Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

Monday, August 18, 2014

Michael Steele: Rand Paul Is the Most Dangerous Man in Politics Because he Breaks Downs the Left-Right Paradigm


Source:The New Democrat

Michael Steele is dead right about Rand Paul's influence on the Republican Party. Because Senator Paul is a Conservative Libertarian in party that has a long history and tradition of conservative libertarianism perhaps going back as far as the 1930s. It is just with Richard Nixon in the late 1970s that the GOP sort of moved away from that and sort of became the law and order party at all costs. And "secure the area at any means necessary and worry about the consequences and Constitution later on".

What Rand Paul is saying is that all of our constitutional rights are equally important. Including not becoming victims of the state when it comes to excessive force. That the state has the responsibility to protect us from predators and not from ourselves. But that even predators have constitutional rights and that the state has a limit to exactly what it can to protect the people. And when it exceeds those limits like using military power against its own people even to secure the area, it is going too far.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The Daily Caller: Molly Gill: Before Creating Any New Crimes, Congress Should Reform Penalties it Made Decades Ago

Source: The Rutherford Institute-
Source:The New Democrat

Over criminalization are the perfect two words put together to describe why America has so many people in either jail or prison. We have so many victimless crimes like anti-gambling laws, anti-prostitution laws, the War on Drugs should be first on the list. But how about some states in the union who have anti-homosexual laws and if New York City ever had its way people could be arrested for what they eat and drink as well. What is so progressive about that? I fail to see any progress there.

You eliminate victimless crime laws and you would dramatically reduce our prison population. You reform laws where there are real victims involved where a penalty needs to be imposed for the good of society like shoplifting to use as an example and people who sell or possess small amounts of illegal narcotics and you also dramatically reduce your prison population. No crime would not go up because now most of these activities and again talking about victimless crimes would now be legal.

Representative Bob Goodlatte who is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee put together a House task force dealing with the over criminalization in America and to look at why we have so many people in  prison early in this Congress. Which is a good first step even though Representative Goodlatte also is in favor of a constitutional amendment to outlaw pornography which would just add to the problem over criminalization. But there is bipartisan support to reduce our prison population and reform some of our laws. So this is not some far-lefty or anarchist conspiracy on why we have so many people in prison.
Source:Rutherford Institute

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Senator Rand Paul: The Drug War



Source:Marlan 89- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

"Senator Rand Paul answers a question on the drug war. Taped at Young America's Foundation dinner honoring Ronald Reagan at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill in August 2012." 

From Marlan 89

I agree with Senator Paul on the federalism aspect. If the states want to continue to fight their own so-called War On Drugs and keep spending more money on prisons than not just on schools and other infrastructure, but state and local police and their taxpayers don't mind paying for that with their taxes, then that's on them. But we don't have millions of Americans in prison today because of state anti-narcotics laws. That problem is on the Federal Government. And since Senator Paul serves in Congress and serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, this is an issue that he could work to fix at the Federal level, if he wanted to.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Roll Call: Steven T. Dennis: 'President Obama Aims to Put GOP on Defense in State of the Union Address'

Source:Roll Call- writer Steven T. Dennis.

"President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to pressure Republicans to avoid automatic spending cuts set to hit next month while proposing a host of new economic, energy and education initiatives sure to please his base.

The president asked Congress to work with him, telling the nation that the economy is poised for growth if politicians in Washington, D.C., don’t commit any more self-inflicted wounds.

Indeed, Obama aims to put Republicans in a box. They will own the sequester if they refuse to compromise on more tax revenue from the wealthy and corporations, according to a senior administration official — even as the GOP, in turn, tries to hang it on the White House.

“Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is strong,” Obama said.

But, he said, too many people still need jobs, even as corporate profits have hit all-time highs.

“Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” he said, knowing full well another shutdown showdown looms next month, followed by another debt ceiling hike come May. Like many of his lines, the appeal got a healthy response from Democrats, less so from the GOP.

The president also announced an assortment of new proposals in the speech that will cheer his base but are likely to face trouble getting through a divided Congress. For example, he may find Republicans a hard sell in his push for a $9-an-hour minimum wage, an ambitious new plan for universal access to pre-kindergarten and all-day kindergarten, assorted plans for green-energy subsidies, a raft of new gun laws and even a new call for climate change legislation.

None of his proposals will add to the deficit, Obama promised.

“Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth,” Obama said.

A minimum wage hike from $7.25 to $9 by the end of 2015 would give raises to 15 million workers, according to the White House, restoring the buying power the wage level had in 1981 and lifting many of those workers over the poverty line. 

He also said he wants Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution like the one Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., worked on. But the president also warned that if Congress won’t act, “I will.” That section got a chilly reception from the GOP.

However, his push for a comprehensive immigration policy rewrite got a warm bipartisan cheer, with Republicans such as Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah standing up to applaud his push. Hatch co-authored the Dream Act only to join in a filibuster of it in 2010, but the GOP has clearly had a change of heart on the issue.

Obama ended his speech with an emotional appeal for his gun control agenda, acknowledging that the proposals may not pass, but deserve a vote.

“This time is different,” he said, noting that overwhelming majorities support background checks and other proposals. He appealed to lawmakers using the names of recent gun violence victims, such as murdered Chicago teenager Hadiya Pendleton, whose family was in the audience.

“Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence — they deserve a simple vote,” Obama said. 

But much of the speech included a laundry list of proposals similar to ones he’s proposed in the past — which Congress has put on a shelf. Obama at one point thanked Congress for enacting some of his proposals and said lawmakers should pass the rest now.

He made his seemingly perennial pitch for a $50 billion infrastructure package. This time under the slogan “Fix it First,” he emphasized the need to repair existing bridges rather than build new projects. Other proposals include a push for a massive refinancing for homeowners at today’s low rates, $15 billion to rehabilitate or demolish damaged or vacant properties and the creation of 20 new “Promise Zones” for development.

Many of the proposals are relatively modest, but they are sure to poll well. That includes the president’s plan for $1 billion to create 15 manufacturing institutes around the country — an idea that had members of both parties cheering — and a new “college scorecard” aimed at giving students information comparing costs and quality. Obama will use his executive authority to create three new manufacturing centers while waiting for Congress to act.

And there were the usual pushes to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas while calling for tax code reform.

Obama also addressed the nuclear threats from the Iran and North Korea — calling for diplomacy, a unified world response and beefed up missile defenses. But he also called for new talks with Russia to further reduce nuclear arsenals and touted a peace dividend from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as one way to pay for a new long-term transportation spending plan. 

Obama’s plan to reduce the American troops in Afghanistan by 34,000 by a year from Tuesday night leaked earlier in the day. It builds on the president’s attempts to portray the tides of war as receding on his watch — and it seemed popular inside the room. He also announced a new cybersecurity executive order while calling on Congress to act.

The Republican reaction was swift, and almost uniformly negative. Indeed, some lawmakers, including Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., sent out embargoed, canned missives hours before the speech began.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., led the official GOP response, telling his personal story and wrapping it in small-government Republican ideals. Government programs aimed at helping the middle class too often hurt them, he said, targeting Obamacare, a subject mentioned only in passing by the president.

And Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, who had to sit through a series of jabs aimed squarely at him, just a few feet behind the president, issued a negative press release not long after the speech ended.

Boehner called the speech “more of the same ‘stimulus’ policies that have failed to fix our economy and put Americans back to work. We cannot grow the middle class and foster job creation by growing government and raising taxes. … We are only weeks away from the devastating consequences of the president’s sequester, and he failed to offer the cuts needed to replace it.”

Boehner said that instead of working with Republicans, Obama “appears to have chosen a go-it-alone approach to pursue his liberal agenda.”

In a briefing 

Boehner said that instead of working with Republicans, Obama “appears to have chosen a go-it-alone approach to pursue his liberal agenda.”

In a briefing Tuesday afternoon, senior administration officials argued that the speech was neither liberal nor conservative, noting that many of the ideas have long had bipartisan support.

Some are explicitly so — such as a new election reform commission that will be headed by top Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer and top Romney lawyer Ben Ginsberg. But many of the proposals are likely to wind up as so much cannon fodder for a GOP intent on reining in government, not expanding its reach.

That’s a reality even administration officials quietly acknowledge."

From Roll Call

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Situation Room: U.S. Senator Rand Paul On Rick Santorum


Source:CNN- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.

"Rand Paul exposes Rick Santorum & Mitt Romney CNN 1/4/12" 


I agree with Senator Rand Paul that Rick Santorum is not a Conservative, at least not in the constitutional, fiscal, economic, or even national security sense. (Running out-of-ways for someone to be a Conservative) But let's not pretend we see UFO's in the sky and gigantic flying ants in our dreams and pretend Rick Santorum is a Liberal either. 

Name the right-wing, social, cultural issue and Senator Santorum is on the Far-Right fringe in American politics. Which is why the business community in the Republican Party, to go along with Senator Santorum's blue-collar populism, will never support Santorum For President.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Senator Rand Paul: 'Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment'

Source:Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

"Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment" 


My favorite parts about the Republican presidential debate about national security last week and I admit I'm not a Republican (I would be an insult to the current Republican Party) so my favorite moments in last weeks debate are obviously limited but my 2nd favorite moment from that debate, was when a Neoconservative from the Heritage Foundation asked Newt Gingrich: "As we are going through deficit reduction right now, with how important our national security is, should the defense budget be off the table in deficit reduction?" And Speaker Gingrich simply put said, no. 

Speaker Gingrich in the debate explained why his answer was no and that no part of the Federal budget should be off the table in deficit reduction. Where ever there's waste in the Federal Government, we should eliminate it, including in the Defense Department. Newt Gingrich simply making the case for fiscal conservatism and responsibility. Which is something that apparently only Neoconservatives don't understand. 

But my favorite part of that debate was when Representative Ron Paul (the father of Senator Rand Paul) was asked about enhance techniques used against terrorist suspects. And I'm paraphrasing here but Representative Paul answered that once we surrender our individual liberty, the terrorists have won, because thats exactly what they want us to do. 

There's no such thing as national security without individual liberty. You can't have one without the other. Goes without saying that you can't have individual liberty without national security. Once you surrender or lose one, you've lost both because without individual liberty, we become prisoners of the state for them to be able to do to us as they please, because we don't have the individual liberty to stop them from doing to us as they please. 

Friday, October 28, 2011

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.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

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.