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. 

Economist's View: Daniel Little: Basic Social Institution's & Democratic Equality

The Opportunity Society that New Democrats started talking about in the late 1980s and early 1990s was also designed to counter the Reagan Revolution of the early 1980s. That made government especially big centralized government look like the problem and what was holding back freedom for millions of Americans. What the Opportunity Society says that government shouldn’t be seen or be the problem or the solution for Americans who struggle, or for Americans in general. But as one tool that can help people in need get the tools that they need to live in freedom and be able to take care of themselves.

But also the Opportunity Society is something where that all Americans again regardless of income level and how they start out in life have a quality of opportunity to succeed in life. Where universal quality education is available to all. Especially for Americans who are growing up in low-income communities. Or trying to raise their kids in those communities. Or simply trying to survive on their own in those low-income communities. And where quality universal education includes K-12, but also college, vocational and job training as well for everyone.

Again government shouldn’t be the source or the problem when it comes to quality of life in America. It should be a tool one tool especially when it comes to financing that Americans regardless of how they start out in life can take advantage of to obtain freedom for themselves. So they are taking care of themselves and not needing public assistance for their economic survival.

The Fiscal Times: Opinion-Edward Morrissey- The VA Scandal Exposes Single Payer Health Care Flaws

thefiscaltimes.comSource:

Source: The Fiscal Times-

Source:The Fiscal Times

In case there wasn’t already enough evidence that America will never have a Scandinavian or British style government run health care system that includes both health insurance and health care the scandal at the U.S. Veterans Administration and failing to provide our military veterans the health care that they deserve is the ‘smoking gun’. 

Monopolies public or private for-profit or non-profit which is what the VA health care system is a public non-profit health care system they do not work for the simple reason that their patients or customers do not have other options. So whether these services do a good job or not they are guaranteed of staying in business and continuing to operate regardless of the service that they perform. Which means they do not have the incentive that frankly most Americans need whether we work in the public or private sectors to do a good job. Because they know they’ll most likely always have a job working for that monopoly. Unless they are caught doing something so horrible that embarrasses the agency that they work for. 

But that is just one problem with the VA health care monopoly. The other one having to do with the fact that since they are the only game in town when it comes to veterans health care and since this country has essentially been at war since 2001 now they have a lot more customers or veterans they are simply responsible for. And because of that are probably overwhelmed with the services they have to provide. 

It seems to me at least to be basic commonsense to allow Americans who’ve risked their lives for their country and ours to simply have freedom of choice in where to get their health care. And both Congressional veterans health care reform bills provide at least some of that choice for where our veterans can get their health care in the future. The VA, or a public non-federal hospital, or get their health care from the private sector.
CBS News: This Morning-VA Hospital Scandal: Audit Finds 57K Waiting Three Months To See Doctor

AlterNet: Opinion- Robert Reich- "American Capitalism is in Crisis": Liberal Capitalism vs. Social Capitalism

alternet.orgSource:

Source:  AlterNet: Opinion- Robert Reich- American Capitalism vs Social Capitalism) 

There are a lot of so-called Progressives in America who are really are what would be called Social Democrats or Socialists in Canada or Europe that argue that “Canada and Europe does it better economically than America. So America should move to Canada or Europe”. That is transform our economic system that looks more Canadian or European becoming more socialist. With a large welfare or superstate there to take care of everyone regardless of income level. 

Well at risk of stating the obvious even if you get past the social and cultural differences between Americans and Europeans and Canadians what works in one country doesn’t automatically work in another country. If you get past the fact that Americans tend to be individualistic (not including our Progressives) and want the freedom to take care of ourselves. And that Canadians and Europeans tend to be collectivist and like big government taking care of them. Or the fact that total population of Canada and Scandinavia is roughly sixty-five-million people over six countries. And they all produce the natural resources of large countries and are all energy independent. And that America is a country of three-hundred and ten-million people and still imports oil and gas. The fact is Canada and Scandinavia can afford to be much more socialist because they have the resources to do so and the people who want it. 

Its not that American capitalism or what I call liberal capitalism doesn’t work. It is the fact that we’ve moved away from what works for us economically. Which is a strong education and infrastructure system and stopped investing in the things that work in education. And keep funding the things that do not work. Like forcing kids to go to school based on where they live instead of what is the best school for them. With the parents having the freedom to make that decision for them. Small energy independent countries can afford to be socialist especially if their people want that. But large countries that get a lot of energy resources from other countries have to rely on their people to take care of themselves. Which means they have to have the skills to be able to do that. And schools need to give them the opportunity to have that and have the resources to make that happen. With a modern solid infrastructure system that empower everyone to be able to get around the country in a safe and timely manner. 

There is no such thing as “free public services”. If government is providing services for the people than the taxpayers are paying for those services. So the question is how best for people to get the services that they need to live well. And for me that means having an educated country with the resources to take care of themselves and live in freedom. Which benefits everyone and keeps the cost of government down. 

 Reblog

Forbes: Opinion: George Leef: Its Liberalism Day. Time For Liberals to Take Back Liberalism

thenewdemocratus:

(via It’s Liberalism Day — Real Liberalism, Not The Phony, Authoritarian Kind - Forbes)

I agree that America needs a return to what I at least call real liberalism or probably what is more known as classical liberalism. And call people who are known as ‘modern liberals’ what they really are. Which are leftist collectivists or democratic statists even. People who believe in democracy and tend to be democratic, but where the central or federal state is a lot bigger so it can take care of people regardless of income level for them. Where we would really have a superstate or welfare state to manage a lot of the affairs of Americans. But not just as it relates to the economy, but also what we would be allowed to eat, drink and even how we talk to each other. Where certain political speech they these statists disagree with would not be tolerated. 

For the record liberalism is not MSNBC talk, The Nation, the AlterNet, Salon or the more socialist oriented think tanks like the Roosevelt Institute to use as examples. They believe in the things that I just laid out in the first paragraph. Liberals believe in freedom that all people are entitled to it until they do something like hurting innocent people where they no longer deserve their individual freedom economic or personal. Liberals don’t believe in government or business. That is not what our ideology is centered around. We believe in the individual that if the individual is educated they’ll have the tools they need to live in freedom and live a productive life managing their own affairs. 

What separates Liberals or classical Liberals even (as long as you aren’t talking about Libertarians) is that Liberals aren’t anti-government. We are anti-big government. That is government that tries to do too much. Trying to do things for the people that they can do for themselves. We believe government can and should and play a role in helping people at the bottom get the tools they need to move up in society and live in freedom as well. Not take care of mentally and physically able body people indefinitely. But support them in the short-term as they are preparing themselves to be self-sufficient. 

Libertarians at least today are essentially anti-government and do not have much of if any role for government at all federal or at any level. Liberals truly believe in limited government and limiting to doing what we need it to do. Which is mostly about protecting our freedom. Not running our lives for us and supporting people in the short-term who need it. As they are working their way up to self-sufficiency. 

The Federalist: Robert Kraniski: What the Left Gets Wrong About the Constitution

(via What the Left Gets Wrong About Constitutionalism) 

"What the Left Gets Wrong About Constitutionalism". Perhaps not the best title for this post because it implies that the Left meaning the whole Left doesn’t understand the U.S. Constitution, or doesn’t understand perhaps aspects of it. Even though it was actually Liberals who wrote the Constitution and as a Liberal myself the U.S. Constitution is a big reason why I’m a Liberal. Maybe the title of this piece should be what "parts of the Left get wrong about the U.S. Constitution". Or what today’s so-called Progressives who are actually Social Democrats, or what I like to call Eurocrats get wrong about the U.S. Constitution. 

But being that is it may to talk about the factions on the Left who do not like aspects of today’s Constitution, or agree with it which is where I agree with classical Conservatives and Libertarians on I’m going to focus on people who are called Progressives today but are really what is common in Europe and called Social Democrats. People who believe in social democracy as opposed to liberal democracy and constitutional federalism. Which is how America is governed today with a lot of power and responsibility put on individuals over their own lives. And with the states and locals in a lot of cases playing the supportive role when it comes to people who can’t take care of themselves. As opposed to social democracy or unitarian government where a lot of power in the country is centralized with the federal or central government. Not just to support people who can’t fully support themselves. But to take care of and provide a lot of if not most of the basic services that people need to live well. 

Its social democracy and unitarian government that today’s so-called Progressives want to bring to America. And almost if not do away with the Constitution then to completely rewrite it only leaving in what they like about it. But where the Federal Government would be a hell of a lot bigger when it comes to supporting all Americans regardless of income level. And where there would be a lot less power for the private sector, states and locals, as well as individuals over their own lives. 

The problem that Social Democrats (as I call them) have when it comes to establishing a Scandinavian or Anglo style of government in America is the U.S. Constitution itself. Because it limits what government can do when it comes to the economy and into Americans lives for good or bad. And their idea of governmental power is again social democracy. That if a majority of the people want government to do something for them. Or outlaw or limit what people can do for themselves. That they believe majority rule is all that Congress and the President need to pass whatever the so-called “will of the people”. America is simply not governed that way for the most part. We have a Constitution that lays out what government can do. And it takes a huge consensus to reverse that. 

So what Social Democrats get wrong about the U.S. Constitution is their own governing philosophy. They believe if the people want government to do something than all they need is for Congress and the President to make that happen. They want majority rule all the time when it comes to government. And the American form of government is simply not set up that way. 

Slate Magazine: John Dickerson: Hillary Clinton's New Book Hard Choices Plays it Safe

(via Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices: Former secretary of state’s new book plays it safe.) 

Hillary Clinton did a book event last Friday with a local Washington book store Politics and Prose and was interviewed there by a women who worked for her at the White House in the 1990s and when Hillary was Secretary of State during the first Obama Administration. In her speech she was talking about hard choices even though she really didn’t mention any that she made herself. And also talked about big ideas even though she really didn’t mention any of her own. 

This is the major weakness of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate and why she’s not President of the United States right now. She doesn’t let people know what she is about politically and doesn’t want to take hard stances on key issues other than the traditional key Democratic issues as it relates to women’s issues and civil rights. But then doesn’t seem to want to be on the record of the 21st Century Liberal Democratic issues as it relates to the War on Drugs and marijuana. To go along with privacy especially at it relates to the War on Terrorism. 

Hillary wants to be where she believes is the safest place for her politically. But she sees and American political scene that is looking for a strong leadership and strong leaders. So she believes the way to capture those voters is to talk about those things and try to convince people without giving much evidence to support herself as a strong leader that she believes in strong leadership too. So she talks about the need for ‘big ideas’ and writes a book called Hard Choices without laying out those things. 

If Hillary Clinton can’t communicate to the American voters Democrats and otherwise of why she should be the next President of the United States other than the need for electing a female President, she’ll lose another Democratic presidential contest where she was the heavy favorite going in. Because at the end of the day American voters want to know who they may vote for and what would come with electing that person and where they are on the key issues of the day.