The Federalist Coalition: Justin Stapley-‘The Cultural War and Federalism’

Source:Medium- "“Why America should return to federalism”

Source:The New Democrat

“Federalism is one of the few political mechanisms that benefits everyone. All sides of the political divide should be wary of allowing it to become a casualty in the ever-escalating culture war.

The system of federalism created by the Constitution of the United States formed a union of sovereign states. While modern Americans do not generally think of themselves in terms of state identity and citizenship as much as their ancestors did, our laws still maintain a Republic of individual states. Because of this, each state has been allowed to craft much of their own laws, establish and maintain their own customs, and enrich and grow their own unique cultures. There is likely nowhere else in the world where such different political realities and cultural norms could be experienced while remaining within the same country.

Contrary to what many of the more abrasive elements of the left and right might declare, the almost radically different state-to-state realities is a good thing. Political, cultural, and religious pluralism is what creates the free market of ideas. We are fortunate to live under a government system that not only encourages as much local autonomy and freedom as possible but stubbornly protects it. Despite these apparent strengths of diversity under a federalist system, fewer and fewer American citizens seem to see things this way.”

Read the rest at:The Federalist Coalition: Justin Stapley- 'Culture War and Federalism'

From Wikipedia

“Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or ‘federal’ government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.”

As a Liberal and as a pragmatist, I’m going to give you both my argument for federalism and why I’m a Federalist and my philosophical view of why I believe in federalism as opposed to some type of Unitarian state where governmental power is centralized with the national government. And then let you weigh in on what you think of both of my perspectives here.

In a time where you have a country that’s so divided not just politically, ideologically, culturally, and now unfortunately as if those factors aren’t bad enough we now have a country that is divided religiously, ethnically, and even racially now is the best time to be a Federalist and support the Federal Republic in America, if for no other reason you don’t want the country to ever officially divide up again and fight another civil war between Confederates and Unionists. So that’s the first part of my practical argument for being a Federalist.

The second part of my practical argument for being a Federalist and for federalism goes back to my first part: since we’re so divided as a country for all the reasons that I just explained and can’t even agree anymore on what’s new and what’s opinion, since we all get our news and commentary from different media sources depending on what political faction we’re part of, we don’t whether we’re on the Right, Left, or somewhere in between want a national, centralized government telling us how we should live and govern ourselves. How we should protect our streets, educated our kids, mange our welfare systems, decide for us what personal activities should be illegal or legal, etc. And instead let the states make the decisions for themselves based on their own cultural and political values, as well as the U.S. Constitution.

The first part of my philosophical argument for being a Federalist, goes to me being a Liberal and believing in liberal democracy: as a Liberal you’re supposed to not be against power and always oppose it, but you always question it and always hold it accountable. The old cliche power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: and the more you centralize especially governmental power and the people who control our law enforcement, military, and corrections system, the harder it is to hold that power accountable and to question it.

The second part of my philosophical argument of why I’m a Federalist, is also somewhat practical, because in a gigantic country like America that’s located in between two of the largest oceans in the world and goes three-thousand miles long and roughly two-thousand miles wide, ( and that’s just the Continental United States ) that also has 320 million people in it, you don’t want a central governmental authority in Washington or anywhere else in the country telling Milwaukee, Dallas, Seattle, or Los Angeles, or any other city far and way from Washington telling them how they should protect their streets, educate their kids, manage their welfare systems, etc, since the national government could never know the conditions on the ground as well as the people in those communities themselves. Since the people on the ground know their own communities the best.

Not saying that I don’t believe in having a national government: a big part of the Federal Republic is a Federal Government, but it should be limited to doing only the things that you need a Federal Government for: like national defense, interstate law enforcement, regulation of interstate commerce, enforcing the constitutional rights for all Americans equally, financial assistance for low-income communities. And leave the state issues to the states, just as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution and no one’s constitutional rights are being violated.

“A political primer that was originally created 10 years ago and put away because it seemed the Red State – Blue State divide might be a fading cliche. But here we are….”

Source:Don Wells: 'Red State Culture War Primer'- Red vs blue?

Federalists vs. Unitarians: The Great Debate About The Role of Government

Source:Slide Player- Our first Federalists. 

From Wikipedia

“Would I Be a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist”

Source:Scott Bradley- question for Scott Bradley.

From Scott Bradley

"Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.[2]

Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[3] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation,[4] bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[5]

Source:CIMS Cougars- Our first Federalists 

Leading examples of the federation or federal state include India, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Argentina, and Australia. Some also today characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the federal union of states."

Federalism, is a big part of my own personal politics and how I describe myself politically. I just go with Liberal or a Liberal Democrat as someone who believes in liberal democracy, ( not the Democratic Party, necessarily ) but someone who believes in individual rights, limited government, separation of powers, decentralization of authority, equal rights and justice: the values that comes from a liberal democracy. I like the term Liberal-Federalist as someone who believes in liberal democracy, as well as the three levels of government: Federal, state and local, but who also believes in liberal democracy and again the individual and equal rights that comes from a liberal democratic federal republic.

From Wikipedia

"A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme. The central government may create (or abolish) administrative divisions (sub-national units).[1] Such units exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail (or expand) their powers. A large majority of the world's states (165 of the 193 UN member states) have a unitary system of government.[2]

Unitary states stand in contrast with federations, also known as federal states. In federations, the sub-national governments share powers with the central government as equal actors through a written constitution, to which the consent of both is required to make amendments. This means that the sub-national units have a right of existence and powers that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government.[3]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a degree of autonomous devolved power, but such power is delegated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which may enact laws unilaterally altering or abolishing devolution (England does not have any devolved power).[4] Many unitary states have no areas possessing a degree of autonomy.[5] In such countries, sub-national regions cannot decide their own laws. Examples are Romania, the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway."

A Unitarian state or Unitarianism ( not the religion, but governmental philosophy ) is the opposite of the federal republic. In a Unitarian government governmental power and in some cases like in a Communist state or Theocratic state, most power governmental and otherwise is centralized with the national government. And in some cases you might have a Unitarian state where you have state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, but where the head of state appoints the people to run the state and local government's.

The Russian Federation today which under their own Constitution is supposed to be a federal republic, but under the Putin Administration they now operate as a Unitarian authoritarian state where President Vladimir Putin is responsible for appointing the governor's of their republics, ( what Russia calls states ) instead of allowing the people in those republics to elect their own leaders. And every Communist state that you will be set up where the national government has most of the power and appoints the people to run the state and local government's, The People's Republic of China, is a perfect example of that.

But a Unitarian state isn't necessarily an authoritarian government. There are social democratic, as well as authoritarian Unitarian states around the world. The United Kingdom, which is one of the great democracies, as well as social democracies in the world is a Unitarian state. In recent years they've delegated more authority to their what we would call state government's. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Kingdom of Sweden, which is also a great social democracy is a Unitarian state. The same thing with the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and I could go on. See, like with Federalists and federalism where you don't have to be a Liberal or Conservative to believe in it, you don't have to be an authoritarian or democrat to believe in Unitarianism. You don't have to be Left or right either. It's just about what type of government you believe in and what's the role of the national government in your country that you want for it.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

The Millennial Federalist: Federalist Coalition- An Awakening of Federalism

Source: United Project-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

If you want to know why the United States is a Federal Republic and you’re now an adult, well you missed that opportunity in high school during your social studies class. Perhaps you were too busy texting your classmate who sat right next to you to bother to take and learn social studies. If you’re currently in high school or about to enter high school, I’ll explain why we have a Federal Republic  and very limited government. At least compared with the social democracies, theocratic and military dictatorships around the world.

If you think Uncle Sam is too greedy and paternalistic and takes too much of your money and personal decision-making away from you, join the club. You might have to join a waiting list and have a better chance of winning multiple state lotteries on the same day than being able to join this club anytime soon, because it has somewhere around 200 hundred-million members, not including the Socialists who complain everyday about not being taxed enough and going crazy about all the personal and economic decisions that they have to make every day, As well as the Christian-Theocrats and Christian-Nationalists in America who complain that America is too decentralized and because of that states and localities get to make decisions everyday that violates their religious and moral values.

But if you think Uncle Sam is too greedy and too fat, I’ll introduce to King George from the United Kingdom of Britain. Who was so fat because of all the money he took from the American Colonies that he would make Paris Hilton look like a foodaholic today. To be completely serious for a moment and perhaps even multiple moments, the reason why America is a Federal Republic, is because the men who would become our Founding Fathers Englishmen who escaped mainland Britain to come to what would become America later on, were tired of London telling them what to do and taking most of their money from them. Two-hundred and forty-one years later Britain is till a unitarian government where most of the governmental power in a country of almost sixty-five million people resides in London.

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals actually) wanted to break away from that unitarianism form of government. And create a country where the power would be decentralized. Where yes, their would be a Federal Government primarily responsible for national security, foreign policy, interstate law enforcement, interstate commerce, interstate transportation. But where the states could take care of the issues and make policies that affect their people in their states. Where localities could do the same thing. Where you wouldn’t have Washington with some Federal Superintendent of Education, telling Milwaukee, Boston, and other cities how to educate their kids. How to police their streets, how to regulate their local business’s , and other examples.

In a huge vast country of three-hundred and twenty-million people (get your brain wrapped around that number for a moment) a Federal Republic and federalism are the only way you could be able to keep a country this huge and diverse, with all of our racial, ethnic, cultural, and political diversity, together. Otherwise California, Florida, Texas, New York, perhaps all the states in New England together, would break away from Washington and form their own independent countries. Because Uncle Sam can’t mind his own damn business and is too greedy and paternalistic telling states and localities in many cases thousands of miles away, six-thousand or so in the case of Hawaii. We have a Federal Republic and are not a unitarian social democracy, or a religious theocracy, in order to keep the country together. And come together when its in our national interest.

Source: Crash Course John Green: The Constitution, The Articles & Federalism

Foreign Policy: Opinion- Daren Acemoglu & Simon Johnson- It's Time To Found a New Republic

Source: Foreign Policy Magazine-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I read this article called It’s Time To Found a New Republic from Daren Acemoglu and Simon Johnson over at Foreign Policy Magazine. And it wasn’t just the title of the article that caught my attention. It’s Time To Found a New Republic, if they spent more time on the title maybe they would’ve called It’s Time For a New Republic, Time To Create a New Republic, The New American Republic. When something is found you don’t need to fine it, because it’s already there.

But getting pass the wording of the title of their piece most of their article was about American history and the progressive movement. Starting with the Progressive Era of the early 1900s and going up to the New Deal of the 1930s and the creation of the our national infrastructure system of the 1950s. And then towards the end they were had some policy proposals.

Ranging from a national basic income, which I disagree with, to ending partisan, racial, and ethnic gerrymandering which I’m in favor of. When I saw the title of their piece I’m, thinking maybe they were talking about creating a new form of American government. That the problem with American society (as they might see it) is the structure of our government all together. Perhaps they don’t like our Federal system based on limited government and would propose replacing that with a unitarian style of government that you see a lot of in Europe. Where most of the governmental power in the country is based with the national government. Instead of spread out between the national, state, and local government’s.

Just to comment on Daren Acemoglu’s and Simon Johnson’s economic proposals. I don’t believe the problem of income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with our government structure and how power and responsibility is spread out. Not that they were arguing that either necessarily. But it has to do with the skills gap and opportunity gaps in the American economy.

If you live in rural America and grow there, or you’re raised in a rough part of an inner city your chances of doing well in America are far lesser than if you come from a middle class neighborhood in a city or from the suburbs. Also if you have parents or even one parent who are doing well in life, not necessarily rich but doing well enough for you to be raised right and have you what you need to do well growing up, your chances of doing well in America are much better if you come from a low-income family in a low-income neighborhood, where your parent or parents are just struggling to survive.

So you want to reduce income inequality (again, if you want to call it that) you have to reduce the inequality that’s part of our education system and have an education system where more Americans can simply get a good education. Regardless of where they live and where they grow up and who their parents are. And of course regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Which should go without saying anyway.

As well as having an adult educational system in this country where low-income adults whether they’re currently working or not, can advance in the American economy by finishing and furthering their education and getting themselves a good job that leads them to economic independence.

As well as having that system available for workers who already have a solid education. High school diploma plus some vocational training and perhaps a college degree, but now find themselves working in a field where those jobs are disappearing or where they’re no longer able to make the money that allows for them to live comfortably. And allow for them to further their education perhaps even in a new field for them.

The problem with the American economy has nothing to do with our form of government. Or our Federal Government is too small, our state and local government’s, have too much responsibility, or middle class Americans are undertaxed and have to much personal and economic freedom and have to make too many decisions on their own.

The problem with the American economy and why we have income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with education and skills. We need to move pass the idea that schools should be funded based on the property values of the people who live in those communities . Which has to do with property taxes. And sending kids to school based on where they live, instead of what’s the best school for them.

And get pass the idea that if you start at a low-wage low-skilled job because you’re low-skilled, that you’re stuck working jobs like that indefinitely. Because you can’t afford to go back to school or simply don’t have the time for it, because you’re working multiple low-wage jobs just to try to survive.

You close the skills and education gaps in America, you reduce poverty, because you’ll not just have more Americans working as long as you have pro-growth economic policies in place that promote economic development and growth, but you’ll also have more Americans working good jobs. Which will also improve your long-term economic and financial outlook of the country. Because you’ll have fewer Americans on public assistance.

Source: RCO 64

RCO 64: The American Form of Government

The New York Times: Andrew P. Kelly 'The Problem Is That Free College Isn't Free'

Source:The New York Times- what free college?

“Free public college” is a great political talking point, but it is flawed policy.

First, free college isn’t free, it simply shifts costs from students to taxpayers and caps tuition at zero. That tuition cap limits college spending to whatever the public is willing to invest. But it does not change the cost of college, or what institutions actually spend per student. If the past is any guide, that cost will continue to grow, and an influx of federal money may lead profligate administrators to spend even more. Enrollments will also increase, further multiplying the cost of free college."

From The New York Times 

"Should College Be Free?" 

From Now This World

I believe the main problem with many of these political debates has to do with language and how things are described. Whether it’s called free health care, free health insurance, free education, free college, free anything else that could be viewed as a positive thing that people should at least want to have. 

The fact is none of these things are free for everyone if they’re provided by government. Because who funds government? Of course the taxpayers and anyone who pays taxes. You even now have Democratic Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders saying tuition-free college when he talks about his college plan. Because he knows he’ll have to have new taxes in order to pay for his so-called free college plan.

Just replace the word free with affordable and apply affordable to every new service that you want government to provide for people and now you’ll be telling the truth when speaking to voters. Instead of giving voters impressions that you would be giving them all of this free government stuff, you’ll be treating them like adults and taxpayers. 

The better way is to tell taxpayers that they would have a better deal for them (with deal being the key word) because better of course would be debatable, because it would depend on the plan. And then tell them how you would pay for whatever you want to provide for them. 

Democratic Socialists like Bernie, Jill Stein and whoever else, would earn credibility with Joe and Jane Average taxpayer who are already paying a lot in taxes who know the government services that they’re currently receiving aren’t free.

So of course Bernie Sanders so-called tuition-free college funding plan, sure as hell won’t be free. At least not for anyone who pays taxes including payroll taxes. Bernie will say he’ll tax corporations and rich people to pay for his plan. But then those business’s will raise the costs of their customers, because they don’t want to see their cost of business to go up. 

Rich individuals will take their business and investments somewhere else where taxes aren’t as high. And Bernie might come back with passing some new law that outlaws business’s from raising their prices to cover their tuition-free college costs. But again those business’s will just take their business somewhere else where their cost of business isn’t as high. 

Every service anywhere that comes with a cost in creating that service also comes with a cost in providing that service to their customers. Why would government be any different? 

You can also see this post at The FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Washington Examiner: Michael Barone: Why Government Isn't Working and How to Make it Work Better

by Rik Schneider

Washington Examiner: Opinion: Michael Barone: Why Government Isn't Working and How to Make it Work Better 

To put it simply government doesn’t work very well when it tries to do too much, or doesn’t do things that it shouldn’t be doing. There I said it and have made that clear. So there’s no reason to go on with this post. Well not exactly because there’s good government which to me at least is limited to only doing the things that we need it to do. There’s bad government which to me at least is government that tries to do too much. Which is what big government is all about. But then there’s another form of bad government that I call small government which is government that doesn’t do enough. Like addressing the crumbling infrastructure in the country which would be a perfect example.

Good examples of bad government from a big government point of view is government doing too much. Like trying to manager our economic or personal lives for us. Like taxing us to the point that we aren’t able to make current or future economic decisions for ourselves. Like when it comes to retirement which is what I’ve seen from the far-left in America to nationalize the retirement system in the country and make Social Security the sole provider of retirement income. Or taxing us to the point to pay for so many public services that we aren’t able to make those decisions for us.

Or big government telling us what we can eat or drink, or what we can watch on TV or what music we can listen to. Or who we can sleep with or who can marry or what we can smoke. Government will never be perfect anywhere in the world, but it works best when it is confined to doing the things that we need it to do. Leaving the people with the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs for themselves and leaving them with the consequences and responsibilities of their own decisions.

With government there to protect us from predators foreign or domestic, finance our infrastructure, see that everyone can get themselves a good education, help people in need get themselves on their feet. But not trying to manage the people for themselves and make decisions for them that they can make for themselves. 

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: In Defense of the Vice Presidency

In Defense of the Vice Presidency « Commentary Magazinecommentarymagazine.com

Its rare that I agree with anything written from Commentary Magazine other than their takes on the state of the current Republican Party. But Jonathan S. Tobin makes great points in his article In Defense of the Vice Presidency. That the Vice Presidency is essentially insuring the idea of legitimate government when for whatever reasons the President can no longer full fill his responsibilities as President and must step down from the office.

That is really the main and perhaps only function of the Vice President. And whatever responsibilities is given by the President and how well the Vice President carries out those duties determines how well the function of being ready to be President is carried out. Which is critical for any presidential nominee to select someone who is not only qualified to be Vice President of the United States, but President of the United States as well. Just in case the Vice President has to step into the Presidency even in a short-term basis during the President’s term.

With a Vice President the American people know who they are getting if anything were to happen to the President. Because the Vice President is from the same party and in a lot of cases has similar political beliefs. And a good and active Vice President which is what we’ve had for the most part since Walter Mondale in the Carter Administration. And I would even add Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney to that list whatever you think of them personally and politically. Who both had major roles in their President’s administration and were ready to step into the Presidency if needed.

For me at least it is not a question if whether or not we should have a Vice President or not. But what exactly should be the Vice President’s duties besides representing the administration oversees and keeping a close eye on Congress to step in and be able to negotiate deals with them for the President. And because of the possibility that the Vice President may at some point become President before the President’s term is over you want the Vice President to have a major role in the administration.

For me that means having the Vice President as the 1st Officer of the Administration or Executive Branch. In on all and able to weigh in on all decisions that the President makes and having all of the access to information and reports that the President gets. And being in on all of the major presidential meetings. Being a member of all the key presidential councils so the Vice President has the intelligence, knowledge, and experience needed if and where they become President at some point during the President’s term.

Long are the days where the Vice President for the most part is a ceremonial role and just attending funerals and other functions outside of the Executive Branch. And presiding over the U.S. Senate even when a tie vote doesn’t occur as President of the U.S. Senate. Which is a good thing because for the Vice President to be useful to the country that person needs to know what is going on and able to help the President govern the country.

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: Who Killed Federalism?

(via Who Killed Federalism?) 

Federalism isn’t really dead at all even though there is a Far-Left faction in the Democratic Party and outside of the DP that would probably like to get rid of federalism all together and create a social democracy with unitarian form of government. And a faction in the Republican Party that would like to eliminate federalism as it relates to social issues like homosexuality and marijuana to use as examples. 

America is still a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy with fifty states. As well as all of the localities with big cities and big counties and smaller communities inside of these counties and states. Having a lot it not most of the responsibility as it relates to domestic policy. With the Federal Government serving as  supporter for the states, locals and people. And providing national standards on things that we should be doing as an entire country. Like making sure that special education is available to everyone that needs it. And that social insurances are there for the less-fortunate in society. Not be there to run these services and in a lot of cases the Feds do not. But there really for the most part to see that everyone who’s eligible for them receives them. And to provide the needed financing for them. 

As much as today’s so-called Progressives like to point to Europe especially as Scandinavia as the economic and governing model for how America should function because of our unique setup with the fifty states and unique diversity in a whole range of areas still function best when decision-making is made closest to the people it is supposed to serve. The only countries that have are similar to our size or bigger that have centralized power with the central government have been authoritarian states for the most part. Russia and China come to mind and that is not the direction where we want to go. 

A country with all of the diversity that we have in so many areas that has three-hundred and ten-million people that lays between two large oceans with fifty states in it functions best when we take advantage of all of our resources especially our human capital. And not centralize so much power with just one authority. 

The Washington Post: Robert J. Samuelson: The Debate That Wasn't

Source:The Washington Post

I agree with Robert Samuelson that Washington really hasn’t been debating the size of government. But avoiding tough decisions and when they find things they actually want to do that is both parties they either borrow the money to pay for it, or try to cut something they think not a lot of people would notice so they do not have to pay a political price for it. And the latest Farm Bill where they actually cut Food Assistance for millions of Americans who would go hungry without it is a perfect example of that. Instead of cutting subsidies to corporate farmers people who have money, they cut the people who do not have much of a voice in Washington and can’t hurt them politically.

The best way to reduce debt and deficits if that is your goal, is first to figure out what you need government to do and how much money it needs to do those things that can’t be done anywhere else, or done as well. Or perhaps done in other places, but you need the Federal Government to play a role there as well. And medical research from the NIH would be a perfect example of that. Right now in these so-called budget debates both sides are debating on the margins instead. Cut a little here, perhaps raise a little revenue like with the so-called fiscal cliff debate in late 2012. But neither party really has laid out a vision for the country at least when it comes to the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Even with the Tea Party in the Republican Party as much as they may bash Washington and big government they are the first to make sure no one cuts their Social Security and Medicare. And the first to get their share of whatever pork that is being offered for their states or districts. The so-called Paul Ryan plan from 2011 and 2012 doesn’t erase the budget deficit even by 2023. And most of the budget cuts in it are targeted towards people in poverty who again do not have the resources to complain. And that part of the budget is pretty small compared with the rest of the Federal budget. And leaves the current budget at about where it is right now as far as a percentage of Gross National Product. In the low twenties.

The only faction in Washington and in Congress that has a long-term vision for the size and scope of the Federal Government are the people with the least amount of power in Washington. The so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, but they seem to have a Federal program and tax increase for everything the country has to deal with. Including raising taxes by trillions of dollars to spend all that money on current Federal programs. And create new economic and social programs to generate economic and job growth not to pay down the debt or deficit. As part of what they call the People’s Budget.

If this was a real debate about the size and scope of the Federal Government, both the Democratic Leadership would have their plan and the Republican Leadership would have there’s. They would both be different and they would both be about limited government. Since neither party at least at the leadership levels are social democratic parties and are both mainstream parties on the Left and Right. At least at the top with factions further to the Left and Right on down their party. But they would both say we need an effective Federal Government with the resources to do what we need it to do. This is what we need it to do and this is how we would pay for it. And let the voters decide who has the better plan.