Day: February 8, 2011

The Conflict Among Conservatives And Within The Conservative Movement

Conservatives argue that they are for smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, freedom and liberty.

They don’t like any type of economic regulation or redistribution of wealth.

And yet when push comes to shove, they are very willing to raise taxes on the average person and redistribute wealth to the top two percent, and destroy the middle class by their policies! ๐Ÿ™

They are for freedom and liberty, and yet believe in a security state which can bug and wiretap everyone through the Patriot Act, and deny people privacy as to their library borrowing and bookstore purchases! ๐Ÿ™

They are very willing to interfere in people’s social lives, including denying gays the basic freedom to serve in the military and marry the person they love; deny a woman the right to control her own body, even if a pregnancy is dangerous to her health; and impose religion on the population through promotion of a sectarian Christian prayer in public schools! ๐Ÿ™

Even libertarian conservatives such as Rand Paul claim to want smaller government, and yet want to outlaw abortions from conception of the fetus, which is certainly government intrusion in private lives! ๐Ÿ™

Conservatism claims to believe in individual rights, and yet constantly interferes with such rights in so many ways.

Conservatives wish to destroy the social safety net which has been with us since the New Deal of the 1930s, and this would create more poverty and deprivation and redistribute wealth further to the elite rich, and they have no conscience at all in doing this!

The Conservative Political Action Conference this Thursday to Saturday will showcase many of the potential GOP Presidential candidates, many of which conflict with each other about these different, competing and contradictory strands of the conservative movement.

With one year to go to the Iowa caucuses next February 6, most of the Republican aspirants for the White House shall appear and make speeches at CPAC, including Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John Thune, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour and Ron Paul.

But because of supposed scheduling conflicts, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are not attending, which is very odd, as if they really wanted to attend this event in Washington, DC, they would find a way!

The competition among the attendees to win the straw poll vote and to appeal to the conflicting wings of the conservative movement should be very fascinating to watch this weekend! ๐Ÿ™‚

Time For High Speed Rail Projects Across Nation: Great Step Forward!

The Obama Administration is committing Recovery Act funds to promote intercity high speed rail projects across the nation, and Vice President Joe Biden announced today $53 billion over the next six years to advance such projects.

This will promote economic recovery by creating many jobs, save oil consumption by encouraging more people to travel to work and on vacation on high speed rail, and improve the environment as well.

Already, we have high speed “bullet” trains in Japan and South Korea, as well as in Great Britain and France, and they offer convenient travel and have put these nations way ahead of Americans in envisioning the future of transportation!

This is another stage of the transportation revolution, as much as Abraham Lincoln promoting the transcontinental railroad network in the 1860s, and Dwight D. Eisenhower advocating the interstate highway system in the 1950s!

The Obama goal is provide high speed rail transportation to 80 percent of the American people over the next 25 years! This is a priority that needs to be accomplished, but the Republicans in the House of Representatives may stand in the way of this investment, which would indeed be tragic! ๐Ÿ™

The Issue Of Government Mandates: A Responsibility of All Citizens!

The major complaint about the Obama Health Care legislation, and the basis on which two Federal District Court judges in Virginia and Florida have declared it unconstitutional, is the “mandate” that all people have to purchase a health insurance policy by 2014, although low income people will have federal subsidies to help them buy such insurance.

Many people have a major problem with this idea of a “mandate”, the nerve of the federal government telling citizens they must protect their health, because otherwise the rest of America must pay for their emergency health care in hospitals when they fall sick or are injured in accidents.

How irresponsible these complainers are, as if government does not have the right to demand its citizens take on personal responsibility for themselves! ๐Ÿ™

Think about it! Is it not true that the government can “mandate” that we pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, federal income taxes, and federal gasoline taxes? Cannot the state and local governments “mandate” that we pay property taxes, gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, and sales taxes?

Has not the government “mandated” that Americans be drafted in the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the years of the Cold War? Could they not “mandate” it again at some point in the future?

Does not the government at all levels “mandate” that we obey the laws that are passed upon us, whether we like it or not?

Is it not a “mandate” that all children must be given education, and that parents provide for the health and safety of their children?

Do we not have a “mandate” in most states to purchase auto insurance, and do we not have a “mandate” to pay for a drivers license and automobile registration if we wish to drive?

Do we not have a “mandate” to purchase homeowners insurance if we wish to buy a home and pay a mortgage on it?

Do we not have courts that “mandate” that we might have to serve on jury duty, and do they not have the power to enforce punishment on us if we disobey the laws and the “mandates” of the government at all levels?

If we are to claim that we do not have to obey laws, and pay taxes, and take responsibility for ourselves, then what we are asking for is for others to pay for us, and we are also promoting chaos and anarchy in our society! ๐Ÿ™

So, to those who object to the so called “mandate” on health care, get used to the reality that this is your responsibility, or you can sign away any health care, as we are not going to pay for you, because you are stupid, ignorant and reckless of your own health needs! ๐Ÿ™

Conservative And Republican Civil War Emerging: Mainstream Versus Nutty, Loony Glenn Beck And Sarah Palin!

It is obvious that a split is emerging in the conservative movement and the Republican party over the crazy rantings of talk show host Glenn Beck and the indecipherable criticisms of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin!

Beck has asserted recently that the Bush family was out to promote the Muslim faith by its weak actions against the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that it was all part of a joint plot by radical Muslims and Communists out to promote a one world order!

Sarah Palin has been critical of the Obama policy toward the revolution against the Mubarak government of Egypt, without showing any understanding of the issue or offering any positive ideas.

The result of these two extremists making crazy statements has been that Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Rich Lowry of the National Review have attacked Glenn Beck, and made it clear that they believe that his ideas are totally off the wall.

At the same time, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has complimented Obama on Egypt policy and has criticized Palin for her empty statements attacking Obama on this matter, demonstrating she has no understanding of the issue.

These are signs of a civil war developing as mainstream conservatives are becoming more and more embarrassed by the outrageous and moronic statements of both Beck and Palin, who if they continue to maintain a powerful influence in the Republican party, will result in the total destruction of a party with a history of important leaders who were in the mainstream of American politics, while Beck and Palin are not in that mainstream!

A Salute To George W. Bush On Immigration Controversy! :)

Former President George W. Bush has come under attack for many of the actions of his administration, including his handling of the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, the doubling of the national debt, and the handling of the economic recession in his last year in office.

Despite all this, and with his declaration that he has bowed out of politics, the former President has now come out in strong support of immigration reform, and has deplored the sickening prejudice being visited against Hispanics and Latinos.

He has been courageous in speaking up for a rational immigration policy, and it must be pointed out that he worked to create a system to move illegal immigrants toward a plan for eventual citizenship, rather than call for the mass deportation that some Republicans advocate.

On this issue, George W. Bush has been a statesman, and he makes it clear that he hopes very soon the irrationality and hate will subside, and action can be taken on this issue, which has been poisoning the political atmosphere of his party, which is acting self destructive by not realizing that to alienate the growing Hispanic and Latino population is suicidal for the Republican Party’s long term future!

The Proposal To Increase The Size Of The House Of Representatives: An Unworkable Idea! :(

A political science professor at Northwestern University, in combination with one at New York University, recently promoted an idea in a NY Times op-ed on how to reform the US House of Representatives.

Their proposal was to increase the size of the House closer to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who set up the original House to reflect 30,000 white males in each congressional district in 1789 and after. Of course, women and blacks and native Americans were not counted at the beginning for purposes of congressional representation.

Their point was that now a member of the House of Representatives represents approximately 700,000 people, and that the fixed total of 435 was only set after the 1910 census.

Meanwhile the population has tripled since 1910, so the argument is that a member of Congress cannot represent his or her constituents adequately, as there are too many people per congressional district.

Their proposal is to raise the number of members of the House of Representatives from 435 to 1500, so that each congressional district represent only 200,000 people, about the same as in 1910. This would, supposedly, make members of Congress closer to their constituents and make for greater levels of democracy.

The author must say that he totally disagrees with this proposal, considering it unworkable and chaotic!

As it is, the House of Representatives is too unwieldy with 435 members, and often what goes on in the House is nothing more than chaos, as it is hard to keep order and to move forward on legislation expeditiously.

To have 1500 members is an insane idea, and would not promote progress, but rather confusion and disarray. And the idea of third party movements having a say only promotes further chaos, anarchy, stalemate and gridlock.

A multiparty system would not work better than our two party system, and would be far less efficient.

And also, how about the offices and seating space required for 1500 members in the House Office Buildings and House chamber? And what about the costs of having that large a legislative body?

The comparison is made by the authors of this op-ed that Great Britain has 61 million people and 650 members of their Parliament, making it one for every 78,000 people, and that Canada has 33 million people and 308 members of their Parliament, making it one for every 109,000 people.

But these countries are a lot smaller in population, so they can have the luxury of having smaller numbers of people per representative.

But to have such a large number as 1,500 in a nation of 310 million people is simply too unwieldy and difficult to manage and to work efficiently.

If anything, the author would argue for a smaller House, closer to 301, where each member represents one million people, as a way to make for efficiency. but of course the Congress would have to vote to make themselves smaller, which is not about to happen! ๐Ÿ™‚

And also remember that members of the largest populated states in the Union have their Senators represent many millions of people, and as long as they have adequate office space, budget, and staff, that can be accomplished, so the idea of a larger House of Representatives is just that–an idea that will see no fruition, but certainly is an interesting subject for discussion by academics! ๐Ÿ™‚