Ederik Schneider Online

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Nutsare Fancy: Newt Gingrich Exposed- Ron Paul The Constitutionalist

Source: Nutsare Fancy-
Source: Nutsare Fancy: New Gingrich Exposed- Ron Paul The Constitutionalist

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

"American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment": There's no Security without Individual Liberty



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

John Stossel: "Government's Gambling Hypocrisy": Big Government Gone Wild



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 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. Is 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

Hunger & Poverty In America: What we can do about it



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

Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Who Is Better Off Now?": The Road to Victory



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

Welfare: Ezra Taft Benseon 1968: What's the Role of Government



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

Housing Alert: FHA Running Out of Money: How to save the Federal Housing Administration



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.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Bail Out Student Loan Borrowers?: Forgiving Private Debt to Expand Economic Growth



If you look at why the American Economy lacks so much Economic and Job Growth right now, a lot of that gets to lack of Consumer Spending. And if you look at why we have such a lack of Consumer Spending right now, that gets to mountain of Private Debt thats held by the public. The Federal Government Debt approaching 15T$ right now isn't helping but the Private Debt is what's holding back Consumer Spending right now. So to jump start Economic Growth which would lead to Job Growth, we need to pay down our Private Debt. Which is something that President Obama understands which is why he made the proposal he did. Which is allowing College Students to put all of the College Debt from all of their Student Loans and everything. Into to one loan to the Federal Government that would buy up even more debt I'm guessing to finance this. I'm not for this proposal but I understand why the President is doing this. What I would like to see is a Tax Credit or Tax Deduction to everyone in the country who's currently drowning in debt right. To no fault of their own but because of the "Great Recession", currently has more debt then they can afford to pay back. And as a result aren't spending enough money to generate the Economic Growth that we need. To generate the Job Growth that we need to bring down our 9% Unemployment Rate. As well as trying to make Higher Education more affordable in America. So we can have more well educated and intelligent High School students going to college and Vocational School.

As far as the current people who are drowning in Consumer Debt and the people who are drowning in College Debt. We need some type of Tax Credit or Tax Deduction, for people who again for no fault of their own. Are drowning in debt that they can't afford to pay back and allow them to pay enough of their debt back. With this deduction or credit to get their debt down to more of a manageable level. So they have enough money to spend and start spending money again. And extending the Payroll Tax Cut for workers and extending it to employers as well. So again people have the money that they need to spend to get our Consumer Spending going again. Which would lead to both Economic and Job Growth. As well as an additional what I call Consumer Tax Credit or CTC for people who can't afford to spend money right now. That they would have to spend purchasing products not paying down debt and would have a window of time to spend that credit. And we need to do something to make Higher Education more affordable in America. Set up a new College Loan Program not run by government. That would be Semi Private Non Profit Independent Self Financed that workers and employers would pay into. To send their kids to college and Vocational School. Expanding Federal Colleges to go with the Military Academy's.

We are not going to get Economic and Job Growth going again until we address Private Debt including the Housing Market. And I believe this is something that President Obama understands and why he made the proposal he did. I disagree with his plan but at least he's thinking about it and addressing it. Not waiting until after the 2012 Elections to address it but trying to help people who need help. For the sake of the economy and to generate Economic Growth. To create the Job Growth that we need to bring down our 9% Unemployment Rate that we've been stuck at for more then a year now.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

"Restoring American Federalism": How about a Federal Constitutional Convention?



The Federalist Society has been holding these meetings on a proposal thats called a Sunset Provision. That would apply to all laws that are passed by the Federal Government. Meaning that once the Federal Government passes a new law. it would have to come up to be renewed every 5-10 years. And if Congress and the President doesn't renew the law whatever the law is, it would expire. Sunset Provisions have been applied to the 1996 Welfare Work Law, a law that I support. The 2001 Patriot Act, a law that I oppose because of its Fourth Amendment issues. The 2002 No Child Left Behind Law which I'm against because of the Unfunded Mandates in it which is perfect for this topic. The 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts which I oppose because we borrowed trillions of dollars to pay from them. As we were fighting two wars oversees and borrowed trillions of dollars to pay for them as well. One law that I wish a Sunset Provision applied to, was the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Another law I'm against and one reason why I oppose it, is because we borrowed 500B$ to pay for that as well. And another reason in how it was passed in a Republican Congress, not trying to sound partisan here. But the House kept that vote open in November, 2003 around Thanksgiving Time for like six hours. When normally Representatives get like fifteen minutes to vote. Because the Democratic Leadership had the votes to defeat it, almost all of their members and around twenty republicans as well. Medicare Advantage is the perfect example of why we should have Sunset Provisions to Federal Laws.

What I believe we need to do as a country is to look at exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. Based on what its capable of doing well and what authority it has in the US Constitution. And just limit it to that and examine what the 10th Amendment means as a country. Have a review of all Federal Laws, Policy's, Programs and Agency's, look at the Constitutionality of all of them. What's working, what's not working, what needs to be reformed and what needs to be eliminated. I would start by eliminating all Unfunded Mandates and either force the Federal Government to pay for them. Or eliminate them all together, lay out what the Federal Government should be doing. Based on the US Constitution, what its good at, what it does better then the Private Sector. And just limit the Federal Government to that, me personally. I would just limit the Federal Government to National Security, Law Enforcement, Regulation, Foreign Policy, Medical Research, Economic Research. And Social Welfare Research and leave the rest to the States, Locals and Non Profit Community Services. And if there's something else or other things that the Federal Government should be doing. But its not Constitutional, well we have a Constitutional Process to make those things Constitutional.

Unfunded Mandates to me are exactly why we should have a Federal Constitutional Convention. To prevent the Federal Government from passing those things, things that they may not have the Constitutional Authority to do. Like in Education Policy, if they are going to pass Federal Mandates when it comes to Social Welfare Policy and other areas. Then the Feds should be forced to pay for them. And force the Federal Government to examine and review exactly what it does, some Federal Departments don't even know their budgets. Defense comes to mine or can be audited, Education would be another one. That should be unacceptable to anyone who believes in Limited Government.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

John Stossel: Infrastructure Spending: Rebuild America?



Infrastructure Investment as I call it used to be a Bi Partisan thing, the majority of the members of both Parties in Congress. But today with Bi Partisanship becoming so unpopular in both parties. With both parties 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 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

Ron Paul 2008: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- "Save Social Security by Cutting Spending"

Source: Ron Paul 2008-U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas-
Source: Ron Paul 2008: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- "Save Social Security by Cutting Spending"

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

"Anarchism and the Libertarian Party": What Libertarianism should be about



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.

Vicente Fox: "US must Legalize Narcotics to stop violence": How to end the Drug War



If you look at the War on Drugs in America, thats just one country where this war is fought. Its also fought in Mexico and Central America as well, as Caribbean and farther South in South America, especially in Columbia and Peru. This is both a North and South American War, where Drug Addicts are treated like criminals instead of patients. So if one of these countries were to reform their part of the War on Drugs to be more efficient in it. That would be great for their country but the war would still be fought in those other countries. Unless there's some type of International Treaty or something in how this war is fought. Both America and Mexico fight this war mainly through Law Enforcement and Mexico's case they use their military as well. Similar case is Columbia and we all been fighting our part of this war for forty years or more. And haven't accomplished a damn thing, in America narcotics are more available now then they were in 1971. We now have more Narcotics Addicts and Drug Offenders and I'm talking about the users. Then we had forty years ago and just too look at Mexico which is a country that should already be a Developed Nation. But why isn't it, Organize Crime with the Mexican Mafia and other groups and their involvement in narcotics. Their own Narcotics Addicts in Mexico and corruption of their Federal Government and a lot of that has to do with the War on Drugs. They are all interrelated.

So what should America do on its end, first Decriminalize Marijuana and regulate it like alcohol and tobacco. And then when it comes to heroin, cocaine and meth, treat the users and addicts like the patients that they are. Send them to Drug Rehab and Halfway Houses private even at their expense. So they can get their lives turned around, this way we could collapse the Narcotics Market and the Narcotics Dealers would have customers to sell their dope to. Costing them money and hopefully putting them out of business at least eventually. Transfer our Drug Offenders that are in prison today for using cocaine, heroin and meth. Who have solid Prison Records to Drug Rehab and later Halfway Houses, again at their expense. And pardon the Drug Offenders who are in prison for possessing, using or selling marijuana. Get all of these Non Violent Offenders out of prison and save that space for actual Dangerous Criminals. Saving our Law Enforcement and Corrections Systems so many resources that could be put to better use. And then work with our allies in the Failed War on Drugs to set up similar policy's. And work with them to get to share intelligence to keep cocaine, heroin and meth out of our countries in the first place.

Like with anything in life that people want, if they want it bad enough, they'll find away to get it no matter the consequences. Thats what addiction is about, even if that means losing their job, starving, going homeless. Stealing or going to prison, so its more then time that we realize this basic fact. And try to teach these people that are addicted to cocaine, heroin and meth that they shouldn't want dope. And stop treating people like criminals just because they are involved with a drug. Thats not more dangerous then alcohol and tobacco, meaning marijuana. And regulate those activities instead.

Friday, November 11, 2011

"Privatized Prisons and Prison Labor Is Slavery?": Making People Property is Slavery



The plus's of Private Prisons is that the Corrections System in America are way too expensive. But then a question should be asked, why are our prisons so expensive. And that if you privatize the prisons and privatize the prisons that are made in the future. You can save Tax Payers money, because that would be one less thing that the State has to run and pay for. I agree that our Corrections Systems are way too expensive and again why are they so expensive. I would argue that our prisons are way too expensive because we arrest too many people. For things that they shouldn't be arrested for, things that shouldn't be illegal and arrest people for things. That if we just handled those offenders differently, out of prison meaning. Like with how we handle our Drug Offenders, the users meaning. Sending Drug Addicts to prison for feeding their Drug Addiction is an expensive proposition. And something we don't have to do and pay for and we could handle better. Like through Drug Rehab and Halfway Houses at their expense, private Drug Rehab and Halfway Houses as well. That are secure enough to deal with these what I would call clients. Another problem with our Criminal Justice System is that we have what Libertarian Commentator Milton Friedman. Called "Bad laws", we arrest people for what they do to themselves rather then what they do to each other. The War on Drugs is a perfect example of this, which is one reason why marijuana should be decriminalized. We arrest people for gambling their own money, for paying people for sex and accepting money for sex.

We have too many people in prison in America because we don't have enough liberty. We arrest people for too many things, we don't have enough liberty we have "Bad Laws". The number one job in America at least the number one job for Public Prisons. Is to keep the inmates inside until their time is up and to have a secure prison. For the staff that works there and for the inmates who are doing their time. The number one job for Free Enterprise is to make money. And when that comes to prisons, that means having as many inmates as possible. Keeping as many inmates in prison as possible and as long as possible. And getting the State to pay as much money as possible to house those inmates. Again I agree that our prisons are too expensive and need to be reformed but there good and bad ways to do that. The way to reform our Corrections System is to get rid of our "Bad Laws". And force our inmates to earn their keep instead of giving them things. Make them pay for their Room and Board, return Prison Industry's and put them to work. And give them the Prison Jobs that would otherwise be contracted out to the inmates. And pay them for the work that they do at Market Rate, so they can pay for their time. Send money to their victims and send money to their families. Especially the Long Timers.

If you look at the Role of Government and I'm a Liberal Democrat and I believe the Role of Government is very limited. But Public Safety is a huge part of it and as far as I'm concern the number one Role of Government. Public Safety is not about Profit Motive but doing what it takes to protect society. From criminals, terrorists and Foreign Invaders, not keeping people and as many people as possible. In prison as long as possible to make as much money as possible. Which is the job of Private Enterprise which should be their job and I agree with that. But not when it comes to Public Safety.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Ron Paul 2008-ABC News: Terry Moran Interviewing U.S. Representative Ron Paul- "I Just Don't Want To Run Third-Party"

Source: ABC News- U.S. Representative Ron Paul-
Source: Ron Paul 2008-ABC News: Terry Moran Interviewing U.S. Representative Ron Paul- " I Just Don't Want To Run Third-Party"

Unless you're a hard-core Ron Paul supporting Classical Libertarian, you're smart and sane enough to understand that Representative Ron Paul will be never be President of the United States. He probably won't even win his own State of Texas in the Republican primary. Thats just a fact, a Classical Libertarian running for President in the Republican Party that's dominated by the Religious Right that will decide whether the Republican nominee can be elected President of the United States, the Neoconservative movement which has lost steam in the Republican Party thanks to the George W Bush Administration, but they'll still be able to influence the next Republican President's foreign policy. Especially if we have a Republican President in 2013. And these are two factions that of course are anti-libertarian and pro at least a certain form of big government, which of course goes against every belief of libertarianism.

I believe Representative Paul understands these things and is actually not running for President to be elected President. But of course he would take the job if he's elected, but to help build the Libertarian Movement. And let Americans know that there's a different option out there, that it's not just about Democrats and Republicans. Or socialism coming from the Far-Left, or authoritarianism coming from the Far-Right. That there are enough voters out there who are truly anti-big government and want to be left alone to live their lives. And Representative Paul understands this and is going after these voters. And I believe this is the Libertarian Movement that Representative Paul is trying to build. So after around April 2012 or so after the Republican Party has nominated who will be their nominee for President, Ron Paul needs to strongly consider, or actually not give up his presidential campaign. But go after the Libertarian Party nomination for President and they'll take him with his views on the issues.

Ron Paul's ability to raise money and command national media Attention as we see in this video. And push the Libertarian ticket as far as he can and help the LP  recruit Congressional as well as state and local candidates for public office. Select someone like Jesse Ventura or Gary Johnson or John Huntsman as his Vice Presidential nominee. Both former Governor's and people that could be the standard bearer for the Libertarian Party in 2016. That could help Representative Paul build the Libertarian Party and broader Libertarian Movement in the future. With Ron Paul's ability to raise money, maybe he gets 5-10% of the presidential vote and gets in the presidential debates. And maybe they can recruit people like Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Rand Paul, (Ron's son obviously) or Senator Mike Lee. All Republican Senators with strong libertarian leanings. The future of the Libertarian Movement I believe is in the Libertarian Party, from 1972-88 70% of libertarians voted Republican. Today that's now 46%, recruit those Libertarians who vote Republican into a new and improved Libertarian Party. And then maybe ten years from now, instead of the Libertarian Party being the largest third party in America, its a third party that wins elections. Local, state and even to Congress. And can nominate a presidential candidate that can at least influence the presidential election. Because of all the new people that it brings to the Libertarian Party.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Marijuana Community: Gary Johnson on Legalizing Marijuana

Why do we have two-million people in prison in America, the largest Prison Population in the World. At least on a per-capita basis, because we lock up people and send them to prison who don't represent a threat to society. We lock up people for what they do to themselves. We lock up people for what they do to themselves rather than what they do to others. In other words the 'War on Drugs' in America is at fault for our huge prison population. We are a liberal democracy and I'm a Liberal Democrat whois  proud to live in this liberal democracy. But of course we are not a perfect liberal democracy.

And for one we lock up people for what they do to themselves as well as what they do to others. Of course we should lock up people when they harm innocent people. But not when they hurt themselves and this is something Gary Johnson who describes his politics as classical liberal who is running for President in the Republican Party, but you wouldn't know that. Because he's only been allowed to appear at one presidential debate. Understands he understands this because he was Governor of New Mexico which of course borders Mexico. They actually have about a thousand-mile border with Mexico and have their own drug issues as a result of Mexico.

But Johnson did as Governor of Mexico was very smart and clever and forward-thinking. He pardoned marijuana users who weren't violent offenders, who didn't have a bad record in prison. That alone brings down your prison population and allows you to use that prison space for violent offenders instead. And New Mexico has a organized gang problem and this helped them with that. This is what I would do. Pardon all non-violent marijuana users who are in United States prisons who have solid records in prison. Perhaps transfer them to halfway houses at their expense. To give them an opportunity to transition back to private life. Job Placement, that sort of thing.

Legalize marijuana at the Federal level and regulate it like alcohol and then tax it heavily to discourage it. And then let the states decide for themselves whether marijuana will be legal in their state or not. And then with the drug offenders the users not the dealers, especially the addicts, cocaine, heroin and meth, transfer them from prison to drug rehab at their expense. And once they complete that they would be moved to a halfway house, again at their expense to get help with transitioning back to private life. And going forward all drug addicts who are arrested for drug use, would go to drug rehab instead of prison or jail and this would be put on their medical record, not criminal record. And we could save so much money in this country with our criminal justice system and corrections system, law enforcement.

If we just grasped the fact that we live in a Federal Constitutional Republic in the form of a Liberal Democracy and with that comes basic fundamental constitutional rights, like the right for people to live their own lives without being harassed by government, as long of course we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing, then we would stop locking people up just for doing unhealthy activities like smoking marijuana. Imagine how overcrowded our corrections system would be if we locked people up for drinking alcohol. We made the right decision on alcohol eighty years ago, now we should do the same thing with marijuana as well.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

John Stossel: "Government's Ponzi Scheme": Give me a break!



A "Ponzi Scheme" as I see it is where people put a lot of money into a fund or give someone a lot of money or any money. Being told they are going to get some benefit from it and then believing that. Like putting money into property or a business and seeing it go belly up. Bernie Maddof and his scandal of 2008 and before that is an excellent example of that. Medicare and Social Security have its issues, even progressives and socialists are now acknowledging this. But we pay into both of them and have been doing this since 1933 or 34 when Social Security was created. And 1965 with Medicare and everyone who's paid into them and is eligible to collect from them has. So where's the "Ponzi Scheme", now if we don't reform them, people in my Generation X. Won't be able to collect from them because the money won't be there. And then Social Security and Medicare will indeed become "Ponzi Schemes" but we are not there yet. Just ask GOV Rick Perry of Texas who of course is running for President. Who despite his faults, I still consider him the Top Contender to Mitt Romney for the GOP Presidential Nomination. And how the term "Ponzi Scheme" has helped him, going into September he looked like the natural Frontrunner. And then of course he uses the term "Ponzi Scheme" to describe Social Security and Medicare. As well as calling then Unconstitutional and his Presidential Campaign has plummeted ever since. Because Senior Citizens especially and others know better then Social Security and Medicare being some sort of "Ponzi Schemes".

The way to prevent Social Security and Medicare from becoming "Ponzi Schemes", is simply reform them. By fixing the financing in both programs. Have wealthier people pay more into them and take less out of them. Because they wouldn't be hurt by them and have them take less out of them or turn them into Welfare Insurance Programs. Just for the people who need them, that alone would fix the financing of both programs. Gary Johnson even though he's a republican running for President, is ideologically a Liberal Libertarian running for President. My politics are actually pretty similar, has an idea that would transfer Social Security and Medicare. And our other Social Insurance Programs. Like Medicaid, Food Assistance, Unemployment Insurance and others over to the States. This alone would save the financing of these programs, at least from the side of the Federal Government. Because they would no longer have to run them, Gary Johnson used to be Governor of Mexico. So he has an idea of how this would work, I like that idea but I would go even farther then that. And turn these programs into Semi Private Non Profit Tightly Regulated Community Service Programs. Designed to help and empower the people who need them.

If your going to call Social Security and Medicare "Ponzi Schemes", you should at least know what that term means. And if you know what that term means and you still use that term. To describe Social Security and Medicare, then your just using that term for Partisan Advantage. Because you don't believe in those programs to begin with and may say whatever you can. To turn people against those programs and get people to support your ideas instead.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Ron Paul: Tax Policy and Limited Government

Source: Liberty Pen- U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas-
Source: Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Ron Paul: Tax Policy and Limited Government

If you look at where Ron Paul was on the issues in 1988 and where he was in 2007-08 and now 2011 going into 2012, it's hard to tell the difference between the Ron Paul of that era and the Ron Paul today. He was a Classical Libertarian then and is a Classical Libertarian today. Actually he's moderated a little bit on entitlements, instead of calling for the elimination of them, he's now calling for a phase out of them. People who paid into them and are retired would still be able to collect those benefits, but younger workers would be able to take the money that they are paying in social insurance and transfer them into personal accounts use that money to pay for personal retirement accounts. And pay for private health insurance once they are retired. But back then Ron Paul was preaching the message of limited government which he believes is the only way to guarantee maximize individual freedom. Letting people live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom.

And that's one area where Representative Paul and I agree one but we differ in other areas. Representative Paul back then was calling for bringing our troops home and closing our foreign bases that we use to defend developed nations. Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. And overall cutting our defense budget by hundreds of billions of dollars. That's another area that I agree with Representative Paul on and is still calling for that today. American voters especially Independent voters all the time say they want consistency from their public officials. That they don't like flip floppers. Flip Flopper being a pet nickname that I have for Mitt Romney. That they want their public officials to be consistent and do and say what they believe. Not tell us what we want to here or do one thing and try to spin what they did so it doesn't look like they did whatever they did. But then American voters make the mistake which get us in trouble because we encourage politicians to do what we say we don't want them to do.

Because a lot of times the truth hurts so to speak and when they do what's right and speak the truth, their approval ratings go down or they face a tough election. Or even worse for them they get voted out of office, but Ron Paul has shown that politicians can do and say what they believe is right. And continue to get rewarded and reelected for it. Ron Paul was elected to the House in 1976 as a Republican. The same year Jimmy Carter was elected President with a huge majority in the House and Senate. And campaigned for Ron Reagan when he ran for President in 1980 or the other way around Representative Paul runs or President in 1988 with the Libertarian Party, gives up his House seat to do it, gets elected back to the House in 1996 and has been there ever since. Ron Paul is very unique especially for a politician because he speaks what he sees as the truth. Whether its popular or not and continues to get rewarded for that.

It's hard to find or think of another politician that has even a similar record like Ron Paul. We have plenty of public officials that have done what they believe is right. And not get rewarded for it politically. Harry Truman, George W. Bush comes to mind, as well as his father George H.W. Bush. George H.W. Bush made decisions that he knew would make it very difficult for him to get reelected. Like the 1990 Deficit Reduction Act. So Ron Paul is very unique in this sense and I give him credit for that. The problem with too many American politicians is that they love public office and all the benefits that come with it. They like being famous, they like being in public, they like being partisan, they like being popular and considered for higher office. They love the benefits that come with living off of taxpayers like being able to fly around the world and not having to pay for dinners and sometimes lunches. So of course they might go the extra way to see that they don't lose all of their public benefits. Like saying what is popular at the time, but then doing something else, because the situation changes. Generally political situation and Ron Paul is the opposite of that. 

Sunday, November 6, 2011

"African American Conservatives share their views on America": Political Diversity is a good thing



This blog may sound controversial which is fine, controversy alone shouldn't be reason not to write something. Especially in a Liberal Democracy with Free Speech but really ever since the late 1960s or so. Perhaps even longer then that, the Democratic Party has been able to count on around 80% of the African American Vote. And in Presidential Elections 90% at least since 2000, to the point that Republican Candidates don't bother recruiting African American Voters. Some African American Republicans and there is such a thing thats not a joke. Don't bother recruiting African American Voters. Some may say what's wrong with that, African Americans are just voting for the candidates that they feel best represents them. Thats a valid point but the problem with that, is once you put all of your eggs in one basket so to speak. You can be taken advantage of which I believe the Democratic Party has done to a certain extent. Democrats can say they are going to vote for me anyway, why bother seeking their votes. Or even listening to them and trying to represent them and if they automatically throw their support behind certain democrats. People lets say much farther to the left that believe the best way to help people in poverty whether they are African American or not. Is through Public Assistance programs from the Federal Government, Welfare Insurance, Public Housing, Food Assistance etc. Letting people collect from these programs indefinitely and not expecting anything from them. Instead of empowerment like through education, Job Training and Job Placement. So people living in Public Housing can get a good job and even run their own business.

What we see in this video, is people who came from the bottom and worked their way up to the Middle or Upper Middle Class. Or are even wealthy now with a good job or running a business. They didn't vote for democrats who let them stay down and not try to help them up. Get trapped in the same failed systems as they've lived in and members of their families from previous generations lived under. And I'm saying this as a Liberal Democrat, I'm just being honest and truthful. If you look at the current African American Leadership if you want to call it that. Especially in the Democratic Party like the Congressional Black Caucus, they basically come from that New Deal Wing of the party. That the best way to help Low Income people, is through Public Assistance giving people money from government. To help them survive but if you talk to a lot of their constituents. A lot of them would say that these people need more then just to be able to survive but to be able to climb the Economic Ladder. So they can get themselves out of poverty and become Self Sufficient. Again that gets to education, one reason why School Choice is popular in the African American Community. And things like education, Job Training and Job Placement.

A lot of African Americans support Free Enterprise principles and are tired of living in poverty. Growing up in poverty and raising their kids in poverty and want to move up in the World. And become Self Sufficient and a lot of people who benefited from the 1996 Welfare to Work Law are African American. And a big reason why President Bill Clinton is so popular in the African American Community. Because President Clinton left office in 2001 with record low Poverty in America and a lot of those people. That left poverty are African American. Which is why African Americans as well as all americans should vote for the candidates that would best represent them. Not vote for candidates just because of the party they belong to.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Utility Deregulation Explained: Why Competition works



I believe I live in the worst big city in America as far as Electric Company's go in Washington called PEPCO. I live in area of about 6M people a metropolis and every time we have a major storm. And because of where we are located halfway between Maine and Florida, tow hours from the Atlantic Ocean. We get short winters generally, 2011 being an exception to that. Our winters are generally between January and February but then starts to warm up in late February. With long hot humid summers starting in late May going through October in what we call Indian Summer. 2011 being an exception we've had a chilly and wet fall so far. So we can get some nasty Winter Storms in January and February, sometimes in late December as well. Where we can get northeasters and blizzards, the blizzards of 1979 and 1996 and 2010 are excellent examples of this. And then in late May our heat and humidity role in and we can get a couple of weeks of 90-100 degree weather with 85% humidity as well. 2011 being an excellent example of this and we get these long Heat Waves again with the humidity. I've gone bike riding in the summer around 7PM to escape the heat and humidity a little bit. And its still 90-95 degrees with the humidity and because of these Heat Waves we get these Tropical Storms. And every time we get one of these Northeasters in the Winter or Tropical Storms in the Summer. You can basically guarantee that there will be about a million people or so. Without electricity because we have so many people and we have such a lousy cheap Electric Company.

PEPCO is not cheap with its rates but cheap with their service and what's worse they are a monopoly. PEPCO is a Private Monopoly meaning it has no competition in the market that they operate in. And because of this they can pretty much get away with providing any service that they want to good or bad. For whatever reasons Maryland, Washington, DC and Virginia have let PEPCO get away with this. Even though every time we get one of these nasty storms Winter or Summer, our Public Officials here about the complaints from constituents. That they are out of power, they've been out of power and want their Representatives and PEPCO to fix the problem. Hurricane Irene is the only storm where I didn't lose power but thats only because Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland. Brought in reinforcements to help PEPCO deal with this situation If PEPCO had competition then they would be forced to provide a better service or drop their rates. Or risk losing money or go out of business, because their customers would have other and probably better options. In where they could go to get their electricity from.

Again with competition you force business's and services to bring a good service. Or risk losing money or going out of business. Thats what capitalism is at its best. With monopoly's whether they are private or public, unless they are run by saints and most people aren't saints. There isn't any built in incentive to provide a quality service.

Friday, November 4, 2011

"Fixing' Big Government is Not Conservative": What is the Role of Government



I believe before you should try to fix anything, you should see whether the thing that you want to fix. Should be doing what's its doing in the first place, or is there a better way to accomplish that. Whatever the thing is suppose to do and that this rule should be used in life generally. Whether its government or anything else, you would have to do less fixing and wondering if this is not working. Because you would do a better job in assigning roles and responsibilities. And since this blog is at least somewhat about government, then I'll focus there. I believe that if this rule was applied to the Federal Government today and over the years. We wouldn't have things like Corporate Welfare, National Endownment for the Arts, National Endownment for the Humanities. Department of Agriculture, there's a good source for Corporate Welfare there. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing and Urban Development, especially Urban Development. Sounds exactly like the role for a city and Mayor, not the Federal Government. We have both a Department of Labor and Commerce, why do they have to be separate. We have a Department of Education even though its job is not to run Public Education in America. They play more of an advisory and research role, as well as providing some resources. But they provide more Unfunded Mandates then resources. We have both a Department of Energy and Department of Interior. They both play similar roles and relate to Energy Policy in America, again why do we need both of them or even of them. How come they can't come together.

What a lot of politicians do when they come into office or come back to office. Is that they see a problem in the country and automatically assume that. That problem can be solved in the first place and there's a government program that can solve that problem. Or we can solve that problem by spending more money on a current government program. Department of Energy and the Department of Education are perfect examples of this. Energy was created in the late 1970s in the Carter Administration to move America towards Energy Independence . Especially after the Energy Shortages of the mid and late 70s, thirty plus years later. We still don't have a National Energy Policy, we are more dependent on Foreign Oil. To issues that DOE were suppose to address, the Department of Education created in the same period. To essentially give Public Education a voice in the Federal Cabinet and improve Public Education. Thirty plus years later our Public Education System is even worse, we are no longer in the top 5-10 but closer to 40. When your trying to figure out what government should do, first read the US Constitution. And first try to figure out exactly what government should be doing and should it have a role here or not. Then try to figure out what's the best solution to the issue and whether government should play a role there or not.

If Public Officials would just take the time to examine what the issue is that they want to address. Before they try to deal with the issue and figure out whether government is doing a good job. In what its currently doing before they try to expand it or give it more money. Then government would be a lot more efficient and waste a lot less money. Because the Role of Government would be a lot more define , because we would have a much better idea in what it should be doing. And how exactly we should be trying to solve the issues that the country faces.

"The Fall of Communism 1991": Its bound to happen



Even though communism as a Political Ideology has lost a lot of power and influence in the last twenty years. Its not finish and is still around, I mean the largest country in the World. The Peoples Republic of China is a Communist Republic, even though the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991-92. And essentially became the Federal Republic of Russia, communism is still alive not doing well. But certainly not on Life Support, as the Soviet Union collapsed. The Peoples Republic has gotten stronger and is emerging as both an Economic and Diplomatic Superpower. With its population and economy and the resources its invested in it military and there still two Communist Republics. With Nuclear Weapons, China and North Korea and there's still a Communist Republic in Cuba. Which of course is in the Caribbean, basically part of North America, just ninety miles South of Florida. Communism is not dead but has certainly lost influence but its no longer a battle between democracy and communism. But a battle of what type of democracy that these countries are going to have. And in the Middle East, its a battle between democracy. theocracy and Military Dictatorship. Like in Egypt and in Syria and to a certain extent monarchy like in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And there still Communist Parties in Europe and some of them even have seats in Parliament. Communism isn't dead its just evolving and China is a perfect example of this.

In China communism has evolved into Authoritarian Capitalism where Social Freedom is still very limited. But where the Chinese People now have some level of Economic Liberty. To chart their own courses in life, they just better not use that liberty against the Chinese Government. Or may end up in some Secret Prison for the rest of their lives, with their families having no idea of where they are. And China opening up its economy to where they now have a Socialist/Capitalist Economy. Where they now have Private Enterprise mixed in with a Welfare State and State Enterprise. This is why their economy has taken off and grown the way that it has to where its now the 2nd largest economy in the World. China calculated over thirty years ago under I believe Mao that for China to become a World Power. That it can't be a Third or Fourth World Country, that it had to have an economy that could support its people. And be able to finance a military that could not only defend this huge nation. About the size of America physically but also be an Asian Power and also a World Power. Like Russia and this is something that the Communist Republic of Korea. Has never figured out and why they are such a dirt poor nation that can't even feed themselves. They spend almost all of their resources on their military and protecting their regime.

Communism isn't dead but its adapted in places like China, Russia and even Cuba to a certain extent. With Fidel Castro out of power and with Raul Castro as its President. Who has moved to open up parts of the Cuban Economy to capitalism and has given the Cuban People some Economic Liberty. And lets see what the Cuban People who by in large are fairly well educated with decent Healthcare. Lets see what Cuba is able to do with their new liberty.