Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Liberty Pen: John Stossel & Arthur Brooks- Is Freedom Fair?

Source: Liberty Pen- Arthur Brooks-
Source: Liberty Pen: John Stossel & Arthur Brooks- Is Freedom Fair?

So-called Progressives, (Social Democrats in actuality) like to use the word fair and equality. That the fact that some people have a lot of money and that some people have little to no money, that somehow, that is not fair. They don't talk about how the people who made all of that money, made that money. They just talk about the fact that rich people have a lot of money and that poor people have very little. They don't talk about why poor people have so little, but just the fact that they have so little and that somehow that's not fair. Liberals such as myself believe in something else, that without freedom, we can't have fairness, because we'll never be able to reach our full-potential with government holding us down. So what we need to do is have equality of opportunity. A system where all mentally and physically able Americans, will have a quality opportunity to be successful in life. And this gets to things like a quality education, a opportunity at a good job, hard work and then of course production.

That it's not just a matter of having a good job, that you actually have to be productive and do a good job and then you'll be rewarded for the production that you create. And pay taxes based on your ability to pay, while still having plenty of incentive for people to be productive in the future. Social Democrats (lets just call a bird a bird) seem to take a different approach. That we as a country already have so much money and the fact that some people have so much more money than others, it's not only a problem, but it's unfair. And that what we need to do, is to take a lot of the money that the rich have and give that money to government so it cane take care, literally take care, not empower. Which is what freedom is about, empowerment, but to take care of the less-fortunate. With all of this money that rich people make, which is a much different approach. I know I've mentioned this before.

 I know I've mentioned this before, but Bill Clinton a political hero of mine, as President wanted to create what he called and Opportunity Society. Where all Americans would have the freedom and opportunity, to be successful in life based on what they contribute and then be rewarded for the production that they create. If you want to create a Fair Society, the best way to do that is through an Opportunity Society. That the way we create fairness, is to give the people, which includes everyone, the ability to be as successful in life as they can be, base on what they contribute to society. And this gets to education, a quality education for all students and reeducating adults who have fallen through the cracks of the system.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Harry Browne From 1996: "Cashing Out Social Security": Why That Will Never Happen and What Can be Done Instead



Even if we found a way to eliminate Social Security within the next 10-20 years, which will never happened. But for the hell of it, lets say we did that and still managed to payoff today's Social Security receivers, people would still need some form of Social Security. Down the line, thats what happens in a Capitalist System, some people are able to take care of themselves and in Developed Nations, most of us can do that. But we will always have a small percentage of people who won't be able to take care of themselves, never make enough money to be completely Independent from Public Assistance. That will either need Social Security to help pay their bills when they retire. Thats why Social Security was created, not to be a National Pension System, it wasn't set up that way and will never be that. It was set up to be a Retirement Insurance System, especially intended for the people, who for whatever reasons, didn't save enough and put enough money away. To live in retirement and live Independently. Which is something that I don't believe Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne ever understood.

What we can do with Social Security, is first do no more harm, stop spending Payroll Taxes on other things other then Social Security and Medicare. Don't do anything to hurt the solvency of the program and then actually save the program, Harry Browne had a bad idea on eliminating Social Security, 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Gary Johnson. Has a good idea on how to decentralize the program and allow the States to set up their own Social Security Systems. Democrats in 2004-05 had a good idea on Pension Reform, which included Social Security, which is called Social Security Plus. Which would be an option for all workers. Where people could on their own essentially increase their Payroll Tax that their employer would match and this money would go into a Retirement Account. The extra Payroll Tax, while the original Payroll Tax would go into Social Security and Medicare and allow more workers to be involved in a Pension Plan.

Libertarians have been struggling for forty years now to be taken seriously, because they propose ideas like eliminating Social Insurance Programs. That are popular and that people actually depend on and thats starting to change with Gary Johnson who has taken a different approach. That instead of eliminating these Social Insurances, we are going to reform them in a way, that empowers Americans and could appeal to more voters with this approach.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Highlights From Wolf Blitzer's Interview With Donald Trump: The Donald Birther That Won't Go Away



The more that Donald Trump speaks about he Birther Issue and really anything that has to do with politics. The more it hurts Mitt Romney and any serious Republican that can't afford to be seen with the Far Right fringe in America. That actually believes that Barack Obama is an African Muslim Atheist Socialist, who was born in Kenya, notice how those labels don't really go together and I'm thinking of Atheist Muslim. But thats the degree of intelligence and sanity that we are talking about, when it gets to the Birther Movement. There are many reasons why the Far Right doesn't like Barack Obama and it all gets back to the fact they don't see him as one of them, they see him as Un American. However you want to define that, so they throw out all of these labels and accusations and conspiracies about Barack Obama and every time they are contradicted. Like with a copy of Barack Obama's Hawaiian Birth Certificate, they make up some new Conspiracy Theory, claiming that the evidence is bogus in some way. Which is what Donald Birther did to today on CNN, claiming that the Hawaiian Birth Certificate is bogus, because the Governor of Hawaii is a Democrat.

In the era of Information Technology, where even things that you do in you're own living room, can be made public, if you have a camera phone with you. And yet Donald Birther claims that the Hawaiian Democrats are conspiring to coverup Barack Obama's real Birth Certificate and Nationality, birthplace and so fourth. To believe that, you would have to believe that President Kennedy was shot by one of his brothers or there was some type of Assassination Plot by the Republican Leadership, to have the President killed. Its the whole if the facts get in the way of you're argument, make them up to make up for the lack of evidence on you're side. And the closer Donald Birther is to Mitt Romney, raising money for him, Mitt riding Don's plane, hanging out together, the easier it will be for Democrats to tie Mitt with the Far Right in America.

If you are a Democrat, you want Donald Birther to talk as much as possible about Barack Obama's birthplace. Especially as he's raising money for Mitt Romney and you'll be able to link them together, especially when the Romney Campaign says that the President's Birth Certificate is legitimate. Because then the Romney Campaign could be asked, well if its legitimate why are you taking money from someone so far out there. What is Mitt going to say, because of the money, how bad does that look. But if you are a human being, you want Donald Birther to shut the hell up.

Friday, May 25, 2012

"Now Peter Schiff is Right Again": The State of the US Economy and The Future Challenges



Before you talk about the current American Economy, you have to know where we started at the beginning of the "Great Recession" and where we are now. Otherwise you'll just see an economy that looks bad and have no real perspective, as far as where we have been. Of course no American, unless they are Unpatriotic and wants to see the country fail or something, is happy with the State of the American Economy. But thats stating the obvious, thats like saying you should drive with you're eyes open or something, look before crossing, check the water before diving in it. Hopefully you get the idea by now but thats not the question, the question is where we go from here and to answer that question. You have to know where we started and then you also have to know, where we've come from. I don't want to make this blog political, other then to critique Libertarian Economist Peter Schiff.

When President Obama became President in January, 2009, we were already at 8% unemployment, we had lost 1.5M jobs from December, 2008 and January, 2009, our economy was subtracting at -7%, think about that for a second. An economy of 15T$ at that point, we've grown past that by this point, thats 1.12$ per quarter that the economy was tanking, we were losing over 1T$ for three months. By the summer of 2009, the economy started growing, we were officially out of recession, we grew 7% by the Third Quarter of 2009. By the spring of 2010, we started producing jobs again, meaning each month the economy was creating more jobs then it was losing. Since the summer of 2009, we've had about three straight years of Economic Growth, after starting with losing -7% and we've had 23 straight months of job growth. We are not back yet but we've had a long road to travel and we are not home yet.

Peter Schiff has the idea that the best thing for the economy would've been to let tank as much as possible. And get to the bottom point and fix the fundamentals problems of the economy. What the Obama Administration did with 2009 Recovery Act, was to put a floor on how far the economy could tank and buy us time to be able to rebuild the economy and move us forward. To not only get us out of the "Great Recession" but to get the economy back to good health and thats what the 2012 Presidential Election will be all about. Sorry Neoconservatives, nobody other then you're tiny club is interested in you're Big Government agenda. How do we get past the "Great Recession" and get this economy back to where it was in the late 1990's and even better then that.

We do this by growing the economy, getting us back to 4-5% Economic Growth, thats producing 200K plus jobs each month in Job Growth. And we do this with serious Infrastructure Investment, putting our Construction Workers and Manufacture Workers back to work. Which would also be a boom to our Construction and Manufacturing Industries, our Auto Industry is already back in black and hiring again. And creating an National Energy Policy, that gets us off of Foreign Oil by developing our Natural Resources and doing this by paying for it and not adding to our debt. And cutting things in the Federal Budget, we no longer need to be doing, as well as reforming the Federal Government. Thats how we rebuild the American Economy.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Rick Santelli: "Are Federal Job Training Programs Working?": How to Retrain Unemployed Workers



We don't need 49 Job Training Programs in America run by the Federal Government, that makes no sense. Especially when we have 8% Unemployment, what we need to do is figure out how to put people back to work and retrain those workers who need additional skills to go back to work with a good job. Not have a system that designed so that when we do have High Unemployment, we just create more Job Training Programs, automatically assuming that the reason we have High Unemployment. Is because we don't have enough JTP's, Job Training Programs, the only JTP's that the Feds need to be involved with. Has to do with Unemployment Insurance, transforming Unemployment Offices, into Employment Offices. Where yes Unemployed Workers would get an Unemployment Check but to get that Check, they have to be looking for work or going back to school and they would get help with financing of them going back to school.

Lets say at a Community College and they would also get help finding a job and they have to be doing these things, if they are physically and mentally capable of working. In order to receive their Unemployment Checks. The Federal Government doesn't need 49 JTP's, might not even need one, the only business they have with Job Training. Has to do with Unemployment Insurance and grants to Private Sector Employment Centers, that are in the business of helping people who are out of work. As well as grants to colleges and Vocational Schools, working to increase College Affordability for everyone. But we need to stop creating new JTP's, so a Representative or Senator can have a new JTP Office in their District or State, putting some of their constituents to work. Even if the JTP Office isn't very effective but is really just there to employ the people who work there.

Job Training should be about putting Unemployed Workers back to work, not creating new Government Offices, to hire new Government Workers. And we don't need 49 of these programs in order to accomplish this, it can all be accomplished through the Unemployment Insurance System and Private Sector.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner- Phillip K. Howard: The Death Of Common Sense

Source: Liberty Pen- Phillip K. Howard-
Source: Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner- Phillip K. Howard: The Death Of Common Sense

When we are dealing with problem solving, we have something thats not good for the country and we feel the need to fix it for the good of the country. And we feel we can not only fix the problem in a way, thats cost-effective and won't hurt us in anyway.

When it comes to solving these problems, it should be about just a few things.

What's the problem?

How serious it is?

What's working and what's not and what we should do about it, if anything?
 Not finding a solution that works for everyone, but where no one is completely satisfied but where all sides agree that its better than doing nothing. And you basically mush things together from both sides, whether those things work together or not. But what's the problem and how's the best way to fix it. And if we can't get to whatever is the best solution to fixing the problem, because there isn't enough support to get it done. Then you look at, look I prefer Plan A, "because thats the best course to take but we just can't get that done right now. So what's the best alternative to Plan A." And then you look to others to find the next best thing but the next best thing that actually works.

You go to the next best thing after Plan A, when you aren't able to get accomplished what you actually want to do, what's your first choice. And is it better than doing nothing because it actually works, not because its the next best thing available but because it actually works.

Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do, when you can't accomplish what you are actually trying to do, to to fix whatever the problem is.

For example you have a medical condition and you end up taking the wrong medicine and end up making the problem worst. Had you just done nothing and waited to be able to take the right medicine. The wrong prescription unfortunately is commonplace in Congress, they see a problem that they believe they have to fix and end up a lot of times making the problem worst, because their solution to the problem simply doesn't work.

Its commonplace to believe that there's too much partisanship in Congress, well in sense thats true. But in another sense there isn't enough partisanship. There's good partisanship and there's bad partisanship. Elections by definition are partisan but do you know of anyone trying to outlaw elections. I mean lets get real here we need a certain level of partisanship, in order to function as a liberal democracy or we would end up as a one-party authoritarian state.

There's also good bipartisanship and bad bipartisanship. When you are talking about governing and doing it successfully, a lot of times it gets down to common sense. What's the problem and how to fix it, thats all you need to know, two parties working together just to be bipartisan isn't the solution if you have the White House and Congress and you have the votes to pass what will solve the problem on your own.

If you have the votes to get done what needs to be done, even if most if not all of the votes are within your own party, then its your responsibility to pass the best program to solve whatever the problem is. Not to work with the opposition, just to work with them. Good bipartisanship, comes when neither side has the votes to pass what they believe will solve whatever the problem is on their own. This generally happens with divided government and the two sides come together to solve the problem together, combining the best ideas from both sides that works in one package and solves whatever the problem is. Thats an example of good bipartisanship. Bad bipartisanship would be where both sides come together and throw a bunch of things together, whether they can work well together or not, just to be bipartisan.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

"The Great Liberal Lie: Jonah Goldberg on the Left's War on Words: What Jonah Goldberg doesn't understand about Liberalism



If you listened to Jonah Goldberg and other Right Wingers but I don't believe Jonah Goldberg is as guilty as what I'm about to lay out. You would think Liberalism and Liberals are a collection of nothing more then, Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Terrorists, as well as Un American. And there are plenty of other False Charges out there but to spare you time, yours and mind I'll spare you the rest, for now. They completely don't understand Liberalism at all, completely unqualified to speak about Liberalism as unqualified to speak about Liberalism. As Fidel Castro is an unqualified to speak about Democracy, because he would be trying to speak about something, he doesn't understand or believe in. They don't know that the Liberal Values are, Individual Freedom, Limited Government, Rule of Law, US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Equal Rights and Equality of Opportunity, everything else we believe in comes under that. Liberals don't believe in Big Government, something that we are always being accused of being, being accused of supporting Big Government, by someone like Rick Santorum. Is a little hard to swallow without puking and I'll leave it there for now.

If you follow my blogs, you already know how I feel about the former Distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. He's someone who goes off on Democrats for supporting Big Government but then comes out in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw pornography in the United States. There are Fascists on the left, there also Fascists on the right, look how the Tea Party is treating Republicans who don't agree with them on everything. Sen. Dick Lugar being their latest victim, thats where Mr. Goldbrg is right but they just aren't Liberal. And if Mr. Goldberg understood what the hell he was talking about, he would understand, that you can't be a Liberal and a Fascist. Because he would understand that Liberals believe in Freedom of Speech and Thought, we don't expect everyone to agree with us, we do ask that you back you're argument when you disagree with us. We can't force you to do that but we ask that you do, so we can engage in intelligent debate, instead of just exchanging attacks back and fourth.

Both the Far Left and Far Right in America has their own Fascists, one of the reasons why they are on the Far Left and Far Right. They just aren't Liberal or Conservative, Progressives in America go after Democrats for not supporting their entire Big Government Agenda. Neoconservatives go after Republicans for working with Democrats and not supporting their entire Big Government Agenda but these people are simply not Liberal or Conservative.

Monday, May 21, 2012

The Swing Vote: Why Independents Will Decide the 2012 Election: A Message for Neoconservatives, "Its The Economy Stupid"



Going into the 2011-2012 Presidential Election Season, Establishment Republicans thought they had found the perfect President Candidate to take on President Obama. In Mitt Romney, no seriously and that 2012 would another 1992 or 1980, where the Incumbent President, was kicked out of office in an Electoral Landslide. In large part because of the economy, well whether they were right or not, because of the Republican Primaries. Thats all changed as far as the Republican Party having the right Nominee to take on President Obama. Because thanks to the Republican Primaries and Rick Santorum being successful in at least forcing Mitt Romney, to take stands on these Social Issues. To make sure he would have the back of Neoconservative Republicans, he had to take stands on Same Sex Marriage. Coming out for a Constitutional Amendment to ban Same Sex Marriage, as well as come out against things like Planned Parenthood, speak out against things like Birth Control.

Social Issues that Rick Santorum and Neoconservatives want to talk about but where Independents are saying why are you bothering with these divisive issues, when this election is "the economy stupid". Because of the Republican Primaries, Mitt Romney has lost support with Independent and Female Voters, where on paper at least going into this Election Season. He looked to be in pretty good shape to matchup with the President on these issues, when he's talking about the economy. He does much better then when he's talking about Social Issues, things he doesn't care much about to begin with. That really only Statist Neoconservatives want Mitt to be talking about at all.

The 2012 Presidential Election will be about one thing and one thing only with, Independent Voters, the economy. Who would be the best President to deal with the economy and fix the economy and they'll judge both Mitt and Barack and decide that based on their past records and what they plan to do in the future.

Friday, May 18, 2012

NC Tea Party: John Stossel- What If Libertarians Were in Charge

Source: NC Tea Party-
Source: NC Tea Party: John Stossel- What If Libertarians Were In Charge

Imagine what the Federal Government would look like, if you eliminated every Federal Department. Except Department of Defense, that would rarely do anything, because Libertarians are isolationists.

Department of State that would rarely talk to anyone, because again Libertarians are isolationists.

A Treasury Department that would just print American dollars. You really need a Federal department to do that?

Maybe a Justice Department, but again who would they be prosecuting? Libertarians are against the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

They also tend to be against the CIA. So where would the intelligence come from?

The Federal Government that they don't trust and believe in. Libertarians don't believe in Federal law enforcement, so if a murderer murders someone in Tennessee and makes their way up to lets say Ohio, who would go after that person?

Libertarians are also against things like labor laws, minimum wage, so we could return to the days of people making 30C and hour or back to child labor. People working in unsafe working conditions and making basically nothing working there.

That is the state of American libertarianism right now, not that government is too big, but that it even exists is a problem for them. They want a complete free society, but perhaps even in an anarchist sense. And perhaps they would prosecute people who abuse innocent people, but that the Federal Government just wouldn't have any role in it. As I blogged last week, Libertarians today and perhaps always don't sound Libertarian. But they sound like Anarchists, that government is incompetent and shouldn't really be doing anything. And ask questions like what can government do, that the private sector can't and again ask most Americans that question and they will name several things. Today's Libertarians don't sound like believers in small government, but sound anti-government. Basically across the board. Or wouldn't ask questions like, what can government do that the private sector can't, or what can government do better than the private sector.

I understand the need in limited government and as a Liberal is something I believe in myself. Which is also something that Gary Johnson the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party also believes in. He's a Classical Liberal/Liberal-Libertarian  like myself. But more libertarian, where I'm liberal across the board. Governor Johnson is not looking to dismantle the Federal Government. But wants to reform it, so it's doing the things that only it should be doing and does well. Which is where libertarianism needs to move to, for them to ever be a major power in American politics.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Libertarian Solution: Close Military Bases: A Good Libertarian Solution



You want to know why we spend roughly spend 700-800B$ a year on defense, which will be a little lower thanks to the 2011 Budget Control Act. Because we spend around 200B$ a year defending Developed Nations around the World. Bring that money home, we are still spending around 500B$ a year on defense, a figure I could live with and we would be able to spend that money. Protecting our own National Interests, focusing on things like the War on Terror and Counter Terrorism. Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea already have the money to defend themselves. They don't need us to do that for them but Europe wants us to do it for them, out our expense not there's. So they can continue to spend 40% or so their of economies on their Welfare States, I don't want to bring that money home. To create some Socialist Welfare State in America, that Progressives seem to want to do and I don't want to gut the Defense Budget either. And go down to 1-2% of our GDP, what I want to do with our Defense Department, is to spend money on things that we have to do.

We need the US DOD Department of Defense to spend the Tax Revenue that we give it efficiently and use those savings from defense, to help pay down out debt and deficit. That we owe to some of the countries that are currently responsible for defending. Like Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, as well as some of those saving on Infrastructure Investment to rebuild our country and put Americans back to work. Not spending this money in other Developed Nations putting those people back tow work. The European Union together has an economy roughly the size of the United States and has more then enough financial resources to pay for its own defense. And to develop a Defense Industry that can build what it needs to defend themselves. Japan has an economy of 4T$, the third largest economy in the World and has the resources to defend themselves. Saudi Arabia already has the one of the largest militaries in the World and they can defend themselves. The Democratic Republic of Korea the same thing and can defend themselves against the Communist Republic.

America needs to get back in the business of defending Americans period and we need to worry about ourselves and deal with our own problems. And work with our allies to defend our interests and try to stop Authoritarian States from murdering its people when we can. While these other Developed Nations need to do the same thing because they can. And we have enough of our own problems and we need our own resources to deal with them.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Harry Browne: The Coming Devaluation: The Disadvantages of Borrow and Spending and Making Promises you can't keep



Libertarian Harry Browne was right about one thing back in 1970 and as it turns out had pretty good foresight. When he said that the United States was borrowing and spending more money that it can afford and if we stay on that course. We would pay a heavy price for it down the road, which is what we started doing by the mid 1970s, late 1970s, had a huge Federal Deficit by 1984. And we had to move to Deficit Reduction by 1986, with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which was a Deficit Reduction Act. That limited the Federal Government's ability to borrow money and by 1990, we passed the first of three Deficit Reduction Acts, 1990, 1993 and 1997. And because of these Acts, including the one from 1986, that by 2000 we had already balanced the Federal Budget. But we were also in position of actually paying off the National Debt and the talk then was actually. Which sounds crazy now, that we were in danger of paying off the National Debt too fast. Something we are no where near doing twelve years later and now the debate is how do we deal with the Federal Deficit and how fast should we try to reduce it.

The reasons why we are in position today, I believe goes back to the 1973 Oil Embargo, which led to an Energy Crisis in America and a recession in 1974-75. And the rest of the 1970s, was a bad decade for the United States economically. The Oil Embargo, should've been the only wake up call that we needed to see, that it was time for America to get off of Foreign Oil. And develop our own Natural Resources, that would move America to Energy Independence, as well as the dangers of other countries owning you're debt. Especially countries that don't have you're best interest at heart and that America needed to develop its own Energy Independence Policy. We had a bad decade for most of the rest of that decade, as well as another Energy Crisis from 1978-80, with long Gas Lines and other Energy Shortages. Then in the 1980s the economy improved under President Reagan but we paid a hell of a price for it, with all the borrow and spending the Federal Government was doing.

In the 1990s starting under President Bush and a Democratic Congress, we returned Fiscal Sanity to the Federal Government. They put in a policy known as PAYGO, which means pay as you go, you can't increase spending or cut taxes, without paying for it. President Clinton and a Democratic Congress continued that in 1993, the Republican Congress's following with President Clinton continued that policy as well. And we had a Balance Budget by 1998 and we were talking about paying off the National Debt in 2000. We've obviously gotten away from that under President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress's he had and have moved back to Borrow and Spending. Borrowed 2T$ to pay for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 500B$ to pay for Medicare Advantage and 2T$ for two unpaid for Tax Cut and 700B$ to pay for TARP. President Obama has continued to Borrow and Spend to deal with the "Great Recession". But he inherited a 1T$ Deficit and 10T$ Debt.

So Harry Browne was right about the danger when he was talking about Foreign Nations owning a lot our country's debt. And was right about this forty two years ago, which was excellent foresight on his part. But obviously not enough people have listen to him in either party and our financial situation, hasn't gotten better but worse ever since, except for the 1990s. And Harry Browne was correct to point out these dangers.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

WBAL-TV: Video: David Collins: Maryland Senators Say Yes to Tax Hikes, Teacher Pensions



Maryland had an opportunity, to not only jump start it's economy, but to help pay down it's budget deficit by expanding organize gambling in Maryland. By expanding Maryland casinos, but despite having a Democratic Governor and Legislature, they failed to be able to do that back in April. They have a large budget deficit and debt, something Maryland up until the Great Recession hasn't had to deal with much in recent history. 

Maryland had a great opportunity to expand it's economy and bring in more business and customers by expanding Maryland casinos, but failed to do that, so what they did instead, was to pass tax hikes. Even though Maryland is already one of the highest taxed states in the union. They decided to try to take more out of an already existing pot, instead of trying to expand that pot, by bringing in more revenue, that they would be able to tax. And use some of that revenue to pay for things like, schools, roads, bridges, law enforcement. Things that most if not all Marylanders care about.

What the State Legislature has decided to do, is to take more out of Marylanders that are already working very hard and who are very productive. And expanding their tax burden, while other States are cutting taxes. When what they should be doing is looking to cut costs in an already very large state budget, one of the reasons why our taxes are high. 

Maryland should be looking to generate more economic growth, as well as reforming the State Government to make to more efficient. Giving counties more responsibility in running some of the public services. As well as involving the private sector in running some of the public services and making them private, but non-profit community services. Moving more people off of public assistance and into the workforce, through things like job training and job placement.

If you still have to raise taxes, increase taxes on things that people don't need, like alcohol and tobacco. Not taking more money from people, that they need just to pay for their mortgage to use as an example. Or raising gas taxes to pay for more infrastructure investment, when gas prices are already very high. And when Marylanders who live outside of the Washington-Baltimore region, have to be able to drive to get around.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Jack Hunter: Ron Paul Has Not Suspended His Campaign

Source: Jack Hunter-
Source: Jack Hunter: Ron Paul Has Not Suspended His Campaign

The differences between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, well there actually several. I doubt I could ever vote for Ron Paul for everything, he's simply not qualified to be President of the United States. And perhaps I'll get into that later, thats the main reason. He's a Classical Libertarian and I'm a Classical Liberal and that's a big difference. Even though we have some things in common, but with his rhetoric, Representative Paul sounds anti-government. Forget about big government versus limited government, or small government, Ron Paul sounds anti-government. Which turns off most of the country who are not anti-government and that's different from Gary Johnson. And myself, we are anti big government and pro-limited government. We would like to transfer a lot of the power of the Federal Government, to the states and the people. We are not looking to eliminate Federal programs, but the Federal Government's role in running a lot of these programs.

Ron Paul if one of his fantasies were to ever come true and he had a Congress that would go along with what he's doing, again another fantasy, would just eliminate a lot of what the Federal Government is currently doing. Because he believes they are unconstitutional and perhaps with a transition period. Another difference between Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, has to do with politics and being able to understand them. Gary Johnson had no hope or dream of ever winning the Republican presidential nomination. He understands the Republican Party, being a lifelong Republican up until a few months ago before he switched to run for the Libertarian presidential nomination, which he just won. He knows that they are now a religious and neoconservative party, that would never nominate a Classical Conservative. Let alone a Classical Liberal to be President of the United States.

But that if Gary Johnson just ran for President as a Libertarian from the start, he wouldn't have gotten the attention he's getting now to the point, that he has an outside shot of peeling off Liberal (not Progressive Democrats) away from President Obama to vote for him for President. Over things like, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, all of these policies that have been pushed by the Obama Administration. Whether Ron Paul continues to run for President in 2012 or not, he's not going to win the Republican nomination. Obviously not the Libertarian nomination, now that Gary Johnson has now won it. Maybe he'll run as a Libertarian Independent, but he doesn't the present of libertarianism or the future of libertarianism in America. Certainly not as a Republican, where he's only a Republican, to continue to hold and run for office. But never getting elected to anything other than a U.S. Representative from Texas. Without any major power, the future of libertarianism has moved on to other people. And Ron Paul deserves credit for giving this movement the attention it badly needs.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Jerry Brown: Limits To Government: Why Limited Government is Important and How Jerry Brown has Evolved



This is the Jerry Brown that I like and respect, a real Liberal Democrat. Someone who understood the limits to Governmental Power and what it can do for society. And the importance of Individual Freedom, part of that for people to have the Freedom to solve their own problems. This is not the Jerry Brown today, the Jerry brown today. And twenty years ago when he ran for President. Is now more Progressive, Statist even that I would argue. Someone who believes that government can and do more for its people. And is not big and powerful and strong enough to solve the problems of its people. Which is the current Progressive thinking and what it was back in 1992. As well as in 1975 but that wasn't Jerry Brown of 1975. When he was in his first year as Governor of California, after being elected in 1974. And succeeded Ronald Reagan who was Term Limited. The Jerry Brown then is different from the Jerry Brown today. Where he's the Governor of the largest State in the Union. That also has the largest debt and deficit in the Union amongst States. And is also one of the highest taxed States in the Union.

The Jerry Brown that was talking in 1975, could've been Jack Kennedy or even Thomas Jefferson. Someone who understood that we clearly need and effective government. That serves the people but a government that only does for the people what the people can't do for themselves. A government thats limited and protects peoples rights to live their own lives. Not try to live their lives for them or try to control how people live their own lives. This is really at the heart of Liberalism, some people may call that Classical Liberalism. But Classical Liberalism is just what Liberalism actually is. Which is about Liberty and not how its stereotyped today as looking Socialist or even Statist. Liberalism is different from Progressivism and Jerry Brown was speaking to the heart of what Liberalism actually is. And to see this video of him from 1975, is like listening to a different person.

I'm not sure how someone goes from sounding like a Liberal, a big believer in Limited Government. To someone who sounds much more Progressive and Statist even and believes that government isn't doing enough to serve its people. Especially when your Governor of the largest State in the Union. With the largest State Budget and also one of the highest taxed States in the Union as well.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism: What's The Role of Government



I wrote a similar blog about what's the Role of Government last Friday and argued. As a Liberal what I believe the Role of Government is, which is pretty limited. Especially the Federal Government, State and Local Governments can make these decisions on their own. As long as they are within their Constitution and the US Constitution. For me its pretty simple, the Role of Government is to protect, defend, represent. Regulate how people and organizations interact with each other and manage the National Currency. Protect and environment in where people can live their own lives but not try to run our lives. Basically Limited Government to me would be about 3/5 the size as its today and would tax a hell of a lot less. But of course we live in a Liberal Democracy, thats the most diverse country in the World. With the third largest population in the World and we are also perhaps the most diverse country in the World politically. With Statists on the Far Left and Far Right, Liberals who are Center Left. And Conservatives who are Center Right. So what my idea of the Role of Government is, looks different from a lot of other Americans.

As much as Progressives and Neoconservatives may hate hearing this. They have a couple of things in common, they are both Statists. But in different forms and they are both Collectivists but in different forms. They both believe in having a strong Federal Government, that has a big role in our lives. Neoconservatives believe in limiting Individual Freedom, to protect the good of the country. Meaning that if people have a lot of Freedom, they do things that aren't good for the country in their eyes. Basically it gets down to have a good time, things like pornography and gambling would be illegal. Just ask Rick Santorum if you don't believe me, to protect what they would call National Morality. Again remember Neoconservatives are Collectivists and believe that all Americans should live and be the same. That we shouldn't be Individuals, so our Freedom would be much more limited.

Progressives are Statists and Collectivists but in different forms. And believe that we need a strong Federal Government to protect the people. That we need high taxes and spending, to protect people from making mistakes with their own money. And to prevent people from making too much money compared with others. And that we need the Federal Government to provide Public Services. That they don't trust the Private Sector or the people to provide for themselves. That we are stronger when we are together and that when we live our own lives. And keep a lot of our own money, that we have less equality in society. So we need the State to collect a lot of our resources. And put them in one pot, to prevent inequality from happening.

Libertarians believe in almost no government and lately have been sounding more Anarchist then Libertarian. And are going to have to moderate that message and sound less like anti government Anarchists. If they ever want to achieve National Power in America. Which is worth writing a blog about on its own but hopefully you get the idea. And Conservatives are similar to Liberals but would empower Private Enterprise to handle a lot of the problems of the country. Whereas Liberals want to empower the people to solve their problems. We all have our own vision of what the Role of Government should be. Depending on where we are on the Political Spectrum.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Free People Vs Government

Source: Liberty Pen- Kennedy-
Source: Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Free People Vs Government

A Libertarian is supposed to be someone who believes that free adults should be left alone to live their own lives. As long as they are not hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Liberals believe in the same thing, which is one reason why I'm a Liberal. They also believe government should only do, what the private sector can't do for themselves, or can't do as well for themselves. Liberals believe in the same thing. Again why I'm a Liberal, but we differ on what government can and should do. An Anarchist essentially believes in no law, no government that people can do whatever they want to and that they should be held accountable for what they are doing by the people, but not by government. But if you listen to Libertarians lately, like John Stossel who I do respect, or Peter Schiff who I respect less, you would think that all government is incompetent and that it can't do anything well. They haven't been sounding like they are pro-limited government, or pro-small government, which is different. But they've been sounding like they are anti-government all together.

I'll give you a few examples. There are now Libertarians who believe in private law enforcement. Well we already have that with security and protection services. Security guards, bodyguards, private detectives, bounty hunters, etc. But they would take that a step further and privatize law enforcement departments. I saw someone who was in favor of this concept being interviewed by Reason Magazine last summer and they ask questions like, "what does government do better than the private sector?" Or, "what does government do that the private sector can't.?" You ask a non-Libertarian, or Anarchist that as well as a non-Socialist that, which is most of the country they'll tell you, law enforcement, national security, foreign policy and emergency management, etc. There's a consensus in America that we need government and even the Federal Government to do certain things and we need it to be successful and efficient.

I'm all for limited government and believe the Federal Government is bloated and inefficient and needs to be downsized and that some of its current activities should be left for the states and the private sector. Especially as they relate to the safety net. Doesn't mean I want these things destroyed. You can be pro-limited, or small government without being anti-government to the point you sound like an Anarchist. Which is a balance that Libertarians need to figure out, if they are ever going to hold national power in America.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Harry Browne: Smaller Government: Why Libertarianism has never made it into National Power



Its obvious that your average Libertarian believes that the Federal Government. Is way too big and is so big, that the current size of the Federal Government. Is Unconstitutional and they can even back it up. The problem that they have is that even though perhaps even a consensus of the country. Believes that the Federal Government is too big and taxes too much. There isn't a consensus of what to cut and when you try to cut one thing. You end up offending some Special Interest Group thats in love with that program. Libertarians believe in Small Government, essentially just National Security, Foreign Policy and perhaps Commerce. As well as the three branches and the way they talk about Government. You would think they would believe that Government isn't capable of doing anything well. That Public Employees are part of the problem, that they are bunch of lazy overpaid, excuse the term, fartheads. Which is one reason why Libertarians are constantly getting mistaken with Anarchists. Especially by Neoconservatives and Progressives, because a lot of Americans don't understand what Anarchism actually is.

Libertarians have spent the last forty years running against things like entitlements and Law Enforcement. Things that Americans tend to believe in and support, when they should be running as Reformers. If we had to do it again, we wouldn't of designed Social Security. Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and Public Housing etc. But this is what we would've done instead, no not nothing. But we would've set up a system where these needs would've been met. But a system thats not run by Government but by the people who use them and to empower the people to need them. To be able to take care of themselves, we won't eliminate the Safety Net but. Just the Federal Government's role in running it and we would give a lot more power to the States. Not eliminate these programs that people use, need and like. But we would let the States and Private Sector run them.

The Libertarian Party finally has a Presidential Candidate who understands this. In Gary Johnson but he's not a Classical Libertarian and might not be a Libertarian at all. More of a Classical Liberal then anything else, someone who's not running to eliminate Medicare. To use as one example but would want the States to run Medicare. And the rest of the Safety Net and leave the Feds to do what only they should be doing and can do well.

Friday, May 4, 2012

"Is Government the Problem or the Solution?": Why Limited Government is Important



If you look at the whole debate in American Politics right now, its all centered around. The Role of Government in America, especially the Federal Government. But in debates in California, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin etc. All the debates there get back to the Role of Government. Healthcare Reform is about the Role of Government, Entitlement Reform is about the Role of Government. Immigration Reform is about the Role of Government, what our Foreign Policy should look like. Is about the Role of Government, Tax Reform is about the Role of Government. Deficit Reduction is about the Role of Government and I can go on and on. But in the interest of time, yours and mine. I'll spare you the rest, its all about the Role of Government. What the Federal Government should being doing in America, how it should serve its people. What size it should be, how much should it spend and tax. Everyone from Democratic Socialists on the Far Left, who seem to want the Federal Government to do about everything. To Libertarians who want the Federal Government to do about nothing. Has an idea of what Uncle Sam should be doing for his nephews and nieces.

Its not longer a debate whether we should have Limited Government or not. We've basically decided as a country we don't want a Communist State. Its more of a question of whether we should have Big Government coming from either Democratic Socialists on the Far Left. Or Neoconservatives on the Far Right, Small Government coming from Conservatives on the Right. Or Libertarians, who I would put on the Left, a little past Liberals. Or Limited Government from the Left, from Liberals which as a Liberal myself. Is where I believe we should be and Limited Government to me is very simple. Deciding what the Federal Government should be doing. Based on its Constitutional Authority, what its capable of doing well. That we can afford it to do and what we need it to do. Because States and the Private Sector, can't do it or do it as well. Which means that under me, the Federal Government wouldn't be small but much smaller then it is today.

To me the Federal Government should be in the business of controlling the National Currency. Foreign Policy, National Security, Law Enforcement and regulation. Not regulating how people live their own lives but how we interact with each other. And regulating Private Commerce, not trying to control it. But regulate how Private Commerce interacts with each other and how they treat its customers. But only to prevent them from abusing innocent people and their employees. And to prevent monopoly, so under me the Federal Government would be spending. Around 15-18% of GDP instead of 25% today, because I would eliminate a lot of things. That its currently doing that could be done by the States or Private Sector. And I would consolidate some departments.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

The Real Breaking Bad: "How the Drug War Creates Collateral Damage": The Supply and Demand Aspect of the War on Drugs



The Federal Government under the Nixon Administration, officially declared War on Drugs in 1971. Yet forty one years later, we are still fighting this War. Why because we as well as Mexico, still have a large demand for narcotics in America. Including for alcohol and tobacco, which are legal narcotics in America. Put marijuana, alcohol and tobacco into one pot, no pun intended. Tobacco comes out the worst, it has more diseases that are related to it. Then the other two but its legal because it has an industry. As well as lobbyists, lobbying on its behalf obviously, lobbying the Federal Government. As well as State Governments to not only keep it legal but to make sure that marijuana and other narcotics remain illegal as well. Today according to the American Bar Association, we have the lowest rate of crime in America. Since 1966. Before riots started breaking out all across the country. Yet we have more people in prison, now 2M the population of Houston, Texas. Then we ever had, why because of the War on Drugs, we have a lot of people actually doing time in prison. For possessing pot and other narcotics.

If people want something bad enough, they'll find a way to get that. Anyone who's ever been a kid in life or has kids, knows that just because something is against the rules. Doesn't automatically mean they are always going to obey the rules. Especially if they believe they can get away with whatever they are doing. And believe getting caught is worth the risk, the War on Drugs is all about Supply and Demand. Economics 101, if there's a market for a product and people have the resources to purchase it. They will, we learn these things as kids and what we also do with the War on Drugs. Is punish people and treat them like criminals, because of what they do to themselves. And they purchase these things Tax Free, unlike alcohol and tobacco users. And can get them sometimes at a cheaper price.

When you think of the War on Drugs in America, think Economics 101, Supply and Demand. For me to make money selling something, I must have a product. That a lot of people want to buy at an affordable price. Otherwise I'm not going to make much if any money selling this product. We still have a lot of people in America, that want marijuana, heroin, alcohol and other narcotics. And are even willing to go to prison to purchase these drugs. Just look at our Prison Population.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

"Andrew Klavan, Liberalism Exposed": Why Andrew Klavan Shouldn't Speak About Liberalism



What Andrew Klavan did in this video was actually spend four minutes speaking about something he doesn't understand. He spent four minutes of his life that he'll never get back and remember life is short. There's plenty of things you can do with four minutes. Time that Andrew Klavan will never get back. People like that tend to be called assholes, people who speak out of their ass. Out of their element, what they are not familiar enough to be talking about. What you think of Mr. Klavan is your business and you can or not give Mr. Klavan any label you want. There's one thing that Klavan got right, there is a faction in the country. Who don't consider America to be a great country, because we are not enough like Europe. According to them our Federal Government isn't big enough and doesn't tax and spend enough. According to them our military is too big and spends too much. What they also don't tend to mention, is that one reason why our military. Is so big, is that we defend Europe, countries they want us to be more like. Which is a big reason why the Welfare States there are so big compared with our Safety Net. Because the Defense Budgets there aren't nearly as big.

The people that Andrew Klavan was lecturing about, if you want to call it a lecture. More like an Accidental Monologue, where people could laugh at his routine. Because of how ignorant he is about his own Subject Matter. Listening to Mr. Klavan talk about Liberalism, is like listening to a straight person give a lecture on what its like being a gay person. Or vice versa, they may have have a sense on what its like but unless your gay. You don't know what its like to be a homosexual and unless your straight, you don't know what its like to be a heterosexual. Your only making guesses and shouldn't be speaking. As if your an expert about a sexuality or philosophy you don't understand. To put it in simple terms, Mr. Klavan was describing the opposite of Liberalism and probably doesn't even know that. What Klavan was talking about, was the fringe elements in the Progressive Movement. People who aren't Liberals but Democratic Socialists and even Communists some of them. Not the Progressive Caucus though.

When you think of Liberalism, well I would be a Liberal but think of people like Jack Kennedy. Bill Clinton, Dick Durbin the Assistant Leader in the Senate, Sen. John Kerry. Who volunteered for the Vietnam War and served very well. People who believe in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, Individual Liberty, Limited Government. An Opportunity Society, people who love America believe our way of life has to be defended. When you think of the people that Andrew Klavan was talking about, think of the Fringe Elements in Occupy Wall Street. When you think of assholes, think of Andrew Klavan.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Thomas Sowell: Poverty & Dependence: How to Create and Opportunity Society over a Dependence Society



If you look at why Low Income people are poor and Middle Class people are successful. And why wealthy people are wealthy, it gets down to education. Not exclusively but if you have good skills and a good education, and then apply those skills. Your more then likely to get a good job and be Self Sufficient in life and raise kids who end up doing well also. Compared with someone who just doesn't have those skills. Didn't go to good schools, didn't finish High School or college, perhaps never went to college. So if your looking at that, its pretty easy to conclude that the way to reduce poverty in America. Is to empower people in poverty to get themselves the skills that they need. So they can get themselves a good job, become Self Sufficient and no longer have to live on Public Assistance. President Bill Clinton pushed what he and others call the Opportunity Society. Where we would create a Society, where everyone would have a good shot to be successful in life. And what they did with that opportunity would be up to them.

Opportunity Society is at the heart of Economic Liberalism and as a Liberal. Something I believe in strongly, where we would create and Economic System. Where we would all be able to go to good schools, no matter where we live. And the Economic Status of our parents and that adults who are living and working in poverty. Empower them to go back to school, finish High School, if they haven't already have done that. And go on to Higher Education, Community College or Vocational School. This is something that then Candidate Clinton pushed in his 1992 Presidential Campaign and a concept he pushed as President. And why he was so in favor of Welfare to Work and signed that into law in 1996. Instead of having people on Public Assistance just be able to stay there indefinitely. They would go back to school, get themselves a good education and go to work.

If you just allow people in poverty to stay on Public Assistance and expect nothing from them. Do nothing to help them get themselves out of poverty, then they'll just stay in poverty. And remain dependent on Public Assistance to take care of them. Instead of getting themselves the skills that they need. To get off of Public Assistance, get themselves a good job and become Self Sufficient.