Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Friday, October 28, 2011

U.S. Representative Scott Garrett: Franklin Rains Calls For Fannie & Freddie Mac Reform

Source: U.S. Representative Scott Garrett- Franklin Raines-
Source: US. Representative Scott Garrett: Franklin Raines Calls For Fannie & Freddie Mac Reform

Perhaps Frank Raines is not the best spokesperson to be talking about financial housing assistance right now. After all, he was the President of Fannie Mae that when it went down in 2008. Which was one of the reasons for the housing crisis because of all the mortgages that FM were holding. Which help lead to the Great Recession of 2008 along with the collapse of our banking system. If you're going to bail people out and generally bailing people out is not a good idea especially for bad behavior, because that encourages more bad behavior and making the problem worst, but if you're going to bail people out, bail people out that are in trouble for no fault of their own. People that got screwed by big banks and now owe more money on their homes than they are worth. These people are overwhelmingly middle class, at least before the Great Recession and how still have their homes. But are at risk of losing their homes, because they owe more money on the home than it's worth and they can afford to pay back, their savings and retirement funds were wiped out.

Because of the collapse of Wall Street and the banking system, these one time middle class workers are now out-of-work as a result of the Great Recession and haven't worked since. Or lost their savings during the Great Recession, or a combination of some or all of these factors. And that's what President Obama is addressing with his new financial assistance program. To help people refinance their homes and retire some of their mountain size debt, so they can keep their homes. Start spending money again and jump start economic growth which would lead to job growth. The fact is we can't get our economy going again, economic and job growth, unless people especially the middle class start spending money again. Retiring some consumer debt would help jump start consumer spending again. And the only way thats going to happen, is we get a lot of our consumer debt paid off. Refinancing homes giving homeowners the resources to refinance their mortgages and paying off their debt.

Which is why I support a few things in this area.

Home refinancing, like some type of housing insurance system. To accomplish this that people would pay into based on how much their property is worth. That they can collect from when their home is worth more than they can afford to pay back to help meet their mortgage payments. As well as public assistance for people that they can pay back who have underwater mortgages in the short-term and also some type of tax credit or tax deduction. That would be temporary that people could collect to pay down their debt.

And after that an extension of the Payroll Tax Holiday for workers and apply that to employers as well. For the middle class and low-income people, so they can have some extra money to spend. And then a Consumer Tax Credit that people can collect, but they can only spend it. By a certain amount of time to help boost consumer spending.

We'll never get the economy going again which means strong economic and job growth and a falling unemployment rate, unless we start spending as consumers again. And we can't do this until we retire a lot of our consumer debt and get past the housing crisis, a big part of the Great Recession. I'm all for tax cuts, regulatory reform, infrastructure investment and creating a national energy policy, that leads us to energy independence. But none of those things mean much, without consumer spending. And we need to retire a lot of our consumer debt before we can get the consumer spending that we need.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch Interviewing Edward Stringham- 'Policing is Too Important To Be Left For Government'

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason Magazine: Matt Welch Interviewing Edward Bringham- 'Policing is Too Important To Be Left To Government'

I'm just about to lay out why I'm not a Libertarian, even though I've been classified as a Libertarian over and over. Here's an example of where libertarianism can go too far. If you look at what government is supposed to do, defend, protect and to serve, and look after the general welfare of its people, which is very general. And generally speaking government does a pretty good job of this, except for the Welfare part. Where they've made their job even harder and the people who are dependent lives even worse. Just look at our poverty rates.

But then look at what's the role of the private sector. Be profitable, make as much money as they can, beat the competition, etc. That doesn't fit in very well with defend and protect. Because protecting and defending and serving costs a lot of money, that means investing resources. Resources that a private law enforcement Agency aren't going to want to invest. Because its going to hurt their bottom line the thing they concentrate on most. Which means as a result the security of their customers get hurt as a result.

I'm all in favor of private detective and security agency's, as well as private bounty hunting agency's. Just as long as they are not the only game in town, that we have a balance between the public and private sectors. To keep a check on the other to make sure that they don't go too far. Thats one of the things thats worked well in our economy historically. Privatizing police department's and eliminating public police department's and law enforcement agency's, is one example of why Libertarians get stereotyped not only as anti-government but anarchist as well. And why they haven't moved very far in American politics and don't have a major political party.

Not even Libertarians like Ron Paul and Milt Friedman, are anti-public law enforcement. They realize that there's a need on what government has to do, to make sure those things get done. And that people's security shouldn't be judged based on how much money they make. Which is what would happen if public law enforcement were privatized. Because how would low-income people finance their law enforcement, when they are already struggling just to meet their everyday needs, grocery's, housing, Healthcare etc.

how would low-income people buy their own weapons? How they supposed to fiance that, what if they don't know how to use them safely. Pay for weapon training, how are they supposed to pay for that. Libertarians generally speaking aren't in favor of public social insurance paid for by tax revenue. There so many things that Libertarians haven't thought through or don't care about who support these ideas, if they are really that anti-government, instead of being pro-limited government. Which is what I am as a Liberal Democrat. If this is the case hen maybe America is not the right country for Libertarians and libertarian is not the right political label for them. And maybe they should consider moving to Somalia or Afghanistan. Thats what countries look like that don't govern themselves.

What's government supposed to do? Protect, defend and look after the General Welfare of their people. And I would argue again as a Liberal, that the welfare aspect is more limited than protect and defend. People who can't have to have incentive to take care of themselves or they won't. And protect and defend are areas that shouldn't be left up to who can make the most money. But who'll provide the best service and the people who can do this are the people who don't have to worry about profits but providing the best service that they can.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

"Nick Gillespie Talks Honest Budget Act": What's the right Fiscal Policy for America

There's been a lot of talk certainly since Tea Party Republicans have been put in power in the House of Representatives this year. With the Republican Party taking over the House of Representatives after the 2010 Mid Term Elections. About how to get our Fiscal House in order, to get our debt and deficit under control. So we can eventually Balance our Federal Budget and there have been ideas especially from the Republican House on how to do that. Like with the Paul Ryan Budget, the House writing Appropriations Bills with Deep Cuts in Discretionary Spending. The Debt Ceiling Standoff with the Senate and White House and the Cut Cap and Balance proposal from the House. That includes a Balance Budget Amendment to the US Constitution and actually as a Liberal Democrat. As partisan and divisive as these debates have been, I believe in a way they've been healthy for the country. Even though the 2010 Mid Terms were all about the economy and putting people back to work. But Fiscal Policy and getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and these relate to the Federal Budget obviously. Since we've borrowed every dime we've spent over there. And have put all of that money on the National Debt Card, has to come right after the economy. As far as how important they are, we'll never get the debt and deficit under control without a strong healthy economy.

Without a strong healthy economy and we'll never get the debt and deficit under control, thats why I believe that all the spending that the Federal Government. Commits to jump starting the economy, has to be paid for, which is why I believe in PAYGO. Which is government for pay as you go, don't spend without paying for what you do. Cutting in another area or raising revenue but without borrowing. I just wish the Republican Party was so bent out of shape about the Federal Budget during the Bush Administration. When they had most of the power but thats a different story. And this whole divisiveness will all be worth it, if we get a law at the end of the day. Passed by Congress and signed by the President that gets our economy going again and also gets our debt and deficit under control. And then so we are in position again to Balance our Federal Budget for the first time since 2000. For that to happen for Congress to be able to pass anything like that. Its going to have to be balance, hit the people that can afford it, cut where we shouldn't be spending as much. And reform things we need in order to make them work better.

My Fiscal Policy would look like this, PAYGO meaning no more borrowing under any condition. Except when America is directly under attack, where we are attacked literally inside the United States not a US Foreign Base or Embassy. Or in a recession or a depression but then be required to pay that money back. As soon as the economy starts recovering again. By a Foreign Nation or a Terrorist Group, that means budgeting for defense and putting money away, as well as in Disaster Relief. May sound harsh but we can do it that would make those operations even better. Reform and Consolidate the Federal Government combining some Federal Departments, turning our. Safety Net over to the States to be run as Semi Private Non Profit Community Services. Tax Reform eliminate most if not all Tax Loopholes and subsidy's. Scrapping the Income and moving to a Progressive Consumption Tax and closing all US Military Bases in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Korea and Japan. And demand that those Developed Nations defend themselves.

And also frugal policy's like get our Federal Budget down to around 15-20% of GDP instead of 25% where it is today. The Federal Budget has grown by around 20% the last ten years at that is the main problem. Along with two recessions and we need to get down to a more affordable rate. Not allowing the Federal Government to grow more then the economy, inflation and population. If we do things like this we can get out debt and deficit under control and move to pay them off. Assuming we get Economic and Job Growth going again.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Darcy 757: Video: CFL 1995-Grey Cup-Baltimore Stallions vs. Calgary Stampeders Highlights: Baltimore's Path Back to the NFL

The New Democrat on Facebook 

The New Democrat on Twitter 

Originally posted at FRS FreeStateNowPlus on Blogger

When the Colts left Baltimore in 1984, Baltimore went out of its way to land a new NFL franchise, including landing the Stars of the USFL in 1984 who played two seasons there before the USFL folded in 1986.  After that Baltimore hosted NFL Preseason games at Baltimore Memorial Stadium, nicknamed, and for good reason, the "Outdoor Insane Asylum" because of the crazy fan atmosphere it had for sporting events.

And then Baltimore applied for an NFL expansion franchise in 1993 but was turned down and lost out to Charlotte and Jacksonville and then struck gold in 1994 when they landed a CFL franchise, the Stallions, that were around for two seasons, 1994-95.  It was two of the greatest two seasons that pro-football franchise had, especially for an expansion franchise, winning two Eastern Conference Championships, playing in two Grey Cup Finals, and winning the Grey Cup in 1995 and barely losing in 1994 to a very good Vancouver Lions team in Vancouver and then beating a very good Calgary Stampeders led by QB a Doug Flutie team in 1995 in Regina. I saw both games on ESPN.  They could've easily won both games, but in 1994 they lost on a last second field goal by Louis Pasiglia  The Stallions had two very good teams in their only two seasons.

But the Stallions were also very well managed, led by their General Partner Jim Speros, a native Marylander who understood Maryland and the City of Baltimore and how passionate they were for pro-football and how much they wanted it back as well as how much they missed the Colts and how much they wanted another pro-football franchise. Speros marketed his club very well and they played at Memorial Stadium, which has a great fan atmosphere.

For both football and baseball with the Orioles, he hired Don Matthews as his head coach/general manager, who had a long successful history in the CFL.  I believe he's in the Hall of Fame winning multiple Grey Cups, and they put two very good teams together, signing players, not based on how good they would be in the NFL, but on how well they would play in the CFL, such as QB Tracy Ham, RB Mike Pringle, WR Chris Armstrong, LB OG Brigance, and others.

And that's why they were so successful so early, because they had a team that had already been successful in the CFL and knew how to play the CFL brand of football, which is different from the NFL.  Without the Stallions and all the success they had and how well Baltimore and Maryland supported their new team by leading the CFL in attendance both seasons, Baltimore probably doesn't land the Ravens in 1995.

The Stallions proved to the NFL that they can support a major league pro-football franchise by how they supported the Stallions, even though Baltimore is only 40 miles from Washington with the Redskins and 90 miles from Philadelphia.  Baltimore could support its own NFL franchise and have the Stallions to thank for that.

"Rationalism, Pluralism, and Friedrich Hayek's History of Liberal Thought": Libertarianism vs Liberalism

When I think about economists and philosophers like Milton Freidman and Friedrich Hayak who were considered Classical Liberals. As a Classical Liberal myself I have a problem with these two men. As far as them being called "Classical Liberals", who I have a lot of respect for. Their beliefs in Individual Liberty and their feelings against Big Government and thats all Big Government. Because when I here these people speak, I here a lot of libertarian thoughts and beliefs from them not liberal. And even though they are just similar like in the way that I just mentioned. They are different and I'll explain, if your a liberal such as myself not a libertarian or socialist. Your a believer in Individual Liberty and Liberal Democracy, which means people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. Again as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom and if your a libertarian. Especially a Classical Libertarian like Ron Paul and not a Liberal Libertarian like Gary Johnson, again those labels are different things as well. Your basically Anti Government, you think government is not only incompetent, that perhaps it shouldn't even be doing things. Like running prisons, and handling Law Enforcement and that it should be limited to almost nothing other then. National Security, Foreign Policy, currency and maybe Law Enforcement. And perhaps like in Ron Paul's and Milton Friedman's case, enforcing Anti Monopoly Laws.

Liberals aren't Anti Government, we are Anti Big Government and Pro Limited Government and these things are different. Lay out what government should be doing. Based on what its good at, does better then the Private Sector or something only government is capable of doing. Like National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Affairs and a few other things. To use as an examples and don't create a new Government Agency or raise new taxes. Just because you have a new idea for the Public Good but weigh it to whether government should be doing that or not. Based on the conditions I just laid out and the Constitutionality of the proposed new program or not. Thats what Limited Government is about, its not about being Anti Government but Pro Limited Government. Liberals and libertarians as well as Classical Conservatives all believe in Individual Liberty and Maximize Freedom. And we are anti collectivism but one difference being, that liberals and Classical Conservatives. Believe that government should step in when individuals abuse innocent people with their liberty. To stop those actions and punish them, there are libertarians that don't even want government to do that.

I have a lot of respect for libertarianism in the sense that they are Anti Big Government but I have more respect for libertarians. Who are Anti Big Government but not Anti Government and there's a difference there. But I don't see libertarianism as "Classical Liberalism" but as a separate Political Ideology. Thats farther to the left of liberalism not right because of how Anti Government libertarians tend to be.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Steven Brill on How to Fix Public Schools: Hold Educators Accountable

Steven Brill said it perfectly and says this in his book as well, that Public Education is the only profession in America. Where the professionals are judged but how long they've been doing their jobs. Rather then how good they do their jobs and hits the nail on the head. Thats exactly what doesn't work with Public Education and if we fix that, we'll fix our Public Schools. If we don't fix that, we won't fix our Public Schools. Twenty years ago America was in the top ten in the World in education, we fell so far within just ten years. That President Bush and Congress decided we needed to reform our Public Schools. Education Reform was one of the important issues of the 2000 Presidential Campaign. In 2002 Congress passed a Bi Partisan Education Reform Law called No Child Left Behind. That was passed in a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Written at the time by Sen. Ted Kennedy Chairman of the Education Committee and at the time Rep. John Boehner Chairman of the Senate Committee in the House. And of course later Minority Leader and now today Speaker of the House John Boehner. And ten years later we are now 39th in the World in education, NCLB didn't fix the problems with Public Education. Because it was about testing students and educators to a certain extent and passing Unfunded Mandates down to the States. In order to pass these things and tell them what they believe they needed to do.

NCLB is not about how you reform Public Schools especially if your the Federal Government. That has very little role in running schools if any, they are mostly about enforcing the Constitution and funding to a small extent as well as research. The way to reform Public Education in America if your the Federal Government, is to look to see how States and School Districts. Are doing and what works and doesn't work for them and then try to incentivize not mandate what does work. And then the States and School Districts can decide what works for them in their community, because all Schools Districts are different. And then the States and School Districts can do what works for them and help them finance that. The US Department of Education does a very good job of researching what works and doesn't work in Public Education. And to a certain extent can lay out a vision of what we can do as a country in Public Education. But they are bad at mandating, because they don't know what exactly would work for every School District. How could they, they are not there. So they can help with suggestions and incentives instead and let the School Districts decide for themselves.

One thing that does work in education that we haven't been doing for the most mart. Is Educator Accountability, having educators teach what they are qualified to teach and are well trained in. And then pay them for their Quality of Service not Time of Service and eliminating things like Teacher Tenure. Which basically makes it impossible to fire poor educators once they've served a certain amount of time. And instead pay the good educators more and give the High Qualified educators higher benefits and starting pay. And either retrain the Low Performing educators, suspend without pay or fire them. And encourage well educated people to go into education and teach in Under Served Communities.

If we moved to a Public Education System in America thats based on accountability, just started there and see where that goes. Just doing that, we could go a long way in finally reforming our Public Education System. That we have to do in order to have a strong economy in the future. And create good jobs and keep good jobs at home.

David Walker: Meredith Brooks- Lay Down at Hard Rock Cafe

Source: NBC-Queen Latifah & Meredith Brooks-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

I'm not a big Meredith Brooks fan, but I like her blues rock sound. Especially the song lay down. And love watching her perform this song because she looks just like a sexy rocker chick should look. She's a beautiful well-built tall brunette, performing in her go to black leather jeans and black leather boots. She has good voice, but her lyrics and sound are what are impressive about her. She's not a headbanger or a pop star, but a blues rocker. A combination of classic rock and blues, similar to Sheryl Crow. But I think she doesn't sound as good. Or Meredith Etheridge, but I believe she sounds better. And she gave this performance back in 1999 or 2000 at the Hard Rock Cafe, performing Lay Down as well as Bitch and a few other songs. And she performed Lay Down with Queen Latifah. Who she did the Lay Down music video with, as well kids singing group and they did a great job. She gives great performances and makes sexy music videos which makes her a great rocker chick.
David Walker: Meredith Brooks- Lay Down at Hard Rock Cafe

Sunday, October 23, 2011

"Senate Leader Harry Reid Comes Out Against Legal Prostitution": Regulation beats Prostitution here as well

I'm not saying prostitution is a good thing and that I'm suggesting that guys should go out and get prostitutes. Or dump their wives or girlfriends or cheat on them. But there are a lot of things that I wouldn't do and I wouldn't suggest that other people should do as well. I don't smoke anything, I don't drink alcohol, I don't gamble not even State Lottery. Which is a form Legalize Gambling I don't hook up with prostitutes, I'm not attractive to women that look like prostitutes. Doesn't mean I believe that any of these activities should be illegal, that people should go to jail and have a Criminal Record even. For what they do to themselves, I believe its dumber to arrest people who aren't a threat to anyone and who don't hurt anyone. Then to legalize these activities doesn't mean these activities shouldn't be regulated either. We regulate everything else in the economy thats legal, whether its healthy for us or not and for good reason. To protect and prevent the abuse of others on to innocent people. Thats what regulation is for and when our economy is doing well, like in the 1980s and 1990s we regulate. Regulation is just simply a lot more effective and efficient and Cost Effective measure in preventing people from abusing others. Regulate how people interact with each other, rather then try to control how people live their own lives. And you'll have more influence in controlling those activities. Because they are going to go on anyway, prostitution being a perfect example of that.

Prostitution is not called "The Oldest Profession in the World" for nothing. They've earned that title and worked hard to keep it as well. Big Government Progressives should be big fans of Decriminalizing Prostitution, which just means Legalizing Prostitution. But then regulating it, something that the State of Nevada has been more more progressive on. Then most of the rest of the country if not the entire country, because that what they've been doing. At least as long as Las Vegas and Reno have been major Casino Markets. Progressives should be big fans of Decriminalizing Prostitution because of the money in it would generate in Tax Revenue. For all of their Social Insurance Programs and their ideas for more Public Services. Especially in this Age of Austerity where the Federal, State and Local Governments are all cutting back their Public Services. Taxing and Regulating Prostitution would generate a lot more Tax Revenue for them to run their programs. As well as Decriminalizing Gambling and Marijuana as well, liberals and libertarians. Of course like this idea, because the see it as a Freedom of Choice issue Individual Liberty.

Decriminalizing Prostitution would be fairly simple, because prostitutes and pimps for lack of a better term. Rather then be regulated and pay taxes then go to jail. That is the people who are in it to make a living and are not criminals. And the people who are the professionals, would continue doing their thing. And the criminals would go to jail but for Tax Invasion and Prostituting without a License. Sponsoring a Minor that sorta thing and you could get the irresponsible people out of the business. And collect taxes and cut down on your Prison Populations. All good reasons why Regulation beats Prohibition.

Friday, October 21, 2011

"What Happens When Your Government Takes Away Entitlements?": Why Individual Liberty and Fiscal Responsibility is so important

Greece represents exactly what it means and what can happen when a countries government doesn't pay its bills. Or allows its population to become so dependent on Social Insurance programs. For their Daily Survival, that when you get into a Fiscal Crisis which is exactly what Greece is going through right now. Their financial situation is so bad that now the Greek Government is cutting back those Social Insurance programs. Like pension, Health Insurance, Healthcare, Unemployment Insurance etc. Programs that the Greek People depend on to survive and are cutting these programs. Not only while Greece is drowning in debt but when their economy is doing real bad, with High Unemployment and everything else. And a reason why the European Union has been so reluctant so far in bailing out Greece. Is because they are facing the same issues that Greece is. Like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and others. All Socialist Democracy's that spend a lot of their Public Resources and their economy's. Providing all of these Public Services, all of these Social Insurance programs. And when their economy's go down like they have. Their Welfare States struggle as a result because thats where the money is. And what Europe is going through right now, could definitely happen to the United States as well.

If we don't move to get our own Fiscal House in Order, we could making these same drastic cuts as well in the future. Cutting peoples Social Security and Medicare Benefits, as well as Unemployment Insurance Benefits. All cuts that could do a lot of damage to out economy, especially if people have to have these benefits in order to pay their bills. When you create a Welfare State thats so big and you tax at such a high rate to finance it. You make people dependent on it in order to survive, because so much of the money in the economy. Is in the Welfare State but when you empower to finance their own well being. Healthcare, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, retirement and so fourth. But then have a Safety Net to catch people who fall through the cracks, especially when the economy goes down. But then its there not only to help sustain people in the short term. But also empowers them to get themselves back on their feet. You create an Economic System where the people have the Individual Liberty to take care of themselves instead. Which is why Individual Liberty is so important especially in a democracy.

These are differences between a Welfare State and a Safety Net. With a Welfare State government is expected to take care of the people. With Individual Liberty the people are expected to take care of themselves. And then you have a Safety Net to catch people who fall but then helps them back up.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

"We Demand Freedom": "Popular Movements for Liberty in U.S. History": Freedom Fighters?

I would have more respect for the Tea Party Movement if it were truly a Libertarian Movement and not combine with the Religious Right. Which is a Christian Theocratic Movement, looking to combine government with Christianity in America. Because now the Religious Right or at least parts of it have combine with parts of the Tea Party Movement. There are still Tea Partiers who are libertarians or don't care about Social Issues. And have made their movement about Fiscal Policy and Economic Liberty and don't want anything to do with the Religious Right. Unless they work with them on Fiscal Policy without expecting them to help them out on their Social Agenda. Like abortion, Gay Rights etc, I believe the Tea Party Patriots is one of those groups. Thats not interested in Social Issues because they see them as divisive and are looking to maximize their support. Not lose Independent Voters or even republicans that may share their beliefs of Fiscal Policy or are close. But again tend to be much more moderate, liberal or even libertarian on Social Issues. And may want nothing to do with the Religious Right especially if their independents. Those are the Tea Partiers that I have respect for, its the Sarah Palin Michelle Bachmann crowd thats combine Religious Conservatism with the Tea Party. That I believe has cost the Tea Party a lot of support.

The real Libertarian Movement in American Politics is the Ron Paul Movement, because he's an actual libertarian. Who when he says is anti Big Government, you better believe him because he is. He doesn't want government interfering when it comes to Gay Marriage, supports Decriminalizing Marijuana. And except for abortion doesn't support any of the causes of the Religious Right on Social Issues. He believes Free People should be free to live freely and not be harassed by government. In how they live their own lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. And Ron Paul is the only libertarian in America right now that gets taken seriously at least to a certain extent. As a Presidential Candidate and gets taken seriously by the National Media. And has been able to raise a serious amount of money. To run a serious campaign and may end up being a serious factor in at least some of the Republican Primary's. And even though I don't believe Rep. Paul has a hurricane's chance in hell of winning the Republican Nomination for President. Again because of the Religious Right, may end up doing well enough to form a serious Libertarian Third Party Campaign for President. Next summer and could be a factor in the Presidential Election as well.

Even though I'm a Liberal Democrat I wish the Tea Party Movement was truly a Libertarian or at least a Classical Conservative Movement. That was truly trying to reshape the Republican Party and get it back to its Limited Government roots and separate from the Religious Right. Because then America would once again have two strong Political Parties, even though I believe we should have more then two strong Political Parties. And give American Voters more choices in who they vote for.

Harry Browne on Firing Line 1970: "Unavoidable Economic Consequences": Consequences of bad decisions

Harry Browne to me is a lot like what Ron Paul is today for the Libertarian Movement. As far as what he believes and how he articulates his beliefs. And had the Libertarian Party been professional then and now, Harry Browne would've been a serious Presidential Candidate. Not someone struggling to get a couple Percentage Points in the polls. Harry Browne is someone who ran for President for the Libertarian Party. Several times going back to I believe 1980 up until 1996 or 2000 but since the LP was such a minor party. Not because of their politics but because of their organization. Harry Browne was never a serious Presidential Candidate as far as someone who could. Either get elected President of the United States or gain enough votes to influence the Presidential Election. Which is what Ross Perot did for the Reform Party back in 1992 and 1996. Ron Paul and Harry Browne basically speak to the same voters, the Libertarian Movement. Not just the Libertarian Party, but libertarians in the Republican Party. Who are tired of the Neoconservatives and Religious Right. As well as libertarians in the Democratic Party as well as liberals in that party. Who are fed up with the Socialist Democrats in that party. People who want to make America more like Europe and as far as the Religious Right. People who want to turn America either into a theocracy or make Christianity the Official Religion. As well as Independent Libertarians who don't like how the Libertarian Party is run.

The differences between Ron Paul and Harry Browne and if you watched this video. You would know they sound very similar on Economic Policy and inflation. The difference being that Ron Paul markets his politics much better and can communicate to broader audiences. Ron Paul understands that the country is becoming more liberal and libertarian. Not just on Social Issues but Economic Policy as well and that americans want more freedom in how they live their own lives. And have become more tolerant in how other people live their lives. Gay Rights is an excellent example of this. As well as immigration and marijuana and government to have less influence with how Free People live their own lives. Another advantage that Ron Paul has going for him, is except for 1988. Rep. Paul has run for President during the Information Revolution. With the internet and everything else and has more tools to communicate with voters especially young voters. Where I believe Harry Browne's last Presidential Campaign was in 1996 or 2000. Just as the internet was growing pre YouTube, blogging, Social Networks etc. As well as Rep. Paul holding Public Office and being a veteran in the US House as as US Rep.

Harry Browne was Ron Paul 15-20 years ago but with out Rep. Paul's tools to communicate and to reach as many voters. And if Rep. Paul were to decide to run a Third Party Campaign in 2012. He would be a factor in that Presidential Election, with his ability to raise money. Unlike Harry Browne who for the most part was seen as another Third Party Presidential Candidate.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Debate In 100 Seconds: "What Happens In Vegas": Now my take

All right now here's my version of tonight's GOP Presidential Debate, Rick Perry woke up and had a good debate. He's still a serious contender but still number two or three. He was very forceful, well prepared and not afraid to stand up for himself or defend himself. Or go on the attack as well. And I believe looking at the debate, Mitt Romney still believes Perry is his strongest challenger. Mitt Romney is still in First Place with a sizable lead but hasn't clinched the Conference Title yet. To use a Sports Analogy, he hasn't sealed the deal to use a Salesperson Analogy. And hopefully thats my last analogy, for this blog. I believe the Republican Party still sees Romney as their best chance to beat President Obama in 2012. And thats what he has going for him, not because they actually like him. Michelle Bachmann is still Michelle Bachmann, still swinging for the fences and not making much contact. I know thats another Sports Analogy, she took some big swings on immigration. But the only thing she connected on was Herman Cain's Tax Reform plan. And I would probably give her a HR on that actually, her only score in the debate. She's damn right the 9 9 9 is essentially a Tax Hike on most Tax Payers, because its a Flat Tax. Bachmann has yet to lay out a reason a case why she should be President of the United States. Other then that she doesn't like the people she's running against and that aint enough to get it done. Herman Cain took some steps back tonight spending most of the night on defense. Not controlling the ball much or advancing it, defending his Tax Reform plan most of the night. And some strange statements on immigration and negotiating with terrorists.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were pretty much there for the ride, I guess interested in what they were hearing. The person who impressed me the most tonight was Rick Santorum. Who's someone I agree with on almost nothing except with how we combat American Poverty. Where we both have a strong interest in and has some solid Progressive Policy's there as it relates to putting people on welfare to work. But Sen. Santorum is someone I have a lot of respect for because we agree on poverty. And he's very honest and straight forward on what he thinks. But what impressed me about Sen. Santorum and why I now believe he's a strong contender to be the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Republican Nominee. Especially for someone like Mitt Romney who's a Northeastern Republican, who's not trusted by the Republican Base, especially the Christian Right and Tea Party. Is because Rick Santorum has most if not all what Romney doesn't have. Sen. Santorum is a Congressional Veteran, 16 years, he's liked by the Republican Base, he's young by Political Standards 53. He could replace President Romney after eight years if that were to happen. Which would make him a Congressional Veteran with serious Executive Experience as Vice President. And he has Foreign Policy experience ten years on the Armed Services Committee.

I believe there were two winner in tonight's debate, Mitt Romney who's still the clear Frontrunner. And Rick Santorum who now looks like a serious Presidential Candidate who can go on the attack. As well as articulate a Positive Vision of his own but and Economic Policy would help them there. But also some who would look Vice Presidential to the Republican Party and could matchup with Vice President Biden. While Rick Perry, Herman Cain are still in the game and are serious challengers but need to figure out what their next play is. Because they didn't gain any momentum tonight.

Save Our Sovereignty: The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer- Ron Paul Interview Before His Plan Restore America Press Conference

Source: Save Our Sovereignty- CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer & U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas-
Source: Save Our Sovereignty: The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer- Ron Paul Interview Before His Plan To Restore America Press Conference

I'll give Representative Ron Paul credit for putting a serious fiscal policy on the table. He takes on the entire Federal Government. Not just gutting social insurance programs and leaving defense alone. He eliminates several Federal departments and cuts, including Commerce, HUD, Education, Interior and Energy. As well as around 250K jobs in an economy with weak economic and job growth. And I'm guessing Representative Paul considers all of these public service employees "unproductive". Probably no severance packages, meaning a lot of them would probably end up on Unemployment Insurance. If the Paul Plan were to ever become law, huge if no matter which party is in control of the next Congress, or if we still have a divided Congress going into 2013. And Representative Paul also cuts defense by 200B$ a year. Including 200B$ in his first year as President of the United States. Again a huge if for the same reasons I wrote my own fiscal plan a couple of months ago.

And it's actually similar as Representative Paul's. Especially in the Defense Department where I would cut around 200B$ a year as well. And take that money out of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. Close those foreign bases and bring that money home to pay down our debt and deficit. I wouldn't eliminate those Federal departments, I wold consolidate them. Energy, Interior and Agriculture into one new Federal department the Department of Natural Resources. And I would consolidate Education and Housing and Urban Development  into the Human Services Department. And take the Health Service out of HHS and make it and independent public service. Or perhaps make it part of the Defense Department. Gary Johnson another Libertarian running for President in the Republican Party, who is getting even less respect And I have a similar plan when it comes to the social insurance programs. We would take them out of the Federal Government and give them to the States.

But Governor Johnson would give the States these programs to run. I would take them out of government's hands completely. And turn them into independent non-profit self-financed community services. With Representative  Paul's plan, Governor Johnson's plan and my plan, we all cut the Federal Public Service by around 250K jobs. The difference being that I would give these employees severance packages. That they could collect until they find a job for up to fifty-two weeks. We don't need more unemployed people collecting Unemployment Insurance. Representative Paul has a serious fiscal policy that he's put on the table, more serious than most Libertarians that I've seen. Not including Governor Gary Johnson, who is actually my favorite Libertarian running for President. But it will never become law unless Libertarians were to run run both chambers of Congress while he's President. And a snowy day in Phoenix in July will probably come faster. Representative Paul doesn't take his cuts in Federal jobs as serious as he should. By not offering those people severance packages.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

"Herman Cain Being Pressed On If He's A Neocon On Meet The Press": What is a Neoconservative

To answer Herman Cain's question on what a Neoconservative is, a Neoconservative is someone who believes. That American Foreign Policy should be based on spreading democracy around the World. Especially with our military, that we even invade Foreign Countries that have Authoritarian Regimes. Throw those regimes out of power, occupy that country and then install another government there. In hopes that its a Democratic Government and that we don't leave that country. Until they have a functioning Central Government that can defend the country. So when Mr Cain says on NBC Meet the Press that we shouldn't leave Afghanistan until they can defend themselves. He's just laid out at least one Neoconservative position that he has. Which again with his position on the Federal Reserve will prevent him along with other reasons. From winning the Republican Nomination for President, because neither the. Federal Reserve or Afghanistan are popular in the Republican Party right now. Not that Mr Cain had much of a chance at winning the Republican Nomination anyway. He's simply picking up the support that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry flushed down the toilet. Which will eventually go to another republican or perhaps even leave the Republican Party in a Third Party bid. Which I believe is possible if Mitt Romney does go on to become the Republican Nominee. Which at this point looks pretty good for him if he avoids making real bad mistakes. Misstatements thats sorta thing, or Ethical Issues that could pop up down the line.

So what is a Neoconservative, I just gave you and example of a Neoconservative position on Foreign Policy. But to put it shortly and not to try to sound like I'm writing a book about Neoconservatism. Neoconservatives are basically people that believe that National Security is more important the Constitutional Rights. Take the Patriot Act or Preventive War where you attack somebody before they attack you. Because you feel they are a potential threat , 2003 Iraq War case in point. Again even if it may violate Constitutional Rights like the Patriot Act, which Classical Conservatives, liberals, libertarians as well as socialists believe it does. The idea being that without security you can't have freedom, with security. Whereas those other Political Factions believe the opposite is true. Another example of a Neoconservative Policy would be Indefinite Detention. Like when it comes to prisoners from the War on Terror, locking up those people until you believe they are no longer a threat. No trial no sentence an indefinite amount of time, another example would Warrantless Wiretapping.

If your a Neoconservative, you believe in a form of Big Government when it comes to having what I would call as a liberal. A Police State that government is here to protect the people. Including from themselves, Neoconservatism is not just about National Security but gets to Social Issues an Economic Policy as well. Its a movement thats lost some steam in the Republican Party after eight years of the Bush Administration. And how far down they drove the Republican Party, that Herman Cain should think about before taking Neoconservative positions.

Libertarian Economist Peter Schiff: On Tax Reform and Occupy Wall Street: What to do

I'll give Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain credit for actually coming up with a real Tax Reform plan, which is basically a Flat Tax. Which I'll get into why I'm against later, as well as Herman Cain making the Republican Presidential Debates. Worth watching on his own with his One Liners and being a more serious Presidential Candidate then what I was expecting. Especially for someone who's never held or run for Public Office before. Except for serving on the Kansas City Federal Reserve, with the Federal Reserve being very unpopular in the GOP right now. But again he's offering another version of the Flat Tax, which with every Flat Tax thats ever been proposed. And this is not Class Warfare but a simple basic fact, has been a Tax Cut for the wealthy. And a Tax Hike on the Middle Class, because a lot of Middle Class workers are now paying 10-15% in Income Taxes. And then another 6.2% in Payroll Taxes and perhaps 15-20% in Capital Gains taxes and then there's the Gas Tax. And these are just the taxes that Middle Class workers pay at the Federal Level. To Uncle Sam no one other then an socialists favorite uncle. And with the Cain Tax Plan, the 9 9 9, thats 9% in Income Tax, 9% in Sales Tax and another 9% in Payroll Taxes. In case your not real quick in math 27% in Federal Taxes that the Middle Class will now owe per year in taxes.

Middle Class workers would see their taxes at the Federal Level go up, while the wealthy and they generally pay before deductions and credits. Pay around 30% or more in Federal Taxes, so thats your Tax Hike on the Middle Class and Tax Cut for the wealthy. Thats what Class Warfare looks like and is also a form of Redistribution of Wealth. I don't have a problem with cutting taxes for the wealthy as long as we eliminate their Tax Loopholes. Which is the main problem with our current Tax Code. And then we do the same for the Middle Class as well, thats called the Lower Rates no Loopholes Tax Plan. I'm sure there's a better name for that Tax Plan but hopefully you get the idea. If we were to stick with the Income Tax, then thats the reform I would be in favor of. But my prefer Tax Reform plan would be based on taxing what people spend and give them the liberty to decide what they pay in taxes. Based on what they spend which I believe would force Tax Payers to be careful with how they spend their money. Because they would know every time they purchase something, they would have to pay an additional price for it.

A Consumption Tax couldn't be Revenue Neutral without first reforming the Federal Government. By making it do less and making it more efficient, because a Consumption Tax would bring in less revenue then the current Tax System. And you also have to make it progressive so its doesn't nail Low Income people. By taxing more on Luxury Items, fill in the blanks then you would tax things that people need to survive again fill in the blanks.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand- Saving American Liberty

Mike & Ayn-
I have some respect for Ayn Rand when it comes to individual liberty and even economic freedom. I’m not a fan of socialism either, but this idea of Cowboy Capitalism, which how we would describe her brand of capitalism today, is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing today. We have more than ten years now of evidence to know that doesn’t work. Cowboy Capitalism, is where you don’t regulate the economy at all. You essentially let American enterprise govern themselves and when they screw up, tough for taxpayers. Because now they have to bail them out. Which is what TARP represented in 2008 and why Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 to reform how Wall Street was regulated.

One problem with the Bush Administration from 2001-09 was that they didn’t bother to do much if any regulating of Wall Street. They didn’t enforce the current laws that were on the book and the Congress not only passed new laws to go along with the laws that were already there, but not being enforced. So now the Federal Government has to figure out how to enforce its old laws which may be old and outdated now, as well as the new laws from the Dodd-Frank legislation. You need to have a referee in the economy. Especially an economy as large as America’s, otherwise people are going to be abused and screwed over. Because people can get away with it and you’ll see monopoly’s forming. Because again they can get away with it. Not public monopoly’s, but private monopoly’s and I’m not in favor of either.

American capitalism, works best when the Federal Government is spending a set amount based on what they take in. And only doing what they do well and can only do well. And you have to lay these things out ahead of time instead of letting them pick and choose what they do. The Federal Government, needs to be regulated as well and also when their taxes that we pay are low, but high enough not to hurt the economy. But so they can do the things that they should be doing. Again that are decided ahead of time. One of the problems with the Federal Government right now, is that it doesn’t budget and borrows 40% of the revenue it spends and this gives them a lot of freedom to do a lot of things.

The Federal Government, used to operate under a budget and we need to get back to that. We need a lot of economic freedom again that’s low taxed. With a maximum amount of free, fair and open competition. With anti-monopoly laws that can be enforced and are enforced. Let business’s and individuals run their business’s as they see fit, as long as they are not abusing anyone with their freedom. Including their workforce, without them they would be out of business. What doesn’t work in America is Cowboy Capitalism as we are finding out the hard way and socialism. Which so far we’ve avoided going down that road and only have a safety net. What works in America is American capitalism as I just laid out and regulation as well as economic freedom have to be part of that.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Ezra Taft Benson: On Socialism and the threat to Individual Freedom

Libertarianism has been around at least since the US Constitution was being written by its Founding Fathers. But I believe the rise of the modern Libertarian Movement came about. As a Reactionary Movement to the FDR New Deal in the 1930s and the LBJ Great Society in the 1960s. And perhaps even as far back as the Teddy Rossevelt Progressive Movement of the early 1900s and 1920s. That they saw the Federal Government as overstepping its Constitutional Authority under the 11th Amendment. And this led to more Classical Conservatives being elected to Congress in the 1940s and early 50s. And one reason how Dwight Eisenhower was elected President in 1952 and reelected in 1956. And then elected again in the late 60s, late 70s, 80s and 90s. And why the Libertarian Party was formed in the early 1970s. Because libertarians and Classical Conservatives saw the rise of Democratic Socialism. In America as a threat to the US Constitution and Individual Freedom. That they saw government and the Federal Government wanting to take Individual Liberty away from the people. To make their own decisions in life and they wanted to make those decisions for themselves. Like in education, Healthcare, retirement and other areas. And they did not want to see an establishment of a Welfare State in America like with the New Deal and Great Society.

Libertarians and Classical Conservatives wanted to make these decisions for themselves. This is what brought Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan, Gerry Ford, Ron Paul and other Classical Conservatives and libertarians. Into power in American Politics, because all of these people saw Democratic Socialism as the number one or two threat to America. Our Constitution and Individual Liberty and they felt the need to fight back again Socialism in America and the New Deal and Great Society. This is what the modern Libertarian Movement is fighting against today with Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and others. And to a certain extent are having some success and are growing as a movement. Despite the Libertarian Party which hasn't done much to advance libertarianism in America. And a reason why so many young people are now Self Identified as libertarian. And why they are starting to have some success on issues as well. Like Decriminalizing Marijuana, Gay Marriage, lower Tax Rates, Tax Reform, anti Federal Reserve. More Individual Liberty in retirement, keeping America out of Civil Wars and there are more issues.

Libertarians have Franklin Rossevelt and Lyndon Johnson and other believers in Democratic Socialism to thank for their movement today. Without them, we may not have anything resembling a Welfare Sate in America and this country still looks like the 1920s. When it comes to Economic Policy, Foreign Policy and other policy's.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Liberty Pen: Phil Donahue Show- Self-Interest & Self-Ownership- From 1979

I have a lot of respect for Libertarian Economist Milton Friedman, but we don't agree on everything. I believe under the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution, that government has a right and responsibility to look after the safety of it's people. I believe that government has a right to regulate free enterprise. In this sense to protect the safety of it's people. Like forcing them to make cars that are reasonably safe. And this is where Dr. Friedman and I disagree. But government doesn't have a role to tell auto companies what kind of cars to make. Except in how it relates to public safety.

Otherwise if people want to buy something, there will be market for people to buy it. Government doesn't need to come in and try to force things on people. And shouldn't try to prevent people from doing things, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their activities. The power of American capitalism, is that if people have something to sell and then are able to market it and convince other people that they should buy what they are trying to sell, then they'll end up selling a lot of what they have. You don't need government to step in and force people to buy their products. The people know better than anyone what they should be buying, what they need and what they can afford. And if people have products to sell and convince a lot of people that what they have is worth buying. Then they'll be able to sell a lot of what they produce and make a very good profit off of that.

I make this case to supporters of single payer health insurance on a regular basis. That if single payer health insurance is so great and that we need a health insurance monopoly in America, that they should have no problem convincing people of that. And that they should take their message to the people. Instead of trying to get the Federal Government to force single payer down the throats of the country. Giving us no choice in where we have to go for health insurance or how we pay for our health care. But as long as 3/5 people in America like their Health Insurance and don't want the Federal Government to come in and force them to switch health insurers, single payer supporters are going to have a very tough time at convincing people that they are right.

And then single payer supporters have to try to convince 3/5 Americans, that they're are wrong about their own health insurance that they have selected for themselves. So what single payer supporters have to do, is take their message to the people instead. State by state like what is going on in Vermont and convince Americans state by state, that they are right about health insurance and the rest of the country is wrong. This is the power of the market. If people want fast cars, then fast cars will be made. If they want to eat healthy, a lot of healthy food will be made. They want to stop drinking, the alcohol industry will lose a lot of money. Government shouldn't try to make these decisions for us by mandating them on us. If they want us to do something, provide some incentive instead of trying to take the freedom we have away. To make those decisions for ourselves.

Friday, October 7, 2011

"Assassinating the US Constitution": Why Americans should love the US Constitution

Pardon the expression but any Freedom Loving american should love the US Constitution. Because thats exactly what its about, to protect the freedom of americans. Who don't hurt innocent people and just go about living their own lives. Raising their families contributing to society in a positive way etc. Thats if your a liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent even with liberal tendency's on Social Issues lets say. If you believe the Federal Government is not powerful enough, doesn't have enough authority. Over the economy and National Security, that it provides too much Individual Liberty. At the expense of the rest of the country or the government or our security. Then your probably a socialist or Neoconservative or a theocrat. The US Constitution is about Individual Liberty and preserving that and thats all. Everything in it is designed to protect our Individual Liberty. I mean it was written liberals and libertarians people who didn't like the United Kingdom and its Authoritarian Rule. And wanted the people to have the liberty to live their own lives and not be harassed by government. And not be overtaxed, another reason why the American Rebels wanted t separate from the United Kingdom and form the United States.

I believe the second best part of our US Constitution. After all the Individual Liberty and Constitutional Rights it guarantees. Is how hard it is to amend it and take liberty away from the people. 2/3 vote in both Chambers of Congress and then 2/3 vote in thirty four States and in their Legislatures. Where in Europe to use as an example they can amend their Constitution through and this a technical term. By Statue meaning by law, Parliament passes a bill to Amend the Constitution. And then I believe the Executive has to approve it and then passed passed again by Parliament. America is just not a comfortable Political Environment for Neoconservatives, theocrats or socialists. Because a lot of what they want to do, would be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Because it would be viewed as Unconstitutional, thats what you get when you have liberals and libertarians write a Constitution. So a lot of what these Political Factions that are sorta out but looking in at American Power. Want to do, Is currently Unconstitutional and for them to pass their agenda , they have to Amend the Constitution with several amendments.

Justice Antonin Scalia who's not my favorite Justice on the Supreme Court, he's a conservative and I'm a liberal. But we do have some things in common and I have a lot of respect for Justice Scalia. Justice Stephen Breyer a liberal is may favorite Supreme Court Justice. But when Justice Scalia says that the Constitution has been under attack. He's right in this sense, the last ten years the Federal Government has passed the Patriot Act. Warrantless Wiretapping, Indefinite Detention of Terrorists Suspects with not trials. Torture, the Constitution has been under attack by Neoconservatives like in the Bush Administration as well as in Congress. But theocrats and socialists haven't been innocent here either. They just haven't had the power to get their policy's enacted in law. Theocrats wanting to bring religion closer to the State, socialists wanting the Federal Government to have more power over the economy. And take power away from the States.

Again if your a fan of Individual Liberty both Economic Freedom and Civil Liberties, then you love the US Constitution. Or you should at least check it out. Because its an Individualist Document written by liberals and libertarians big believers in Individual Liberty. Not written for collectivists or authoritarians.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Reason Magazine: Matt Zwolinski- Bleeding-Heart Libertarians, The Poor & Social Justice

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason Magazine: Matt Zwolinski- Bleeding-Heart Libertarians, The Poor & Social Justice

"Bleeding-Heart Libertarians", to me sort of sounds like a dry martini or a jumbo shrimp, those three words doesn't seem to go together. What Philosopher Matt Zwolonski is talking about is liberalism as it relates to the social safety net. That there should be some role for government to help people out. Who for whatever reasons aren't self-sufficient and can't take care of themselves. As a Liberal myself I believe that we should have a safety net to catch people that fall through the cracks of American capitalism but to help them back up. Not to take care of them indefinitely but to help them become self-sufficient.

So when Matt Zwolonski talks about "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism" and the need for a social safety net, he's talking about liberalism as it relates to helping the poor help themselves. So they can have individual liberty like the rest of the population. Because they would now have the resources to fiance their liberty on their own. And not be dependent on taxpayers to take care of them, because now they would be taking care of themselves. This is why I've always linked liberalism with libertarianism, rather than classical conservatism. Because both liberal and libertarian come from the word liberty and I consider both political ideology's on the left, not the right because we both believe in individual liberty, as does Classical Conservatives. But liberal and libertarian both come from liberty, where conservative means to conserve the status quo.

Liberals, Libertarians, and Classical Conservatives differ on what the role of government should have in dealing with problems that the country faces. Especially on economic policy and the safety net. Classical Libertarians like Ron Paul and a lot of my friends on Facebook, believe that government should be out of the economy completely. Including not having any form of a safety net. And then there Libertarians like Gary Johnson who's running for President in the Republican Party right now. The best Republican candidate out there right (and I know that will offend a lot of Ron Paul supporters) that believe there should be a social safety net funded by tax revenue. But that the Federal Government should turn all of their social insurance programs over to the state government's for them to run. To put it shortly but not simply, block grant all of these programs to the states for them to run.

There seems now to be a growing riff or movement in the libertarian community that maybe there should be a role for government as it relates to social insurance. But it should be decentralized and be used to empower people, not subsidize them indefinitely. Which I believe is good for every political movement to have some diversity. But have a wide range of issues where most of its members agree on. So there's a point to having a political movement that can function.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Democracy, Tyranny, and Liberty: What's the best System to guarantee Individual Liberty

When deciding what type of country you want to have, you need to know what type of government your going to have. And what's the relationship going to be between lets say the Federal Government. And the State or Provincial and Local Governments and you need a National Constitution for that. And once you do that, you then need to decide what type of country your going to have. As far as how government relates with its people. What's legal and illegal basically how the people can live their lives and how they can interact with other people. Basically what the rights if any do the people have in the country. If you want a form of government and country where there's a large amount of Individual Freedom. Then as a liberal and someone who believes in Individual Freedom, I would suggest a democracy. But it can't stop with democracy because there are several forms of democracy. So you need to know what type of democracy you want to have. And again I would suggest a democracy that guarantees the most amount of Individual Freedom. To figure out what type of country your going to have. And how government relates to the people and how much ability if any people have to live their own lives. And what's the responsibility if any, that government has in relating with its people.

There's what's called a Socialist Democracy, where people have a lot of Individual Freedom. As far as how they live their lives socially but where Economic Freedom is somewhat limited. Because the State plays a large role in the economy and I would use Sweden as a perfect example of this. Then there's a Conservative Democracy where people are essentially free to live their lives but where they only have a conservative amount of freedom. And I would use Turkey as an example of this and then there's a Majoritarian Democracy. Where essentially the majority rules over the minority and can essentially make people do what they want. Where Minority Rights aren't well respected and I would use America pre Civil Rights Laws of the 1960s as an example of that. And then there's my favorite form of democracy what's called Liberal Democracy. Where the people have the Individual Liberty to live their own lives essentially as they see fit. As long as they are not hurting anyone with their freedom. And America now would be my example of that, even though I believe we should have more Individual Liberty. But thats a different blog.

A lot of people believe especially Classical Conservatives and libertarians. That a republic is the best way to guarantee Individual Liberty and to protect Minority Rights. But there are plenty examples of republics that aren't democracy's but Authoritarian Republics. And even have dictators running their government. Syria is a perfect example of this, so would China and North Korea or Cuba. So republics aren't the way to guarantee Individual Liberty. But a Republic in the form of a Liberal Democracy is they way to do that.

Ken Burns on PBS Funding: Is Public Broadcasting a Role for Government?

I'll admit as lame as it might sound that I love a lot of the programming from Public Broadcasting. Whether its PBS or C-Span and there are more and I'm a fan of several Ken Burns Documentary's. I think you at least need to follow Public Broadcasting if your interested in politics and Current Affairs. As well as the history of politics and Current Affairs as well, I'm glad they are in business and I hope they stay in business. If you want to write and blog about it and do a good job. But I don't believe I should be forced to pay for it and I don't believe any other american should be forced to pay for it. Especially the people who don't like or disagree with their programming. The History Channel shows similar programming as PBS and they are also on twenty four hours a day. Same thing with C-Span and they show both Current Affairs as well as History Programming as well. And to a certain extent I believe they do a much better job. And you don't have to see a slant in their programming, they just show what they reported. Or what their people reported that they work with. Instead of getting a slant in one direction or not, which is what you get from PBS and NPR. Its not secret why PBS and NPR is loved by liberals and hated at least to a certain extent by conservatives. Because PBS and NPR is tailored to their point of view and backs it up at least to a certain extent.

Of course the left will point out that the right has FOX News, well of course they are right. But here's the difference, FNC is Privately Funded and PBS and NPR both get Tax Payer Funding. Conservatives don't have to fund FNC but they are forced to fund PBS and NPR whether they want to or not. And I'm a liberal and I'm not making these points to bash liberalism but to make a point. If you can't take on your own side, when they are wrong. Your not very qualified to take on the other side when they are wrong, because you lack the credibility to do so. Public Broadcasting could still be public without Tax Payer funds to pay for it. They could set up their own foundations raise funding from people who would pay for it. And I would be happy to donate to them and Hollywood and museums and other Private Foundations that are interested. In their programming would be happy to donate to them and Public Broadcasting could also to expand their programming. To bring in more revenue. Expanding their News Division, creating an Entertainment Division, showing more movies etc. Combine PBS with NPR and with C-Span, History Channel, A&E even. There are way they can finance their operations even better without Tax Payer money.

There millions of people who are interested in funding and watching Public Broadcasting, so let them instead of forcing people who disagree with their message. Be forced to pay for it and let Public Broadcasting do as well as their programming will allow. Instead of guaranteeing them revenue, no matter what. If people who are interested in their programming as well or not.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

GOV Rick Perry Discusses Social Security and Health Care: Hot Topics for 2012

Rick Perry I believe put the nail in the coffin as far as him winning the 2012 Presidential Election. And perhaps the 2012 Republican Nomination for President as well. When he called Social Security "Unconstitutional" and called it a "Ponzi Scheme". But he does make a couple good points about the fact the Social Security won't be around. For my Generation X if we don't reform it and his idea about turing Social Security over to the States. And allowing them to set up their own Social Security System which would save the Federal Government. Around 1T$ a year if its done right and the Federal Government puts in basic Federal Standards that each State would have to live under. Actually Mitt Romney is running to the left of GOV Perry on Social Security, he's actually to the left of GOV Perry. On several other issues or was to the left of GOV Perry on several other issues. But Social Security is one issue where GOV Romney is proud to be the left of GOV Perry and not trying to cover it up. Had GOV Perry not used the term "Ponzi Scheme" and just referred to the problems with the system. Down the road for the Gen Xers and Generation Y and saying we have to save this system for them. Because most of these people don't believe this system will be there for them when they retire. Then he would've had a point and won some points for Political Courage.

GOV Perry also makes a good point about Health Insurance where one of the problems with our Healthcare System. When he made the point that one of our problems is that we have a layer of people in between the Health Insurance. And the people paying for the Health Insurance. Which leads to things like Administrative Costs and wouldn't be nice if we had a Healthcare System. Where each of us owned our own Health Insurance Policy, without our employers, a Health Insurer private or public. In the way of our Health Insurance. We would each set up our own Health Insurance Policy based on what we would need. And the pay for that ourselves, the question is how would finance this. Because on of the advantages of having someone else pay into our Health Insurance Policy like an employer. Is that means thats one less cost that the people receiving the Health Insurance have to pay for. But I guess the idea of eliminating the go between with our Health Insurance. Is that would bring down our Health Insurance Costs, because we would then eliminate the Administrative Costs and Overhead Costs.

GOV Perry won't be President of the United States at least in 2013, he has too many holes to fill. Thats what happens a lot when people get on the National Stage for the first time. They say things that they normally say but they say them to a much wider audience. And everything they say gets examined over and over. But he has put a couple issues on the table and forced people to think about them. And should get credit for that.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

California to release 4,000 inmates: Alternative Sentencing is the Future

America as a country as well as its fifty States is essentially broke and to compound these problems. We have overcrowded prisons across the country. Where we have to support these inmates out of General Revenue Tax Payer money. Prisons don't pay for themselves and inmates hardly pay for anything as far as taking care of themselves. Almost everything they receive in prison is subsidized by the State meaning Tax Payers. And to compound that problem, we have 2M inmates in America and hundreds of thousands of these inmates. Are Non Violent Offenders and a lot of these Offenders are Drug Offenders. Meaning users, so we have a three layer problem with our Corrections System. A bad economy with shrinking State Revenue and overcrowded prisons which is also partially but not completely the fault of the State. A large part of that is also Personal Responsibility or the lack of it, not finishing school having kids too soon. But government is at fault as well, because we have too many as what Libertarian Economist Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws". We arrest to many people and send them to prison for crimes that aren't a big threat to society. Crimes And I'm thinking of marijuana, prostitution and gambling, where we would be better off regulating these activities instead.

We don't handle our other Non Violent Offenders that oppose some threat to society and need to be dealt with very well. Like Petty Thieves to use as an example and we send them to prison for long sentences. Where we would be better off sending those people to County Jail, Halfway Houses or Supervised Probation. Where they can pay their debt to society but where they are also contributing to society as well. Doing Community Service, working paying for their Room and Board etc. And staying out of trouble to stay out of prison, so we save our very limited prison space for the people who need to occupy it. Our actual dangerous criminals. And the other problem that we have is that we don't prepare our inmates that we release to a large degree. For life on the outside and then wonder why they commit other crimes and come back to prison. For example releasing long term inmates from prison straight from Solitary Confinement. After being in Solitary Confinement for long stretches and thats just one example.

GOV Jerry Brown of California understands these problems because he's the Governor of a State with the largest Prison Population in America. And with the largest Public Debt and Deficit of any State in America, as well as being the former Attorney General of California as well. Which is why he set up a new program that releases Non Violent Offenders from prison. And sends them to Halfway Houses and Supervised Probation instead. Non Violent Offenders with good Prison Records that it and I wish him and his State the best.