There's "tolerance" and then there's something better

What Is the Commonly Used Word That Penn Jillette ‘Really’ Doesn’t Like?

Apr. 27, 2015 8:14pm Erica Ritz (TheBlaze.com)

Famed magician Penn Jillette said he “really” doesn’t like the word “tolerance” in an episode of The Glenn Beck Program that aired Monday.

“It’s a word that often brings to mind condescension,” he explained. “There’s a way you ‘do’ tolerance. … ‘We were out to dinner, and there are your wife’s friends and I tolerate them.’ It’s such a negative connotation. And so often when you’re in a group of people, and someone starts saying nuts stuff that everybody knows is nuts stuff, … everybody smiles and nods and lets them move on. And that kind of tolerance seems, to me, to be not good.”

Jillette said the world needs a “kind of tolerance that says, ‘I like you as a person, and you’re wrong.” The person doesn’t need to be vilified, but their beliefs don’t need to be unquestioningly accepted either, he explained.

“And once you have that conversation, you have to be able to go back to where you and I are,” Beck added. “I think you’re wrong on things; you think I’m wrong on things. That’s cool. I still like you.”

“It’s just finding that exact tightrope that you have to walk down of being able to live and exist with someone and at the same time, not give up your own principles,” Jillette agreed.

Jillette cautioned, though, that a person’s goal shouldn’t be to try to change the mind of a person they disagree with.

“You never try to change their mind,” he said. “My goal sitting down with you must not be, must not be to say, ‘How can I get my friend Glenn to become an atheist and not a Mormon?’ That cannot be my goal. My goal has to be, ‘Can I speak to this person from my heart on whatever happens to come up?’ And that subtle difference to me is the tightrope. I can’t be trying to manipulate you. I can’t be saying in the car on the way over, ‘I’ve got the argument that will convince him!’”

Jillette also cautioned people on both sides of the aisle against “wanting to be outraged.” He specifically referenced the backlash against Memories Pizza in Indiana.

“You’re dealing with what we have to be very careful of, which is turning people into hypotheticals,” he said. “This was never going to come up. Never once, never ever, was [this family's objection to catering a gay wedding] ever going to hurt anyone. It never was going to. And my problem is tears being shed, police being called for death threats, people screaming, people yelling, people saying we need more government, people saying we need less government.”

“It is people wanting to be outraged on both sides, and carry on on both sides,” Jillette continued. “And you know as well as I do, there was never going to be a conflict between one gay person and that pizza place for as long as we’re going to be alive. Never going to be.”

Deficit Spending and the National Debt

A video on YouTube called “The Debt Limit Explained” by CGPGrey (cited below) is a good primer on how federal budgetary, taxation, spending and deficit policies and procedures are supposed to work in theory, and it basically lays out how the system has worked, until 2008.  Recall that then-Senator Obama railed against President Bush’s requested increase in the debt ceiling as being “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible.”  On the floor of the Senate, he said "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."  So taking a lead from the video, weren’t his fellow Senators in charge of the budget and federal spending?  The Senate was controlled by the Democrats and the president was a Republican, and it was an election year.

So move to today, 2013, and see how the situation is further removed from theory.  Working against the theoretical model, described in the referenced video, are six factors in today's practice of that model:

1. There has not been a budget passed by Congress since 2009.
2. The FY 2009 spending level was increased from about $2.5 Trillion annually to about $3.5 Trillion because of the $800 Billion added by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“the stimulus bill.”)  Without annual budgets, every year thereafter the spending level has been carried into the next year, and so appropriation and authorization bills passed by the House and Senate automatically increased as well.  (That is a rather convoluted process but I think I summarized it in one sentence fairly well.)  As a result of failure of Congress (read “Senate”) to pass budgetary restrictions on spending, we’ve entered an era of hyper-deficit spending without recourse.  The House has tried to pass a budget to limit spending (not reduce the current levels but just reduce the annual increases in spending) to see the bill die in the Senate without even being considered.
3. Then there was another huge block of money authorized under the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP.)  This program was initiated under Bush but supplemented under Obama.  The program has become something of a ‘slush fund’ by the Administration because the repaid money (by the bailed-out banks) was not returned to the General Fund but retained by the Administration for other ‘stimulus.’  It has been an on-going drain on federal spending.
4. Entitlements make up by far the biggest percentage of federal spending (about 60% -- defense in comparison runs about 25-30%) and the entitlement programs have been on “autopilot” without much Congressional oversight, such as food stamp program.  The latest so-called Farm Bill includes a rubber stamped Administration request for expansion of the program – after all, who is against feeding the poor? – and food stamps now make up over 80% of the Bill.  The program has been expanded to cover families making 125% of the poverty level, and there isn’t much check on who is eligible.
5. The president has much more discretion in spending than the video implies.  Let’s say Congress appropriates $600 million for transportation projects.  That money can be shifted by the Secretary of Transportation to virtually any use he wishes, such as ‘green energy’ savings.  
6. The fuzzy math of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is adding to the deficit without oversight/approval of Congress.  There were blank checks inserted to allow the Secretary of HHS to create new bureaucracies and health care programs.  The actual cost is incalculable. (Ref: http://freebeacon.com/financially-unstable/.  The GAO report dated Jan 17, 2013 is here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-271R.)

In summary, the current fiscal situation can best be described as “dysfunctional.”  The Senate has sandbagged their budgetary responsibility and the spending is way out of control.  Should Congress take control?  Short answer:  Yes.  The next logical question is, can it?  Again, going for brevity:  Probably not.  But we can hope for the best while expecting the worst, which in this case is continued deficit spending into the foreseeable future until, inevitably, the monetary system (meaning the dollar itself) crashes. 

Now, “monetary policy” is different from “fiscal policy” because the first is managing the entire economy, what it uses to transact business, i.e.—the dollar, or money, and the second is the taxing and spending done by the federal government.  “Fiscal policies” are set by Congress and the Treasury Dept.  “Monetary policy” is the purview of the Fed, as it sets interest rates for prime loans (to banks) and thereby the available money supply in the entire US.  Then there is one other power of the Fed:  It can “create money” by adding fictitious numbers to its own balance sheet.  More on that below.

The issue of the deficits run up by Congress and the President is compounded by a set of actions recently taken by the Federal Reserve as it reverses a long-standing position it adamantly held (or rather the Chairman of the Fed, Mr. Ben Bernanke, has reversed a position.)  He testified at a Congressional hearing in June 2009 that the Fed would not “monetize the federal government’s debt,” meaning the money that the Fed creates out of thin air would not be used to buy Treasury notes (the bonds sold to fund the federal government’s deficit spending.)  Beginning in 2010, that policy has been replaced by “quantitative easing” which is exactly what he said the Fed would not do.

(ref: blog.themistrading.com/we-will-not-monetize-the-debt-bernanke-639)

What’s that you ask?  Can the Fed actually do that?  You thought only the Treasury Dept “prints money” and that is where money is created?  Actually, printing currency, as the Treasury does, has nothing to do with how the government SPENDS money.  Those fresh new bills coming from Treasury printing presses are purchased by banks and held in their vaults until demanded by their customers.  (Anyway, only about $10 Billion in currency is printed each month, not near enough to cover the $4 Billion per day needed by the federal government for its deficit spending.)  The money “created” by the Fed – just by adding zeros to the bottom of its balance sheet – is now being used to buy T-bills, and that money is then funneled directly into the economy by government spending. 

This is the greatest danger to our economy at present, because “printing money” has never worked and it has always ended badly, usually resulting in hyperinflation.  Examples are: 1779 Continental dollar (from which grew the expression “not worth a continental,”) 1801 French franc, 1919 Russian ruble, 1923 Weimar German mark, 1979 Argentine peso, 1980 Brazilian real, and 2008 Zimbabwe dollar.  The US also entered a period of inflation in 1864 when the “greenback” hit inflation rates of 40%.  I recall in the late 1970s, the US dollar inflation ran at about 10-12% -- it was a difficult time to save money or to forecast what anything might cost a couple of months into the future.  

If the trend to "monetizing the debt" isn't stopped soon, the economy will collapse. That is almost as bad as the government "defaulting," which is unlikely since the government's income (funds received in taxes and fees) far exceed interest owed each month on the total debt.  So far.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Debt Limit Explained":

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=8

Website: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-debt-limit-explained

Presidential & VP candidate debates

I saw a comment recently about Biden losing the VP candidates' debate due to his bizarre aggressive behavior, and how Obama 'lost' the first presidential debate "because he didn't interrupt Romney enough."  So I assumed the commenter was saying the “winner” is the candidate who interrupts the most.  The companion assertion is:  no interruptions at all is deemed to be bad. 

That doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.  In viewing the debates I didn’t give ‘points’ for interrupting, but what was said and how.  Indeed, I’d say a whole set of different characteristics were used by viewers to evaluate the candidates:  Confidence, thoughtfulness, being forthright, strength of conviction (but not arrogant,) and certainly intelligence.  Biden was one or two of those.  Ryan hit on all of them.

On the other hand, I think the deficiency on the part of the president's performance was passion in his answers/responses.  He doesn’t need to be hostile or uncivil to be effective, just positive, persuasive, ardent, and still factual.  

When someone refers to the constant interruptions by Biden (numbering 82 at one count) and says “Both parties do it," then I have to ask for an example of that behavior by a Republican candidate.  I can’t recall such boorish hectoring on the part of any GOPer, though it’s certainly possible if intemperate passion overrides civility for a brief moment, and it could be said the debates during the GOP primaries were heated.  Biden made it a practice for 90 minutes.  Also, as someone has said, “pointing to bad behavior doesn't excuse other bad behavior.”  

If there is an example of disrespectful behavior on the part of a Republican candidate, I will promptly condemn it, for what that is worth.  Perhaps Romney was interrupting Obama?  Not that I recall as significant, so was the commenter, above, asserting that Ryan laughed rudely during Biden's presentations?  Certainly not.  Speaking of which, did anyone think viewers were laughing along with the VP?  I really doubt it.  However, the Democrat base probably was thrilled about the "designated pit bull" for their party going after Ryan and challenging him viscerally; though most viewers were appalled.

No, the president also “lost” on substance, not just style, although the latter brought the most comments.  He did look listless and almost, I’d say, aloof.  As I write this on Sunday, October 14, here is a prediction:  Look for Mr. Obama at Tuesday’s debate (town hall format) to come on like gangbusters, double down on the VP's disgraceful performance in terms of hostility and discourtesy, and further erode his standing with all-important independents (now at 55-45 deficit.) 

In terms of polls, states are slowly turning "pink."  FL, VA and NC have moved from toss-up to "lean Romney."  PA, MI and MI are moving from the Democrat column to toss-up status.  CA moved 8 points toward Romney.  (Granted, he’s still down 22 points – hey, it’s LA-LA land – but that movement is nationwide.  

Bob Woodward on Fox News Sunday today said, 

     “Everyone has been kicking around this question, ‘Are you better off now than 4 yrs ago?’  But the question people want answered is ‘How are you going to make me better off in the next year, in the next 4 years?’  If you really look at the details, neither campaign has answered that sufficiently.”  

     That was a good point, but it’s the wrong question because I don’t think "the government can make me better off.”  If the government gets out of the way then businesses and individuals can do better on their own.  So the question should be, “How will your administration improve the business climate, ease regulations, and encourage businesses to hire."

Government can't create jobs, only businesses can do that, and they will do so when the economy expands so demand increases for a particular service/product of a respective business.  

Congressional Progressives vs. CP-USA

Congressman Allen West said he believed there were 78-81 members of the Communist Party in Congress by which he meant the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/04/allen-west-says-many-dems-in-congress-are-communists.html

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/04/allen-west-says-many-dems-in-congress-are-co

Here's proof.  Which of these are verbatim items from the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ platform and which are from the Communist Party USA’s platform?  Too hard to tell because they are virtually identical!

1. Uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all.
2. Provide a health care system that is comprehensive and free with guaranteed access to quality care whenever needed.
3. Preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.
4. Increase Social Security benefits and COLAs, expand housing programs for low-income seniors, provide social support for culture accessible to all, acknowledge the contributions that seniors have made and continue to make to society.
5. Preserve prudent public interest regulations that encourage sustainable growth and investment, ensure energy diversity and system reliability, protect workers and the environment, reward consumer conservation, and support an expanding marketplace that rewards the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies
6. Create a sustainable economy that takes priority over profits.
7. Ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.
8. Increase minimum wage.
9. Extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.
10. Demand people’s right to full participation in the decisions which affect their lives.
11. Bring U. S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible.
12. A two-state solution and an end to the occupation of the Palestinian Arab lands.
13. Re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation’s constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
14. Foreign policy will be based on mutual respect, peace, and solidarity.
15. Enhance international cooperation to reduce the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.
16. U.S. policies threaten not only world peace but increasingly threaten the very existence of humanity. The most egregious examples are the U.S. imperialist invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
17. Increase efforts to combat hunger and the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
18. Recognize that the internationalization of economic and social life means that social problems anywhere in the world impact all countries, including the richest ones
19. The U.S. Constitution, as originally written, placed many restrictions on democracy, so from the time of the country’s founding there has been a continual battle to extend democracy -- from demanding that the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution to legal battles to ensure that all people have inalienable rights, from eliminating property requirements for voting to outlawing poll taxes, from not only freeing the slaves but enrolling them as voters to extending the franchise to women, from the Voting Rights Act to lowering the voting age.
20. Invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America’s schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.
21. Sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.
22. Export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.
23. Reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.
24. Protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.
25. Fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.
26. Ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.
27. Eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.
28. Honor and help our overburdened international public servants – both military and civilian.
29. Encourage debt relief for poor countries and support efforts to reach the UN’s Millennium Goals for Developing Countries.
30. Free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation’s security.
31. Promote environmental justice in affirmation that all people have an inherent right to a healthy environment, clean air, and clean water wherever we live, work, and relax.
32. Change incentives in federal tax, procurement, and appropriation policies to:
33. Speed commercialization of solar, biomass, and wind power generation, while encouraging state and local policy innovation to link clean energy and job creation;
34. Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles, enhance global competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, and expand consumer choice;
35. Increase investment in construction of “green buildings” and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces;
36. Link higher energy efficiency standards in appliances to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in U.S. factories;
37. Eliminate environmental threat posed by global warming and ensuring that America does our part to advance an effective global problem-solving approach.
38. Expand energy-efficient transportation choices by increasing investment in synthesized networks, including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

Which political party has historically supported civil rights and liberty?

Here's an image I posted on FB, 'shared' from the RepublicanRevolution's page:

Many Americans think of the Republican Party as bigoted and racist -- an image foisted on the public, I believe, by the media.  For its own agenda.  To make the Democrat Party look good in comparison. Or whatever reason.  But media bias is not the point.  Rather, I'd like provide some FACTUAL and historical basis as to why the GOP is the party of civil rights and equality, while the Democrat Party is the one of bigotry and racism.

First, here is a comment on the above post from my nephew, a law school graduate and soon-to-be licensed lawyer:

[quote]  

Strum Thurman [sic] filibustered the civil rights act.  Are you telling me he was a democrat?  LBJ passed the civil rights act.  Was he a republican?  Upon passing the civil rights act, LBJ confessed he had just lost the south for the democrats for the next 40 years... It might be longer.

Let's go through this list...

‎1. Democrats; 2. No clue, but I'll believe democrats; 3. Ditto; 4. Republicans: Strum Thurman was a democrat until 1964, when he switched to republican, LBJ passed the legislation, I'm chalking this up to republican; 5. democrats I guess; 6. both parties, what was Wallace?; 7. Both world wars were under democrats and Vietnam under LBJ, which Nixon escalated, gulf war=bush, Iraq and afghan war=bush, democrats win again.
I guess Obama is responsible for all of this? 

[unquote]

My reaction:  Wow, don’t they teach ANYTHING in colleges or even law schools these days?? 

It's sad when the shortcomings of our public education system are so obvious when brought to light.  It's not my nephew's fault; he was fed a pile of mush.  For that matter, I wasn’t taught most of this either but had to learn it on my own. 

To begin with, “Dixiecrats” were a remnant of the segregationist Southern bloc of the Democrat Party, going back to the Reconstruction Era, and they were indeed racist -- an anachronism by the 1960s.  Yes, the following were ALL racist Democrats:  Strom Thurmond (Sen., SC), John Stennis (Gov., Miss.), George Wallace (Gov., Ga.), Eugene “Bull” Connor (Birmingham Ala., police commissioner) and Orval Faubus  (Gov., Ark.)  Most won’t know that last name: He was governor during the 1957 Little Rock High School integration crisis – when he threatened to use the state’s National Guard to block  9 black students from entering the all-white school.  President Eisenhower (a Republican you know) nationalized the Arkansas Guard so Faubus couldn’t order them into place.  Read up on Gov. Faubus – he was a piece of work.

Other factoids:

• The last acknowledged (past) member of the KKK in the Senate?  Robert Byrd, a Democrat.
• Who segregated the federal civil service?  (After it was integrated under Grant, a Republican.)  Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
• Who integrated the armed services again?  Eisenhower, as supreme commander of European forces, later of course a Republican president.
• What started the Civil War?  The election of Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform.  Seven states seceded between Election Day in 1860 and Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861.  The South knew its days as a slave-holding civilization was doomed if they stayed in the Union. 
• The “Jim Crow laws” were created by Southern Democrats to keep the former slaves “in their place.”  Reconstruction exacerbated the split between the GOP and Democrats over the freed slaves. 
• Every black elected to Congress from the southern states from 1865-1880 was a Republican.
• The Constitutional Amendments proposed immediately after the Civil War (the 14^th 15^th and 16^th) were passed and ratified by GOP legislatures.
• The NAACP was formed in 1909 by a group of whites and one black to fight the Jim Crow laws passed and protected by Democrats. In 1913, the NAACP organized opposition to President Wilson (remember, a Democrat) as he introduced racial segregation into federal government policy and hiring.   

One of my heroes is Frederick Douglass, esp. after reading his Narrative (his first autobiographical work.)  After escaping slavery, he was first something of an anarchist – calling for the dissolution of the Republic rather than letting slavery exist -- from the time he arrived in the Northern states until he read the US Constitution for himself about 1850 and found it to be an ANTI-slavery document.  Thereafter he declared himself to be a Republican and eventually became friends with Lincoln.

The Republican Party was formed from the remnants of the Whig Party and a rising anti-slavery movement in the Northern states during the 1850s.  Lincoln was the VP candidate to John Fremont’s candidacy on the first Republican presidential ticket in 1856.  Democrat James Buchanan won in a three-way race, but the Lincoln-Hamlin GOP ticket won in 1860.  (Andrew Johnson was the VP in 1864.  As a Democrat president -- Lincoln chose him as VP to try to placate southerners -- Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which led in part to his impeachment.

It is not generally known there were SEVERAL “Civil Rights Acts” after WW2.  The least known was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, supported by President Eisenhower and the Republicans in Congress.  It passed easily in the House (80% of GOP voted for; 40% of Dems voted against.)  In the other chamber, however, the Senate Majority Leader deliberately sent the bill to the Judiciary Committee where his friend, a Southern Dixiecrat from Mississippi named James Eastland, rewrote it beyond recognition, effectively watering it down.  Oh, and the Senate Majority Leader’s name?  Lyndon Johnson.  After LBJ became president and the CRA of 1964 was coming to a vote, he did not stand in the way but instead signed it.  The Senate Leader by then was Mike Mansfield (D-MT) who was decidedly more moderate and less bombastic than the showboating Johnson, and much less racist as well.  Mansfield manuevered around the obstructionist Sen. Eastland, who was still chairman of the Judiciary Committee. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in the House by a vote of 270-97.  The split by party was 80% of GOP voted for, while about 40% of Dems voted against.  The “myth” that the several Civil Rights Acts were opposed by the GOP is scurrilous.  The overall record shows that since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.  In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes.  By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. 

Interestingly, the Democrat Party has encouraged the myth that it is the party that consistently supported civil rights in every case.  Not so at all.  See: http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/.  Rather, the Dems are “Johnnies-come-lately” to the civil rights arena.  As an example, the Nineteenth Amendment (women’s suffrage) was supported largely by Republicans.  NONE of the southern states (those in the defeated Confederacy) approved the amendment until after it was ratified by the requisite 38 states.

Strom Thurmond is an interesting case.  He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a Democrat.  He was angered by Democrat senators compromising to pass the bill (the vote was 60-15 – many abstained) and he then switched parties.  You might say he was "conservative" because he favored “states’ rights.”  Unfortunately, that term has forever been linked to segregation.  Many of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the GOP but instead formed their own caucus, walking out from the 1948 Democrat National Convention when a civil rights plank was added to the platform, to the credit of Hubert Humphrey.  Thurmond was selected as presidential candidate of the “States’ Rights Democrat Party” in 1948 election.  (Part of their platform was “We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totalitarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominiously defeating Harry S Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.”  Wow, and they say today’s TEA Party is extreme!)  The break-away Dixiecrats later returned to the Democrat party.

[As an aside here, it always rankles Dems when someone points out that environmental protection has long been part of the GOP’s platform, starting with Teddy Roosevelt’s proposals to protect the great Western forests and natural wonders through a National Park system, and continuing to Richard Nixon’s establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Hey, “conservation” is part of “conservatism”!]

[Another aside, regarding which party's presidents took the nation into war the most often.  They were Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy for the Dems.  George H W Bush  and George W Bush involved the US in Iraqi wars with the approval of the Senate.  There is were the latest foray into Libya and that would be a Democrat again.]

All of the above is fact.  In summary, the Republicans have been a protector of civil rights; the Democrats historically opposed statutory protections.  Somehow, the perception of those roles was reversed and it occurred about 1964, which was the real awakening on civil rights and the initial roll-out of LBJ’s “Great Society.”  For whatever reason, call it laziness on the part of the GOP or the unfair demonization of Barry Goldwater about that time, the Dems under HHH, LBJ, JFK and RFK grabbed the high ground on civil rights.  The Democrat-held House and Senate of the 60s also pushed through massive largess to the poor in the form of welfare, food stamps and Medicaid.  Heck, even I was leaning Democrat from 1960, when my 5^th grade class wanted JFK to beat Nixon, until 1976 when I voted for Carter.  (Yes, it’s true: I was suckered by a politician who offered 'hope and change' – 36 years ago!)

My theory on how the Democrat Party became champions of the black and Hispanic voters -- and thereby won a large majority of their votes -- came about through those Great Society programs.  The votes were basically ‘bought.’  Pretty simple, but the simplest explanations are usually the right ones.

The Democrat Party has been the party where voters just feel it’s on the right side of issues; there’s no rationale behind it.  Three prime examples:

1. Everyone “needs” medical care so let’s have the government provide it and everyone will pay into the system, and voila the nation is healthier! 
       That couldn’t be farther from the truth.  The nation will be poorer, certainly, but healthier?  Not possible.  Spending more money isn’t the answer because prices will certainly rise as patients ignore the costs since the government is footing the bill, OR prices will be clamped down -- as is currently happening -- and physicians will decline to cover those under the government's plan, resulting in rationed care in order to treat as many critically-ill patients as possible.  Those on the plan will have  long waits to see a doctor, if they can find one.
2. Everyone “needs” an education to succeed, so the government should finance college for anyone who wants it! 
       Two problems with this:  No, everyone does not need an education to succeed – people succeed in different areas, which could be as an air conditioning technician or truck driver.  Hey, we need plumbers in addition to lawyers and doctors!  Secondly, there is no cost containment when the government just funds whatever the private market demands, in this case universities.  The price of a college semester has skyrocketed, just as the federal government assumed funding of ALL college loans.  It's not a coincidence.
3. Collective bargaining is a right of every worker so therefore all government workers should be organized and represented by unions! 
       This is a path to ruin where one side of the ‘bargaining’ is management -- also known as “politicians” – whose campaigns for reelection are funded by the very same unions who sit across the table!  There is a serious conflict of interest right off the top.  The voter is hardly represented in the ‘bargaining.’  Even that great liberal FDR wanted federal employees barred from organizing.

The tide is turning as more people find out the Liberal mantra of “more, give us more” is costing too much.  The poverty level has not budged in a span of 50 years under a Great Society of high taxes and high spending.  The poor have remained poor.  Schools have not prospered or succeeded under a wash of money.  As an example, the Washington DC school district is one of the highest spending per student districts and has one of the lowest graduation rates.  Where does the money go and how come it isn’t being converted to educational success?  Most will say more money isn't the answer to the question of how to improve schools.  The real answer lies in innovation, school choice and recognizing and rewarding good teachers.

In general, the answer to EVERY problem isn’t "more government."  The answer will usually be "more individual responsibility," both to build your own success and to help others where there is a need.  The Federal Government should do what it does best, such as coin money, provide defense and roads, operate national postal and judicial systems, and protect our freedoms.  It should leave education, health care and poverty programs to state and local governments and agencies.  Those will in turn relegate or defer to local agencies and organizations.  We will get along just fine looking after ourselves and each other in our communities.  Thanks, Congress, but no thanks.

So finally, Dear Reader, after all that, if anything above doesn’t ring true then please research it for yourself.  Never take anyone’s word on anything.  Could professors have been incorrect on at least one or two points?  Did the student check out what they said to verify most of it?  My opinion is the universities today are turning out graduates who think just like their liberal professors -- not altogether a good thing. 
Some “food for thought.”

And no one said “Obama is responsible for all of this.”  No one blames the current administration for creating the current situation.  He didn't improve things much or bring together all Americans as we'd hoped. 

At this point, people should be thinking for themselves -- at least some of the time.

JDE

How to tell you might be a Republican

(With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

If you think our Rights come from Nature and Nature's God and not from government, or else government could also take them away ... you might be a Republican.

If you think when government overspends and borrows to cover the deficits, it burdens our children with debt ... you might be a Republican.

If you think too much government is the problem not the solution ... you might be a Republican.

If you think your family could make better decisions about your health care than a centralized bureaucracy in Washington ... you might be a Republican.

If you think local school boards can make better decisions about your children's education than a central government in Washington ... you might be a Republican.

If you think government has no role in bailing out companies "too big to fail" ... you might be a Republican.

If you think it's better for our enemies to fear us than to like us ... you might be a Republican.

If you think it's better for our allies to have confidence in us rather than to disrespect us ... you might be a Republican.

If you think government "stimulus" only serves to stimulate government ... you might be a Republican.

If you think a Congress that does not even consider or pass a budget should be regarded as a failure ... you might be a Republican.

If you think politicians often make promises they can't keep ... you might be a Republican.

If you think politicians work for us, and we do not work for the government ... you might be a Republican.

If you think it's possible for there to be too much government regulation and red tape ... you might be a Republican.

If you think taxing some people and giving money to others can be overdone and end up debilitating the beneficiaries ... you might be a Republican.

If you think government should give a hand UP but not a hand OUT ... you might be a Republican.

Finally, if you think a politician should be FIRED when his policies and programs FAIL ...
                   then you, too, might actually be a (gasp) Republican.

The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution -- Are we being faithful to our Founding Fathers?

Whether a person is Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Radical, whatever, there has to be some common ground in America linking us all as one Nation. That would be embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Either you believe in what our Founding Fathers dedicated their lives to, or you don't. On the other hand, the signers of those two documents didn't agree among themselves on many things. But they did put their differences aside to come together on certain principles.

No matter your political bent, there are some basic questions that have to be asked. Where do you stand on these issues today?

1. Do you think the US Constitution (with all of the Amendments) means what it says and it should be followed to the letter? Or, should it be just a guide and treated as no more or less than whatever we (the courts) think it means? Some consider the Constitution to be an ‘evolving’ document that the courts can interpret and mold to modern thinking. (The Founding Fathers were all just a bunch of rich, old, white men living in the 18th century. They couldn’t possibly have known what the 21st century would look like, so the Constitution must be way out-of-date, don’t you know.)

2. Is it OK for the Federal government to usurp the powers reserved for the States by the Constitution? Does the 10th Amendment mean anything today?

3. Does the “commerce clause” of the Constitution (Congress has the power to “make regular” interstate commerce) give the Federal government the right to regulate all commerce in the US, of whatever origin & destination? That is, if there is commerce which does not leave the boundaries of a state, can the Federal government regulate it? (There is a not-so-famous case in 1942 about a farmer who grew wheat for his own consumption. The US claimed the right to regulate it. And won.)

4. Is it OK for the Federal government to take 70% of the assets from a certain group of people and give it to another group? Doesn’t the Fifth Amendment prohibit taking of property without due process? There’s been no due process in the GM case. The deal brokered by the Obama administration awarded 30 cents on the dollar to the bondholders (supposedly the first in line to be satisfied in any bankruptcy case) but awarded a 55% equity stake in the ‘new’ GM Company to the labor unions. (Of course, the US taxpayers “invested” $19 billion in GM but the Treasury recovered none of that money, which I’m not even counting.) Was the 5th Amendment violated?

5. If the Federal government doesn’t ‘own’ GM, then what do these mean?
a) Obama fired the CEO of GM.
b) The ‘car czar’ is dictating the number and type of autos to be built.
c) It was reported the office of the President ordered a change in Chrysler’s advertising budget.
d) Dealerships were selected for closing by some arbitrary criteria (never explained to the dealers) and in one instance a dealer met with a congressional representative and was reinstated as a surviving dealer.

So, is it OK for the Federal government to be in the auto manufacture business?

6. Was it OK for Congress to pass the TARP Act and for Paulson and Geithner (Treasury Secretaries) to issue all of the bailouts? It started with Secretary Paulson under Bush proposing to buy toxic assets, which I opposed, and it ended up with the United States buying stock in bank corporations, which I vehemently opposed. Isn’t that corporate ownership by the government? In some instances, banks were strong-armed into taking the money and turning over stock shares. The Federal government owns 40% of Citigroup and soon the Treasury Secretary or the President can dictate it do whatever. It’s just a big piggy bank to disperse money -- a “slush fund.”
On the other hand, some of the TARP money is being paid back by the banks, but Sec retary Geithner said he is going to keep it for later disbursements, and not return it to the General Fund to pay off the national debt, which is what the statute required. Another “slush fund”?

7. Were you OK with the “stimulus bill”? Were you OK with no one even reading the 1000-page bill before it passed? How can that be called prudent governance? What happened to transparency and accountability, which were supposed to be hallmarks of this administration?

8. Is it OK that 75% of the stimulus bill won’t be spent this year? What was the bill all about, anyway? I haven’t figured that one out.
I saw a list of projects supposedly submitted by my city – it was a joke to call them “shovel ready.” We don’t even have an idea of what most of them should be. One line item I remember was “Delaware Creek Channel Improvement Project” for $7 million. (Not the River of the same name over near New Jersey – we have our own small facsimile, thank you.) There are no plans today to spend anywhere close to $7 million!
My conclusion was someone put together a whole bunch of projects from cities all over the country -- through the National Conference of Mayors, or something. I think it ended up being just a wish list of things the cities would try to do if a ton of money was thrown at them, and then Congress totaled it all up and it was $787 billion. My city alone is $1.2 billion. But if the haphazard way of coming up with that number was repeated all across the country, then calling it a “stimulus bill” is way off the mark. There’s no way even most of the money can be spent anytime soon.

And now the 'cap and trade' and 'health care reform' bills are winding through Congress. This is all about power and increasing the reach of the Federal government. It seems all wrong to me.