Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Friday, September 30, 2011

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman-Path To Socialism



I guess, in Milton Friedman's world, there would be no public safety net. That if people fall through the cracks of capitalism, that thats too bad and they are stuck in that condition. Unless they can get themselves out of that condition on their own, or help from private citizens. To help them out, that we would go back to the days pre-New Deal, or even the Federal Reserve Bank. And that perhaps we wouldn't even regulate the economy at all, except for anti-monopoly laws. Dr. Friedman, was anti-monopoly. Both public and private and believed that individuals and corporations, shouldn't be able to pollute the environment as well.  That they should even be taxed when they do. Dr. Friedman, is sort of an inspiration of the Tea Party movement on economic policy.

Even though the Tea Party at least generally speaking, isn't as liberal on social issues. There are also some Tea Party members, perhaps a majority even that are in favor of Social Security, or Medicare. Perhaps because they collect from both of those programs, or their parents collect from both of those programs. And they don't want to see the benefits for themselves, or their parents to be eliminated and for them to have to fend for themselves. But would like to see some of these programs reformed in a way that allows for more freedom of choice. But there are also some Tea Party members, people who support Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who's a libertarian ideologically, who would like to see our safety net completely ended or phased out.

Representative Paul, has proposed phasing out our social insurance programs instead of eliminating them right way. So the people who currently collect from them, would still get their benefits. Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson, has proposed transferring these programs over to the States. So Dr. Friedman, has been an inspiration to Classical Conservatives and Libertarians and Liberals such as myself. But hasn't been the Gold Standard for the Tea Party movement, but someone who they've used to generate their own ideas. They agree that what the Federal Government is doing in certain areas is wrong. But they have similar, but different views in how to change them. So Milton Friedman, has been an inspiration to the Tea Party movement, but not its driving force. And more of an inspiration for Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

Libertarians, are clearly against the New Deal and Great Society and other progressive social insurance programs. And is a big inspiration for their movement and the formation of the Libertarian Party. But the Tea Party, is a bit different, because even though there are some Libertarians in this movement, they became a political movement based on a fiscal conservative message and they aren't for eliminating Social Security and Medicare. But would like to see the Federal Government cut back and eliminate spending in a lot of areas. So Dr. Friedman, has inspired parts of their movement, but doesn't represent their playbook. Similar, but different policy's.




Thursday, September 29, 2011

"Healthcare Competition": How we can bring down Healthcare Costs while Expanding Health Insurance Coverage



If you were to design a Healthcare System from scratch, no one in their right minds would design a new Healthcare System based on the American Healthcare System. And perhaps some people in their wrong minds, wouldn't design a Healthcare System based on the American Healthcare System. Everyone in their right mind across the Political Spectrum from Neoconservatives to socialists. And perhaps some people in their wrong minds, would design a different Healthcare System from what we have now. We spend too much money compared with other Developed Nations as far as Percentage of GDP. Around 17% and with this weak economy those Healthcare Costs are only going to climb. We leave out about 50M people from having access to Health Insurance, some decide to be left out. But the overwhelmingly majority can't afford Health Insurance. They make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, which in some ways is a good thing. But not enough money to afford their own Health Insurance. Or they can't afford to buy their employers Health Insurance plan. We spend too much money on Healthcare we don't need and are Elective Procedures. And we can't afford Healthcare that people need to live healthy and stay alive. And we have a lot of people overcrowding our Emergency Rooms, getting Healthcare that isn't an emergency. Because they don't want make an appointment with a doctor. And pay for Health Insurance or can't afford Health Insurance.

What we need in America is a Healthcare System that we can afford obviously. But one where everyone has access to Health Insurance and Healthcare. Which of course is easier said then done but is something that we can do and need to do. Before our Healthcare System eats away at most of our economy. And this gets to access of course but also Personal Responsibility. Once we set up this system, people get themselves insured that are currently uninsured. But we do a better job of taking care of ourselves, stop smoking, drink less, eat better, exercise more and better. So we won't need to use as much Healthcare in the future because we are healthier. And we would be able to bring down the costs of our own Healthcare and Health Insurance. The 2010 Affordable Care Act which I supported and still do, was a positive first step. In this direction but just a first step and even if it had a Public Option in it, it would've been just a bigger first step. The biggest contribution that the AFA made in my opinion. Is the Patient Bill of Rights in it, so people can't get dumped because they need Health Insurance and ending Lifetime Caps and other things like that.

What we need in our Healthcare System is more Personal Responsibility as I just explained. But more choice and competition not less of it, which is one reason why I'm against Single Payer Health Insurance. And this is the reason why I'm in favor of a Public Option but I'm not in favor of a Public Option. But fifty Public Options or more then that to cover the territory's as well as the States. And lets see what works across the country and what doesn't work. Expand what does work and eliminate what doesn't work, fifty plus Non Profit Independent of Government Public Options. That would be fully paid for that wouldn't have to come out of Government Tax Revenue. Because they would be financed by their consumers, that would compete with Private Non Profit Health Insurers. Subjected to the same Rules and Regulations. And lets see who does the better jobs and attracts the most consumers.

Freedom of Choice works very well in the rest of our economy and is a big reason why we are the richest country in the World. And is something we should be applying to Healthcare and Education as well. And let the best and brightest the people who deliver the best service be rewarded for that. And breakup our monopoly's.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Margaret Thatcher: There is No Such Thing as Public Money

The Iron Lady
When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says, “there’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money”, she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue. In one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes. Like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes and other taxes.

And many more unfortunately from my perspective and government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible if that’s possible, it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible. And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive. Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed. If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy. When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.



Tuesday, September 27, 2011

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen: The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in 1967

Mr. Republican With CP Harding-
Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen 1959-69, explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is. Or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video. When he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values. At least in a political sense and of course its different in a religious context and of course there's neoconservatism. Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn't be funding.

And when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism. Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn't become law. Because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation. Minority Leader Dirksen, didn't believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s. Because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield 1961-77 and President Lyndon Johnson 1963-69. They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress. That would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neoconservative, or Religious Conservative Republicans today like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s. Because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration. Conservatism, on foreign policy is about yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can't defend themselves against large aggressors. But only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today. Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s. But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative Party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn't able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they've been a pretty powerful party ever since.



Monday, September 26, 2011

Presidential Putin's main tasks: The National Agenda for Russia



Valadamir Putin's rise back to the Presidency in the Russian Federation looks like corruption to me. That President Dimitri Menyedev was basically just keeping the seat warm for. Valadamir Putin when Mr Putin was Prime Minister because under the RF Constitution, the President is Term Limited. And has to leave office after eight years but then can come back to power after sitting out one term. Which is exactly what happened here, President Menyedev was President from 2007 until now after being Prime Minister and then switched roles with Mr Putin. And now they are switching job titles back, the President being the Head of State in Russia. And the Prime Minister being the Head of Government. The President the Chief Executive and the Prime Minister the Chief Operating Officer. It looks very similar to what happened in Alabama in I believe 1966. When then GOV George Wallace was Term Limited and then got his wife of all people to run for Governor. And then after four years George Wallace ran to get the Governorship back. This doesn't look different from what happens in Authoritarian Regimes in the Middle East. Where a President or Monarch there before he's ready to step down from power, passes their job down to a relative. Normally a son like what President Hosni Mubarak tried to do in Egypt by passing the Presidency down to his son.

President Mubarak basically sparked the Democratic Revolution that brought and end to his regime. And is one of the things that led to the Democratic Revolution there. Because it looked exactly of corruption which is almost exactly what's going on in Russia right now. President Putin never had any attention of stepping down from power in Russia and to some extent can't blame him. Its a great job and your President of a great country with a great population with a lot of Natural Resources in the largest country in the World physically. My point being is that he should earn reelection there with free and fair open Multi Party General Elections there. And earn the votes of the Russian People in Russia in order to be President of the Russian Federation. I believe President Putin is a talented and very intelligent Leader that wants to restore the greatness to Russia. Not only as a Military Power but as an Economic Power like in the United States, European Union, Japan and the Peoples Republic of China. And what they are moving to, he just doesn't want to be held accountable for what he does.

Going forward with the next Putin Administration in Russia, they've come a long way in twenty years but still have a long way to go. To become a real Developed Nation, Russia is so damn big. Basically the size of a large continent as well as country of 150M people with a large Middle Class and Educated Class. With also perhaps the most Natural Resources in the World and not just oil and Natural Gas but minerals as well. But a lot of Russia is still very poor similar to China, India and Brazil and they have a long way to go to fully develop their country. They need a lot of Infrastructure Investment as well as developing a Health Care System that can take care of the whole country. Russia has lost something like 10M people in population because they have a Third World Health Care System. So they need to develop that as well as their roads, highways, buildings, waterways, airports and other things. As well as cut down on crime and corruption and then they can become a true Developed Nations.

What's going on Russia right now with its two Presidents to me looks like one dictator passing the torch to another. But at least Russia will have a dictator that will actually use Russia's vast resources to develop its country. Where most of the country can benefit from, instead of using those resources to just stay in power. And Russia could look more like China but freer then Iran.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Euro News about Russia

Women get the vote in Saudi Arabia: Its about time!



This is a big step forward for the Saudi Kingdom thats basically a combination of a Monarchy and a Theocracy. The Kingdom made up of their Ruling Family and their laws based on Islamic Law. Or an interpretation of it, with women not allowed to be in public uncovered. They until their next elections not able to vote. And not even able to drive and of course sub servant to the men in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia have a very sexist government and culture at least by Western Standards. But these New reforms by King Abdullah is a big step forward in Saudi Arabia and definitely Progressive Change. Especially for a country. And a region up until recently has been very slow to progress but they are now are going through a big revolution. And I believe the Democratic Revolutions that have gone on in the Middle East, Iran a few years ago. Thats still hasn't been successful but there's still a Democratic Opposition in Iran and I believe that movement effected what happened in Tunisia. Earlier this year and what happened in Egypt and Libya as well as Yemen. Because all of the countries can get access to the others countries news. Whether the governments allow it or not especially in this Information Age and Social Networking.

These different Arab Democratic Revolutions have played a role in each others country. The Egyptian Revolution that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak. And ousted the President of Tunisia and hopefully the President of Yemen as well. And of course the Democratic Revolution thats going on now in Syria that will hopefully oust President Bashir Assad. But he seems to have an upper hand in holding on to power right now. But the Saudi Kingdom sees what's going on in these other Arab States with these other Authoritarian Regimes falling. And they don't of course want the same thing to happen to them, they obviously want to stay in power indefinitely. But I believe the Saudi Kingdom understands and they are more progressive. Then Syria and Egypt with the development of their economy and are basically a Developed Nation. In the heart of the Third World surrounded by countries that live in poverty like Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and others. And know that they have to change and progress to stay in power.

Hopefully this is just a sign of things to come as far as progress in Saudi Arabia and that the Kingdom moves even forward. And allows women to run for office, has an elected Multi Party Legislature that represents all of Saudi Arabia. And Independent Judiciary and looks more like a Federal Republic in the future. Instead of a Theocratic Monarchy where women and people who speak out against the government are oppressed. But we'll see in the future.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Saudi Women getting the Right to Vote

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Aryuo Padafand: 60 Minutes Mike Wallace 1976 Interview of The Shah of Iran


What Iran had in the Shah was much better for the America and Europe than what Iran has now in the Islāmic Republic. Because with the Shah we had an ally that would work with, that we would trade with and we could rely on for our energy needs. With the Islāmic Republic, we have a state that sponsors terrorism and is now attempting to get nuclear weapons. But as valuable as an ally as the Shah was to the West, he wasn’t that great for his own people. Which was a big reason for the Islāmic Revolution of 1979 and he and his monarchy being kicked out-of-power. Even though the Shah did some positive things to develop the Iranian economy and military, to a certain extent. He was an authoritarian dictator with a secret police that would pick people up off the street. As well as torture inmates, close down publications that seemed unfavorable to the Monarchy.

What’s going on in the Islāmic Republic today, but the difference being that the Islāmic Republic, is bad for its people, but also bad for the Middle East and West. With its sponsorship of Islāmic terrorism groups that have killed Americans as well as our soldiers. Like with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. the Islāmic Republic did replace the Monarchy. But they left in a lot of the authoritarian policy’s that the Monarchy had, as well as probably having some of their own. And they haven’t done much to advance Iran economically in its thirty-two years despite its vast resources in energy and its well-educated public and its middle class. Iran has all the resources that they need to be a first world country, but they’ve mismanaged them so badly. That they are still a third world country.

What the Shah should’ve done and had he done these things, I believe he could’ve saved his Monarchy, was as he continued to build up the economy, education and infrastructure and the Iranian military, then liberate his people. Let them live their own lives which would’ve put them ahead of everyone else in the Middle East. Except for Turkey and maybe Israel, but Iran and Turkey are so much bigger than Israel. But the Shah of Iran would’ve been a very popular leader in Iran had he done these things.

And then maybe with all of these progressive reforms, Iranians wouldn’t have looked to theocrats, the most conservative of Religious Conservatives, to save them and save their country from the Shah. Who in some ways on economic and foreign policy, was a fairly liberal leader, as Middle Eastern leaders go. The Shah of Iran, I believe would’ve lasted as the Leader of Iran, had he liberalized his large country and became President of Iran instead. With a federal legislature, independent judiciary and of course his people to answer to. And turned the Monarchy into more of a ceremonial institution like in Britain. But he didn’t do those things and was kicked out-of-power.


Friday, September 23, 2011

"Legalizing Marijuana is Number One Issue At the White House": I didn't think they cared



The White House is clearly not interested in Decriminalization of Marijuana as far as Decriminalizing it. Just one issue that I disagree with them on but there are plenty of people who are in the country who are interested in it. Which is why we are now seeing measures on ballots in States to Decriminalize Marijuana. California being one in 2010 and Colorado will be at least one in 2012. Now the question will be will the Obama Administration if they were to get reelected. And thats a big if at this point, would not get in the way of Colorado and not force anti Marijuana Laws in that State. I doubt it they don't seem to be a big believer in States Rights and Federalism, letting States pass and enforce their own laws. As long as they comply with the US Constitution, I hope they would stay out of the way of Colorado. And let them mange their own laws and enforce their own Drug Policy's.

As we've seen in Immigration Reform in both Arizona and now Alabama as well. Which is a big disappointment to me because Barack Obama is clearly a very intelligent man with a great legal background. Along with Attorney General Eric Holder and they must be able to see that our War on Drugs. Is not working and has failed and that its time we try something else. And Decriminalization of Marijuana would be a way to reform our Drug Policy's, letting people decide for themselves whether to use a drug. Thats about as dangerous as alcohol, instead of arresting people for smoking or possessing pot. Decriminalization of Marijuana is a Bi Partisan issue with Bi Partisan support. With Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Barney Frank one of the oddest of odd couples having a bill together to do this.

The lessons that we learned from Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s and 30s, can be applied to Marijuana Prohibition from 1937 up till today. That if people want to do or use something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether its legal or not. People have been smoking marijuana since 1937 and a lot of them have never been to prison for it. People who are smart with pot and don't get addicted to it, similar to Alcohol Prohibition. People still drank and Organized Crime made a lot of money off if alcohol by producing and selling it. Tax Free by the way, because they obviously weren't going to report those activities to government. So if we were smart we would Decriminalize Marijuana and treat it like alcohol. And regulate and tax it like alcohol to make it as safe s possible.

Decriminalization of Marijuana is clearly not the biggest issue that President Obama is facing today. But its important enough because with our failed forty year War on Drugs. That they at least look at their Drug Policy's and if anything step back and let the States try some different things here. And see what happens from them.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Dylan Ratigan on Marijuana

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income: This has to be part of SS Reform



All this talk about Social Security Reform I believe is healthy as long as the proposals are about reforming this critical Social Insurance program. As long as the proposals are designed to improve this program not to end the program or privatize the program. But whatever the proposal is, it has to include Disability Insurance which is also part of Social Security. So however we decide to reform Social Security, it has to be done in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance. And if anything improves Disability Insurance to make that program as strong as it can be as well. My ideas for Social Security Reform gets to, choice and competition as well as decentralization. Not privatization which is a different concept, privatization is about letting people. Take over with Payroll Tax investing it in Wall Street and anything else on their own. And if they make bad investments, too bad for them or they end up getting bailed out by Tax Payers. Two options are horrible, as a country we are not going to let Senior Citizens starve and go without income. At least not anymore and we are not going to bail out people who made bad investments with their own money. So we have to reform Social Security in a way to avoid bot potential disasters.

What choice and competition is about in Retirement Planning or as I would put it. Freedom of Choice in Retirement Planning is about, to give people for freedom and ability to plan their own retirements. Which is called Social Security Plus, keep the Payroll Tax intact. Except raise it on people who can afford to pay more to fix the financing and that the current Payroll Tax. Would just be there to fund a base income for people on Social Security. But what Social Security Plus is about, is an additional fund or tax that people could on their own or not. Set up for themselves to help them finance their own retirement, that they would pay into and their employer would match. That they could invest in the Stock Market as well as other business opportunities as long as they don't take that money out to spend. Until they are eligible to retire and the money thats put into a Personal Retirement Account, not my term by the way would be Tax Free. Like an IRA or Individual Retirement Account which are Private Retirement Accounts as well.

And as far as decentralization and reforming Disability Insurance goes, this might be the only thing that I agree with GOV Rick Perry on of Texas. And maybe Immigration Reform as well but we have slightly different approaches. Turn Social Security over to the States in this sense, each State would have their own version of Social Security with their own program. But they wouldn't run them just regulate them like the FEDS as well. Each State would have their own version Social Security that would be a Semi Private Non Profit Supplemental Pension Program. And get the Administration and Congress's hands off of it. And with Disability Insurance, anyone physically and mentally capable of working at least Part Time. Would be required to or at least looking for work and getting trained for work. And Disability Insurance would be required to help them with that. Which would also be my approach with Unemployment Insurance.

You can't reform Social Security without doing it in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance because they are both part of the same program. And both have populations that depend on it in order to survive, pay their bills, eat etc. So we have to reform Social Security as a whole in a way that can only make this critical program stronger.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from AEI on Disability Insurance

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

President Nixon enlists Governor's aid in the War on Drugs: The Start of the War on Drugs



President Nixon actually seemed to have some good ideas up front when he launched the War on Drugs in 1971. Programs designed that were about prevention and treatment. Teaching students the dangers of using narcotics and get Drug Addicts into treatment instead of jail. Now had he actually followed through on those policy's in his five and a half years as President. Maybe the War on Drugs wouldn't be the failure and joke that it is today. Where if anything narcotics are more available forty years later then they were then. And where we now have 2M people in prison today, the largest Prison Population in the World. And we only represent about 6% of the Worlds Population, both China and India have four times as many people as we do. And we have more Prison Inmates then they do, I believe combined as well. We have so many Prison Inmates, that we have overcrowded prisons and jails all across the country. Where hundreds of thousands of these people are in jail for using or possessing narcotics. You can actually go to prison or jail in America, "The Land of the Free" for Possession of Narcotics. We now have Drug Addicts taking jail and prison cells that would normally be operated by Violent Offenders. People who belong in prison and belong there for a long time. Actually one good thing about our overcrowded prisons and cells, is that some States like California to use as an example. Are now releasing Non Violent Offenders like Drug Addicts to use as an example, shoplifters would probably be another one. Hopefully to Halfway Houses and Drug Rehab where they can get help for their issues. And help finding a job so they can be productive and saving that prison space for people who need to be there instead. California also has a Debt and Budget Crisis as well.

What we learned the last forty years in the War on Drugs or what we should've learned. Is how not to fight the War on Drugs, that its not smart to treat Drug Dealers the same as Drug Addicts. Drug Addicts are patients with a disease, called addiction they are not able to tell themselves that they've had enough cocaine. Or whatever they are addicted to, similar to obesity or alcoholism, Drug Addicts should be treated like patients. Send Cocaine, Heroin and Meth Addicts to Drug Rehab instead of jail or prison and put them on what's called a Three Strikes Policy. To get them off of their addiction, not cure them but get them off of whatever narcotics they are addicted to. Strike One, Drug Rehab, Strike Two Drug Rehab in jail. Strike Three prison time as well as more Drug Rehab in prison. And make them pay for all of their Drug Rehab as well.

Drug Dealers though should be treated like the criminals that they are because they prey off of addicts in order to make as much money from them as possible. Including Blackmail and Extortion and these people need to be in prison doing long sentences. And of course give them a shot at building their lives so they can get a legal job once they leave prison. The War on Drugs is about supply and demand like anything else in our economy. If people want something bad enough, there's going to be somebody to sell them what they want. So if Drug Dealers have less customers wanting their dope, meaning less Drug Addicts, they'll make less money.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about President Nixon on the War on Drugs

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

EU food row could spark poverty crisis: There's Poverty everywhere



Here's more evidence that America is not the only Developed Nation in the World, that Europe as well as Japan and Korea have poverty as well. Its not just a Liberal Democracy like the United States that has struggled with poverty but these Socialist Democracy's in Europe has poverty of their own. And that even Socialist Democracy's have poverty as well that they have to deal with and of course if people have more freedom. Like people do in America as it relates to Economic Freedom, of course there's a chance that they'll make mistakes with their own lives. Not getting educated enough, having kids too soon before they are emotionally and financially ready to care for them. Or make bad investments with their money, all things that can to lead to poverty. But at least their making mistakes with their own lives, instead of government making mistakes with their lives. Which can happen in a Socialist Democracy where the government has more authority and more control over its people as it relates to the economy.

All these countries in Europe have Universal Health Care, Education, Pension, Transportation, Housing etc. And yet they have people living in poverty, urban and rural, they have homeless people. Chance are some of the people in this video getting this Food Assistance are also homeless. Europeans immigrated from Europe obviously to America to the point. That 7-10 americans are of European Descent. Not the other way around because they wanted their freedom and a chance to make it in the World with Economic Opportunity. And the freedom to chart their own course in life and by the way. Europeans are still immigrating to America today, obviously not as much as hundred years ago. With the jews, irish, italians, poles etc but they are still coming.

America has proven as a country that if you give people a good education, raise them properly and let them get themselves get a good job. And you properly regulate the economy and everyone is paying their fair share in taxes. That americans can chart their own course in life and make it on their own. Thats what Economic Freedom and American Capitalism is all about, not Cowboy Capitalism that we've seen the last ten years. This is how americans built the largest economy in the World as well as the most powerful military. What we've failed to do at least so far, is find a way where most is not all americans can benefit from American Capitalism. Which is why we have such a high Poverty Rate for a Developed Nation. And thats a big challenge for America in the 21st Century.

So the two competing versions of democracy in the World, are Liberal Democracy from the United States. And Socialist Democracy in the European Union, me I prefer Liberal Democracy. Because even though we've made plenty of mistakes as a country, at least we are able to make these mistakes with our own lives.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about European Food Insecurity

Monday, September 19, 2011

John Stossel: Stupid in America: The State of the Public Education System



Are we stupid in America as a country, of course not we wouldn't be as developed as a nation if we were. With the largest economy in the World, with a military not only capable of defending ourselves. Very well but also other Developed Nations but do we have stupid people, sure show me a country that doesn't. I prefer to call them uneducated or ignorant the reasons why we have bigots and even violent bigots. Because they are either crazy or simply don't know any better. Do we have stupid policy's, of course in government and the Private Sector, education being a perfect example of that. To give you a couple of examples, we reward educators for their Time of Service not Quality of Service. And once they've served a certain amount time, its almost impossible to fire them, which is called Teacher Tenure. And them we wonder or some of us may wonder. Why we are 39th in the World in education, even though we have the largest economy. Because our educators know that they don't have to do the best job they can in order to keep it. Or get a raise, all they have to do is serve a certain amount of time. Where all other professions the employees are judged by the job that they do, not by how long they've been doing their job. This has to get to our Teacher Unions, who's number one job is to give their members who pay for their service. The best compensation and benefits possible, which they do a great job of. They are not in the business to make our Public Education System the best it can be. Thats suppose to be the job of our Public Officials. But if they get a lot of contributions from Teacher Unions, that makes their job very hard, because they know who pays for their campaigns.

If we don't educate our students, we are not going to be able to produce enough workers in the future that we need. Working High Skilled jobs and making good livings, making our economy as strong as it can be. And being ranked 39th in the World in education is not educating your students well enough. And we are going to have to continue importing High Skilled workers from other countries and in some cases Developing Countries. Like China and India as well as exporting those jobs over there to countries that have the High Skilled workers to work these jobs. Which means we have to treat our Education Profession which is one of our top five most important professions. Because without it, people wouldn't be able to get the education they need in order to get a good job. So we need to treat this critical profession as important as it is. Good workers are rewarded for the work, bad workers are retrained or removed and our customers meaning the students and parents. Get a choice in where they consume this service.

We don't as a country treat our Education System as important as it is, we allow Low Performing educators stay in the system. As well as Low Performing schools stay in the system, some students are forced to go to bad schools. Because of where they live and then or some of us wonder. Why we are 39th in the World in education.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from John Stossel on "Stupid in America"

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Bill Moyers Journal: Hunger in America: What we can do about this issue



Hunger or Food Insecurity which I guess would be the new popular term for people who don't have enough food to eat. Because they can't afford to buy enough food. Would be what I would call Level Three in poverty and have I four levels, homeless being the worst and Level Four. Food Insecurity being Level Three, unemployed and Low Skilled with kids being Level Two and employed. Perhaps Full Time and maybe another job on the side, as well as collecting Food Assistance being Level One. Level One of poverty being the best if you want to call it that. Because these people are workers and have Work Experience and perhaps a lot of it. And perhaps they just need to further their education or receive additional Job Training at work. In order to get a good job and move out of poverty. But a problem with Food Insecurity, is that effects all levels of poverty. If you can't even afford to have a place to live, you probably can't afford enough food as well. And of course if your Food Insecure, you don't have enough food to eat. If your on Public Assistance like Welfare Insurance, your probably collecting Food Assistance as well. And obviously can't afford enough food to eat on your own. And if your a Low Income Low Skilled Worker, maybe you can afford enough food to eat or not. Maybe your not collecting Public Food Assistance but your eating at Church and other Community Activities. And perhaps you collect food from Food Banks as well and with the "Great Recession", if anything Food Insecurity. Has become a bigger problem in America and people that used to be Middle Class or Upper Middle Class Workers. And are well educated, have now slipped into poverty and have lost their homes. And are collecting Food Assistance because they've been unemployed for so long.

I have some ideas in how to solve this problem that gets to Temporary Food Assistance for these people. As well as helping them further their education Job Training so hungry people no longer need this assistance . But ideas aren't in the New Deal or Great Society area, I'm not a Democratic Socialist. And I don't think in Welfare State terms to solve these problems but I do consider myself a progressive and would like to see some progress here. My ideas have to do with creating a National System of Food Centers, at least Semi Private in the short term. That wouldn't be run by the Federal Government as well as Non Profit, where each State would have their own Food Assistance System. That again is not run by government, at least Semi Private and Non Profit with like a National Headquarters. But each State would have their own system and these Food Centers would be a combination of Grocery Stores and like cafeteria's. With Discounted Food, with mostly healthy food, that people who are eligible for them. Could buy their grocery's, eat their meals, spend their money and use their Food Assistance to help pay for their food. And where individuals and organizations would be eligible to donate their extra food and other food. To a Food Center that would be located in areas with High Food Insecurity.

As we would set up a Food Assistance System like this, we as a country need to do more for people in poverty. So they can get better skills and a better education, so they can get better jobs. And be able to move off of Public Assistance and into the Middle Class and to Self Sufficiency. So they no longer have to collect from these programs which would make them easier to run.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Bill Moyers on Food Insecurity

Friday, September 16, 2011

U.S. Demand for Drugs Fuels Cartels: Why does America have a War on Drugs



If you look at the reasons why America still has a War on Drugs and why narcotics are still a problem in America forty years. After President Nixon officially launched the War on Drugs in America. I believe its pretty simple and two reasons, the way we fight the War on Drugs. And how ineffectively we've been at it as well as Mexico and the large demand in America as Mexico. Two huge countries, two of the largest countries in the World physically and in population. The combine population of both America and Mexico is roughly 430M people. And your also talking about two of the largest economy's in the World, America still being the largest economy. And these two economy's put together total 16T$ with 430M people. And of course America and Mexico share a two thousand mile border with each other. Easily one of the largest borders in the World, so their are a lot of resources and demand on both sides of the border. To buy heroin, cocaine and meth and marijuana, marijuana I and a lot of people would argue. Not being very dangerous compared with the other three, for example it can't kill you right away. And again I and a lot of other people would argue that marijuana is as dangerous or as helpful as alcohol and tobacco and should be treated as such. But I'll explain more about that later as well but to get back to my first point.

These two huge countries that are trying to forcefully eliminate narcotics. Are actually feeding the problem and keeping Narcotics Dealers and Growers in business. By locking up Drug Addicts and treating them the same Drug Dealers and locking these addicts up who have a Medical Condition. In prison where they get no help for their problems and get more drugs while in prison. And if anything get back on the streets with a bigger addiction. And Mexico has the same issues but they also have a lot of corruption in their Federal Government especially in the Law Enforcement. And this corruption is a problem not only for Mexico to deal with its Drug War, where their officers get paid off by Narcotics Dealers and gangsters.

The good news is the answers to reforming the War on Drugs are fairly simple. First of all you stop fighting a War on Drugs and admit that it was a failure and use those resources. Where we've spent over a trillion dollars to fight and use them for better things. By Decriminalizing Marijuana and regulating it like alcohol and tobacco. And with heroin, cocaine and meth, separate the addicts from the dealers. Treat addicts like the patients that they are and get them in Drug Rehab and Halfway Houses where they would pay for their treatment and stay as well. And treat those dealers like the criminals that they are and put them away in prison.

As I said before part of the problem with the War on Drugs is about demand, if people want something enough and are addicted to it. They'll do whatever they can to get what they want and to hell with the consequences. So if you teach these people that these drugs are horrible for them. There not going to want them and their dealers will have less customers to deal their dope to.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from AEI on the War on Drugs

Thursday, September 15, 2011

US Students Earn Debt-Free College Degree: Way to pay for college



Today as well as moving forward in the American Economy, America has to have an Educated Workforce to work the High Skilled jobs that our country needs. So we have more people in America with good jobs to make our economy and country stronger. And for these jobs to be available to americans to work these good jobs in America. And for that to happen we have to have a good Public Education System that produces the students that can go to good colleges. And the colleges to produce the workers for these jobs, we already have plenty of hood colleges. And Vocational Schools and Community Colleges but we don't have enough students who can afford to go to our colleges. College Affordability or the lack of it is a big problem in America. We have students who have the skills to do very well in good colleges but can't afford to go and stay there. And then we have College Students graduating or just leaving college with a huge debt to start out in life on their own. Or drop out of college because they can no longer afford college or have too much of a debt from being in college. And this is a problem that we don't have to have and don't need as a country. And have the resources to eliminate this problem as a country and put all of our qualified students to college. One way as this Kentucky College is doing and a few other colleges in America are doing. Is literally putting their students to work when they are not in class. And having them work off at least part of their College Debt on campus, instead of paying workers to do that work. Or contracting that work out to company's to do that work. Where these students can work off at least part of their College Debt as well as pick up some need Work Skills on the jobs. And get some Work Experience that they can also put on their resume once they graduate college.

Another way we can help students and their parents pay for their College Experience, is to set up a Higher Ed Financing System. That students, parents, parents employers as well as the students employers would pay into. That each party would pay at least 25% of the costs of these students College Experience. The parents and their employers would pay for this while their kids are still minors by putting money down in a fund. Where the parents could also invest some of this money, in the Stock Market as well as other Private Investments. Like a side business or other property. They just wouldn't be able to spend this revenue, it would be there for their kids College Fund. And then their kids would do the same thing with their employer once they start working and be able to make the same investments. Just not be able to spend the revenue.

America is too rich of a country to put up with well qualified students not being able to get into college or stuck with a mountain of debt. Once they leave college, if we are just smarter and more clever with our resources and invest them properly. We just need to do these things instead of watching the problems get worse.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of a Kentucky College that puts their students to work

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Rep. Paul Ryan: Tax Reform is Key to Fixing the Economy: How to do it



I believe everyone on the American Political Spectrum believes that America needs Tax Reform at the Federal Level. Its just a question of how to do it, socialists believe that we should have Tax Reform. That closes a lot of loopholes and also raises rates on everyone, to provide
a lot more Public Services. Which they believe would benefit the economy for everyone. Conservatives believe in the Flat Tax, basically one Tax Rate for everyone or perhaps just three rates. There are also conservatives that believe in what's called a "Fair Tax", which is a Consumption Tax taxing what people spend money on. Rather then taxing money that they make, that tax if done right I as a liberal would be in favor of as well. Liberals believe in simplifying the Tax Code, closing Tax Loopholes and lowering Tax Rates in exchange. Libertarians, some believe in eliminating the Tax Code all together and having no Federal Taxes. Others who I believe are adults and reasonable, believe in the "Fair Tax", something that Gary Johnson is running on for President. Ironically in the Republican Party, even though he's a libertarian but thats a different blog I've already written. So there's broad agreement for the need for Tax Reform in America and its a matter of how to do it. But I believe there's at least one step that has to be done first before we have Tax Reform. Figuring out exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. And then how much money through taxes should we raise to fund the Federal Government and then can we afford to do it. For the economy and our broader Fiscal Policy, if you want the Federal Government to do more. Then your going to have to raise more money to pay for that or get the economy strong enough to pay for it. If you want the government to do less, then you have to figure out what to reform or cut and based on that. How much lower taxes will be.

I have a two step plan that I've laid out in previous blogs that I call Government Reform, first step is reforming the Federal Government. To get it back to doing the things that only it can do. And that at least historically has done very well and been efficient and just by reforming the Federal Government and making it work better. You would make it smaller and cheaper with a smaller workforce, whether thats your goal or not. My goal in this is to make it more effective and efficient which would make it cheaper and smaller. And to give you a few examples of this, decentralization, independence and consolidation. Or Dic if you prefer but also some reforms as well but I think Dic sounds better so I'm going with that. Decentralization, take all of our Social Insurance Programs and pass them down to the States. But not for the States to run and this is where independence comes in. Each State would have their own system in how these programs operate, that would have to meet basic Federal Standards. But each of these programs would be Semi Private Non Profit Self Financed Community Services and each State would have their own version of each these programs. To address the needs that they work on for the people of their State. Consolidation, the Interior Department, Energy Department and Agriculture Department into one new Department of Natural Resources. Take the Public Health Service out of the Health Department including NIH. And make it and Independent Service. And put the Education Department And combine it with the Department of Human Services that would become a regulator of the Community Services in America. Reform, pull all of our Armed Forces out of Developed Nations that can afford to defend themselves and put that money into Deficit Reduction.

And after that the Federal Government would have saved a lot of money and not need a Federal Budget of 3.7T$, because we would have saved 200B$ a year alone in defense. About 1.5T$ in Social Security and Medicare because the Federal Government would no longer be running these services. Each State would have their own system for them that would be Self Financed, the FEDS would regulate them instead. I believe this plan would save the Federal Government and Tax Payers about 2T$ a year. And then I would move to Tax Reform, eliminating most if not all Tax Loopholes but I would settle for most. And then have a Consumption Tax, taxing consumption instead of income. With low rates on the essentials that people need to survive and higher rates on Luxury Items. And keeping the same Tax Credits that are aimed at helping the Working Poor.

Click on the link of the blog to see Rep. Paul Ryan Chairman of the Budget Committee on Tax Reform

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

More of the Same Failed Policies: Now the Senate GOP Take on the AJA



I'll give the Senate GOP Leadership credit , this is a very entertaining and clever video, high on entertainment but short on facts. So short that's it hard to see their facts even if your a midget with Xray Vision. The American Jobs Act is different from the 2009 American Recovery Act because its mostly about Infrastructure Projects as well as Tax Cuts. To encourage Consumer Spending, whereas the 800B$ plus Recovery Act was almost everything but Infrastructure Projects, about 5% or 45B$. The Recovery Act had almost everything you can imagine, Financial Aide to States so they wouldn't have to lay Public Workers off. Food Stamps, a Make Work Pay Tax Credit worth about 500$ a year. About 200B$ in Tax Cuts and 600B$ in new Government Spending all borrowed and put on the National Debt Card of course. The American Jobs Act is mostly about Infrastructure Projects, creating a National Infrastructure Banks that would be Self Financed. By getting investors in the Private Sector and investing in the Infrastructure Projects. That this NIB would prioritize and then hire private Construction Company's to do the work. And they would be able to hire all of these unemployed Construction Workers to do this work. Workers who are currently collecting Unemployed Insurance.

An NIB should've been in the Recovery Act and a lot of these Infrastructure Projects two years later would already be up in running. But that was then and this is now but we can create something like this now and get these projects worked on and repaired in the next few years. As well as reforming Unemployment Insurance in a way that would retrain Unemployed Workers by paying for them to go to Community College. To get additional skills and education to get another job in another field. As well as paying for their employment that they do while still on Unemployment Insurance. So they can keep their skills in shape. The AJA not perfect but its much different and I would argue a hell of a lot better then to do nothing. If the House GOP Leadership doesn't like the AJA, even though they've already expressed some interest in parts of the plan. Then they should put their own plan on the table thats more then just about Deficit Reduction.

What the House GOP Leadership is talking about by having an Economic Policy based only on Deficit Reduction. Because without a strong economy, we'll never be able to pay down our debt and deficit. Without gutting defense and entitlements and perhaps steep Tax Hikes all of these things being bad for the economy. Some Congressional Republicans have talked about cutting what they would call overbearing regulations in the economy. Thats something President Obama has already expressed interest in. As well as expanding our exports with three Trade Deals, Central America, Columbia and Korea. The President has also expressed interest in that as well, just hasn't sent the deals to Congress yet.

Click on the link of the blog to see the Senate GOP on the American Jobs Act.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul on Social Security CNN Tea Party Debate: How to fix Social Security



Again I have a lot of respect for Rep. Ron Paul and I share some of his libertarian views as a liberal. But he's wrong on Social Security, not that its going broke and can't meet future obligations down the line. Like in my generation Generation X but he's wrong on how to fix Social Security. Even the Tea Party Presidential Candidates, including even Rick Perry now is for keeping Social Security. He just has a plan on how to reform it. Rep. Paul wants to have Social Security to meet current payments to people on Social Security and people who are about to retire. GOV Perry wants to reform Social Security in a way that gives more people the ability in how they build their own retirement. Thats what I want to do, I just have a different plan in how to accomplish that. Social Security was created to move millions of Senior Citizens out of poverty. Who didn't have the money to fiance their own retirement or for whatever reason they didn't plan their own retirement. And were living with their children and living off of them, making it harder for the kids to support themselves. And plan for their own retirement or they were living off of Private Charity. Taking valuable and needed resources away from them that they could use for children. Who don't have the ability to take care of themselves yet. So what Social Security has done has lifted millions of people out of poverty and given millions of Senior Citizens. Some Retirement Income that they could count on when they retire. Its never been designed to be the sole Pension System for America a huge country. But there more as insurance for peoples Retirement Income, something they could count on if the don't have a big enough pension to survive.

What I would like to do is have a Social Security System after its reformed to fix its financing. Fiscal Reform of Social Security as reforming its mission. Fiscal Reform is obvious enough enough, fix the financing of the system so we can have Social Security in the future. No matter how its mission is reform, Mission Reform to me would be by keeping the insurance aspect in it. But giving people the authority to fiance their own retirement through Social Security. Not converting Social Security into a Single Payer Pension System which I'm not in favor of. But giving people the option if they choose by increasing their own Payroll Taxes essentially. As well as on their employers, to put that money in the workers Personal Retirement Account. That would be Tax Free until they take money out of that account and spend it. That they would be able to invest in the Stock Market. Or put money away in all other investments they make. Like having a Full Time job but perhaps a side business or investment on the side. Like a restaurant or a store, another home that they rent out etc. That they would be responsible for all the losses and gains as well as investments that they would make. They wouldn't be eligible to be bailed out by Tax Payers. And all of the money they make on their investments that they put in their PRA, would be Tax Free, as long as they don't spend it.

But what I would also do is decentralize and make Social Security independent of the Federal Government. And get Congress's and the Administration's hands off of it but of course they could still regulate it. And have each State set up their own Social Security System that would have to meet basic Federal Standards. And each Social Security program in each State would be independent of State and Local Governments as well. And be a Semi Private Non Profit Retirement Insurance Service that would have to meet basic Federal and State Standards. Social Security is too important to let the Federal Government screw it up or let any government screw it up. And we need to let Social Security run itself. And give more workers the power to fund their own retirement and have less people dependent on Social Security as their sole Retirement Fund.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Rep. Ron Paul on Social Security

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Iran due to inaugurate first nuclear power plant: What does this mean



Iran opening a Nuclear Plant, there's probably not much that the United States, Israel or the European Union. All countries that of course doesn't want to see the Islamic Republic obtain Nuclear Weapons can do to stop them. It wouldn't be responsible to bomb a Nuclear Plant in a Foreign Country, just because its a Nuclear Plant. You would cause a lot of damage killing a lot of innocent people. Now if you know that they have Nuclear Weapons in it and that information is clear with other countries understanding that. Then that would be a different story but hopefully Iran is actually building Nuclear Power for their economy and not for Nuclear Weapons. But with how badly they've managed their economy the last thirty years, its easy to be skeptical. Because this is a country thats also deep in Natural Resources, oil as well as Natural Gas. They also have a Middle Class an a Educated Class. Iranians generally well educated but this is a very large country of 75M people. Thats still a Developed Country with High Unemployment and Poverty.

Iran is still a Developed Country that if anything has taken steps backwards since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. With high Poverty Rate and High Unemployment with an Educated Workforce. And a lot has to do with the fact that the Islamic Republic spends a lot of their vast resources. Sponsoring terrorists who support their cause and would like to establish other Islamic Theocracy's in the Middle East. Iran has made it clear that they want to the Superpower of the Middle East, just not economically apparently. By the way they've managed their economy, the way their government is set up, how they treat their Democratic Opposition. That has the education to lead this large country and get their economy going again. By essentially freeing its people to run their economy and put their vast Natural Resources to work for the country and not just for the regime. And to free the people of Iran to live their own lives and put the skills that they obtain to use to benefit the country.

Iran is way too big to invade and occupy, especially by one country but even for a International Coalition. Iran is three Iraq's both physically and in population. So and invasion and occupation of Iran is almost completely off the table especially for the United States. But letting them obtain Nuclear Weapons can't be an option either. Whether they get them in the end or not and they may very well get them in the end. They'll probably get the technology for them and since its such a large country will probably be able to hide them pretty effectively. But what the Arab League, perhaps Pakistan and India as well, as well as the European Union and United States can do. Is to support the Democratic Opposition in Iran, financially and in with other resources. And perhaps through a coalition of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, maybe even Pakistan and India as well. Take out any Nuclear Weapons that Iran successfully obtains if they are successful. After other peaceful options are exhausted, through the air. Destroy Iran's Nuclear Weapons through the air if they obtain them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran now has a Nuclear Plant and hopefully thats to benefit their economy and people. And perhaps to a small extent it is, but the International Community. Can't allow the Islamic Republic to obtain Nuclear Weapons especially to fund their terrorists allies.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Euro News on the Iranian Nuclear Plant

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Scott Rasmussen: Everyone Is Gunning for Rick Perry: The Easiest Target in the Bunch



To call Scott Rassmussen an "Independent Pollster" is like saying Tom Brady doesn't have a good enough arm to be an NFL QB. He's the most trusted pollster for Fox News which clearly aims to the right. But I promise I won't make this blog about Scott Rasmussen who most people who'll read this probably never heard of. The blog is about Rick Perry though and he represents the biggest target as well as opening for the two other contenders. In the Republican Presidential Race, Mitt Romney for sure and I believe John Huntsman if he were to emerge and step up. Because I believe he's more electable in the General Election next year, because he fits in perfectly with the Republican Party. On Economic and Foreign Policy and has clear Liberal Views on Social Issues, which helps him with Independent Voters. That he doesn't run away from unlike GOV Romney. That of course could hurt GOV Huntsman in the Republican Primary's but if the decide beating President Obama is more important in 2012 then fighting the good fight.

This race could come down to Huntsman and Romney, leaving GOV Perry out. With Perry calling Social Security a "Ponzi Scheme", suggesting that Texas may succeed from the Union in 2009. And Perry going out of his way to reach out to Religious Conservatives which could also hurt Perry with Independent Voters. Something else that hurt GOV Perry or help him depending on how he responds to the Texas Wildfires . If he looks like a strong Leader there, that could help him but if he requests a lot of Federal Disaster Relief, that could hurt him with Limited Government conservatives and libertarians. Who don't believe the Federal Government should be involved in Disaster Relief. And of course if GOV Perry's response to the wildfires looks weak and inept, similar to President Bush's response to Hurricane Katreena in 2005. That would also hurt GOV Perry.

What Mitt Romney and John Huntsman should make Monday Night's Tea Party Debate about is Social Security. Where its still very popular with Tea Party members but perhaps not so much with the Tea Party Leadership. And get Rick Perry to respond to that and have him either try to back up what he said about Social Security and the "Ponzi Scheme". Or see if he retracts from it, either one will make him look bad, either like a Flip Flopper like Mitt Romney. Or out of touch and even dangerous like Michelle Bachmann who I believe is now out of serious contention for the GOP Nomination. Especially with her weak performance in the last debate and the emergence of Rick Perry. If Rick Perry falls of out of contention, it will be because of his position on Social Security.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Conservative Pollster Scott Rasmussen

Friday, September 9, 2011

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on MSNBC: Will the GOP work with the President



Judging by how House Speaker John Boehner and House Leader Cantor have reacted to the President's Job Speech last night, by not calling it DOA. Tells me that they might be ready to work with President Obama on something and what better thing to work together on in a slumping economy. Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor even seem opened to Infrastructure Spending and a National Infrastructure Bank. As well as the Tax Cuts in the American Jobs Act, which tells me that their members are hearing from their constituents at home. Especially the people who are unemployed or underemployed, the House of Representatives are up for reelection next year. All 435 members and the House Republican Leadership has more seats to defend then democrats. And if 2012 is another Anti Incumbent Election like 2010, then House Republicans have more to lose then House Democrats. The House GOP also has something like eighty Freshmen Representatives and if you look at their fundraising and compare it with House Democrats. They'll have a hard time defending their House Majority.

These Republican Freshmen have a lot to lose and a weak economy as well as an economy that looks like its getting weaker. Does not help them and its just a matter of how much they realize that. As of right now, House Democrats only have to pick up 24 seats to retake the majority. And make current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi the next Speaker of the House. Which is something no republican anywhere wants to see, so its just a matter if the House GOP recognizes this or not and judging by the way they've reacted to the President Obama's speech so far. There seems to be room for both sides to negotiate, the President and Democratic Senate gets the Tax Cuts and National Infrastructure Bank. Which already has Bi Partisan support, with the two Co Sponsors being a democrat and republican. Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson the Ranking Member on the Commerce Committee. And House Republicans get Regulation Reduction and a Deficit Neutral Jobs Act.

Senate Leader Harry Reid should be pushing the bill that the President wrote as far as he can to get a bill at the end that looks as close to it as possible. Even if the Senate GOP Leadership try's to block it, which I believe Minority Leader McConnell will until he gets some things in it that he and his conference want. Or as long as they feel they can get away with obstructing, because it is in the interest of the Senate GOP to do nothing on the economy right now. Because they are in the minority and Senate Democrats have a lot more seats to defend.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on MSNBC

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Republican Presidential Debate: Michelle Bachmann Dropping from Contention



I thought it was interesting Republican Presidential Debate as Republican Presidential Debates go, I'm a Liberal Democrat. So this wouldn't be normally the first thing on my list to watch. I watched mainly to see how Mitt Romney would deal with Rick Perry, would he be able to knock down some of GOV Perry's momentum which I believe he did. But didn't do anything to knock Perry out of the race or take his place. But I do believe that GOV Romney did have the line of the night. When he said that Texas has a lot of advantages going for them economically. That they already had before Rick Perry became GOV of Texas, which I believe will take some of the positive momentum. Out of GOV Perry's Economic Record if he has any and also Romney pointed out that George W Bush had a better Economic Record as GOV of Texas then GOV Perry. But I don't believe GOV Perry made any mistakes that will knock him out of contention at least yet. But his comments on Social Security, calling it a mistake and a "Ponzi Scheme. Will hurt him in Republican Primary's where GOP Voters who are different from the GOP Leadership. Where Social Security is still very popular with GOP Voters especially the people who benefit from it. Rick Perry actually positioned himself past President Reagan on Social Security and to the right of President Reagan. Who along with Congress and the Social Security Commission in 1983, saved Social Security by reforming it. Which is just more evidence that Ron Reagan couldn't get elected in todays Republican Party. But thats a different blog that I've actually already wrote. Again I'm a Liberal Democrat and the person I like most on that stage last night, is John Huntsman. Who's my wild card pick to win the GOP Presidential Nomination and I believe he had an opportunity to make this a three way race last night but came up short and didn't step up.

The reason why I believe this is a two way race now and not a three way race, is because Rep. Michelle Bachmann has dropped out of contention. Not on purpose obviously but most of the support that she was getting, has now gone to Rick Perry. If you look at the polls and it looks like Rep. Bachmann has peaked, which is good for the GOP. They've finally realized that she's not electable in the General Election and a Bachmann/Obama Presidential Election in 2012. Would be a devil that you don't know against the devil you know. With democrats and independents overwhelmingly voting for the President. I believe Michelle Bachmann is looking scary with GOP Voters and unelectable. And Independent Voters would make the same conclusion and a similar decision would be made about Rick Perry in the next few months. And Rep. Bachmann did nothing last night to get back in contention. Which is why this is a great opportunity for John Huntsman who fits in perfectly with the Republican Party on Economic and Foreign Policy. But is liberal on Social Issues and wouldn't scare Independent Voters and if the GOP wants to win the Presidential Election in 2012. They need to take a long look at John Huntsman as well as Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer but perhaps thats a different blog.

This is a two candidate race for the Republican Nomination for President right now, with an opportunity for John Huntsman to grab the third spot or even 2nd or 1st spot. If he steps up. And convinces GOP Voters that he has the best chance of beating the President in 2012. But he has to step up and look different from the rest of the candidates.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of the Republican Presidential Debate

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

EU Unveils New Energy Strategy to End Gas Cuts: The US needs an Energy Strategy as well



I'm glad that the European Union has come out with their own Energy Policy which will be a big help for them and their economy. As far as them being able to produce their only Energy Sources and creating jobs in Europe and putting europeans to work. Which will also benefit their Foreign Policy and Environmental Policy as well as Fiscal Policy. Because it would get them off of Foreign Oil and Gas or at least non European Oil and Gas. The European Union is not technically a country, yet and it would also help their Environmental Policy. Because it would allow them to use Renewable Energy Sources creating an Alternative Energy Industry in Europe. This would also help their Fiscal Policy and allow them to pay down their debts and deficits, because this would be a boost to their economy. With all of the jobs that they would create, this all sounds great right but how is this great for America. I'm talking here about an European Energy Policy not an American Energy Policy, the same benefits that could come to Europe because of this, could come to America as well.

Could benefit America as well, how long as a country have we've been talking about the need for a National Energy Policy. Forty years it goes back to the Nixon Administration with the 1973 Middle Eastern Oil Embargo. President Ford took this issue up to a certain extent, President Carter had some success at getting some reforms in on conservation. And things like solar and wind and President W Bush managed to get an Energy Policy through Congress in 2005. That was mostly about oil and gas, at least it was American Oil and Gas but mostly subsidy's to these company's that are already doing very well. But six years later we are still in this debate about having a National Energy Policy because we still don't have one. What we need is a Comprehensive Energy Policy that moves America towards Energy Independence.

We have the most Natural Resources in the World or we only trail Russia but yet we aren't Energy Independent. Because we don't have a National Energy Policy, which is why we import Oil and Natural Gas from other countries. Even though we have plenty of both to help move us towards Energy Independence. Not by themselves but part of a broader energy package. We have a whole menu of Energy Sources that we don't use that could also help move us towards Energy Independence. To go along with oil and gas but Natural Gas, Clean Coal, solar wind, nuclear, electricity, water. But we haven't developed these resources, which is why we are still dependent on Foreign Nations because we don't have a National Energy Policy. And we also need to conserve more, use less of wasteful and dirty energy by taxing, perhaps taxing Low Mileage autos like SUV's. And perhaps subsidizing at least in the short term Clean Energy that America has a market for and can help move us towards Energy Independence.

An Energy Policy that moves you towards Energy Independence is just as beneficial in Europe as its in America, as long as both have their own Energy Policy's. And develop their own Energy Sources and if Europe can do this, then so can America which has a lot more Natural Resources.

HUD's Affordable Housing Crisis: How to Reform Public Housing in America



To me people living in Public Housing is just one step away from being Level 4 Poverty, Level 4 Poverty to me would be homeless people. People who can't afford a place to live and live on the streets or sometimes stay in a Homeless Shelter. Level 4 to me would be the worst Level in Poverty, the best being Low Income workers. Some Low Income workers live in Public Housing, others live in Low Rent apartments in rough neighborhoods. A women in this video said that she basically has lived most of her life in Public Housing. To me that just evidence of how much the War on Poverty has failed in America. That we would allow as a country for this to happen and not do anything or anything that would actually move these people out of poverty and into Private Housing. And that gets to education and Job Placement so these people can get the skills that they need. In order to get a good job and become Self Sufficient. What we could've been doing the last forty plus years in Public Housing. Is helping these people get the skills that they need in order to get a good job, whether they are already working or not. Because a lot of these people are Low Skilled, they either only have High School Diploma's or didn't even finish High School. And we should've been sending these people back to school, including Community College so they can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job. And be Self Sufficient but thats just one failure in Public Housing which was part of the Great Society legislation of the mid and late 1960s. The main failure gets to how it was designed and is very fundamental. The Federal Government figured that they could take essentially a community of Low Income Low Skilled people. And basically force them to live together in these run down Public Housing Projects in rough neighborhoods. And left them there in these bad neighborhoods to raise their kids and send them to bad schools. Where they remained Low Income and Low Skilled.

What we should've been doing all along and what we should be doing today is reforming Public Housing. Not only in a way that would empower the Residents of Public Housing to finish school and further their education. So they can get a job that can support themselves and their families and become Self Sufficient. And be able to pay for their own home or pay for the rent of their home on their own. But instead of creating more ghettos through government of all things. What we should be doing is integrate Public Housing Residents into Middle Class communities. So these people can live in better communities and send their kids to better schools and find better jobs etc. As well as living in safer communities. And then we need to get the Federal Government as well as State and Local Governments out of the business of Public Housing. And let them be there to regulate but give the power to the people and let them run Public Housing. Turn it into a Semi Private Non Profit Community Housing Service. With each State and Local Government having their own chapters but where Private Sector to an extent would run them. And these Public Housing Projects could be paid for by the residents up to a point. And then by their employers for the people who work. And Unemployment or Welfare or Disability Insurance for the people who don't work.

Public Housing has succeeded in the sense that its prevented millions of people from having to be homeless. And perhaps all that it was designed for and to that extent its been a success. But if the goal is to actually move people out of poverty and not just sustain them. Then we need some serious reforms in Public Housing and are other Public Assistance Programs.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Public Housing

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

J Branstetter: President Ronald Reagan: Taxes and Budget Deficit October, 1987

President Ronald W. Reagan- Deficits Don't Matter?
I just want to point out that I actually have a lot of respect for President Reagan, even though I’m a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat, but I also have serious differences with him and his fiscal policy which at the time would be called supply side economics. You cut taxes deeply without paying for them and increase government spending substantially in defense, but in other areas as well. The theory being that the economic growth as a result of the tax cuts, would pay for the new spending. President Reagan inherited roughly a 40B$ Budget Deficit which even at the time in the late 70s and early 80s was considered small.

And President Carter had an awful economy and President Reagan inherited and awful economy, but left office with a strong economy. With strong economic and job growth, but left office in 1989 with a large Federal debt and deficit and one of the largest debts as a percentage of GDP. As well as deficits of GDP as well, of around 200B$. President Reagan’s debt and deficit was so big that he raised taxes in back to back years after the 1981 tax cuts and this is with a Republican Senate as well. President Reagan’s own Vice President called the Reagan tax cuts when he was running for President, “Voodoo Economics”.

Howard Baker, a Republican and the Senate Leader from 1981-85, called the Reagan tax cuts “a riverboat gamble”. David Stockman, President Reagan’s own Director of Budget and Management called the Reagan tax cuts a big mistake. Dick Darman, President Reagan’s other Director of Budget, said that if President Reagan had to choose between balancing the budget by 1984, or ending the Cold War and getting the economy going again, he would pass on a balanced budget. He didn’t want the debt and deficit, but believed that was a price worth paying in oder to accomplish his other goals. You know none of these people are Democrats, they are all Conservative Republicans saying these things. Just not Neoconservatives.

President Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress, or a plan to balanced the budget to Congress. It was never a priority on his part. The economy, the Cold War, reforming Social Security, tax reform and immigration reform were his priorities. All things that he got through Congress as President. He had a very good batting average as President. Including his ten plus tax hikes he had as President, including middle class tax hikes with the 1983 Social Security reform law. President Reagan increased taxes and spending and because of that he could be labeled a tax and spender.

A label that’s generally reserved for Social or Progressive Democrats, not Conservative Republicans like Ron Reagan. Ron Reagan talked and campaigned like a Conservative, but governed like a pragmatist. “This is what I want to do and if I have to give these things up to accomplish that, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.” President Reagan was right to cut taxes, perhaps even as deeply as he did. 70% tax rates in a liberal democracy is too high. But where he failed was by not cutting government spending to make up any difference that economic growth doesn’t pay for. He was also correct to beef up our national defense, but failed to pay for it as well. And that’s why he left office with the debt and deficit he had.



Sunday, September 4, 2011

The Film Archives: C-SPAN's BookNotes With Brian Lamb: Robin Wright- A History of Iran From 1979-1989

Ayatollah Khomeini-
Part of the fault for the 1979 Islāmic Revolution in Iran that brought an Islāmic Republic to Iran after they were a monarchy with the Shah as its head of state, (dictator really), has to be given to the Shah of Iran. Because he was a dictator at the time ruling a very large country, but with only 20-25M people, that is deep in natural resources. He wasn’t all bad, he did managed to build up their economy to a certain extent and build an education system and other things. (Sort of like Fidel Castro in Cuba) But he was a dictator who was accountable to basically no one, except for the United States and United Kingdom, to a certain extent. That both put the Shah in power and could’ve removed him at any point and this was also a political problem for the Shah with his people.

To America and Britain, the Shaw was a puppet for them, instead of his own man only accountable to the Iranian people. Who also held down his own people and they got tired of being held down without much freedom or recourse. And they saw these Islāmic leaders in Iran and turned to them to take down the Shah and his regime. Not knowing the consequences of this, because in taking down the Monarchy they replaced one authoritarian dictatorship with another one. With an Islāmic Theocracy that over thirty-two years later is still in power in Iran. With its strict restrictions on political freedom and women’s rights and so-forth. They’ve taken in Iran which has the natural resources, physical size and population to be a first world country and the most dominant power in the Middle East, backwards. And making it look like a country from the 15th Century with how it treats its women. With dress codes and limiting people to the things in the media that they can see and so-forth.

What Shah Reza of Iran, should’ve been doing as he was building up his large country, was to educate his people as well. And give them the freedom to live their own lives, not overnight, but overtime. And moving Iran from a monarchy towards a republic, where the Shah would be more of a ceremonial power, or perhaps have more governmental powers. But where most of the power would be with the executive, a President or Prime Minister, with a Cabinet and so forth. That would govern the country with a multi-party elected Parliament at some point. With provincial and local government’s, as well that would also be elected. And then the Shah could’ve run for president and probably would’ve been elected, perhaps several times.

Shah Reza was in power in Iran for about forty-years and had plenty of time to establish a system like this and as he could’ve brought these progressive changes to Iran. With a national constitution and everything else. To go along with the economic and educational development. He could’ve released the grip that the United States and United Kingdom had on him and his government. Which would’ve only of helped him politically, because he would’ve no longer be seen as a puppet of the U.S. and U.K. Iran today as the Islāmic Republic of Iran, instead of the Federal Republic or United Republic of Iran, or something, most of that blame has to fall on the Islāmic Revolution. Because maybe Iran is a developed nation today instead of a third world nation. But some of this blame also has to fall on Shah Reza for keeping his people down before they rose up and went with the Islāmic Revolution.



Saturday, September 3, 2011

Libya's oil industry to restart pumping mid-Sept: They are going to need it



For Libya to be able to rebuild its large country which I believe they can and will, they are going to have to rebuild its Oil Industry. And at least get it back to the level of where it was before the Civil War there. And will probably need to make it stronger to continue to develop the rest of this large country. Thats physically the size of Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, with at least two of those countries having large supplies of Oil and Natural Gas. Something that the Gaddhafi Regime failed to do in its forty two year reign in Libya, develop the whole country. So its truly a Developed Nation that it has the resources to be and could be the most Developed Nation in Arabia. The average libyan makes around 11K$ a year which is pretty good for Arabia, where most arabians make around 2-5K$ a year. But these are still Third World wages in a country with First World Natural Resources thats also a large country. But lightly populated, a little over 6M people, so its not like they have to worry about overcrowding and being able to feed enough people. Because they can do these things and literally start from scratch and build up its rotten Health Care and Education Systems. So their people can be healthy and can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in Libya and with Libya's Oil Industry, they'll not only be able to use their oil for their own energy needs. But they'll be able to export their oil to Europe, North America and Asia. Hopefully America will get to the point that we'll no longer have to import Arabian Oil or any other oil but we are certainly not there yet. But Libya will be able to use their Oil Revenue to help build up the rest of the country and even diversify the rest of the economy. Perhaps even having its own Auto Industry where they are making their own cars and even having their own Auto Company's and they wouldn't have to import so many cars from Europe and Asia. And have a broader Transportation Industry in general and use their own oil to power their own autos.

Libya has a long way to go to rebuild and build up the rest of their large country and they are going to need a lot of money to do that. Which is why rebuilding their Oil Industry is critical as well as Foreign Trade and new Trade Agreements. With Europe, North America, South America and Asia. And of course lifting of Economic Sanctions on Libya and returning Frozen Assets back to Libya. And will probably need Foreign Aide as well, at least until they can get their economy going again. But they have an excellent opportunity here to make this all happen and not just build up part of the country. Which is what the Gaddhafi Regime did but build up the rest of the country as well so all of Libya can take advantage of its Natural Resources. And people can see and live in the whole country not just parts of it because the rest of the country gets developed as well.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Euro News on the Libyan Oil Industry

Friday, September 2, 2011

EU increases pressure on Assad: First Step to taking down the Assad Regime



Its clear that Assad Regime in Syria has lost all credibility as far as governing Syria except for some loyalists that remain in Syria to the Assad Regime. Thats what happens when you murder people as the Assad Security Forces have for holding protests and demonstrations in Syria. Fighting for their freedom and for the most part these demonstrators have been peaceful. Its also clear at least up till now that President Brashir Assad of Syria is not going to step down peacefully or go down quietly. That he'll probably have to be removed from power, whether its looks like what happened to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. When his Security Forces refused to take down the protestors there and he stepped down from power as a consequence. Or it looks like what happened Moammar Gaddhafi of Libya where he was forcefully removed from office. And the question is how does this come about, I believe the Arab League shouldn't step aside and let their fellow arabs be murdered. I also don't believe that the European Union an organization thats Pro Democracy and fights for it, as well as the United States the same thing. Should sit aside and watch people get murdered and do nothing about it. So the question to me is how do we bring this about, how to we force President Assad out of power. There are several steps that can take place a four step plan, where hopefully all four steps don't have to come about. Hopefully President Assad would recognize that its time for him to step down from power and turn his country over to the opposition. Or at least to an Interim Government that would run the country until Syria holds General Elections which is what is happening in Egypt right now. Which is different from what's happening in Libya right now, where the Gaddafi Opposition is now running the country instead of Moammar Gaddafi.

So in this four step process that I see it, first what I believe the United States, European Union, Arab League and United Nations should do jointly. One call for President Assad to step down from power and hand the government over to the Syrian Opposition or an Interim Government. Two put in Economic Sanctions on Syria, don't let money enter or leave Syria and only let in resources in or out of the country. That would be managed by Syrian Opposition, things like food, water, Medical Supplies Human Resources. As well as freeze all Foreign Assets that the Assad Regime has outside of Syria. Three if necessary arm the Syrian Rebels with money, resources and even weapons if they need them. To defend themselves against the Assad Military Forces. Including things like bringing in any Assad Defectors into the Syrian Opposition. Four and hopefully it doesn't get to this, establish a No Fly Zone over Syria and this is where NATO would be needed. Turkey and Egypt could play a big role here, to protect the Syrian Rebels and the Syrian People from their own government essentially. As well as Ground Forces if necessary from Turkey, Egypt and the Arab League to protect the Syrian Rebels and the Syrian People.

This is not something that the United States can run or managed but we can help by sending in supplies and with sanctions. Because we are already overcommitted around the World. But where the Arab League, European Union, NATO can play a big role and lead the way. Back the Syrian Rebels and knock another Middle Eastern Authoritarian Regime out of power.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Euro News about Syria