|This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.|
Sunday, July 31, 2011
The Republican Party at its best and most powerful and able to reach as many voters as possible, has to be a Classical Conservative Party. A party that believes that conservatism is about protecting Constitutional Rights for individuals, letting Free People in a Free Society be free. To live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting innocent people. Fiscal Responsibility, government paying its bills, and is very limited, that the Federal Government should be as decentralized as possible. Should stay within the US Constitution and not try to get around the US Constitution in the name of National Security.
The Patriot Act being a perfect example of this, where Classical Conservatives against it back in 2001 when it was created and now. Because they believe that it violates the Fourth Amendment and other things, libertarians and liberals believe the same thing. The Republican Party used to be a Classical Conservative Limited Government Party, Small Government Party even. Which is how they won 7-9 Presidential Elections from 1952-88, controlled the Senate from 1953-55, 1981-87 and won back control of Congress for the first time in forty two years in 1994. The Republican Party went downhill in 2001 with George W Bush as President, when they decided that expanding democracy around the World. Including in areas that aren't use to democracy like in the Middle East. And they decided that Fiscal Responsibility was no longer important, borrowing 3T$ for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and borrowing 500B$ for Medicare Advantage and 3T$ for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and 2003. That Fiscal Responsibility was no longer important if americans had as much Economic Freedom as possible. And that the US Constitution was no longer important if americans had National Security. And that instead of government being used to protect Constitutional Rights and Individual Liberty, that it should try to tell people how to live their own lives. And try to make things illegal just because they don't like them. And all of these things led to the Republican Party losing control of Congress in 2006 and losing the White House in 2008 and dropping more seats in Congress in 2008 and becoming an Opposition Minority Party in the Federal Government.
The Republican Party has moved so far to the right into the Neoconservatism Authoritarian direction, that there isn't one Classical Conservative running for President for 2012 as of right now, other then maybe Buddy Roemer. The closest they have are three Libertarian Candidates in Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and John Huntsman. But ideologically they should all be running for President in another party, because now the Republican Party has become a Big Government Party but in a different form. An Authoritarian Neoconservative Party.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video interview about Neoconservatism
Saturday, July 30, 2011
|Borrow and Spender|
As much as Ron Reagan spoke as a Conservative as a private citizen, he was a pragmatist as a Governor and President. He knew for everything that he was going to get out of Congress, where Democrats controlled the House for all eight years and the Senate for two years and had a large minority in the Senate for six years, he knew he was going to have to give some things to get what he wanted. Tip O’Neil a Democrat who was Speaker of the House for six of President Reagan’s eight years as President, both men who have almost nothing in common other than being Irish-American. Worked very well together.
President Reagan also worked very well with Bob Byrd who was the Democratic Leader of the Senate for President Reagan’s entire Presidency. Six years as Minority Leader and two years as Leader and he had a very good working relationship with Leader Baker as well. As ideological as Ron Reagan might of sounded and Howard Baker and him had a lot in common politically, Leader Baker was Leader of the Senate and was a legislator more than anything else. And knew he had to work with Bob Byrd, Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan in order to get anything done. President Reagan was a great politician and was very pragmatic and knew he had to work with Congressional Democrats as well as his own Congressional Leadership to pass anything out of Congress.
As much as President Reagan spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and a Balance Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opposite was true. When he became President back in 1981, he inherited an awful economy from President Carter. But a small budget deficit of 40B$ or so and a manageable Federal debt of 32.5% of GDP, or 4.55T$, or less than a third of today’s Federal debt. When he left office in 1989, he left President George H.W. Bush with a Federal deficit of around 200B$ and a Federal debt of of 53.1% of GDP or 7.43T$ in today’s terms. Still small compared with the Federal debt of today.
When President Reagan became President in 1981, the Federal budget was 22.7% of GDP and when he left office in 1989 the Federal budget was 27.3% of GDP. Ronald Reagan did not run for President to balance the budget, but to make the economy strong, get the Federal Government off our backs as he put it and end the Cold War with Russia. And if that means running large budget deficits debts and that’s a small price to pay for a strong economy and ending the Cold War.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Because low-skilled low-income adults are stuck going to rotten schools in violent neighborhoods, because their parents don’t have a choice in where they send their kids to school. And thus are stuck with the same awful future that their parents had or in lost of cases just one parent. Perhaps never ever meeting their biological father or mother and in many cases father and end up repeating the same cycle of poverty as past generations in their family. In women’s cases having kids too early and not finishing high school to take care of their kids. Ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives or perhaps ending up hanging out with the wrong crowds and ending up in jail or prison with kids.
And in men’s cases fathering kids way too early and perhaps never even meeting them or walking out on them, because they are not ready to raise them and can’t handle it. And perhaps dropping out of high school and ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives as well. Or ending up in jail or prison, because they tried to make easy money by again hanging out with the wrong crowd. This is the future that we as a society should mobilize the poor to get away from and into a much more positive future. Of quality education, for parents and their kids, good jobs for the parents and their kids, so they can live in thriving communities.
If you’re talking about people living in poverty, but a have place of their own to live in, like an apartment, but don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, or are on Welfare Insurance and don’t work at all, then I believe the answers to finally winning the War on Poverty, are good, positive and simple. And it really gets down to education, for parents and their kids to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient and live in their own home. And it’s also about housing as well, whether it gets to encouraging the private sector to invest in low-income communities and train some of the people there. So they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in these company’s, so the people there can get good jobs to become self-sufficient.
We should be reforming Public Housing in a way all together by instead of forcing low-income people to live in housing projects in low-income communities. Build these housing projects in middle class communities so low-income people are exposed to other communities around them and aren’t forced to live in violent communities. And have a shot at living a good life but reforming Public Housing alone won’t solve the problem. Another component has to be about reforming public education in America. So low-income students and their parents aren’t stuck going to bad schools, where perhaps they won’t even finish high school. But even if they do finish high school, they won’t have the skills that they need to get good jobs.
And having public school choice so parents can decide on their own what school to send their kids to. But also empowering low-income parents and adults to finish high school as well as go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs. The answer to finally winning the War on Poverty is not just Welfare checks, even though that helps people on Welfare Insurance survive in the short-term. But the answers to finally winning the War on Poverty is about empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient on their own.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
When it comes to Eduction Funding especially for our Public Schools, we should judge our spending not just by the amount we spend on our Public Schools. But also by what we spend that money on and what we get in return. Our Public Schools are generally funded through State and Local Property Taxes, this is Tax Revenue so we should be making sure we spend this money on things that work. And make sure we get the best bang for our bucks as possible. Instead of judging success by the amount of money we spend, instead of what we get. If we judged our Public Schools by the amount we spend on them and nothing else, Washington would have the best Public School System in America of any big city certainly but any city in general. Because they spend the most Per Capita on Public Education then anyone else or one of the highest levels in the country. And they have instead one of the worst Public Education Systems in America. When it comes to other big cities but Public Education Systems in America as well. So what we should be doing is figure out what works in Public Education and each Public School System should figure this out for themselves. With the FEDS and States helping out research and funding and figure out what doesn't work. Fund better the things that do work and either cut back, eliminate or reform what doesn't work, its pretty much that simple.
One thing doesn't work is paying teachers based on their Time of Service instead of Quality of Service. Because that puts in a built in incentive for educators not to do a good job or the best job as possible. Because they know they'll get an automatic Pay Raise based on the time that they serve. So that would be one reform I'm in favor of, eliminate Teacher Tenure and pay the good teachers well and eliminate or retrain the Low Performing teachers. Pay teachers based on the job that they do and reward the good ones and pay teachers more money up front, so people well educated who could make a lot of money doing other things. Would have more incentive to go into the Education Profession. This would be one reform that I would like to see and then I would fund it well.
Funding our Public Schools should be about what works and what doesn't and go from there. Funding what does work at a good amount and cutting, eliminating or reforming what doesn't. And figure out how to fund what works in the most efficient and Cost Effective way possible, so you also have money to fund other priorities.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from the Hoover Institution of Public School Funding
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Cuba is a beautiful somewhat small Caribbean Island Nation of around 11M people and even though its been a Communist State for over fifty years now. With an Authoritarian Government and a Socialist Economy but with the passing of President Fedel Castro and his brother Raul now the President, a man who's recognized the need for Progressive Reform. Something the Cuban People both still in Cuba but in America recognize as well. Cuba actually does some things well especially for a Third World Nation, like in education where their kids are educated are educated well. But the problem is, you can have the best education in the World but if their aren't good jobs available for you. Which is largely the case in Cuba with its Centralized Classical Socialist Economy. With the State owning the Means and Production of Society. Even though they've started to reform that in the areas of Small Business, Agriculture and now are establishing Property Rights under President Raul Castro. The best education possible won't get you a good job if you have an economy thats dominated by inefficient State Owned Industry's. Cuba also has a very good State Run Health Care System but they could make it even better by allowing Private Competition to its Health Care System. So the Cuban People could have the Freedom of Choice to decide for themselves where to get their Health Insurance and Health Care. But regulate it properly, perhaps not allow private For Profit Hospitals and Health Clinics and Health Insurers. To give their State Owned Health Care System more incentive to provide the best service as possible. Because now cubans will know that if they don't like the Health Insurance and Health Care from one provider, they can go to another. I believe Cuba will move in the direction of China instead of Russia, start off with Economic Reform meaning privatization and regulation. Hopefully their economy will move more like China then Russia and they are able to cut back on the amount of corruption in the economy. And most of the Economic Resources to going to a Small Percentage of people. And then moving to Social Freedom later in the process. Communism I believe is not popular in Cuba any longer but I believe Socialism is popular in Cuba and hopefully they'll move in the direction of Democratic Socialism instead of Communist Socialism.
Socialism is popular in Cuba and I could see a Socialist, hopefully a Democratic Socialist Party merging in Cuba in the future. If the Cuban Government ever moved in the direction of allowing Opposition Parties. Perhaps the Communist Party will reform into the Socialist Party to stay in power if nothing else. Because socialism is popular in Cuba, I believe the direction that Cuba should head into the future, is to look more like Europe thats filled with Democratic Socialist States. Instead of America thats more of a Liberal Democracy. And hopefully they'll allow for Social Freedom as well. Reforming the Constitution or writing a new one, Bill of Rights those sorta things.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Cuba from Euro News
Which is one reason that Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965. To provide government-run health insurance for senior citizens and low-income people who haven't retired yet. However you feel about President Nixon, he did make a contribution to health care reform in America. Whether you believe it's a positive contribution or not. I don't have a problem with HMO's as long as they are regulated properly, which they weren't before the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That included a Patient Bill of Rights in it, which essentially means that HMO's and health insurers, can't turn down people who need health insurance when get sick, or put lifetime caps on the amount that people can consume in their health care.
Basically as long as people pay for their share of their health insurance, they can't get dropped from their health coverage. If this was done back in 1971-72, maybe we don't have the most expensive health care system in the developed world right now. President Nixon, took a stab at health care reform, President Carter the same thing, President Clinton as well with his famous debacle. President George W. Bush and it took President Obama and a Democratic Congress with large majority's in both chambers to get it passed. All of this work and debates could've been avoided if HMO's were regulated properly from the start and we could've saved our health care system forty years of inefficiency.
If we had a Patient Bill of Rights from the start, we could have saved trillions on health care the last forty years. But perhaps President Nixon and the Democratic Congress then, couldn't predict the abuses that would've come in the future. Whether you're a fan of President Nixon or not and yes his main contribution and focus he gave to America was in foreign policy with Russia, China and ending the Vietnam War, he also made a contribution in environmental policy and in health care as well. And he may of had a good idea at the time, but didn't put the right regulations in place. To prevent the abuses and the costs that came in the future.
Monday, July 25, 2011
I've been thinking about the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution on and off for about fourteen years now or so. Since the last time Congress spent time considering it. At first I kind of liked the idea as someone who believes in Fiscal Responsibility, which me to means spend no more then you make and try to save as much as possible and put away as much as possible without hurting yourself. And only spending money on the things that you need and spend that money in the most efficient way as possible. Concepts that the Federal Government doesn't seem to understand, as well as a lot of State Governments. My main problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment, would be the Federal Courts or any other courts. Do we want unelected body's telling the Federal Government how it can spend the Tax Revenue it collects. Which I believe could happen when there are issues of whether Federal Budgets are balanced and in the black or not. And when could the Federal Budget be in the red, because all Balance Budget Amendments have exceptions of when the budget can be in the red. Like when the country is under attacked or in a depression, when the Federal Government is the only institution thats capable of borrowing money in America. Because they control the National Currency and it might take a Federal Judge to decide that these things are happening, even if its obvious to everyone else. Thats its OK to for the Federal Government to now borrow money and go in the red and run a deficit. So for me to support a Balance Budget Amendment, it would have to designed in a way to avoid this. Would be to leave it up to the Congressional Budget Office or Federal Reserve, people who can get fired for not doing a good job. Unlike Federal Judges who can only be removed through Impeachment and Conviction which comes from being corrupt. And generally not from the job they do as Judges. Or have some type of Super Majority Vote in both Chambers of Congress to declare its OK to borrow money, lay out what the conditions are and force Congress to declare them before it borrows money.
The Balance Budget Amendment has no place in today's Debt and Deficit Reduction Debate. Because it doesn't have the votes in either Chamber of Congress to pass right now. And it would take 5-10 years for it ever to become law anyway because the States would have to approve it. But down the road a BBA I believe has some potential if we can keep the Federal Courts out of making budget decisions for the Federal Government.
A BBA that I could support, would only have three exceptions for the FEDS to borrow money and would have a strict PAYGO Requirement pay as you go. For the FEDS to borrow money, the United States itself would have to be under attacked and for us to be at war. Not a Military Base oversees but the country physically itself. Two we are either in a depression or recession which would be declared by lets say the Federal Reserve and those would be my only two exceptions. And then the President would have to declare this and it would take a 3/5 Vote in both Chambers of Congress to make it official. All other Federal Operations would have to be paid for when one of the two exceptions to borrow money hasn't been declared. Including Military Operations Domestic and Foreign including war and invasions and Disaster Relief. And these things can be paid for if the Federal Government sets up fund for both of them. And then I would put in things as long as we are under a BBA, that require the Federal Government to stay within Economic Growth and the Rate of Inflation. Meaning it couldn't grow higher then those two rates.
A Balance Budget Amendment if done right, could result in forcing the Federal Government to be responsible with the Tax Revenue it collects and set priorities and actually pass a Federal Budget every year. Instead of running the country into red and piling on debt that no one can pay back or has the intention of ever paying back.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the 1995 House Balance Budget Amendment Debate
Sunday, July 24, 2011
|Source: Conel Rad-|
Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.
And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex. This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian Right theocratic Candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michelle Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.
Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said, “the problem with America is that we have a Moral Crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “Moral Crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.
Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them to.
Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Religious Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
The State of American Politics to me is a Two Party System that within ten years may be no longer. Because both the Two Parties are now essentially made up of Multiple Parties. That in Parliamentary Democracy's would be considered Major Parties but in America they are Minor Third Parties. Because they tend to be more Ideologically United with a clear Political Ideology that brings them together but aren't able to reach out to other people. Because of how pure their ideology is, whether its the Democratic Socialist Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party which is another Socialist Party. And perhaps even the Reform Party but I believe they have more Political Diversity in it then the other Third Parties. But the good news for these Third Parties, is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are no longer united. And they are both made up of at least two different parties in them if not three Political Parties. And both of these parties could break up and splinter off into different parties. Giving the Democratic Socialist Party on the Far Left more members, because of how disappointed the socialists in the Democratic Party are disappointed with democrats. And then on the Far Right if Theocratic and Neoconservatives become more disappointed in the Republican Party, they could break off and form their own Authoritarian Party. The good news for the Libertarian Party, is that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have libertarian leaning factions in them. Classical Liberals in the Democratic Party, who aren't happy with President Obama's position on the War Powers Act, Patriot Act, War on Drugs. And the Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party who aren't comfortable with the Theocratic and Neoconservatives in the Republican Party. Could leave the Republican Party and move to the Libertarian Party. And we could see a Libertarian Party, made up of libertarians, Classical Liberals and Classical Conservatives. Who don't agree on everything but enough to keep the party together. There's already a movement in that direction.
What I would like to see as a Liberal Democrat and an American Voter, is for the socialists to leave the Democratic Party and the authoritarians leave the Republican Party. And then we can have a Political System with two strong parties at the top so to speak. A Liberal Party and a Conservative Party but where everyone across the Political Spectrum are represented and all have legitimate choices. And let the American Voters decide who represents and leads them. Instead of the Special Interests dominating the two Major Parties as they do now. And then everyone is represented with their own party being able to build their own future. Instead of threatening to destroy on of the Major Parties from within. Every time they don't get exactly what they want and then liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, independents and authoritarians would all have a seat at the table. And let the American Voters decide who's the best party in town.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video with Political Commentator Michael Barone on American Politics
Friday, July 22, 2011
|Source: Krazy Kraz-|
That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.
The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.
Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”
Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom then they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
|Source: Conel Rad-|
There’s a book that was written by Lee Edwards that’s essentially called the 1964 Election a Glorious Defeat for the Conservative Movement, I’m paraphrasing the title. It came out in 2005 or 2006. I was working at a Book Store part-time then and being the political junky that I am and not just interested in my politics and people who think like me. I saw the book on a table in the store and bought it. I think I still have it somewhere. The premise of it was that even though Senator Barry Goldwater only won something like 40% of the Popular Vote in that Presidential Election and won like ten States.
Barry Goldwater inspired Classical Conservatives young and from the Baby Boom Generation like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and other young Conservatives when. Like John McCain who I believe was in Vietnam when and Alan Simpson and many more. All these people who I mentioned by the way served in Congress at least at one level and all served in Congressional Leadership, which gets to my point. All these people consider Barry Goldwater to be a hero at least to some degree and agree with him on a lot of issues. And weren’t involved in politics at least at the Federal level at the time.
And all of these young Conservatives ended up getting involved in politics, running and getting elected to Congress and then serving there for a long time. Senator John McCain obviously is still in Congress and was originally elected to the House in 1982. Some might say that Senator Goldwater’s presidential campaign was badly run because of how badly he lost electorally. But I don’t believe that’s the main reason he ran for President at the time. Going into 1964 the chances of any Republican beating Lyndon Johnson weren’t very good. Because of President Kennedy being assassinated and the country pretty much saw President Johnson’s role to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda which he agreed to do. And I believe a lot more successfully as well.
Plus America is still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and later the Great Society. Which is another reason why the Goldwater Campaign was important for classical conservatism. Without the 1964 Goldwater Campaign, Richard Nixon doesn’t become President in 1968 or get reelected in 1972. Ron Reagan doesn’t get elected President in 1980 or reelected in 1984. Senate Republicans don’t win control on the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years and hold it for two more elections after that. Republicans don’t win control of Congress for the first time in 42 years in 1994.
All of these things happened because of Barry Goldwater, who inspired generations of Conservatives to get involved in conservative politics and run for office. At the local, state and federal levels. Despite losing forty states in 1964, Senator Goldwater managed to win states that democrats use to own. Like Alabama and Mississippi and today the Republican Party now owns the Sun Belt and the rest of the Bible Belt. A region that the Democratic Party use to own. Which is a reason why Richard Nixon won some of those States just four years later. Today’s right-winger conservative classical, theocratic and neo, owe a lot of their success to Barry Goldwater.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Republican Party was as its height of power from 1953-93, when they won 7-11 Presidential Elections and were competitive in Congress. And even Congress for two years from 1953-55 and held the Senate a total of eight years from 1953-55 and 1981- 87. Some might say the height of the Republican Party was from 1953-2007, 9-15 Presidential Elections and held Congress for fourteen years and the Senate for eighteen years. But I believe the Republican Party started to decline post Reagan in 1989 and I'll explain that later. Even though they controlled the House from 1995-2007, the Senate from 1995-2001 and 2003 to 2007 and the White House from 2001-2009. Because the base of the Republican Party are Anglo Saxon Protestant Rural Male Voters. And the Democratic Party essentially owns most of the Racial Minority Groups and the non Protestant Christian Groups. Also the three largest or 3-4 largest European Ethnic Groups in America, german, irish and italian tend to be democratic as well. The Democratic Party tends to believe in the Big Tent Theory, that if you include as many groups as possible in your party. But you share a common Political Ideology or political goals and you believe in progress, that gives democrats the best chance to be competitive across the country. And with the current Republican Base actually shrinking, for them to be competitive in the future. They are going to have to reach out to Ethnic and Racial Minorities, two groups that currently vote overwhelmingly democratic right now. And they can do that I believe if they go back to the future so to speak, because Asian African and Latin Americans tend to be Pro Business and Free Enterprise which has been republicans dominant message since the 1930s and 40s. This can be done if they were to drop this Social Conservative message that they've been on for the past twenty years or so. And trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives. And actually start welcoming new people to their party instead of telling them they are un american.
The Republican Party used to be a party that was about Classical Conservatism, protecting Constitutional Rights and Individual Liberty. Instead of trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives and trying to criminalize things that they don't like just because they don't personally don't like them. And a real Free Enterprise party that was against things like Corporate Welfare and Cowboy Economics. This is the politics that brought them back into power in the 1950s and where they stayed in power from 1953-93, except for 61-69 and 77-81. This was when the Republican Party was the Grand Ole Party but the track they are headed down now is becoming the Grand Old Party . With a base that is dying off if they don't expand it.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the History of the Republican Party from the Hoover Institution
The Federal Government has gotten to the point and this has gone on for at least thirty years if not longer, that if they want Americans to do something that they believe in their “brilliant wisdom”, is in the best interest for the country, they write a tax credit to encourage people to do it. Whether its education for their kids, or giving to charity, or planning for their own retirement. And there’s a lot more and it’s not that these causes aren’t worthwhile, because a lot of them are. But they all get written in the tax code, that’s gotten so big, that you now have to be a super weightlifter in order to pick the damn thing up and walk around with it. Actually a lot football players now stay in shape by power-lifting the tax code.
Insomniacs now read the tax code night after night and I should know I’m one of them. It helps them go to sleep and plus reading that book, you never run out of reading material. Because Congress writes a new tax law almost every day. It’s basically the only thing the Senate does now a days besides general speeches. Thats another place that insomniacs go to when they need to get some sleep, the Senate to listen to hours of general speeches. I almost feel sorry for the Senate typist who has to write all these speeches down hours and hours of them. The tax code is so big now, that you need a pickup truck or a minivan, without seats to move it around. It is something like 70,000 pages the population of Wilmington, Delaware and don’t ask me how I know that. In summary too much free time.
To be totally serious for a minute, (like totally!) or as serious as I can be and this should only take about a minute and if I run out of time, I’ll ask a Senator to yield to me, the Senator could probably use some water, or catch their breath and now I’ll be serious for real. What we should do instead is throw out the current tax code. If we can find a trash dump big enough to carry it and will take it and reform our Tax Code. Move to a tax system that lowers the rates and broadens the base and doesn’t raise taxes on anyone who can’t afford to pay more. And doesn’t raise taxes enough to discourage wealth creation. Lower rates on most, individuals and business’s, but throw out all the tax loopholes, or most of them. And give people more freedom to spend their own money that they worked for the way they want to. Instead of Uncle Sam (who’s no ones favorite uncle unless you’re a Socialist) telling us how to spend our own money that we made on our own.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
|1964 RNC Speech|
Reagan was great at getting people to laugh at themselves and laugh at him intentionally as well. 1964 was the last general election that the Democratic Party owned the South even though they won in a landslide, the White House and Congress. Even with Senator Goldwater's huge defeat, he managed to win some Southern states that the Democratic Party previously owned. Part of this was of course the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s, but part of it was also Senator Goldwater and Ron Reagan with their classical conservative message of limited government and more individual freedom. That they took across the country, including in the South. That made the Republican Party competitive all across the country, even in the Northeast and Far West.
This was an era from around 1952 with Dwight Eisenhower, up to 1992 with George H.W. Bush where the Republican Party was truly the Grand Ole Party. That was about limited government and individual freedom. That Eisenhower, Goldwater, Gerry Ford and Reagan communicated so well. And why they won 7-10 presidential elections and became competitive in Congress again. Even holding the Senate for eight years in that time period, which at the time was a huge accomplishment for them. Where in the 70s and 80s they would speak to the Christian-Right but wouldn't give them anything. How times and the Republican Party have changed.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Rep. Michelle Bachmann Stands Strong Against Raising Debt Ceiling: Another reason why she won't be President
Add Rep. Michelle Bachmann who's running for President in case you missed the memo, statement to the clueless list and to the list of reasons why she won't be President of the United States. Every time I hear hear her speak, I question whether she's qualif
As far as the Debt Ceiling issue goes, everyone in the Debt Ceiling negotiations all of the democrats and republicans. Understands that America can't afford to default on our debt, one of the reasons is because of the size of it 14T$ over 90% of our GDP. Our weak economy simply can't afford it right now, we can't afford a worthless dollar. Even House Leader Eric Cantor who's said some strange things recently understands this. Which is just one reason why Rep. Bachmann is not part of these negotiations, is just a matter of how we do it. A clean Debt Ceiling without Budget Cuts and Tax Hikes. A strict Debt Ceiling with Budget Cuts or a more broader Debt Ceiling package with both steep Budget Cuts and Tax Hikes on people who can afford it and closing Tax Loopholes. That I'm in favor of.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Rep. Michelle Bachmann on the O'Reilly Factor
Sunday, July 17, 2011
To talk about progressivism you have to know what progressivism is in the first place before you can talk about it. Or you won't know what your talking about. The way people talk about progressivism generally is to describe ones ideology, how would you describe your politics. Are you a liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist what are you. If the persons politics are on the left, they might describe them self as a progressive but again progressivism is not an ideology. Progressivism is simply a goal to move things forward to make society better to not stand still and settle for the Status Quo. A progressive is someone who believes in progress, thats what progressivism is about. But here is another reason why progressivism is not an ideology. You don't have to be on the left to be a progressive, you can be a conservative and still be a progressive. Which might sound like an oxymoron but its true, Canada in fact a country very familiar with the English Language at least at one time had a Political Party called the Progressive Conservative Party. They were still conservative at least by Canadian Standards but they still believed in progress. Just in achieving it in a different way from liberals and socialists. Ronald Reagan still a hero today of the Classical Conservative Movement and what's left of it. Was also a progressive, he wanted America to be better then it was, which is one of the reasons why he ran for President. Its just that the way he went about it was different from Jimmy Carter. Liberal Democrats like Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama today are all progressives. But they have different approaches to achieving progress then Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower. The reason why some Left Wing politicians in America today call themselves progressive, because in one sense not in a political sense its the opposite of conservative. But also because of how successfully the Right Wing has demonized the word liberal. And also some of these politicians have more socialist leanings then liberal.
The entire World runs on at least a certain amount of progressivism, we all developed and have gotten better for the most part. The World as a whole today has more freedom and prosperity and other things today then it did fifty years ago. If you don't progress, what are the consequences of not getting better, you either stagnate or decline. Something America saw in the late 1970s for example. The whole World needs a certain amount of progressivism in order to get better, we all have areas where we can improve, there's no such thing as a perfect World or a Utopia. But that doesn't mean you don't try to get there, you do the best you can with what you have to make you life as good as possible. The question is how do you accomplish this, liberals, conservatives and libertarians believe the best way to progress is to have as much Individual Freedom as possible. To let people be as successful in life and independent as they possibly can. Liberals also believe that government can help people in need become Self Sufficient, so they can have as much freedom as possible. Conservatives want to see Free Market principles used to help people in need from government. Libertarians generally speaking want government out of the economy as much as possible. Socialists tend to believe the best way to achieve a just progress as they would call it. Is with a very large Welfare State with a lot of Social Insurance programs and High Taxes on everyone really. But especially on the wealthy to take care of the Less Fortunate.
All of these Political Ideology's have a certain amount of progressivism in them, they just all would go about achieving progress in their own ways. Progressivism is not a Political Ideology and never has been but a goal or goals to achieve greater things down the road to make society better for everyone.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about progressivism
Friday, July 15, 2011
|Source: Moog Rogue-|
Barry Goldwater and Pat Robertson to me represent the two competing factions in the Republican Party today. Which unfortunately from my perspective as a Liberal the Pat Robertson faction of the party winning today, because they clearly have more influence. Barry Goldwater came from the classical conservative faction of the Republican Party that dominated the party. Probably from the 1930s all the way up to the 1980s, all of their presidential nominees came from that faction. Pat Robertson of course comes from the Christian-Right faction of the Republican Party. Or as I prefer to call them the Theocratic-Right, America’s version of people who would like to see a Christian Theocracy in America. As oppose to a Islāmic Theocracy that’s in the Middle East.
As Barry Goldwater said, Classical Conservatives believe government should be out of people’s wallets and bedrooms. Let free people be free in a free society like America. Keep our taxes and regulations down, don’t try to run our lives, defend the country, protect the streets and be responsible with our tax revenue. Use free market principles to help people in need, instead of new government programs and reform our current social insurance programs in a way to make them more cost-effective and efficient. Theocratic Conservatives, tend to be in line with the Classical Conservatives on economic and foreign policy, but take a different approach when it comes to social issues.
Christian-Conservatives, believe in a certain type of authoritarianism, a theocratic authoritarianism. And believe that government should be used to tell people how to live their own lives and prohibit activities that they find offensive. Even if they aren’t hurting anyone else in what they are doing. Things like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, marijuana, sex before marriage, women in combat, etc. (Hopefully you get the idea) And if people engage in these activities, even if willingly and on their own and they are not hurting anyone innocent people in what they are doing, that these activities should be illegal and punishable by law and these people should face jail and prison time for engaging in these activities.
Classical conservatism and neoconservative authoritarianism, are the two competing ideology’s in the Republican Party. With unfortunately from my perspective theocratic authoritarianism, is currently winning out. With Republican candidates not being able to get nominated or elected without at least pledging a certain amount of faith in religion. (And of course the right religion) But it wasn’t always this way, the Republican Party used to be an anti-big government party that believed that free people should be allowed to be free.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Even if Congress were to pass a Balance Budget Amendment to the US Constitution, that means getting 290 Representatives and 67 Senators to vote for it by the way. Think about that for a second, times up and even if 242 Republicans in the House vote for it. They would still need 48 out of 194 House Democrats to vote for it, roughly 25% of the House Democratic Caucus. When the House Democratic Leadership will pushing its members for a no vote, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has already announced that. You might get the twenty or so House Blue Dogs that remain after the 2010 Mid Term Elections. But who else in the Democratic Caucus, the forty or so membered Progressive
And then lets say a Balance Budget Amendment somehow manages to pass out of the House and gets over to the Senate and lets say all 47 Republican Senators vote for it, which isn't a guarantee. That still leaves Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell twenty votes shy of 67, meaning he would have to find 20-53 Democratic Senators to vote for it. And thats assuming that Senate Leader Harry Reid decides to bring the Balance Budget Amendment to the floor. Which again isn't a guarantee, again Leader Reid is a democrat and a big believer in Pork Barrel Spending, a Balance Budget Amendment would make it harder for him to bring pork back to Nevada. A State where he isn't that popular to begin with, just look at his last election in 2010. Where he almost lost to a Mental Patient in Sharron Angle. And even if Congress were to pass a Balance Budget Amendment, it would probably take around five years for it ever to become law, because 34 out of 50 States would have to approve it. That also means two thirds of each State Legislatures would have to approve it, whether they are Bi Cameral or just have a House or Senate. We could have our deficit and debt under control by then without a Balance Budget Amendment.
The deficit and debt clearly needs to get under control as I've mentioned several times over the last few days. But the good thing is we can do it just by statue, meaning passing new laws and don't need Constitutional Amendments to do that. We can even pass new Federal Spending Rules to make it harder for the Federal Government to borrow money which is the major cause of our deficit and debt situation. Along with Tax Cuts that weren't paid for. We could have a real PAYGO Rule, meaning that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to borrow for anything, except when the country is under attacked or in a depression lets say. And that it would take a Super Majority in both the House and Senate to lift the PAYGO Rule. That would mean all Emergency Spending, whether its committing American Troops oversees and into battle or Disaster Relief. Would all have to be paid for, including Congressional Earmarks and they would also have to be relevant to the bill that are attached to. And this can be done without cutting spending in a harmful way or raising taxes in a harmful way either. Just by making Emergency Management and National Security Self Financed with their own Revenue Streams. We could also have a rule that says the Federal Government can't grow faster then the rate of inflation or the economy. Again except if the country is directly under attacked or we are in a depression, with the same Super Majority rule for the House and Senate to lift that rule as well.
Instead of the House GOP Leadership talking about trying to pass things that are five years down the road of becoming law. Even if Congress were to enact it. They should get serious, the President has accepted most of their demands on the Debt Ceiling and Deficit Reduction. Now its time for them to give as well.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
If you want to know what Federal Government Waste looks like and is, just look at any of the Federal Farm Bills that are passed. Where Wealthy and Corporate Farmers get subsidized essentially just for doing their jobs, producing food. This is another form of welfare but instead of helping Low Income and Low Skilled people, what Welfare Insurance has traditionally been for. This is Corporate Welfare subsidizing business's for making a lot of money. I don't have a problem with Welfare Insurance for Low Skilled and Low Income people who need assistance to become Self Sufficient in life, including temporary Financial Assistance. But these are the people it should be for, not for people who are already doing very well which is great. But they don't need assistance especially assistance thats funded by Tax Payers. Especially since we have a Federal Budget Deficit of 1.6T$ and Debt of 14T$ in an economy of 14T$. And Federal Agriculture Insurance represents around 40B$ a year in Pork Barrel Spending Pun Intended. If we are going to fund Agriculture Insurance in the Federal Government, then it should be a Self Financed and Self Sufficient program. That doesn't have to be funded out of General Revenue that the Federal Government would even have to manage. That would be Non Profit, that farmers would have the option to pay into or not but wouldn't be eligible for Agriculture Assistance from the Federal Government unless they pay for it. This would save the Federal Government 40B$ a year, as well as the Operating Costs of running the program. Savings that could be used to help pay down the Federal Deficit and Debt. It wouldn't get our deficit and debt under control on its own but would represent a big piece of a Deficit Reduction package on its own.
Again Welfare Insurance should be for the people who need it, Low Skilled and Low Income people can't survive without it. To help them get on their feet and become Self Sufficient. Welfare Insurance should not be for people who are already doing very well and survive very comfortably on their own.
Actually I have news for Speaker Boehner, the President has a plan that he's basically written in the negotiations with the Congressional Leadership in both Parties and Chambers. And the House GOP Leadership has gotten much of what they wanted in the plan. Practically everything by cutting the overall size of the Federal Government and reforming the Entitlement Programs. But these are called negotiations for a reason, because multiple parties are involved. Both sides get what they want and both sides have to give into something that they don't want. For President Obama to sign on to a Debt Ceiling deal, he's going to have to get things in return, in exchange for what he's already given up. And what he's already given up so far in 2011 which is plenty. And for their to be any deal, the House GOP Leadership is going to have to accept Tax Increases on High Earners, both millionaires and billionaires. As well as strategic Defense Cuts in areas of defense that we don't need to be currently spending on or as much. Members of the House Tea Party Caucus have already agreed to the Defense Cuts and the Senate, both parties would go along for Defense Cuts as well. And there's a Bi Partisan block in the Senate thats ready to go along for Tax Hikes on High Earners. But what's holding this potential deal back right now, is the House Tea Party Caucus, that Speaker Boehner and Leader Eric Cantor would have to sell a final deal to. As well as the House Progressive Caucus, I don't believe the President, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid will sign off on a final deal, that a majority of their caucus's would vote no on. That would cause huge problems for President Obama for the rest of 2011 and 2012 as he runs for reelection. I believe the final deal is there, the question is can the Congressional Leadership in both parties and in both chambers sell the deal to enough of its members. To make the deal seem okay and can the President sell the deal to the House and Senate Democratic Caucus's.
The final deal is already there and President Obama, Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid just aren't ready to announce it. Because Senate Minority Leader McConnell and House Minority Pelosi aren't behind it yet. Because the two Minority Leaders don't like the deal and none of the Leaders believe they can sell the final Debt Ceiling Package to their respective caucus's yet.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of House Speaker John Boehner on Fox News
Monday, July 11, 2011
Communism tends to get mixed in or mixed up with socialism and some very Partisan Conservatives have even mixed in or mixed up communism with liberalism. When in actuality communism is a different an fully developed Political Ideology from both socialism and liberalism. Communism is not only a Political Ideology but there are different versions of communism from different countries. There's Chinese Communism which is a mix of authoritarianism on Social Issues, with some capitalism mixed in on Economic Policy. There's Korean Communism in the Communist Republic of Korea better known as North Korea. Thats completely authoritarian with the State completely in charged of the country and society, where I believe the Central Government there keeps its people down intentionally. So the Korean People there don't have too much power in the State's eyes. Like what their brothers and sisters have in South Korea a Democratic Republic. Then there's Cuban Communism in Cuba naturally, the sole remaining Communist Republic in the American Region. But some might be able to make the case that Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez is moving in that direction. With Fidel Castro being a big hero of President Chavez. Cuba is still very communistic and authoritarian by Western Standards. But President Raul Castro has started to loosen up the country, especially with the economy. By privatizing Small Business's and I believe some Cuban Agriculture as well.
Communism is a very statist and authoritarian Political Ideology especially in its classical form like in North Korea. The idea behind it that it puts all its faith into to the Central Government. That if people have freedom, they won't know what to do with it and may become a threat to society. That people generally speaking are stupid except for communists of course and that they need the State to take care of them and make sure they don't have too much power. That the State needs to regulate how people live their own lives, unlike in a Liberal Democracy. Where the State regulates how people interact with each other to prevent people from hurting each other but not themselves. That people can't have too much Economic Freedom and Social Freedom and know what's going on in the outside World, because they won't understand it and won't know what to do with the power and information. I wouldn't even describe communism as a Collectivist Ideology like socialism but just purely a Statist Ideology. Where communists believe that all the power should be in the State to prevent people from becoming too powerful and a threat to the State. Unlike socialism where socialists believe that the people should move together and not have too much more then anyone else.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from the Hoover Institution on Communism
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Socialism is collectivist meaning that Socialists believe that government especially the central government and in America's case the Federal Government, should be used to make society better through social insurance programs meaning the welfare state. Things like education, health care, health insurance, pension, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, banking, energy etc. And that all these services should be provided by the central government, or that the central government should at least have a major role in providing these services.
And what government doesn't run, it highly taxes and regulates whatever private sector there is. To finance the welfare state and take care of people who don't have enough. And that no one should be able to make a lot more money than others. Even if they earned and created most if not all the wealth that they have. And that no one essentially should be able to make a lot of money compared with the rest of society and that people who make a lot of money should be highly taxed to take care of the people who don't have enough.
Socialism is very statist when it comes to economic policy and I don't mean that to be insulting. But descriptive, but socialism is more than just an economic policy. Its a fully developed political ideology that also have views on both social policy and foreign policy. Socialists tend to liberal to libertarian on social issues, just look at Canada and Sweden for example where both of those democracy's have a lot of social freedom. Way too much social freedom in the eyes of theocrats and other authoritarians in America and other countries. Socialists tend to be dovish and isolationist on foreign policy and law enforcement.
Liberalism however is very anti-statist and big government in general. And very anti-establishment as well. Liberals don't have much faith in centralized power public, or private. And believe government should be used to protect people's constitutional rights and protect people from being hurt by others. But not regulate how adults live their own lives. Liberal comes from the word liberty and when it comes to liberalism, that means freedom and responsibility for the individual. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. And that government can be used to empower people who are down get themselves up with a hand up not a hand out. Socialism and liberalism are both progressive, but in different forms. Socialism is about empowering government to make society better. Liberalism is about empowering the people to make their own lives better.
Friday, July 8, 2011
|Source: Brittle- Professor Milton Friedman-|
Source: Brittle: Milton Friedman On Phil Donahue- 1979: Free To Choose
I think its great that a libertarian like Milton Friedman can sit down to an interview with someone who I would describe as a Democratic Socialist like Phil Donahue. Someone who I again I have a lot of respect for, but who I rarely agree with. I love Milton Friedman, but I don’t agree with him on everything either. But I think its great that these two brilliant men can sit down and have an intelligent conversation without trying to kill each other. Being respectful with each other without agreeing on anything. Something that Bill Buckley was able to do with Liberals and Socialists, without agreeing on anything with them as well either.
By the way, Milt Friedman didn’t consider himself a Libertarian but a Classical Liberal. As someone who’s a Classical Liberal in myself, but just considers myself to be a Liberal, I disagree with Mr Friedman. I view himself as a Libertarian, because he believes government should be completely out of the economy and is for legalizing all narcotics. I disagree with both of those positions. I support legalizing with regulation and taxation of marijuana. Because it represents the same dangers, or less than alcohol and tobacco, both legal drugs. But I don’t support legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth. Which are narcotics that can kill people instantly. I don’t believe non-heroin, cocaine and meth users, should be forced to subsidize the health costs of these drug users.
I believe that government has a limited role in the economy, a very limited role. To prevent and stop people from hurting other people in the economy for example and providing a Safety Net for people who fall through the cracks. By giving them a hand up, not a hand out to move to self-sufficiency. Friedman, essentially believed government had has no role in the economy. He would be for eliminating Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. No regulations for seat belts and safe cars and mileage standards and a lot more. He and I simply disagree here, which is one reason why he’s a Libertarian and I’m a Liberal. I believe government should protect people from hurting other people, but not themselves, different positions.
But here’s where Milt Friedman and I agree and if the Republican Party had more people like him today, they would truly be an anti- big government party. Maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Very simple, but an important concept. Socialists, aren’t fans of maximize freedom generally. Because if you give people a lot of freedom, they might take advantage of it. And be less dependent on government and make a lot more money than others.
Socialists, tend not to be fans of responsibility, thinking that taxpayers should be forced to bail people out when they make bad choices in life. Authoritarians, don’t like the concept of maximize freedom either, whatever the party they belong to. They believe that government should be able to regulate how people live their own lives. But if adults want to own a gun, smoke a joint, look at porn, pay for sex, sell themselves for sex, drink, smoke, whatever the case is, let them do that, because its their own life. But don’t expect government to bail you out when you make bad choices and don’t force other people to do something they don’t want to and don’t hurt them. All actions have consequences good and bad.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
|Source: Chad Reiser- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater R, Ari-|
There are a lot of so-called Conservatives today who claim to be Constitutional Conservatives, but actually don’t know what they are talking about. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin come to mind, who as much as they speak in favor of the U.S. Constitution, generally are only referring to three amendments. The 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech and Freedom of Religion, (for Christians) the 2nd Amendment that protects individuals right to bare arms and the 11th Amendment that limits what the Federal Government can do. But generally speaking they know as much about the U.S. Constitution as the average mechanic knows about astrophysics. Constitutional conservatism is not about protecting parts of the U.S. Constitution and eliminating other parts.
Constitutional conservatism is about protecting constitutional rights or conserving them for individuals. Not telling individuals through government how to live their own lives. And constitutional conservatism is more than just about economic freedom and low taxes. But its also about self-governance for individuals. The power for them to live their own lives as they see fit, adults that is. As long as they’re not hurting anyone else with their freedom. But its not about limiting freedom for individuals, and writing constitutional amendments that would do that if passed.
Like the latest constitutional amendment that would make it illegal in America for homosexuals to marry each other. Or a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the 17th Amendment that allows the people to vote for their Members of Congress. Instead having state legislatures doing that. Or the so-called Human Life Amendment, that would make abortion illegal in America. Limiting women’s freedom in their own health care. But instead constitutional conservatism is about protecting and preserving freedom not limiting it. What happened to the Barry Goldwater Conservative- Libertarians that used to run the Republican Party. That know that conservatism is about protecting constitutional rights for individuals, not limiting freedom or telling people how to live their own lives. That were anti all forms of big government, not just the socialist version. It’s a different Republican Party today and no longer the Grand Ole Party.