House Bill and Debate Over Public School Funding vs. Voucher Funding

Again our attention is turned to the House of Representatives.  Today there is an amendment called the Holmes-Norton Amendment.  This amendment would transfer funds that are currently used for a school voucher program which allows the parents to use federal funds to send their children to charter or private school.  These dollars are also allowed to be used to support homeschooling if that is more desirable.  Obviously the parents can send their kids to the local public school if they prefer.  The debate over this amendment once again shows why our government is broken.

      After almost an hour of debate the Democrats either would or could not address the accusation that the only reason they are looking to divert these funds is directly influenced by the support of the teacher’s union.  It is certainly understandable why the teacher’s union would like to discontinue or weaken this voucher program.  When the union looses automatic funding and is set against the performance of other educational programs money is spent against what they stand for.  The teacher’s union stands for lack of accountability through their tenure program.  The teacher’s union wants to keep the students in the public school so that the system employing them remains intact.  I was astounded to hear the Representative of the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, actually challenge another member of the house from Indiana to offer the same type of voucher program to his state, so that they could enjoy the same type of choice that “we (the people of D.C.) didn’t ask for”.  If that doesn’t say it all I don’t know what could.  She seemingly admitted in that statement that she didn’t believe her constituents wanted the choice where to educate their kids.  Another example of the Democrats circling the wagons was the reason Rep. Rob Andrews gave for his support of  his colleague from D.C.  He actually said that he supported this bill simply because Rep. Norton does and that her opinion should be the only one that matters.  It is hard to believe that our politicians admit these things and we don’t call them out on it.  The arguments put forth today by the Republicans promoted funding the parent’s choice.  They accused the Democrats of fearing competition between schools due to their support for a union.  It was unfortunate that the Democrat speakers never addressed this collaboration; I would have been interested to hear the counter-point.

     So what can we take away from this debate?  Firstly, that our political parties are sold out to their supporters.  This, of course, is nothing new.  Both parties hold too many beliefs regarding legislating simply because those organizations who support their party and campaigns desire a certain outcome.  As I wrote the other day, this is all about power and money.  The power to educate your child in their own way and the money to pay for it is at stake here.  On the one hand you have a party heavily influenced by a union who wants to see neither their power diminished nor their automatic funding cut off.  One the other hand you have a party who wants to tear down the union and thereby weaken the opposition.  They can say they want to put the choice in the hands of parents, and indeed they are trying to do that.  However, they still want federal dollars to influence local education and therefore they are still wielding power over us.  Perhaps one of the biggest faults in this debate is that no politician had the guts to suggest that perhaps the Federal Government shouldn’t be controlling the issue in the first place.  Regardless of which side of the debate you support, it is tough to deny that the influence of our federal government changes powerfully whenever there is a power shift in the Congress.  Even if you support federally funded public schools, the ability of those who disagree with you to bring about major changes to your programs, once they are in power, ought to give you pause.  This is the crux of the issue.  How well are those in D.C. enrolled in the voucher program represented by Rep. Norton?  How well are those in D.C. who choose not to use the voucher program represented by the newly elected Republican majority?  This conflict in Washington will not end as long as they hold the power to constantly change what already exists.  I am obviously against a national teacher’s union.  This could take another ten pages to explain, but suffice to say that this union is fighting for benefits that are beyond the public’s ability to afford.  They fight for rules such as tenure which remove accountability to a large extent and foster, in my opinion, an environment that can produce complacency.  I rarely hear any fighting that is truly about the children from the teacher’s union.  Of course they throw rhetoric out for us to feed upon, but when was the last time they spent their political capital for such a cause and not for the benefits of teachers instead?  It is a teacher’s union, not an education union.  Their party, the Democrats, fought today to keep children in the public schools taught by this union while they rejected the notion that a parent’s ability to choose where to send their kids is a good thing.  I support an individual’s ability to choose in almost any way you can think of.  I also support the notion that each state and local government could provide better education for a cheaper price if they could have the revenue instead of our federal government.  Even if one supports public schools at the expense of choice, that goal could be accomplished at the state level.  If we take the power from Washington we can do so much more for our children.  The arguments today only show another false choice.  Either you support the Republicans or Democrats.  I would prefer to support the citizen’s right to truly influence their own local schools.  This influence can only be gained through weakening the centralized programs which are run by corrupt parties.  I think it would be better to give the current revenue our federal government takes from us back to the states.  The fed's should eventually transfer the collection of these funds to the states as well.  This would at least begin to transfer the power back to the local level where an individual’s ability to influence government is more powerful.     

            The sadly comedic rucus caused by the motions offered by the Democrats before the voting show the absurdness of our federal government.  The Republicans could not overcome the rules objection that the bill spent new money without an offset; a rule that the Republicans put in place when taking over control of the House.  Instead of addressing the motion, they by-passed the reasonable objection by saying that the objection was an “untimely” one.  I must side with the Democrats on this point.  It only goes to show why we need to weaken the federal government.  Both sides of the political spectrum abuse their own rules when it suits them.  Anyone who watched the legislative disaster that passed the Affordable Care Act knows the Democrats aren't above this two-faced legistlating as well.  This abuse, above all else, should show citizens the value in removing power and money from their clutches. 

House Debate on Ending HAMP (housing mortgage affordable program)

Today the House is debating the end of the Housing Mortgage Assistance Program,  otherwise know as HAMP.  The debate seems to point out that the current Democrats are desperate to cling to a program that sounded great and works terribly.  Quite honestly they aren’t even getting support from some of their own most liberal supporters.  La Raza, a Hispanic based organization know to be very liberal, has come out against the program while Democrats actually claimed on the floor that the ending of the program is going to unfairly hurt minorities.  (http://www.nclr.org/) This is just an example of our government creating a situation where the financial sector was encouraged to loan money too cheaply due to artificially low interest rates.  In addition to that, the Affordable Housing Act placed requirements upon banks to enter into loan agreements they would not have otherwise done.  To say that this situation was rectifying a problem with the lack of minority homeownership is to ignore the facts.  Even the Democrats on the floor today would only claim roughly 25% of people applying have been helped.  The inspector general of TARP, where the funds come from, Neil Barofsky, doesn’t even support HAMP.  He has released statements that too many people are hurt rather than helped.  (http://www.dsnews.com/articles/tarp-inspector-generals-report-says-hamp-is-failing-2011-01-26)

Why do the democrats insist on holding onto such a failed program?  Perhaps it is because they are afraid to admit the truth.  They forced or encouraged banks to give mortgages people who shouldn’t have qualified and now they have furthered the pain by placing many of those homeowners into a program which can lower their credit scores, cost them back-payments they can’t afford, reduce the equity in their homes, and leave them with less money in the bank and no home.  Perhaps the reality is that we shouldn’t have an artificial interest rate.  Perhaps it isn’t so bad to be a renter. What do we tell the people that didn’t buy a home because they knew they weren’t ready for it?  What do we tell the people who live within their means and pay for their home?  We tell them to fork over money for TARP so that we can change the private agreement and adjust the payments.  We teach our citizens that it isn’t there fault they bought something they couldn’t afford.  We teach our people that they should buy a home with no savings.  We teach our voters that as long as they vote a certain way, they won’t be held accountable for their poor choices.  Democrats rallied against the pain the financial crisis has caused while blaming Wall Street without accepting their own responsibility.  Who funded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Who allows the Federal Reserve to lead the way to irresponsible loaning practices?  Who placed race ahead of financial qualifications?  Let’s not let the Republicans off the hook either.  They are a leader in meddling with the financial sector.  They too spend our money without wisdom.  They too believe they should use authority they don’t have.  This particular case is against the Democrats but don’t think that the real issue is HAMP.  The real issue is those in Washington thinking they have the right or the ability to orchestrate and regulate our entire financial system.  It doesn’t matter which side of the isle you are on; allowing Washington politicians and their appointed bureaucrats to make decisions affecting our very financial lives has left us with a debt that threatens to crush our country.  When have they served our country well?  Do they even care about the country, or are they more concerned with getting elected again?  I suggest the latter. 

Comments on the Passing of Geraldine Ferraro

Recently we lost a woman of great importance and influence.  Geraldine Ferraro was much more than just the first woman to run for Vice President.  She inspired countless women in countless ways.  Whether it was her fight against cancer, her political career, or her time spent on the U.N. Commission of Human Rights; Geraldine fought for her beliefs with a fervor everyone can learn from.  While I am old enough to remember but a shade of her run for the office of Vice President, I certainly remember the unique energy brought to the campaign simply because a woman was in the running.  I am lucky enough to live in a time where a woman’s ability to run a company or a nation is no longer as remarkable.  Just recently we saw a woman finance her own political campaign as the former owner of a EBay.  The fact that it was a woman was not the headline and I find this comforting.  Geraldine was not just a teacher, lawyer, politician, activist, assistant district attorney or broadcaster; she was a symbol of a country moving forward in its enlightenment. 

            Some people will find the painful progress of equality an issue which shows a weakness in our society.  I whole-heartily disagree.  The constant search for equality is what makes our country great.  While we should not seek to favor one portion of our citizens over another, the fact that our country constantly produces individuals who strive to bring the opportunity found in true liberty to all persons only serves to advance our country beyond the constraints of yesterday’s biases.  America will only reach this goal when we stop seeing people as men or women, black or white, gay or straight , Christian or atheist or any of the other categories we now use to segregate citizens from each other.  We ought to celebrate those who challenge injustice.  We ought to emulate those who fight for the ultimate American value of individual liberty.  We ought to honor the memory of those who have paved the road to shared prosperity.  We ought to remember Geraldine Ferraro as such a person in our nation’s history. 

Why Many Americans are Afraid of a Weak Government (And Why They Like That)

The fight in our country today comes down to power and money.  There is only a finite amount of both power and wealth in our country and world.  Our founding fathers knew this fact to be true and thus struggled through war, legislation and debate on how to disperse these resources.  We send missiles and troops while employing financial pressure against those abroad who we deem to be abusing their power and money, such as our recent involvement in Libya.  Our government sits upon a judgemental soap box while spending vast resources to avoid the admission that it too abuses the trust of its population and founding documents.   Our leaders have become nothing more than the shepherds of a flock of voters clambering for a piece of the pie whose ingredients are kept secret from them.
We get angry when corporations don't pay their share of taxes.  We get angry when politicians are busted for any of a variety of illegal activities, yet never seem to pay any price for their behaviour.  We get angry when corruption makes headlines.  Why do these things happen?  Could it be that our politicians grant themselves and their supporters special rights that we don't enjoy?  Could it be that our government gives tax breaks to companies in return for financial support?  How long will we keep our eyes closed to a system perpetuating their power and our weakness?
When our country was founded it was a simple idea.  Liberty could only be gained by restricting the power of the ruling class or government.  This struggle against centralized power goes back to the original arguments between Jefferson and Hamilton.  For example, the ability to control currency was not granted because people like Jefferson knew the awesome power of manipulating money.  Our leaders learned this lesson first hand through the collapse of the Colonial currency.  Those lessons hold true today.  Any government arbitrarily placing value on a currency is not only lying to its citizens but it is also stealing from them.  Theft through inflation coupled with the false sense of security in holding such money historically follows.  While conquering its neighbors, Rome literally confiscated their gold in order to produce more currency back home.  While the methods of acquiring this new gold may or may not be found desirable according to our morals, at least the currency was worth something concrete.  Since we won't support a war of conquest in order to increase our wealth, our government employs a game of inflation through interest rates instead.  How and why does this occur?  Does it help the common citizen or harm him? Since our Constitution declares the printing of money beyond the power of the government, how is this even legal?  The answer is simple.  The fiat currency employed by our country destroys the value of the dollar robbing the poorest among us while rewarding the richest.  Our government usurped this power, disregarding the Constitution, simply because it could and because it was in the best interests of those bankers and industry leaders supporting the politicians in power.  This collaboration was an ugly example of corporatism and it has led to the growth of corporatism over the last century.  This is only one example of the way our government has centralized power and money in our country.
Unfortunately our politicians have grown wiser through the years and found many more ways to rob us of both our money and our rightful political influence over the decades since then.  They toss around words such as fairness, charity or humanitarianism to justify theft through taxes.  They write tax codes that take an army of accountants to understand.  They act as though it is within their power to forcibly take our money in order to dole it out to people, nations and causes without our consent.  This is not so.  We allow our government to choose which artistic programs we should support.  We allow them to decide which nations will get foreign aid, many of whom I dare say we would not support if given the option.  We allow them to give our money to the support of varying scientific research projects.  We allow them to wage wars costing us billions if not trillions while corporations turn obscene profits.  The specifics do not matter, any way you look at it the government is in the habit of choosing winners and losers through the control of spending our money in whatever way it see's fit.  How does this reflect the idea of a weak central government or representative government?  Why do we allow this to occur?  What will it take for the citizens of the United States of America to fight for the rights bestowed upon them by their Constitution?
Part of the solution to the problem of centralized power is to re-unite the masses.  Our government has managed to separate its citizens through its influence our lives.  It is this influence we should rally against.  Whether it is a social, economic, or religious influence we are divided against each other along lines of personal beliefs.  Our government is not in existence to support or deny these beliefs.  They are not in place to make these judgements.  We have lost the ability to see what we have in common and instead focus on what we disagree about.  When we realize that the divisions among us are supported by the legislative powers our government has taken against the Constitution we can once again see what we have in common.  We all want freedom, in fact we treasure our right to disagree.  However, the idea that collecting enough people to vote in politicians who will legislate for or against a certain cause only divides us.  This method of forced morality will never unite our citizens.  In fact, it only serves those in power by placing voters against each other instead of the common enemy of our liberty, namely the Federal Government.

So why do we fear a weak government?  We fear that our vision, our morals, our very beliefs will not be forced upon those who do not agree with us.  We have accepted that the only way to support or promote our personal beliefs is to gain the support of the government.  This system of legislating morality goes against the idea of liberty.  A government can not enforce morality without admitting that it holds the view that its people do not have the freedom to choose for themselves.  We are free to believe and do anything we want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.  This is such a simple principle yet we forget the implied liberty it gives us all.  When we remove the ability of our politicians to distract us with debates focused on what divides us we will find ourselves empowered to support our individual beliefs without allowing the theft of our liberty.  How many times each day do you see ways to contribute to social causes without the government being involved?  Whether it is clicking on yahoo, or twitter or google we are inundated with ways to support foreign countries and issues both domestic and abroad.  Why do we need politicians and civil servants to do this for us?  Why do we pay people to choose which cause we support?  Why do we support a governmental system which picks winners and loses instead of allowing us to choose ourselves?  Imagine how much money could be saved by giving directly instead of funneling donations through a system riddled with wasteful bureaucracy.  Imagine the efficiency of keeping education a local issue instead of relying on unions and politicians to decide what is best for everyone.  Imagine all people being treated equal instead of placing more or less value on one race, religion or creed.  Some people will say that what I propose would remove the protections some people need but I believe that if we were willing to rely on enforcing existing law instead of fighting for exemptions from it we would all be better off.  Every time a politician promises a gift of money or special rights they are taking your liberty.  Just remember that the power you give them today could be used against you tomorrow. In fact this is already the case.  Those on the left hate the causes supported by the right and vice-versa.  This hatred has become the fuel for elections. If we realized that we can all keep our beliefs and support the causes we choose to, politicians would lose the ability to herd us and we might find the liberty enjoyable.   We are afraid of a weak government because we have forgotten how to rely on ourselves.  We are afraid of a weak government because we believe politicians when they tell us how important they are.  Simply put, we are a society controlled with fear. Fear did not create this nation; the ability to rely on ourselves, the respect for our neighbors and the mutual pursuit of liberty gave us a nation of simple laws and a weak central government.  It is about time we remembered the value of keeping power among the people and the States and away from political parties and politicians who only seek to divide us thereby empowering themselves.

Tee Up For Life Charity Golf Tournament Supports the Fight Against Cancer

If you live near the front range area in Colorado, please check out the following fundraising golf tournament.  You can either play or support through donations.  I have played in this tournament for the last two years and highly recommend it as a way to support the fight against cancer.  Of course, I might be a bit biased as part of the team seeking to defend our championship last year! :)
Please contact Teri Mears for more information:
Teri Mears
Vice Director
Tee Up for Life Colorado Springs
719-357-6557
http://www.teeupforlifecoloradosprings.org/

Collective Bargaining by government employees

The fight in Wisconsin brings to the forefront a long over-due fight.  I'm sure you are tired of reading my ramblings today, if you even bothered.  In order to respect your time and efforts, I'll keep this extremely short.
So we think taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees is harsh eh? Let's think about just a few things before we jump to conclusions.
1.  How much influence do unions have over the voting trends among their members?
2.  How easy is it to fire a private employee when compared to a government employee? What kind of competition does this foster for the private vs public employer?
3.  Why should government employees get to sit at a bargaining table with elected officials?  This is a system built on a cycle of voting and gifts to the public unions.  Unions keep voting in officials that support the unions and the politicians keep promising benefits that the private sector could only dream of.  When you stop and think about it for a moment, the unions aren't really meeting with the employer(s).  They are meeting with elected officials acting on behalf of the employer(s), namely you and I.  How is this fair?  When do you and I get to contribute on our own behalf?  Surely we won't trust our politicians to do it for us!?!?
Even one of my least favorite presidents agrees with this line of thinking.
“The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”
FDR

Taxes, Spending, Partisanship; This One Is For You Nancy!

Before I begin, I must address a comment made by a caller into CSPAN today.  He actually said the Republicans are passing tax breaks for the rich (true) and therefore taking the money from the poor.  This guy needs to get his head checked.  Instead of wasting your time with a drawn out explanation, please refer to the article below to see how silly this notion truly is.  Once again we are pitting our country against itself.  Our tax code naturally creates a class warfare since the rich and powerful currently buy politicians who produce legislation dolling out either tax breaks or subsidies.  (If you want to skip the article below, suffice to say you can't take more money from those already not paying taxes...obviously I am speaking of income taxes.)
 http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Today Nanny Pelosi spoke about the Democrat's agenda.  She spoke about how the Republicans should pass a jobs bill.  She praised President Obama for pushing the stimulus bill and promoting job growth.  Well, I have to admit she sticks to her guns.  However, that is where praises stop for me.

Yes, Nancy, it has been eleven weeks and the Republicans haven't worked on a jobs bill.  If you pay attention to the movement which brought them to power, namely the Tea Party movement, they ought not bring up such a bill.  While I am not a Tea Party member, I have been to two rallies to see what it was all about.  One thing I did admire is that it seemed to be mostly built out of common sense.  The govt can't employ us out of a depression.  At least it can't long term anyway.  For an explanation of that statement, please look for my coming article on our governments' dependency upon currency manipulation.
I don't think anyone will produce clear evidence specifically showing quantitative parameters of how effective or ineffective the stimulus bill was.  I don't think it is debatable that it didn't do what the Democrats said it would, and it was probably more effective than the Republicans will admit.  So there you have it, we spent nearly a trillion dollars of money we didn't have in the first place to produce results that can't be proven while leaving a nation still craving jobs. Brilliant, simply brilliant.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that we won't have a budget passed in 2011.  Why am I so pessimistic?  I think I have good reason.  On one hand we have the Tea Party movement not willing to compromise their beliefs, threatening to vote out their own members if they find middle ground with the democrats.  On the other hand, we have Nancy Pelosi and her minions using phrases such as the "middle ground is not acceptable", or they need to stick to the "higher ground of our values".  Nancy herself used a phrase today that scares me, just a little while ago she actually praised the "morality of government programs". Once again she praised the POTUS for saying that we can't afford tax breaks for the rich because it increases the deficit.  What a backwards way of looking at things.  Lowering income does not necessarily increase the deficit.  Maintaining spending levels (or increasing them) while cutting revenues increases the deficit.
Why is it so difficult to understand that our government has never produced a dime?  The money our govt survives on is taken by force through taxation.  Remembering such a simple fact would serve our nation well.   While the speech by Nancy Pelosi today must have sounded good to those looking for help, it was built on lies. 
Firstly, where is government moral? The amount of fighting taking place to define the morals of government should prove that our federal government can not pretend to speak for all of its citizens when it comes to morality.  For instance, I don't think AIDS in Africa is a problem our government should be worrying about.   Don't get me wrong, I support the Red Cross and other such agencies.  I just don't feel it is morally acceptable to force me to give money to a nation across an ocean.  How is it a moral principle to steal money from a small business owner who, having worked his or her whole career in order to build something from scratch, finds themselves taxed at such high rates that they would have been better off finding laziness half way through the process?  My old boss fought this internal battle all the time.  There is a point at which expanding, hiring, and increasing his salary made no sense because of the tax penalties.  How is this a free economy?  How is this fair?  How does this encourage a higher rate of employment?  I fail to see how such a tax scheme encourages anything but more corporatism and dependence.  How is it moral to invade countries because our beliefs are self-proclaimed to be more valuable than theirs?  How is it moral to avoid telling the population of America how the war will be paid for?  How is it morally acceptable to blow up Iraq without paying for it, and then pay to rebuild it, without paying for it.  Especially since we are using private contractors more and more often, so now we have corporations making billions off of an unjust and illegal war.  (Illegal because we never declared war, and the congress illegally gave the executive branch authority it does not have.)  How is it moral to steal money from those in Colorado to help pay for floods in Mississippi?  Isn't that why the Red Cross and such entities exist?  America has proven over and over again how giving we are.  Why is the government (Sen. Charles Schumer D-NY) promoting federally funded cancer research?  What if I don't have cancer and don't want to pay for it?   I have a cancer charity on my blog, it isn't like I don't support the fight, but when did the government get the right to choose the winners and losers receiving such funding?  For that matter, why am I paying for a federal education dept. when I don't have kids?  How are these things moral?  We don't need our government to steal our money in order to help those in need.  All it does is feed the never-ending growth of the bureaucratic mess we have allowed to fester in Washington.  They are only important because we believe them when they say they are important!
You want a moral government?  It seems to me you have two choices. You either support a government based on a particular religion, or you accept that life is not fair and support a government that places the ideas of individual liberty, property rights,  and common defense as its only priorities.   So the Republicans haven't even started on a jobs bill, hooray for them!  You want a jobs bill?  How about a flat tax?  How about abolishing the IRS?  How about instituting a VAT instead of an income tax?  How about public funding of campaigns so we can start to curb corporatism?  How about term limits? I don't think all of those would fly, and truth be told I don't even like all of them.  However, those ideas at least move us in the direction of an economy and nation that starts to remember what freedom is.  The speech by Nancy Pelosi today did nothing except encourage dependence on the government.  It really is that simple.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Health Care Part 2: Another Way of Looking at the Problem

A Radically Simple Idea About Health Care
So it seems to me that almost everyone agrees on the following issues within the recent health care debate.  Firstly, we have among the best treatment options on the planet.  Secondly, the application of those treatments is neither efficient nor even-handed.  Thirdly, cost is the root of the majority of issues within the health care system.  While I will not pretend to be smart enough to have thoroughly vetted my own idea, I maintain that I can at least show that other perspectives and possibilities can exist.
            When considering the value of constant advancement in the field of medicine, it seems self-evident to me that competition is the key to maintaining this current luxury.  Not surprisingly, I believe this is most easily achieved through free-market principles.  I’m wasting your time to explain why; for you either agree or disagree already on such a core principle.  Suffice to say that if personal profit through company or salary advancement is the payoff instead of a civil servant job that is safe from all but nuclear war, I think the former will provide a better ROI every time.
            We need to expand the access to health care dramatically.  Okay, everyone still agrees with me so far at least.  One of the ways I think we can accomplish this is through education.  Far too often, in my experience, emergency rooms are filled with people that have a child with the sniffles, or a bloody nose, or some other issue that with proper education could be solved at home.  There are two main factors in promoting healthy self reliance.  The first one is the doctor-patient relationship where comfort, confidence, and knowledge should come from.  This relationship will be improved by the changes I show later in the system of commerce.  The second factor concerns finding the proper impetus for people to seek self-reliance in the first place.  If we can empower the vast majority with the purchasing power of their own health care,  we can incorporate such a system of  financial incentives with little effort.  In short, we can dramatically improve our health care system by simply improving our usage of it.
            In order to enjoy 21^st century medical care, we need to find a new way to deliver the services in order to shift our dollars away from overhead costs and funnel more to the treatments and providers directly.  We also need to enlarge the pool containing financial contributors, those who pay for their health care.  Another worthy goal is improving the doctor-patient relationship.  Improving this relationship will mean both an increase in the depth of the relationship as well as the higher quality delivery of services arising from true compassion and trust. As a military dependant and also a person of far too many broken bones and asthma-related incidents, I saw first hand the kind of health care provided by a government system.  I will never forget my first trip to a civilian hospital for care and the resulting shock that it could be so much more efficient. Everyone should get the latter form of care in my opinion simply because it is better in my experience.  It is with these goals in mind that I offer the following thoughts and suggestions.
My main thought is this, we waste hundreds of millions (billions most likely) paying for a system designed to do nothing more than pay our doctors for us.  When you strip it all away, that is what you get.  We are asked to pay into a system whether we need it or not at the time, and in return they will pay PART of the bill down the line, as long as they agree you need the treatment and qualify for it.  Oh, and then they can raise your rates or dump you if you cost too much, or even look like you will down the road.  I should stop here to point out that I’m writing this without considering the changes implemented by Obama Care. So why don’t we find a better way to pay for all this health care without all the bureaucratic waste and none-sense? Well that is what I am suggesting and it certainly doesn’t include funneling our money through the idiotic and wasteful entity we call our Federal Government.
            Why can’t we purchase our health care directly from the hospital or doctor?  Really, think about it.  I think it can work.  This can be accomplished in several different ways.  Hospitals could simply offer monthly payment packages that include a certain set of standard features much like choosing channel packages when buying cable TV.  Savings accounts could also be offered to encourage a down-payment on future high-cost treatments that are unexpected.  Instead of offering earnings through interest, hospitals could offer different levels of a discount when using those funds in the future.  The more operating capital you “loan” the hospital, the less they charge you when you spend the funds from that account.  For the wealthy, this means they can set themselves up for life by simply setting aside a portion of their wealth ahead of time directly into the system now.  For the poor, that means they can finally afford to buy essential services without breaking the bank.  I would even suggest that such a system would lead us back to the times when doctors or hospitals could afford to deal on a case-by-case basis with those that couldn’t even afford a payment plan for basic services.  When you consider the amount of actual visits the average person makes, the idea that nearly 100% of your payments each month would be spent on the few visits made, it isn’t hard to imagine a mere $20.00 per month going further than your funds do now.  Even in this utopian world, I realize that we have people that still couldn’t afford even the cheapest plan offered.  My whole point revolves around the fact that we can drastically improve the efficiency of our system, which means the charitable donations we currently have in the system could be allowed to reach more people in a more effective way.  Where are the best systems for child cancer care now for instance?  Typically most people agree that it is found within the St. Jude clinics, both private institutions dependent upon charitable contributions.  I have the utmost faith that our country will always take care of our poor when allowed to do so without interference.  This is how it used to be and it can be again.  Within a system of direct payment to the hospital an atmosphere of competition will sprout between local hospitals.  This competition will lead to a performance based system when it comes to the direct delivery of health care.  No longer will staff be kept when underperforming.  I dare say that without the paper-work and second guessing involved with our health insurance industry, our health professionals would enjoy their jobs again as well.  Hospitals would be directly accountable to the citizens of its city or town since payments aren’t coming from across the nation, signed by a person that has never been in the hospital.  Now I realize there are a lot of issues I haven’t addressed.  For the most part, that is due to the desire to find brevity after already asking you to read two pages.  I’ll briefly touch on a couple of those in an attempt to provide at least a guide as to how I think some of them could be addressed.  As far as funding the expensive equipment needed for diagnosis such as CT scanners I think a combination of donations, hospital resource pooling and even a secondary industry for such services can address this need.  For the issue of rural health care needs I would merely clarify that I am not against large companies being involved in our system.  I have no objection to having a chain store basic health service clinic in the corner strip-mall.  I also have no objection to a person or company owning multiple hospitals in order to provide care centers for rural needs.  Finally, I do believe our local, state, and federal governments do have a role to play in this scenario.  They alone can protect our rights during commerce, so they must be involved.  For instance, they would have to enforce anti-trust laws in order to prevent any one entity from dominating the market and price-gouging.  They could provide freedoms such as moving your savings to a new hospital without severe penalty in order to keep hospitals from leveraging your account against you.  A state or local government could provide, through a proposition directly voted on by the people, funds to assist those in need according to the will of the people in that city or state.  We MUST avoid federal involvement here.  They can never be allowed to touch our money simply because it isn’t their right, not to mention it would signal a return to an inefficient system.  It simply isn’t legal or fair to ask a state like Alaska to contribute to the health care needs of New York or Massachusetts.   The state level is as far as any social program should go if we want to stay effective, respect our nation’s political structure, and keep overhead loss to a minimum. I think private donations would INCREASE in a system such as I am suggesting and legislated financial support wouldn’t be needed in the first place.  I invite everyone to offer their ideas, opinions and criticisms on this.  I have thought of more detail to this idea to be sure, but as I said before, I have to let you go at some point.  If you have a question or suggestion, please leave a comment and I’ll get back to you within a couple days.
For some of the government’s own numbers showing that public health care programs are less efficient than private ones, here is a quick fact list provided covering the national health care expenditures.
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp#TopOfPage

Health Care Debate Part 1

Today the House Energy and Commerce Committee met to discuss the implementation and affordability of the new Affordable Care Act, or Obama Care.  During the opening statements by both parties the lines were drawn early.  The opening statements by the Republicans attacked the affordability of the expansion of Medicare while those of the Democrats touted the benefits already in place and the humanity of the bill.   Perhaps Stephen Hawking is right; it sure seemed that the coming conversation would take us back over a year ago.  This trip is necessary though.
            During his opening remarks, Rep. Waxman (D-CA), mentioned the benefits that are already in place as a result of the ACA.  While the inclusion of those with pre-existing conditions, for example,  is certainly effective at pulling heart-strings, the bragging didn’t include the context of deferring the costs.  The mandates that will pay for these shared benefits don’t come into place until after the next Presidential election.  Of course it is nice to get something for nothing, again we hear the classic bait used against the population to garner support for federal control of various goods and services.  As a second point of support, Rep. Waxman celebrated the flexibility granted to the exchanges the States are supposed to use.  It should come as no surprise that Rep. Waxman was successful at finding something to justify the law, he was the committee chairman when it was drafted.  Shouldn’t it bother us that the States are forced to adhere to any rules constricting its flexibility in providing Medicare?  Shouldn’t they be free to explore different ways of running the program based on the needs of their individual citizens?  Surely it is obvious that running almost any type of social program in New York will be different from in Montana.  Perhaps this is why we established a union of States and not a single source of government for the country.  Besides the fact that we have allowed the Federal Government to build programs which force the population to solve societal issues through Federal programs alone; now the States are told how to run the program as well.  It seems like the authors should have been more honest and taken the control directly instead of hiding behind a law forcing others to do as they wish.  To be fair, the public option was going to admit the true intention of those who wrote the bill.  However, it should be noted the public option couldn’t pass through congress.  Once again,  they got what they wanted without having to admit their true intentions.  Instead of forming a Federal program, they designed a system of rules to transfer power of the current health care system to the Federal level.  About the only good thing I can say about Rep. Waxman in this context is that he shouldn’t be blamed for writing the bill.  As one who watched the vast majority of committee meetings and floor discussions, Congress really didn’t write the bill anyway.  The amount of agreements between the Executive Branch and private industries that took place in order to get support were well documented.  For instance, shouldn’t we wonder why the pharmaceutical industry paid for the commercials herding the blind towards support?  If this was truly about beating up health insurance companies and drug companies, why were they paying for the propaganda for a bill they shouldn’t like?
            Part of the problem of shifting the decision-making power but not the responsibility is fiscal.  According to the Governors, the States will have to raise their taxes in response because they can not afford to add to their responsibilities without either cutting spending on education or gaining new revenue.  What a scam!  Washington gains the right to tell the States what to do and how to do it, but the bad news about the true costs will come from our Governors instead of from those who wrote the bill!  This shifted blame can easily be seen as a way of encouraging even more financial dependency upon the Federal Government.  As Frank Pallone (D-NJ) admitted, while the Democrats were in power recently, they solved State budget issues with Federal funding.  This is incredible!  Our Federal Government is paying our State’s bills while running a deficit.  Isn’t that like a wife paying her husbands bills with her credit card so he can say they were paid?  This reliance only serves to contribute to the financial irresponsibility in Washington at a time when we are facing debt levels that could bring our country to its knees.  While Democrats brag about the support of social programs such as Medicare during down economies our media is typically useless in asking if our economy is weakened by the mere existence of these programs.  Remember that the same system that permits a monetary policy of constant inflation also permits the illusion of success for the various schemes Washington has sold us.
Without the generational cost shifting inherent in running our country on a credit card we couldn’t have the military empire we currently support. Politicians wouldn’t be able to claim the Social Security funds are safe either.  They won’t deny, if they are pinned down hard enough, that the cash isn’t there.  It is filled with promissory notes of the United States Treasury.  I.O.U.’s are what we get for our social security taxes. Democrats continue to challenge the Republican Governor’s opposition to the ACA with pointed questions about what would they do to replace the bill, as if the only choice is a federally run program telling us all what to do.  Democrats wrote a bill offering unrealistic benefits for the people without paying for it and use the unpaid-for early benefits as leverage over anyone challenging the long-term implementation of the program.  While this sounds good to the people and will make it more difficult to address those issues before they are at hand, it relies on a bait and switch type of governing that I can’t support.
Since I obviously think the ACA is a bad idea, I figured I had better show that it isn't the only way of providing health care to the nation.  Look for Health Care Part 2 for an alternate solution.
Lastly, I must address a comment made by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) towards her Governor.  She attacked his budget plan for its potential loss of federal funding towards Medicare.  I’m not saying that Wisconsin is doing something right or wrong but doesn’t this point out the failure of a system that only supports States which defers authority and control to a federal program?  The idea that our States are no longer allowed to explore democratic ideas on their own is one that angers me.  Our union is stronger when we explore every idea concerning government. We also protect our union by exploring new ways of governing on the smaller scale of the States rather than passing one-size-fits-all bills on the federal level.  We are not America; we are the United States of America.  Has everyone forgotten the point in making a union? Limiting the legislative imagination and authority to Washington has not served us well yet, why should we not question this new system instead of granting them more and more power over our lives and commerce?   It wasn't always this way but I'll bet our public schools don't teach that much.  Certainly it is missing from the vast majority of main stream media conversations, otherwise known as the adult education system

Democrat or Republican? What does that mean? (If you are offended later, you're on the right track)

When the United States of America was founded we had two main political parties emerge, much as we have today. The anti-federalists, one of those original parties of American politics, would come to be known as the Democrat-Republicans based on their support of a strong republic consisting of independently governed states.  How is that for irony?  The Democrat-Republicans!  The opposing party was referred to as the Federalists, whose name arose out of their idea of a strong federal government and national bank, among other platforms. So at the beginning we had a party who wanted to centralize power and money squaring off against a party who fiercely protected the ideas of checks and balances and state’s rights.  Where are we now in comparison?

The Symbol of a People United

What does it mean to be a modern-day Republican?  Well, you might be a right-wing Christian.  Certainly conventional wisdom tells us the Christians support the Republicans.  You want to control what is taught in schools so that Darwin’s “theory” isn’t taken as fact.  You also support the killing of Muslims with hardly a shred of justification since they aren’t Christian.  While you tout the freedom you think you have, you certainly have no issue with the occupation of foreign countries at the whim of our leaders.  You have the divine right to force a young girl to carry a rapist’s child.  You could be a business man if you are a Republican.  We all know that big-business and banking support the Republicans.  You definitely believe in Reagan, trickle-down economics, lower taxes for the rich and a strong military.  You fondly remember Nancy Reagan’s “Just say NO” campaign and support the war on drugs.  Although the funny thing is that you did enough coke to kill a horse in college and you drink like a fish at your high-society parties.  You are rich, you are white, you are probably male (unless you are an unenlightened or bible-blinded woman), quite possibly racist, and you don’t care about anyone but you and your family.
So what is left for the Democratic Party to claim?  Let’s start with the really easy ones. Democrats are: gay, unionized, not-white, female, artistic, non-Christian, pot smokers, poor, environmentally sensitive or supportive of any other cause not based on the bible.  You hate big business and think that someone ought to decide how much money is enough for any one person.  Of course, your Hollywood buddies are on the fence about that one but you’ll give them a pass and only hate industry since the California rich tend to support things you like.   You support killing a fetus so you don’t have to keep a condom in your wallet.  You believe in redistributing wealth at the loss of liberty.  You support hate-crime legislation, which devalues a life arbitrarily by race, creed, or some other characteristic.  You probably were or are on welfare. You want to control education so that every single boy thinks about whether or not they are gay.  Anything you have you haven’t earned but instead were given by government, luck, or inheritance.  You are idealistic to the point of living in a dream world.  You trust the government more than you trust your fellow-man or yourself.  You were indoctrinated by a system of public education.  You are a godless, easily coerced, black or Hispanic, probably female, dependent and maybe even handicapped citizen who wouldn’t stand a chance without the rich propping you up.

Can you see the forest through the trees?

Welcome to how your party is portrayed by the other side's media machine.  If you find either of these descriptions offensive, then why do you blindly believe political parties are good for us?  Why do you want to be categorized?  What forces these broad, crude, and unacceptable descriptions into being?  How does it serve the parties to widen the gap between the parties?  The more we centralize power in our government, the more we give influence to our political parties.   These parties are no longer about serving any ideal or their members.  They are about increasing their number of votes.  Think about some of the ideas that have received bi-partisan support lately.  The bank bailouts were created under a Republican administration (blatantly against the will of the people) and advanced beyond the financial industry by a Democrat administration.  Both parties operated from the same point of view; screw the people by stealing their money and giving it to the corporations while increasing the amount of control enjoyed by the very same politicians writing the bill!  How many people have to point out the sick and twisted relationship between the federal government, Goldman Sach’s, and the Federal Reserve? How is Obama any different from Bush when you look at his cabinet appointments such as Geithner? Consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama kept the same Secretary of Defense and didn’t really change anything significant from Bush’s plans.  Although, we are hearing about a longer stay than we were originally told in both places, gee what a big surprise. How about detaining individuals against their constitutional rights?  Seems to me Obama hasn’t done any better at protecting the rights of those detained without being charged or tried in a court, against a campaign promise I might add.  So where do the parties differ?  It seems to me they pretty much differ along the sort of lines I outlined earlier.  Each party chooses a portion of the populace, alienates it from the alternative point of view, and claims the moral high ground in order to gain power through unification. This isn’t the kind of political organization I want to belong to.
How do we stop this labeling?  How do we start to see each other as Americans; instead of Democrat or Republican, black or white, gay or straight, Christian or atheist?  The first thing we need to do is stop giving away our powers of influence, opinion, commerce, and persuasion to the federal government.  If we can roll back the powers that were usurped from us by our government we can begin to remove the power of influence by the parties.  For example, if we were to return the responsibility of education to that of the community and the State, we could break the ties between Democrats and the teacher’s union.  The more local your money stays, the less bureaucratic crap it has to pay for.  Isn’t that simple?  If you don’t have federal programs tying all of our teachers together, then you don’t need a nation-wide union fighting for them, do you?  You are free to return to the days where you actually had influence at the local PTA meeting.  Do they even have those anymore?  What a novel idea, instead of teachers forming a union in order to collectively bargain with the government officials, you have teachers forming a partnership with the parents to fight with the local officials and institutions for what the children need. Now teachers are free to support either political party because their livelihood isn’t part of what they are voting for nationally.   Now we can shed the label of Democrat or Republican while we support education.  How much simpler is that?  How much cheaper is that? The same principle applies to big-oil and the Republicans.  Stop legislating so much and you break the ties that bind our government to organizations instead of citizens and the country's future health.  When we weaken the government’s power over us, we will find that our communities will come together far easier.  The more we allow our government to do, the more causes it will use to pit neighbor against neighbor, citizen against citizen.  That is the secret the government is trying to keep from us.  They know we are more powerful than they are.  We are herded according to our political beliefs which derive from powers stolen from us.   If we are to return to a free society, a productive society, indeed a prosperous society; we must remember true power comes from within ourselves and our communities, not a federal government addicted to our money and power.

The Truth About Our System

No longer do we have a party fighting for state’s rights against a party supporting centralized power.  The very idea that there is a limit to federal power is only raised when one party is trying to stop the other such as the case with the health care bill.  No longer do we have a choice that offers something besides funneling tax dollars through Washington at the expense of both a truly representative government and anything resembling efficiency.  No longer is there anyone reminding voters about the rights they give up each time Congress produces another piece of legislation.  No longer is there a party for the people and I mean ALL the people.  If there is no longer a party for the people, how can there be a government for the people?

Passing the Leadership in Libya

Mark this date down.  I'm going to defend President Obama.
While the left-leaning media is praising the POTUS for doing what he said, namely bombing for a few days and then passing control off, the right-leaning seems to repeat the chant of a "failure of leadership" over and over again.  Both could be correct depending on the coming days, weeks and months.  If American troops on the ground or air are to be used in fulfilling the majority of responsibilities in the future then I would side with the right-wing media.  How can American troops be used for their power without the influence of our military leaders?  If you want a military force that isn't bothered by being told what to do, then use NATO forces, not American forces.  As far as I am concerned, an American private comes with an American General. If we are going to pass off control, then we should pass off responsibilities to a corresponding level.  If this turns out to be a game of political pass-the-buck so that President Obama can say it wasn't his fault or choice, then shame on him for being gutless.  However, we don't know that is what is happening yet.  If, on the other hand, the coalition being supported by France, Britain and the Arab League takes the control and the responsiblity then perhaps we actually will have a President who does what he says.  I have already explained in other posts why we shouldn't have been there in the first place.  While I stick to my guns on the opinion, I admit that if our involvement is over, then it is more of a problem for those left in charge than it will be for us.  All I'm saying is let's stop assuming we know what is going to happen concerning American troop involvement.  I have my doubts of course, but I think we owe it to President Obama to wait and see.  The "Western" countries involved are already facing criticism because we are expanding our efforts past the "no fly zone".  This I totally agree with.  The mission was undefined, had no real parameters, and certainly no defined end-game.  I suppose after the lackluster leadership of President Bush in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts we shouldn't be surprised.  The possibility of troops on the ground, or at the very least an expansion of the mission beyond what we were told, has been a cause for worry ever since President Obama proclaimed Gadhafi had to go on the 4th of March.  However, we ought to give him the  chance to show he meant what he said in respect to American troop involvement.  I'll rally against him if he lied, but as far as I can tell, we aren't there yet.  Whether you voted for him or not, support him in this venture until he shows he isn't worthy of that support.
Regardless of whether the POTUS keeps his word, every day we are hearing more atrocities committed by either accidental coalition killing or intentional killing by Gadhafi's military forces.  When we consider that the violence was well on its way to ending, how can we continue to call this a humanitarian mission?  We have accomplished nothing more than violating a sovereign state, whose existence we didn't seem to mind for the last 20 or 30 years.  We have caused the violence to last longer without any sort of definition of what we are aiming for.   Without removing the government in place with a new one, how can we say we accomplished anything?  Gadhafi has continued to attack civilians despite the 100+ missiles and various threats.  So someone tell me, what did we accomplish? While I'm willing to give the Administration time to prove it will basically halt our involvement, I still am waiting to hear what they think they accomplished in the first place.  I suspect that we will end up using Libya's resistance against foreign aggression to justify further involvement.  Somehow this reeks of a self-fulfilling prophecy if it comes to fruition.

House Appropriations Sub-Committee Meeting on IMF and World Bank Funding

House Appropriations Subcommittee meeting with Timothy Geithner
Today the committee met to discuss the budget request for international financial institutions from the Treasury Department, headed by Secretary Geithner.  The funds would be used, according to both the Secretary and the members of the committee, for debt relief, funding emerging countries, immunizations, fighting global warming, creating American jobs and to further our influence among emerging economies around the world.  These institutions include the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund among others.  The result of not providing funding to the WB, IMF and others will be a lessening of our international influence and the replacement of our influence by that of China.  This is according to those on the panel and the Secretary alike.  Why is this important and why should we question it?
I also don’t trust Secretary Geithner’s reliance upon massive institutions.  Here is a man who was President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, a Republican (until Clinton appointed him when he changed his party affiliation to independent, how convenient) and the author of the bank bailouts, starting with AIG.  What a great job he did, especially if you are one of the recipients of the 165 million dollars subsequently handed out in bonuses within AIG.  Appointed by President Bush he was kept by our current Administration.  His program of the bailout was so unpopular among the American people; the original vote in Congress didn’t pass the first time due to pressure from voters.  The authors of the bailout had to add pork spending and political weight to get it to pass against the will of the people.  Does this sound like an expert’s opinion we should rely upon?  Does he sound like he is respecting the people’s will as a public servant?  He would say, and has said as much in various testimonies in front of Congress, that the financial elite know better than we do but how many recessions, how much inflation will it take to realize they are only managing their mistakes, not the economy.
First of all, this is theft.  Our government has no right to forcibly take our money and choose how to spend it abroad.  They don’t even have the right to take our money to spend arbitrarily within our borders.  For an example of this, please read the following story. http://davycrockettstory.org/ The justifications used to take our money don’t hold water anyway.  For one, Secretary Geithner claims the value of every dollar that they ASK the tax payers to put up is most effectively used in these international financial institutions.  I don’t remember anyone asking me if it was okay!  He should have said every dollar we TAKE from the American taxpayer, which would have at least been honest.  The claim that our international influence is reliant upon gifts to international financial institutions seems idiotic to me.  This is true if the only way to spread our power of financial business deals such as loans remains within the structure of international organizations such as the IMF or World Bank.  I find this difficult to believe.  During the American Revolution we had to convince countries that we were a worthy risk in order to get loans.  We didn’t need anyone mediating the request.  I fail to see why we do now.  When we pass control of our influence to a foreign or international power, we weaken our ability to procure financial gains from such dealings.  Notwithstanding the current attacks on private industry, profit motivates companies to provide the best goods and services beyond the capability of any government.  As Secretary Geithner voiced several times, the restrictions and requirements we place upon our support of these international organizations are not written by Congress in fact.  They are drafted within Congress and then “negotiated” with the international organizations.  So now the power of control attached to the expenditure of our tax dollars by our own government is bypassed.  Does this sound like the policy of a liberty loving nation?  Theft of the people’s money, relinquishing authority over the use of those funds, and illegal collaboration with international institutions not beholden to the will of the voters who are forced to make financial contributions;  these are the factors we should remember and not the touting of humanitarianism they would rather you listen to.
One of the “threats” made against a failure to re-fund the institutions in question is that America will find China jumping in to make these loans.  The problem with this situation is that China will act according to their own goals and gains.  What a concept!  So let me get this straight, China could act without some international coalition but we can’t?  Furthermore, is it evil to engage in a foreign policy, trade or international business with the goal of self-preservation and advancement?  Is it impossible to imagine American companies going abroad on their own and competing in the world market for the opportunity to help young nations by providing financial services?  It seems likely that Americans would directly support such institutions which provided a market for profit by assisting emerging countries in developing trade opportunities and strong economies.  By the Secretary’s own admission, the IMF is out of funds after giving all the money away during the recent recession and now needs more money.  Let’s think about that for a second.  WE gave them money we really didn’t have (since we run deficits) and they spent it to bail out countries where economies collapsed due to the financial ties to our system.  Now they need us to spend more money we don’t have in order to be able to loan more money to nations that will be financially tied to our future success or failure.  Seems to me this is a no-win deal for both parties.  We go broke propping up foreign and local economies with fake money, we go broke by spending money we don’t have, and then end up borrowing more money (from China mostly!) to bail out those countries as well as ourselves.  We are risking the future of our country while paying interest on money to loan, at no profit, to emerging economies.  Is there some new form of logic of which I am unaware?  Of course this idiocy is still supported by our government; to withdraw support would be to admit the failure of the system of theft they built against us!
Another threat used to garner support for further support of the IMF and World Bank is the ability they have to break trade barriers.  Who is implementing these trade barriers that only an international organization can break?  Who is telling the U.S. where we can and can’t trade?  What overseas body places limits on American companies with regards to doing business overseas?  Besides the over-reaching and negative influence of our own government, is there anyone outside our borders who can tell us what to do legally?  I can certainly understand that national security would prevent American companies from selling military hardware or other products to countries who are openly hostile against our nation.  However, I doubt such limitations are what the IMF and World Bank are overcoming.  What happened to the idea of free trade?  Could it be that the trade restrictions are only in place to make the free market ineffective, or to put it another way, to create the very reliance they are seeking to further? I would think it is either that or just another example of our government getting in the way of industry for some other idiotic reason.  When did America become so dependent that we handed over the economy to our government?  How is this transfer of financial control American?  How well has our economy done since allowing political motivations to cloud the clarity needed in financial decisions?  I would argue we have seen nothing but debt, inflation, inefficiency, theft, waste, abuse and a weakened country as well.
Our country should not seek to influence the world through governmental theft and arbitrary dealings.  Our country should promote the ideals of liberty through allowing a free market to best serve the interests of its participants.  These emerging countries could provide a financial boost to our economy if we would allow it.  The alliances made should benefit our country and its citizens, not some international debacle which teaches these new governments that money is practically free.  The very restrictions which profit brings into any business deal would provide a foundation for these new countries that would be based in reality instead of the current system of hand outs.  When questioned about the fraud, abuse, and benefits to the elite ruling classes of new nations, Secretary Geithner could only say that they were getting better.  He could not deny the amount of fraud taking place in the IMF and World Bank and instead chose to just say it was improving.  Once again, we are allowing politicians to build a system reliant on tax payers but ultimately serving the aspirations of the elite class of the world.  I have no problem with a CEO making millions off of investments abroad.  At least they are held accountable by their shareholders and other officers within the company, not to mention the law.  I should mention our government is not beholden to the law, they just change it when they want new powers or fewer restrictions.  We are told they need the additional power in order to take care of us or protect us.   This is the basis for the ridiculous argument that our constitution is a living document that allows politicians to both take away the liberties acknowledged therein and grant themselves powers far beyond the scope of the federal government founded in this country. I have a serious issue with someone taking my money, spending as they choose, forcing out private competition and then justifying the existence of their programs with self-proclaimed importance.  When America remembers the government isn’t the best or only way to accomplish goals such as foreign aid we will be far better off.  We could save not only money but perhaps our reputation as a free nation.  Our involvement in the IMF and World Bank does not reflect the values of our history based on freedom.  They only reflect our dependence on the government and the restrictions placed on private business in order to foster such dependence.

Is the No Fly Zone a Solution or Another Problem?

As Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman support the creation of a no fly zone over Libya on the floor of the Senate, it brings up another conversation about modern American politics.  Namely that of a continually interventionist foreign policy.  While the idea of a non-interventionist policy was the advice of our forefathers and certainly something we ought to remember and heed, the implications of our involvement in Libya aren’t so easily categorized.
     It is unfortunate that we don’t hear more discussions of peaceful options.  Libya has taken several steps to encourage free trade,  such as the passing of the 1999 Free Trade Act, perhaps this effort towards economic advances for the Libyan society could be used against the Gaddafi regime.  It is seems obvious that Libya recognizes the value of tourism and free trade when one considers its involvement in the African, Arab, and Mediterranean free trade zones.  Why aren’t we hearing more about sanctions?  Why aren’t we hearing more about limiting the amount of international financial support of the Libyan nation?  Why do we not hear more about rewarding “good behaviour”?  Why must the no fly zone, a predominately military action, be the dominant go-to scenario for both politicians and the media?
    While we have President Bill Clinton encouraging the implementation of a no fly zone, we have his wife, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, already warning us that a no fly zone is useless without troops on the ground. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/12908_libyanoflyzonesamericanbackers)  This should sound warning bells of yet another occupation we can’t afford.  We didn’t pass a budget in FY 2010, we may not in FY 2011; yet we are going to start yet another military conflict, really?
     While fighting the American Revolution, America would never have succeeded without foreign intervention.  The French support of our cause was invaluable no doubt.  Perhaps America would be well served to remember that France did benefit from the relationship, namely by weakening its rival England.  When was the last time America considered its own interests (not those of corporatism mind you)?  Perhaps we should remember that America had to warrant the support through its readiness to become a sovereign nation, especially when recalling our dealings with the Netherlands.  Perhaps we ought to remember the amount of effort both America and Britain made before war became the only viable option.   Perhaps we ought to consider America will do no nation any good if it is not around in the future due to the fiscal shenanigans which allow foolish military actions in the first place.
     Libyans should keep fighting for freedom.  We ought to support this fight just as we should any fight for freedom.    I just hope we hear more options than those presented by our military might before it is too late.  If we are to fight on a foreign nation’s soil for freedom, maybe the people of America ought to think about the seemingly random interventionist foreign policy we have in America today.  How many dictators have we supported ?  From the Shah in Iran,  to the plethora of dictators in Guatemala, to the support and eventual demonization of Saddam Hussein in Iraq; America does not have a stellar record when it comes to picking winners and losers among foreign governments.  On top of that, consider how many countries disregard the human rights of their citizens while we do nothing?  (http://www.guardian.co.uk/rightsindex/) Perhaps we ought to stop pretending we offer a panacea of truth, decency and democracy to those struggling for it.  It is worth considering that the fight itself presents one of the most valuable parts of the journey to liberty. 

Country is more Important

Sometimes we forget that a country is bigger than the sum of its people.  Such a simple principle provides us with an all-volunteer military force.  The desire for individual liberty binds all Americans together with the common goal of preserving the ideas etched in our founding documents. At least this should be the case. I believe this is what our founders wanted.  Furthermore, I believe this never-ending quest is what America is all about. Countless generations have gone before us without concerning themselves with the freedoms they enjoyed and instead focusing upon those they wished for their children. One thing I believe recent American history has proven is that focusing on the here-and-now has not served future generations well.  I am referring to voting, legislating, interpreting exist law, lead and finally follow.  Not until we remember that the preservation of our country is more important than any one generation’s needs, will we regain the level of economic and social liberty that once made America the beacon of freedom and prosperity the world over.
            Our military forces are amazing.  I don’t think anyone can disagree with that.  Whether you are a war-monger or a hippie, you’ve got to admit that what we can do militarily is nothing short of astounding.  The rate at which we can move troops, the precision with which we can now attack, our communications abilities; all of these attributes would have been unthinkable not so long ago.  Somewhere along the line though, we forgot to be impressed that it is a volunteer force.  Only a powerful force such as individual liberty can provide the impetus to join an army of your own free will.  Only a just cause such as freedom or self-preservation can keep such a force together for decades and even centuries.   Our country’s defense is blessed with the support of citizens from all walks of life willing to put country first.  Perhaps this attitude would serve us well as we vote, legislate and generally live our lives.
            Our founding fathers gave us perhaps their most precious gift by putting in ink those lofty goals to which we should always aspire.  The ideas of decentralized power, individual freedom, religious freedom, and economic freedom were important no doubt.  Yet my favorite qualities of our constitution are not what it allows, but what it prevents.  While the struggle of interpreting what powers are granted and assumed goes back to the first administration, I believe we have lost the ability to frame the debates currently taking place in anything resembling a logical context.  While we should celebrate the mere existence of the ugliest debate for the political freedom it exercises, we must remember for whom we are fighting.  Americans must recall that we are fighting for generations not-yet born.  We are fighting for the ideals that allowed us to both enjoy the prosperity and suffer the lessons found throughout our history.  While there are several social and economic reasons that the abomination that is slavery was allowed to persist when our nation was founded, we can not forget that the principles put us on a path that required the eventual freedom of all people.  It may have taken society time to implement the ideals of freedom throughout the population but we can’t blame the founders for this.  The idea that the constitution is a living document is now used to justify abandoning the essence of individual liberty.  Our constitution should only be amended in the pursuit of furthering the cause of freedom.  Sadly, this is not the case at all.  The abuse of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause are easy examples of the power grabbing that Washington is so addicted to. We must always remember the context in which our country was founded if we want to preserve the union they gave us.
            I have found myself dragged into debates over whether this or that social policy will work.  This is rather unfortunate.  I think it is a mistake to start a debate around the functionality of a policy.  Instead, perhaps we should start with questioning how many government services are well run, fulfill their promises, operate within budget, avoid expanding beyond initial intents; not to mention how many of these services would be more effectively and efficiently provided at the state or local level.  Empowering Washington to provide a service permits and encourages our politicians to determine quality, amount, type and availability of said service.  What works for those in San Francisco many times isn’t what those in rural Oklahoma might need or want.  We have forgotten this country exists as a democratic republic.  This union of individually empowered states is what is so unique and yet with each passing year we seem to seek to emulate those systems of centralized power we once ran from. Whether we want to talk about education, health care, or any of our social programs, I believe that we can avoid the majority of the bickering we get sidetracked by, by simply asking if a federal program is the most effective way to serve our needs as a society.  If we are able to frame our policy debates in such a way, I believe that we will end up respecting the needs of our country over the needs of ourselves.  It is this prioritization that will allow us to honor the sacrifices of past generations while passing on the gifts of liberty, justice and equal economic freedom to all future Americans.

Newt's Flip-flopping post and why I won't vote for him

Today Newt Gingrich posted his opinion on a Facebook post.  He is showing his true colors.  I agree with his premise that “it is deeply disturbing that there is so much confusion, lack of foresight, and little resolve coming from the President”.   He goes on to say he wouldn’t have gotten involved, which I agree with as well.  While I have proposed the threat of further military action as a direct result of President Obama’s verbal support of Gadhafi’s removal earlier this month, Newt goes a step further.  While referring to peaceful options he says “ the President, however, took those options off the table with his public statement”.  Why is this so?  I only fear that the POTUS and our government will use the statement as some sort of justification.  I certainly can not agree that the statement actually provides any kind of justification to further our involvement. Mr. Gingrich seems to make a substantial effort at playing both sides of the fence here.  On the one hand he tries to separate himself by saying he wouldn’t have involved us, he then backtracks and says that due to President Obama’s statement we don’t have a choice now.  As he admitted he believes we should have acted unilaterally instead of waiting for a coalition to form.  “That’s why, during a March 7^th Greta van Susteren interview, I asserted that the president should establish a no fly zone ‘this evening.’ He goes on to criticize the POTUS saying that he “wasted weeks trying to get approval from the United Nations, instead of Congress”. While I certainly support declaring war through Congress, as the Constitution requires, I can’t say that we should be faulting President Obama for allowing a multi-national coalition to form supporting the effort.  These are two different topics in my mind.  Firstly, if the U.N. is going to be the catalyst then we should be using U.N. forces, or at least have them lead the operation.  Secondly, we shouldn’t use our military while hiding behind terms as humanitarian or coalition.  If the U.S. military attacks a country not attacking us, I see that as an act of war which should be declared and paid for.  However, I digress.   The idea that he wouldn’t have sent troops doesn’t meld well with the idea that once a President puts his foot in his mouth that our troops are automatically committed.  Is that really all it takes to for Newt to support a war that he wouldn’t have started?  Does this not remind us of our current President rallying against the war-mongering of President Bush and then building on those same foreign policy ideas?   Where is the alternative mindset for us to vote for?  Must we look to someone like Trump who I don’t think would have gone simply for economic reasons?  Must we pray that the champion of liberty, Ron Paul, will run again and that his revolution will finally be listened too?    I suppose so.  When Newt says, “ Now that we have US forces engaged, any result less than the removal of Gadaffi from power will be considered a failure.  For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through.” He shows us that he doesn’t have the capability of acting any differently than the previous Presidents and that he isn’t really offering anything different.  Simply because the POTUS says something stupid, and then does something stupid, doesn’t mean we must commit ourselves to being stupid.  I would prefer the notion of the next President having our country’s best interest at heart instead of continuing this moronic empire they think we need and can afford.  I dare say that in the eyes of the world and hopefully American citizens, realizing it was a mistake and leaving as quickly as possible might show an improvement in our politicians. We can all be wrong Newt, only fools support an idea they say they don’t agree with in order to force truth into the President’s misspoken declaration.    If Newt isn’t strong enough to stick to his own beliefs then he certainly won’t have my vote.  I think we need a President with principles and that doesn’t include calling our mission a failure if it is changed through enlightenment or election.  I suppose Newt would still have us in Vietnam since he seems to believe that it is better to send civilians and soldiers to death than to admit we might be wrong sometimes.   I hope this buries any campaign because when you read his opinion, it sure sounds like another war-mongering, self-justifying President to me.  I’m not sure we can take that kind of leadership anymore.  Yes, he says he wouldn’t have gone and I’m sure his supporters will point to that.  However, those are cheap words when you show you are willing to abandon your principles so easily and quickly.  I encourage you to read his short opinion at the link below.