The 2010 midterm elections was a reverse of misfortune for the Republican Party since losing control of Congress in 2006 and then the White House in 2008. They seemed poised to finish their conquering of Congress, that is, until they nominated Mitt Romney for president.
He is the worst choice for a nominee in a time when the opposing party is running an incumbent president with a questionable record. They had the opportunity to nominate someone who displayed a clear contrast to President Obama. Unfortunately, Romney is far from that.
What makes matters worse, his recent comments about the "47 percent of Americans" who don't pay income tax and constantly line up at the government feeding trough is very alienating to the middle class. And there lies the problem: Republicans aren't closing the deal with the middle class. A poll in late August revealed that 47 percent (how ironic!) of registered voters said the Democratic Party cares more for "people like us", while 42 percent stated that Republicans fit the mold for their ideology. Furthermore, 51 percent of voters believe the Democrats currently holding seats in Congress are "for the middle class", while only 40 percent said the same of Republicans.
So what can Republicans do to turn this around? I wish I knew. I'm not a political strategist. The only thing I can do is offer my ideas.
First, and most important aspect of Romney's campaign for president, is he needs to separate himself from the neo-conservative image of George W. Bush. His wars were very unpopular with Democrats and a majority of independents. With the current budget problems and looming debt hanging over our nation, we cannot afford to finance any more military combat operations overseas. Romney's approach to foreign policy is nothing different to Bush's. Romney stated in an interview on "Meet the Press" over a week ago that "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Does this include military action? While President Obama has reiterated this same point, his administration has advocated to give the current sanctions on Iran more time to work.
Touching further on the issue of foreign policy, the Democrats and Republicans differ greatly in their platforms. Here is a summary of their wording from their respective platforms:
Democrats:
No U.S. forces or bases in Iraq.
Bring our troops home from Afghanistan by 2014.
Republicans:
Prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons.
Notice the difference? It is for this reason that many votes could sway towards Democrats.
Second, the Republicans need to make a better effort to come up with a balanced budget, and pass the message to their nominee that he needs to push the idea in the campaign. Again, referring to the interview Mitt Romney had on "Meet the Press", host David Gregory asked Romney, if elected, if a balanced budget would be a priority for his administration. His response: No. It would be a priority in his second term. The arrogance of that statement alone is just frustrating, but his reason for not making it a priority has the potential to incite rage in many conservative American voters. A balanced budget at this point, according to Romney, would be detrimental to our economy. He also remarks that if his Medicare voucher program idea doesn't work that he wouldn't pass any costs on to seniors and instead blow up the deficit to pay for it.
I can't see how this view totes the party line (as seen in the GOP platform) of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.
For being a party committed to economic freedom and limited government, they sure aren't advancing those principles. This could hurt them in the South. Democratic strategist, David "Mudcat" Saunders said the Democrats can win the South if they focus on more on equality for Americans rather than class. "Democrats go after class; Republicans go after culture. Culture wins almost every time [in the South]". It is a good idea, since Democrats already have the middle class' support. Saunders also said the difference in the past were the Reagan Democrats, who he claims, are ready to come home to the Democratic Party. He is currently working with a Democratic candidate in Virginia to unseat Eric Cantor, the Republican Majority Leader.
Oh, and Saunders prediction? "Obama will win Virginia".
The GOP has a lot of work to do right now. Mitt Romney has proven to be a poor choice. He is not very popular amongst a majority of Americans. He isn't popular in his own party! There have even been reports that three Republican members of the electoral college have vowed to give Texas Congressman Ron Paul his electoral votes. The division within the party is not good, and if they hope to win the White House as well as additional seats in Congress, they have to unite themselves before they even try to unite the country.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Analyzing Romney's Interview
This morning I had the pleasure to catch this week's episode of "Meet the Press" where host David Gregory spent the weekend interviewing Republican presidential hopeful and former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. The interview was a chance for Romney to try to convince me to vote for him. Though he had some good things to say, overall, he missed his mark.
One of the first topics that caught my attention was the discussion about the role government should have played in the resurrection of GM. Romney stated, as he has done in the past, that the government should've let GM go into bankruptcy, then help them out of it. He claims it would've saved the government roughly $20 billion. He also claimed when President Obama and Congress decided to assist GM that he indirectly sent them into bankruptcy. Whether this is true or not, I agree to a point with Romney. GM should've taken the necessary steps to file bankruptcy. However, would the United States still have a domestic auto industry had the government not stepped in? Would GM have come out stronger than before if they did file?
The GM topic was the only noticeable one in the first half of the interview. The second half was the most interesting. David covered taxes, the prospect of a balanced budget, Medicare, foreign policy, and abortion. The following is a summary of Romney's responses:
Taxes
Romney claimed he wanted to lower rates for everyone, especially the middle class. Then he said he would like to lower rates for top earners as well, but also remove the deductions and exemptions that have benefited them in the past. He claims this is a step to keep us revenue neutral. When asked which deductions and exemption he would remove, Romney avoided specifics and just reiterated his point. The problem with his policy on taxes is it does nothing to actually cut taxes. I'm an advocate of a flat tax--everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income. By cutting the rate but removing deductions basically means he's not cutting taxes on the wealthy. Instead, he is further pushing a progressive tax system by vowing to cut taxes for the middle class.
Balanced Budget
David: Would you make balancing the budget a priority?
Romney: I would not make it a priority in my first term. It would be a priority in my second term.
What?!?
First of all, the arrogance of the statement tells a lot about who Romney is. To suggest he's even going to make it to a second term smells of over-confidence. He assumes that he is going to win the election even though recent polls after the conventions show President Obama with a slight lead over his opponent.
Second, why would a balanced budget (which is sorely needed) not be a priority? With $16 trillion in national debt, drastic and rational steps need to be taken to begin paying it down. It's going to take a long time, so it's crucial we set the groundwork to do so right now! We need a dramatic cut in spending. Romney doesn't advocate for such a cut. In fact, he argues a balanced budget would be detrimental to the economy at this point. He also wants to "maintain" defense spending and continue to fund Medicare, evident by his criticism of President Obama's $700 billion + cut in the program to fund the Affordable Care Act. Also, Romney wants to implement a Medicare voucher program which would also further require more government funds. To accomplish what Romney wants to do fiscally will contradict with his tax policy. He said he doesn't want to raise taxes, but to pay for all of this, he might have no choice in the matter. Which leads me to the next question: Will he cut a deal with Congressional and Senate Democrats to raise taxes in order to cut spending?
Medicare
David: If it (Medicare voucher program) doesn't work, would you pass the cost to seniors, or blow up the deficit to pay for it?
Romney: We're not going to pass anything on to seniors...
I think the answer is pretty clear: he's going to blow up the deficit. I don't see how this will help with our budget problem, all while "cutting" taxes for the middle class. We already tried this with George W. Bush, and it left us in a terrible mess considering we were also fighting two "wars". Let's hope, if elected, Romney's voucher system works. I actually support the idea, because it would help keep Medicare solvent. Plus, it gives seniors a choice about who they go to for their health care.
Foreign Policy
Speaking of wars, nothing is more harmful to the federal budget than military combat operations overseas. When Romney was asked about the possibility of a nuclear Iran, he criticised the president for not being more assertive in his talks with Iranian President Ahmadinijad. Romney claims a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to our ally Israel, but to us. And he stated that all options were on the table to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. This is the wrong approach. It is not the United States' responsibility to police the world. We need to leave Iran alone; if they are not willing to be our friends, then we simply cease all contact with them. It's as simple as that.
But before asked about his approach to Iran, David asked if President Obama had, in fact, made the United States safer. Romney concurred by acknowledging the president's order to eliminate Osama bin Laden. So, does Romney approve or disapprove of President Obama's approach to foreign policy?
Abortion
Finally, in what is almost always a controversial issue, David asked Romney what his official position on abortion was since he used to run on a pro-choice platform when he was running against Ted Kennedy for Senate in 1994. He affirmed he is pro-life and would encourage pro-life policies. He plans to reverse the policy of taxpayer funded abortions outside of the country as well as domestically. He also expressed interest in appointing judges that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving states to decide.
Now here is an issue where I generally agree with him. I believe abortion, when used a means of birth control is wrong. However, what about the situations when a woman is raped or her health is in jeopardy? Does she have the option then? Also, overturning Roe v. Wade would be disastrous for personal liberty. Yes, I am fully aware that many consider a fetus to be living. Though I agree, we need to accurately determine viability in order to have a proper policy on abortion. A child in the womb at 3 months cannot survive on its own without the biological nourishment of the mother. Therefore, it is unreasonable to restrict the choice of a woman to continue her pregnancy.
Conclusion
The interview this morning was of great interest to me. I was hoping Romney would say something and act in a way that would fire me up to vote for him. It didn't happen, and unfortunately, this means one of two things: 1) I vote for President Obama, since Romney is not a clear contrast to what we have now, or 2) I vote for Gary Johnson, and subsequently, waste my vote since the media and the general public do not give him a legitimate shot to win.
But all is not lost for Romney. He made a bad impression on me today, but he has a chance to correct this in the future. If he can successfully debate President Obama, and make valid points and clear distinctions between himself and the president, as well as former President George W. Bush, then he may very well earn my vote.
One of the first topics that caught my attention was the discussion about the role government should have played in the resurrection of GM. Romney stated, as he has done in the past, that the government should've let GM go into bankruptcy, then help them out of it. He claims it would've saved the government roughly $20 billion. He also claimed when President Obama and Congress decided to assist GM that he indirectly sent them into bankruptcy. Whether this is true or not, I agree to a point with Romney. GM should've taken the necessary steps to file bankruptcy. However, would the United States still have a domestic auto industry had the government not stepped in? Would GM have come out stronger than before if they did file?
The GM topic was the only noticeable one in the first half of the interview. The second half was the most interesting. David covered taxes, the prospect of a balanced budget, Medicare, foreign policy, and abortion. The following is a summary of Romney's responses:
Taxes
Romney claimed he wanted to lower rates for everyone, especially the middle class. Then he said he would like to lower rates for top earners as well, but also remove the deductions and exemptions that have benefited them in the past. He claims this is a step to keep us revenue neutral. When asked which deductions and exemption he would remove, Romney avoided specifics and just reiterated his point. The problem with his policy on taxes is it does nothing to actually cut taxes. I'm an advocate of a flat tax--everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income. By cutting the rate but removing deductions basically means he's not cutting taxes on the wealthy. Instead, he is further pushing a progressive tax system by vowing to cut taxes for the middle class.
Balanced Budget
David: Would you make balancing the budget a priority?
Romney: I would not make it a priority in my first term. It would be a priority in my second term.
What?!?
First of all, the arrogance of the statement tells a lot about who Romney is. To suggest he's even going to make it to a second term smells of over-confidence. He assumes that he is going to win the election even though recent polls after the conventions show President Obama with a slight lead over his opponent.
Second, why would a balanced budget (which is sorely needed) not be a priority? With $16 trillion in national debt, drastic and rational steps need to be taken to begin paying it down. It's going to take a long time, so it's crucial we set the groundwork to do so right now! We need a dramatic cut in spending. Romney doesn't advocate for such a cut. In fact, he argues a balanced budget would be detrimental to the economy at this point. He also wants to "maintain" defense spending and continue to fund Medicare, evident by his criticism of President Obama's $700 billion + cut in the program to fund the Affordable Care Act. Also, Romney wants to implement a Medicare voucher program which would also further require more government funds. To accomplish what Romney wants to do fiscally will contradict with his tax policy. He said he doesn't want to raise taxes, but to pay for all of this, he might have no choice in the matter. Which leads me to the next question: Will he cut a deal with Congressional and Senate Democrats to raise taxes in order to cut spending?
Medicare
David: If it (Medicare voucher program) doesn't work, would you pass the cost to seniors, or blow up the deficit to pay for it?
Romney: We're not going to pass anything on to seniors...
I think the answer is pretty clear: he's going to blow up the deficit. I don't see how this will help with our budget problem, all while "cutting" taxes for the middle class. We already tried this with George W. Bush, and it left us in a terrible mess considering we were also fighting two "wars". Let's hope, if elected, Romney's voucher system works. I actually support the idea, because it would help keep Medicare solvent. Plus, it gives seniors a choice about who they go to for their health care.
Foreign Policy
Speaking of wars, nothing is more harmful to the federal budget than military combat operations overseas. When Romney was asked about the possibility of a nuclear Iran, he criticised the president for not being more assertive in his talks with Iranian President Ahmadinijad. Romney claims a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to our ally Israel, but to us. And he stated that all options were on the table to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. This is the wrong approach. It is not the United States' responsibility to police the world. We need to leave Iran alone; if they are not willing to be our friends, then we simply cease all contact with them. It's as simple as that.
But before asked about his approach to Iran, David asked if President Obama had, in fact, made the United States safer. Romney concurred by acknowledging the president's order to eliminate Osama bin Laden. So, does Romney approve or disapprove of President Obama's approach to foreign policy?
Abortion
Finally, in what is almost always a controversial issue, David asked Romney what his official position on abortion was since he used to run on a pro-choice platform when he was running against Ted Kennedy for Senate in 1994. He affirmed he is pro-life and would encourage pro-life policies. He plans to reverse the policy of taxpayer funded abortions outside of the country as well as domestically. He also expressed interest in appointing judges that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving states to decide.
Now here is an issue where I generally agree with him. I believe abortion, when used a means of birth control is wrong. However, what about the situations when a woman is raped or her health is in jeopardy? Does she have the option then? Also, overturning Roe v. Wade would be disastrous for personal liberty. Yes, I am fully aware that many consider a fetus to be living. Though I agree, we need to accurately determine viability in order to have a proper policy on abortion. A child in the womb at 3 months cannot survive on its own without the biological nourishment of the mother. Therefore, it is unreasonable to restrict the choice of a woman to continue her pregnancy.
Conclusion
The interview this morning was of great interest to me. I was hoping Romney would say something and act in a way that would fire me up to vote for him. It didn't happen, and unfortunately, this means one of two things: 1) I vote for President Obama, since Romney is not a clear contrast to what we have now, or 2) I vote for Gary Johnson, and subsequently, waste my vote since the media and the general public do not give him a legitimate shot to win.
But all is not lost for Romney. He made a bad impression on me today, but he has a chance to correct this in the future. If he can successfully debate President Obama, and make valid points and clear distinctions between himself and the president, as well as former President George W. Bush, then he may very well earn my vote.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The Problem with Torture
My good friend and I spoke about many
things today in our conversation over the phone, but there was a tense moment
when we began a heated debate about torture, and its use for receiving
information. He referenced the movie Unthinkable,
attempting to make his point that torture was necessary to save millions of
lives. Perhaps, but I question the morality of it in general. Is torture a
moral means of treating our “enemies”? In my explanation to him, I told him
that torture is an inefficient means of gaining Intel. If we were serious about
saving people’s lives, we wouldn’t resort to physical torture which has a history
of producing more fallacies than truths. This is because when someone is under
extreme pressure and pain, they will tell us anything to get us to stop. Why
then can we believe anything that comes out of the mouth of our suspect
(victim)? We can’t; therefore, torture is an unacceptable method, one which
must be banned if we truly plan on calling ourselves the “Land of the Free”. It
implies we are a nation that respects human dignity, and torture brings us well
short of that distinction.
Paul, Ron. (2011). Liberty defined: 50 essential issues that affect our freedoms. New York: Grand Central Publishing
My friend
and I have our differences of opinion on the matter, but I really had to hold
my ground when he suggested that torturing one of our captives’ children would
work much better. (?!?) Why are we punishing the child for the supposed “crime”
of his/her father? Why would we lop the finger off of a young child? If anyone
has ever seen the movie, you may understand what we are talking about. If not,
the movie is about a former U.S. Army soldier who converted to Islam and has
placed three nuclear devices in three major cities across the United States.
After catching him, the military then resorts to torture to discover the
whereabouts of these devices. After learning nothing from hours of brutal
mutilation, they finally resort to his children. This is when he tells them the
specific locations. There’s the short synopsis of the story. Does anyone think
a moral line was crossed? Not just with the torture, but with the utilization
of innocent children? I do.
First
of all, for us religious types out there, torture is specifically mentioned in
the Bible. In Matthew 18:34, Jesus tells a parable of a man who was “turned…
over to the jailers to be tortured”. Torture was a common occurrence in those
days. There are a few other verses where torture is mentioned: Jeremiah 20:2 and
38:6; Hebrews 11:35. It says in the Bible that vengeance belongs only to the
Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19). Therefore, we have no authority from God to
torture people. And we can assume that inflicting intense pain on others is
wrong.
However,
there is a controversy regarding torture and government policy. Romans 13:1-5 says that government and its
rulers were established by God. They were appointed to divvy out the
punishment. In light of all of this, the question now becomes, “Does government
have a responsibility to ensure proper interrogation methods? The Bible does
not say. It neither condones nor condemns a government’s use of torture.
So
the question now becomes: What is considered torture? Where do we draw the line?
Should it be considered torture if our government uses the information
collected from interrogations as a way to protect our citizens? What if the
information we acquire has the capability to save millions of lives? These are
important questions to answer, but since the Bible does not specifically touch
on a government’s policy, it is up to the judgment of our elected leaders.
However,
I argue that a government is made up of thousands of individuals, excluding our
military personnel, those most likely to engage in torturous activity. The numbers
for our military is in the millions. Therefore, the individual rule applies –
we have no authority under God to inflict intense pain on anyone.
Second,
torture does nothing but instill further hatred in our enemies. The world is
quite aware of our “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Does anyone really think this is going to
deter terrorists from stopping? No. It will only add more fuel to the fire.
Unfortunately, polls have shown that over half of Americans support torture as
an acceptable means of homeland security. The majority of Americans have been
brainwashed to believe that our lives have been protected by the use of
torture.
However,
as Congressman Ron Paul points out in his book Liberty Defined, “…our Constitution, our laws, international laws,
and the code of morality all forbid it” (pg. 290). Ron Paul also addresses the
question of someone having vital information that could potentially save
American lives. “…this is purely hypothetical,” he says. “One can never know
that for sure. If you had a strong suspicion that there might be such evidence,
using persuasion and a justified approach is preferable. The evidence shows the
odds are greatly increased that vital information is more likely to be gained
in this matter” (291). He also raises a very interesting question: “The
question that supporters refuse to even ask is, If one suspects that one
individual of 100 captured has crucial information, and you don’t know which
one it is, are you justified to torture all 100 to get that information? If we
still get a yes answer in support of such torture, I’m afraid our current
system of government cannot survive” (291).
He
adds, “The evidence is clear that information obtained from torture is rarely
if ever of any value”, he says. “Those suffering severe mental or physical pain
will say whatever they think the torturers want them to say. There is concrete
evidence that a more humane method of persuasion yields more information than
physical torture does” (292-293). Congressman Paul just further proved my
point, only he does not provide this “evidence” he describes. Nevertheless, he
is right. Torture has no place in our government’s policy, and it only makes
things worse.
What
surprises me the most is how Americans can condemn the brutal techniques Saddam
Hussein used against his own citizens, but then our eyes are blind to the
atrocities committed by government officials and military personnel. It is pure
hypocrisy.
Finally,
answer this simple question: If you were accused of aiding a terrorist
organization, arrested, and held indefinitely without any legitimate evidence,
then tortured only to reveal nothing, would you think this a proper form of
justice? Also, because you didn’t provide any credible information, say they decided
to torture your kids in front of you? How would you feel?
If
you think this couldn’t happen, think again. With the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) officially law, the President of the United States now
has the power to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens strictly based on suspicion that you may have
been aiding and abetting terrorists. In fact, as Ron Paul claims, “terrorist
suspects arrested in the past ten years have been caught because of paid
informants. Accusing your enemy of terrorism gains you a bonus check from the
U.S. taxpayers…” (291). If the government is willing to pay someone for
information, who’s to know if the person accused if actually guilty of
anything? So now there’s potential for the torture of innocent American
citizens. This is a gross violation of civil liberties.
I
cannot, out of good conscience, tolerate the use of torture. Human society and
culture has improved over the last 1000 years. The medieval days are over; the
Spanish Inquisition has passed. There is no place for torture in this world.
The only countries which continue to employ torture of innocent people have a
dictator in office; countries like Iran and North Korea. Although China is
slowly progressing, there is still evidence of blatant human rights abuses,
torture being one of them. If the United States is to set an example and spread
the concept of democracy worldwide, torture must not be part of our government’s
policy.
REFERENCES:
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Marriage Equality
When did society start labeling people as subhuman simply because of their sexual preference? What happened to the American ideal that "All men [and women] are created equal?" Last I checked, homosexuals are still human beings, not without emotions.
But I never used to think that way. I remember a time when I openly spoke out against homosexuals, judging and condemning them as sinful creatures bound for the fires of hell. I have lost friends over this belief. I told myself to forget about them, but deep down it hurt me that I could be so insensitive and inconsiderate regarding others feelings about the matter. That's when I studied the issue more closely.
*Note:This is an extremely difficult topic to tackle due to my fear of once again being inconsiderate. My past offenses incite me to choose my words carefully.
Although I still believe homosexuality is a choice, I've learned to not concern myself about what gays do with their personal lives. What John and Steve do in the privacy of their own home is their business.
After some serious study and deliberation about the subject, I've come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage should be legalized and states forced to recognize them. This would ensure basic civil rights for the homosexual community.
The federal government has no right, per the Constitution, to regulate marriage, let alone what kind of relationships people choose to have with each other. If there is, I would like someone to show me where specifically. Oh, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) doesn't count -- it's unconstitutional. Why? Because it defines marriage as between a man and woman, a power the Constitution does not grant the federal government. If anything, the power whether or not to allow same-sex marriage should be delegated to the states. But I'm also against this proposal. I favor ratifying an amendment into the Constitution repealing the DOMA, replacing it with the FOMA -- Freedom of Marriage Act.
Allow me to address three issues some of you may have with my opinion.
One: if you're arguing against same-sex marriage on religious grounds, may I remind you Americans are a diverse group of individuals. Although many of the religions practiced here in the United States frown upon homosexuality, remember there are also those who don't practice a religion. To be a free and equal society, we must be fair to everyone, as long as someone else's rights aren't inhibited. For example, if a group petitions the government to legalize cannibalism, obviously we cannot do that. It interferes with a citizen's right to life and security. However, when one argues that legalizing same-sex marriage will negatively influence our children and ruin the institution of marriage, we are interfering with their constitutional right. For some reason, religious people worry too much about society's influence. Umm... isn't a parent's job to teach their kids wrong from right? If you're worried about the influence of homosexuality on your kids, tell them why you think it's wrong. It's as simple as that. But never teach them to think less of someone because of it.
Also, to argue on the grounds of the "sanctity" of marriage would be idiotic. With over half of marriages ending in divorce, it's hard to prove your point. Some state that marriage is intended for the purpose of procreation, yet there are thousands, if not millions, of couples who choose not to have children or marry in their later years when they are biologically unable to do so.
Two: Regarding the issue of forcing the states to recognize same-sex marriage, how far do you think this country would've progressed if the federal government hadn't stepped in and passed landmark pieces of legislation known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? You'd be right if you guessed many of the southern states would still have segregated schools and widespread discrimination. So what do you think would happen if we allowed the states to decide their own policy of same-sex marriage? You'd again be correct if you said that a majority of states would still discriminate against same-sex couples.
Three: It's not really an issue, more of a question. Why do you care? Why? Is Bob and Bill's, or Julie and Jessica's marriage really going to affect your life? "Oh my God! My life is ruined!".... Please! That's utterly ridiculous. Mind your own business. (If you're a conservative who believes in limited government, civil liberties and a strong adherence to the Constitution, yet don't support same-sex marriage, you seriously need to re-evaluate where you stand).
I have come a long way. I would have never called myself homophobic, but the more I look at what I believed, the more I see my former-friends are right. I was scared. I was wary of the moral implications. But that doesn't matter. It shouldn't. We are a nation of laws. Therefore, with the Constitution being the law of the land and not authorizing the federal government to define or regulate marriage, we must respect it and legalize same-sex marriage in the name of equality and civil rights.
But I never used to think that way. I remember a time when I openly spoke out against homosexuals, judging and condemning them as sinful creatures bound for the fires of hell. I have lost friends over this belief. I told myself to forget about them, but deep down it hurt me that I could be so insensitive and inconsiderate regarding others feelings about the matter. That's when I studied the issue more closely.
*Note:This is an extremely difficult topic to tackle due to my fear of once again being inconsiderate. My past offenses incite me to choose my words carefully.
Although I still believe homosexuality is a choice, I've learned to not concern myself about what gays do with their personal lives. What John and Steve do in the privacy of their own home is their business.
After some serious study and deliberation about the subject, I've come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage should be legalized and states forced to recognize them. This would ensure basic civil rights for the homosexual community.
The federal government has no right, per the Constitution, to regulate marriage, let alone what kind of relationships people choose to have with each other. If there is, I would like someone to show me where specifically. Oh, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) doesn't count -- it's unconstitutional. Why? Because it defines marriage as between a man and woman, a power the Constitution does not grant the federal government. If anything, the power whether or not to allow same-sex marriage should be delegated to the states. But I'm also against this proposal. I favor ratifying an amendment into the Constitution repealing the DOMA, replacing it with the FOMA -- Freedom of Marriage Act.
Allow me to address three issues some of you may have with my opinion.
One: if you're arguing against same-sex marriage on religious grounds, may I remind you Americans are a diverse group of individuals. Although many of the religions practiced here in the United States frown upon homosexuality, remember there are also those who don't practice a religion. To be a free and equal society, we must be fair to everyone, as long as someone else's rights aren't inhibited. For example, if a group petitions the government to legalize cannibalism, obviously we cannot do that. It interferes with a citizen's right to life and security. However, when one argues that legalizing same-sex marriage will negatively influence our children and ruin the institution of marriage, we are interfering with their constitutional right. For some reason, religious people worry too much about society's influence. Umm... isn't a parent's job to teach their kids wrong from right? If you're worried about the influence of homosexuality on your kids, tell them why you think it's wrong. It's as simple as that. But never teach them to think less of someone because of it.
Also, to argue on the grounds of the "sanctity" of marriage would be idiotic. With over half of marriages ending in divorce, it's hard to prove your point. Some state that marriage is intended for the purpose of procreation, yet there are thousands, if not millions, of couples who choose not to have children or marry in their later years when they are biologically unable to do so.
Two: Regarding the issue of forcing the states to recognize same-sex marriage, how far do you think this country would've progressed if the federal government hadn't stepped in and passed landmark pieces of legislation known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? You'd be right if you guessed many of the southern states would still have segregated schools and widespread discrimination. So what do you think would happen if we allowed the states to decide their own policy of same-sex marriage? You'd again be correct if you said that a majority of states would still discriminate against same-sex couples.
Three: It's not really an issue, more of a question. Why do you care? Why? Is Bob and Bill's, or Julie and Jessica's marriage really going to affect your life? "Oh my God! My life is ruined!".... Please! That's utterly ridiculous. Mind your own business. (If you're a conservative who believes in limited government, civil liberties and a strong adherence to the Constitution, yet don't support same-sex marriage, you seriously need to re-evaluate where you stand).
I have come a long way. I would have never called myself homophobic, but the more I look at what I believed, the more I see my former-friends are right. I was scared. I was wary of the moral implications. But that doesn't matter. It shouldn't. We are a nation of laws. Therefore, with the Constitution being the law of the land and not authorizing the federal government to define or regulate marriage, we must respect it and legalize same-sex marriage in the name of equality and civil rights.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Party Hypocrisy and the End of Integrity in Politics As We Know It
We hear it all the time. Democrats versus Republicans; liberals versus conservatives; communists/socialists versus capitalists. Media outlets of all shapes and sizes exhaust this theme in order to push their ideology to its readers or viewers. Many times, its of a "liberal" persuasion. There is also conservative-based media, namely Fox News, although they present slightly more balanced coverage than its liberal counter-parts. Radio is almost entirely conservative.
I'm not here to talk about the media, however. I'm here to explain why both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and socialists and communists are hypocrites based on what they advocate on their platform. Both parties have consistently turned away from their core beliefs to pander to special interests. Some may suggest special interests groups are merely large organizations of constituents with the goal of influencing their elected representatives. Although this is technically true, what good is a party ideology if its members adjust their philosophy at the mention of unlimited campaign funding? Special interests have changed entire party platforms. What was once a party of non-interventionism, the Republicans are now a party of pre-emptive war and "national security". What was once a party of "the little man", the Democrats now court the vote of corporations and Wall Street banks.
Neither party has done much good for this country in the last decade. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing all of the arguments between the two. The way I see it, neither party has an official platform since they claim to advocate one policy, but endorse the complete opposite. Yet they know this, which leads me to question the integrity of our elected leaders. Do they really have the best interests of the American people in mind? Or are they just worried about their own well-being? Currently, there are congressional representatives still holding public office for almost five decades! Here are the names of a few:
John Dingell - served in the House for 56 consecutive years.
Daniel Inouye - served in the House and Senate consecutively for 52 years
John Conyers - served in the House for 47 consecutive years
These are the top three. Now, how do you think they're able to maintain their position for so long? Is it because they are outstanding reps who've served their constituency to the best of their ability? It's possible. Maybe even likely. But would you believe it? With all the corruption running amok in our government, the notion they truly care about the country is laughable. When unions, corporate giants, and lobbyists come knocking while waving wads of cash and promising significant campaign donations in return for a specific vote on a particular bill, it's no wonder some of these individuals have held their post as long as they have.
Allow me to get to provide examples before I continue on what could potentially be a never-ending rant. Let's start with the Republicans. In regards to core principles, the self-proclaimed party of fiscal discipline does not practice what they preach. Every election year we hear the cliche campaign pitch of cutting spending and balancing the budget. Yet, it never happens. For example, this year Congressman Paul Ryan (R -WI), chair of the Budget Committee, proposed a "Republican" budget that was a supposed contrast to the president's previously disapproved budget. Although he did cut spending by roughly 3 trillion, his budget was proposing $3.6 trillion in government spending and also would've increased the deficit over a ten-year period. So, if I understand it correctly, Republicans believe they are being fiscally responsibly by spending less than the Democrats even though they still spend like Democrats. That is not a true cut in spending. That is not a balanced budget.
Moving away from politicians, let's get to the conservative public. What does a traditional conservative believe? Limited government, free markets, strong national defense, non-interventionism. So why would someone who supports limited government insist the government enforce morality through legislation? Why would they support the Patriot Act, which gives our government permission to spy on us without a warrant? That's not limited government. It's authoritarianism.
Why would a traditional conservative support preemptive and on-going wars, the expansion of an American empire, and trillions of dollars to pay for them while simultaneously calling for cuts in the budget?
Unfortunately, this philosophy is not a new brand of conservatism. In fact, in the 18th century, conservatives were described as "members of the establishment who opposed [change] and wanted to maintain a theocratic system of government based on royalty, where the working-class people were disenfranchised and paid taxes and fees to the wealthy aristocracy" (Price, 2004). Sounds a lot like the Religious Right.
In contrast to modern-day conservatives, true limited-government, constitution-loving individuals were labeled "liberals", but not in the modern day sense. The classical view of liberalism is more aligned with the Libertarian Party. Liberalism sees a government with too much power as dangerous to a free society, one where an individual is allowed to make their own choices and take their own risks, as long as they don't interfere or affect the rights of others. This includes economics. Basically, liberalism is the closest thing to anarchy without the actual anarchy! Liberalism is not unreasonable, though. It understands that people must be punished for crimes towards others. It understands the basic functions of a government (i.e. maintaining a standing military, emergency services, and funding infrastructure projects). However, it does not allow for the government to augment its power at the expense of its citizens' rights. This philosophy is what Republicans and conservatives should be embracing, since they are the ones calling for it.
On the other hand, Democrats are not much better. In fact, their hypocrisy is much easier to reveal. For instance, Democrats and/or liberals (modern version) believe the government has no control over a woman's reproductive rights. They scream for choice, referring to Roe v. Wade as their "constitutional right". Yet, when it comes to the 2nd amendment, they wish to see it eradicated. This is a common hypocrisy because liberals love to argue that conservatives hide behind the first amendment...second amendment... fourth amendment...so on. But when a liberal politician, or a liberal member of the media says something controversial, they themselves run to the first amendment and declare "freedom of speech". However, this only works if it aligns with their views. Liberals are some of the most tolerant people... until you disagree with them. When this happens, they become the intolerant bigots.
The Democrats in our government lean on the principle of liberty in an individual's personal life, but think they're too stupid to take care of themselves financially. They tax, spend, and regulate our businesses to the brink of ruin. They insist we need large government programs like Social Security because we're not intelligent or responsible enough to plan for our own retirement. They maintain other failing programs like Medicaid and Medicare because we can't pay for our own medical care. Though the issue with health care is generally true, the reason millions of our citizens cannot pay is due to the rising prices in virtually every industry of our economy. Rising prices are a result of inflation -- an increase in the money supply. Democrats claim that printing money and injecting it into the economy creates economic growth. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's simple logic. The more you have of something, the less valuable it is. So why would the dollar be more valuable if you create more out of thin air? Blame this on Keynesian economics -- the belief that government spending causes economic prosperity.
Keynesian economics has been an utter failure wherever it's been implemented. Do you need a good example? Google "Greece economy" and you'll discover why they are in the financial bind they are in today, as well as the rest of Europe.
However, it gets worse. Liberals/Democrats today proclaim their fervent support of civil rights and racial equality. Yet they support policies like affirmative action and hate-crime legislation, both of which view individuals as part of a group (usually race). Ironically enough, it was southern Democrats, many of whom were members of the Klu Klux Klan, who passed Jim Crow laws and led the charge against the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.
Both ideologies have it wrong. A party cannot push for freedom on one end while calling for control on the other. R.G. Price explains it well:
"Now it has to be explained why these views are all wrong and actually mask political and economic realities. Free-market capitalism and Liberalism (in both the economic and social sense) go hand in hand with each other. It is the fact that people fail to understand this that makes the current "Conservative" movement in America so misdirected. Capitalism is actually the driving force behind the breakdown of all of the old bonds of society.... While supporting 'capitalism', conservatives denounce social liberalism, yet they fail to recognize that market capitalism promotes, and benefits from, social liberalism. They support capitalism and then complain about the effects of capitalism without seeing the relationship between the two things.... 'Conservative' citizens who support right-wing politicians are in fact contributing to the very problems that they are trying to oppose, and the result is that as the economics shift more and more to the Right, the social situation becomes more and more liberal. The conservatives then keep pressing more and more to the Right, thinking that that is the answer, but in fact it is not. The fact is that social liberalism is beneficial to corporations. The more liberal that society is, the more opportunities there are for making money..." (Price, 2004)
He goes further, this time debunking the Religious Right's contribution to the American political system:
".... This is where the fundamental break between American society and religious conservatism occurs.
Most major religions, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, are based on the idea of limiting an individual's desires. Fundamentally, religious societies are typically societies where people are encouraged to control their desires and limit their possessions and worldliness. Capitalist society, though, is based on the exact opposite of that. Despite the fact that FDR's New Deal appeared to be anti-business on its face, and despite the fact that the Keynesian economics of the post-WWII era in America relied on government intervention in the economy, this intervention was all designed to promote capitalism, and the means of doing that was through the promotion of consumerism.... This is why it is quite obvious that places like Las Vegas are in fact both extremely liberal and extremely capitalistic" (Price, 2004).
Why did I write this ridiculously long article on the hypocrisy of our two-party system? Because I'm fed up with people's ignorance. It seems like no one takes the time anymore to learn. Knowledge is power. If we the people ever plan on regaining such power, we have to obtain knowledge. Without it, we're clueless and will subsequently be digging our own graves.
REFERENCES:
Price, R.G. (2004). Redefining the political spectrum - the rational spectrum. Retrieved April 27, 2012 from http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
*The link to the article above is a great read for political junkies like myself. It's well written and explained. I highly recommed you read it.
I'm not here to talk about the media, however. I'm here to explain why both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and socialists and communists are hypocrites based on what they advocate on their platform. Both parties have consistently turned away from their core beliefs to pander to special interests. Some may suggest special interests groups are merely large organizations of constituents with the goal of influencing their elected representatives. Although this is technically true, what good is a party ideology if its members adjust their philosophy at the mention of unlimited campaign funding? Special interests have changed entire party platforms. What was once a party of non-interventionism, the Republicans are now a party of pre-emptive war and "national security". What was once a party of "the little man", the Democrats now court the vote of corporations and Wall Street banks.
Neither party has done much good for this country in the last decade. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing all of the arguments between the two. The way I see it, neither party has an official platform since they claim to advocate one policy, but endorse the complete opposite. Yet they know this, which leads me to question the integrity of our elected leaders. Do they really have the best interests of the American people in mind? Or are they just worried about their own well-being? Currently, there are congressional representatives still holding public office for almost five decades! Here are the names of a few:
John Dingell - served in the House for 56 consecutive years.
Daniel Inouye - served in the House and Senate consecutively for 52 years
John Conyers - served in the House for 47 consecutive years
These are the top three. Now, how do you think they're able to maintain their position for so long? Is it because they are outstanding reps who've served their constituency to the best of their ability? It's possible. Maybe even likely. But would you believe it? With all the corruption running amok in our government, the notion they truly care about the country is laughable. When unions, corporate giants, and lobbyists come knocking while waving wads of cash and promising significant campaign donations in return for a specific vote on a particular bill, it's no wonder some of these individuals have held their post as long as they have.
Allow me to get to provide examples before I continue on what could potentially be a never-ending rant. Let's start with the Republicans. In regards to core principles, the self-proclaimed party of fiscal discipline does not practice what they preach. Every election year we hear the cliche campaign pitch of cutting spending and balancing the budget. Yet, it never happens. For example, this year Congressman Paul Ryan (R -WI), chair of the Budget Committee, proposed a "Republican" budget that was a supposed contrast to the president's previously disapproved budget. Although he did cut spending by roughly 3 trillion, his budget was proposing $3.6 trillion in government spending and also would've increased the deficit over a ten-year period. So, if I understand it correctly, Republicans believe they are being fiscally responsibly by spending less than the Democrats even though they still spend like Democrats. That is not a true cut in spending. That is not a balanced budget.
Moving away from politicians, let's get to the conservative public. What does a traditional conservative believe? Limited government, free markets, strong national defense, non-interventionism. So why would someone who supports limited government insist the government enforce morality through legislation? Why would they support the Patriot Act, which gives our government permission to spy on us without a warrant? That's not limited government. It's authoritarianism.
Why would a traditional conservative support preemptive and on-going wars, the expansion of an American empire, and trillions of dollars to pay for them while simultaneously calling for cuts in the budget?
Unfortunately, this philosophy is not a new brand of conservatism. In fact, in the 18th century, conservatives were described as "members of the establishment who opposed [change] and wanted to maintain a theocratic system of government based on royalty, where the working-class people were disenfranchised and paid taxes and fees to the wealthy aristocracy" (Price, 2004). Sounds a lot like the Religious Right.
In contrast to modern-day conservatives, true limited-government, constitution-loving individuals were labeled "liberals", but not in the modern day sense. The classical view of liberalism is more aligned with the Libertarian Party. Liberalism sees a government with too much power as dangerous to a free society, one where an individual is allowed to make their own choices and take their own risks, as long as they don't interfere or affect the rights of others. This includes economics. Basically, liberalism is the closest thing to anarchy without the actual anarchy! Liberalism is not unreasonable, though. It understands that people must be punished for crimes towards others. It understands the basic functions of a government (i.e. maintaining a standing military, emergency services, and funding infrastructure projects). However, it does not allow for the government to augment its power at the expense of its citizens' rights. This philosophy is what Republicans and conservatives should be embracing, since they are the ones calling for it.
On the other hand, Democrats are not much better. In fact, their hypocrisy is much easier to reveal. For instance, Democrats and/or liberals (modern version) believe the government has no control over a woman's reproductive rights. They scream for choice, referring to Roe v. Wade as their "constitutional right". Yet, when it comes to the 2nd amendment, they wish to see it eradicated. This is a common hypocrisy because liberals love to argue that conservatives hide behind the first amendment...second amendment... fourth amendment...so on. But when a liberal politician, or a liberal member of the media says something controversial, they themselves run to the first amendment and declare "freedom of speech". However, this only works if it aligns with their views. Liberals are some of the most tolerant people... until you disagree with them. When this happens, they become the intolerant bigots.
The Democrats in our government lean on the principle of liberty in an individual's personal life, but think they're too stupid to take care of themselves financially. They tax, spend, and regulate our businesses to the brink of ruin. They insist we need large government programs like Social Security because we're not intelligent or responsible enough to plan for our own retirement. They maintain other failing programs like Medicaid and Medicare because we can't pay for our own medical care. Though the issue with health care is generally true, the reason millions of our citizens cannot pay is due to the rising prices in virtually every industry of our economy. Rising prices are a result of inflation -- an increase in the money supply. Democrats claim that printing money and injecting it into the economy creates economic growth. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's simple logic. The more you have of something, the less valuable it is. So why would the dollar be more valuable if you create more out of thin air? Blame this on Keynesian economics -- the belief that government spending causes economic prosperity.
Keynesian economics has been an utter failure wherever it's been implemented. Do you need a good example? Google "Greece economy" and you'll discover why they are in the financial bind they are in today, as well as the rest of Europe.
However, it gets worse. Liberals/Democrats today proclaim their fervent support of civil rights and racial equality. Yet they support policies like affirmative action and hate-crime legislation, both of which view individuals as part of a group (usually race). Ironically enough, it was southern Democrats, many of whom were members of the Klu Klux Klan, who passed Jim Crow laws and led the charge against the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.
Both ideologies have it wrong. A party cannot push for freedom on one end while calling for control on the other. R.G. Price explains it well:
"Now it has to be explained why these views are all wrong and actually mask political and economic realities. Free-market capitalism and Liberalism (in both the economic and social sense) go hand in hand with each other. It is the fact that people fail to understand this that makes the current "Conservative" movement in America so misdirected. Capitalism is actually the driving force behind the breakdown of all of the old bonds of society.... While supporting 'capitalism', conservatives denounce social liberalism, yet they fail to recognize that market capitalism promotes, and benefits from, social liberalism. They support capitalism and then complain about the effects of capitalism without seeing the relationship between the two things.... 'Conservative' citizens who support right-wing politicians are in fact contributing to the very problems that they are trying to oppose, and the result is that as the economics shift more and more to the Right, the social situation becomes more and more liberal. The conservatives then keep pressing more and more to the Right, thinking that that is the answer, but in fact it is not. The fact is that social liberalism is beneficial to corporations. The more liberal that society is, the more opportunities there are for making money..." (Price, 2004)
He goes further, this time debunking the Religious Right's contribution to the American political system:
".... This is where the fundamental break between American society and religious conservatism occurs.
Most major religions, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, are based on the idea of limiting an individual's desires. Fundamentally, religious societies are typically societies where people are encouraged to control their desires and limit their possessions and worldliness. Capitalist society, though, is based on the exact opposite of that. Despite the fact that FDR's New Deal appeared to be anti-business on its face, and despite the fact that the Keynesian economics of the post-WWII era in America relied on government intervention in the economy, this intervention was all designed to promote capitalism, and the means of doing that was through the promotion of consumerism.... This is why it is quite obvious that places like Las Vegas are in fact both extremely liberal and extremely capitalistic" (Price, 2004).
Why did I write this ridiculously long article on the hypocrisy of our two-party system? Because I'm fed up with people's ignorance. It seems like no one takes the time anymore to learn. Knowledge is power. If we the people ever plan on regaining such power, we have to obtain knowledge. Without it, we're clueless and will subsequently be digging our own graves.
REFERENCES:
Price, R.G. (2004). Redefining the political spectrum - the rational spectrum. Retrieved April 27, 2012 from http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
*The link to the article above is a great read for political junkies like myself. It's well written and explained. I highly recommed you read it.
Monday, April 23, 2012
The American Presidents: George Washington
 |
| George Washington |
Date of Birth: Feb 22, 1732
Date of Death: Dec 14, 1799
Birthplace: Colonial Beach, VA
Political Party: Federalist
Experience prior to the Presidency:
- British soldier during the French and Indian War
- Became politician for home state of Virginia, serving in its House of Burgesses from 1759 to 1774.
- Unanimously selected as Commander-in-Chief of Continental Forces in 1775 during the Revolutionary War
His Presidency
George Washington took the oath of office on April 30, 1789 in New York City, becoming our nation's first president. His priority as the first executive was to establish an effective executive structure for future presidents. In order to do so, Washington focused on maintaining relations between the New England and Southern states, hoping to avoid sectionalism which had the potential to divide the nation. Despite his success, he could not, however, mend relations between his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. This had more to do with politics than personality. Washington supported many of Hamilton's controversial fiscal policies, such as the assumption of state debts, the Bank of the United States, and the excise tax. Because of this support, Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans often targeted the administration.To further understand why Hamilton's policies were so controversial, a thorough definition of each will be provided.
Assumption of state debts: After the Revolutionary War, many states had racked up war debts. Some were able to pay, others were not. Alexander Hamilton thought up the plan to help these debt-ridden states by proposing a policy which would shift their debt unto the federal government. The government would then ask the states that already paid to pay again. This was a very unpopular plan, especially for Virginians. However, Hamilton skillfully persuaded them to accept his proposal on the grounds the nation's capital will be relocated from New York to a location near the Potomac River. Hence, the proposal was adopted and signed into law.
My spin: Although this policy was unfair to the states who successfully paid their debts, it was a necessary step to establish a foundation for an American economy. By removing the debts from poorer states, it ensured our nation, in its infancy, would progress towards prosperity.
 |
| First Bank of U.S in Philadelphia |
To see more of Jefferson's argument against the Bank of the United States, please visit http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm
Hamilton, on the other hand, believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit. He made a convincing argument, and Congress passed the formation of a the bank for a twenty-year term.
My spin: In my opinion, this is a stain on Washington's administration. A modern-day version of a national bank is the Federal Reserve, which I blame for many of our current economic problems. I agree with Jefferson. Nothing in the Constitution says Congress is authorized to establish a central bank. A national bank is the fastest way to corruption. Like Jefferson mentioned, it also greatly increases the size and scope of the federal government. The Revolutionary War was fought to get away from a tyrant king, yet we create a bank which has the potential to breed a tryannical government.
Excise tax: An excise tax is a tax on the sale of a particular good, item, or activity. Having just fought a war over taxation, the U.S. Congress wanted a reliable source of income that was relatively unobtrusive and easy to collect. Tariffs and excise taxes were authorized by the Constitution and recommended by Alexander Hamilton in 1789 to tax foreign imports and set up low excise taxes to provide the federal government with enough money to pay its operating expenses and to redeem at full value U.S. federal debts and the debts the states had accumulated during the war (Wikipedia). The tax was justified as Hamilton reasoned the country start out on a sound financial basis with good credit.
However, as expected, there were opponents of the tax. In 1791, angry farmers from Pennsylvania launched a series of attacks on tax agents in opposition to the tax placed on their cash crop -- the grains harvested and used for whiskey production. The tax eliminated any form of profit for the farmers. This became known as the Whiskey Rebellion.
The rebellion got out of hand as the farmers would start riots in numerous towns and physically assualt tax collectors in those towns. In 1794, the farmers attacked a federal marshal in Allegheny County, PA while a group of several hundred attacked the home of a regional inspector, burning the house and his barn to the ground.
This prompted President Washington to call in the militia utilizing the Militia Law of 1792, which allowed the use of militia to "execute the laws of the union (and) suppress insurrections". It was the first time the law was used, and a test to establish the power of the federal government over individual states.
The presidents order brought forth an army of approximately 13,000, and he placed them under the command of General Harry Lee, father of famous civil war general, Robert E. Lee. However, Washington himself lead the troops in a show of presidential authority. He squashed the rebellion, and restored order.
My spin: Many may possibly see this as abuse of power. However, since the excise tax was constitutional, a rebellion against it was unjustified. President Washington exhibited exceptional leadership ablity, leading the front of his militia against a violent mob. He also exercised the proper amount of force. However, his upholding of the tax remained extremely unpopular with the general public.
Foreign Policy
Despite the consistent attacks, Washington was easily re-elected in 1792. He had enjoyed a relatively quiet and uneventful presidency so far. That would all change.The following year, President Washington declared neutrality while a war waged between France and Britain. A conflict ensued inside between his cabinet, primarily and not suprisingly, between Jefferson and Hamilton. Jefferson's party (Democratic-Republicans) sided with the French, while Hamilton's (Federalists) sided with the British. Realizing the need to develop close commercial ties with the British, the president agreed to take make peace with England. This angered the pro-French Jeffersonians. However, Washington had his reasons. He was shocked by the brutatlity of the French Revolution, and enraged by the meddling of French minister to the United States, Edmond Genet, with internal affairs of the American political system. Because of the division within his own cabinet, he felt it necessary to remain neutral and avoid playing favorites.
Jay's Treaty: In 1794, President Washington sent a diplomat by the name of Jonh Jay to offer terms of a peace treaty that would be beneficial to both nations. The issue Washington faced was the British refusing to leave the forts they established in the Northwest Territory -- now known as Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Additionally, Britain captured American ships and forced the sailors on board to fight in their war between France. The U.S. responded by passing maritime navigation laws which hurt Britain economically. These laws essentially started a trade war and threatened the progress and prosperity of the American economy.
John Jay returned after successfully negotiating terms of peace and Washington accordingly accepted the terms of the treaty. It eliminated British control of western ports in the Northwest territory; allowed the U.S. to claim any damages regarding the seizure of their ships; and permitted the U.S. a limited amount of trade in the West Indies.
The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed this treaty, as did the American people. It was viewed as a surrender to British demands, inciting more criticism of Washington and his policies, including the excise tax.
My spin: The treaty establised peace between the two nations, and ended the British military occupation in the Northwest Territory. It aslo terminated the dangerous trade war while authorizing trade, although limited, in the British controlled West Indies. It was a win-win.
Pinckney's Treaty (Treaty of San Lorenzo of 1795): As a young nation, Washington wanted official recognition of the world's superpowers: Britian, Spain, and France. He had accomplished this with England, now he was looking for France and Spain to do the same. France was upset that the U.S. had not yet agreed to the terms of the alliance made in 1778 during the Revolutionary War, so they refused to acknowledge the U.S. Spain, on the other hand, controlled New Orleans. The city was crucial for American farmers in the western territories who would usually transport goods by overland routes, a process which was very time-consuming and expensive. New Orleans would allow them to transport their goods to the east in an economically friendly way.
Washington dispatched Thomas Pinckney to strike a deal with Spain. Realizing America's new friendship with Great Britain -- a key rival -- Spain decided to balance the power and strengthen its own relationship with the U.S by offering the following concessions:
1) They would recognize the U.S. border at the Mississippi River and the 31st parallel -- the northern border of Florida.
2) They granted Americans the right to deposit -- to temporarily store goods for shipment -- in New Orleans. American farmers got what they needed.
My spin: The United States was practically recognized as a legitimate nation (2 out of 3 ain't bad!). Also, the American agricultural industry was given a huge boost when New Orleans was opened and considerably expanded U.S. territory. Also on the plus side, Spain had another international friend.
Conclusion: President Washington presided over the nation's first eight years under the Constitution. Like every leader, there were obstacles and challenges to overcome. Washington declined to run for a third-term. He felt old and decided to retire to his home near Mount Vernon. When he left, the U.S. financial system was stable. Not talked about above, Washington's administration also removed the Indian "threat" east of the Mississippi, and scored major political and diplomatic victories with the Jay and Pinckney treaties. During his tenure, he realized a disturbing trend of partisan politics. In his farewell address to Congress, he urged his fellow countrymen to stay away from such eager party spirit. He also warned of foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. This is the message he left hoping it would be followed for the sake of the country's future. He was succeeded by his Vice-President, John Adams.
Grade: B+
References:
Excise tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States#Historical_Background
Monday, April 16, 2012
How to fix Social Security
Everybody with a job pays the "Social Security" tax, along with many others. I'm not sure what the rate is, but I know it can be quite a bit, especially if happened to pull in a bonus for month. The money taken from this tax goes to the Social Security Trust Fund which provides a subsistence allowance to retirees and the disabled. So what's the problem? Many argue that the fund is broken; insolvent. They believe that we should privatize it, or at least allow some of the younger workers the option to invest a portion of their social security payments into a personal retirement plan. Furthermore, others have called for a complete repeal of Social Security, calling it an "entitlement" system. I agree with the idea that giving younger Americans the option to take personal responsibility for their own retirement, however, I strongly oppose the dismantling of our Social Security system.
It's painfully obvious that the system is indeed broken. It is underfunded, therefore, providing an unreasonable amount a person can live on with rising prices in today's market. When FDR created Social Security as part of his "New Deal", it proved to be a huge success. Of course, in those days, there were five workers to every retiree. Flip that scenario. There is now only one worker to every five retirees, so you can understand how much of a burden we are putting on the trust fund. But does this mean we abolish the system? Does this mean we destroy a program that unfairly denies benefits to those who put into it themselves? No. The question is not, how do we get rid of it? The question is, how do we fix it?
It's not an easy one to answer. Many retirees and disabled citizens depend on social security. To eradicate it would be irresponsible because not only are you taking someone's income, you're stripping them of their livelihood.
So I ask again: how do we fix it?
We can start off by getting Americans working again. The more money we are bringing in, the more the government has to fund it. But how do we get Americans working? It's government's job to create an environment of competition among businesses; for success. First things first: cut the red tape. Get rid of unnecessary, burdensome regulations. The only regulation a government should impose on the market is to ensure monopolies don't occur. After all, we want competition, not a single company who can charge what it wants.
Second, we cut corporate taxes! Sounds simple enough. But what we must remember is that cutting taxes and deregulating our economy isn't enough to get businesses hiring again. They need to see optimism. If they are confident that our market isn't going to collapse, or the economy is on the upswing, then they will hire. Unfortunately, with the debt the United States has accrued due to trillions of dollars of deficit spending, there's not much to go around. Also, inflation is a major concern. The Federal Reserve believes its policy of printing money is aiding some sort of economic recovery, when in fact, it's only exacerbating the situation. (Note: Inflation is not a rise in prices. Inflation is the increase of the money supply causing a rise in prices. This is basic economics. The more money in circulation, the less the value of a dollar. A dollar now buys less, resulting in higher prices to make up for the lost value.) The Fed needs to be abolished and the money supply deflated. Bring in a competing currency -- like gold and silver -- to offset the loss of cash. A balanced budget needs to passed with severe cuts in the trillions, and payment of the entire national debt. This will create a positive environment for businesses to succeed.
A large portion of the cuts I mentioned above are coming from the Department of Defense. We will not scale back our military. I would like to maintain that, if possible. However, overseas spending is what's hurting the back of the Unites States economy. Wars cost money. So do the bases we use to house our troops. Most U.S. military bases cost millions to maintain -- we have hundreds! I bet if we brought home all military personnel, we might just have enough to keep social security solvent.
Some may ask the question: "But Chris, isn't Social Security big government? Isn't it an entitlement program?" Yeah, maybe so. But wouldn't you want a return on your investment? Is it not fair to receive the very same benefits others got when you supported them? I think it is. So what if it's an entitlement program? When the time comes, you'll be receiving the same benefits.
But, to be fair, if our incompetent politicians can't come up with a solution to the problem, social security will have to be gradually phased out. Here's how this plan works:
1) Those already receiving benefits can continue to claim them if they so choose.
2) For those of a certain age or younger, give them the option of a) continuing paying into the system b) getting off of the system and financing their own retirement, or c) allow them to invest a portion into a private account.
3) If necessary, increase the retirement age. We shouldn't have to do this if we follow the steps above (i.e, balanced budget, paying down debt, removing troops from foreign soil).
4) Cut some benefits for those who also have private retirement accounts. I generally wouldn't support this, but desperate times for call for desperate measures.
5) This is an absolute last resort, because I would absolutely hate to do this: Raise the SS tax.
These are just some ideas. I don't know if they would actually work, but at least I'm attempting to think of a solution to a very real dilemma. I'm also being brutally honest. I mean, how many politicians do you know say they're going to raise your taxes (besides President Obama)? I can literally count them on one hand!
Supporting SS for me is troubling because I generally favor smaller government. But because it worked before, it means we can make it work again. We're just going to have to think outside of the box.
It's painfully obvious that the system is indeed broken. It is underfunded, therefore, providing an unreasonable amount a person can live on with rising prices in today's market. When FDR created Social Security as part of his "New Deal", it proved to be a huge success. Of course, in those days, there were five workers to every retiree. Flip that scenario. There is now only one worker to every five retirees, so you can understand how much of a burden we are putting on the trust fund. But does this mean we abolish the system? Does this mean we destroy a program that unfairly denies benefits to those who put into it themselves? No. The question is not, how do we get rid of it? The question is, how do we fix it?
It's not an easy one to answer. Many retirees and disabled citizens depend on social security. To eradicate it would be irresponsible because not only are you taking someone's income, you're stripping them of their livelihood.
So I ask again: how do we fix it?
We can start off by getting Americans working again. The more money we are bringing in, the more the government has to fund it. But how do we get Americans working? It's government's job to create an environment of competition among businesses; for success. First things first: cut the red tape. Get rid of unnecessary, burdensome regulations. The only regulation a government should impose on the market is to ensure monopolies don't occur. After all, we want competition, not a single company who can charge what it wants.
Second, we cut corporate taxes! Sounds simple enough. But what we must remember is that cutting taxes and deregulating our economy isn't enough to get businesses hiring again. They need to see optimism. If they are confident that our market isn't going to collapse, or the economy is on the upswing, then they will hire. Unfortunately, with the debt the United States has accrued due to trillions of dollars of deficit spending, there's not much to go around. Also, inflation is a major concern. The Federal Reserve believes its policy of printing money is aiding some sort of economic recovery, when in fact, it's only exacerbating the situation. (Note: Inflation is not a rise in prices. Inflation is the increase of the money supply causing a rise in prices. This is basic economics. The more money in circulation, the less the value of a dollar. A dollar now buys less, resulting in higher prices to make up for the lost value.) The Fed needs to be abolished and the money supply deflated. Bring in a competing currency -- like gold and silver -- to offset the loss of cash. A balanced budget needs to passed with severe cuts in the trillions, and payment of the entire national debt. This will create a positive environment for businesses to succeed.
A large portion of the cuts I mentioned above are coming from the Department of Defense. We will not scale back our military. I would like to maintain that, if possible. However, overseas spending is what's hurting the back of the Unites States economy. Wars cost money. So do the bases we use to house our troops. Most U.S. military bases cost millions to maintain -- we have hundreds! I bet if we brought home all military personnel, we might just have enough to keep social security solvent.
Some may ask the question: "But Chris, isn't Social Security big government? Isn't it an entitlement program?" Yeah, maybe so. But wouldn't you want a return on your investment? Is it not fair to receive the very same benefits others got when you supported them? I think it is. So what if it's an entitlement program? When the time comes, you'll be receiving the same benefits.
But, to be fair, if our incompetent politicians can't come up with a solution to the problem, social security will have to be gradually phased out. Here's how this plan works:
1) Those already receiving benefits can continue to claim them if they so choose.
2) For those of a certain age or younger, give them the option of a) continuing paying into the system b) getting off of the system and financing their own retirement, or c) allow them to invest a portion into a private account.
3) If necessary, increase the retirement age. We shouldn't have to do this if we follow the steps above (i.e, balanced budget, paying down debt, removing troops from foreign soil).
4) Cut some benefits for those who also have private retirement accounts. I generally wouldn't support this, but desperate times for call for desperate measures.
5) This is an absolute last resort, because I would absolutely hate to do this: Raise the SS tax.
These are just some ideas. I don't know if they would actually work, but at least I'm attempting to think of a solution to a very real dilemma. I'm also being brutally honest. I mean, how many politicians do you know say they're going to raise your taxes (besides President Obama)? I can literally count them on one hand!
Supporting SS for me is troubling because I generally favor smaller government. But because it worked before, it means we can make it work again. We're just going to have to think outside of the box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)