Mises Daily: Randall G. Holcombe: The War on Drugs is Not Like The War on Poverty

Source:Mises Daily 

Randall Holcombe makes somewhat of an obvious, but important point that the War on Poverty is not a real war because it doesn't involve two sides fighting each other to determine some outcome. And I say obvious not to put Richard Holcombe down or anything, but the opposite actually because not a lot of Americans actually understand that. War is a very common term in America especially in Washington where wars are either started or where America gets involved in them. And is sorta of a Washington hip way of trying to tackle problems. By saying "we are going to war against this or that!"

I'm still not buying that the War on Drugs is a real war. Sure America's involvement in the War on Drugs involves using some military force against foreign drug dealers and organizations. But generally speaking is is fought against Americans who use illegal narcotics for their own personal reasons. And against Americans who sell illegal narcotics against Americans who want those drugs. What the War on Drugs really is, is an effort against people for what they do to themselves and against people who sell drugs that are illegal that others want.

The War on Drugs is a war on personal freedom and choice. Drugs addicts have no business being victims of the war as far as what government does to them. But given an escape out of the war by getting them the help that they need at their expense to get off of those drugs and be able to move on with their lives in a productive way. And instead target those who would further the addictions of those drug addicts and put them out of business.

AEI: Opinion: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan: Expanding Opportunity in America

AEI: Opinion: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan: Expanding Opportunity in America

I've seem some of the reactions from so called progressive publications like Salon and the AlterNet about Representative Paul Ryan's anti-poverty programs reform plan. Representative Ryan is of course the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee so he has solid knowledge of these issues because of the information he has to this subject because of his positions in the House. The reactions from Salon and others were typical of far-left publications when any poverty reform plan comes around that isn't about more cash assistance. But instead about empowering people to take responsibility over their own lives. Calling the Ryan plan cold and mean-spirited.

Libertarian publications like Lew Rockwell and the Economic Policy Journal called this plan big government and nanny statist. Which again are typical reactions from libertarian publications that see any reforms that aren't about eliminating public programs as big government. I don't agree with the reactions from either the far-left or libertarian-right because Representative Ryan's ideas are fairly mainstream. What he wants to do is reform the job training programs so more low-income adults can have access to college and finish their education. So they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance.

The other idea that Representative Ryan had was expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit so low-income workers have more incentive to work and not quit and go on public assistance all together. The block grant proposal which would essentially turn the public assistance programs over to the states and locals to run is a bit controversial and comes with risks. But can be very effective as long as they come with conditions. That the money for the programs are used for exactly that and not used to build roads or tax cuts, but go to the people that the programs are for.

The one lump some approach which would be to essentially turn all of the public assistance into a credit to cover all of the people who are on the programs bills. I have a big problem with and can't support. Because instead of having public housing, Medicaid, Food Assistance, Welfare and whatever else you would give people a credit that covers the assistance of each of these programs. It would essentially be on public assistance check to cover all of these bills for people who are eligible for these programs. Which invites people to make bad choices with the money and use that money to pay for things that the credit isn't intended for.

All in all I believe Representative Ryan takes a good approach and a positive step to seriously dealing with poverty in America. That is more about empowering people in poverty to get out of poverty instead of just leaving people in poverty with a few extra bucks funded by taxpayers. But it is not something I would support completely, but would incorporate in a broader public assistance reform plan to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance and living in freedoms supporting themselves.

Slate Magazine: Jamelle Bouie: 'John Fund's Distorted History of the Democratic Party'

Source:Slate Magazine- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) 36th President of the United States (1963-69)

"Writing at National Review, conservative journalist John Fund promises to “set the record straight on Jim Crow.” And what does he offer? A column’s worth of warmed-over partisan pablum that begins and ends with the idea that, as far as civil rights are concerned, Democrats are the real racists. Some choice passages:

Even as the nation celebrates the passage of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, some liberals are using the occasion to bash Republicans as inheriting the legacy of Jim Crow—ignoring the fact that a higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. …

[T]he political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act. 

First, an observation: It would be nice if Fund had reckoned with National Review’s early defense of segregation, including William F. Buckley’s assertion that “the cultural superiority of White over Negro” is a “fact that obtrudes” and that “National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct. … It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.” But to borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, you engage with the pundits you have, not the ones you want.

In any case, none of this is inaccurate. As Geoffrey Kabaservice shows in Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party, Republicans were a driving force behind the civil rights bills of the Eisenhower and Kennedy eras, and supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a much higher rate than Democrats in either chamber of Congress. What’s more, Democrats were the political beneficiaries of Jim Crow governance, dominating federal elections on the strength of a Solid South. And Fund is right: The defenders of Jim Crow—from Woodrow Wilson to Theodore Bilbo—were Democratic politicians. 

The problem with Fund’s argument is that he takes these facts, divorces them from historical context, and spins them into an unconvincing indictment of the modern Democratic Party and a disingenuous exoneration of its conservative counterpart.

The simple fact is that, despite surface similarities, the Republican and Democratic parties of midcentury were vastly different beasts than their contemporary counterparts. Unlike the ideologically coherent parties of today (i.e., most Democrats are liberals and most Republicans are conservatives), the Republicans and Democrats of the immediate postwar period were heterodox coalitions of interest and historical circumstance. Liberal Northeastern Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton shared influence and power with “stalwarts” like Gerald Ford and Everett Dirksen and hard-right conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Joe McCarthy. And on the other end, New Deal liberals in the mid-Atlantic and industrial Midwest were yoked to a huge faction of Southern segregationists.

It’s not too reductionist to say that civil rights—and more broadly, the Civil War and Reconstruction—were responsible for the general outline of this alignment. Even as the parties expanded westward in the 19th century, Republicans remained the party of the Union (and thus black Americans) and Democrats maintained their allegiance to the South." 

From Slate Magazine 

"Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, the landmark Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination and segregation regardless of race or color. It was originally introduced in congress by President John F. Kennedy before he was assassinated in 1963. 

Among those present at the signing were:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy 

Sen. Everett Dirksen

Sen. Hubert Humphrey

F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hoover"  

Source:Major Kong- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) 36th President of the United States (1963-69)

From Major Kong 

I mostly agree with what Jamelle Bouie here. I would just say that hyper-partisan Republicans today (regardless of what their political ideology actually is) like to blame people they call Liberals and the Democratic Party, for Jim Crow and say that's it's the Republican Party that ended Jim Crow and passed the civil rights laws. 

But the fact is, Far-Right Republicans would like to see those civil rights laws overturned today and go back to the way it is (so to speak) pre-1960s civil rights movement and the laws that were passed thanks to that movement. So are they Liberals today because they don't support the civil rights laws? Of course not. But they sort of suggest that they might think they are with their dishonest arguments about the civil rights laws. 

Today, the Democratic Party is primarily the center-left, progressive party in America, with a center-right New Democrat coalition in it (that I'm part of) and a left-wing that the Jamelle Bouie's of the world are part of, America's version of the Social Democrats or Euro Democrats. 

And the Republican Party is now home to people who were Dixiecrats in the 1960s, people like Strom Thurmond and many others in Congress back then, who were Democrats, until the passage of the civil rights laws. And the Republican Party has a center-right, classical conservative faction it as well today, people like Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Mike Lee, and other classical conservative Republicans in Congress today. 

But in the 1960s and go back 100 years earlier, the Republican Party was the party of progress. Or at the very least where you were more likely to find Progressives in it, even though it's always had a center-right, conservative faction in it. 

And the Democratic Party was the home of the Neo-Confederates, people who knew they lost the Civil War, but thought they would win the cultural war of the time by forcing African-Americans, as well as other racial and ethnic minorities, and women of all backgrounds, to live as second-class Americans under law. 

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

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks: On Finding an Anti-Cruz, Middle East

Right now House Republicans can't get past their Tea Party base on anything. And that is led and known by the House Republican Leadership who don't have the balls (to put it bluntly) to take them on, on anything. Immigration is just one example so what it happens when it comes to something where they have to look like they are doing anything when it comes to public support, they do what the Tea Party wants them to do even if it is automatically dead on arrival in the Senate and has very little if any support outside of their Tea Party Neoconservative base.

As far as Israel and their conflict with Hamas. Israel is getting beat up by the leftist press in Europe and the far-left in America. But nowhere else including Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt because those big states both know the dangers of terrorism. Which means the ball has always been and is still in the court of Israel when it comes to resolving the situation there. And they essentially have a free hand to destroy Hamas especially if they get the opportunity.

CBS News: Video: Face The Nation: 2014 midterms: Where Does the Battle for the Senate Stand?

Look I'm a loyal Democrat at least when it comes to my voting and anyone familiar with my blogging knows that. But what the Face The Nation panel didn't really cover at all was the fact that the Democratic incumbents in a lot of cases are strong as far as being able to raise money. Not being very unpopular and are mainstream Democrats representing red states. Who could very well be facing far-right candidates running in center-right red states that are blue collar where mainstream Democrats still do very well. Like Arkansas, North Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia.

The other thing the panel didn't mention was that Democrats have solid pickup opportunities now in Georgia, Kentucky and even Mississippi. Is there a more unpopular member of Congress than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who is up for reelection in Kentucky? Who is up against a young popular very well funded Democrat Kentucky Secretary of State Allison Lundgran Grimes. They are dead even right now. Go to Georgia with Democrat Michelle Nunn another popular Democrat and young who is a complete outsider when it comes to Washington up against David Perdue. Who has had Mitt Romney style campaign mistakes and has a similar record in business. They are even as well.

What the panel did was go based on the facts that Senate Democrats have more incumbents and past history when the party in power that is the party that holds the executive loses a lot of seats in Congress and generally in both chambers. Instead of focusing on the facts on the ground in all of these campaigns today. Which is typical from mainstream news shows and organizations. I'm not saying that Democrats are definitely going to hold the Senate. But just looking at the evidence today I could definitely see them limiting their losses in the Senate to 2-3 because of potential pickups in three states and the strong incumbents that they have running.

USFL Forever-ABC Sports: USFL 1984- Western Conference Final- Los Angeles Express @ Phoenix Wranglers: Full Game

Source:USFL Forever

The problems with the United States Football League had nothing to do with lack of talent either with player personal or coaching. The Los Angeles Express QB was Steve Young who of course is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The Phoenix Wranglers head coach was George Allen who is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The Express head coach was John Hadl who is at least a borderline Hall of Fame caliber QB with the San Diego Chargers and Los Angeles Rams.

The problems with the USFL had to with the league trying to grow too fast being at eighteen clubs by 1985 just their third season. Too many clubs in major NFL markets like Los Angeles with the Express that already had the Raiders in Los Angeles and the Rams in Anaheim. And of course moving from a spring/summer league which was perfect for them with no NFL games to go up against. To playing in the fall where they are right up against the NFL.

ABC News: ABC Evening News- Saturday Before Start of 1976 Republican Convention

Source: ABC News-

Source:ABC News

Just a few days before the start of the 1976 Republican National Convention and the GOP didn't know who their presidential nominee would be. Even though they held the White House with President Gerald Ford. But President Ford wasn't elected President obviously being Richard Nixon's Vice President and he wasn't even elected Vice President, but appointed to that position after Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign in 1973. And former Governor Ronald Reagan was very already very popular inside the Republican Party.