteer at a Food Bank, Homeless Shelter or a church. Buy serving meals for people who don't have enough food, perhaps even make meals for these people. Bring your own food to one of these place and then give thanks to what we have and celebrate that. But also give thanks to the fact that we have the ability to give back, that we are good people and live in a great country. That allows us to be able to do these things, to help out people who can't help themselves. I'm not making a case for creating new Government Social Insurance Programs to take care of the Less Fortunate. I'm making a case for people who can and have the ability to not only take care of themselves. But do such a great job of taking care of themselves, that they are in the position to help other people who can't do those things. For whatever reasons and help them make their Thanksgiving a little better or even tolerable.
I'm not making the case that we can rely on Private Charity to solve our Poverty Issues, I'm not a libertarian. I'm also not making the case that we can rely on government to solve these problems on their own. If we just spend more money on our current Social Insurance Programs or create new ones. I'm not a socialist either, that should be pretty clear by now. If its not then what the hell you been reading about me and could you share what you been reading about me. What I'm saying is that we need a Multi Layer approach to solving these problems that we've been dealing with as a country. At least since the "Great Depression" eighty years ago and if anything I believe the Federal Government should step back. And empower the people to handle these issues, again not by only depending on Private Charity to deal with these issues. But empowering a whole new Non Profit Community Service Industry thats in the business of empowering people in need to help themselves. Everything from Anti Homelessness, Anti Hunger, Job Training, retraining our Low Income workers. Healthcare, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance. All these programs that the Federal Government currently runs, getting them off of the Federal Budget and turning them into Semi Private Non Profit Self Financed Community Services.
So tomorrow lets make Thanksgiving the greatest Thanksgiving we've ever had, not just because of the amount of great food we ate. But all of the thanks we gave and all the people we helped. Make their Thanksgiving better and made their kids Thanksgiving better and perhaps even helped them again. Instead of taking the attitude well I did my good deed for the year and not even remember the person you helped. And maybe even helped them so much that they were able to get on their feet so for Thanksgiving 2012. Just one year away they were able to help other people as well and we can create a new Cycle of Giving Back.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
"Why Spending Cuts are All Talk": Nick Gillespie Explains on Freedom Watch: What we should do instead
Nick Gillespie of the Reason Organization is right, cutting increases in the Federal Budget or the rate of growth in Spending Increases. Is not Budget Cuts, what's a Budget Cut, this is what was spent here last year. And this year we are going to spend less then here then what we spent there last year. That what a Budget Cut is, not well we are suppose to increase the spending here 5% but what we are going to do is spend 4% more instead. Progressive Democrats again to be nice, are so Freaked Out by any form of Budget Cut in Government. Thats not related to National Security or Tax Cuts, that they call cuts to increases in Government Spending. When your still spending more then you did before just not as much more Budget Cuts. Which is pure either ignorance or Partisan Spin on their part. The reason the Congressional Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction failed. Is because it was designed to fail perhaps intentionally, because the Leadership in both parties only appointed members to the committee. That would defend their Party Line going in and were not there to compromise, I mean just look at the Chairman of the Committee. Patty Murray Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Jeb Henserling Chairman of the House Republican Conference, basically their Chief Spokesperson. And Political Strategist, if this committee was designed to succeed, they would've appointed people to it. From Congress in both parties evenly divided, that were there to work out and agreement on Deficit Reduction that would work. Where everything is on the table, its that simple.
The Bowls-Simpson Deficit Reduction Committee I believe succeeded because it was designed to succeed. Everything was on table and they came up with solutions across the board to get the debt and deficit under control. Defense Budget, Entitlement Reform, Tax Reform and Government Reform. Which is exactly why they are so unpopular with the Far Left and Far Right. But on that committee you have Dick Durbin the Deputy Leader of the Senate. One of the strongest if not strongest Liberal Democrats in Congress, someone who I'm a big fan of , agreeing with. Sen. Tom Coeburn one of the most Fiscally Conservative Members of Congress. They both voted for the Bowls-Simpson plan and both paid a price for it to some extent. We won't get a Deficit Reduction Agreement under this current Political Climate. This is something that only a General Election can decide, where one party does so well. That they have the power to put their plan through Congress and get it signed into law. Because they both control the White House and Congress with strong enough majority's to put their plan through. Washington is so partisan and divided right now that this is an issue that only General Elections can decide and what they are for to solve these issues.
If you want a committee to especially thats made up of two parties that can't even agree on the taste of water. You have to find those people who'll know going in that they need to reach an agreement. That thats the only choice they have, to compromise to compromise but work out an agreement that works. Thats a good plan that would work, thats better then splitting the difference and better then doing nothing. That you take what's good about both sides and throw out the garbage in both sides. Into a Final Agreement that can work and is better then doing nothing.
Monday, November 21, 2011
If the economy is the same today or worse by the time American Voters get around to deciding who to vote for President in 2012. And the Presidential Election is about the economy and President Obama. Then the President is going to lose, only way he gets elected under those conditions. Is if the Republican Party nominates Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain someone who won't be able to appeal to Independent Voters because they look dangerous. Independent Voters will decide who will win the Presidential Election because all of the talk from the Far Left flank of the Democratic Party about running a Primary Challenger. Thats not going to happen and they know that, President Obama will have all the money in the Democratic Party to run for President. And Progressive Democrats (to be nice) understand this and they'll probably support the President and Vice President Biden as well. And the Obama Campaign understands this as well, the Obama Campaign will probably raise a billions dollars or so. To run for reelection and no one else will come close and will have the Democratic Party behind him. Without any primary's while the Republican Party is deciding who will be their Presidential Nominee. The safest bet is Mitt Romney but he hasn't closed the sale yet. The Right and Far Right especially the Tea Party and Religious Right still doesn't trust him. Libertarians want Ron Paul to run for President for them and offer he's going to have a hard time turning down. And a Libertarian Presidential Campaign will take votes away from the Republican Presidential Candidate. Because some of them are affiliated with the Tea Party.
The President's Road to Victory is to convince American Voters that even though you may not be better off. Today then you were four years ago, your better off now then you would've been. Had President Bush served four more years, the man he inherited these problems from. And your better off today then you would've been had Sen. John McCain been elected President. And where I want to take the country and how I would do that, is better then where my opponent would take the country. I cut your taxes several times, I cut taxes and regulations for Small Business's several times. I signed a Healthcare Law that if the Supreme Court upholds, will give 30M americans who currently don't have Health Insurance. Health Insurance because they'll be able to afford it, I'm bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, two wars I inherited. We are going to create a National Infrastructure Bank and rebuild our Public Infrastructure, all these things are happening under my watch. We as a country are now growing as an economy and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. And things are getting better and all of these things are happening, wouldn't of happened the last four years had their been a Republican President. This is a tough sale for President Obama but his best plan to get reelected.
If the 2012 Presidential Election is about the economy and "are you better off today then you were four years ago". Again unless the President is running against Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain, he aint getting reelected. But if its about the problems that we had to deal with were so large and serious. That it takes more then four years to recover and things are starting to get better under President Obama's watch. And with the Republican Party not able to nominate someone that the whole party can get behind. Then I like the President's chances of getting reelected, especially if the economy starts improving. With Economic and Job Growth.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
If you want to talk about the Welfare State or Redistribution of Wealth or socialism, you should at least know what those terms mean. The Welfare State take Europe lets use Sweden because they seem to have the most famous or infamous depending on your perspective. Welfare State in the World, a Welfare State is a collection of Social Insurance programs provided for by government. To serve the people, in Sweden that means, Public Education, Public Healthcare, Public Health Insurance, Public Pension, generous Public Unemployment Insurance etc. All provided for by the Federal Government financed by high Tax Rates and other taxes. Redistribution of Wealth or how that term is used in American Politics for partisan purposes. Is when money is forcefully taken from someone, generally someone with a lot of money. To give to people without much money and struggling just to survive. The problem is when conservatives and libertarians use the term Redistribution of Wealth. They don't mention or are unaware that the definition of Redistribution of Wealth is to take money from one area to give to another. The Gas Tax is Redistribution of Wealth, taxing one area to build bridges and roads and repair those things in another area. The Payroll Tax is Redistribution of Wealth taxing workers Pay Checks to fund the Social Security and Medicare of others. Anytime you take money from one area to give another area, your Redistributing Wealth. Socialism the classical definition, the State owning the Means of Production in Society meaning all enterprise. But there's more then one term, another term of socialism is Social Services provided for by government.
The question is not whether we have a Welfare State or a Safety Net and they are different. Or Redistribution of Wealth or socialism or not. We've already decided as a country that we are going to have these things. But the remaining question is how much of it are we going to have, to what degree and to what expense. And how are we going to finance it, now me personally I prefer a Safety Net. That again is a collection of Social Insurance Programs but are just there for the people who need them. Run at the Local Level by Non Profit Community Services not by the Federal Government. But with all levels of government regulating them and these programs being designed to help get themselves on their feet. As long as we have government we'll have at least some level of Redistribution of Wealth and socialism in America. But the question is how of it are we going to have and how are we going to finance it. Now for me I believe its time we reexamine what the role of the Federal Government is in America. And exactly what the US Constitution allows for it to do and what we want it to do in this country. And we'll make some progress in 2012 with that when the US Supreme Court takes up the 2010 Affordable Care Act. And whether its Constitutional or not.
If your not a fan of a Welfare State, Redistribution of Wealth or socialism, then you'll like my definition of the Role of Government. To protect, defend, Foreign Policy, infrastructure and regulate. And as far as the Welfare Clause, turning our Safety Net over to the States to be turned into. Semi Private Non Profit Self Financed Community Services. Designed to help the people who need them to get themselves on their feet. Not to take care of them which is different and if you like low Tax Rates, you'll also like my definition of the Role of Government as well. And thats really what this whole debate is about.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
The Federal Government has a history of setting up enterprises that are somewhat Self Financed and independent. But really aren't because the Federal Government still has a role in its management. The Post Service, the Federal Housing Administration, Amtrak, Social Security and Medicare aren't bankrupt yet. But both are in need of reform to avoid that same thing with Medicaid down the road. And the 2010 Affordable Care Act that I by in large support makes Medicaid financial outlook even worse. Because it adds millions of people to Medicaid without a way to pay for it and Medicaid is Health Insurance for Low Income people. Who can't afford to pay for their Health Insurance, so the revenue is going to have to come from somewhere else. FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are what's known as Government Sponsored Enterprises or GSE, which is the big part of the problem right there. Government shouldn't be in the business of sponsoring enterprises, especially in a Capitalist Economy like America. Government is not a For Profit Organization but a Public Service designed to serve not to make money and collects revenue to do those things. Not to make money, doesn't mean it should run debt and deficits either but they are not in the business to make money. But to serve the people that they represent. The one example of where a GSE works pretty well would be the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or FDIC. Thats responsible for insuring all loans in America but they are independent of the Federal Government and Self Financed.
What we should be doing with Fannie and Freddie is first taking their Monopoly Status away from them. They are both the definition of "Too Big To Fail", their combine Net Worth is around 5T$. Thats 1/3 of the American Economy, They should be both broken up into 100-200 different company's, keep their Non Profit status. Make them completely independent of the Federal Government and see how they do on their own. Competing with other Non Profit company's in their field with no Special Advantages under law. And turn the FHA over to the States, for them to set up their own State Public Housing Insurance and Loan Agency. Thats Semi Profit, Non Profit, Self Financed and Independent of the Federal Government. Then in the future the Federal Government meaning Tax Payers wouldn't have to worry about having to bail these agency's out. For one they would no longer be tied to them and the other reason, they would no longer be part of the Federal Government. With the Red Tape and the Administration and Congress trying to Micro Manage them. Because they would have their own Management and Board of Directors and run like a business.
Government is not an enterprise but a Public Service and should be run like that, especially in a Capitalist Society and Liberal Democracy like America. They shouldn't be trying to run or Micro Manage business's but regulate those business's instead. Something up until the last ten years they were very effective at. And leave Business Management up to the people who know how to do that. Which is Business People in our Free Enterprise System.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
|Source: Liberty Pen-|
Infrastructure investment (as I call it) used to be a bipartisan thing. The majority of the members of both party's in Congress. But today with bipartisanship becoming so unpopular in both party's with both party's wanting so much to have all of the power in the Federal Government and not some of it and with Libertarians having a bigger voice in American politics today, infrastructure investment at least from the Federal Government, no longer has much Bi Partisanship.
And the reasons for this is when infrastructure bills are passed, there's a lot of waste in them. With earmarks, with money thats supposed to go to one project and ends up in another project instead. That may have nothing to do with economic growth. And with the Tea Party and the libertarian movement wanting the Federal Government to cut everywhere and not make any new investments in the economy and with their influence on the Republican Party right now, infrastructure investment has become almost impossible to pass right now.
But the need to repair and rebuild and add to our public infrastructure are still there and if anything have gotten bigger. We have both roads and bridges crumbling right now that need to be fixed and we have the construction workers in the private sector to do this work and a lot of them are currently unemployed right now and need to work. So we need to find a way to do this and pass something out of Congress that the President would sign into law. And we need to think out of the box in order to make this happen.
In the 2009 during the stimulus debate when the American Recovery Act was passed, infrastructure investment was considered in that debate and some was passed. But the problem was in a bill of 800B$ only 45B$ of that was for infrastructure investment. And Conservatives and Libertarians have used that to say that infrastructure investment doesn't work, because we tried that in 2009 and almost three years later we have a larger unemployment rate.
So thats the justification that the Tea Party and other use to argue why we shouldn't pass infrastructure investment today. And what they don't mention is that only 5% of the ARA was infrastructure investment. 45B$ aint going to get it done to rebuild our public infrastructure, we need 10-12 times more then that and do it over 5-10 years. But we should pay for it and do it in a responsible way by paying for it and only invest in infrastructure that needs to be built or repaired. That would benefit the economy and not these bogus earmarks that are for special interest groups. Which is why this process needs to be open and clean. Which is why I'm for creating a National Infrastructure Bank that would fund our infrastructure investment through the private sector by encouraging investment into our public infrastructure. And then hiring private construction company's to do the work.
I'm not for passing massive highway bills that are loaded up with earmarks that are done in the back room that go to fund things that have nothing to do with public infrastructure. But investing in infrastructure in a clean and open process by creating a National Infrastructure Bank that would be independent of the Federal Government, self-financed, by getting the private sector to invest into our infrastructure investment. That these company's would also collect profits from and prioritize infrastructure investment. And then hire private construction company's to do the work.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
|Source: Ron Paul 2008-U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas-|
I'm actually not that far off from Ron Paul on his fiscal policy plan, but I'm closer to Gary Johnson on fiscal policy. I believe in saving the current entitlement programs for the senior citizens who need it. But reforming and restructuring them for everyone else and my plan gets to decentralization of all of our social insurance programs. Which is similar to Gary Johnson who I consider to be a Liberal Libertarian who is running for President in the Republican Party. Where Ron Paul is a Classical Libertarian running for President in the Republican Party. My fiscal policy is similar to Governor Johnson who block grants hands all of our social insurance programs over to the states to run. Where under my plan that would happen in the short-term. But only for the states to set up their own social insurance systems, that would include Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Public Housing, Food Assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance and others.
And then turn these programs into semi-private non-profit independent self-financed community services. To help the people that are eligible for them, which saves the Federal Government around 2T$. Because they would no longer have to run them and it would also save the states billions of dollars as well because they would no longer have to run them as well. And then close our foreign bases oversees that are in developed nations. And demand that those countries defend themselves and bring those troops home. And then we could wipe out the Federal deficit and start paying down the Federal debt. Whatever entitlement reform that we pass, cannot hurt the people who are currently dependent on those programs for their survival. So we can't hurt them, but at the same time make these programs stronger. So we can maintain them and they are there and stronger for my generation and people younger in the future.
And the way to do this is to have a strong economy and to encourage people to take care of themselves better. So they aren't as dependent on these programs, if dependent on them at all. Planning their own retirement with what I call Social Security Plus, with again each state would be able to set up their own system. Where people would be able to put additional money away in their own personal retirement account. That would be matched by their employer and they can take money out of their paychecks or whatever side income they may have. Like investments and other income, that would be tax free as long as they don't spend that money until they are eligible to retire. As well as setting up personal unemployment insurance accounts, or PUIA, that again people could put their own money into, that would be matched by their employer. Again each state would set up their own system and the same thing with health insurance.
Allowing senior citizens to purchase other health insurance or set up a health savings account. As far as paying down our debt and deficit as far as just doing those things, it's fairly simple. A lot of that can simply be done through reforming the Federal Government. The problem is political with all these special interest groups that either don't want any reform, or only see reform done their way or else and or else means supporting the politicians opponent. Or recruiting someone else to run against them, pulling their financial support. And most politicians are looking to get reelected which makes it very difficult for them to reform anything with broad support.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Libertarian Party and the broader movement came about as I understand it, as a reaction to the New Deal in the 1940s. And the Great Society in the 1960s, as a reaction against Big Government Democratic Socialism. They believed a Welfare State in America was not needed, bad policy and Unconstitutional. The Libertarian Party and Libertarian Movement is about defending the US Constitution and fighting against. Big Government Socialism and Authoritarianism and promoting Limited Government and Individual Liberty and trying to prevent it from. Going outside the US Constitution, a big believer in the entire US Constitution. And uses the 11th Amendment as they see it to fight against Big Government. And to keep the Federal Government from getting outside the 11th Amendment and big believers in Individual Liberty. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty. And if libertarians were to stick to the Core Principles of being Pro Individual Liberty and Limited Government. They could have a great future and recruit more members to their party. Because I believe a consensus of americans share these same beliefs, its when they take it farther then that. And sound like Anti Government not Anti Big Government but Anti Government period. That they get into trouble because then they sound like anarchists instead of libertarians or liberals. And its costs them support because a consensus of americans aren't Anti Government. But most of us tend to support Limited Government.
A lot of people asked me how I would describe my politics and I've always answered that I'm a Liberal or a Liberal Democrat. Not just because I'm a Member and proud Member of the Democratic Party. But because I believe in Liberal Democracy which is what traditionally the Democratic Party has been about. As much as socialists in the party want to change that, Liberal Democracy is exactly that. The right of individuals to have the liberty to live their own lives and not be harassed by government. Thats one thing that Limited Government is about, the reason why I'm not a libertarian. Is because most if not all libertarians that I've talked to or heard of, are Anti Government period. Not just Anti Big Government which I am but Anti Government all together, they don't even want government policing the streets or managing security at airports. Thats just not me, I'm not Anti Government, I'm Anti Big Government, I'm not Pro Government either. That socialists tend to be but Pro Limited Government and thats a big difference. Once your Anti Government, your just a step away or maybe just a half a step from being an anarchist. The Libertarian Party will never make it in America if they are a Party of Anarchy. For their message to succeed, they have to be Pro Limited Government. Not Anti Government or they'll never going anywhere.
The Future of the Libertarian Party, their Path to Prosperity and getting out of the hole of being in Minor Third Party Politics. The Farm League of our Two Party System if you will. Is for them to be the party of Limited Government and Anti Big Government but not Anti Government all together. And then recruit Libertarian Independents, Classical Conservative Republicans and Classical Liberal Democrats into their party. To vote, raise money and run for Public Office at all levels and winning building the LP all across the country. Otherwise they'll always be the AAA Affiliate of the Two Party System.