Russia Today: Kristine Frazao- 'Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson: Eliminate the IRS'

Source:Russia Today- Governor Gary Johnson (Republican, New Mexico) 2012 presidential candidate, talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Lately the GOP presidential hopefuls have put on a media circus. And the US' economic issues have been a hot topic for debate. Many of the candidates have expressed their solutions on how to get America out of the economic rut and Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, shares with Kristine Frazao what he'll do as president of the US." 

From Russia Today

I love Gary Johnson's idea of cutting the Federal Government by 43% not because I'm a (pardon the term) a cheap bastard (not that I'm denying that) who wants to throw poor people on the street and senior citizens out of senior citizen homes, but to reform our Federal Government in a way to make it as effective as possible, which by itself would bring the costs of the Federal Government down, because they wouldn't be doing as much. And the safety net is a great place to start when it comes to government reform. 

But we also need to cut back our defense Budget not to make us weaker but so we have less responsibility and demand that these developed nations play the lead role in their own national security. As well as agriculture welfare and corporate welfare: we shouldn't be subsidizing at taxpayer expense company's and individuals for doing well. But tax them at a rate that encourages them to do well in the future, big difference. 

What I would like to do is reform our Federal Government in a way that it's doing much less in the future without hurting anyone who depends on these public services in the future. But do it in a way that makes these public services more cost-effective as well as more efficient in the future. But having others play a bigger role in providing these public services and bring down the costs of them in the future. Which keeps taxes down on everyone in the future and makes these public services more beneficial for everyone who depends on them now and into the future. 

And then reforming our tax code in the short-term and long-term. In the short-term to help bring down our debt and deficit and in the long-term after the Federal Government is reformed, to provide the necessary tax revenue to fund the new and improved (pardon the expression) Federal Government. A tax system that based on consumption and paying for the public services that people consume, rather than taxing people by what they make which discourages making and investing money. 

When it comes to government reform, to start with defense cut the defense budget by 200B$ a year which might sound real high, but in a defense budget of 700B$, is very doable, do this by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and have NATO and the Arab League play a bigger role in developing these nations. I was for the no fly zone in Libya from the beginning, but with President Obama's latest position on the War Powers Act, where he essentially believes he doesn't need approval from anyone to commit American troops, it's time for us to bring those folks home. (Assuming Congress doesn't get off their cans and do their jobs)

And with out other troops oversees, bring them home and demand that these developed nations play a bigger role in their own nationals security:  Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, and transform NATO into the European Defense Alliance (or something) that would work with us, Canada, Scandinavia, the Slavic republics, Turkey in partnership, but that where Europe defends Europe not America And everyone else defends themselves. 

And then get the safety net off of the Federal and state Budgets all together and convert them into semi- private, non-profit community services for the less-fortunate. They would all be self-financed and run independently and regulated to the extent that they would have to serve anyone eligible who applies. 

As far as tax reform, I would eliminate all tax loopholes including corporate welfare in the short-term and then lower tax rates, to help bring down the debt and deficit but in the long term. 

I would throw out the tax code and replace it with a combination of payroll taxes and consumption taxes. A payroll tax to fund the new Defense Department and then force the Defense Department to live within the National Security Tax and not be able to collect from other revenue. Thats one example. 

Tax reform really should be another post, but another example would be a border fee to enter or exit America to fund the Border Patrol. And then consumption taxes that would cover everything with low- income people still being able to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. And make it progressive as well, more expensive goods would be taxed higher the cheaper goods. Luxury Cars taxed higher than grocery's. (To use as an example)

The idea of tax reform is great if its done correctly and doesn't result in a net tax increase especially in this bad economy. But tax reform doesn't make much sense without government reform to make the Federal Government as cost-effective and as efficient as possible. And then you can figure out how much revenue you need to fund the new government. 

FORA-TV: Brian Doherty- 'Conservatism vs Libertarianism (2007)'

Source:FORA-TV- Reason Magazine's Senior Editor Brian Doherty, in Berkeley, California, talking about his book about conservatism and libertarianism.

"Reason Magazine Senior Editor Brian Doherty discusses the differences between libertarianism and traditional conservative ideologies. 

Brian Doherty considers "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement."

This illuminating, lively history of a political movement on the rise - told through the life stories of its standard bearers - casts new light on the intellectual and political history of post-WWII America. Doherty traces the evolution of libertarianism through the unconventional stories of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman, and their personal battles, character flaws, love affairs, and historical events that altered its course. In so doing, he provides a fascinating new perspective on American history, from the New Deal through the culture wars of the 1060s to today's divisiveness.

In February, the Wall Street Journal noted, "With 'Radicals for Capitalism', Brian Doherty finally gives libertarianism its due...Mr. Doherty has rescued libertarianism from its own obscurity, eloquently capturing the appeal of the 'pure idea', its origins in great minds and the feistiness of its many current champions." - Cody's Books

Brian Doherty is a senior editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly named one of "The 50 Best Magazines" three out of the past four years by the Chicago Tribune. Established in 1968 and a four-time finalist for National Magazine Awards, Reason has a print circulation of 40,000 and won the 2005 Western Publications Association "MAGGIE" Award for best political magazine." 

From FORA-TV

When I look at political ideology's as a political junky and as a blogger, as a Liberal myself, I have more respect for the political ideology's that respect individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution. And I'm not just talking about economic freedom but personal freedom as well, the ability not just for people to make their own economic choices in life. But also how they live their own lives as a whole, who they can marry, what they can do with their money, what they can do to their bodies, make their own health care choices, etc. And that brings me to liberalism, obviously. 

In this post I'm going to focus on the differences between classical conservatism, the Barry Goldwater's, Ron Reagan's, Bill Buckley's, and libertarianism, the Ron Paul's, Peter Schiff's of the world. Libertarianism and classical conservatism also being political ideology's based on individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution where they both believe which is were Americans get their freedom from. And that people essentially have the right to be stupid and let birds fly to chart their own course in life. And that they shouldn't get bailed out for their bad decisions either. 

I got this idea for this post from a friend of mine on Facebook and they know who they are and I'm dedicating this post to that person. 

First, what do Classical Conservatives the Rand Paul's of the world today have in common with Libertarians, the Peter Schiff's of the world today? Respect for the U.S. Constitution and individual freedom, the idea that our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) who were made up of Conservatives and Liberals when they wrote the U.S. Constitution pretty much got most of it right when they wrote it. 

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) wrote one hell of a document and that constitutional amendments that have been written since improved the Constitution. But that it's a great document for anyone who believes in liberal democracy and that (excuse the expression) that we shouldn't dick around with it and try to limit people's freedom. Like constitutional amendments to ban homosexuals from getting married or taking the power away from the people to decide who we can for vote for to represent us in Congress. 

Or big government law laws that are unconstitutional like the Patriot Act that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (as far as I'm concern) that what the Federal Government can do is already laid out for them in the U.S. Constitution and that Congress can't pass any law that they want even if it might be popular, if it violates the U.S. Constitution, which is what separates Classical Conservatives and Libertarians from Democratic Socialists. 

Socialists who I believe see the U.S. Constitution as more of an advisory document than anything else and have a collectivist approach to politics rather than an individualist approach. And the Constitution is basically an individualist document centered around Individual Freedom (that locks Socialists out of it, perhaps intentionally) to begin with and this gets in the way of their politics. 

The differences between classical conservatism and libertarianism has to do with the economy and foreign policy. Classical Conservatives prefer a private market (what they call a free market) and decentralization approach to our safety net opening up these social insurance programs to the private market. Giving the people a choice in how they consume these programs, Social Security and Medicare being perfect examples of this. And letting the states take over the rest of our social insurance programs: Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicaid being perfect examples of this. 

Where Libertarians want government out of the economy all together and see all of these social insurance programs as unconstitutional. 

When it comes to foreign policy, Classical Conservatives aren't Neoconservatives (obviously) and see our foreign policy as having to do with protecting our national interests around the world. And not getting involved with other countries conflicts like civil wars or promoting our form of government around the world either. 

Where Libertarians tend to be isolationists on foreign policy and only want us to use military action when we are directly under attacked. 

Classical conservatism and libertarianism are both similar political ideology's because they are both based on individual freedom and the U.S, Constitution. But they are also different in a sense because libertarianism is borderline anti-government and perhaps just a couple steps away from anarchism. 

Where Classical Conservatives want government there to protect innocent people from the harm of others. So innocent people's freedom isn't compromised.  

The main differences between Conservatives (lets say) and Libertarians, is that Conservatives aren't anti-government, just anti-big government. So they are against both socialism (democratic and otherwise) as well as religious fascism and fascism in general. Whereas Libertarians at least these days don't seem to have a role for government to do anything, really. At least at the Federal level. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Dominionism: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry Share Radical Religion Ties'

Source:The Daily Beast- Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, being captured by religious fundamentalists.

"A Daily Beast piece explains how 2012 Republican presidential candidates and Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry share ties to a radical fundamentalist Christian movement known as Dominionism. Cenk Uygur, Richard Eskow and Brian Unger discuss on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks 

"With Tim Pawlenty out of the presidential race, it is now fairly clear that the GOP candidate will either be Mitt Romney or someone who makes George W. Bush look like Tom Paine. Of the three most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination, two are deeply associated with a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism known as Dominionism. If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding Dominionism isn’t optional." 

From The Daily Beast

As a Liberal Democrat with a strong belief in liberal democracy, who believes free people in a free society should be able to live freely, without government interfering in how free people should live their own lives as long as we are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

I get worried every time I here Big Government Democrats or Republicans (Socialists on the Far-Left and Christian-Fundamentalists on the Far-Right) come out in favor of policy's that restrict our freedom, whether its economic or personal freedom. And thats exactly what you get from Republican (in name only) presidential candidates Michele Bachmann an Rick Perry, two candidates who both believe the fastest route to the Republican nomination for President is with the Christian-Right and getting their support. 

In Michele Bachmann's case at least she truly believes in the Christian-Right agenda. And with Rick Perry, I just don't know enough about him to decide if he's playing politics or if he truly believes in this agenda. But with Representative Bachmann's case you have a long record going back to 2004 when she was in the Minnesota Senate coming out against equal rights for homosexuals (to use as an example) and then in I believe July signing that pledge from a Far-Right religious group coming out for laws banning pornography and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. What happened to states rights in this case, they've always regulated marriage straight and gay. 

Every time I hear Michele Bachmann say she's a "Constitutional Conservative" I feel like flushing the toilet, literally. (Or believe she should be required to say that under oath) Constitutional conservatism is not about amending the Constitution but living within it (especially government) and not trying to get around it. At best Michele Bachmann is a Christian-Conservative (more like fundamentalists or even a theocrat) replacing the Constitution with an interpretation of the Bible to govern the country. 

While Rick Perry has decided he's going to be a Christian-Conservative at least for this presidential campaign. As well as a fiscal Conservative on economic policy, even though his fiscal record as Governor of Texas suggests otherwise with pile of debt Texas piled on. As well as all the Texas Government jobs he created. (If you need a job in Texas, talk to Governor Rick Perry) 

Every time you hear a so-called Christian-Conservative say they are anti-big Government and a Constitutional Conservative (check to see if it's currently snowing in Las Vegas in July) please do yourself a favor and take that with a mountain. (Actually, take it with Salt Mountain) As well as look to see how many constitutional amendments that would restrict our freedom that they are in favor of. 

People who are called Christian-Conservatives in America believe that our problems as a country have to do with some as former serial political candidate and loser Alan Keyes said: "Our moral crisis" and that our problems have to do with our moral character. 

As Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said this, Rick Santorum is in favor of empowering the Federal Government to regulate marriage in America. He's in favor of one marriage law for the whole country regulated by the Federal Government. As well as a constitutional amendment to make this happen. 

The Far-Right in America (just to be completely accurate) believe that we have too much personal freedom in America and that the Federal Government should restrict it and even pass constitutional amendments to make that happen. 

So when you hear presidential candidates come out against Big Government, don't take the word at face Value if you are not very familiar with them. And take the time to look into their record especially as it gets to what they've said in the past. Because you remember they are politicians or aspiring politicians. And are politicians unfortunately are prone to say what they believe we want to hear. 

Thom Hartmann: Peter Ferrara- 'Is Shared Sacrifice Socialism?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- talking about socialism.

"Thom Hartmann speaks with Peter Ferrara, Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy-The Heartland Institute / Author-"America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb", about whether shared sacrifice is socialism. If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann

To answer the question that Thom Hartmann asked Peter Ferrara, is shared sacrifice socialism: the answer is yes. Shared sacrifice is a form of collectivism to fund the government that our Congress and Administration decided that we should have. 

I'll give you another one: a progressive tax system (that America still technically has) is another form of socialism as well, but my point is so what and I'm a Liberal and I believe that free people in a free society (which is what America is) has the right to go out and earn as much money as their skills and production will allow, but pay taxes based on what they earn. With the wealthy paying the most and go down from there. But that are tax rates should still be low enough to encourage the making of wealth in America. So everyone can benefit from it. 

MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell (who I call Larry because I'm not a preppy snob that he apparently is) said (and by the way I agree with Larry O'Donnell as often as I drink a dry glass of water) but he's dead right here. There's good capitalism and there's bad capitalism and there's good socialism and bad socialism. 

It's not often as far as I'm concern that Socialists get anything right at least not in America, Europeans can speak for themselves. But shared sacrifice is a form of good socialism, because it demands and let's be honest here, it's rare if ever that government asks people to do anything, they always demand it and with shared sacrifice they demand that people contribute to the financing of government based on their ability to pay for it. But not to the point that it discourages people from earning a good living. 

Shared sacrifice is also very important when we are as we are now talking about debt and deficit reduction, because when we need to cut back as we are doing now, we have to do it in a way that hurts the least and doesn't hurt anyone in a way that devastates them. And that includes the people who've benefited most from America and our system, Constitution, economic freedom, and everything else. Shared sacrifice is about everyone contributing to pay their fair share but not in a way that devastates anyone.

So again to answer the question, shared sacrifice is a form of socialism, but a good form of it. Not the form that try's to nationalize industries or limit peoples economic freedom or any other freedom. Or tax people to the point that there's not enough incentive in the economy for people to work hard, be productive and be successful. Which would be a form of bad socialism.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- 'Prisoners: America's New Cheap Labor (ALEC Exposed)'

Source:The Young Turks- I believe a California prison, but don't quote me on that.

"ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is exploiting private prison labor for profit and lobbying for harsh crime and pro drug-war legislation to create more cheap workers for corporate America. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss." 

From The Young Turks

The modern version of slave labor is a bit extreme. (Coming from TYT) Prison inmates are technically compensated and actually do get paid. Wages that you might see in, I don't Haiti (to use as an example,) 20 cents an hour. But they do get free room and board, food, health care, laundry, recreation, etc. Fine, I can go along with that. 

The fact is their living conditions wouldn't be tolerated perhaps anywhere else in the developed free world. And we can do much better than this to the point that would help the inmates, the prisons, society, and our governments budgets, by giving our prison inmates real jobs and compensate them based on what they produce and have them do jobs that they are educated, trained, and qualified to do. Jobs that just keep the prison running and then prisons wouldn't have to bring in private companies to do the work. 

Jobs like the mess hall like maybe turning mess halls into real cafeteria's (instead of mess halls, where they eat a lot of mess, pun intended) with real food and making inmates pay for their food. 

Laundry. make the inmates do the laundry and then charge the inmates for their laundry and clothing. 

Jobs in construction, have the inmates to the work when it comes to renovation of prisons or prison expansion. Jobs like real wood shops and factories that would build the furniture for the prisons, but also the furniture in other government offices and have these agency's pay for the work and then compensate the inmates for their work. 

Jobs like auto mechanics like with the prison buses and other automobiles as well as bring in private automobiles for repairs as well as police cars. 

Barbershops, you could also have inmates working in jobs on the street, well-supervised, of course like street repair and other things, but pay them for what their work is worth. And not the 20 cents an hour that they get, but what a free person would be making for that work. 

If we just had a corrections system that brought back real prison industries that didn't compete with private industries unfairly, our prisons could pay for themselves and wouldn't have to compete with education and infrastructure and other priorities for taxpayer funds, because these industries would make money and the inmates would make money do the jobs and could then pay for their room and board. 

Not all inmates are qualified for well-trained  jobs and some of them need to be in tight supervision until they are ready for general population. But our general population inmates should be working and working full time to pay for their room and board. And to keep the prisons running where they live and to make our corrections system less of a burden on our government budgets. 

Also, not all inmates are ready to work once they get there and it might not just be they can't function in general population. It's hard to find a group of people in society that has as low as an education level then prison inmates. Thats a main reason why they are in prison to begin with because they don't have the skills to make it legally on the outside. So these people first need to be educated in prison before they are ready to work but we can do this as well: high school and college that they could later pay for. 

America unfortunately already had a slave era and we certainly don't need to try to repeat that or come anywhere close. But our inmates need to work, for their good, for the good of the prisons and for the good of society once they get out of prison. But we need to do it in a way that benefits everyone involved and as humanly as possible.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Robert Pollin: 'Why Austerity and Not Stimulus?'

 

Source:The Real News- what Socialist call the government's money. They say it's the people's money, but want government to spend the people's money for them, instead of letting the people spend their own money.

"Bob Pollin: Main objective of austerity is to demolish the welfare state and public ownership." 

From The Real News

It's hard to argue that the 2009 Recovery Act was a success, if you look at the fact that today's unemployment rate and economic growth is both lower today than it was in late 2009, when the Great Recession officially ended, but we would be a hell of a lot worse off without the Recovery Act even though its not a great success. 

But why wasn't the Recovery Act more successful, because it wasn't big enough and wasn't targeted properly. Which is what happens when you legislate in crisis mode and you try to and I'll clean this up, fly by the seat of your pants without a gage (perhaps you are drunk and blind as well) to tell you where your going and how to get there but the fact is we needed something like this but it should've been done better. 

I argued in a blog post in early 2010 at the one year anniversary of the Obama Administration as well as during President Obama's first 100 Days that the Recovery Act wasn't big enough and not properly targeted. And if you are going to have a borrow and spend Economic policy (which I'm generally against, except in an economy this bad where no one has any money to spend) and the Federal Government is the only one capable of printing money with their control of the currency, that you should borrow as much money as it takes to deal with the Great Recession to get economic and job growth going again. Instead of borrowing 45B$ for infrastructure, that you should borrow about ten times that, to fix a lot of these projects that the Core of Engineers said has to be done. 

That instead of cutting taxes and regulations and expanding lending authority for small business in the summer of 2010, that you do that during the heart of the Great Recession. And this is not Monday morning quarterbacking on my part, I wrote this in a blog post on this site two 1/2 years ago. 

The idea National Infrastructure Bank that has a bipartisan bill in the Senate that would be self-financed and prioritize a lot of these infrastructure projects, should've been in the Recovery Act and we could've borrowed the money to start it up and it would've had a two year head start and up in running right now. And be taking care a lot of this work and putting a lot of people back to work today and our unemployment rate would've fallen. 

And because the Recovery Act was badly designed, today we have an economy thats as bad or not much better than when the Great Recession started and we are left with a bad economy and national debt and deficit that have to be dealt with at the same time. Partially because of the Recovery Act, but also because of a lot of bad fiscal policies that the Obama Administration inherited from the Bush Administration. So we are in a situation today in the summer of 2011, where we have to both, stimulate the economy and pay our bills and cut our costs. 

The debt deal of last week is a solid start but should've been a lot better and hopefully round two ofdDebt reduction will be a lot better and more balanced. But as we are doing this we need to put people back to work and spending money again, which is the easiest way to pay down our debt with economic growth. 

A National Infrastructure Bank, free trade, and energy bill ,more targeted tax cuts to encourage consumer spending, would be a good start and we can pay for all these things as well, without hurting the economy. 

Thom Hartmann: 'Is the Era of Big Government Over & The Era of Hostage Taking here?'

Source:Russia Today- Thom Hartmann talking about big government and the Tea Party.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Since President Obama gave in to the demands of Republican hostage takers during the debt-limit debate - Republicans will use the same, "give us what we want or we'll pull the trigger" tactic over and over and over again." 

From Russia Today

Is the era of Big Government over? And what I mean by that is not just socialist big government (that Thom Hartmann prays for and makes love to every day and night) but authoritarian big government with limited personal freedom. Well, thanks to President Ronald Reagan whether you think this is a good or not, the era of socialist big government never had a chance to come to existence in America. Socialists best shot at bringing socialism to America, was with Senator George McGovern in 1972. (Read up on you history if you're not familiar with McGovernism) 

It's hard to imagine how socialism makes a comeback in America. What we have when it comes to social insurance, is what we have and if anything those programs will be reformed to make more cost-effective and hopefully more efficient and if anything competition will added to them. And there called social insurance programs for a reason: they are there for people who fall on hard times economically, they are not designed to take care of people indefinitely and babysit grownups.

So when President Bill Clinton said back in the 1996 State of the Union Address that: "The era of Big Government is over" he was stating a fact, but that statement was about fifteen years late. It was a statement from Captain Obvious, but 15 years later. Bill Clinton did not run for President to expand big government in America to begin with and did not set out to expand it either. Even though the era of big government socialism is over (even though it really never got started in America) and as a Liberal I see that as a good thing. 

The era of big government authoritarianism from the Far-Right is alive and well, with the Far-Right pushing legislation to make collective bargaining harder or impossible. The Far-Right pushing anti- pornography laws, anti-gay marriage laws. Laws that would actually make adultery illegal. Anti- gambling laws, marijuana is still illegal in America. The Patriot Act that I believe violates the Fourth Amendment with government being able to search what people read just because they might seem suspicious to them. Or being able to search people without search warrants. 

With the rise of the Christian-Right thirty plus years ago pushing their "Moral Agenda" on what they believe all Americans should be like and with the rise of neoconservatism ten years ago, believing national security is more important then constitutional rights, the era of Big Government is alive and well in America but in a different form.  One thing that Liberals, Libertarians, and Conservative-Libertarians all agree on.