Liberty Pen: Walter E. Williams- 'Self-Ownership or Socialism?'

Source:Liberty Pen- Conservative columnist and professor Walter E. Williams.

"Walter E Williams - Self-Ownership Or Socialism? Who owns you? Liberty Pen"

From Liberty Pen

I believe as a Liberal that people should have the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Thats what individual liberty and maximize freedom are about and that government's only role is to protect our freedom. 

I believe that automakers should be required to put seat belts in their cars, so we can protect ourselves. But if we are eighteen or over, we shouldn't be required to wear them. 

I believe some of the differences between liberalism which is what I believe in and authoritarianism and even socialism, at least on economic policy is about choice: who gets to make it? Authoritarians (Right and Left) would say government, because the world is too complicated to let people live freely and make mistakes. Liberals (such as myself) will say that individuals should make their own decisions, because they are the ones who have to live with them the most. And no one can possible know what's better for us, then ourselves. (That is mentally competent people) 

Liberals want laws to protect people from the harm of others. Whereas authoritarians and Socialists want laws to protect people even from themselves. So-called many state laws like requiring everyone including adults, to wear seat belts, would be one example. 

Socialists also believe that it is somehow unfair that some people who do a much better job of taking care of themselves and live their lives much better, because they were better educated and have more resources and therefor its unfair for them to be able to have better lives than people with much limited resources that struggle just to survive. But Liberals believe that people should have the individual liberty to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty.

Liberals believe that people in a free society (like take America, for example) should be held accountable for their own decisions and not be bailed out by people who made better decisions in their lives. That non-smokers shouldn't have to bail out smokers when they get cancer. That non- alcoholics shouldn't have to bail out alcoholics, etc. That people who take care of themselves shouldn't be forced to bail out the people who don't.

For example, if someone without health insurance doesn't and can't afford major health care costs, gets in a driving accident and fly's through the window of their car and ends up with brain damage and will never be able to work again or even function on their own, that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to bail that person out for being an idiot. But that if people who lose their job, doesn't have enough of a pension and can't afford health insurance for no fault of their own, that government should step in and try to help those people out. Under the Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This whole discussion really gets to the heart of the role of government debate. Should government's job be to protect people and how far. National security and public safety - most people believe thats a role of government. Then the question is how far should government's job be to protect people's individual freedom as I believe or protect people from themselves.

Reason Magazine: Lisa Snell & Harris Kenny- 'How School Choice & Privatization Can Help Fix America'

Source:Reason Magazine- Lisa Snell, speaking at Freedom Fest, in Las Vegas, Nevada.

"School choice is winning, in America, folks," argues Reason Foundation education analyst Lisa Snell, who tallies up all the ways that voucher programs, charter schools, and more are making incredible improvements in the quality of American education. 

"We're broke," explains her Reason colleague, Harris Kenny, who says that privatizing and contracting-out many jobs done by public-sector employees will not only save money but increase service levels for taxpayers. 

Snell and Kenny spoke as part of  "Reason Day" at FreedomFest. Reason magazine editor and Declaration of Independents co-author Matt Welch moderates the discussion. 

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 libertarians and advocates of limited government. Reason.tv spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks. For an ever-growing playlist, go here now." 

From Reason Magazine

If we knew about our public school system, New Deal, and Great Society before and how they would be today, before we actually designed them which of course is impossible (imagine that they were designed by psychics) we wouldn't of designed them the way we did. Unless of course they were designed by the exact same people as designed them before who didn't know any better. (I'm now dizzy from just writing that)

We wouldn't designed a public school system that would force people to go to school based on where they live. But what was the best school for the students and that their parents would make that decision. Or where there wasn't much accountability in the public school system, where people were paid and promoted based on how long they've worked, instead of how good of a job they do educating. Or let educators keep their jobs based on how long they've been doing them, instead of how good they are at their jobs. Or fund our schools based on where they are located, instead of what they need to do a good job. 

Or pay our politicians some of them who only work about six months every year (if you want to all it work: how hard is it to ask for money for your next campaign?) and who are members of perhaps the most unpopular profession in the country. (Trial and accident attorneys can breathe a little easier) Three four times as much as our educators and some of our educators being eligible for public assistance because of how little we pay them. And these are well-paid, well-trained professionals who could've made a hell of a lot more money in other professions. 

We probably would've gone farther in and been more efficient with Social Security and set up some type of pension system (not run by government) but that would've empowered people to plan their own retirements and not have to be dependent on Social Security as senior citizens. 

We probably would've designed a Medicare system that would've empowered senior citizens to decide where they get their health insurance. And we probably would've gone farther in health care reform and addressed the millions of people who can't afford health insurance one way or the other by letting them decide for themselves where they get their health insurance, instead of creating Medicare.

We would've designed all of our social insurance programs better and perhaps they wouldn't be run by the Federal Government or government at all. Which would be my choice but, yes created but by run by non- profit social services. When we set up all these programs in the past, we created them in the New Deal/Great Society Progressive Era, where we created a lot of these programs in one sense because of what Europe was doing and the supposed need to catch up with them. 

My argument about our social insurance system is not about the constitutionality of it, I believe the Federal courts have already decided that. Or whether we should eliminate them or not, I don't believe we should the fact is a lot of our country is still dependent on it. Which is another problem but my argument is about the management of them, how they should be run and how they are financed and to what degree and who should be running them, and what we should be doing with them in the future.

Liberty Pen: Walter E. Williams- 'Government Charity'

Source:Liberty Pen- put a name to his face.

"Author and columnist Dr. Walter E Williams discusses the Constitutional basis for government charity.  Liberty Pen " 

From Liberty Pen

I realize that Libertarians and Conservative-Libertarians to a certain extent believe that the Federal Government has no role in dealing with poverty in America. And looking after the economic welfare of its people because of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that according to Libertarians and some Conservatives lays out exactly what the Federal Government can do. 

But there's also the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution. And it doesn't just say that the Federal Government has the responsibility to look after the public safety and national security of the country, but the welfare of the people which can interpreted to mean other things. Which along with the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, has been justified for the New Deal and Great Society agendas. 

And the Federal Courts have agreed with the Federal Government over and over the years. Which is why most of both the New Deal and Great Society agendas have stayed in place. But representing a huge part of both President Franklin Roosevelt's and President Lyndon Johnson's Presidential Legacy.

I've made this argument before but as a Liberal my issues with the Federal Government's involvement in anti-poverty programs and other social insurance programs, doesn't have to do with the constitutionality of the programs, but the wisdom of them. For instance should the Federal Government be running some of these programs or not. 

Take Public Housing and Food Assistance (to use as examples) or could these programs do more good and be more effective if they were run by other entity's and levels of government, could they be run better then they are now or not. 

As a Liberal I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to look after the Welfare of its people as well as protect them physically. And has a role here, not just as the administrator of all of the social insurance programs, but I would like to see them more as a regulator. Similar to what the do in education rather than running these programs themselves.

Our social insurance programs I believe would be a lot more effective if they were decentralized. Instead of the Federal Government trying to run all of them and the total budget being around 2T$ (just on social insurance alone) they would be better off as well as these social insurance programs being passed on down to the states and given autonomy and run as semi-private, non profit community services. With its only role and responsibility with each state having its own version of these programs. And let's see what works and doesn't work across the country. After all, the states have been called laboratories of democracy and there's a lot of truth to that.

Each state has its own issues and populations that it has to deal with and govern and should have more authority to dealing with these issues. Instead of the Federal Government trying to manage all of these programs, a lot of them duplicate for a huge country of fifty states and of over 310M people.

CT Forum: Joel Klein- 'Whose Children Should Be Assigned To Underperforming Schools?'

 

Source:CT Forum- Joel Klein: former head of the New York City Public Schools.

"Selected full forum videos are available at www.theforumchannel.tv  Joel Klein, , with 1.1 million students and 1,600 schools, makes a big statement regarding the state of our national education system. Klein participated in The CT Forum's " with moderator Norah O'Donnell (MSNBC) and panelists Jon Schnur, Davis Guggenheim (Director, "Waiting for Superman," "An Inconvenient Truth"), Lily Eskelsen (V.P. of NEA), and Deborah Gist." 

From CT Forum

Joel Klein makes and excellent point here and it gets at the heart of education reform in America: "Who's child should be forced to go to and under performing school?" If people who can afford not to by living in a community with good public schools, or can afford to send their kids to a private school, doesn't have to send their kids to bad schools, then why should kids of low-income parents and who live in low-income communities be forced to go to bad schools, which is exactly the case today in our big cities. 

Kids in big cities like Washington, Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, and other big cities, as well as other cities are forced to go to low-performing schools, because their parents don't make enough money to live in a better community where they would be able to go to a good school, or send them to private schools. Should we doom these kids and sentence them to a life of poverty which is what we might of already done with their parents and force them to go to bad schools, just because they are children of low-income parents? It's not their fault their parents make little money. Kids don't pick their parents they are born to them. 

Joel Klein also makes a good point that its not a question of whether we can educate our kids well or not. We are the richest country in the world, the question is will we be in the future from what we're currently doing in education and the rest of the economy. Will we put the reforms in place as a country to do this and take on the special interest groups to make this happen or not, or will our kids continue to be stuck going to bad schools just because of where they live and nothing else? And why should a kids residence be a block in front of them in where they go to school, they have no say in where they live, thats up to their parents. 

What we do mostly as a country with our public education system, is make kids go to school based on where they live. Not what's the best school for them. So if you live in a wealthy or middle class community, chances are you get to go to a good school. Or your parents can afford to send you to a good private school. 

President George W. Bush who I agree with about as often as there is a 100 degree days in the North Pole, once said that education will be the civil rights issues of the 21st Century. And he was right because now that all Americans are equal under law and can't discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, etc. 

Without an access to a proper education, it's very difficult for people to advance in life because they won't have the skills that they need to get a good job that will support themselves and their families. And most likely will be dependent on some form of public Assistance. 

President Bush also said that we should eliminate: "The soft bigotry of low expectations." Meaning just because kids are from low-income families going to bad schools, that we shouldn't automatically assume that they won't be able to learn and be successful in life. And he's dead right on both of those points. 

What we've been doing with our public education system is exactly what we shouldn't be doing. And now we are 39th in the world in education as a result. And what we should be doing instead, is have a public education based on choice and accountability and funding our schools that are in low-income communities in a more adequate fashion and reform our property taxes.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'Growth Of Government'

Source:Liberty Pen- Peter Robinson, interviewing Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, for Uncommon Knowledge.

"Professor Sowell comments on how the Founder's vision of limited government transmogrified into its present state. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

When it comes to the Federal Government especially, Libertarians and Conservative-Libertarians, their arguments against Federal intervention in the country, economy especially is based on the U.S. Constitution. And they argue that the Federal Government does way too much and most of the things that they do are unconstitutional, according to the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution that lays out a few things for the Federal Government, mostly having to do with national security. 

What the let's say Center-Right fail to mention or recognize and I believe mention, because people who generally make this argument have a pretty good idea of the U.S. Constitution and what's in it and what it means, is that there are two clauses in the U.S. Constitution that the Federal Government has used to justify in Federal Courts its activities and programs. 

The Commerce Clause, which gives the FEDS the ability to regulate interstate commerce. And the Welfare Clause, which essentially gives the Federal Government the ability or responsibility to look after the welfare of its people. 

The FEDS have used these clauses to justify programs like Social Security, Medicare, Securities and Exchange Commission, and others. And that if the Federal Government is to live up to its responsibilities in these areas, they need mechanisms to accomplish this meaning programs and agencies. 

My issues with a lot with what the Federal Government does, does not get to the constitutionality generally. The Patriot Act would be an exception to this because I believe it violates the Fourth Amendment, but thats a different discussion. 

My issues as a Liberal with a lot of what the Federal Government does, gets too are they the best qualified or not to be doing x and fill in x yourself, or is there a better way that the issue that they are trying to addressed should be addressed. And I believe a lot of times, there's a better way of handling the issue that they are trying to address. 

I'll use Public Housing as an example - to me thats clearly an issue for local government's as well as the private sector, that they could work in partnership on that the FEDS could regulate, but not manage. Similar to addressing homelessness. 

There are a whole range of programs that I don't believe the Federal Government should be running, that could be run better and be more cost-effective with less red tape and be more beneficial to the people that they serve. I'm not talking about eliminating these programs that Libertarians tend to talk about. But having them run by different services and organizations and where the FEDS would regulate them. 

One positive aspect that libertarianism has brought to American politics is that it's gotten a lot of people to rethink the role of government and the role of the Federal Government in particular. What it does, what it does well, what it's not as effective at and what it should be doing to begin with, which I believe is healthy. 

We should always be examining this question because we pay for the government we get good or bad, so we might as well have a pretty good idea exactly what we are paying for and what we are getting out of our money.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Penn Jillette- 'Atheism, Libertarianism & More'

Source:Reason Magazine- Penn Jillette, does a great, spot on impression of a zen-hipster, spiritualist, guru.

"Reason's Nick Gillespie talks with the one-and-only Penn Jillette about his best-selling new book, God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales, his friendship with Glenn Beck, skepticism versus cynicism, the role of religion in terrorism, why he's a libertarian, and much more in a wide-ranging conversation.

Penn Jillette is the larger, louder half of Penn & Teller. For the magical duo's official website, go here:Penn & Teller."

From Reason Magazine

Penn Jillette has a great take on libertarianism when he says, he's a Libertarian because he doesn't know what's better for everyone else. That sums up what libertarianism is, that people should live their own lives and see how well they manage that. And not try to live how other people live their own lives and government especially shouldn't try to control people either. Because government especially in a country the size of America, doesn't know all of its people. How could they, we are just too damn big for anyone in a country this big, for anyone to know everybody.

So that people should live their own lives making their own decisions for themselves. As long as they are not hurting any innocent people with their freedom. (Which is what libertarianism is supposed to be, anyway) And when they do hurt innocent people with their actions, that they pay consequences for their harmful actions. I'm a Liberal because I believe in this, which is what liberalism is actually about, its not about collectivism.

Now I don't agree with Libertarians on everything, that its America's fault for 9/11 which some Libertarians do believe in. I'm not for legalizing all narcotics but I do support decriminalization of marijuana as well as prostitution and gambling. Regulate them instead of prohibiting them, because either way these actions are still going to happen. So knowing this fundamental fact, you might as well make these things as safe as possible. But the overall message of libertarianism of individual freedom, regulation over prohibition etc. Is sound as far as I'm concern and fits in pretty well with liberalism as well as conservatism.

Here are some quotes that all Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians should all love.

John Kennedy- "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

Milton Friedman- "Maximize freedom is the freedom for people to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom."

Pretty basic I believe but something very important and worth remembering. And of course the famous New Hampshire saying of give me liberty, or give me death.

I would add another and one of my favorites from a political hero of mine.

Bill Clinton- "There's nothing wrong with America, that can't be fixed with what is right with America."

And almost twenty years later I still feel the same way about America, if anything I feel stronger about that today. This is what liberal democracy and America is about and to a certain extent we've gotten away from it. Which is one reason for all the issues we face as a country.

If you believe in limited government, individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution, you believe that there's a limit in what government can do well and that there isn't government programs that can solve all our problems, that it should only be doing what only government can do well: protect, defend, regulate the market not try to control the market and that the people should have the individual freedom to live their own lives and not be harassed by government, this is what libertarianism, liberalism and conservatism are actually about. And anyone who says they are not and that these ideology's are about "corporate greed" doesn't know what they are talking about.

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch- 'Wayne Allyn Root Explains How He Will Become President'

Source:Reason Magazine- Libertarian Party presidential candidate Wayne A. Root.

"At FreedomFest 2011, Reason's Matt Welch sat down with Wayne Allyn Root to talk about his media plans and presidential aspirations. Root said "America cares about jobs number one, jobs number two, jobs number three and jobs number ten thousand...". He beleives that America is focused on the economy and not as much on the social issues such as online gambling.

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 libertarians and advocates of limited government. Reason.tv spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks. For an ever-growing playlist, go here now."

From Reason Magazine

Wayne Allyn Root I believe actually has some positive ideas in how to advance the broader Libertarian movement. And if that helps the Libertarian Party, which frankly needs a lot of help and as of right now the LP is probably at least ten years away from becoming anything bigger than a third party, even the biggest third party if they are that, but in this context the broadening of the broader libertarian movement is what I believe Mr. Root is about and he has some ideas in how to accomplish this.

W.A. Root is right the country's biggest concern and issue right now, is the economy. And how weak it is and how weak are recovery has been from the Great Recession, which happened three years ago. And we are still no way near from fully recovering from it. 

Libertarians tend to speak about issues like legalizing narcotics, ending the War on Drugs, legalizing gambling, repealing the Patriot Act, eliminating most of the Federal Government, phasing out entitlement programs if not eliminating them all together.

There's support for a lot of these libertarian issues, including outside of the libertarian movement. But thats not what the country is concern about right now and for people to get elected they have to speak to the issues that their voters are concern about. And be able to communicate a message that tells them: "I like this person I'm going to support them." And for them to get reelected and reelected after that, they have to do the same thing. 

I'm not talking about policy positions here, but being able to communicate in a positive way about the issues voters are concern about. And this is what Wayne Root is talking about, whether he has a blizzard's chance in hell of becoming President of the United States or not. 

For the libertarian movement and their party to advance in American politics and one day be a major force in American politics, they have to be able to speak to the issues that Americans are concern about. And save their pet issues (so to speak) like narcotics legalization (to use as an example) for if and when they ever get to power as well as bring some positive change to the issues they ran on. 

And for the LP to become a major force in American politics, they either have to advance the Libertarian Party to the point to where its major party and not third party like ultimate ballot access and fundraising to use as examples. Instead of being a small piece of the two major parties.

I believe the Libertarian Party is the official third party in American politics and a lot of that has to do with their message of limited government and maximize freedom. Because Americans generally don't like to be told how to live their lives. But they've failed for forty years to be able to do that and thats still their biggest challenge.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- 'Three Reasons Not to Fund Art with Taxes'

Source:Reason Magazine- Hippies for the public funding of the arts?

"A few weeks back, Hollywood movie stars and groups such as the Creative Coalition stormed Washington, D.C. to lobby for increased taxpayer funding of the arts. Most memorably, Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey told Hardball's Chris Matthew that Abraham Lincoln was a huge theater fan who "understood that he needed the arts to replenish his soul." (Not surprisingly, Spacey didn't mention where Lincoln was assassinated or the profession of his killer)." 

From Reason Magazine 

I'm not going make the case that if we eliminated the NEA that we could solve our massive Federal debt and Deficit by doing this, but only because I believe in math, science, and yes, reason. The NEA national budget is somewhere around a billion dollars or a few billion dollars or even under a billion dollars, in a Federal budget of 3.7T$ with a debt and deficit of 14T% and 1.8T$ respectfully. Which is peanuts compared with the rest of the Federal budget but perhaps only Washington is a billion dollars consider peanuts. 

Perhaps way, way down the road and into a very different future  down the line, I would write a blog post about why a billion dollars is considered peanuts to the U.S. Government. Besides, I'm only blogging about the NEA, because I couldn't find anything else to blog about. And just to say from the outskirts (I can't believe I just said outskirts perhaps the first time in my life) but just to say I'm all for the arts being taught in public schools and colleges, I believe this is something that should be taught. 

I love movies and have a pretty good size collection and I love blues rock music and rhythm and blues. And these artists have to learn these skills somewhere and schools are a great place to learn these skills. Besides, people almost have to be entertained to keep them as healthy as possible. Or they'll never learn anything at all and will eventually have their faces literally glued to their smartphones trying to figure out which jail or rehab the latest so-called hot celebrity is residing at. 

But we are talking about a profession here and like all other professions, the workers in them should be as successful as their skills will allow. Movies should be financially successful based on how good their movies are, with the market determining their success by how many fans they attract and how much money they make based on how many tickets they sell. Same thing with musical artists, comedians, plays, television. Instead of the entertainment industry being guaranteed revenue by taxpayers through the NEA.

I'm not for eliminating the NEA (or National Endowment for the Arts) or the NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) I just don't believe the Federal Government should be funding it and that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. 

If the NEA and NEH are as important to Hollywood and other aspects of the entertainment industry, the entertainment industry can fund the NEA and NEH that partially funds the arts in America. And they could fund and run the NEA and NEH a hell of a lot better than the Federal Government. (But who couldn't) Because they would have their own revenue sources and management and board of directors. 

Under private ownership and management the NEA and NEH wouldn't have the Administration and Congress to deal with any longer. They wouldn't have to worry about these people stripping or drastically cutting their funding because they would have their own revenue based on how these shows would do. And they wouldn't even have to pay Federal taxes either because they could be a private, non-profit organization that would be in the business of making sure arts education is funded properly and adequately in the country. And giving schools grants to help them pay for it.

So what I would do is make the NEA and NEH independent of the Federal Government and take away its taxpayer funding. And if the Creative Coalition and the entertainment industry as a whole feel these institutions are important enough to keep in business, then they and their customers could fund them with a fee on their tickets and profits. 

And I would go one farther and let each state have their own version of the NEA and NEH that would be run independently of the state government's, that the entertainment industry's in their states as well as their customers could fund. Again with a fee on tickets and profits.

I support arts education and believe that are schools should continue to teach them, I just don't believe that taxpayers should be forced to fund them. That the market meaning the customers should decide for themselves how much they collect in profits, by the quality of their entertainment and that taxpayers should be funding things that we have to have: schools, law enforcement, infrastructure, military, etc.

Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report- 'A Constitutional Republic'

Source:Federal Expression- The Dan Smoot Report.

"The Dan Smoot Report The true form of the US Government is a Republic, Not A Democracy. Not merely a symantic difference. The Founding Fathers despised democracy. They formed a Republic to guard against rule by majority. First we were told we were a democracy, then the republic was transformed into a democracy. Now we are witnessing the democracy collapse into dictatorship."

From Federal Expression 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society." 

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964." 

From Wikipedia

It’s not a Constitutional Republic that should be goal for people who believe in individual freedom, but individual freedom that should be the goal. And then figuring out what type of governmental system is best that guarantees individual freedom for its people. 

A Constitutional Republic, doesn’t guarantee freedom, Egypt is a republic with a constitution. But even after the fall of the Mubarak Regime which was very authoritarian, they are still not a democracy yet but hopefully for the Egyptian people are moving in that direction.

And if individual freedom is a goal, then it's democracy that you want. And then you have to figure out what type of democracy you want. A liberal democracy, conservative democracy or a social democracy, or a majoritarian democracy and then you have to figure out exactly what’s the best type of government to guarantee your democracy. 

If democracy is what you want, then you’re a democrat in the sense you believe in democracy. Small d democrat, actually, both Democrats and Republicans are democrats. Republicans being Small d democrats. They both believe in democracy just have different views in what democracy is.

If you’re a Liberal such as myself, or a Conservative or Libertarian, you believe in liberal democracy. The ability for individuals to have the liberty to live their own lives and not be harassed by government. As long as they are not hurting any innocent people with their actions. Thats called individual liberty, or Freedom, means the same thing. 

If you’re a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist, you believe in social democracy. With a lot of individual liberty for the people when it comes to social freedom , for the most part, but where the state is highly involved in the economy.

With a social democracy, you get a big centralized government providing a lot of social services through a welfare state financed through high taxes. If you’re lets say a majoritarian for lack of a better word, that government has to be responsive to a majority of the people and what the majority wants is what the country gets and minority rights aren’t respected, then of course you want a majoritarian democracy. Where the majority rules over the minority and gets what they wants. And can make the minority do things, even if the minority doesn’t want to do these things.

After you figure out what type of democracy you want, you have to figure out what type of government is the best form to provide and guarantee this democracy. 

America as I see it is a liberal democracy and not just saying this because I’m a Liberal, but it's the case we are and have been a liberal democracy in the form of a Constitutional Federal Republic. Thats designed to guarantee our constitutional rights. Where Europe is made up of mostly social democracies. Mostly in the form of Constitutional Federal Republics, like in Germany, France and Italy. (To use as examples) And in Britain’s case, they are a social democracy with a monarchy. 

So if you’re a Liberal, Conservative, or a Libertarian, you probably prefer the American form of government. And if you’re a Socialist, you prefer the European form of government. And Liberals, Conservatives and libertarians debate Socialists in America all the time about what’s the best form of government, America, or Europe. And I’m in these debates on a regular basis as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, 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.

Save Our Sovereignty: Bill O'Reilly- 'Demands Higher Taxes, Calls For 2% Consumption Tax'

Source:Save Our Sovereignty- Bill O'Reilly's show is so bad, it even makes Bill sleepy and close his eyes. LOL

"Bill O'Reilly Demands Higher Taxes, Calls For 2% Consumption Tax" 

From Save Our Sovereignty

Bill O'Reilly actually has a point here (perhaps the first time in weeks or months) on his point that a consumption tax would force everyone to pay Federal taxes and not just payroll taxes. And that even criminals and not all criminals steal everything they get. Even criminals go into a store and purchase something and actually buy those products. (Politicians do it everyday) 

I like the idea of the fair tax because it lets people decide for themselves how much they pay in taxes, based on what they spend to live. And people who hate taxes all together, would probably live very cheaply but the rest of the country. And Americans tend to be spenders would pay more in taxes. The wealthy would pay more in taxes today even by percentage if a consumption tax is designed correctly because they spend more money. 

And again if a consumption tax is designed correctly, low-income people would get a break in taxes because they don't spend a lot on luxury items. And again middle class people would have the freedom to decide for themselves how much they pay in taxes, again based on how much they spend. 

Big spenders would pay more in taxes, low spenders would get a tax cut. With a fair tax we would be able to eliminate most if not all tax loopholes in the tax system, because most of those tax loopholes are based on the income tax. 

I'm not for creating a consumption tax to go on top of all the taxes we pay as a country. Otherwise that would result in a major tax increase especially on the middle class who can't afford it right now. And low- income people who can never afford a tax increase. But a consumption tax to replace the income tax. But still leave in the payroll taxes, corporate tax ,and other taxes. But reform those other taxes that best makes sense for the economy and our fiscal policy. 

Before tax reform we need government reform, figuring out what the current tax system is and how much if any would a new tax system affect new revenue for the government. 

If a new tax code brings in less tax revenue and perhaps thats one of your goals, then you have to figure out how you are going to cut, reform or both in the Federal Government and where your going to make the savings and what your going to do with the savings. 

If the new tax code brings in more tax revenue, then of course you have to figure out what your going to do with the extra tax revenue. And then you need a tax code that works better for the economy, can be understood and makes good fiscal policy.

The New American: 'Dan Smoot Report- Basic Constitutional Government'

Source:New American Magazine- Dan Smoot and his Dan Smoot Report, from the 1960s.

"Dan Smoot Report.  The late Dan Smoot was a pioneer in the Freedom Movement.  He was one of the first Constitutionalists to have a Televison Show.  He authored "The Invisible Government," one of the earliesft exposes on The Council on Foreign Relations.  This is a series of shows delaing with numerous issues-a timeless classic." 

From New American Magazine 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society." 

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society and wrote for the society's American Opinion bi-monthly magazine... 

From Wikipedia

If you’re a supporter of limited government, as well as individual freedom, that without limited government, individual freedom is threatened (as I am) then you believe in the U.S. Constitution. 

The reason why the U.S. Constitution is so important and what the theory is that the more power that government (and I mean any government at any level) has to regulate our lives and do more for us and take more of our money, the less freedom that we have to live our own lives and do these things for ourselves. It’s a big difference between America and Europe.

America in many ways is about individualism, the liberty for Americans to live their own lives without being harassed by government. And government taking a lot of their money away from them. Where 

Europe in a lot of ways is about collectivism: “That we are all in this together meaning life and that we need to put a lot of our resources together into one pot. For the betterment of all people. And government will take this money from people to make the country as good as possible. Through government services basically.” This is a simple way of putting it, but accurate. 

If you’re a what’s called Constitutional Conservative, or a Constitutional Constructionist, that you basically believe that government should only do what is laid out for it in the Constitution, that you take that text to be literal and only read the constitution in its literal sense, then of course a lot of what the Federal Government does today would be unconstitutional, as you see it.

For me, I see the Constitution as meaning that it’s based on limited government and individual freedom. And the main role of the Federal Government is to protect our individual freedom and not harass us. And not get involved in areas like medical care. Except to regulate it, or marriage at all, except to maybe how it relates to the tax code. Or marijuana, or alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, pornography, etc. Let the people live their own lives as they see fit. (Short of hurting innocent people with what they are doing) That free people have the right to live freely in a free society.

The government should only be doing what the people can’t for themselves, or not as well. That government should be there to regulate and protect. Not regulate people, but regulate how people interact with each other, which is different. 

Government should step  in when innocent people are being abused unfairly and protect and defend the country. Law Enforcement and a military, both strong, efficient and affordable enough to defend the country. Basically looking after the welfare of the people like a referee, but not try to control the people with the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

I wouldn’t eliminate a lot of the programs that the Federal Government currently operates. I would just reform a lot of them. Most of them in the social welfare area by making them independent of the Federal Government. And letting each state set up their own system in how these services would be operated in their state. That would have to meet basic Federal standards and also run independently of the state and local governments as well. 

If we had a Federal Government like this, then I believe we could answer a lot of questions and settle debates. About the role of the Federal Government and what it's supposed to do under the U.S. Constitution. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, 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.

CNN: Wolf Blitzer- To Ron Paul: 'Should Society Let Uninsured Die?'

Source:CNN- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"CNN's Wolf Blitzer asks GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul what should happen to patients without health insurance."

From  CNN

Again I have a lot of respect for Representative Ron Paul politically and personally. Politically as a Liberal myself, we have plenty in common on social issues, foreign policy and even to a certain extent on fiscal policy. 

But the idea that government can't make people buy products or services is f(or a lack of a better word) is bogus. (On a good day) Auto insurance, Social Security, Medicare, etc. The whole point of an individual mandate is to require people to pay for at least parts of their health care through health insurance. 

So when Ron Paul suggests that instead of having an individual mandate, or Medicare and Medicaid and going back to what we were doing pre-1965 and passing those costs onto hospitals instead and having them provide the uninsured with free health care, he's suggesting that we pass down these health care costs to public and private hospitals. Perhaps unintentionally, but thats what he's implying. That eventually get passed on to the insured, making them cover their own health care costs. As well as the costs of the uninsured.

So when people get hurt especially for doing something foolish, like drunk driving, driving without a seatbelt (to use as examples) the people who get hurt doing these things or are hurt by people doing these things to them especially foolish things like getting hit by a drunk driver, or people not taking care of themselves by smoking, drinking too much, bad eating habits, not exercising, that they are held accountable for their own decisions and have to pay the price for them good or bad. 

If you believe in personal responsibility, you shouldn't let people pass their health care costs on to hospitals (private and public) or other people who are responsible for having health insurance. If you look at it, the individual mandate is actually a conservative idea that was supported by Conservatives in the past. Like in the Clinton health care reform debate in 1993-94. Because it's about individual responsibility. Holding people responsible for their own decisions that they make in life for good and bad.

The individual mandate isn't about making people buy certain health insurance plans, just that they pick one. Low-income people that are uninsured would need to get on Medicaid or get their own health insurance plan. Senior citizens obviously would have Medicare, people in between Medicaid and Medicare financially and can't afford their own health insurance, could get a tax credit to pay for their health insurance. Business's that can't afford to cover their employees with health insurance, would be eligible for a tax credit to do that which would make their business a more attractable place to work. Especially if they are married or have kids or a medical condition. Perhaps all of these factors and this health insurance would help cover some of their health care costs. 

The individual mandate in health care reform is about individual responsibility as well as individual freedom. Just not having the freedom to abuse other people's freedom by passing your health care costs down to them. It's a conservative idea which is why it's strange at least to me, that Conservatives and even Libertarians today are now so against it.

Freedom Watch With Andrew Napolitano: Ralph Nader and Ron Paul (2011)

Source:MOX News- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) and New-Left political activist Ralph Nader, on Freedom Watch With Andrew Napolitano.

"Ralph Nader and Ron Paul Freedom Watch 2011!" 

Source:One Bailout- Judge Andrew Napolitano.

From One Bailout

To think that a Classical Libertarian like Representative Ron Paul and a Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist  like consumer advocate Ralph Nader can come together on anything, look at this video. And the reason why the can come to together is because they share things in common on social issues, obviously. Generally speaking they are both liberal to libertarian there, but also foreign policy, where they both tend to be isolationists. And believing that our foreign policy should be based on our national security. 

Socialists also tend to believe our foreign policy should be based on human rights as well. Not just with military involvement, but they have some thing in common on foreign policy as well. But Libertarians and Socialists also have some things in common on economic policy as well, not much but some things. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are both against the supply side, borrow and spend, fiscal policy that the Bush Administration put in place. That the Obama Administration has kept into place to a certain extent.

Paul and Nader, both believe our debt and deficit are a threat to our economic policy, they disagree on how we should pay it down. And when Ron Paul believes in trimming the military and entitlements, Ralph Nader believing in tax hikes on the wealthy and perhaps the middle class as well. As well as cutting back perhaps gutting even our defense budget. And they both believe the Federal Reserve should be audited and perhaps eliminated. 

But Libertarians and Socialists tend to have a lot in common actually, that both ideology's are based on some degree of liberty. Libertarians just believe that government should have a much smaller role in our society. And that Socialists believe that government should play a big role in our society, with providing a lot of human services through large social insurance programs through a welfare state. Like in health care, health insurance, pension, education, transportation, etc.

Ralph Nader does represent the social democratic win of the New-Left. (Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats Which are different. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are both anti-Patriot Act, so am I to a certain extent. Anti-Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm for pulling out of both places, anti what they would call corporate governance. Where government jobs and contracts are rewarded based on connections with government officials and where certain people. And companies aren't prosecuted because of their connections with government officials. 

It's good to see a Libertarian and a Socialist come together because they aren't complete opposites. Even though when it comes to the role of government they have clear differences and probably couldn't work together. But it shows that country doesn't have to be as divided as we are politically. When we just look for areas that we have things in common, even if we look very different from the outside.

Liberty Pen: Walter E Williams- 'States' Rights and Nullification'

Source:Liberty Pen- Columnist Walter E. Williams, talking about states rights and nullification.

"Professor Williams fields a call regarding the damaging effects of the 17th Amendment. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

Anytime it's a question of whether government at any level, has more power or the people have more power. I always go with the people as long as we are talking about the power to live our own lives and not hurt innocent people, I want to know if the law is constitutional or not and does it protect, expand, or contract individual liberty. 

Thats what the 17th Amendment is about, giving the power to the people as far as who represents us in Congress, both the House and Senate. And some might say that the House of Representatives was created to represent the people in Congress. And the Senate was created to represent the States in Congress. Well, what's the difference between representing the people or States? 

When someone says that the Senate was created to represent the States, that tells me that they are talking about the state government's not the people that they work for and serve and could lose their jobs as a result and senators get their salaries paid for by the people, so they work for us just like representatives. So we should decide who represents us in the Senate. 

If you are a Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian, you should be able to agree with that. Why should state government's have more power than the people? 

Some might say that we need to get rid of the 17th Amendment, because state government's are underrepresented in Congress. And that the Federal Government could essentially make them do anything that they want and not give them the resources to pay for it. Which in Washington speak means unfunded mandates, but actually thats not true, because if state government's don't like a law that was passed by the Federal Government, they can take it to Federal court. 

Just because the people can to repeal the 17th Amendment just to enforce states rights, is essentially cutting off your leg because you have a sprain knee. You may solve on problem but then create another by taking power away from the people. 

Repealing the 17th Amendment would give state government's more power, but at the expense of the people, which isn't good for anyone. We can protect states rights by law, electing people who will do these things and not elect people who are looking to empower the Federal Government at the expense of the States. 

To make sure that states rights are protected, can be done by statue which means by law. Like the law that the Federal Government passed in 1995 in the 104th Congress. That bans Unfunded Mandates which I believe the Bush Administration who wasn't keen on states rights or Congressional rights let expire. 

Another law that would be helpful, would allow states to opt out on all mandates that the Federal Government passes down on them. That they don't pay for, which would give the Federal Government plenty of incentive to fund laws that they pass, especially state and local mandates. 

Another thing that governors and the National Governors Association can do jointly is to make sure they keep in touch with their own representatives and senators. Especially their party leadership and testify on Capitol Hill when they see bills that would effect them that they don't like. And weigh in on them and if the don't like their Congressional delegation, work to have them defeated in the next election. 

We shouldn't be repealing the U.S. Constitution that was written by Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians, especially in a way that takes power away from the people. States rights is something that should be respected and is something that we can do without hurting the people. Who have to live under these laws.

CAP USA: 'The John Birch Society vs. The Communists'

Source:CAP USA- Robert Welch, founder of the JBS.

"(Circa 1965) John Birch Society founder Robert Welch lists the stark differences in operating principles between the JBS and the communists (now called Neocons and liberal Democrats)." 

From CAP USA 

Robert Welch, the founder of JBS, was one of the strongest opponents of Communists and leaders of the New-Right. (People who are strong opponents of Communists and pluralism) And in the early days of the Cold War (between the United States and Soviet Union) people who believed in freedom were freaking out about Communists and communism and not freaked out about it, but paranoid. There would be Communist sightings like there are Elvis Presley sightings today. People were supposedly finding Communists everywhere. 

Because of the national freak out about Communists and communism in America (what others call the Red Scare) the New-Right in America (Fascists and Communists) took advantage of that. 

The New-Right in Congress with people like Senator Joe McCarthy and his McCarthy hearings in the Senate, took advantage of that and attempted to locate every Communist in America, especially in the U.S. Government and bring them out of their Marxist closets. 

This is what Robert Welch and the John Birch Society represented back then, as well as today. They see pretty much everyone who is to the Left of them (including Conservatives and Libertarians) as potential Communists. 

Al Jazeera: 'Empire - The New Arms Race'

Source:Al Jazeera- Welcome to the Communist Republic of Korea. No one will blame you if you try to leave or escape.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a state-owned[4] broadcaster based in Doha, Qatar, owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network. Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the internet and specialty television channels in multiple languages.

Al Jazeera Media Network is a global news organization with 80 bureaus around the world. The original Al Jazeera Arabic channel's willingness to broadcast dissenting views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. One of the station's office was the only channel to cover the War in Afghanistan live." 

From Wikipedia  

"Over the last decade, Washington has doubled its military budget, fuelling massive military build-ups around the world, from the emerging powers in the South China Seas to the multi-billion-dollar arms deals in the Middle East, begging the question where and when this vicious cycle of rising military expenditures will end. Empire asks: what justifies this global military addiction, or, has the world been duped by the multi-national, military industrial complex?"

From Al Jazeera

Does the People's Republic of China (which is the official name of China) I call it the Communist Republic of China (but perhaps thats a different debate) but do they want to be a superpower economically? Yeah, that I think thats obvious by the way they've developed their economy. 

The last thirty plus years or so, China has already created the largest economy in the Asia, the largest continent in the world. They passed Japan a few years ago, but Japan still dwarfs China in per-capita income, something like 5-7 times more. Which is actually more important when it comes to economics: the ability for people to spend money to have money to spend in order to support themselves and their families. Thats what per-capita Income is about and why its more important them the actual size of a GDP. 

The next step for China's economy, how do they translate economic growth into education and job growth that benefits most of the country instead of parts of it and become a developed nation. 

China is a country of 1.5B people and maybe 1/3 of them, which is still 500M people live in the middle class or could be considered wealthy. Does China want to become a military superpower? Again, they are a huge country of 1.5B people, they can already defend themselves quite well and are already an Asian power. As well as having one of the largest militaries in the world and having nuclear weapons. And they are still developing their military and perhaps will be a military superpower within 10-20 years. Fine, so what, it's not a matter if countries are powerful or not, with their military or economy. 

The question is what does China do with that power: India is also moving in this direction as well, they are a country of 1.2B people the second largest country in the world. But I don't believe many countries, except for maybe Pakistan which is another huge country of 150M people, but India dwarfs them in everything. Its about what you do with power not whether you have it or not and China has shown that they are not the Soviet Union, they don't want to own Asia or the world. Unlike Russia that wanted to spread communism around the World. 

America doesn't need to worry about China in the sense that China will own the world or something. If America does what it has to do, which is rebuild our economy, economic and job growth, fixing our fiscal policy by actually having one and getting our debt and deficit under control, exporting our products around the world and having the same trade access in foreign nations that they have in America, with the same low tariff rates, rebuilding and expanding our infrastructure and bringing it into the 21st Century, having an energy policy that moves America towards energy independence, reforming our public education System, etc, then America will again not just be the superpower, but the dominant power in the world.

America has a lot of work to do and we have some time to do it and if we get our work done. We'll still be as powerful as we need to be to address all of our concerns because we'll have the resources to do them. And China will still be China but they won't be America, they'll never be anything like America as far as how great and important as we are, as long as we do what we need to do and China is still a Communist Republic with very limited if any social and political freedom. 

It's not about having power thats the problem, it's about what you do with the power you have. And so far China even though they've done some things we've disagree with like with Taiwan and how they deal with their ethnic and religious minorities, but this is not the Soviet Union thats trying to establish a Communist State for the world. And if America does what America needs to do, then the rest will be taken care of for the better.

The Northwest Report: 'The One Who Stood With Ronald Reagan'

Source:The Northwest Report- Governor Ronald Reagan (Republican, California) and Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"Ron Paul 2012 Ad: The One Who Stood with Reagan (New TV Ad "Trust") from Ron Paul." 

From The Northwest Report

I'm not sure a Libertarian running for President should be trying to make himself look like a President, who expanded the War on Drugs and War on Crime. Even though we saw an explosion in heroin and cocaine in the 1980s, as well as a President who expanded what Libertarians and Socialists like the call, The Military Industrial Complex. As well as The Prison Industrial Complex. And you could probably add the narcotics industrial complex. With all of the people in the 1980s going to jail in prison for drug use and possession. 

This TV ad is clearly about reaching out to Conservative-Republicans (the ones that remain in the party) in a party that's now dominated by Neoconservatives and Tea Party Nationalists, the Christian-Right, who obviously don't like Representative Paul, because he's a Libertarian and not a Neoconservative or theocrat. 

Ron Paul is obviously not theocratic and Tea Party members that don't like Paul's libertarian views on social issues. And Representative Paul clearly has to break through with one of those groups of Republican voters, who are all leaning towards Rick Perry.

For Ron Paul to have any shot in hell of winning the Republican nomination for President, which I don't believe he has much of one and his best bet is to target parts of the Tea Party that haven't gotten in bed yet with the Religious-Right, to have any shot at winning the Republican nomination and this Ronald Reagan ad is an attempt to do that. 

Paul needs parts of the Tea Party (the conservative-libertarian wing if it) but the problem that will come with it, is that it could cost him some libertarian votes. Votes again that Ron Paul has to have to win the nomination. And Libertarians aren't fans of President Reagan because of President Reagan's increase defense spending, debt and deficit spending, and War on Drugs. 

This is the main problem that Ron Paul has running for President in today's Republican Party and why he won't win the nomination. He has to keep the Libertarians and pick away at least one more faction of the Republican Party without losing Libertarians. I believe his best bet is the few Conservative-Libertarians that remain in the Republican Party, but they alone won't get him the nomination.

Besides attacking Governor Rick Perry right now who is very popular in the Republican Party is not a smart play. The more people including Republicans find out about him as this election cycle moves on, the more they won't like him or see him as unelectable. 

The fact that Rick Perry used to be a Democrat who endorsed Liberal Democratic Senator Al Gore for President back in 1988, will be a big enough problem for him. Or that he suggested that Texas should succeed from the Union or called Social Security unconstitutional, a program thats very popular in the Republican Party. The mountain of debt and deficits that Governor Perry has piled up in Texas, 2nd only to California and this a man who is running as a fiscal conservative. Republicans will understand these issues very well in the next few months and they'll come out. 

It's a little early for Representative Paul to be attacking Governor Perry, especially by comparing himself with Ron Reagan. Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States I'l just flatly say that right now and I'm taking a leap or anything. Those are the facts and I think he knows that as well. He's a man without a major political party that can get him nominated and then elected President of the United States. I believe his whole presidential campaign is about advancing the Libertarian movement which he's succeeding at.

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- 'The Social Security Myth'

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about Social Security.

"Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand.  In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today's health care debate. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

If you look at it, Social Security in some senses is a myth and perhaps has the wrong title and I'm not saying this as someone who is against Social Security: I do believe that we as a country should have some floor of standard of living that people can count on, but Social Security itself is only as secure as the Federal Government allows it to be by how they managed it. Which is a big problem right there, we have to rely on them not to waste the taxes that we pay into it on other government spending, as well as reforming it before it goes bankrupt.

There's no such thing as a Social Security lock box: that sure as hell is a myth. Which is a term that came about during the Bush-Gore presidential election of 2000. Perhaps what we should call Social Security instead, is Basic Living or Pension Insurance, because thats basically what it is. 

Social Security is not a pension program, but a pension insurance program, money that people can collect to go along with whatever pension they may have. Because a lot of people don't have a big enough pension to support themselves as senior citizens.

Another big problem with Social Security is we don't save enough as people and lot of us don't make enough money to save, which is another problem in our economy. 

The success of Social Security is that its lift millions of senior citizens out of poverty, people who otherwise would've had to live with their kids. Or would've been at the mercy of private charity and provided these people with some basic standard of living that they could count on. If the Federal Government doesn't screw it up in their senior years.

What I would like to do with Social Security and our broader pension system after we fix the financing of it, is to give more Americans freedom of choice in how they finance their own retirement income. Something that former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle calls Social Security Plus, that would be and add on to their Social Security. Where workers along with their employers would put money away in a personal retirement account that would be tax free. As long as they are putting money in the account. This would literally mean increasing payroll taxes at around 50% to be able to finance it in a way to make it worth doing.

So we would need to cut taxes somewhere else in order to avoid a huge middle class tax hike. But I would be for that as well and then set up a system for low-income workers as well, where they could get their money that they put in their PRA. Back in a tax credit so they could afford to put money away for their retirement as well. 

But I would go farther with Social Security as I mentioned in previous pieces and take Social Security off of the backs of the Federal Government. And get the Administration's and Congress's hands off of it and out of it, to finance their own pet projects. And turn it over the states to run their own Social Security program.

Social Security is a myth in the sense that it's not completely secure, only intended to be and only as secure as the Federal Government allows it to be. Which is a problem in itself, when they take money out of it thats supposed to be their for people when they retire. To finance their other pet projects.