The Washington Post: Brian Lamb- 'Washington is Full of Waste and C-SPAN Lets Us Wallow In It'

Source:The Washington Post- If you're a taxpayer your message should be: "thank God for Brian Lamb and C-SPAN!"

"The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN) broadcast from the House of Representatives for the first time in March 1979, uncovering a process shrouded in secrecy. C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb says how Americans use that transparency is still a work in progress. Read more:"

From The Washington Post

Source:News Daily- Some of our elected leaders 

When I think of C-SPAN, I think of the expression the cold hard truth, because that's what it gives us which is an inside, painfully truthful look about what our tax dollars are paying for and how our elected government works. 

People might argue ( especially career politicians ) that people would be better off not knowing about how our government works, because it just shows us how depressing and inefficient it works and all of that.

But the easy counter to that is that if you buy a car, you want to know exactly what you're getting with the money that you're spending on the car. The great handling, smooth ride, the power, but you also want to know about whatever drawbacks that you might get from that car. Low gas mileage, the durability of the car, etc. You don't want to know why your new car is in the shop once a month or a couple times of month, not six months down the road ( no pun intended ) but upfront before you buy the car.

Well, government is the same way. The U.S. Government which is the largest organization in the world both in money and in personal with a budget of over 4 trillion-dollars and a staff of over 2 million and since we're paying for all of that so-called service and a lot of waste we need to know exactly what we're paying for.

That's what the Government Accountability Office is for, but that's also what C-SPAN is for. Some might say that's the job of Congress to hold the government accountable. Two problems with that: one, Congress is part of the government ( hopefully that isn't any newsflash to U.S, Government students, or Millennial's ) and if it's Congress's job to hold the government accountable, then whose job is it to hold Congress accountable? 

And two, Congress is made up of politicians ( to state the obvious ) who in too many cases are just if not more interested in getting reelected and getting promoted, as they are in doing their jobs and the right thing. Because if they do their jobs and the right things, it could cost them votes and contributions with people who want the status-quo, because they benefit from the current corruption in government.

Some might say it's the job of the people to hold their government accountable. Which is true, but how are they supposed to do that without the information and facts: just listen and take the word of their politicians and automatically assume they're doing what's right and doing their jobs correctly? 

Does anyone who is sane, sober, intelligent, and aware of their surroundings actually tend to take the word of any politician that they're familiar with, actually take the word of a typical politician whether they're a career politician or not? Of course not. So we need those eyes and ears in our government and then we need the people to actually examine what they're seeing and take in the information that they get about how our government actually works in this country. Even if that means putting down their smartphone for more than five minutes at a time, or even hours at a time to see how their tax dollars are being spent in this country.

Some might argue who advocate for a closed government that the reason why politicians and government is so unpopular in America and why a 20% rating is actually good numbers for any Congress, ( "hey, if only 8-10 Americans think we're doing a bad job, we must being something right" ) is because we allow cameras in Congress both in the House and Senate and The White House briefing ( even if they're only once every 2 months now ) and we broadcast and cover our government meetings and get to hear from our public officials. And we get to hear about Congress not doing their jobs and not even passing their own budget and appropriations bills and in some cases both the House and Senate not even passing their own budget in their respective chambers. 

The argument for closed government makes the case for open government. (Even only accidentally) That just makes my point for be, because all C-SPAN and other news organizations do is show exactly what our politicians and other public officials are doing. What they're saying and how they voted and what they proposed and signed into law. Things that we wouldn't know about if we didn't allow cameras and reporters into government. 

FOX Business: Bulls & Bears- David Asman: National Debt Surpasses $22 Trillion

Source:FOX Business- America's national credit card debt. 

“Bulls & Bears” panel on how the U.S. national debt surpassed $22 trillion and whether the drop in tax revenues will be blamed on President Trump. 

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London."

From FOX Business

Replace Donald Trump with Barack Obama as President with 22 trillion national debt and a big tax cut from last year and have with this same panel on this show and let's hear them talk about how the national debt is not that big of a deal or a real concern. You might think that you're death trying to hear that conversation, simply because you would never hear them talking that way. Other than maybe Steve Forbes who never believed that the national debt and deficits are that big of a deal regardless of who the President is and the size of the deficit and debt, you wouldn't hear that conversation at all.

You would instead hear things like: "those tax and spend Democrats are sending America into bankruptcy and borrowing and spending America's future." The old Tea Party arguments ( and they are old ) from 2011, 12, and 13 would come back again. My whole point here is when you have a national debt that's 80-90% of your economy and it's a big deal, then the national debt is even larger than that now especially when your economy is growing at 2-3% a year and you have unemployment at less than 4%, then it's a big deal when the national debt is even bigger as it's now. The national debt and deficits knows no political parties and isn't interested in politics at all. If the national debt is a big deal, then it's a big deal regardless of which party is in power at The White House.

The only difference here is that we have a Republican President instead of a Democratic President, with Republicans feeling no political advantage whatsoever in talking about the dangers of the national debt when their party is in The White House. Which is a bad thing because the national debt was a problem during the Obama Administration and probably had some affect on the lack of economic growth in the economy, even though job growth was very solid for most of the Obama Presidency, but economic growth tended to lag behind that job growth.

But it's a bigger problem now especially with the economy growing now and with the Republican Congress and President Trump the last two years voluntarily raising the debt and deficit with new spending and tax cuts when they didn't have to, when instead they could've started paying down the deficit and moving the country towards a balanced budget. Again, the national debt doesn't know politics and political parties and is there regardless of who is in The White House and running Congress. So when politicians try to take advantage of it when they're out-of-power, it can come back to bite them once they're back in power and the national debt grows ever larger on their watch.

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

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

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 Atlantic: Adam Harris: 'What's The Deal With Free College?'

Source:The Atlantic Magazine- Adam Harris, talking about so-called free college. 

“Every day now, it seems, another Democratic candidate announces his or her 2020 presidential run. Among the most popular ideas these hopefuls campaign for is a tuition-free secondary education. “A free-college proposal has practically become an entrance fee,” says writer Adam Harris.

In a new Atlantic Argument, Harris explains that while this is an intriguing idea, it is also a vague and sweeping one, and voters want policy specifics. “The nuts and bolts of education proposals in the 2020 election,” Harris says, “are critical to understanding whether or not, six years from now, the student-debt bubble reaches $2.5 trillion, or even $3 trillion.”

From The Atlantic

From Adam Harris: “Every day now, it seems, another Democratic candidate announces his or her 2020 presidential run. Among the most popular ideas these hopefuls campaign for is a tuition-free secondary education. A free-college proposal has practically become an entrance fee, says writer Adam Harris.

In a new Atlantic Argument, Harris explains that while this is an intriguing idea, it is also a vague and sweeping one, and voters want policy specifics. The nuts and bolts of education proposals in the 2020 election, Harris says, “are critical to understanding whether or not, six years from now, the student-debt bubble reaches $2.5 trillion, or even $3 trillion.”

“What’s the deal with free college?” I believe is the perfect question in this debate, since it’s basically like asking: What the deal with flying trucks?” Since neither exists or ever existed. When you get something for free from wherever it might be, it means you didn’t pay anything for the service that you supposedly received for free. And government is the perfect example of that.

If you’re going to ask, what’s the deal with free college, you better know the answer to: “What’s the deal with taxes?” As well as: “Why do we pay taxes?” And: “Where does government get the revenue to pay for the services that we receive?”

If you already know the answers to these questions, then you know if government starts to not only get into the college financing business, because it’s already there with Adam Harris already explaining that in the video, but if government were to go further and essentially take over the business or be such a player in to that it’s now paying for the college education of every single American who is eligible to go to college in America, you will know how government is paying for everybody’s college education which of course is through taxes. And not just on wealthy people, but for every single American who works for a living.

Government services of course are not free. Even if you’re not working you’ve already paid for the public assistance or retirement that other Americans got when you were working. And if you’re not working right now, but will be in the future you’re paying for the public assistance, or retirement, or unemployment that Americans will receive in the future.

As the great economics professor Milton Friedman once said: “No such thing as a free lunch.” He was referring to the public services that we receive from government that we all pay for. The only way to go to college for free is by winning a college scholarship either through athletics or academics, or have parents or grandparents that can afford to send you to college with their own money. Otherwise you’ll be pay for your college education one way or another. 

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

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

The Real News Network: Paul Jay: 'Is Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialism, Socialism?'

Source:The Real News Network- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont. 

"Sanders says that medicare for all, a living wage, and other reforms is the socialism that’s possible, but is he too reserved on strengthening public ownership? - with Jacqueline Luqman, Eugene Puryear, Norman Solomon and host Paul Jay"

From The Real News Network

Apparently we need and the people from the so-called Real News Network need a refresher course on Socialists and socialism, because there are Socialists and then there are Socialists and none of these factions are the same as the other except when it comes to Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, are the same faction.

Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats both believe in a democratic form of socialism or socialist form of democracy and neither wants to eliminate the private enterprise or even capitalism. They just want the national government to provide the people's workers benefits. Things like health care, health insurance, pension, child care, education, etc. Services that a country like America you would get those services from the private sector, or at the very least would have the option in getting those services from the private sector.

Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in democratic socialism/social democracy. He's not looking to government to come in and close down private business's ( except for perhaps health insurers and hospitals ) or have government come into people's homes and other properties and kick people out and have the properties taken over by the government.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration if a President Sanders had his way let's say, the private sector in America would remain in place, but the public sector at least at the Federal level would be a lot larger. Trillions of dollars would be added to the Federal public sector every year in new social programs and in expansions in current Federal social programs, but the private sector would remain in place.

I'm not explaining this because I'm a fan of Senator Sanders, because I'm not even though I respect his candor and honesty, but to explain his own politics so people know what they're getting when they hear about Socialist Bernie Sanders. He doesn't represent the Communist or Marxist wing of socialism and looking to turn America into a gigantic Cuba, but instead if he had his way America would become like a gigantic Sweden or gigantic Scandinavia. Where the national government would be a lot larger and more expensive, taxes on everyone would be a lot higher, but the national government would provide a lot more social services and individuals would still own their own properties.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post on FreeState MD, on WordPress.

CPH: David Levering Lewis- 'The Improbable Wendell Willkie'

Source:Southern Methodist University- David L. Lewis, talking about his book about Wendell Willkie. 

“In the wake of one of the most tumultuous Republican conventions ever, the party of Lincoln nominated in 1940 a prominent businessman and former Democrat who could have saved America’s sclerotic political system. Although Wendell Lewis Willkie would lose to FDR, acclaimed biographer David Levering Lewis demonstrates that the corporate chairman–turned–presidential candidate must be regarded as one of the most exciting, intellectually able, and authentically transformational figures to stride the twentieth-century American political landscape. The Center for Presidential History:SMU Center. This recording is the property of the SMU Center for Presidential History and may only be used for research and teaching purposes. It cannot be copied or reproduced for profit.”

From CPH

"In the wake of one of the most tumultuous Republican conventions ever, the party of Lincoln nominated in 1940 a prominent businessman and former Democrat who could have saved America’s sclerotic political system. Although Wendell Lewis Willkie would lose to FDR, acclaimed biographer David Levering Lewis demonstrates that the corporate chairman–turned–presidential candidate must be regarded as one of the most exciting, intellectually able, and authentically transformational figures to stride the twentieth-century American political landscape."

Source:Livestream- David L. Lewis's book about Wendell Willkie 

If anyone is wondering why I bother too write about Wendell Willkie a man who maybe only 5% of the country has ever even heard of and most of those people being old enough to remember his presidential campaign or born just after his 1940 presidential campaign: the reason why I'm interested in Wendell to the point that I write about him is because I base my own politics and political ideology around 3 people: Thomas Jefferson, the father of American liberal democracy. John F. Kennedy, the last Liberal and not just Classical Liberal President that we've ever had. And Wendell Willkie, the last Classical Liberal as well as Liberal Republican nominee for President. Who left the Democratic Party, because he believed they were moving in a socialist big government direction under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Source:Presidential History Geeks- Classical Liberal Wendell Willkie 

Wendell Willkie, is a political hero of mine and if the Republican Party today was the Willkie Republican Party, I would be a Republican instead of at best an Independent Democrat today. Wendell, was a Republican who supported civil and equal rights of all Americas. Who opposed social classes even as it relates to race and ethnicity. Wendell, was to the Left of President Franklin Roosevelt on civil rights for African-Americans, as well as other racial and other ethnic minorities. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Republican Party was the civil rights part. First lead by President Dwight Eisenhower who opposed school desegregation and also supported a broader civil rights bill in the 1950s. And without Congressional Republicans, President Lyndon Johnson doesn't get his civil rights laws in the 1960s.

Wendell Willkie, was anti-Communist, antiauthoritarian Liberal Republican. Think about for a second and see if you can get past that. He obviously wouldn't fit inside the Republican Party today, but there wouldn't be much room for him inside the Democratic Party today either. Because he was a true constitutionalist who believed in constitutional rights for all Americans and believed in limited government. He was one of the first true liberal internationalists that we've ever had in a presidential candidates at least., who believed that America couldn't police the world, but we needed to be engaged with the world to protect liberal democracy and stand up to communism and other authoritarian ideologies. A Wendell Willkie, couldn't fit inside of a Republican Party today, that's dominated by Nationalists when it comes to foreign policy and in general. And a Democratic Party that's not only now embracing democratic socialism, but doesn't seem to have issues with authoritarian socialism either.

Wendell Willkie to me, even though I'm maybe 1 out of 5 Americans who've ever heard of man ( perhaps a few more ) is very interesting to me because he was a man and a political candidate who was not just ahead of him time as it relates to foreign policy, the Constitution, limited government, and civil rights, but also represents the the liberal democratic ( or classical liberal, if you prefer ) void that was left inside the Democratic Party when President John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a Communist, with the Democratic Party moving Left ever since President Kennedy was assassinated. We no longer have a liberal ( or classical liberal ) wing in either the Democratic or Republican Party today and is still missed by me and other Liberals ( or Classical Liberals, if you prefer ) today.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Mr. Beat: The American Presidential Election of 1980- John Anderson For President

Source:Mr. Beat- A 3-way presidential election? 

"The 49th episode in a very long series about the American presidential elections from 1788 to the present. I hope to have them done by Election Day 2016. In 1980, Ronald Reagan seems unstoppable as he tries to "make America great again."

The 49th Presidential election in American history took place on November 4, 1980. As President, Jimmy Carter faced quite a few obstacles, and things just weren’t all peachy. The country faced low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates, and an energy crisis, in which the prices of oil went way up since supply went down in certain areas. This shortage was partially caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which a new Islamic government hostile to the United States overthrew the old one. "

From Mr. Beat

There are political Independents and then there are political Independents. Independents tend to get stereotyped as liberal or moderate on social issues and fiscally conservative. Which just isn't the case in a lot of if not most cases. There are Socialists who are Independents. There are Conservatives who are Independent. There are Libertarians who are Independent and I could go on. A political Independent is just someone who who is not associated with the two major political parties and in some cases not associated with any political party.

Source:Politics Matter- John Anderson For President, 1980 

When Representative John Anderson from Illinois, ran for President in the general election in 1980, he ran as a political Independent, but he was a progressive-conservative Republican ideologically. And I know that sounds like jumbo shrimp, or fuel efficient SUV, a Libertarian-Socialist and I could name a tone of other terms that sound like Oxymorons and sound like they were invented by morons who don't realize that these terms don't go together.

But back in the 1970s and well before as far back as perhaps the 1940s, there was a Progressive Republican wing of the Republican Party. People who would be called progressive on social issues and believed in civil rights and commonsense regulations when it came to business, civil liberties, but who also believed in fiscal responsibility. Believed in balanced budgets and lower taxes, a strong national defense, who are anti-Communists and didn't like authoritarianism at all whether it was communist or some right-wing authoritarian ideology. Believed in the rule of law and being tough on crime.

Representative John Anderson, ran for President in 1980 as an Independent, ( meaning not as a Republican or Democrat ) but ideologically he was a progressive-conservative Republican. He was part of the Nelson Rockefeller or Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican. George H.W. Bush at least before he ran as Ronald Reagan's Vice President in 1980 was from this wing of the party as well. And governed this was as President himself. Ideologically he was very different from President Ronald Reagan while at the same time sharing values with President Reagan as it related to national defense, anti-communism, lower taxation, and other issues. So if you want to know where someone stands politically, don't look at their party registration, but look at their politics and what they actually believe.

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

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