This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Friday, December 28, 2012

Washington Times: Opinion: New Gingrich and Pat Nolan: Criminal Justice Reform Saving States Billions

GINGRICH AND NOLAN: Criminal justice reform saving states billions - Washington Times

Its not often that I agree with Newt Gingrich on anything but he's dead right about the need for criminal justice reform. In the United States at the Federal and state levels, sometimes it takes something like a Great Recession and mountains. Of debt and deficit to realize that you don't have all of the money in the World and that when it comes to government. Thats funded by tax dollars and when there's a limit in funds that you have to get the best bang for your buck. For all of the tax dollars that you spend and that you can't afford to write a blank check for any part of government. Criminal justice is a perfect example of that, we simply can no longer afford to house the amount of inmates. At our costs rather then the inmates costs that we do in America, which means we not only have to look at how. We house inmates but who we house as inmates but why we  house inmates in prison and how we pay for this. With the rising costs of housing and healthcare to use as examples in our prisons.

Its not about a question if can we afford safe streets and should we house dangerous offenders in prison or not. Of course we can afford to do both and we must do both but we can't afford and shouldn't be housing people. In prison who don't belong in prison, the War on Drugs is highest driver of our prison costs in America. Because we have somewhere around 500K inmates in prison as a result of the War on Drugs who otherwise. Could be functioning as productive people on the outside but some of them have addiction issues obviously. That they don't get the help for while in prison because again there's the cost of drug rehab at tax payers expense. While in prison and also in a lot of cases drug offenders aren't required to be in and complete drug rehab while in prison. And if anything their addiction gets worse while in prison and another problem that we have is that our inmates. Live almost completely at tax payers, when they could be in school and working in prison industries and at least. Contributing to their cost of living while in prison.

Its not a question of do we need prisons in America or not, I'm not a dove and especially not an Anarchist. But we have to be smart about how we incarcerate the people we need to have in prison, as far as who we incarcerate. And for what but also how they do their time and give them the opportunity to do their time in a way that. Would be the most productive for them and their families but also for our prisons and our tax payers.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Washington Times: Opinion: Dalibor Rohac: "Fiscal Cliff Caused by Philosophies That Don't Work": Americans Getting The Politicians They Vote For

ROHAC: 'Fiscal cliff' caused by philosophies that don't work - Washington Times

If I were to put the blame on one group in the country, lets say I could only pick one for the government and. Financial situation that we have today even though a lot more people deserve blame for this situation, I would. Put the blame on American voters, its that simple because we get the politicians and public officials that we vote for. If you don't like our current government and system, you only have yourself to blame if you keep voting for. The people who keep that system in place and if you are going to complain about corrupt politicians. Stop voting for them and if you were unaware of how corrupt your Representatives, Senators and so fourth. Were before you voted for them, again look in the mirror because you didn't do your homework and the other. Problem America is a country that hates high taxes but loves high spending, we expect the Federal Government. To do a lot for us but when its time to pay the bills we refuse to let our politicians tax us for it or cut spending. Somewhere else and as a country we tend to say that we don't like debt and deficits and that we should cut them. But again when its time to cut our budget and raise revenue, we refuse to let our politicians do that for us.

So to blame the current political situation on the Republicans and Democrats or the Republican or Democratic leaderships. I agree they both deserve some blame for this but keep in mind even though they may be officially Leaders. And I'm sure they lead in their own ways but they are really just there to represent the people who pay their bills. And send them to Washington, because both sides knows how to solve the problem and if they were all real Leaders. We are not talking about a fiscal cliff right now and the possible consequences of the across the board budget cuts and tax hikes. We don't go through the soap opera that produced the sequester in the summer of 2011, why because we would've. Had Leaders on both sides recognizing the current political situation of divided government and what the. Current economic and fiscal situation was as well, we have both a weak economy and a pile of debt and deficits. That we must address even if that means both sides compromising which is what would've happen.

Again the solution to our economic and fiscal problems gets to limited government, getting back to a government. That we need, afford and will pay for in taxes and not borrowing the money from another country and that means. When we run deficits and programs need to be reformed, we either fix those revenue problems by reforming them. Raising revenue or finding savings or we go without with Americans making those decisions for themselves. And taking the personal responsibility to meet those needs themselves but we don't say government you have. To do this for me but you can't raise my taxes and you can't cut spending, something has to give.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Washington Times: Federal Government: Via AP: Charles Babington: A Quick ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Deal Could Happen

A quick ‘fiscal cliff’ deal could happen ... - Washington Times

According to Charles Babington of the Associated Press, a fiscal cliff deal could happen that would have most. If not all of the Democrats in Congress voting for it with just enough Moderate-Republicans voting for it. As well as non Tea Party Conservative-Republicans voting for it, while the Tea Party votes against it saying they. Voted against tax increases while everyone else votes for the middle class tax cuts and everyone can save face.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Washington Times: Opinion: Chuck Bentley: "Government Giving Gets Robin Hood All Wrong"

BENTLEY: Government giving gets Robin Hood all wrong - Washington Times

I wrote a blog last week arguing against eliminating the charitable tax deduction would be a bad idea because if anything we should. Be encouraging Americans to donate more to charities as well as encouraging Americans to work for charities as well. Progressives seem to have this idea that if we eliminate the charitable deduction, the country would be able. To give more to the less fortunate, because now the Federal Government would have more money to take. Care of the poor as well as the wealthy would still have all of this money to give to charities anyway which is not true. And besides its not just the poor that donate money and time to charities but the middle class as well. People who work in soup kitchens a lot of these people being teachers who of course aren't rich or they wouldn't be teaching. We want to encourage Americans to help the poor and if anything we want them to do more for the poor. So we have less Americans living in poverty and creating policies that discourage people donating in charity. To finance government programs that keep people in poverty would try to fix one problem but not fix the problem. And instead create other problems, more people living on public assistance, less money and time being donated to charities.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Washington Times: Opinion: William G. Shipman: "Stemming The Tide of Government Growth": How The Federal Government Has Grown

SHIPMAN: Stemming the tide of government growth - Washington Times

Ever since the Great Depression and the New Deal in the 1930s the role of the Federal Government in America. Has been changing its actually expanded to where prior to the New Deal, America was basically and economically. Conservative-Libertarian country and then the New Deal was created as a response to the Great Depression. Not to replace American Capitalism with State-Ownership but to propose a Democratic Socialist model. Of how to respond to Capitalism when people fall through the cracks of it and for whatever reasons can't take. Care of themselves so Social Security is created as insurance for pensions so people who don't have a big enough. Pension to be able to take care of themselves in their senior years, would at least have Social Security so they. Could pay their bills, Unemployment Insurance gets created so when of course workers are out of work, they. Can collect Unemployment Insurance for a brief amount of time while they are looking for another job. Welfare Insurance gets created for low skilled people who simply lack the skills to get a good enough job. To be able to take care of themselves and so fourth.

Whatever you think of the New Deal, Great Society the creation of the safety net in America, chances are you. Don't think its perfect that if you had the chance you would do it differently or eliminate both of them all together. Especially if you are a Libertarian, Progressives in this country would've gone a lot further and moved towards what's. Called in Europe the welfare state where the Federal Government would play a major role in taking care. Of and providing basic services for Americans, Liberals such as myself would've taken what was done with Welfare to Work. In 1996 and used all of these programs to empower people to be able to get off of them and be able to take care. Of themselves, Conservatives whether they are Federalists or more Conservative in the classical sense. Would've instead of creating the New Deal and Great Society would've set up a system where a lot of these. Social insurances could've either be run by the private sector or block granted to the states and localities for them. To run with the resources to run them.

But limited government is about limiting government to only doing the things that we as a country and people. Need the government to do that it does better then the private sector, so yes there would be a safety net. But that doesn't mean if would necessarily be run by the Federal Government and perhaps by the states instead. But not there to take care of everyone and especially not there to run our lives and since the New Deal. We've moved away from limited government and now have a government that responds to people based. On what the people want from government rather then what we need it to do and we need to reverse that. To get our debt and deficit under control.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Washington Times: Opinion: J.D. Gordon: "President Obama Must Take Hollywood to Task on Gun Violence": The Same Old Stale Left-Right Debate on Freedom

GORDON: Obama must take Hollywood to task on gun violence - Washington Times

I just finished writing a blog about ten minutes ago about the two visions of freedom in the Republican Party. Conservative-Libertarians vs Christian Conservatives, as well as Liberal Democrats vs Social Democrats in the Democratic Party. Here's an example of that, every time we have a tragedy like what happened in Newtown, the far right and far left. From both parties come together and blame it on our freedom that if our freedom was more limited, we. Wouldn't have so many tragedies in this country as if its that simple, we outlaw guns we can eliminate gun violence. We eliminate violent entertainment, we can eliminate gun violence, perhaps not aware that if we tried to do. Either they would both be unconstitutional and even if it were that simple, lets say we actually outlawed guns. In America, we would still have gun violence, its just that criminals and the mentally disabled and if you think. We already have too many people in prison or that 2M inmates is not enough, outlaw guns and those numbers. Would go up and if we actually eliminated violent entertainment, those movies and games and so fourth would. Still be around, again just done illegally and again we would end up with even more people in prison.

Both of these activities have a role with our violence in America, thats not the question as much as the NRA. And perhaps some groups in Hollywood may deny that, the question is what do we do about it and subtracting. From the constitutional freedoms that we already have is not the way to get there, prohibition simply doesn't work. As we are seeing with the failed War on Drugs that even the Obama Administration is now taking another look at. We don't have too much freedom we already outlaw hurting innocent people, its not responsible people. Who are the problems here but the fact that we have too many people who have no business owning and possessing. Firearms in this country that have them and we have too many parents in this country that don't do a good enough. Job of overseeing what the kids purchase and view that is the problem and we are probably going to need. To rate certain types of entertainment and only allow people adults who are 21 or over to view it but thats different. From outlawing it.

Regulation always beats prohibition in this country because if people want something bad enough, they'll find. A way to get it even if that means going to jail but by regulating certain activities in this country, we can make. Then as safe as possible and prevent innocent lives from being lost.

The Black Conservative: Eric Foner: Freedom, Capitalism and Morality: Individual Freedom vs The Moral Code

The Black Conservative: Freedom, Capitalism and Morality - Eric Foner

American history historian Eric Foner says it perfectly when he's talking about freedom that there's two views. Of freedom in the Republican Party, one coming from the Conservative-Libertarian wing which says that individual freedom. Means the right for people to live their own lives, not so much live their life without any limits that we can't hurt. Innocent people but that we should be free to live our own lives as we see fit as long as we aren't hurting any. Innocent people with what we are doing, the Ron Paul wing of the party that is actually getting bigger in the GOP. And the future of the GOP at least as I'm concern for the GOP to remain a major party and then there's . The Christian-Conservative wing people who are more Conservative in a religious sense then a political sense. That believes that people should be free to live their own lives but that limits shouldn't just be for how we interact. With each other but there should be limits on how we live our own lives, that certain behavior should be outlawed. Because they see it as immoral and you probably have a good idea what those issues are if you keep up with the GOP.

There's also a division in the Democratic Party of what freedom should mean, the wing that I come from the. Liberal-Libertarian wing if you will that takes the position that people should be free to live their own lives as. They see fit as long as we aren't hurting any innocent people with what we are doing and there are the Progressive-Social Democrats. That have more of a big brother view on this that one of the roles of government is to put limits on certain. Behaviors that could be seen as dangerous even just to be people who engage in them, we saw this in New York City. Where they tried to ban soft drinks back in June that one of the roles of government is to protect people and. Not just look after our welfare but to take steps to insure that we are all living a quality life and you see this. On issues like hate speech and gun control where a faction in the Progressive movement would like to see. Those things outlawed even if that means amending the US Constitution to do that, so both major parties. Have different views on freedom even within their own party.

The good news for the Democratic Party is that the Liberals won out and have been winning out which is why. They did so well in the 2012 elections with young people who tend to be Liberal-Libertarian as we saw. With the Ron Paul Libertarian movement and had the Progressives had won out, the DP wouldn't of. Done as nearly as well and would've lost some people to the Ron Paul movement and the reason why the GOP. Didn't do as well nationally and in Congress, is because they are still tied to the religious right in America. As the country is becoming more Liberal-Libertarian.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Washington Times: Opinion: Tom Schatz And Ron Lazof: "The Bloated Federal Government": How to Reform The Federal Government

SCHATZ AND LAZOF: Raising taxes won't fix bloated government - Washington Times

One of the problems that America has when it comes to fiscal policy and what the role of government should be. Is that Americans tend to want more government then they are willing to pay for, high taxes are unpopular in this country. Unlike in Europe but high government spending isn't especially if Americans don't have to pay for it in higher taxes. And the Federal Government unlike State Governments can just borrow money from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc. To pay for their government spending that Americans don't want to pay for themselves and if politicians. Force them to pay for the government spending in either higher taxes or in spending cuts, politicians risk. Losing what in too many cases they cherish most which is their jobs either in Congress or in the White House. Unlike one of the advantages that state governments have is that they don't control the Federal currency. So they can't take out a loan from another country and are forced to pay their bills with either new revenue. Or by cutting spending which forces the states to set priorities and actually have a budget and not decide to. Spend more just because some new crisis arises.

So if we really want to get our fiscal house and order so to speak where at the very least our debt and deficit. Is not growing faster then our economy and they are actually coming down and shrinking, we need to restore. Limited government in this country which is going to require politicians to actually lead and tell voters I can't. Do everything that you want me to do for you with either current revenue or spending levels, which means I. Need you to layout what you want me to do and I'll do what I can to do that for you or I'll tell you what I expect. Government to do based on the resources that we have based on what I believe the Federal Government should be doing. And it might not be as much government that you want from me but it will be based on what I believe the. Federal Government should be doing based on the resources that we have and if we are going to go further then. That I'm going to have to cut in areas where the Federal Government shouldn't have as big of a role and where. The people should be doing more for themselves.

Limited government is especially important especially in an era of limited resources with rising debt and deficits. And with sluggish economic growth which means politicians need to figure out exactly what the Federal Government. Should be doing and cut in areas where we shouldn't be spending as much money and reform in areas where. We need the government to play a role but need it to do a better job and that means cutting budgets, making government. Work better and requiring that all Americans are paying their fair share in taxes.

Friday, December 21, 2012

The Weekly Standard: William Kristol: The Greatest Conservative Generation

The Greatest Conservative Generation

To talk about the greatest Conservative generation you should at least know what Conservatism is and what. It means to be a Conservative and that its about economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, peace through. Strength, individual responsibility but also social freedom as well that its a big tent philosophy because its. About conserving freedom which is what Conservatives are about and not dividing the country based on race. Ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, culture, lifestyle and so fourth that not all Americans were born in the 1930s. Or earlier and grew up in the 1950s or earlier that Conservatism is a modern political philosophy that can. Appeal to millions of Americans and different generations and doesn't try to divide the country by the groups. I just mentioned and understands that not all Americans are the same but that what brings Conservatives and Americans. Together is the belief in individual freedom and responsibility, fiscal responsibility, limited government, Federalism. And peace through strength and doesn't call people Un American because they don't share all of the same cultural and religious values.

So after getting through that if you want to know who are part of the greatest Conservative generation, it starts. With I believe Bill Buckley and then I would go to Barry Goldwater and might add Bob Taft SR and then. People like Gerry Ford perhaps the most fiscally Conservative President we've ever had with all of his vetoes. Of Congressional appropriations bills and calls for balancing the Federal budget that he would've never. Of gotten out of the Progressive Democratic Congress's back then but his call for that as well as Federalism. As the alternative to the New Deal and Great Society that President Nixon put through first but that President Ford. Got behind as well, in English that means giving state and local governments to the authority to run Federal social programs. Richard Nixon at least if you look at Conservatism in the classical sense stacks up pretty well in the areas of foreign policy. His call for Federalism and his beliefs in social freedom but he comes up short on civil liberties.

Ron Reagan like Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater , Jack Kemp who came from the next generation up. Born in the 1930s, deserve multiple blogs about their Conservative credentials. Ron Reagan who described his politics as Libertarian up until 1975 or so and came out against legislation in California. That would've allowed employers to fire homosexuals based on their sexuality, because what
Conservatism. Actually is looks more like Libertarianism on social issues and fiscal policy and what qualifies as Conservatism today looks. Like an authoritarian form of Statism or Theocratic rather then  Conservative in a political sense, which is why the Republican Party is in the bad shape thats its in today.

National Journal: Chris Frates: Why A Fiscal Cliff Deal Is Still Possible

Why A Fiscal Cliff Deal Is Still Possible -

A deal will get done if President Obama gives House Republicans something real on spending cuts, somewhere in. The neighborhood of 2T$ which will anger Progressive Democrats but he's going to have to do that to get a deal. With Republicans who are already to deal or cave on taxes, somewhere in the neighborhood of 250K$-1M$, thats what the final deal is.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

AEI: Press: John Weicher: Housing Policy at a Crossroads: The Why, Who, and How of Housing Assistance

Housing Policy at a Crossroads: The Why, Who, and How of Assistance Programs - Economics - AEI

John Weicher of the American Enterprise Institute has a point when he says that American housing policy that. Is Federal housing assistance policy since the New Deal and Great Society and the goal of it is that all Americans. Would have access to housing in America whether they can afford housing on their own or not. Another words to translate Washington speak, all Americans would have access to a place to live in America. No matter if they are working or not and if they can afford a place to live or not, the term adequate housing. Is somewhat misleading because we have millions of Americans living in public housing in America that live in. Neighborhoods that no American in their right mind would live in if they could afford not to, neighborhoods. That are full of crime, bad schools and poverty and I guess you could make a case under Federal law that this is. Adequate housing because these people still have a place to live, even if they have to constantly worry about. Whether someone is going to break into their home or not, whether their kids are going to make it to and from school. Everyday or not and whether they can get themselves a good job and be able to feed their kids adequately or not.

But if you were to just speak in language of common sense and people who don't speak in Washington speak. Generally and you are thinking about what adequate housing is, you would probably think that what qualifies as. Adequate housing according to the Federal Government wouldn't meet your definition. That you wouldn't live in an area where you have to worry about someone breaking into your home and can you get to. Work and back from work safely and can your kids get to and from school safely or not and are you able to have. A good job or not and can you put enough quality food on the table or not that these basic needs would already. Be met and adequate housing would be more about having two bedrooms instead of three, having enough parking. Having basic electricity and equipment or not to run the house or not but not whether you have security for. Yourself and your family but you have a decent but perhaps not a great home in a decent but not great. Neighborhood but your basic needs are being met though, that would be adequate housing in America.

My whole point has to do with what's wrong with public housing in America that its not about lifting people. Out of poverty but forcing them to live in it in rundown neighborhoods with no hope of a good future. With no way of making it to the middle class where their kids are stuck going to awful schools and where. A lot of them partially because of the schools that they are stuck going to not finishing school and making the. Same mistakes that their parents made when what we should be doing is stop building public housing units. In bad neighborhoods and give these people the ability to live in better neighborhoods with subsidize housing. But also with education, job training and job placement available to them so they wouldn't have to live in. Public housing in the future and be able to pay their own rent or mortgage and be able to pay their own bills in society.

Washington Times: Opinion: Ted Nugent: "Connecticut Killings a Result of Moral Decay": Why Its Not That Simple

NUGENT: Connecticut killings a result of moral decay - Washington Times

Every time I hear a so called Conservative and if you read this blog on a regular basis you know that I've questioned. And proudly and accurately so the Conservatism of these so called Conservatives especially in a party that had. The opportunity to nominate for President the most Conservative person running for President in Ron Paul. And he only won two Republican primaries, so when I hear so called Conservatives talk about how Conservative. They are because they believe in freedom and fiscal responsibility and that these are the things that will bring. America back to its greatness as if we are no longer great, even though more people still immigrate to this country. Every year more then any other country in the World and then on the other hand I hear some of these so called. Conservatives talk about our moral decay that we have too  much freedom in this country and we need to restrict. Our freedom to again restore America to its greatness, I get a little dizzy because what's the first rule in debating. And making an argument, don't contradict yourself, you argue for freedom on one hand and you argue. Against it on the other hand.

Do we have a problem when it comes to moral values in the country and too many families being broken due. To poverty and people making wrong choices about when to have kids and so fourth, of course we do just look. At the amount of people we have in prison in this country the largest prison population in the World but to. Say thats the only problem would be to ignore all of the other problems as well. We have too many Americans that have access to firearms in this country that have no legitimate business. To firearms in this country, the second amendment is for responsible adults in this country, not for mentally handicapped people and criminals. Who don't understand the consequences of what shootings like this can bring to society or don't have a big enough. Conscience to care enough to not shoot innocent children who just happen to be going to school that day. And until we address these issues of guns getting into the wrong hands and how inadequate our mental healthcare. Is in this country we are going to continue to have shootings like this.

We could have the best families and moral values possible but we'll never have a country that doesn't have mental disease. And criminal minds, so unless we can work on all of these issues in a comprehensive approach and get guns. Away from people who have no business possessing them and prevent irresponsible people from possessing. Guns and do a better job of treating our mentally disabled population, we are going to continue to have tragedies like this.

National Journal: Michael Catalini: Speaker Boehner's Gamble: Will Plan B Make Getting a Cliff Deal Easier?

Boehner's Gamble: Will Plan B Make Getting a Cliff Deal Easier?

Looking at another party line vote in the House with Leader Reid and President Obama saying no. So looks like another wasted effort.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012: The Legacy of Robert Bork

Source: The Weekly Standard Robert H. Bork-
Source: The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012

I'm sure there were tough Supreme Court nomination debates pre-1987 before Robert Bork, but perhaps not before. Not only the TV age, but the TV cable age where there was twenty-four-hour coverage of Congress everyday with C-SPAN. Which is probably a reason why the Bork nomination was so controversial I guess and divisive. Where you had Democrats who couldn't stand the idea of a Robert Bork on the U.S. Supreme Court and you had Republicans who were in love with Bob Bork and represented exactly what they wanted on the Supreme Court. Especially Neoconservative traditionalist Republicans who question whether or not the United States has a right to privacy and how they believe our freedom of speech shouldn't be as strong as it is and don't see things like indefinite detention and the Patriot Act and censorship of certain media as unconstitutional. And how he would've been the exact choice in who Neoconservatives in and outside of the Bush Administration and exactly who they would've wanted on the Supreme Court. Instead of who they got instead which was Anthony Kennedy who has more of a libertarian streak in him.

Another thing that separated Bob Bork from judicial nominations that came after him, was the fact that Judge Bork would almost go out-of-his-way to let the Senate know where he stands on the issues. And said things like the right to privacy doesn't exist and that Roe V. Wade that made abortion legal in the United States was unconstitutional. And decided improperly to use as examples and post-Bork judicial nominations have gone out-of-their-way not to let the Senate know where they stand on the issues. And what they would do instead is tell Senators what they know about cases that they are talking about, but would refuse to tell them what they think about them, just what they know about them. So we would see judicial nominees like John Roberts and Elena Kagan who are very familiar with the cases in front of them, but wouldn't give much of even a hint on where they stand on those cases for fear of being seen as too ideological.

I'm sure Bob Bork was a very fine man certainly a very honest man and you knew where he stood on the issues. But I'm sure as hell glad as a Liberal Democrat that he was rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate on a bipartisan vote because of where he stood on civil liberties and things like are Federal civil rights laws constitutional or not. Which I believe they clearly are and i'ts almost silly to debate I believe. And believe Judge Bork would've been dangerous to have up on the Supreme Court as we are now debating civil liberties and individual freedom in this country. The other thing I don't get about the Bork Supreme Court nomination is the President who appointed him. President Ronald Reagan a man that described his own politics as libertarian in 1975 and really never ran from that. Didn't give the Christian-Right and other big government Republicans much to admire him as far as policy when he became President. And maybe that is why he nominates Bob Bork, because he saw that as is way to pay back the Far-Right for their support.
Traditionalism-C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Slouching Towards Gomorrah With Robert Bork

Washington Times: National Security: Lolita C. Baldor and Robert Burns: Secretary Panetta Cites Budget Woes, Afghan War Progress

Panetta cites budget woes, Afghan war progress - Washington Times

Another problem for the defense budget of the United States is that we are simply overcommitted around the. World and are paying other developed countries for the right to defend them and pay them for their national defense. When these countries can afford to defend themselves.

National Journal: Chris Frates: Dems Dodge Questions on Spending Cuts

Dems Dodge Questions on Spending Cuts -

Democrats still in the Republicans will give us everything mode which is a losing strategy and risks sending. The country over the fiscal cliff and need to give Republicans more of a reason to compromise and tell them what they'll accept as far as spending cuts go.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Washington Times: Editorial: Democracy's Egyptian Peril: The Future of Democracy in Egypt

EDITORIAL: Democracy's Egyptian peril - Washington Times

For anyone who has this vision that Egypt will go from a military dictatorial authoritarian republic to a Liberal Democracy. Like we see in lets say in America overnight, is seeing things and is perhaps suffering from paranoia right now. Thats just not the type of country that Egypt is and has been, the best model for Egypt at least for anyone. Who believes in Democracy, is probably Turkey in the Middle East which is a Democracy that has very deep. Conservative religious beliefs where Turks combine their religious with their political beliefs but what Egypt. Does has its what's known as Liberal Democrats in America Egyptians who believe in ethnic and racial. As well as religious and gender tolerance that all Egyptians should be treated equally under law and people. Who believe in individual freedom, civil liberties and human rights which is progress in a country where these. Beliefs weren't very common in this country just two years ago and if they were made public, these people would. Risk being jailed by the Hosni Mubarak Regime.

Egypt right now is split between Liberal Democrats, I guess Islamist Democrats the Muslim Brotherhood. And the old Mubarak Regime what's called the Democratic Party over there but they aren't very Democratic. At best they would people who would be described as Neoconservatives in America that the state is paramount over the individual. And that freedom has to be limited in order to protect the state that individual freedom can be dangerous. Which basically sums up the current Republican Party in America, a large faction of it anyway. I'm of course as a Liberal Democrat myself in America, are with the Liberal Democrats in Egypt and I hope they'll. Emerge as the governing party over there and hopefully at least in the short term serve as the opposition party to the Islamist Democrats. But for Egyptian Liberals to do well in Egypt they, they have to convince Egyptians why Liberalism is way forward. For Egypt, what individual freedom means and so fourth.

Its not enough for Liberals to say that the Islamists don't go far enough to push Democracy in Egypt and that. They are wrong here and wrong there but they need an agenda of their own to counter what the Islamists are doing. And have an agenda thats built around individual freedom, equal treatment under law for all Egyptians. Why economic freedom should go along with social freedom and religious freedom, why combining religion. With state is dangerous and so fourth they need to communicate what Liberalism would mean for Egypt and why its the way forward. Which is what they haven't done yet.

National Journal: Chris Frates and Nancy Cook: Can Speaker Boehner Sell the GOP on President Obama's New Fiscal Cliff Offer?

Can Boehner Sell the GOP on Obama's New Fiscal Cliff Offer? -

This is what the final fiscal cliff deal will look like, a millionaires taxes to go along with spending cuts

Monday, December 17, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: AEI: Political Report: Is America Still a Center-Right Country?: Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy's America

Is America still a center-right country? AEI Political Report, December 2012 - Politics and Public Opinion - AEI

Before I layout where I believe America is politically I just want to give a quote from Barry Goldwater, whose. Probably my favorite Conservative-Libertarian even though I'm more of a classical Liberal but Senator Goldwater. Once said I believe in the 1960s that he wanted Big Government out of his wallet and bedroom and it might of taken. The rest of the country forty years or so to get there themselves but thats basically where I believe America is. Bill Clinton to quote from the left once said that he believed in what's called an opportunity society where all Americans. Would have the opportunity to chart their own course in life and have the freedom to live their own lives, the second part. I'm paraphrasing but thats what an opportunity society is, Americans tend to believe in what's called the safety net. That should be there for people who can't take care of themselves but that all Americans who are physically and mentally. Capable should be expected to and should be working and taking care of themselves, that as then presidential. Candidate Bill Clinton said in 1992, that Welfare shouldn't be free that it should be an investment in people to. Empower them to be able to take care of themselves.

Whether America is center right or center left we are certainly a mainstream country politically, not Centrist exactly. But we don't go very far left or right and what may seem mainstream in other countries lets says Social Democracies. On the left or more Authoritarian States on the right, seems more like fringes to the majority of Americans in this country. And people who would like to see America move in those directions , tend to have a hard time winning statewide. Or nationally in America, Americans like their economic freedom, we don't like high taxes and regulations. We also like our social freedom and not be told by government or people further to us on the right or left. How we should live our own lives and what it means to be an American, Americans tend to not like to be told. How to live and told what to do by government and what it means to be an American, we like Big Government out. Of our wallets and bedrooms.

This is why I believe had President Kennedy not of been assassinated in 1963, 1964 might of had been the. Best Presidential election in American history because we would've had a real Liberal in Jack Kennedy. Versus a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater both people who believed that Big Government shouldn't be. In our bedrooms or wallets and that Americans should be free to live our own lives and would've represented. Where America has become and two people who also respected each other as well.

Washington Times: National Security: Rowan Scarborough: U.S. Arms to Gulf Allies Hint of Strategy

U.S. arms to Gulf allies hint of strategy - Washington Times

I rather be sending armed weapons to allies in the Middle East then sending troops over there especially if we. Are able to bring troops home from Arabia like in Iraq and even Saudi Arabia. And let Arabia defend themselves at their expense.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Opinion: George Landrith: Clinton-Era Tax Rates But Not Spending Rates: Back To a Clintonian Fiscal Policy

LANDRITH: Clinton-era tax rates but not spending rates - Washington Times

Going back to the Clinton tax rates on the wealthy won't be enough to get the debt and deficit under control. Where its no longer growing faster then the economy and where we can actually start to begin to pay it down. We are also going to have to at least get back to the spending levels of the Clinton Administration as well. As they relate to the gross domestic product of GDP, when President Clinton left office in 2001, the Federal Government. Was spending at around 20-21% of GDP, now we are at 24%, so to get back to 21% and close the revenue gap. Where we are now at 15% of GDP and if we can back to 18-21% in taxes, we can start to pay down this debt and deficit. As long as we have strong economic and job growth with more Americans paying income taxes to go with it. Which would allow us to stop borrowing and returning to PAYGO, which is short for pay as you go. Meaning to raise spending or cut taxes, you would have to pay for both, if we do things like this, we can get back to Clintonnomics.

In order to do this, the wealthy are simply going to have to pay more in taxes, either going back to the Clinton rates. Or through tax reform but they are going to have to pay more in taxes and we are going to have the get the defense. Budget back to where it was in the Clinton era as it relates to GDP and we also need to make new reforms in entitlements. Going to have to make these programs more cost effective as it relates to Social Security and Medicare and the other. Social insurance programs, things like Unemployment Insurance or Welfare Insurance and got to Food Assistance as well. We are going to have to empower these people long term to be able to work themselves off of these programs. So they aren't on them as long and not collecting public assistance and working their way to the middle class. So they can start paying income taxes as well.

We have revenue gap to go along with spending more money then we can afford to payback, which means. We need to close the gap and cut the costs of the Federal Government to finally get the debt and deficit under control.

Friday, December 14, 2012

National Journal: Charlie Cook: To Win in 2016, the GOP Must Modernize Its Campaigning Now

To Win in 2016, the GOP Must Modernize Its Campaigning Now -

The Republican Party simply needs to bring in new voters to be a competitive major party in the future. Its that simple their current base is shrinking and dying off.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Editorial: "End of the American Superpower": America's New Role In The World

EDITORIAL: End of the American superpower - Washington Times

The days that the United States can police the World are over or coming to an end, we simply don't have the. Resources to do that anymore, especially with the condition of our economy and fiscal situation, where we now own. Debt to countries that we are paying them to defend and thats a good thing, as well as the days that Europe. Can sit on the sidelines and expect America to take care of its national defense are also over as well, which is also a good thing. America has been declining over the last ten years or so but that has to do with our economic situation, we are simply. Not growing now the way we did in the 1980s and 90s but the good news is this has given us an opportunity. As a country to rethink what we should be doing economically and what our foreign and national security policy. Should look like in the future, what role should America have in the World and has also given Europe as well. As I believe Japan the same opportunity, the economic giants of the developed World, to rethink where they should be.

America has been declining economically and perhaps even militarily over the last ten years or so but a lot of. That has to do with policies here at home that have weaken our economic picture, as well as our foreign policy picture. Europe has been declining as well with weaker economic growth, higher unemployment and an aging and dying. Population that they haven't been replacing, as well as government that have promised to do more for their people. Then the economy has been able to produce the resources to pay for, so now they are being forced to rethink. What they want their Federal Governments to do and hopefully as America hopefully soon pulls out of Europe. Europe will then also rethink their military posture and take the lead role in securing their own defense. Which would also boost their economies, because of new industries that would be created.

The American decline doesn't have to be indefinite, China will probably pass us as having the largest economy. In the World within twenty years, even if they are still a developing country but that doesn't mean they'll. Have the most important economy or the strongest militarily in the World as well, America will still have a say. In that depending on how our debt, deficit and economy looks in the future, what we are doing as a country. To develop our economy even further, do we rebuild this country that needs all sorts of new infrastructure investment. And be able to keep pace or even past China and Brazil or do we continue to lag in this critical area. Do we develop a national energy policy that moves us towards energy independence and are at least moving. Off of foreign oil by 2030, or are we still importing oil from countries that don't have our best interest at heart.

These are questions we have to answer as a country and start rebuilding our economy and get past this 1-2%. Economic growth rate that we've been stuck at the last couple of years and move to finally get our debt and deficit. Under control which would mean countries would have less leverage over us and we develop a new foreign policy. That built around being Leader for Liberal Democracy in the World, not trying to force it on anyone but working. With others who want it and don't currently have it and working with our allies when crisis's pop up in the World. Rather then trying to police the World ourselves.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Commentary: Seth Mandel: "George McGovern’s Futile Warning on Labor Unions": George McGovern's Diverse Ideology

McGovern’s Futile Warning on Unions: pThe extent to which George McGovern, who died in late October, was identified with American liberalism itself can be seen in headlines of his various obituaries. CNN’s headline called him an “unabashed liberal voice”; PBS went with “Liberal Icon”; the New York Times chose “Prairie Liberal” (though the online edition dropped the word “prairie”); and [...]/p

George McGovern throughout his career and since has been identified with American Liberalism, as if he's the. Hero for Americans Liberals or champion of Liberal causes and Liberal philosophy but he's not my Liberal champion. I identify more with Jack Kennedy or Wendell Willkie and today with John Kerry and Dick Durbin, both Democratic Leaders. In the US Senate, then I do with Senator McGovern or more with Bill Clinton then I do with Senator McGovern. Its not as if George McGovern didn't have Liberal tendencies, because he clearly did especially on social issues. Where granted Senator McGovern was clearly a social Liberal and I'm proud he was as a Liberal myself and he even had. Some Liberal positions on some economic issues, like the right to organize and organize labor and so fourth. And Senator McGovern was a Liberal internationalist on foreign policy and did believe in things like a strong. National defense, he wasn't pacifist or an isolationist and perhaps not even a dove, he was World War II veteran. And served his country very well.

But to say that George McGovern was the champion or hero or God of American Liberalism, is a very big stretch. He would be described today as a Progressive or Social Democrat, if he was still in Congress today, a place. Where he served for twenty two years, both in the House and Senate all together, I bet you he would've been a member. Of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but he would've been one of their most responsible members. And also someone who would've been able to work with the Democratic leadership, including the President. And someone who would've been able to work with Republicans as well, like he was able to work so well. Bob Dole in the Senate but ideologically he was more of a Social then Liberal Democrat, someone who put. A lot of faith in government to solve the peoples problems, rather then people being able to solve their own problems.

So George McGoevrn was really diverse when it came to his politics, on social issues clearly a Liberal, Liberal-Libertarian. Even, a Liberal internationalist on foreign policy but more of a Progressive-Social Democrat on economic policy. As they are called in Europe, rather then the Barry Goldwater or Ron Reagan for American Liberals. Wendell Willkie, Jack Kennedy are the real Liberal heros in America, people who put their faith in the people. To be able to solve their own problems, if they are just empowered to do so, rather then a big central government doing it for them.

National Journal: Alex Roarty: GOP Risks Political Backlash in Michigan Labor Fight

GOP Risks Political Backlash in Michigan Labor Fight -

At the very least the right to work debate in Michigan should energize and perhaps even unite the Democratic. Base in the 2014 General Elections in Michigan.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Moog Rogue: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Barry Goldwater on The Role of Conservatism in 1966

I saw a column by Pat Buchanan today called the Conservative Winter of Discontent. Basically making the demographic argument of why Republicans are in trouble. Because the country is becoming more minority both racially and ethnically and since minorities overwhelmingly vote Democratic and with the majority population shrinking as a percentage of the overall country, that the Republican Party could be headed into a deep winter. Meaning out-of-power in the Federal Government for a long period of time. Like they were in the 1960s, 1940s and 1930s. I would argue that the country is also becoming more liberal-libertarian on both social issues and economic policy. And there’s this growing mood that big government shouldn’t be involved in running our lives, out of our bedrooms and wallets. As Barry Goldwater famously said and all of this as it stands now plays very well for Liberal Democrats and Libertarians going forward and really bad for Bible Belt and Neoconservative Republicans. Who now run the GOP and more importantly bad for the GOP going forward.

The Republican Party has suffered landslides losses in the past. After 1964 they were left with a third of the seats in Congress. Something like 145 seats in the House and 33 in the Senate. But they came back and within four years the Congress was much more evenly divided and they won back the White House in 1968. It’s not as if Republicans lost a landslide in 1976, but that Democrats had large majorities in Congress already going in. And they held that in 1976 and added the White House to that power as well. And of course Republicans came back in 1978 adding seats in both the House and Senate, leaving Congressional Democrats with smaller majorities. And of course Republicans win back the Senate in 1980 as well as the White House. And again in 1992 House Democrats had a large majority, the Senate was closer 55-45, but Congressional Democrats held their own in the House and Senate and added the White House as well.

2012 is much different. For one, the Republican Party is in much better position as it stands now, but not going forward. Than they were in 1964, 1976 and 1992. We have a Republican House and a large Republican minority in the Senate. And Republicans now have thirty governorships. But the challenges for the GOP going forward again with the changing demographics are much greater and something they’ll have to successfully address. Or we could see what Pat Buchanan called as I would call it a Republican Winter. Where by 2014 or 2016, Republicans may not only be out-of-power all together, but looking at long stretches as an opposition minority party. Trying to figure out how they can get back into power again.

It’s not as if there isn’t a path back to power and victory for Republicans and that they have to give up their principles or anything. In the 1980s they were seen as the tough on defense and crime. Fiscally responsible, believers in economic and individual freedom as well, they need to stay that way. But the individual freedom angle needs to be highlighted more and move away from the big government statist party on social issues. And they’ll be able to appeal to more minorities who like their message of economic conservatism. Get back to Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater. The two fathers of modern conservatism. Meaning limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility. Stop trying to outlaw things simply, because you disapprove of them and they go against your values. Especially when the overwhelming majority is on the other side. Let people live their own lives economically and personally and Republicans will be able to bring in the voters they need to be competitive going forward.

Monday, December 10, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Commentary: Ben Cohen: Chavismo After Chavez

Chavismo After Chavez: p“Free, free, totally free,” Hugo Chavez bellowed at reporters during a July 9 press conference in Caracas, when asked about the treatment he’d been undergoing in Cuba for the cancer he was diagnozed with one year earlier.  That claim of a miraculous cure sustained him throughout the summer, as he fought off a concerted opposition [...]/p

Its kinda of difficult to define Hugo Chavez's politics, the President of the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela perhaps. Soon to be the second Communist Republic in Latin America right after Cuba, its a little difficult to define President Chavez's politics. Because officially he's the Leader of the Socialist Party in Venezuela and its true that President Chavez has clear. Socialist leanings on economic policy, with all of the Venezuelan business's and industries that he's nationalized. But President Chavez doesn't govern, rule more like like a Socialist at least not a Democratic Socialist but more like a dictator. A Communist even, Hugo Chavez's political hero is Fidel Castro, of course the former Communist dictator. Of Cuba, rather then having some of the Democratic Socialists in Europe as his hero or even Franklin Roosevelt in America. As his hero, Hugo Chavez's hero is the great in a political sense with the power he gained, as we ll as popularity, the Communist dictator in Cuba.

So I see Hugo Chavez as a Communist and not a Democratic Socialist, especially considering all of the media. He's nationalized to the point where its really hard to get an opposition voice heard in Venezuela, the last election. Being a perfect example of that and considering how he and his administration have treated the Democratic opposition in Venezuela. And there is a significant Democratic opposition in Venezuela, Liberal Democratic that would love to move past. The Chavez dictatorship and give Venezuela a real future thats built around the country's natural resources and the Venezuelan people. But none of that can happen as long as there's a dictator thats leading Venezuela who continues to. Concentrate power with the Federal Government there and continues to take the attitude that he knows best. What Venezuelans need to live, rather then Venezuelans being able to make those decisions for themselves.

The only way you beat a dictator assuming the people can actually vote for candidates that aren't of the dictator's. Party is by literally taking your message to the people and if the government is blocking the opposition from doing that. Then the people have to take it upon themselves and decide for themselves that they are no longer going to put up wit Authoritarianism. No matter what label the Authoritarianism is coming under and decide for themselves that its time and vote for new leadership.

Friday, December 7, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Opinion: Emily Miller: Conservatives Next Step

MILLER: Conservatives' next step - Washington Times

The next step for Republicans especially in the US Senate, is to recruit real Conservatives, people like Mike Lee. Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, people like Marco Rubio, real limited government Conservatives who were all elected. To the US Senate in 2010 and move away from the religious right, people like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle. Republican Senate Candidates who cost Senate Republicans four safe winnable Senate seats in 2010 and 2012. And frankly represent why Mitch McConnell will once again be the Senate Minority Leader in the next Congress. Because Senate Republicans not only lost Democratic seats they should've won but they also lost Republican seats. They should've won like in Indiana in 2012 with Richard Mourdock, these Tea Party. Religious/Neoconservatives are costing the Republican Party right now and represent exactly why the GOP Are losing elections that they should be winning

Whatever you think of Senator Jim Demit, he's responsible for recruiting Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee. All of these people being real fiscal Conservatives and believers in civil liberties and social freedom, Senator Johnson. I believe from Wisconsin is even pro choice on abortion, now Republicans don't have to be pro choice on abortion. But they also can't be preaching for limited government as it relates to the economy but Big Government. As it relates to peoples civil lives and they need to move away from the religious right and get back to Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism. And truly be a party of limited government, rather then a party of Big Government, when it comes to how. Americans live their own lives and they'll do well in the future.

National Journal: Sarah Sorcher: US Senator Joe Lieberman Intends to Go Out Fighting

Joe Lieberman Intends to Go Out Fighting -

Senator Libeberman is fighting a losing battle, the defense budget is on the table

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Commentary: Peter Wehner: The Recalibration of Conservatism

The Recalibration of Conservatism: pI heard from a couple of prominent conservatives yesterday who mentioned to me the pessimism, and even depression, they sense among conservatives throughout the land. That’s understandable, given the results of the 2012 election. Because unlike 2008, this is an election Barack Obama should have lost and that the right fully expected him to lose. [...]/p

The lets say renewal of American Conservatism should be about limited government and getting back to Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism. Which is what made this movement a powerful force in American politics in the 1970s and 80s and something that could compete. Against Liberalism and Progressivism, the Republican party and American Conservatism looked dead in 1965, 77 and 1993. After one Democrat got overwhelmingly reelected in LBJ in 1964 with huge Democratic majorities in Congress. When Republican Presidents lost reelection in 1976 and 1992 to Democrats and two Democratic Congress's. Being reelected in 1976 and 92, but by 1966 and 68, Conservative Republicans were back as players in Congress. And Richard Nixon gets elected President in 1968, the Republican party went through similar periods in 1978 and 80. Again picking up seats in both the House and Senate in 1978 and winning back the White House in 1980 with Ron Reagan. And electing a Republican Senate.

After losing the White House in 1992 and to go with another Democratic Congress, Republicans did comeback. In 1994 by electing a Republican Congress but this comeback was different, because the instead of Goldwater/Reagan. Conservative Republicans being elected to the House and Senate, the religious right became such a powerful force in the GOP. That they could literally costs Republicans seats and fundraising, if the GOP doesn't do what they want, so this is where the. GOP became more of a religious Conservative party, rather then a politically Conservative party. The religious right is not going to get the Republican party back in power to the point that they control Congress and the. White House again but Goldwater/Reagan Conservative Republicans could get the GOP back into power. Because with a real Conservative philosophy, the GOP could simply bring in new voters.

Republicans need a message that reaches out to voters across the board and be able to communicate economic. And fiscal Conservatism in a way that tells Americans that this is the path forward, limited government and economic freedom. Without sounding like a Big Government party when it comes to social issues and no longer be that party that. Looks intolerant towards non Bible Belt Republicans and Americans who aren't Republicans and be a party that believes. That free Americans should be free to live their own lives, rather then government trying to tell them how they should live. And what it means to be an American, economically Conservative and socially Moderate-Libertarian, a classically Conservative. Party and the GOP will always be strong.

Heritage Foundation: Nina Owcharenko & Robert E. Moffit: Securing a Down Payment on Medicare Reform

Securing a Downpayment on Medicare Reform

As a Liberal Democrat there's not many times I find agreement with the Heritage Foundation, just like there aren't. Many times that a Conservative would agree with the Brookings Institution a Liberal think tank thats my favorite think tank in Washington. I tend to like and agree more often with the Libertarian Cato Institute , doesn't mean Heritage doesn't do a good job. But they just tend to be way to the right for me on social issues and foreign policy and I see them more as Neoconservative then Conservative. But on entitlements and fiscal policy overall, as well as poverty related issues, Heritage and the Progressive think tank. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, they both do an excellent job, they both take these issues seriously and. See them as the huge problems that they are, if they aren't addressed and Medicare being a perfect example of that, which is what you see with their new piece about Medicare.

Medicare looks like a huge problem and it is if you look at the problems that relate to it as far as its future financing. But the good and bad news about these issues, is that they relate to our overall problems with our healthcare system. And whether you support single payer Medicare for all or doing something short of that, that would bring down our healthcare costs. And make health insurance affordable for every American, you know the current system that we have is not affordable. And not sustainable, Heritage understands this and even though they clearly are not in favor of the Affordable Care Act. They know the status quo is not acceptable, the good news about our Medicare challenges, is that they relate to our. Overall healthcare system, which presents both a challenge and opportunity for us in how we reform Medicare. Because we could go a long way in bringing down our Medicare costs, by simply bringing down our overall healthcare costs.

Simple things like preventive care, eliminating overpayments to Medicare and Medicaid, the 2010 ACA already. Made a lot of progress in those areas, so our seniors would be healthier by the time they are on Medicare and stop subsidizing. Hospitals and doctors based on how much healthcare they deliver and instead subsidize those institutions based. On how healthy their patients would be, another words start subsidizing quality healthcare, rather then quantity of healthcare. And another thing we could do which is what Liberal Democrats attempted to in 2009-10, is to turn Medicare into a public option. Not single payer but allow non seniors to use Medicare at their cost, as their main provider for health insurance. So we would have younger, healthier as well as wealthier people use Medicare, instead of just having. Medicare for older people who now have to consume more healthcare as they get older.

Turning Medicare into a voucher system, where seniors in the future would be forced off of Medicare and. Into the private health insurance market, is not the way to reform Medicare because we would be cutting back in choice. In health insurance rather then expanding it but allowing more people into Medicare at their costs, especially. Younger, healthier and wealthier people, would bring down our Medicare costs, especially as we eliminate overpayments. And bring preventive care into our healthcare system.

Washington Times: National Security: Miles YU: Inside China: Defense of Japan

Inside China: Defense of Japan - Washington Times

Japan the third largest economy in the World, with an economy of over 4T$, should be defending themselves. And America should pull out, we have our own problems to deal with, especially as it relates to economic and fiscal policy. And if Japan wants to pay us for their defense, then that would be a different issue, but Japan a country of 130M people. With a economy this large, should be defending themselves, they have the resources to do so.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

EuroNews: Germany Moves to Nan Neo-Nazis

This would be Unconstitutional in America, because it violate our free speech, as well as freedom to assemble protections.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: AEI: Politics: Conservatism in the 113th Congress: Where Conservative Republicanism Should Be Going

Conservatism in the 113th Congress: Views from the Republican Study Committee chairman and chairman-elect - Politics and Public Opinion - AEI

This might sound way too optimistic and again keep in mind I'm a Liberal Democrat so it would be in my political. Best interest as well as the Democratic party's for the Republican party to continue down this Statist Neoconservative. Direction and continue to kiss off Americans as being potential Republicans, because they don't share their 1950s worldview. And may look or sound different, have different looks on life and have different religious views and happen to be tolerant of others. And for the GOP ton continue to  drive towards what I call the political cliff, because the GOP won't be successful in the future. With the base they have today, they are simply going to have to modernize and diversify but as an American who. Loves politics and loves America more, I don't want to see the Republican disappear or at least see this country. Without a strong Conservative party, Liberal Democracy is simply about choice, thats what a lot of its based on and with a one party country. We would become Un Liberal Democratic.

So I would hope that these so called "Conservative Republicans", the jury is still out on how the Conservative. Or Republican even they are but I would hope these people who want to be Conservative Republicans, would go back to the future. And figure out what made American Conservatism popular and successful in the 1960s, because it was about getting government. Out of the way so Americans could live their own lives, getting Big Government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms. As Barry Goldwater so famously said, that Ron Reagan and Bill Buckley both believed in, not trying to tell Americans how. To live their lives which is what the post GOP Tea Party movement has been about or growing the. Federal Government . And the power of Uncle Sam which is what the George W. Bush Federal Government was. About but getting Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms.

The GOP needs more Barry Goldwater's and Ron Reagan's, they should be talking to Barry Jr and Ron Jr and Mike Reagan. And bring in the Ron Paul Libertarians and perhaps not say goodbye to the Theocrats in the party that wants Big Government. In our lives but no longer let them control the party and talk to people who are actually Conservative as well as Republican. And not Statist or Theocratic and the GOP will be successful in the future.

National Journal: Billy House: House Speaker Boehner Backlash Begins on Right Over Fiscal Cliff

Boehner Backlash Begins on Right Over Fiscal Cliff -

The House Republican leadership would be smart to get this fiscal cliff debate behind them and take President Obama's. Deal on revenue to go with their spending cuts and then deal with the far right aftermath in the next Congress. Where they would have two years to get this behind them.

Monday, December 3, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: C-Span's BookTV In Depth: US Senator Tom Coburn, December 2, 2012: Talking Fiscal Conservatism and The National Debt

I tend to like Senator Tom Coburn when it comes to fiscal policy and his fiscal Conservatism, I don't. Agree with him on everything but our approach to solving our national debt and deficit and perhaps reforming the Federal Government. Across the board, are probably fairly similar because both of our approaches are built around limited government. Both our visions when it comes to limited government when it comes to fiscal policy, probably look fairly similar. Now my approach when it comes to limited government on social issues, I'm sure looks very. Different, I'm a Liberal and I don't want government in my life or other peoples lives, as long as we aren't hurting innocent people. Senator Coburn doesn't go that far and I'll leave it there for now but fiscally we look fairly similar. Limited government is about government doing the things for the people, that we need government to do.

Government especially the Federal Government because they control the currency and don't have to balance their budgets. Should only be doing things that it does well and the things that it needs to do, where they are in a better position to do them. Rather then the states or private sector, that they aren't currently doing well, they need to do much better. Then they are right now, thats what limited government is about, not trying to take care of the country or run. Their lives but take care of the things that the people can't do for themselves or can't do as well, its not that. There shouldn't be a safety net in America and that government shouldn't be helping people who are are. Out of work and need new skills in order to get a good job but before we add money to programs. Or create new programs, lets first see if we already have a program like that in the government and then lets. Evaluate to see how that program is working.

A lot of times in the Federal Government when its determined that programs aren't working, Congress. Automatically decides that the program isn't working because its underfunded, rather then looking to see. Why it isn't working, now some times programs can work better with more money and be able to serve more people. But thats not always the case, sometimes the program needs to be reformed to serve the people its intended to serve better. And if we decide that program isn't working, before we give it more money. Lets see why its not working and how its managed and based on that then figure out how it could work better. If we decide that we need that program at all, government shouldn't be run like corporations, they are simply. Different types of organizations, one tends to be for profit and government tends to be non profit but government should. Be in the business to serve people well and not waste money.

Public Service is not just about having a job as a Public Servant but about using that job to serve people well. And not just there to do the job and collect paychecks and all of the benefits that come from it. Which is how we should run all government programs, by how they are actually working, are they meeting the goals. That they were designed to and if they are great but if they aren't, then we need to figure how to make. Those programs work better, if we need them at all and not just give them more money.

National Journal: Coral Davenport: "It's Already Too Late to Stop Climate Change"

It's Already Too Late to Stop Climate Change -

Climate Change is already here, as someone who has lived in the Washington area, my whole life we've always. Had short winters that would go from January to late February when it would start warming up, as the days started to get longer. But last year we almost had no winter, maybe two weeks if that of cold weather, we were in the 80s in March. But what we can do is make Climate Change as least damaging as possible and a national energy policy where we use our own energy. Rather then importing it, would help us a lot in doing that.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Opinion: Kyle Scott: "No New Taxes Without Spending Limits": Room To Negotiate

SCOTT: No new taxes without spending limits - Washington Times

No new taxes without spending cuts, imagine if then Vice President George Bush said that back in 1988 at the RNC. At his nomination speech when he was running for President, I bet you he would've still not only of won the Republican nomination for President. It just would've been closer and I believe he still would've beaten Governor Michael Dukakis but by perhaps not as big of a blowout. As he did because Conservatives would've not of been as happy with George Bush but you gotta remember he was still. Running against Mike Dukakis a Presidential nominee who wouldn't defend himself until he got to the Presidential debates. And the read my lips line never happens, President Bush doesn't end up breaking a huge campaign promise. Gets a better deal with Congressional Democrats in the 1990 deficit reduction act and would've had a better chance of being reelected. With the economy being the way it still was in 1992, low economic growth and high unemployment and with President Bush. Not seeming to have a plan to deal with it, it still would've been very tough for him though.

There's a deal here that would avoid the fiscal cliff and start to get the finances of the Federal Government in order. But again its a deal, both sides are going to have to give and take on their bases, the fringes really who see compromise. As the other side agreeing to do what they want you to do and that means Democrats are going to have to give up some spending. Not just say they are going to do that but actually put some things on the table in budget cuts and entitlement savings. That they would not only accept but would help deal with the problem and Republicans are going to have to give up some. Revenue they don't have to go as low as 250K$, Democrats should come up from that, 250 is too low for. Me but go up to 500K-1M$ which would only be used for deficit reduction, which would be in law, meaning members of Congress wouldn't. By law be allowed to use any of that revenue to pay for new spending.

The deal or grand bargain is pretty simple really at least on paper, Democrats agree to entitlement savings at. Least in Medicare that wouldn't hurt anyone who needs it, which means wealthy people and others who can afford. To work longer, financially and physically would be required to before they start collecting from Medicare and Social Security. No more early retirement, which is now 62 for people who can again financially and physically afford to work longer. Would be expected to do so and once the wealthy start collecting from Medicare and Social Security, they would be taxed at least on some. Of the benefits they would be collecting and again all of this revenue would be used to finance. Deficit reduction and defense would again have to be on the table as well, everything we are now spending. In Iraq and Afghanistan, whether its troops or equipment as far as the combat operations there, would go to. Finance deficit reduction rather then back into the defense budget and we start drawing down from. Developed nations around the World that can afford to defend themselves.

We also need to do real tax reform and maybe that could be part of this package as far as instructing to Congress. Both House and Senate to take up tax reform in the next Congress and have them report a bill by lets say June or something. Or appoint a bipartisan commission made of the House and Senate, people who serve on Ways and Means and Finance. And perhaps as well as a new economic growth package, a package of tax cuts, tax reform and new infrastructure investment and energy. But we don't have to do that to avoid the fiscal cliff, which is what we need to do right now, not go off it.

Saturday, December 1, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Editorial: "Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Time Bomb": How To Fix Medicaid

EDITORIAL: Obamacare’s Medicaid time bomb - Washington Times

The only real problem I have with the 2010 Affordable Care Act better known as "Obamacare", is the Medicaid. Provision in it that expands this already very expensive health insurance program for low income people whether they are working or not. Because it doesn't have a funding source in it, its essentially free health insurance for people who can't afford health insurance. And who also live in poverty and there isn't a tax in the rest of the economy that funds Medicaid, unlike with Medicare. With the payroll tax and State Children Health Insurance, which is funded through the tobacco tax. Medicaid has nothing like that, so the states are required to figure out how to fund Medicaid on their own and the. Federal Government which is suppose to fund at least a portion of Medicaid, generally comes up short to fund. Their share, which leaves the states to not only fund their share of Medicaid on their own or end up denying. Low income people health insurance because they don't have the funds to cover them.

The US Supreme Court got two things right back in June about the ACA, that healthcare mandate was Constitutional. By ruling it a tax and also that the states shouldn't be forced to come up with the funds on their own to pay for the Medicaid expansion. That if the Federal Government is going to expand Medicaid, that they the Feds have to pay for it but that just takes care. Of the Medicaid problem as it relates to the ACA, the Medicaid has another problem that they had pre 2010. Which is a financial hole in the Medicaid system, no direct funding source to pay for it and the fact that the Feds. Generally come up short in paying their fair share under law from 1965 when Medicaid was created, that the Feds are. Suppose to pay for anyway so another thing that needs to be fixed about Medicaid is how do we fund the. Program period and how should it be run in the future.

What I would do is give Medicaid a direct funding source which is what Medicare has, come up with a tax. That directly cover Medicaid so the Feds and states no longer have to worry about how to pay for Medicaid. And then block grant the program to the states, with a condition that the states have to cover the people who are eligible for Medicaid. And who sign up for Medicaid, as long as the funding is there in Medicaid to cover them and we could finance Medicaid. In a couple ways, that employers who have Medicaid eligible employees, pay into Medicaid to cover their portion of their employees. Health insurance, with their employees covering the other part, that the employees get back in an expanded. Earned Income Tax Credit or employers would be able to cover their Medicaid eligible withe the same level. Of health insurance with private health insurance under the same funding format.

For low income people who are unemployed, a part of their Medicaid health insurance could come out of. A boost in their public assistance, as well as taking part of their Welfare or Unemployment Insurance checks out. To cover their share of their Medicaid but we need to end the unfunded mandate that is Medicaid and put on affordable financially. Sound footing and fully financing it would be the way to do that.

Friday, November 30, 2012

US Senator Rand Paul: Sen. Rand Paul Floor Speech in Defense of The Sixth Amendment

This is what a real Conservative and someone whose really against Big Government sounds like. Speaking up in defense of the US Constitution and speaking out against indefinite detention and that. Government in the United States doesn't have the Constitutional authority to hold people, especially Americans. Without a hearing or trial or access to a lawyer.