Should The Government Bailout States?

An interesting question with a possible of starting a helluva argument…..I propose this question because of something I read in the WSJ blog Washington Wire:

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked for $6.9 billion in federal funds in his state-budget proposal for California and warned that state health and welfare programs would be threatened without the emergency help.

Do you think the federal government should comply with the request? What about the governor’s argument that the money would amount to a reimbursement to his state of unfunded mandates?

Should the federal government bailout states that are in financial treacherous waters?  I say NO….no way….nope…..and why is that professor?

Yes the recession has hit all states heavily, but beyond that…the states have made horrendous decisions in the past all in the name of politics and elections…..most notably the tax revenues which all states need to provide for their citizens….but politicians make promises to the voter to cut taxes if they are elected and then they push for it as a pad to their resumes….and once they succeed in cutting taxes to attract votes, business and so forth…they start cutting programs to make up for the shortfall in their revenues……

I say NO to bailout the states……they should be forced to face the disaster that they have created……maybe instead of taking away programs that are needed maybe they should look at a more realistic way of gathering revenue, besides looking to cover their butts with federal funds….

And what pray tell is the answer, Professor…..simple try looking at the land value tax (LVT) and maybe then needed programs would flourish and the people of the state could go about a happier existence…..what could it hurt to look for a feasible answer and stop wasting time begging the federal government to cover your ass?

The Hero Of The Right

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/History

Since 1980 the Right has been all a tither over Reagan…..we hear his name mentioned over and over….ad nausem …….he could do NO wrong…..and just about every candidate since 1988 has dropped his name in a hope that it will be fruitful for them……but why his he so revered?

Was it his policies?  Was it his ideology?  Was it his personality?  Just what made him such a hero?

His policies…….smaller government…..strong defense……lower taxes….attack welfare programs….deregulate the economy…..and a free market economy…..when he was elected president he began his assault on the country…..

In reality he gave the Republican Party some new ideas that they did not have for decades and the Religious Right found an opening to exercise their influence over the country.  What Reagan did was set the stage for the Repub takeover of Congress in the 90′s……

So he is the hero because of electoral  politics…nothing else…..but if the Repubs need a real hero then they should look to the one that made all this possible and it was not Reagan…..

The conservative that the GOP seldom mentions did not win a presidential election, but he had a hand at the making of the red states that the GOP is so proud of today….who is that masked man?

Barry Goldwater!

And why would I say that?

After all Goldwater lost in a landslide, right?  Maybe so but he did receive about 27 million votes…beyond that he brought the Southern states into the GOP fold because of his stand in opposition to welfare and civil rights….you could say that Reagan was built, at least politically, by Barry Goldwater….so Repubs should be worshiping at the Goldwater alter for without him the South could very well still be a strong hold for the Dems and the GOP would be less popular than they are today.

What did Reagan do to become the hero of the Right?  He won an election…..he defeated a weak Dem candidate…that would not be a stretch in any political atmosphere…..he gave the world a lousy, lousy economic theory…the Laffer Curve…..has been debunked from the word go…..he beat the USSR….right there is enough, right?…he did that by out spending Russia and driving them in the crapper…so why is this man the hero?

What Happened To Civil Behavior?

In my younger years I spent some time in Washington playing the political game and in those days there was an unwritten code among the representatives on the Hill; it also included all workers on the Hill……it was like a civility code of conduct…..

The main tenets of the code were:

1–treat colleagues with respect..

2–no personal attacks..

3–Do not comment on an upcoming vote unless that is a commitment….

4–keep your word….

5–Reciprocate whenever possible

There were others but for the sake of this post these were the most important…there was a time when there was disagreement but with a spot of respect….that NO longer exist!

I speak of these because that code NO longer exist…there is little respect among the players, personal attacks have hit a high mark, comments are made on every part of the upcoming vote, few keep their word and there is little to reciprocate…..

Once again this is just another indication of how badly the legislative system is working…it is broken and it seems to be cracking even more with every new Congress that is sworn in….

There is hope for the system…..one way to repair it is to eliminate the need for massive amounts of money needed to win a seat…..and the professional politician is NOT the way to go…a politician is just a upgrade from an used car salesman…what is needed is statesmen…people who think of the country and not their personal gain….

The sad part for me is that I do not think there are many statesmen left…..the whole American culture is the ME culture and the driving force of that culture is GREED!

Poisoning Of The System

Are you people happy….you are succeeding at doing what many have tried and failed….

The poison I speak of is not cyanide or hemlock or…….the poison that is being swallowed by the federal system is…..partisanship……partisanship has turned the political system, especially the Congress, into a dysfunctional child……

We have three branches to out government….the executive is working just fine, the judiciary is working okay (of course there will be those who will disagree) and finally the legislative…..and this puppy is just about at a stand still….when it finally curls up its toes the other two will not be far behind……

The hyper-partisanship of today has turned the Congress, especially in the Senate, into a non-functioning entity….even though the Dems have that elusive super majority of 60…they still cannot get anything done that is on their agenda…..Repubs have decided that the defeat or at least the stalling, of anything Dem was the only way to govern in this Congress.

Interesting that the slow down or the eventually failure of the government is more important to the Repubs than the good of the people…..Federalism is best when working within an equilibrium…..when all things are equal….but partisanship has turned or poisoned the very idea of American Federalism…….the system is NOT working, at least as far as the people go…..

About the only thing that could come out of this crap is that the Dems can use the obstructionism of the GOP when they do decide to grow a set of cajones…..

The GOP maybe single handedly killing the political system that they are so proud of and use to their advantage whenever something is not to their liking…..like a spoiled child they, the GOP, is just against anything that their brothers are for…..it is a poison and they are administering it  to the whole idea of American governance…..well done, dipsticks!

Federalism will most likely recover….but not completely……and are your still really proud of the way this beloved system is working now?

Do Repubs Really Want The House?

An interesting question that is being passed around the Hill……and one that needs to be thought out before one makes a decision…..but according to some in the media the GOP will make a hard push to try and regain control of the House…..I do not think so…..for one, I do not think they is enough anger for them to do it and second, I am beginning to think that they may not want control….

I know….I know…..that is crazy Professor….but think about it……look at the political capital they are making by being in opposition to Obama and everything Democratic…..they could possibly forgo control to gain even more political capital for the 2012 election….that would give them a good shot at the White House…..

They could not blame everything on the Dems if they control the House…..all their opposition and political banter would be not as effective if they were in control….the GOP is getting lots of mileage out of their opposition for being the minority…..that could possibly not be the case if they win….we would then have a split Congress and that would not be as newsworthy for the vultures in the media….

Personally, I do not think they have the candidates or the support among the electorate to actually win control of the House of Representatives……but deep down I do not think they the RNC would be that upset with not being in control of the House….it would just help their case in the presidential bid in 2012….

I also feel like their lack of message or alternatives is a planned strategy…..they have nothing but the economy to run on….and if it stays in the toilet they have a good chance of winning some seats….so their tactic, it appears to me, to be keep all programs off the agenda and the ones that are there oppose….and in doing so they are helping the economy stay in the crapper….sounds like a sick game, huh?  But is that not a good definition for politics?

Just thinking out loud….

Who Is Palin’s Favorite Founder?

I am always looking to politicians to find who their favorite Founding Father was….why?….it will tell me a lot about what type of politician they are or will be…..were they in the Federalist camp or the Anti-Federalist?….it will show their leaning as afr as the government and its involvement in daily life will be….

So I set about to determine what I thought Palin’s favorite Founder would be…..well, since she is a Repub I would guess that it would have been either Jefferson, Patrick Henry were the two biggest names in the movement and should be readily known by a possible presidential candidate…I figured her association with the GOP that it would most likely be the usual, Jefferson, the usual hero of the politically right…..

Set about trying to find a source that would lead me to her favorite…..did not take long at all….as a matter of fact it was one of her first days on the FOX News network….

When asked who her favorite Founding Father is, Palin said, “You know, well all of them, because they claim collectively together with so much…” Beck called bull crap on her, but she continued, “diversity in terms of belief, but collectively they came together to form this union, and they were led by George Washington, of course so he has got to rise to the top. Washington was the consummate statesman. He served he turned power to the people. He didn’t want to be a king. He returned power to the people then he went back to Mt. Vernon. He went back to his farm. He was almost reluctant to serve as president too, and that’s who you need to find to serve in government in a bureaucracy.

I was wrong!  It was not Henry or Jefferson but rather Washington….okay Houston we have a problem…..Washington’s name is not in the list of Founding Fathers, yes he was the general of the Continental Army and he was our first pres but no where did he sign any of the founding documents….not the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution….

And then the diversity comment…..which diversity?  Of Ideas then yeah…diversity of people then nope…all rich white guys…not too damn diverse…

I do not mind that an American is ignorant on the history of this country, but for someone who wants to be a political leader of the country to have NO idea about the founding of the country is just flipping typical….maybe she should have said Gilbert du Motier…..I pause for the google button…….the Marquis de Lafayette….ring any bells?…..if not for him Washington could and would not have won the battle in New York and could have possibly lost the war of independence in the long run…..if you think that a general should be your favorite founder then why not pick the one that diod the most good for the US?

I am disappointed….I knew she was not the most knowledgeable person in the GOP, but a goof like this just adds to the ignorance of a possible candidate….I mean Katey Couric was ravaged by the Right for her question about newspaper to Palin….wiil the Right be so bold when it is one of their voices asking the “GOTCHA” question?

What Is The Human Condition?

I was recently talking with a philosophy class….I was there to discuss political philosophy…… and one of the students asked me if I could think of something that would best describe the human condition…..first I needed to ask myself just what was meant by the human condition…..to me it means the life and culture that we live through from birth to death……after the decision I began to think of things that could adequately describe the condition….is a book…an author….a movie….or just what?

Then it came to me in a flash…an epiphany, if you will…….John Lennon’s “Working Class Hero”:

As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

When they've tortured and scared you for 20 odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

Keep you doped wit religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill

A working class hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me

Pretty much sums it up, at least for me.....

Are Political Parties Really Necessary?

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory

I was asked this in one of my lecture on political philosophy, these days it is called political theory, by a student who said that he did not know what or why we have them in the system……a good question in these times of political chaos in the US……there are movements and then there are what we call parties……most of these are just a meeting place for politicians….

Enough beating around the bush……political parties?

The origins of political parties in the United States of American can be traced to the debates about the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalists, who supported ratification, and the Antifederalists, who opposed ratification, became the first two major political parties in the United States.  Basically, it is two camps on a political issue.

One of the most common–and practical–definitions of a political party is “a team of political office seekers.” Securing elective office for its members is, in fact, one of the most important objectives of a political party. Toward this end, political parties actively recruit candidates to run for office, organize volunteers, hold party conventions and other meetings and raise and spend money to support the party and its candidates.

Parties also represent the broad values or goals stated in their party platforms. While not all of the members of a party adhere to every “plank” in their party’s platform, people who affiliate with a political party usually support most of the party’s positions–at least more than they support the positions of the other party.

The American political system has, with a few brief exceptions, always had two major political parties. Third parties, such as the Reform Party today, arise from time to time and win a few votes. Sometimes a third party member is even elected to a significant political office, such as Jesse Ventura, who was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998. But the American system of elections tends to work against third parties. Because votes are cast for members of Congress in single-member districts on a winner-take-all basis, third party candidates are almost never elected to the House or Senate.

Before a third party can be considered a legitimate party, it must at least “contest” elections at every level, meaning it must field candidates for every office from President to city council (or at least Congress). More importantly, its candidates must win a handful of these elections. While it is not impossible for a third party to transform the political party system through its own electoral success, history is not on its side. More often than not, third parties that experience some initial success end up fading after one (or both) of the two major parties “steals” its issues.

Now with that under our belt….are political parties necessary?

The simplest answer is that….they are NOT necessary but that they are needed….why would I say that?  They are needed because most Americans use them to decide where to put their votes…..they do not attempt to focus their attention on the whole picture just on a single issue….like guns or marriage or yada yada……

Americans for the most part are independent politically….however with that said, they are single issue voters and because of that they look for the candidate that most is in line with their thinking….and that means political parties.

Note:  I would like to thank thisnation.org for exerpts in this post……

Could The Answer Be Term Limits?

We have all heard of the dissatisfaction of the people with the representatives in Washington….polls show that it is an accurate assumption and yet the people do not seem to be willing to do anything about it……they bitch about the influence money has and that is the biggest bitch of all……

But what causes the influence of money?  Some say the longevity of the representatives is the cause……incumbents are re-elected about 90% of the time……and to be re-elected it takes money and then that brings us back to the influence of money…..corporations and industries and sectors donate millions if not billions to candidates that can be useful in the corporations business dealings…….

There has been a move to term limits for the representatives…..that is to set a limit on the number of years that they could be in the US Congress as a representative of the people…..but what of term limits?

According to open congress:

Many argue that career politicians have negative implications for democracy. Some cite the fact that since the end of World War II, incumbents have been reelected a very high percentage of the time. In the House, for instance, the re-election rate for incumbents was 93 percent from 1952-2000.^[1] It was only marginally lower in the Senate, as it averaged 74 percent from 1946-64, 76% between 1966-1984 and 87.4% from 1986-1998.^[1] The cause for this, according to some, is that while incumbents must always be reelected, they enjoy certain advantages over challengers. For example, they typically have greater name recognition and better opportunities to raise large amounts of campaign money.^[1] These advantages, some argue, deter potential candidates from challenging incumbents, leading to elections that do not truly feature high quality choices for the electorate. Term limits, therefore, help ensure that citizens will frequently have new choices when selecting their leaders.^[1]

This idea became popular in the 1990′s, but lost some of its luster, but now is the time for a resurrection of the idea….Congress is at an all time low approval rating…..back in 1994/95 there was a growing move toward term limits…..but there is a catch to term limits……

On May 22, 1995, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton that states could not adopt term limits for federal legislators (22 states had done so by this point). Doing so would require a Constitutional Amendment.^[1] Given that the amendment had already failed by a wide margin, and that the newly-elected Congress had several other initiatives for which it intended to pursue, the idea of term-limits soon faded.

There is the catch……thanx to Federalism term limits cannot be handled on the state level it can only be through a constitutional amendment and there is the rub……which of the representatives that is benefiting through the lack of term limits will step up and offer it up as an amendment?

We can bitch as much as we want…but as it stands now….we can do NOTHING but bitch….we are stuck with this system of allowing cash to run the country while the people stand by as the spectator…..

There are organizations out there that are facing this issue…the problem is they are on the fringe and few people really care at this point….this is a problem that can be solved……but it takes a village to want to change things…..and unfortunately, Americans are NOT there yet….for it will take participation and the people are happy to vote once and then be a spectator……

Is It Really Elitism?

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Philosophy

Do you remember the last the election with all the accusations of elitism?  They were the elites, mostly liberals, from politics, media, news print, academia, etc, etc……I have always enjoyed listening to those dinks in Washington accuse someone of being an elite….it is beyond humor.

Let us look back into our history, shall we?  This country was founded by elites…if it had not been for them we would speak the Queen’s English and not the bastardized form we speak today…….to disparage elites is to disparage the Founding Fathers…is that what you intended?  If so, then you are a moron!

Now let us look at the philosophy behind elitism…….

Elitism suggest that ALL decisions are made by a single group….the ruling elite…..rather than a plurality of the people……(does that sound familiar?)….I believe that it was R.A. Dahl that wrote……”ruling elite is the minority of individuals whose preferences regularly prevail in cases of differences in preferences  on key political issues”……think about that for a moment….(pause here for reflection)…….sounds about right….when all polls indicated that the people were in favor of a public option and the Congress voted differently than the desires of the people……not an isolated occurrence….happens every time these people meet and play their political games…..

Let’s boil this down for others……..Washington is full of elites…..on both sides of the aisle…it is NOT confined to one party or the other……they are elected by the people (we can debate that later)…….but act in their own self interests….mainly in pursuit of cash for their coffers…..You have a elitist form of government…the problem is that YOU allow this to exist without challenging it at all……the moral of this tale is…..

To answer the question….yes it IS elitism….Washington is choke full of elites……

If you are not willing to change things then shut the f*ck up!