U.S. Representative Scott Garrett: Franklin Rains- 'Calls For Fannie & Freddie Mac Reform'

Source:U.S. Representative Scott Garrett- former Fannie and Freddie Mac CEO Franklin Raines, being interviewed by CNBC.

"Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae, said financial reform will not be complete without reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in an interview with CNBC this afternoon.

CNBC: "The president spoke forthrightly about the need for financial regulatory reform. But I don't believe I ever heard him mention the words Fannie Mae or Freddie. Can you really reform finance in this country without reforming Fannie and Freddie?"

Raines: "In terms of reform dealing with "Too Big to Fail" and those issues, I think that ultimately you can't have a completely reformed system without figuring out what you're going to do with these two very large companies..."

From US. Representative Scott Garrett

Perhaps Frank Raines is not the best spokesperson to be talking about financial housing assistance right now. After all, he was the President of Fannie Mae that when it went down in 2008. Which was one of the reasons for the housing crisis because of all the mortgages that FM were holding. Which help lead to the Great Recession of 2008 along with the collapse of our banking system. 

If you're going to bail people out and generally bailing people out is not a good idea especially for bad behavior, because that encourages more bad behavior and making the problem worst, but if you're going to bail people out, bail people out that are in trouble for no fault of their own. People that got screwed by big banks and now owe more money on their homes than they are worth. 

The people who were screwed by big banks are overwhelmingly middle class, at least before the Great Recession and how still have their homes. But are at risk of losing their homes, because they owe more money on the home than it's worth and they can afford to pay back, their savings and retirement funds were wiped out.

Because of the collapse of Wall Street and the banking system, these one time middle class workers are now out-of-work as a result of the Great Recession and haven't worked since. Or lost their savings during the Great Recession, or a combination of some or all of these factors. And that's what President Obama is addressing with his new financial assistance program, to help people refinance their homes and retire some of their mountain size debt, so they can keep their homes. Start spending money again and jump start economic growth which would lead to job growth. 

The fact is we can't get our economy going again, economic and job growth, unless people especially the middle class start spending money again. Retiring some consumer debt would help jump start consumer spending again. And the only way thats going to happen, is we get a lot of our consumer debt paid off. Refinancing homes giving homeowners the resources to refinance their mortgages and paying off their debt.

Which is why I support a few things in this area

Home refinancing, like some type of housing insurance system. To accomplish this that people would pay into based on how much their property is worth. That they can collect from when their home is worth more than they can afford to pay back to help meet their mortgage payments. 

As well as public assistance for people that they can pay back who have underwater mortgages in the short-term and also some type of tax credit or tax deduction. That would be temporary that people could collect to pay down their debt.

And after that an extension of the Payroll Tax Holiday for workers and apply that to employers as well. For the middle class and low-income people, so they can have some extra money to spend. And then a Consumer Tax Credit that people can collect, but they can only spend it. By a certain amount of time to help boost consumer spending.

We'll never get the economy going again which means strong economic and job growth and a falling unemployment rate, unless we start spending as consumers again. And we can't do this until we retire a lot of our consumer debt and get past the housing crisis, a big part of the Great Recession. 

I'm all for tax cuts, regulatory reform, infrastructure investment and creating a national energy policy, that leads us to energy independence. But none of those things mean much, without consumer spending. And we need to retire a lot of our consumer debt before we can get the consumer spending that we need.

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch Interviewing Edward Stringham- 'Policing is Too Important To Be Left For Government'

Source:Reason Magazine- Edward Stringham, at Freedom Fest in 2011.

"Because police are so important, I think that we should abandon the idea that government needs to provide it." says economics professor Edward Stringham.

"Wherever we see government it's not helpful, it's bureaucratic, it's not serving its customers and I would say that especially applies in the area of police."

At FreedomFest 2011, Reason's Matt Welch sat down with Stringham to talk about privatizing security, real world examples in the United States and why this won't lead to police protection only for the rich."

From Reason Magazine

I'm just about to lay out why I'm not a Libertarian, even though I've been classified as a Libertarian over and over. 

Here's an example of where libertarianism can go too far: if you look at what government is supposed to do, defend, protect and to serve, and look after the general welfare of its people, which is very general. And generally speaking government does a pretty good job of this, except for the Welfare part. Where they've made their job even harder and the people who are dependent lives even worse. Just look at our poverty rates.

But then look at what's the role of the private sector: be profitable, make as much money as they can, beat the competition, etc. That doesn't fit in very well with defend and protect. Because protecting and defending and serving costs a lot of money, that means investing resources. Resources that a private law enforcement Agency aren't going to want to invest. Because it's going to hurt their bottom line the thing they concentrate on most. Which means as a result the security of their customers get hurt as a result.

Gov Track: U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions- 'Honest Budget Act'

Source:The Cannabis Advisory- U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican, Alabama) Ranking Member of the Budget Committee.

"In the Senate, it shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, or conference report that designates as an emergency requirement, pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res. 13 (110th Congress, the FY 2010 Budget Resolution), section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, or section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 any provision that creates discretionary or direct spending or decreases revenues." 

From Gov Track

I know people must be dying from sunburn in Greenland right now, because I actually agree with Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican, Alabama, Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) on something, finally. 

If you passed Senator Sessions bill in Congress, Congress would then no longer be able to pass appropriations bills, until the House and Senate first passed a budget. Which would end the annual omnibus spending bills that Congress passes every year and the President signs, just to keep the government open, where every wish list that a member of Congress has, is thrown into the annual omnibus bill, with no Congressional hearing on it and of course it isn't paid for. 

ESPN: CFL 1995- Baltimore Stallions vs Calgary Stampeders; Short Video

Source:Darcy 757- The Calgary Stampeders and Baltimore Stallions for the CFL Grey Cup, in 1995.

Source:Real Life Journal  

"This is a clip of the opening minutes of the 1995 CFL Grey Cup game between the Baltimore Stallions and the Calgary Stampeders. It was played in November in Regina with 80 km/hour winds and a -20 wind chill. Baltimore became the first and only U.S. team to win the Grey Cup." 

From Darcy 757

One thing that was great about the CFL American experience in the early and mid 1990s was that we got to see a North American Football Championship game. Not once, but twice in 1994 and 95. 

The Stallions lost to the Vancouver Lions (as I call them) in 1994 and then beat the Calgary Stampeders in 1995. 

Baltimore, being one of the premier American football markets and now with one of the premier franchises and premier histories as well. 

Calgary, being one of the premier Canadian football markets, franchises and has one of the best football histories in Canada. 

The Stallions and Stampeders, were clearly the two best teams in the CFL in 1995. And both had a host of players that either played in the NFL, or went on to play in the NFL.

The CFL American experience didn’t fail because of lack of quality talent on the American teams. But because outside of Baltimore the franchises weren’t run and marketed very well. And outside of Baltimore there wasn’t a CFL American market that badly wanted in to or back into the NFL. 

Baltimore loved the Stallions, but they also used the Stallions to get another NFL club to show the NFL how much they wanted another NFL club by the way they supported the Stallions. And as a result Baltimore is the only city in the world actually, that has won the NFL Championship, including multiple Super Bowls, the USFL Championship and the CFL Grey Cup Championship.

The CFL American experiment, was a good idea that was poorly executed. And if the USFL ever comes back, they should look at the CFL as a possible merger with let's say ten American clubs that are all outside of NFL markets. With 9-10 CFL clubs and play a couple inter-conference or inter-league games for each club in this new league. So fans in both countries can see how they play against each other. Play in the spring and summer, instead of the fall and winter. So they’re not going up against the NFL. Get a player agreement with the NFL so they can have access to NFL players who are talented, but aren’t playing much right now. Because they are not ready and need experience. And get a revenue sharing agreement as well. And this new Can-Am league I believe would do very well both in America and Canada.

Center For Independent Studies: Jacob T. Levy- 'Rationalism, Pluralism, and Hayek's History of Liberal Thought'

Source:Center For Independent Studies- Jacob T. Levy.

"The classical liberal economist F.A. Hayek frequently wrote on the history of liberal ideas, trying both to recover half-forgotten truths and to find the sources of what he viewed as pernicious intellectual errors. He believed that understanding past ideas was important for the correct diagnosis of contemporary ills, since those had so often come from theoretical and philosophical mistakes. He went so far as to propose naming what became the Mont Pelerin Society, the preeminent postwar grouping of free-market economists, the 'Acton-Tocqueville Society,' after two nineteenth century liberal political theorists whose writings on economics were cursory at best.

In this talk, Jacob T. Levy describes and assesses Hayek's history of liberal thought, suggesting that he correctly identified key issues in liberal constitutionalism but was too quick to jump from constitutional to economic questions. He wrote histories of rationalism and pluralism in liberal thought, but mistook them for histories of economic planning and free markets. Clarifying this can help us see the often-uneasy relationship between pluralism and markets, and to recognise trade-offs that classical liberal political economy sometimes has to make." 

From the Center For Independent Studies

If you are Liberal such as myself (not a Libertarian or Socialist) you are a believer in individual liberty and liberal democracy, which means people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit, again as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

Liberals aren't anti-government, we are anti-big government and pro-limited government and these things are different. Lay out what government should be doing based on what it's good at, does better than the private sector or something only government is capable of doing like national security, law enforcement, foreign affairs, and a few other things. And don't create a new government agency or raise new taxes just because you have a new idea for the public good, but weigh it to whether government should be doing that or not. Thats what limited government is about, its not about being anti-government, but pro-limited government. 

Liberals and Libertarians as well as Classical Conservatives all believe in individual liberty and maximize freedom. And we are anti-collectivism, but one difference being, that Liberals and Classical Conservatives believe that government should step in when individuals abuse innocent people with their liberty. To stop those actions and punish them. There are so-called Libertarians that don't even want government to do that. 

I have a lot of respect for libertarianism in the sense that they are anti-big government, but I have more respect for Libertarians who are anti-big government, but not anti-government and there's a difference there. But I don't see libertarianism as classical liberalism, but as a separate political ideology thats farther to the left of liberalism, not right because of how anti-government Libertarians tend to be.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Steven Brill: 'On How to Fix Public Schools'

Source:Reason Magazine- Steven Brill on public education in America.

"[Teaching] is the only workplace, the only occupation, where by and large you are not paid, promoted, recognized, measured in any way having to do with your performance, only having to do with how long you've been breathing," says journalist and media entrepreneur Steven Brill.

His new book, Class Warfare, chronicles the rise of a reform movement that's bringing a measure of accountability and choice to public schools. The book grew out of Brill's widely read 2009 New Yorker piece about the "rubber room," a holding pen for New York City teachers who couldn't be fired after they were removed from their classrooms for poor performance." 

From Reason Magazine

Steven Brill said it perfectly and says this in his book as well, that public education is the only profession in America where the professionals are judged by how long they've been doing their jobs, rather than how good they do their jobs and hits the nail on the head. 

Thats exactly what doesn't work with public education and if we fix that, we'll fix our public schools. If we don't fix that, we won't fix our public schools. Twenty years ago America was in the top ten in the world in education, we fell so far within just ten years that President Bush and Congress decided we needed to reform our public schools. 

Education reform was one of the important issues of the 2000 presidential campaign. In 2002, Congress passed a bipartisan education reform law called No Child Left Behind. That was passed in a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Written at the time by Senator Ted Kennedy (Chairman of the Education Committee) and at the time Representative John Boehner. (Chairman of the Education Committee in the House)

NCLB didn't fix the problems with public education because it was about testing students and educators to a certain extent and passing unfunded mandates down to the states in order to pass these things and tell them what they believe they needed to do. 

NCLB is not about how you reform public schools especially if you the Federal Government that has very little role in running schools if any, they are mostly about enforcing the Constitution and funding to a small extent as well as research. 

The way to reform Public Education in America (if your are the Federal Government) is to look to see how states and school districts are doing and what works and doesn't work for them and then try to incentivize (not mandate )what does work. And then the states and school districts can decide what works for them in their community. Because all schools districts are different. And then the states and school districts can do what works for them and help them finance that. 

The U.S. Department of Education does a very good job of researching what works and doesn't work in public education. And to a certain extent can lay out a vision of what we can do as a country in public education. But they are bad at mandating, because they don't know what exactly would work for every school district. How could they, they are not there. So they can help with suggestions and incentives instead and let the school districts decide for themselves. 

One thing that does work in education that we haven't been doing for the most mart is educator accountability: having educators teach what they are qualified to teach and are well-trained in. And then pay them for their quality of service, not time of service. And eliminating things like teacher tenure. Which basically makes it impossible to fire poor educators once they've served a certain amount of time. 

We should instead pay the good educators more and give the high qualified educators higher benefits and starting pay. 

We should also retrain the low-performing educators, suspend without pay or fire them and encourage well- educated people to go into education and teach in under served communities. 

If we moved to a public education system in America thats based on accountability, just started there and see where that goes. Just doing that, we could go a long way in finally reforming our public education system. That we have to do in order to have a strong economy in the future. And create good jobs and keep good jobs at home.

Joey Sykes: The Tonight Show With Jay Leno- Meredith Brooks & Queen Latifah: Lay Down From 1999

Source:Joey Sykes- Queen Latifah and Meredith Brooks, on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno, in 1999.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Meredith Brooks Lay Down, on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." 

From Joey Sykes

I'm not a big Meredith Brooks fan, but I like her blues rock sound. Especially the song lay down. And love watching her perform this song because she looks just like a sexy rocker chick should look. She's a beautiful well-built tall brunette, performing in her go to black leather jeans and black leather boots.

She has good voice, but her lyrics and sound are what are impressive about her. She's not a headbanger or a pop star, but a blues rocker. A combination of classic rock and blues, similar to Sheryl Crow. But I think she doesn't sound as good. Or Meredith Etheridge, but I believe she sounds better.

And she gave this performance back in 1999 or 2000 at the Hard Rock Cafe, performing Lay Down as well as Bitch and a few other songs. And she performed Lay Down with Queen Latifah. Who she did the Lay Down music video with, as well kids singing group and they did a great job. She gives great performances and makes sexy music videos which makes her a great rocker chick.

Chris Paul: 'Don't Take Away Our Prostitutes'

Source:Chris Paul- correct me if I'm wrong: but doesn't coming out against legalization of prostitution, in your own state where it's already legal, the political version of shooting yourself in the foot? Which is what Harry Reid is doing here, especially representing a state that has one of the highest rates of unemployment and poverty in it.

"Sen Harry Reid says that Nevada should end it's business of legalized prostitution.

I say NO!" 

From Chris Paul

I'm not saying prostitution is a good thing and that I'm suggesting that guys should go out and get prostitutes. Or dump their wives or girlfriends or cheat on them. But there are a lot of things that I wouldn't do and I wouldn't suggest that other people should do as well. My point is just I personally don't like a particular activity, food, drink, etc, doesn't mean I think people who disagree with me on that and go the other way, should be sent to jail for it, especially if I have to pay for their time in jail with my tax dollars. 

But if someone rapes, murders, assaults, robs, etc, sure, I'm in favor of putting those folks in jails. Which is what criminal justice is about: protecting the innocent from predators. Not trying to protect people from themselves and treating people you disagree with like idiots or children who can barely take two steps without tripping over themselves. 

I don't smoke anything, I don't drink alcohol, I don't gamble (not even state lottery which is a form legalize gambling) I don't hook up with prostitutes. (Pun intended) I'm not attractive to women that look like prostitutes. Doesn't mean I believe that any of these activities should be illegal, that people should go to jail and have a criminal record even for what they do to themselves. 

I believe it's dumber to arrest people who aren't a threat to anyone and who don't hurt anyone, then to legalize these activities. Doesn't mean these activities shouldn't be regulated either. 

We regulate everything else in the economy thats legal, whether it's healthy for us or not and for good reason, to protect and prevent the abuse of others on to innocent people. Thats what regulation is for. And when our economy is doing well, like in the 1980s and 1990s we regulate. Regulation is just simply a lot more effective and efficient and cost-effective measure in preventing people from abusing others. 

Regulate how people interact with each other, rather than try to control how people live their own lives. And you'll have more influence in controlling those activities. Because they are going to go on anyway, prostitution being a perfect example of that. 

Prostitution is not called: "The Oldest Profession in the World" because someone on Madison Avenue or in Hollywood finally came up with a great tag line. They've earned that title and worked hard to keep it as well. Big Government so-called Progressives (nanny-statists, in reality) should be big fans of decriminalizing prostitution, which just means legalizing prostitution. But then regulating it, something that the State of Nevada has been more more progressive on than most of the rest of the country, if not the entire country, because that what they've been doing. At least as long as Las Vegas and Reno have been major casino markets. 

So-called Progressives (nanny-statists, in actuality) should be big fans of decriminalizing prostitution because of the money in it would generate in tax revenue for all of their social insurance programs and their ideas for more public services. Especially in this age of austerity where the Federal, state and local government's are all cutting back their public services. 

Taxing and regulating prostitution would generate a lot more tax revenue for leftists to run their programs. As well as decriminalizing gambling and marijuana as well.

Liberals and Libertarians of course like this idea, because the see it as a freedom of choice issue individual liberty. decriminalizing prostitution would be fairly simple, because prostitutes and pimps (for lack of a better term) rather than be regulated and pay taxes then go to jail. That is the people who are in it to make a living and are not criminals. And the people who are the professionals, would continue doing their thing. 

The criminals would go to jail but for tax invasion and prostituting without a license, sponsoring a minor, that sort of thing and you could get the irresponsible people out of the business. And collect taxes and cut down on your prison populations. All good reasons why regulation beats prohibition.

Talking Points Memo: 'Debate In 100 Seconds: What Happens In Vegas'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Senator Rick Santorum, squaring off against Governor Mitt Romney, in Las Vegas. (Pun intended)

"Debate In 100 Seconds: What Happens In Vegas. CNN GOP Debate - October 18th 2011."

From Talking Points Memo

All right, now here's my version of tonight's GOP presidential debate: Rick Perry woke up and had a good debate. He's still a serious contender but still number two or three. He was very forceful, well prepared and not afraid to stand up for himself or defend himself. Or go on the attack as well. And I believe looking at the debate, Mitt Romney still believes Perry is his strongest challenger.

Mitt Romney is still in first place with a sizable lead but hasn't clinched the conference title yet. (To use a sports analogy) He hasn't sealed the deal. (To use a salesperson analogy) And hopefully thats my last analogy, for this piece. I believe the Republican Party still sees Romney as their best chance to beat President Obama in 2012. And thats what he has going for him, not because they actually like him.

Michele Bachmann is still Michele Bachmann, still swinging for the fences and not making much contact. (I know thats another sports analogy) She took some big swings on immigration. But the only thing she connected on was Herman Cain's tax reform plan. And I would probably give her a HR on that actually, her only score in the debate. She's damn right the 9 9 9 is essentially a tax hike on most tax payers, because it's a flat tax. Bachmann has yet to lay out a reason a case why she should be President of the United States, other then that she doesn't like the people she's running against and that ain't enough to get it done.

Herman Cain took some steps back tonight spending most of the night on defense. Not controlling the ball much or advancing it, defending his tax reform plan most of the night. And some strange statements on immigration and negotiating with terrorists.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were pretty much there for the ride, I guess interested in what they were hearing. The person who impressed me the most tonight was Rick Santorum. Who's someone I agree with on almost nothing except with how we combat American poverty. Where we both have a strong interest in and has some solid progressive policy's there as it relates to putting people on welfare to work. But Senator Santorum is someone I have a lot of respect for because we agree on poverty. And he's very honest and straight forward on what he thinks.

But what impressed me about Senator Santorum and why I now believe he's a strong contender to be the vice presidential nominee for the Republican nominee, especially for someone like Mitt Romney who's a Northeastern Republican, who's not trusted by the Republican base, especially the Christian- Right and Tea Party, but what impressed me about Rick Santorum has most if not all what Romney doesn't have: Senator Santorum is a Congressional veteran, 16 years, he's liked by the Republican base, he's young by political standards (53) he could replace President Romney after eight years if that were to happen. Which would make him a Congressional veteran with serious executive experience as Vice President. And he has foreign policy experience ten years on the Armed Services Committee.

I believe there were two winner in tonight's debate: Mitt Romney who's still the clear frontrunner. And Rick Santorum who now looks like a serious presidential candidate who can go on the attack. As well as articulate a positive vision of his own but and economic policy would help them there. But also some who would look vice presidential to the Republican Party and could matchup with Vice President Biden. While Rick Perry, Herman Cain are still in the game and are serious challengers but need to figure out what their next play is. Because they didn't gain any momentum tonight.

Save Our Sovereignty: The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer- 'Ron Paul CNN Interview Before His Plan To Restore America Press Conference'

Source:Save Our Sovereignty- CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer, interviewing U.S. Representative (Libertarian, Texas)

"Ron Paul CNN Interview Before His Plan To Restore America Press Conference"

From Save Our Sovereignty

I'll give Representative Ron Paul credit for putting a serious fiscal policy on the table. He takes on the entire Federal Government, not just gutting social insurance programs and leaving defense alone. He eliminates several Federal departments and cuts, including Commerce, HUD, Education, Interior and Energy, as well as around 250K jobs in an economy with weak economic and job growth. 

And I'm guessing Representative Paul considers all of these public service employees "unproductive". Probably no severance packages, meaning a lot of them would probably end up on Unemployment Insurance. 

If the Paul Plan were to ever become law, (huge if, no matter which party is in control of the next Congress) and Representative Paul also cuts defense by 200B$ a year, including 200B$ in his first year as President of the United States (again a huge if for the same reasons) you might start seeing penguins fly to South Florida for the winter. LOL

Representative Paul's plan specially in the Defense Department where I would cut around 200B$ a year as well and take that money out of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, is similar to my defense cut plan. 

I would consolidate Education and Housing and Urban Development  into the Human Services Department. And take the Health Service out of HHS and make it and independent public service. Or perhaps make it part of the Defense Department. 

Gary Johnson another Libertarian running for President in the Republican Party, who is getting even less respect and I have a similar plan when it comes to the social insurance programs. We would take them out of the Federal Government and give them to the States.

Governor Johnson would give the States these programs to run. I would take them out of government's hands completely and turn them into independent non-profit, self-financed community services. With Representative  Paul's plan, Governor Johnson's plan and my plan, we all cut the Federal Public Service by around 250K jobs. The difference being that I would give these employees severance packages. That they could collect until they find a job for up to fifty-two weeks. We don't need more unemployed people collecting Unemployment Insurance. 

Representative Paul has a serious fiscal policy that he's put on the table, more serious than most Libertarians that I've seen. Not including Governor Gary Johnson (who is actually a Classical Liberal, which is different) who is actually my favorite so-called Libertarian running for President. But it will never become law unless Libertarians were to run run both chambers of Congress while he's President. (And a snowy day in Phoenix in July will probably come faster) Representative Paul doesn't take his cuts in Federal jobs as serious as he should. By not offering those people severance packages.

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Interview- Ayn Rand: 'Saving American Liberty'

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on the Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959. 

"Ayn Rand delivers a message that has never been more needed than today. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I have some respect for Ayn Rand when it comes to individual liberty and even economic freedom. I’m not a fan of socialism either, but this idea of Cowboy Capitalism, which how we would describe her brand of capitalism today, is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing today. 

We have more than ten years now of evidence to know that Cowboy Capitalism doesn’t work. Cowboy Capitalism, is where you don’t regulate the economy at all. You essentially let American enterprise govern themselves and when they screw up, tough for taxpayers, because now they have to bail them out. Which is what TARP represented in 2008 and why Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 to reform how Wall Street was regulated.

One problem with the Bush Administration from 2001-09 was that they didn’t bother to do much if any regulating of Wall Street. They didn’t enforce the current laws that we're on the books and the Congress not only passed new laws to go along with the laws that were already there, but not being enforced. 

Because of Cowboy Capitalism the Federal Government has to figure out how to enforce its old laws which may be old and outdated now, as well as the new laws from the Dodd-Frank legislation. 

You need to have a referee in the economy especially an economy as large as America’s, otherwise people are going to be abused and screwed over. Because people can get away with it and you’ll see monopoly’s forming. Because again they can get away with it. Not public monopoly’s, but private monopoly’s and I’m not in favor of either.

American capitalism, works best when the Federal Government is spending a set amount based on what they take in. And only doing what they do well and can only do well. And you have to lay these things out ahead of time instead of letting them pick and choose what they do. 

The Federal Government, needs to be regulated as well and also when their taxes that we pay are low, but high enough not to hurt the economy. But so they can do the things that they should be doing. Again that are decided ahead of time. One of the problems with the Federal Government right now, is that it doesn’t budget and borrows 40% of the revenue it spends and this gives them a lot of freedom to do a lot of things.

The Federal Government, used to operate under a budget and we need to get back to that. We need a lot of economic freedom again that’s low taxed. With a maximum amount of free, fair and open competition. With anti-monopoly laws that can be enforced and are enforced. 

Let business’s and individuals run their business’s as they see fit, as long as they are not abusing anyone with their freedom. Including their workforce, without them they would be out of business. 

What doesn’t work in America is Cowboy Capitalism as we are finding out the hard way and socialism. Which so far we’ve avoided going down that road and only have a safety net. 

What works in America is American capitalism as I just laid out and regulation as well as economic freedom have to be part of that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Empire Of Heaven: Ezra Taft Benson- 'Socialized Healthcare, Evil, Freedom Destroying'

Source:Empire Of Heaven- Ezra T. Benson, talking about socialized health care, in 1977 or 78.

"Ezra Taft Benson was Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture.  He was predicted by the press to be the first casualty of the Eisenhower cabinet, unable to stay in because of his severe, intense anti-New Deal, anti-Socialist policies.  The New American Magazine, writing of this, stated that Benson being asked into the cabinet is one of the greatest political mysteries of the 20th century.  Indeed it is.  And the press was somehow wrong, for it was Ezra Taft Benson, that for some reason was kept in the cabinet the full 8 years." 

From Empire Of Heaven 

Nationalism has been around at least since the US Constitution was being written by its Founding Fathers. But I believe the rise of the modern nationalist movement came about as a reactionary movement to the FDR New Deal in the 1930s and the LBJ Great Society in the 1960s. And perhaps even as far back as the Teddy Roosevelt's progressive movement of the early 1900s and 1920s. 

The New-Right in America (Nationalists and Christian-Fundamentalists)  saw the Federal Government as overstepping its constitutional authority under the 11th Amendment. And this led to more Conservatives being elected to Congress in the 1940s and early 50s. And one reason how Dwight Eisenhower was elected President in 1952 and reelected in 1956. And then elected again in the late 60s, late 70s, 80s and 90s. 

The reason why Libertarian Party was formed in the early 1970s, was because of the New Deal and Great Society agenda, because Libertarians saw the rise of progressivism  in America as a threat to the U.S. Constitution and individual freedom. They see progressivism, as socialism and as a threat to the U.S. Constitution and their way of life. 

That they saw government and the Federal Government wanting to take Individual Liberty away from the people. To make their own decisions in life and they wanted to make those decisions for themselves. Like in education, Healthcare, retirement and other areas. And they did not want to see an establishment of a Welfare State in America like with the New Deal and Great Society.

The New-Right and to a certain extent Libertarians as well fought back against't  what they saw as socialism in America: the New Deal and Great Society. This is what the modern libertarian movement is fighting against today with Ron Paul, and, the Tea Party Nationalists and others. And to a certain extent are having some success and are growing as a movement. 

A reason why so many young people are now self-identified as libertarian and why they are starting to have some success on issues as well like decriminalizing marijuana, gay marriage, lower tax rates, tax reform, anti-Federal Reserve, more individual liberty in retirement, keeping America out of civil wars, and there are more issues, because they are tired of paying for all of that big government, especially as they're deep in debt and seeing their incomes go down. 

Libertarians have Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson and other believers in progressivism to thank for their movement today. Without them, we may not have anything resembling a welfare sate in America and this country still looks like the 1920s when it comes to economic policy, foreign policy, and other policies.

Liberty Pen: Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Self-Interest & Self-Ownership (1979)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

"Professor Friedman explains fundamental principles of self-ownership and self-interest to Phil Donahue. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

I have a lot of respect for Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman, but we don't agree on everything. 

I believe under the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution, that government has a right and responsibility to look after the safety of its people. I believe that government has a right to regulate free enterprise. In this sense to protect the safety for its people. Like forcing them to make cars that are reasonably safe. And this is where Dr. Friedman and I disagree. But government doesn't have a role to tell auto companies what kind of cars to make. Except in how it relates to public safety.

If people want to buy something, there will be market for people to buy it. Government doesn't need to come in and try to force things on people. And shouldn't try to prevent people from doing things, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their activities. 

The power of American capitalism, is that if people have something to sell and then are able to market it and convince other people that they should buy what they are trying to sell, then they'll end up selling a lot of what they have. 

You don't need government to step in and force people to buy their products. The people know better than anyone what they should be buying, what they need and what they can afford. And if people have products to sell and convince a lot of people that what they have is worth buying. Then they'll be able to sell a lot of what they produce and make a very good profit off of that.

I make this case to supporters of single payer health insurance on a regular basis that if single payer health insurance is so great and that we need a health insurance monopoly in America, that they should have no problem convincing people of that. And that they should take their message to the people. 

What single payer supporters generally do is instead of trying to get the Federal Government to force single payer down the throats of the country giving us no choice in where we have to go for health insurance or how we pay for our health care. 

But as long as 3/5 people in America like their health insurance and don't want the Federal Government to come in and force them to switch health insurers, single payer supporters are going to have a very tough time at convincing people that they are right.

And then single payer supporters have to try to convince 3/5 Americans, that they are wrong about their own health insurance that they have selected for themselves. So what single payer supporters have to do, is take their message to the people instead state by state like what is going on in Vermont and convince Americans state by state, that they are right about health insurance and the rest of the country is wrong. 

This is the power of the market: if people want fast cars, then fast cars will be made. If they want to eat healthy, a lot of healthy food will be made. They want to stop drinking, the alcohol industry will lose a lot of money. 

Government shouldn't try to make these decisions for us by mandating them on us. If they want us to do something, provide some incentive instead of trying to take the freedom we have away to make those decisions for ourselves. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Reason Magazine: Matt Zwolinski- 'Bleeding-Heart Libertarians, The Poor & Social Justice'

Source:Reason Magazine- doctors who perform libertarianism?

"Libertarians ... when they try to convince people of libertarianism, they do it by talking about the way in which free markets make life better for the poor," says Matt Zwolinski, a philosopher at the University of San Diego and a creator of the web site Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

While the notion of "social justice" has long been anathema to some libertarians, Zwolinski says that a bleeding-heart libertarian realizes that an abiding concern for the most vulnerable in society is an essential part of any moral political system.

"But, simply being committed to social justice does not mean that you have to be committed to the view that government must directly try to promote the well-being of the poor and vulnerable members of society," says Zwolinski. Instead, the bleeding-heart libertarian looks at the empirical evidence and accepts that small government and free markets are the best methods by which to provide for the poor."

From Reason Magazine

"Bleeding-Heart Libertarians" to me sort of sounds like a dry martini or a jumbo shrimp, those three words doesn't seem to go together. What philosopher Matt Zwolonski is talking about is liberalism as it relates to the social safety net. That there should be some role for government to help people out. Who for whatever reasons aren't self-sufficient and can't take care of themselves. 

As a Liberal myself I believe that we should have a safety net to catch people that fall through the cracks of American capitalism but to help them back up. Not to take care of them indefinitely but to help them become self-sufficient.

So when Matt Zwolonski talks about "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism" and the need for a social safety net, he's talking about liberalism as it relates to helping the poor help themselves. So they can have individual liberty like the rest of the population. Because they would now have the resources to finance their liberty on their own. And not be dependent on taxpayers to take care of them, because now they would be taking care of themselves. 

This is why I've always linked liberalism with libertarianism, rather than classical conservatism. Because both liberal and libertarian come from the word liberty Both liberal and libertarian both come from liberty, where conservative means to conserve the status quo.

Liberals, Libertarians, and Classical Conservatives differ on what the role of government should have in dealing with problems that the country faces. Especially on economic policy and the safety net. 

Classical Libertarians like Ron Paul and a lot of my friends on Facebook, believe that government should be out of the economy completely. Including not having any form of a safety net. 

And then there are Libertarians like Gary Johnson (who is really a Classical Liberal) who's running for President in the Republican Party right now, the best Republican candidate out there right (and I know that will offend a lot of Ron Paul supporters) that believe there should be a social safety net funded by tax revenue, but that the Federal Government should turn all of their social insurance programs over to the state government's for them to run. To put it shortly but not simply: block grant all of these programs to the states for them to run.

There seems now to be a growing riff or movement in the libertarian community that maybe there should be a role for government as it relates to social insurance. But it should be decentralized and be used to empower people, not subsidize them indefinitely. Which I believe is good for every political movement to have some diversity. But have a wide range of issues where most of its members agree on. So there's a point to having a political movement that can function.

Learn Liberty: Aeon Skoble- 'Democracy, Tyranny, and Liberty'

Source:Learn Liberty- Aeon Skoble, from Learn Liberty.

"Do democracies promote freedom? According to Prof. Aeon Skoble, it is definitely possible for democracies to promote freedom, but it is not a guarantee. This is due to a few flaws inherent in democratic systems: 

1) Majority belief in something does not necessarily mean that it's true. 

2) Majorities are capable of being just as tyrannical as kings

3) Historically, democracies have elected tyrannical leaders.

If freedom is the primary value of a society, democracy might still be of use so long as there are boundary conditions on the democratic process that protect the rights of the individual. 

Libertarianism Explained: Democracy, Tyranny, and Liberty presented by Learn Liberty. Learn More:Learn Liberty." 

From Learn Liberty

When deciding what type of country you want to have, you need to know what type of government you are going to have. And what's the relationship going to be between lets say the Federal Government and the state or provincial and local government's and you need a national constitution for that. 

Once you figure out what type of government you're going to have, then need to decide what type of country you are going to have as far as how government relates with its people. What's legal and illegal basically how the people can live their lives and how they can interact with other people. Basically what the rights if any do the people have in the country. 

If you want a form of government and country where there's a large amount of individual freedom, then as a Liberal and someone who believes in individual freedom, I would suggest a liberal democracy. But it can't stop with democracy because there are several forms of democracy. So you need to know what type of democracy you want to have. 

And again I would suggest a democracy that guarantees the most amount of individual freedom to figure out what type of country you are going to have. And how government relates to the people and how much ability if any people have to live their own lives. And what's the responsibility if any, that government has in relating with its people. 

There's what's called a social democracy, where people have a lot of individual freedom as far as how they live their lives socially, but where economic freedom is somewhat limited, because the state plays a large role in the economy and I would use Sweden as a perfect example of this. 

Then there's authoritarian  democracy (no, that's not an Oxymoron) where people are essentially free to live their lives but where they only have a limited amount of freedom. (Not limited amount of government) And I would use Turkey as an example of this. And then there's majoritarian democracy where essentially the majority rules over the minority and can essentially make people do what they want. Where minority rights aren't well-respected. And I would use America pre-civil rights Laws of the 1960s as an example of that. 

And then there's my favorite form of democracy what's called liberal democracy, where the people have the individual liberty to live their own lives essentially as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone with their freedom. And America now would be my example of that, even though I believe we should have more individual liberty, but thats a different post.

A lot of people believe especially Conservatives and Libertarians, that a republic is the best way to guarantee individual liberty and to protect minority rights. But there are plenty examples of republics that aren't democracy's but authoritarian republics. And even have dictators running their government. Syria is a perfect example of this, so would China and North Korea or Cuba. So republics aren't the way to guarantee individual liberty. But a constitutional republic in the form of a liberal democracy is they way to do that.

Outside The Beltway: James Joyner- 'California Must Release 40,000 Prisoners'

Source:The New York Times- California prison over crowding.

"Citing the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and usual punishment, the U.S. Supreme court has upheld an order for California to release 38,000 to 46,000 prisoners from its overcrowded jails." 

From Outside The Beltway

America as a country as well as its fifty States is essentially broke and to compound these problems we have overcrowded prisons across the country where we have to support these inmates out of general revenue taxpayer money. Prisons don't pay for themselves and inmates hardly pay for anything as far as taking care of themselves. Almost everything they receive in prison is subsidized by the state. (Meaning taxpayers)

To compound that problem, we have 2 million inmates in America and hundreds of thousands of these inmates are non-violent offenders and a lot of these offenders are drug offenders, meaning users, so we have a three layer problem with our corrections system. A bad economy with shrinking state revenue and overcrowded prisons which is also partially but not completely the fault of the state. 

A large part of that is also personal responsibility (or the lack of it) not finishing school having kids too soon. But government is at fault as well, because we have too many as what Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws". We arrest to many people and send them to prison for crimes that aren't a big threat to society. Crimes and I'm thinking of marijuana, prostitution, and gambling, where we would be better off regulating these activities instead. 

We don't handle our other non-violent offenders that opposed some threat to society and need to be dealt with very well. Like petty thieves (to use as an example) and we send them to prison for long sentences. Where we would be better off sending those people to county jail, halfway houses or supervised probation, where they can pay their debt to society but where they are also contributing to society as well. doing community service, working paying for their room and board, etc. and staying out of trouble to stay out of prison. So we save our very limited prison space for the people who need to occupy it our actual dangerous criminals. 

And the other problem that we have is that we don't prepare our inmates that we release to a large degree for life on the outside and then wonder why they commit other crimes and come back to prison. For example releasing long-term inmates from prison straight from solitary confinement after being in solitary confinement for long stretches. And thats just one example. 

Governor Jerry Brown of California understands these problems because he's the Governor of a state with the largest prison population in America. And with the largest public debt and deficit of any state in America, as well as being the former Attorney General of California as well. Which is why he set up a new program that releases non-violent offenders from prison. And sends them to halfway houses and supervised probation instead. Non-violent Offenders with good prison records that it and I wish him and his state the best.