Good morning, everyone. Now that the dust is settling from the holiday weekend, let's look at some old business. Last week a debate erupted within the Republican Party on whether or not to make their candidates take an ideological purity test to prove their conservative credentials.
The test would make sure Republican candidates oppose economic stimulus, health care reform, climate change legislation, increased troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pro-gun legislation. Basically it makes sure any candidate that the GOP runs is fully committed to stonewalling the president's ambitious policies.
Funding from the Republican National Committee would then depend on whether or not the candidate meets the standards of the test. No doubt this issue boils down to the GOP considering whether to weed out the moderate elements within the party.
Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine could find themselves in hot water should the RNC decide to require purity tests. Furthermore, Republicans in certain districts could be forced to make promised politically unpopular to their constituents simply to prove their conservatism.
This policy would be a disaster for the GOP - furthermore, its very proposal solidifies the GOP as a party without any true ideology. Republicans simply act to oppose the Democrats, culling votes with public discontent instead of proposing any effective policy changes on the federal level.
Nov 30, 2009
Nov 24, 2009
I'm Fed Up
Is there any Republican out there interested in a trade? I'll give you Joe Lieberman for Olympia Snowe.
Even though they aren't that far apart on the ideological scale, at least Snowe can reasonably claim that she is representing her consituents.
Even though they aren't that far apart on the ideological scale, at least Snowe can reasonably claim that she is representing her consituents.
Libertarians Live in Fairy Land
Earlier this month I profiled Dr. Rand Paul. Now let us consider his political philosophy. Rand Paul has not been shy about flashing his libertarian credentials wherever he goes.
Libertarianism is a movement that is growing in influence in the United States as people's unease with federal debt and proposals for vigorous federal programs bring out the worst of the anti-government element in this country. A very loud minority is calling not just for budget cuts and lower taxes, but the utter emasculation of the government. These feelings have crescendoed to utter hatred for any of the activities or agents of the federal government. The discovery of the body of a census worker hanged by the neck in eastern Kentucky with the word 'FED' scrawled across his chest is a culmination of this anti-government sentiment.
These ideas and the passion with which they are progressed are not at all new. During the revolutionary period through the ratification of the Constitution in this country, a minority contingent of our founding fathers made the same arguments, fighting against the U.S. Constitution because they feared a federal government with the power to tax, spend, raise a military and regulate congress. Men like Patrick Henry claimed the new government was tyrannical: that it would curtail individual liberties and usurp power from the states. Their opponents, men like James Madison, George Washington, John Marshall, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson successfully argued that the Constitutional government electorally derived its power from the populace and therefore could never be a tyranny. Libertarians ultimately lost their battle against the majority that saw the need of a vigorous government to defend and unify the several states.
The war between these ideologies still rages on today. Though most of the anti-government conservative view point have moderated their views in public and have found a home in the Republican Party, there is a very strong anti-Constitutional point of view within that party led by the likes of Ron and Rand Paul.
However, more influential and mainstream elements in the GOP clearly hold this point of view as well. Grover Norquist, an influential GOP activist, once stated that he wanted to shrink the government down to the point where one could "drown it in the bathtub." Now the TEA Party movement, which argues that the government has overstepped its expressed power of direct taxation, enjoys the support of Rep. Michelle Bachman, Rep. Peter King, and the Fox News Network. A related contingent, often labeled the 'Tenthers', marches behind the banner of the 10th Amendment which delegates to the states powers that are not directed to the federal government.
These folks ignore not only the express powers of congress and the federal government, but also the important implied powers of the government. Notes from the debates following the constitutional convention in 1787 make it clear that the framers of that document did not intend for the powers of congress to be simply limited to those directly expressed within. The whole constitutional argument for libertarianism fails when one realizes the context that the framers were operating in: one government, based upon a small national government wholly reliant on the states for revenue and defense, was facing total collapse and a new, stronger central government was needed.
The libertarian element in the Republican Party wants to go back to that failed, flaccid central government that this country suffered under before the Constitution was written. They have forgotten the lessons of the Constitution and the very reason it was written.
Libertarians and their allies often point to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Post Office, and Amtrak as modern day examples of why we don't want government running programs at all. They never mention that each of these programs has had trouble due to modern pressures their organizers could not have imagined. They never mention that Amtrak was designed to fail by a libertarian element within the Nixon administration. They never mention the success of the National Park System. They never mention our public schools which provide every student in our land with education more precious than the portion of our incomes spent on taxes. They neglect to mention the student aid programs that give middle to lower income students access to higher levels of education, allowing them social mobility. They ignore the need for centralized planning for infrastructure and defense. There are myriad federal agencies like NASA and the EPA that are paragons of success.
Limiting government is a good thing that ultimately does protect 'we the people' from tyranny. There are limits to where the argument can be taken. It is clear that protecting individuals from government led attempts to restrict civil liberties is a good thing. People should have physical freedom over their own bodies and intellectual freedom over their conscience and voice. I think even the most vigorous defenders of a strong central government stop far short of endowing that government with absolute power to control the economy or determine the destinies of the governed.
Electing libertarians to hold office is like putting atheists in the pulpit. It is like letting John Wayne Gacy and Michael Jackson open up a preschool. When it comes to operating in a modern world full of threat and famine, ecological disaster and ideological extremism, first world countries can ill-afford to have folks who don't believe in governance or who want to destroy the federal government to electoral positions within the federal government. For this reason, I believe Kentucky should reject Rand Paul's bid for the U.S. Senate.
Libertarianism is a movement that is growing in influence in the United States as people's unease with federal debt and proposals for vigorous federal programs bring out the worst of the anti-government element in this country. A very loud minority is calling not just for budget cuts and lower taxes, but the utter emasculation of the government. These feelings have crescendoed to utter hatred for any of the activities or agents of the federal government. The discovery of the body of a census worker hanged by the neck in eastern Kentucky with the word 'FED' scrawled across his chest is a culmination of this anti-government sentiment.
These ideas and the passion with which they are progressed are not at all new. During the revolutionary period through the ratification of the Constitution in this country, a minority contingent of our founding fathers made the same arguments, fighting against the U.S. Constitution because they feared a federal government with the power to tax, spend, raise a military and regulate congress. Men like Patrick Henry claimed the new government was tyrannical: that it would curtail individual liberties and usurp power from the states. Their opponents, men like James Madison, George Washington, John Marshall, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson successfully argued that the Constitutional government electorally derived its power from the populace and therefore could never be a tyranny. Libertarians ultimately lost their battle against the majority that saw the need of a vigorous government to defend and unify the several states.
The war between these ideologies still rages on today. Though most of the anti-government conservative view point have moderated their views in public and have found a home in the Republican Party, there is a very strong anti-Constitutional point of view within that party led by the likes of Ron and Rand Paul.
However, more influential and mainstream elements in the GOP clearly hold this point of view as well. Grover Norquist, an influential GOP activist, once stated that he wanted to shrink the government down to the point where one could "drown it in the bathtub." Now the TEA Party movement, which argues that the government has overstepped its expressed power of direct taxation, enjoys the support of Rep. Michelle Bachman, Rep. Peter King, and the Fox News Network. A related contingent, often labeled the 'Tenthers', marches behind the banner of the 10th Amendment which delegates to the states powers that are not directed to the federal government.
These folks ignore not only the express powers of congress and the federal government, but also the important implied powers of the government. Notes from the debates following the constitutional convention in 1787 make it clear that the framers of that document did not intend for the powers of congress to be simply limited to those directly expressed within. The whole constitutional argument for libertarianism fails when one realizes the context that the framers were operating in: one government, based upon a small national government wholly reliant on the states for revenue and defense, was facing total collapse and a new, stronger central government was needed.
The libertarian element in the Republican Party wants to go back to that failed, flaccid central government that this country suffered under before the Constitution was written. They have forgotten the lessons of the Constitution and the very reason it was written.
Libertarians and their allies often point to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Post Office, and Amtrak as modern day examples of why we don't want government running programs at all. They never mention that each of these programs has had trouble due to modern pressures their organizers could not have imagined. They never mention that Amtrak was designed to fail by a libertarian element within the Nixon administration. They never mention the success of the National Park System. They never mention our public schools which provide every student in our land with education more precious than the portion of our incomes spent on taxes. They neglect to mention the student aid programs that give middle to lower income students access to higher levels of education, allowing them social mobility. They ignore the need for centralized planning for infrastructure and defense. There are myriad federal agencies like NASA and the EPA that are paragons of success.
Limiting government is a good thing that ultimately does protect 'we the people' from tyranny. There are limits to where the argument can be taken. It is clear that protecting individuals from government led attempts to restrict civil liberties is a good thing. People should have physical freedom over their own bodies and intellectual freedom over their conscience and voice. I think even the most vigorous defenders of a strong central government stop far short of endowing that government with absolute power to control the economy or determine the destinies of the governed.
Electing libertarians to hold office is like putting atheists in the pulpit. It is like letting John Wayne Gacy and Michael Jackson open up a preschool. When it comes to operating in a modern world full of threat and famine, ecological disaster and ideological extremism, first world countries can ill-afford to have folks who don't believe in governance or who want to destroy the federal government to electoral positions within the federal government. For this reason, I believe Kentucky should reject Rand Paul's bid for the U.S. Senate.
Nov 23, 2009
A Sobering Thought
A report from the World Wildlife Foundation done in conjunction with the insurance industry estimates the costs of a half-meter rise in sea-level by 2050 at $28 trillion. This cost was based on estimated damages to port cities at or below sea level around the globe. We could provide the U.S. population health insurance 35-times over at that cost.
So why does it make sense to oppose health care reform due to worry over the costs, then turn around and ignore climate change in utter ignorance of the costs?
I would suggest that organizations concerned about pollution, climate change, and the state of the environment begin making appeals based on economic and security factors. The least it could do is expose the hypocrisy of opponents to environmental policy.
Recent polling suggests Americans are ready to accept major changes to environmental and economic policies to make our industries and utilities more eco-friendly. Americans also overwhelmingly support cap-and-trade. If the Obama Administration wants to make their pledge of action on climate change and environmental a reality, the political will is undeniably there.
So why does it make sense to oppose health care reform due to worry over the costs, then turn around and ignore climate change in utter ignorance of the costs?
I would suggest that organizations concerned about pollution, climate change, and the state of the environment begin making appeals based on economic and security factors. The least it could do is expose the hypocrisy of opponents to environmental policy.
Recent polling suggests Americans are ready to accept major changes to environmental and economic policies to make our industries and utilities more eco-friendly. Americans also overwhelmingly support cap-and-trade. If the Obama Administration wants to make their pledge of action on climate change and environmental a reality, the political will is undeniably there.
Nov 21, 2009
Health Care Bill will Get Its time in the Senate
The Democrats show solidarity between liberals and moderates, progressives and conservatives, showing that a big-tent party built on compromise can work. Now let's get it on the president's desk!
Time to Get Involved Again
The great debate on health care reform has begun in the Senate, pitting Harry Reid and his innovative legislation against Mitch McConnell and the desperate Republican opposition. The bill will almost certainly have enough votes to pass, a majority of at least 51, but not enough yet to defeat a filibuster (60 votes needed). This means that this country's best opportunity for health care reform depends on individual citizens' ability to lobby their senators to allow an up-or-down vote on this reform and break the filibuster.
The arguments against this bill are two-fold. One is that it is too expensive given the country's current deficits and debt. However, an audit by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows that this bill will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. The argument that this bill is too expensive falls flat on its face and is based on deception and ignorance.
Another argument against this bill is that it expands the power of the federal government to unprecedented levels. In fact, this bill does not add anything new to the powers of the federal government. Washington already has numerous systems through which it tracks Americans, from the census, to the IRS, to the Social Security Administration. Furthermore, the government already provides health care to a large portion of the population by managing Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Tricare, the military insurance system. Evidence points to the proposed reform increasing the benefit and efficiency of these already existing government programs in a way that will reduce their costs without compromising the valuable services they provide.
Health care reform needs the help of those who believe it is the right thing to do. Write, call, and e-mail your senators demanding that they not support any filibuster of this legislation. The world's wealthiest nation cannot afford to let its populace suffer from a lack of access to health care. The folks that we've spent the last years pushing to elect to congress are finally delivering for us, and we owe it to ourselves to return the favor.
The arguments against this bill are two-fold. One is that it is too expensive given the country's current deficits and debt. However, an audit by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows that this bill will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. The argument that this bill is too expensive falls flat on its face and is based on deception and ignorance.
Another argument against this bill is that it expands the power of the federal government to unprecedented levels. In fact, this bill does not add anything new to the powers of the federal government. Washington already has numerous systems through which it tracks Americans, from the census, to the IRS, to the Social Security Administration. Furthermore, the government already provides health care to a large portion of the population by managing Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Tricare, the military insurance system. Evidence points to the proposed reform increasing the benefit and efficiency of these already existing government programs in a way that will reduce their costs without compromising the valuable services they provide.
Health care reform needs the help of those who believe it is the right thing to do. Write, call, and e-mail your senators demanding that they not support any filibuster of this legislation. The world's wealthiest nation cannot afford to let its populace suffer from a lack of access to health care. The folks that we've spent the last years pushing to elect to congress are finally delivering for us, and we owe it to ourselves to return the favor.
Sweet Sounds
Hip hop gets a lot of play in my life. I would say one in three days it is what is playing on the iPod as I pedal to work or class. For me it was an acquired taste, mom and dad did not like post-modern music for the most part, and my brother and I didn't really get exposed to a lot of hip-hop and rap until we were in middle school.
Here is one of the songs that made me fall in love with hip-hop, a love that continues to grow today. Here is Pharcyde with "Passin' me by"
Here is one of the songs that made me fall in love with hip-hop, a love that continues to grow today. Here is Pharcyde with "Passin' me by"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)