Saturday, June 09, 2012
A Conservative’s Agenda
A partial list of issues that perhaps Romney will pursue.
Obviously, I do not have any startling insight into what Romney would do if elected, since I am nowhere close to him or his people. Not to miss an opportunity to say something about what I think needs doing, however, here are a few ideas from my personal grab bag:
1. Regulations: There should be a thorough review of the regulations and Executive Orders instituted by Obama with the intent to rework them to promote fiscal responsibility, job creation, and a sane environmental policy.
2. Administrative Agencies: The enormous welter of agencies that have grown up in the last four or five administrations, now over 1,700, needs to be thoroughly examined for overlaps, redundancies and improvements, or even elimination, not to mention a hard look at the books for fraud and abuse. In this process, the senior levels of management across the board need to be examined for willingness to support Romney policies, and not Obama policies, and either let go or shifted to non-impacting positions, and replaced with willing executives.
3. Energy: Do what is necessary to open up oil drilling wherever there are good finds, and get the pipeline situation solved. Ensure that the coal industry has what it needs to produce all the coal needed both profitably, and as cleanly and economically possible . Promote R&D for new energy sources, and make it simple for new starts to get through the regulation maze. Restore nuclear energy to a favorable status, and streamline the approval process, while remaining mindful of safety requirements. Get firm control of the EPA.
4. Government Unions: Outlaw them and phase them out over a few years. Restore the government pay scales and benefits to a par with industry over time.
5. Judges: Begin the process of vetting appointees to judgeships across the nation that meet the goals of good legal minds, willingness to interpret the Constitution and not actively work to change it, and that are conservative in outlook. No judicial activists, please.
6. Small Businesses: Take a hard look at the workload imposed on small businesses to meet a host of regulations, and make every effort to reduce the load as far as possible.
7. Healthcare: Start over. repeal Obamacare. Ensure it is a free market solution with minimal government intervention, possibly based on the existing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security structures, but streamlined and cleared of fraud and abuse, and put on a sound financial basis (not sure how all of this can be done, but it must be!). Phase it in over time, and allow existing participants to continue as is.
8. Spending: Spending levels must be reduced to lower significantly or clear the current trillion dollar per year deficits over the next decade, and to make headway in serious reductions to the national debt. This must involve every government agency and program currently existing or about to come into existence, including all entitlements. This cost review parallels #2 above.
9. Taxes: Serious consideration to some form of Flat Tax should be given, so long as all of the current tax programs are halted in turn, thus avoiding the horror of both a progressive income tax and a Flat Tax. I believe that Article 16 of the Constitution needs revision. Everyone should pay something in taxes, even if a mere token results. Taxes whose sole purpose is redistribution of wealth must be banned.
10. Defense: This major function of government must be maintained at a war-winning level, perhaps not at the level of being able to fight two major wars simultaneously, but at least one of them, plus fighting a limited conflict somewhere, and defending the US and its possessions. The war-fighting gear and equipment, aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles, and ordnance must be first-rate and continually modernized to “avoid technological surprise” as the old saying goes. From a cost point of view, the gross level of expenditure in constant dollars would probably fall near where it is now, or a tad less.
11. Various Subsidies: All subsidies should be reviewed for possible reduction or elimination by law over time.
12. Education: The entire federal government education edifice should be reviewed for reduction or elimination, with the exception of student loans. The fundamental job here is for the states, not the federal government. There should be a needs-based allocation of grant funds for states, but without any federal strings attached. The basic courses being taught and the slant which has most recently been taught must be changed to return to thorough preparation for succeeding in life tomorrow in this nation, and including vocational training where possible. Teachers and professors that hold to a liberal view and cannot fall in line with this new direction must be released. Students must be exposed to many forms of thought, but they must not be brainwashed by flaming liberals.
13. Foreign Policy: First of all, it must be made clear that the US will not accept any incursions into and reductions of the sovereignty of this nation in any form, whether UN-sponsored or otherwise. Second, we should downplay the role of the UN where it affects our goals and directions, since as a voting block most of the states are anti-American and work to our disinterest with a large sum of our money every year. That money should be reduced substantially. The organization is corrupt and should not be trusted. We should promote a coalition of what we understand as democratic states to adjudicate world conflicts. Let the UN be a forum for sounding off, but as a governing and limiting body it is not acceptable.
14. Social Issues: The first issue in this category is abortion. My own preference is to ban all abortions, except in specific cases of triage, where the life of the Mother is at stake, and where there has been a rape. Abortion on demand is killing, and a clear violation of the Ten Commandments.
The second issue is same-sex marriage, which I believe is not necessary, in that all of the privileges of marriage can be had via civil unions or contractual agreements, thus obviating the necessity for expanding the definition of traditional marriage arbitrarily.
15. Immigration: I believe that immigration must be attacked simultaneously on many levels, including: 1) Regaining virtually full control of our borders; 2) Ensuring that illegal immigrants currently in the nation are rounded up and deported over a reasonable timeframe; 3) That the Obama initiative is carried out fairly; 4) That a well-policed migrant worker program is devised and set to work; 5) That we adjust our quota system to favor those who have talent, skills, education, experience and satisfactory prospects of earning a living; 6) That the program and policies allowing chains of relatives to gain admittence be dropped; 7) That the automatic citizenry provisions be eliminated for those born in the US to non-citizens; 8) That companies using imported workers be held financially accountable for them, and ensure that they meet the provisions of residency and work permits; 9) That we must solve the high crime rates originated by Hispanics and break up the gangs; and finally, 10) that our entire law enforcement manpower be given licence to question and arrest suspected illegal immigrants. There is much more that needs to be done, but I have hit the highlights here.
(There is a book on national directions that needs to be written, but I have neither the knowledge, the energy nor the inclination to attempt it, so I will punt now!)
To the degree that Governor Romney adopts these directions once he is elected, or something similar and perhaps even better, I will be quite pleased.
A partial list of issues that perhaps Romney will pursue.
Obviously, I do not have any startling insight into what Romney would do if elected, since I am nowhere close to him or his people. Not to miss an opportunity to say something about what I think needs doing, however, here are a few ideas from my personal grab bag:
1. Regulations: There should be a thorough review of the regulations and Executive Orders instituted by Obama with the intent to rework them to promote fiscal responsibility, job creation, and a sane environmental policy.
2. Administrative Agencies: The enormous welter of agencies that have grown up in the last four or five administrations, now over 1,700, needs to be thoroughly examined for overlaps, redundancies and improvements, or even elimination, not to mention a hard look at the books for fraud and abuse. In this process, the senior levels of management across the board need to be examined for willingness to support Romney policies, and not Obama policies, and either let go or shifted to non-impacting positions, and replaced with willing executives.
3. Energy: Do what is necessary to open up oil drilling wherever there are good finds, and get the pipeline situation solved. Ensure that the coal industry has what it needs to produce all the coal needed both profitably, and as cleanly and economically possible . Promote R&D for new energy sources, and make it simple for new starts to get through the regulation maze. Restore nuclear energy to a favorable status, and streamline the approval process, while remaining mindful of safety requirements. Get firm control of the EPA.
4. Government Unions: Outlaw them and phase them out over a few years. Restore the government pay scales and benefits to a par with industry over time.
5. Judges: Begin the process of vetting appointees to judgeships across the nation that meet the goals of good legal minds, willingness to interpret the Constitution and not actively work to change it, and that are conservative in outlook. No judicial activists, please.
6. Small Businesses: Take a hard look at the workload imposed on small businesses to meet a host of regulations, and make every effort to reduce the load as far as possible.
7. Healthcare: Start over. repeal Obamacare. Ensure it is a free market solution with minimal government intervention, possibly based on the existing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security structures, but streamlined and cleared of fraud and abuse, and put on a sound financial basis (not sure how all of this can be done, but it must be!). Phase it in over time, and allow existing participants to continue as is.
8. Spending: Spending levels must be reduced to lower significantly or clear the current trillion dollar per year deficits over the next decade, and to make headway in serious reductions to the national debt. This must involve every government agency and program currently existing or about to come into existence, including all entitlements. This cost review parallels #2 above.
9. Taxes: Serious consideration to some form of Flat Tax should be given, so long as all of the current tax programs are halted in turn, thus avoiding the horror of both a progressive income tax and a Flat Tax. I believe that Article 16 of the Constitution needs revision. Everyone should pay something in taxes, even if a mere token results. Taxes whose sole purpose is redistribution of wealth must be banned.
10. Defense: This major function of government must be maintained at a war-winning level, perhaps not at the level of being able to fight two major wars simultaneously, but at least one of them, plus fighting a limited conflict somewhere, and defending the US and its possessions. The war-fighting gear and equipment, aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles, and ordnance must be first-rate and continually modernized to “avoid technological surprise” as the old saying goes. From a cost point of view, the gross level of expenditure in constant dollars would probably fall near where it is now, or a tad less.
11. Various Subsidies: All subsidies should be reviewed for possible reduction or elimination by law over time.
12. Education: The entire federal government education edifice should be reviewed for reduction or elimination, with the exception of student loans. The fundamental job here is for the states, not the federal government. There should be a needs-based allocation of grant funds for states, but without any federal strings attached. The basic courses being taught and the slant which has most recently been taught must be changed to return to thorough preparation for succeeding in life tomorrow in this nation, and including vocational training where possible. Teachers and professors that hold to a liberal view and cannot fall in line with this new direction must be released. Students must be exposed to many forms of thought, but they must not be brainwashed by flaming liberals.
13. Foreign Policy: First of all, it must be made clear that the US will not accept any incursions into and reductions of the sovereignty of this nation in any form, whether UN-sponsored or otherwise. Second, we should downplay the role of the UN where it affects our goals and directions, since as a voting block most of the states are anti-American and work to our disinterest with a large sum of our money every year. That money should be reduced substantially. The organization is corrupt and should not be trusted. We should promote a coalition of what we understand as democratic states to adjudicate world conflicts. Let the UN be a forum for sounding off, but as a governing and limiting body it is not acceptable.
14. Social Issues: The first issue in this category is abortion. My own preference is to ban all abortions, except in specific cases of triage, where the life of the Mother is at stake, and where there has been a rape. Abortion on demand is killing, and a clear violation of the Ten Commandments.
The second issue is same-sex marriage, which I believe is not necessary, in that all of the privileges of marriage can be had via civil unions or contractual agreements, thus obviating the necessity for expanding the definition of traditional marriage arbitrarily.
15. Immigration: I believe that immigration must be attacked simultaneously on many levels, including: 1) Regaining virtually full control of our borders; 2) Ensuring that illegal immigrants currently in the nation are rounded up and deported over a reasonable timeframe; 3) That the Obama initiative is carried out fairly; 4) That a well-policed migrant worker program is devised and set to work; 5) That we adjust our quota system to favor those who have talent, skills, education, experience and satisfactory prospects of earning a living; 6) That the program and policies allowing chains of relatives to gain admittence be dropped; 7) That the automatic citizenry provisions be eliminated for those born in the US to non-citizens; 8) That companies using imported workers be held financially accountable for them, and ensure that they meet the provisions of residency and work permits; 9) That we must solve the high crime rates originated by Hispanics and break up the gangs; and finally, 10) that our entire law enforcement manpower be given licence to question and arrest suspected illegal immigrants. There is much more that needs to be done, but I have hit the highlights here.
(There is a book on national directions that needs to be written, but I have neither the knowledge, the energy nor the inclination to attempt it, so I will punt now!)
To the degree that Governor Romney adopts these directions once he is elected, or something similar and perhaps even better, I will be quite pleased.
Labels: 2012 Election, Conservatism, Government
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Big Government Enumerated
Wonder where much of the tax revenues go?
This is a site that lists all of the federal agencies currently in the US government.
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html
It is the LSU Libraries Federal Agency Directory. At one time they posted a count of such agencies as 1,177, but in the latest version they ducked the question and referred the reader to the US Directory, based on the difficulty of defining government entities and ranking them properly. There is the possibility that this was a politically driven decision simply to make it difficult to determine the current extent of agencies without actually counting their names in the registry, which is tedious at best. So, I believe that the number is perhaps 10% higher now than in a few years ago when it was 1,177. Obamacare alone is supposed to add another hundred or two to this list.
When we speak of limited government, I believe we should examine this enormous set of agencies, committees, bureaus, commissions and the like for: mission and regulation overlap; budgetary necessity; general need for their existence, and the possibility of combining and simplifying their actions, thus perhaps saving a lot of money.
It was stated some time ago that to obtain approval of a new nuclear power plant, one has to submit plans and impact studies for approval to over 23 agencies, any one of which could block the effort. Since the heads of many of these agencies are politically appointed positions, the current political party in office has an enormous impact on approving who can do what, where and when in the nation. Then, too, unions in the federal government can have a significant impact on the ability of this huge collection of bureaucrats to perform their jobs efficiently, whether needed or not.
This is a site that lists all of the federal agencies currently in the US government.
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html
It is the LSU Libraries Federal Agency Directory. At one time they posted a count of such agencies as 1,177, but in the latest version they ducked the question and referred the reader to the US Directory, based on the difficulty of defining government entities and ranking them properly. There is the possibility that this was a politically driven decision simply to make it difficult to determine the current extent of agencies without actually counting their names in the registry, which is tedious at best. So, I believe that the number is perhaps 10% higher now than in a few years ago when it was 1,177. Obamacare alone is supposed to add another hundred or two to this list.
When we speak of limited government, I believe we should examine this enormous set of agencies, committees, bureaus, commissions and the like for: mission and regulation overlap; budgetary necessity; general need for their existence, and the possibility of combining and simplifying their actions, thus perhaps saving a lot of money.
It was stated some time ago that to obtain approval of a new nuclear power plant, one has to submit plans and impact studies for approval to over 23 agencies, any one of which could block the effort. Since the heads of many of these agencies are politically appointed positions, the current political party in office has an enormous impact on approving who can do what, where and when in the nation. Then, too, unions in the federal government can have a significant impact on the ability of this huge collection of bureaucrats to perform their jobs efficiently, whether needed or not.
Labels: Government, Government Overhaul
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Government is Expanding Beyond Comprehension
Our Current Government Versus the Constitution
It might be rather difficult to measure the distance we have crept from the fresh new Constitution and its original intent and compromises to the current position our laws and practices are in today. The first push/pull was undoubtedly centralized versus distributed power, and centralization has won out in practice. It continues to do so, with the office of the president leading the way. From a purist point of view, we have expanded the scope of our laws well beyond the Constitution and civil laws envisioned in the beginning, most often due to pressures to meet a stream of new needs discovered that the Constitution neither covered nor thought to cover, and with the willing collusion of all three branches of the federal government to cater to these needs, ostensibly of the people, and, of course, for the good of the nation.
Books have been written about the role of the Supreme Court in deviating, in interpreting, and in legislating from the bench to achieve some functional goal not possible to achieve in any other manner. Seizing the decision powers of an autocratic leader by the Presidents has also been a continuing drumbeat pushing us ever further away from a strict adherence to the Constitution. Whole governmental departments, with their missions, functions, budgets, and staffing have been invented through legislation to meet these new needs and functions, and this process is even accelerating today. Earmarks fit into this creep also! I have often pointed out that currently there are over 1,177 separate organizational entities in the government with budget lines, staffing and all the trappings of bureaucracy. In fact they tend to stumble over each other in their zeal to approve or disapprove actions brought before them. Try to obtain approval for a new nuclear power plant and you will be dealing with an entrenched bureaucracy of 23 or so different organizations at last report.
The maze grows yearly, and even Reagan could only kill or rework some hundred of these entities, and it seems that he was about the last to try. We have grown many monster bureaucracies since his time, and Obama has created hundreds more yet to fully surface. To say that this gaggle has become unmanageable and unaffordable is to bring the wrath of entrenched congressmen, lobbyists, and advocacy groups down on your head, as well as the party or parties that stood behind the legislation in the first place.
Why don't we commission an independent group to take on the decade-long task of streamlining this governmental gaggle, much as BRAC did for military bases? It would be a many-year task, and it would spawn quite a few Constitutional amendments as it went along, I suppose, but the commission would end up paying for itself ten, twenty or more times over I'd guess, to the benefit of our bottom line. (Avoiding a Constitutional convention would be a prime objective here, since the scope of such a convention cannot be controlled, and we just might end up worse that we began!)
It might be rather difficult to measure the distance we have crept from the fresh new Constitution and its original intent and compromises to the current position our laws and practices are in today. The first push/pull was undoubtedly centralized versus distributed power, and centralization has won out in practice. It continues to do so, with the office of the president leading the way. From a purist point of view, we have expanded the scope of our laws well beyond the Constitution and civil laws envisioned in the beginning, most often due to pressures to meet a stream of new needs discovered that the Constitution neither covered nor thought to cover, and with the willing collusion of all three branches of the federal government to cater to these needs, ostensibly of the people, and, of course, for the good of the nation.
Books have been written about the role of the Supreme Court in deviating, in interpreting, and in legislating from the bench to achieve some functional goal not possible to achieve in any other manner. Seizing the decision powers of an autocratic leader by the Presidents has also been a continuing drumbeat pushing us ever further away from a strict adherence to the Constitution. Whole governmental departments, with their missions, functions, budgets, and staffing have been invented through legislation to meet these new needs and functions, and this process is even accelerating today. Earmarks fit into this creep also! I have often pointed out that currently there are over 1,177 separate organizational entities in the government with budget lines, staffing and all the trappings of bureaucracy. In fact they tend to stumble over each other in their zeal to approve or disapprove actions brought before them. Try to obtain approval for a new nuclear power plant and you will be dealing with an entrenched bureaucracy of 23 or so different organizations at last report.
The maze grows yearly, and even Reagan could only kill or rework some hundred of these entities, and it seems that he was about the last to try. We have grown many monster bureaucracies since his time, and Obama has created hundreds more yet to fully surface. To say that this gaggle has become unmanageable and unaffordable is to bring the wrath of entrenched congressmen, lobbyists, and advocacy groups down on your head, as well as the party or parties that stood behind the legislation in the first place.
Why don't we commission an independent group to take on the decade-long task of streamlining this governmental gaggle, much as BRAC did for military bases? It would be a many-year task, and it would spawn quite a few Constitutional amendments as it went along, I suppose, but the commission would end up paying for itself ten, twenty or more times over I'd guess, to the benefit of our bottom line. (Avoiding a Constitutional convention would be a prime objective here, since the scope of such a convention cannot be controlled, and we just might end up worse that we began!)
Labels: Bureaucracy, Congress, Constitution, Government, Supreme Court, The President
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
A Few Simple Truths
The Way Things Are!
Corporate jets are efficient transportation and time savers for movers and shakers.
There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money, and keeping it– minus taxes, of course.
Contributors to our society reap rewards commenserate with their value in the marketplace.
Deficit spending has a hard limit; it will have to stop when you cannot pay back in full. (We are too near that now for comfort.)
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
It isn’t a secret that corporate taxes are factored into the price to the customer, and the higher these taxes, the higher the price charged, and the less competitive the product is in the world market. So now we have an ever decreasing manufacturing sector and number of jobs, because to remain competitive we have shipped the manufacturing jobs overseas, mainly to China. They will not return.
The top 10% of tax payers today pay over 70% of the taxes: The bottom 40-50% pay nothing, so in a real sense the bottom half are not stakeholders but simply takers.
The free market is the most efficient way to control an economy, but it needs the right amount of regulation to ensure a level playing field and control of fraud and abuse, and this needs constant work to keep up.
This free market approach has been the best for our economy, including health care.
Environmental stewardship is an important objective for society, but we cannot wreck the economy to achieve unrealistic environmental goals, or we will only achieve a beautiful, clean, yet dirt poor, vulnerable and starving nation. Further, the world measures of clean air and water will continue to be negative until China and India, for two, make enormous strides in their lands.
The jobless rate is far closer to 16% to 18% than the carefully calculated 9.1%, because the government doesn’t count those who have stopped seeking non-existent jobs, and shouting out the true number would be politically rather bad for Obama.
Judicious tax cuts stimulate the economy via increased consumer spending and demand, which in turn sparks hiring, production of more supplies and thus the flow of wages and profits, and lo and behold, greater tax revenue. The deficit is reduced by the disciplined spending of less than the revenue income.
The chief characteristics of illegal immigrants is that they are here illegally and they work well for less than citizens demand.
If we pursue our main natural energy resources to the fullest we can become energy independent inside of 10 to 15 years, and that means coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas. By playing with solar, wind, and wave sources, but not the main sources, we will still be heavily dependent on imported oil from the ME after that same 10 to 15 years. We need to get cracking and fracking right now!
Utopian or collective societies fail because they are diametrically opposed to human nature, and you can’t change or homogenize human nature by edicts or at the point of a gun. You can, however, create a huge mound of bodies of misfits and a bare subsistence level for the majority of sullen and resentful citizens who live on the promise of nirvana in another five years, and another five years, and…. No thank you!
The Way Things Are!
Corporate jets are efficient transportation and time savers for movers and shakers.
There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money, and keeping it– minus taxes, of course.
Contributors to our society reap rewards commenserate with their value in the marketplace.
Deficit spending has a hard limit; it will have to stop when you cannot pay back in full. (We are too near that now for comfort.)
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
It isn’t a secret that corporate taxes are factored into the price to the customer, and the higher these taxes, the higher the price charged, and the less competitive the product is in the world market. So now we have an ever decreasing manufacturing sector and number of jobs, because to remain competitive we have shipped the manufacturing jobs overseas, mainly to China. They will not return.
The top 10% of tax payers today pay over 70% of the taxes: The bottom 40-50% pay nothing, so in a real sense the bottom half are not stakeholders but simply takers.
The free market is the most efficient way to control an economy, but it needs the right amount of regulation to ensure a level playing field and control of fraud and abuse, and this needs constant work to keep up.
This free market approach has been the best for our economy, including health care.
Environmental stewardship is an important objective for society, but we cannot wreck the economy to achieve unrealistic environmental goals, or we will only achieve a beautiful, clean, yet dirt poor, vulnerable and starving nation. Further, the world measures of clean air and water will continue to be negative until China and India, for two, make enormous strides in their lands.
The jobless rate is far closer to 16% to 18% than the carefully calculated 9.1%, because the government doesn’t count those who have stopped seeking non-existent jobs, and shouting out the true number would be politically rather bad for Obama.
Judicious tax cuts stimulate the economy via increased consumer spending and demand, which in turn sparks hiring, production of more supplies and thus the flow of wages and profits, and lo and behold, greater tax revenue. The deficit is reduced by the disciplined spending of less than the revenue income.
The chief characteristics of illegal immigrants is that they are here illegally and they work well for less than citizens demand.
If we pursue our main natural energy resources to the fullest we can become energy independent inside of 10 to 15 years, and that means coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas. By playing with solar, wind, and wave sources, but not the main sources, we will still be heavily dependent on imported oil from the ME after that same 10 to 15 years. We need to get cracking and fracking right now!
Utopian or collective societies fail because they are diametrically opposed to human nature, and you can’t change or homogenize human nature by edicts or at the point of a gun. You can, however, create a huge mound of bodies of misfits and a bare subsistence level for the majority of sullen and resentful citizens who live on the promise of nirvana in another five years, and another five years, and…. No thank you!
Labels: Comments on the day, Conservatism, Economy, Government, Honesty, Illegals
Monday, September 19, 2011
Government in Stasis
Unblocking the Economy
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security (that is: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all...) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is, some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision." The Road to Surfdom": F. A. Hayek
Thus we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and other welfare and job loss provisions for all. What is being debated is how to continue to pay for it all in the face of overwhelming national debt and its interest payments over the next 20 years, give or take, and while maintaining our military capability at "sufficient" levels, and, oh by the way, spurring the economy to life and making a lot more jobs. All in the right Hayekian direction, theoretically, but needing really serious tuning and pruning for affordability, safeguarding of free market principles and prevention of fraud and abuse. Politically, however...
The Democrats seem to want to minimize cuts in their programs and our entitlements, and to gain more revenue to pay the Piper and to add to their social programs. The Republicans seem adamantly to want to cut spending and avoid higher taxes in the first instance. There is a stymied position because of a complete lack of trust in the Obama administration by Republicans, who seem to be gun shy of mere verbal promises to cut spending while having to accept tax increases up front, as has happened in the past by, let us say, "slight of hand in Congress;" cuts which would diminish the power of the Democrats, plus many serious concerns about the low morality of this administration. The Democrats likewise suspect the Republicans of wanting to decimate their already legislated social structures, especially ObamaCare, do want to hold or increase their monetary and political power, accuse the Republicans of bad faith, etc. and hence do not trust the Republicans. The verbal offer of Obama of a 5 for 1 split was rejected, I suppose, for all of the above distrust reasons, plus nothing in writing. One key to the impasse is the fact of Republican control of the House, where all money bills must begin.
Yet, most of us citizens go along with Hayek, I believe, not full bore, perhaps, but to an acceptable degree of expenditures, and we want action on all the key elements to begin sharply.
This is a titanic struggle for power and control of the nation, and I am pessimistic that we can get on the right track without ceding power to one or the other parties for control of the Senate and the Presidency via the next election, and with a providential, lucky selection of key players in the government.
We need some genius to write a bill that is acceptable to both parties and the public. My only thought is that the parties should come to a written agreement as to the principles of the way ahead, get public acceptance of it, and then write legislation that faithfully adheres to the agreement, pass it in both houses, and have the President sign it.
I hope that is what the supercommittee does!
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security (that is: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all...) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is, some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision." The Road to Surfdom": F. A. Hayek
Thus we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and other welfare and job loss provisions for all. What is being debated is how to continue to pay for it all in the face of overwhelming national debt and its interest payments over the next 20 years, give or take, and while maintaining our military capability at "sufficient" levels, and, oh by the way, spurring the economy to life and making a lot more jobs. All in the right Hayekian direction, theoretically, but needing really serious tuning and pruning for affordability, safeguarding of free market principles and prevention of fraud and abuse. Politically, however...
The Democrats seem to want to minimize cuts in their programs and our entitlements, and to gain more revenue to pay the Piper and to add to their social programs. The Republicans seem adamantly to want to cut spending and avoid higher taxes in the first instance. There is a stymied position because of a complete lack of trust in the Obama administration by Republicans, who seem to be gun shy of mere verbal promises to cut spending while having to accept tax increases up front, as has happened in the past by, let us say, "slight of hand in Congress;" cuts which would diminish the power of the Democrats, plus many serious concerns about the low morality of this administration. The Democrats likewise suspect the Republicans of wanting to decimate their already legislated social structures, especially ObamaCare, do want to hold or increase their monetary and political power, accuse the Republicans of bad faith, etc. and hence do not trust the Republicans. The verbal offer of Obama of a 5 for 1 split was rejected, I suppose, for all of the above distrust reasons, plus nothing in writing. One key to the impasse is the fact of Republican control of the House, where all money bills must begin.
Yet, most of us citizens go along with Hayek, I believe, not full bore, perhaps, but to an acceptable degree of expenditures, and we want action on all the key elements to begin sharply.
This is a titanic struggle for power and control of the nation, and I am pessimistic that we can get on the right track without ceding power to one or the other parties for control of the Senate and the Presidency via the next election, and with a providential, lucky selection of key players in the government.
We need some genius to write a bill that is acceptable to both parties and the public. My only thought is that the parties should come to a written agreement as to the principles of the way ahead, get public acceptance of it, and then write legislation that faithfully adheres to the agreement, pass it in both houses, and have the President sign it.
I hope that is what the supercommittee does!
Labels: Government, Liberals, Morality, National Debt, Obama, Obamacare, Politics and Iraq, Republican
Monday, August 15, 2011
Let Us Justify Government Organizations Anew
A Radical Approach to Government Review and Citizen Approval
At last report, the number of organizations in our government has exceeded 1,177 according to the LSU government accounting group. This includes the major departments, agencies, commissions, boards, committees and the like, and the number is growing by hundreds under Obama! The idea I believe to be highly worthwhile would be to put each of these organizations under the public spotlight by law, and force them to justify their existence to the public, and then to their congressional representatives. By justification I mean a thorough review of their purpose, mission, leadership, staffing, plans, budget, contractor involvements, long-term commitments, principal accomplishments over the past five years, and projections for the future. In order to be fair, every organization should be scheduled for review, thus stopping political influence from omitting favorite groupings.
To do any major part of 1,177 oganizations would take a very long time. We have a mammoth government! If we could do 100 a year by using, first the filled out forms from each organization stating their case justifying their existence, budget and staffing, and then by using multiple objective teams analysing each one of the organizations and then presenting their findings for approval by public vote after allowing for a period of study by the public. This would easily require about 12 or more years, or 3 presidential terms, 2 Senatorial terms, and 6 Representative terms! There may be a few shortcuts available by referring to the Constitution for guidance in each case, by accepting the defining law for the organization, by accepting the organization's written case, or by a combination of these justifications, thus reducing the workload and time.
The order in which each organization is scheduled would be a significant battle in the Congress (as would the entire idea of course), but perhaps the order of their establishment in law would be the appropriate sequence. Thus older and perhaps antiquated organizations would go first.
The recommendations of the teams would be presented for voting in a series of national referendums, and the line item recommendations to be voted on for each organization would be to either:1. keep or dissolve the organization over an appropriate time frame.2. reduce the budget of the organization, and cut its mission and staff appropriately over time..3. hold the budget, mission and staff steady as it is.4. raise the budget, and add to the mission and staff appropriately.5. consolidate two or more organizations and reduce administrative staff and budget.6. or other possible changes to be determined.
The results of the referendums would supercede current law governing the organizations in question, unless Congress and the President take specific steps to alter the recommendations in the law. The only other appeal would be to the Supreme Court, or a number of Courts convened by the Supreme Court for the specific purpose of review, because of the probable heavy volume of challenges that would ensue (presumably 100 a year or so!).
While we are at it, we could also form referendums to justify or reject the formation of unions in the government, justify or reject the use of earmarks, justify or reject term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and justify or reject the need for a balanced budget each year, among other possible reforms of the government. It is perhaps the case that such a legislative approach to reforms would be far preferable to a Constitutional Convention, since such a convention could not be controlled as to subjects and conclusions, which might lead to objectionable results.
A Radical Approach to Government Review and Citizen Approval
At last report, the number of organizations in our government has exceeded 1,177 according to the LSU government accounting group. This includes the major departments, agencies, commissions, boards, committees and the like, and the number is growing by hundreds under Obama! The idea I believe to be highly worthwhile would be to put each of these organizations under the public spotlight by law, and force them to justify their existence to the public, and then to their congressional representatives. By justification I mean a thorough review of their purpose, mission, leadership, staffing, plans, budget, contractor involvements, long-term commitments, principal accomplishments over the past five years, and projections for the future. In order to be fair, every organization should be scheduled for review, thus stopping political influence from omitting favorite groupings.
To do any major part of 1,177 oganizations would take a very long time. We have a mammoth government! If we could do 100 a year by using, first the filled out forms from each organization stating their case justifying their existence, budget and staffing, and then by using multiple objective teams analysing each one of the organizations and then presenting their findings for approval by public vote after allowing for a period of study by the public. This would easily require about 12 or more years, or 3 presidential terms, 2 Senatorial terms, and 6 Representative terms! There may be a few shortcuts available by referring to the Constitution for guidance in each case, by accepting the defining law for the organization, by accepting the organization's written case, or by a combination of these justifications, thus reducing the workload and time.
The order in which each organization is scheduled would be a significant battle in the Congress (as would the entire idea of course), but perhaps the order of their establishment in law would be the appropriate sequence. Thus older and perhaps antiquated organizations would go first.
The recommendations of the teams would be presented for voting in a series of national referendums, and the line item recommendations to be voted on for each organization would be to either:
1. keep or dissolve the organization over an appropriate time frame.
2. reduce the budget of the organization, and cut its mission and staff appropriately over time..
3. hold the budget, mission and staff steady as it is.
4. raise the budget, and add to the mission and staff appropriately.
5. consolidate two or more organizations and reduce administrative staff and budget.
6. or other possible changes to be determined.
The results of the referendums would supercede current law governing the organizations in question, unless Congress and the President take specific steps to alter the recommendations in the law. The only other appeal would be to the Supreme Court, or a number of Courts convened by the Supreme Court for the specific purpose of review, because of the probable heavy volume of challenges that would ensue (presumably 100 a year or so!).
While we are at it, we could also form referendums to justify or reject the formation of unions in the government, justify or reject the use of earmarks, justify or reject term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and justify or reject the need for a balanced budget each year, among other possible reforms of the government. It is perhaps the case that such a legislative approach to reforms would be far preferable to a Constitutional Convention, since such a convention could not be controlled as to subjects and conclusions, which might lead to objectionable results.
Labels: Government, Will of the People
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The UN on steroids? Hell no!
Do I think that conservatives would object to the formation of a strong international government with its own military force?
Yes, indeed, many conservatives would rise in opposition to this idea for a number of reasons:
1) Few if any safeguards or “limited powers” can ultimately prevent such an international army from violating the sovereignty of any nation that has reaped the displeasure of the UN or any other international body. Of the 190-odd nations in the UN, a considerable majority are not favorable to the US, and any security committee composed of many hostile nations , such as could arise in the UN Security Council, can and do block actions the US would favor, or initiate actions the US would consider to be immoral.
2) There would be no disinterested higher authority a violated nation could appeal to for timely justice.
3) This amounts to relinquishing considerable sovereignty of the US to an international body that we neither can control nor be assured of decisions favorable to the US, or to the moral standards of free and democratic nations.
4) Many of the nations of the world today, and for the foreseeable future, are immoral or amoral to begin with (communist, totalitarian, etc.), have a government that has no common ethical basis with the free world, or else have an economic or vengeful interest in a certain outcome, and their judgement or vote to use force would be highly suspect, if not immoral in itself.
5) We have seen the problems of the UN and its SC up front and personal. To give such a collection of rascals the power to declare and execute war or “policing actions” on anyone using their own forces is an abomination. Korea was dubbed a “policing action”, for instance, by the UN.
6) This One World kind of scheme will continue to have the fatal flaw of some or even a majority of foxes guarding the hen house, and the fatal flaw of irreconcilable moral convictions, until democracy and ethics are normalized sufficiently in the governments and the peoples of just about all nations. That will take forever to realize, which explodes the Utopian concept of One World-ism. In my opinion, federations of nations are possible, but a single, all powerful world government is either a chimera or a nightmare.
7) The idea that participation in the UN or similar organization aids the introduction of that nation into greater democracy and freedom is simply not proven.
Meanwhile, we should do our very best together with the free and democratic nations that are our friends and allies to keep things going in a constructive direction towards more freedom and liberty worldwide.
Labels: Government, UN, Worldview
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Government Corruption
Does the size of government increase corruption?
While the size of government does not necessarily correlate with the size of the corruption problem, the bigger the government the greater the tax load on the citizenry. The question is then are we getting real value for our tax dollars in a fair manner across the board, or are we being conned into a significant redistribution of wealth by the government, which I believe is outright theft.
This is one of the stated goals of the current administration; to tax the rich heavily and redistribute the proceeds, and not tax perhaps 40-60% of the citizens. In my opinion, all of us should pay taxes at some rate, perhaps by one of the so-called flat or fair tax proposals that tax consumption and not earnings. (Yes, this would require an amendment to the Constitution to rid ourselves of the income tax.)
Paying a share of the tax burden is the act of a stakeholder in the nation, as opposed to a freeloader on the system, and far from reducing freedoms, it strengthens our collective freedoms immeasurably. The old dictum still holds: “There is no such thing as a free lunch,” which this and other administrations seem to have ignored deliberately, while increasing the indebtedness of the nation by trillions.
There does exist massive corruption in the government today in Medicare, a situation that I can attest to personally by the billing and review systems between Medicare, hospitals, the insurance companies and the individual–me and family members– now in seven different cases in four different hospitals. I doubt that ObamaC will correct these problems.
To my knowledge, no one has proposed to undertake a deep and thorough non-partisan review of all government agencies, bureaus, commissions, committees, boards, and the like, of which there are at least 1700 or more, in order to reduce functional duplications, reduce staff and budgets, or eliminate a significant number of these perennial hobby-horse dollar holes, perhaps with savings in the billions of dollars. (Go to LSU.com to see the official listing of government entities.)
Many of these organizations follow the “grow or die rule” that says they must increase their role, mission, staff and budget each year (or try to!).There should be a commission established along the lines of the BRAC commission that takes a multi-year look at this drag on the budget, and forces non-political reductions of much of the nonsense, and perhaps not a little bit of corruption as well.
Labels: Government
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
World Government is a Pipedream
Global Governance?
Managing the non-democratic rogues and cowboys in the world by creating a democratic super-institution is clearly a fool’s goal: look at the UN and the EU! Then too, creating a “club” of big nations to exercise control over the ungainly and unprincipaled lot of nations is likewise foolhardy, and decidedly undemocratic. The world is not ready for a central super-government with the power to enforce its decrees, and we would be more than foolish to champion such a move; we would be acting against, or even more strongly, violating, the well-being and the wishes of our own citizens, our Constitution, and our sovereignty.
It is obvious that among the “club members” would have to be China, Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, India and Iran, which is a collection of nations that have little regard for the US or for international government, unless, perhaps, it is they that govern, some by way of religious dictates. Two blocks of nations stand in the way as well: the Africans and the Islamic nations, that tend to vote as blocks. The idea that all nations can be treated as sovereign individuals over which we can impose a strong government along the lines of republicanism (or even blatantly totalitarian, which may well evolve in the end!) is not only dangerous to us, but also impractical and immoral on the face of it! We cannot seem to stop nuclear proliferation today, for example, despite the best intentions and commitments of major nations, and I seriously doubt we will be able to tomorrow, either.
Labels: Government, Worldview
Monday, February 01, 2010
My Government
A few of my views on where we must go in 2010!
One of the things I want for my government is dependability. I want it to be there in strength when the rest of the world goes bananas. What I mean here is that we should have a very well-equipped and substantial standing army, navy and air force to maintain the posture of peace through strength. Then no one will take us on, or try to humiliate us by attacking our friends.
I do not want it to look like a basket case financially, either, which means it should be prudent with our money. The idea of expanding entitlements translates to me as increased government handouts offered seemingly to buy the votes of recipients, which is simply not prudent. To extend these entitlements to illegal immigrants is the apex of stupidity and imprudence!
It pains me as well if the government is speculating or experimenting with my services or my rights. Services should be largely a fixed thing and fair for all citizens, so that one can rely on having such services for decades. I expect to retain my natural rights forever and ever!
Perhaps I am a bit selfish, but I cannot stand to see my tax dollars being used to afford healthy people a living without working, or to see the government gamed by people using multiple births to increase their welfare checks. We must take care of the indigent, the ill, the old and crippled for sure, but not the capable.
We have had a relatively free market approach to our economy, with some regulation thrown in to try to keep things fair and above board. We must maintain this free market posture. The market regulations and the regulators have not performed their jobs very well recently, so I can see the need to beef up some aspects of regulation, and the need to find some more honest regulators, in order to prevent future crashes of the kind we are in now. This does not mean that the government has to move in and become owners of our industry, which is occurring currently.
This has to extend to the Congress as well, in that they should keep their hands off the financial sector except through lawful regulations and inquiries. Their hidden hand in our mortgage crisis has yet to be fully exposed and dealt with properly.
The fact is, I simply do not trust big government or advocates of programs that lead to more big government; mostly by Democrats. We already have far too many government employees, government organizations, and government influences on our lives.
One reason we have an energy crisis is the government’s intervention into the realm of nuclear power plants, and stalling conversion to more nuclear generation of electricity, and then, for toppers, stalling on development of our own oil deposits, seemingly, just to make things worse. I have nothing against wind or solar power developments, which have promise of ameliorating the energy crisis, but they are both kind of ugly to look at and take up a lot of otherwise pleasant surface areas and views.
The final complaint I have for now is that we have been step-by-step weaned away from our Constitution into a Post-Constitutional government, where most anything goes. The checks on constitutionality of laws dreamed up by liberals (for the common good, and their own continuance, of course) have been subverted, and the Supreme Court has anointed itself as a super-legislating body able to extend their legal hands into everyday affairs without our representative bodies—the House and Senate-- having a say.
I do hope that 2010 begins a reversion to sound Constitutional government, and away from ad hoc interventionists.
Labels: Government
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Let Us Revere Our Constitution
Are we growing away from the Constitution?
It would be rather difficult for me to contrast and compare the relative simplicity, degrees of freedom, and morality of America in 1800, 1900 and 2000, but the social, political, commercial and technological changes are most certainly there for all to see.
Perhaps one of the most telling shifts in the public mind in those 200 years is the attitude towards natural law as it is codified in our Constitution. The great respect formerly paid to the thrust of the Founders to create a God-fearing Republic of the Center between the tyranny of the Left and the anarchy of the Right has deteriorated considerably. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin would be appalled at the state we have gotten ourselves into as of the end of 2009, I believe. As would Hamilton and Jay, to add a significant Federalist duo. As one person said, parties have become irrelevant, since both of them are forcing us down the wrong path---away from natural law and all that that implies. I think it was Judge Andy Nepolitano that voiced that thought, although several others have signed up to it. The thesis I have seen emerge recently is that our Constitution and the thinking behind it is just as relevant today as it was in 1800 or 1900: it is the diverse people and the less than knowledgeable governing bodies that have moved us away from the original ideas that have made us a great nation; thus, that is at the root of our problems. Yes, we now have a huge and diverse population, but, in itself, that should not change our commitment to the Constitution and the principles behind it, nor should it alter its relevancy in 2010.
What I see is the enormous difficulty in returning the populace to the ideas and directions of the Constitution and its natural law basis, and, as well, the total rejection I and many others have to performing some kind of "loose, legal, non-natural accommodation" to the steadfast natural law principles we originally had, in order to satisfy this or that growing modern constituency that couldn't care less about the Constitution. That is because these various constituencies have not been taught properly about the Constitution in our schools and homes, have been taught to reject it in large measure, or have been brought up in totally different nations and are not even close to understanding the under-girding principles of our nation. Nor do many truly sign up to our laws as being now superior in effect to their own prior laws or lack thereof.
There needs to be a book on this subject!
Labels: American Culture, Citizenship USA, Constitution, Government
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Great Disconnect
Where our government is not reflecting the will of the people.
From a series of six well-constructed polls in 2007 covering the entire American population there has emerged a series of startlingly cohesive opinions that our citizens hold on current political, social, military, economic, religious and scientific issues regardless of their political persuasion.
In fact, these positive opinions garnered majorities of between 70 and 90 percent or more of those polled. When you look at the platforms of the parties, and at the on-going legislative items in congress, you find that there are entrenched opponents to the issues in each party that almost completely stifle legislation that the public strongly desires.
Thus, it can be asserted that the congress, the judiciary and the administration are not reflecting the will of the majority of Americans in their legislation and operation of the government. This is the great disconnect, and it is at the root of serious public discontent with the direction we are being forced to follow.
What are these opinions? Here are a few of the highlights paraphrased from the polls conducted under the auspices of American Solutions, AEI, and the Gallop organization, and documented by Newt Gingrich in his book: Real Change, Regnery Press, 2009. (www.americansolutions.com)
1. By a majority of 85%, the public wants to defend ourselves and our allies.
2. By 75% they want to defeat our enemies where found.
3. By 93% the public believes that Al Qaeda poses a serious threat.
4. Over 85% believe that Iran poses a serious threat.
5. 79% of our citizens want convicted terrorists to receive the death penalty.
6. 83% want a law that makes it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the nation or to advocate killing citizens.
7. 77% want terrorist web sites to be closed down by cyber attack.
8. Over 89% believe that religion and morality are very important to them and their families.
9. 79% believe that religion and morality are important to the country.
10. 87% approve of the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of independence.
11. 88% approve of the reference to “one nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
12. By 78% citizens approve of displays of the Ten Commandments in public places.
13. Some 81% oppose removing crosses and other such monuments from public places.
14. 94% approve of a moment of silence in schools to allow students to pray.
15. By 90% they approve of placing Christmas Trees in public places.
16. 93% believe it is important to acknowledge that our rights come from the Creator, not man.
17. By 86% citizens choose a candidate that respects the lessons of the founding fathers over a secular candidate.
18. 81% want to protect religious symbols from removal from public places.
19. Over 83% of Americans support an effective visa program for workers.
20. By 89% citizens want a tamperproof ID system for foreign workers.
21. By 93% they want foreign workers to take an oath to obey US laws, and to be deported if they commit a crime.
22. By 88% they want foreign workers that commit a felony to be deported.
23. By 72% citizens believe that current immigration laws are not being enforced.
24. Over 78% support heavy fines for employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
25. Some 66% want all illegal immigrants to be deported.
26. Over 87% want English to be the official language of the nation.
27. 77% of Americans believe we should build more oil refineries.
I have no reason to question the methodology or analyses of these poll results, but I would want to repeat the exercise with perhaps a wider support from all political groups, and with a number of additional questions, in order to confirm and expand our knowledge.
The added questions would verify the opinions of our citizens on abortion, same-sex marriage, teen sex problems, and unwed mothers. From earlier referendums in about 11 states, these moral social issues received highly negative votes, on the order of 70% or more opposing them and wanting some kind of corrective action. Again, a huge disconnect emerges between the populace and the government.
While our representative republic is partly designed to cool off the tempers of the public with deliberation and decision when passions are running very high on some immediate issue or another, this set of opinions is not immediate: each one is enduring and deeply held. Many are ultimately founded on the religious and moral beliefs of the citizens, which, to them, are immutable, although the Left daily scorns their positions.
Why does this great disconnect exist, and what must we do about it?
UPDATE: Some further thoughts on The Great Disconnect:
1. These opinions, in sum, reflect much more of a conventional rightist mindset than a leftist one. How did a leftist congress and president get elected then? The key factor is White Guilt, which is now being dissipated rather rapidly. The second factor, spending by the Bush administration, has been overwhelmingly transferred now to Obama. The third factor, GWOT, is being booted by Obama now. The devil should get his due also: Obama did run an effective campaign and McCain did not.
2. That America leans to the right in general seems to be confirmed. Yet, we are living with the leftist crowd that conservatives do not want have in positions of power. The more the left show their real objectives, the less the electorate as represented in these opinions will approve. We hope this disapproval is acted upon in time to unravel the damage.
3. The very large percentage of citizens that favor the Christian religion and morality, and the protection of Christian religious statements, signs and symbols in public places, argues also that a substantial majority most likely will hold faith-based positions on moral social issues as well-- including abortion and same-sex marriage. The percentage of people that profess a religious belief in this poll is in general accord with the last census results. Those people that moan about the hard line conservatives have taken on abortion and same-sex marriage, and the use of these issues as litmus tests, will be surprised in the next election cycles if these results bear up. Most moaners are not religious at all, it would seem, but are in that 10% of nones; a scarce few of them actually follow the Right.
Christians are taught tolerance of other religions, and the nation itself is built on the principle of freedom of religion. But, if a religion and its leaders advocate the (eventual) overthrow of this nation and the subjugation or killing of non-believers, then we see the strong advocacy in our public for the death penalty and the passing of laws that would seriously inhibit such actions.
4. Amnesty for illegal immigrants appears to be highly objectionable to a great majority of our citizens. This leftist government will probably try to pass an amnesty bill, which will give the right another significant boost at the next election.
5. Defense and prosecution of the GWOT against Islamic Jihadists stands very high on the agenda for most Americans. The new administration is backing out of Iraq as fast as possible, and will most likely find a way to get out of Afghanistan also, despite the earlier solemn declarations of Obama. They are not facing the Iranians down on their development of nuclear weapons with any success either. The Middle East is very much the same cauldron it has been for 60 or more years, with the added danger of possibly having nuclear weapons passed into terrorist hands. Obama is playing a dangerous game here with the Israelis, and showing far greater preference to the Palestinians—and Muslims in general.
6. A large citizen majority is focused on ensuring that the Constitution is respected and upheld. Violations and bending of the provisions of the Constitution are standard practice on the left, especially for the five left-leaning justices on the Supreme Court. It is a “living document” or guideline to them.
7. This set of opinions argues that conservative candidates for office must hold true to their conservative principles. They will then find substantial, winning support across a spectrum of voters. That they will possibly shed some centrists and pseudo-intellectuals in the process is understandable. We hear every day that conservatives must relax their principles and standards or else be consigned to second place forever. Real Conservatives, and, as shown in these opinions, a majority of the people, know otherwise.
8. There is little in this set of opinions that would spark the Far Right into frenetic action; rather, it has a sufficient conservative cast to it that they would in all probability be content to support it in the elections, as far as it goes. We are told that the Far Right will poison the electorate against the conservative Right with their antics and stupid remarks. One could point out that the Far Right has been there just about forever, and they have made their opinions known every year very loudly indeed, so their song is not new. After all, they are firmly on the margin. It is much, much more likely that a sound brigade of conservative candidates in 2010 and 2012 will bring the Far Right into the big tent at election time without a lot of yelling and screaming.
Labels: Democrats, Government, Independents, Republicans
Friday, July 03, 2009
Political Virtues
More like political vices today!
The vetting process is terribly faulty for our politicians at every level. If you can speak well, look pretty, dress well, and have money to burn, you are odds on to win something. If you have friends in high places, you can win big. If you have an issue or two that pleases the electorate, so much the better, particularly if they involve payouts to the public of some sort. Virtues? Well, these virtues seem to be all that are required.
If you tear the lid off of some of these practitioners of politics, the smell of rotting goop will overpower you. That is why they seek guides from the professional ranks of seers–to provide them with cover and polishing for their private and public sins, past and present.
We need more tearers-of-lids at an earlier point in the soddy careers of many politicians. Plus, we need a surer mechanism for shedding those who have outstayed their welcome or have committed egregious sins at citizen’s expense. Quite a few names come to mind, but I will refrain from calling them out here. Perhaps term limits will help.
Virtue is happiness! — Socrates
Labels: Government, Honesty, hypocrisy, Virtue
Thursday, March 12, 2009
List of Vital Issues for America
Here is my updated list as of march, 2009:
1. Christianity--growing its moral importance to our citizens.
2. Islam--recognizing that we are at both active and passive war with Islam.
3. Conservatism--getting the traditional fiscal and social conservative message to the public.
4. Liberalism--defeating their outrageous propositions to change America, and ensuring they do not have another opportunity in the future.
5. Education--revising our education system to give a better education, and take the federal government out of it. Let the states run education.
6. Science--honest, scientific tracking of climate change; energy breakthroughs; improve the environment, research on nuclear energy.
7. Globalization--bringing more nations back into higher wealth and lower poverty.
8. US Government--reforms in Congress, the Judiciary (SCOTUS in particular), and the Administration.
9. US Financial Stability--reform of the budget, reduction in spending.
10. UN and World Politics--deemphasize the UN in favor of friendly democratic nations.
11. World Poverty--work to end starvation of masses of people.
12. WMD Proliferation--stop it by force; carry a big stick. Give ultimatums to Iran and N. Korea.
13. Natural Resources--conservation of scarce resources is a must.
14. The European Union--partner, ally, or dedicated trade enemy? Walk carefully!
15. China--carry a very big stick. Reduce imports.
16. Social Changes in the US--preserve our effective institutions and traditions from socialistic, and communitarian changes.
17. Security--support the GWOT, keep the Patriot Act, allow all policemen to arrest, hold and deport illegals after a hearing before a local judge.
18. Immigration--cap the flow with strong, complete fences, deport illegals, create an effective guest worker program.
19. Corruption in Government--our legislators, judges, and the administration have gone wild, and must be reined in. It is not accidental that the immigration bill is being reinstated. Return to original intent of the Constitution.
20. Administration-- work to unseat Obama, his bunch of radicals, and all of the leftist Congressmen in 2010 and 2012.
21. Defense--Bolster troop power by two or three additional divisions, and continue major weapon programs, perhaps at a somewhat lower pace.
Labels: Citizenship USA, Islam and Others, Worldview
Labels: Government, Science, Worldview
Monday, March 09, 2009
Why Progressive Taxes?
In that there are many other ways to reach fiscal stability.
Perhaps I fail to spot the problem here: who says that we need so very much government that we must tax progressively?
It is easy to establish that we need some amount of government to maintain an orderly and lawful society, to provide for the common defense, and to provide the environment for entrepreneural efforts. That there must be some regulation is easy to understand, also.
But, it seems that there is a growth of government functions far beyond what would be ideally needed simply to keep our society perking. Thus, there is a tax revenue demand that is virtually insatiable, what with government taking on the ever-increasing support of the non-payers of taxes, and the bailout of financial and other institutions that in fact should not be bailed out at all, and a drag of earmarks, pork and payoffs that must represent, as a guess, 10% of the tax load now.
So, to feed this monster we envoke class envy, and raise the rates for the high incomers, instead of doing the hard things: cutting back on marginal projects, reducing the size of government, finding greater efficiencies in government, cutting out the earmarks, pork and payoffs, and relying more on market forces to do the adjusting than to government intervention. Just to make it more obvious, lets then cut taxes for the other 95% of the people.
What we need is an austerity program, not a social welfare program.
Labels: Government, Taxes
Monday, February 09, 2009
Smaller-Government Ideas of Conservatism
One man, one government employee?
After reading “Outrage” by Dick Morris, one can surmise that fully a fifth of the national budget can be chalked up to fraud, graft, quasi-legal junketing, subsidies unnecessarily paid out to favorite big farmers, drug companies, the UN, Fannie Mae, for Illegal immigrants, and trade protection, among other extravaganzas.
If one increases the size of government, one could expect a similar increase in these practices, or even a further penetration and corruption of the political scene, not unlike the so-called stimulus pork project. A billion here, and a billion there, and you soon have a fully corrupted process.
Before letting government grow to its theoretical service-to-the-people limit, why not insist on cleaning up the fraud and corruption first, and the waste, mismanagement, and deadhead personnel that bloats payrolls and budgets throughout the Departments, Agencies, etc?
The concept that there just might eventually be one government employee for each civilian so as to cater to the citizen’s every wish is perhaps one theoretical limit to be avoided. Once over 50% of the population garners their wages from the US government, we are well on the way to restrictive socialism and who knows what excesses? This would put freedom and liberty for our citizens in great jeopardy.
Let us first concentrate on greater honesty and efficiency of government, legislators, lobbyists, and industry before allowing insatiable growth of government to satisfy every whim of the “Need and Right” groups.
Go to the LSU website to see just how many identifiable federal government organizations actually exist, have a staff, and budget. At last report it was 1,177 boards, committees, agencies, commissions, bureaus and the like. Many of these organizations have overlapping charters, separate rules and and a thirst for participation in the business of the day to justify their existence. We have become Russia, governed by 10,000 (or a lot more) clerks, not the leaders.
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html
It is all well and good to deep six the idea of smaller government, but we must have our government honest, minimally invasive of our freedoms and liberties, efficient, and cost-effective.
You don’t get there by opening the door to growth without reform.
Labels: Conservatism, Government, Government Handouts, Honesty, Stimulus
Friday, January 23, 2009
A Big Conservative Tent?
Many decry so-called social “litmus tests” for citizens to be included in the conservative movement. So do I. If you sign up to the core principles of conservatism, and support conservative politicians, that is all anyone should require.
The two litmus tests -–anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage---however, are derived from religious tenets stated in or derived from the Bible, which many Christians sign up to and include in their conservatism. They do tend to resent non-believers or those who choose to ignore the tenets of the church or the Bible, despite their other tenets of good will to all men and the Golden Rule.
Obviously, for the 2% to 10% of the population that do not believe in Christ or a God, such tenets are onerous and wrong-headed, and it sets them apart from their religious Christian brethren, sometimes very vocally and nastily. So we have a fundamental religious belief based conflict that is rather difficult for some to pass over simply for the sake of the conservative movement.
When the federal government steps in and passes laws that enforce tenets that are diametrically opposed to the religious tenets of many Christians (RvW, for instance), some Christians see that as blasphemy and a direct challenge to their belief system. Litmus testing is one result; you are either with them, or against them, and they will not compromise their religious beliefs. Hence, we find that provisions in many states have been passed by large majorities that codify into law anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage statutes. Thus we have a state versus federal law conflict as well, where the federal position does not seem to be at all reflective of the majority will.
Conservatives must find the right answers to such conflicts, and others of similar gravity, if inclusiveness is to be achieved for the movement. If this was easy to solve, it would have been done long ago.
Perhaps we need to redefine what inclusiveness really means. What exactly are the minimum tenets of conservatism one must believe in to be accorded full status? What tenets of religion must you give up or sublimate in order to be inclusive? What kind of movement or party is it that in effect coerces its members to give up or sublimate some of their closely held religious beliefs in order to grow the membership? How do you secularize the current conservative movement? Is that a wise thing to try?
I am not encouraged that the conservative movement can resolve these conflicts in the few years before further elections take place.
Labels: Abortion, Conservatism, Gay Rights, Government, Home Security
Monday, August 25, 2008
Wayward Thoughts
What I want to see from the President on down is an aggressive attitude, a "we can win" attitude, and a "don’t mess with me" attitude. We are very much still on top, still the greatest economy, and still the most powerful military in the world.
Neither the EU nor the French nor the Germans nor the Brits have a vote in our affairs. We can and should consult with them, if only to try to minimize the impacts of our decisions on them. But to accord the EU socialists with more than that is to give them far more influence than they have earned. If we look into the future, we should be concerned about the EU becoming Eurasia, and creating their councils to support the hordes of Muslims in their midst.
We need not treat the UN as a holy of holies when it comes to our need to take action in our eventual or immediate defense. Of the some 200 members in the General Assembly, our supporters do not amount to more than a few dozen. In the Security Council there are strange bedfellows as members now, and it promises to become far worse. The main reason to stay a member is to wield our veto when needed.
The world is full of two things: the poor, and the whiners. No matter how many trillions of dollars we dump freely on the rest of the nations we can count on the recipients being ungrateful for it, their being very vocal in wanting more and more, and their population exploding evermore beyond our help. There is nothing wrong with tithing as a nation and having zero expectations of anything in return, but when the tithes are turned into militias, AK-47s and IEDs, or voting blocks against our interests in a region, seizure of US property, or even murder of our citizens, we are doing something very wrong, and should stop our support.
The attitude that it is the poor we are trying to help so put up with the anti-American governments at the top is just woefully counterproductive.
We make martinets, millionaires and militias with our money. This is wrong.
Labels: Europe, Government
Sunday, May 25, 2008
World Government--NO!
Why I Am Against World Government
1. Foreign Control: I do not accept that there would be substantial foreign control of our laws, our way of life, and how we are governed.
2. Bureaucratic Nightmare: Our own government is already far too complex for men to understand. Adding a significant layer on top of this complexity would ensure that the average citizen would be submerged, never to be seen again. The added cost of this layer would be substantial, for little return in concrete benefits. It is not the US that would benefit, but the poorer nations. This is simply another scheme for forced redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
3. Financial Corruption on a Super Scale: The UN currently wants all nations to contribute 0.7% of the gross national product of each member to the annual fund. For the US, with a GNP of 13 trillion dollars, that would mean over 910 billion dollars donated to UN care. Does anyone think that this kind of money could be handled by the UN with no corruption? I don't, and we have the OFF program as Example One to prove the point.
4. A Stacked Deck Against the US: Currently, the UN is stacked against us by a large margin, and if their legislation could be forced on us, you can be sure that it would be to our detriment. Any future so-called World Government would evolve into the same situation, where we are outvoted at every turn. This is not in our interests at all.
5. Amorality/Immorality: Many of the 200-odd nations in the world appear to have no moral guidance at all, and permit behaviors that we in the West cannot abide. At any one time there are an average of 30 wars or major insurrections going on around this stellar group of nations, and many others are in some form of dictatorship. Genocides are common, and foreigners are often treated as targets for their anger, resulting in mutilations and death for the hapless visitors. Such nations are not acceptable partners.
6. An Opportunity for Redirection: Once power has been transferred to a central world government, there will be opportunities for unscrupulous nations and individuals to seize control of the apparatus and redirect things their way. This is especially true once the central government obtains its own strong armed forces not beholden to any nation. The tax bill will become gargantuan.
7. Kangaroo Courts: As has been demonstrated by the Belgian ICC, international courts can go to extremes quickly. Our President, his staff and key generals were about to be arrested and tried under ICC rules for acts of war. This shows the errant power an international court system can appropriate for itself and apply to our people. Thank you, no.
8. Readiness Factor: For all of the above reasons, it is easily concluded that the world is not yet ready for a democratic government having its own enforcement capability and its own taxation authority. The world of nations is far too immature, conflicted, self-centered, amoral, and corrupt.
Labels: Democratic, Government, UN, Worldview
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Who Rules the Nation?
The Complexity of Our Government
Few people realize the enormous complexity of the US Government. Everyone knows there are three main divisions of the government: Administrative; Legislative and Judicial. Each of these divisions is rather large in themselves, with the greatest manpower vested in the Administrative, mainly because of the Department of Defense. So be it; the job of running the nation and defending her is certainly a huge one. It has been stated that over 40% of the legal workers in the US are government employees.
There is another organizational aspect that escapes too much attention, in my view, and that is the many and diverse semi- autonomous agencies of the government that have huge staffs, a charter from the legislature, and an annual budget of perhaps in the billions. These Agencies include some well-known operations, among them the: Bureaus of the Census, ATF, Immigration, Prisons, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the CIA, the FBI, the Social Security Administration, the Postal Service, Customs and Border Patrol, and the IRS (every one's favorite!). But the total extent of these Agencies is not clear to the average citizen.
To get a better handle on the number of these entities, I went to the Louisiana State University Library (on line), and discovered that this Library had a definitive list! In categories, the list includes:
Committees, Commisions, and Boards 63
Executive Agencies 834
Independent Agencies 132
Judicial Agencies 45
Legislative Agencies 79
Quasi-Official Agencies 24
That is a total of 1,177 federal organizations that affect you and me in some direct or indirect way, and that we pay for through our taxes. One would think that to understand each of these Agencies thoroughly, and to prune this tree effectively would be an impossible job. And so it has been, what with bureaucratic turf battles, congressional support for favorite efforts, and budget battles of titanic proportions. The inertia built up over time has become a millstone around necks of those that would cut the budget and cut the complexity of our government. President Bush, for example tried to foster changes of a modest nature in the Social Security entitlements and was rebuked strongly by Congress.
The IRS has been a favorite target for some wanting radical changes to the tax code, which has become a nightmare for the average and above average wage earners who pay 83% of all taxes.
Some have argued for a flat tax that everyone pays if they make over a certain amount per year. Something like 18% of earnings. So far, these ideas for change have not been acted upon.
The point here is that these 1, 177 self-perpetuating and self-serving organizations need to be thoroughly overhauled and cut where cutting makes sense, and combined where it makes sense. I have not heard any candidate talk about these factors in our bloated government.
Labels: Government
