This post was great. This post raises a question for me. How can a Libertarian the learnings from the 20th Century to the 21st Century.
Given Blockchains, A-Keys, and distributed ledgers, we can make Distributed Governance a reality.
Hayek would agree.
In chapter ten of The Road to Serfdom , “Why the Worst Get on Top,” Hayek continues to warn about the dangers of planned economies, but with a slightly different approach from earlier chapters. Stepping into new territory, here we see Hayek not only identifying economic problems but also […]
Notice in the Heritage Foundation fundraising letter below that they unwittingly expose the fundamental fallacy of Conservatism.
Notice they point out the mutually exclusive principles of “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom” on one hand and a “strong national defense” on the other hand. I could be wrong but I think “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom“ are mutually exclusive with “strong national defense.”
Free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom are Anti-Fascist. Strong national defense is Pro-Fascist. Fascism and Anti-Fascism are mutually exclusive world views.
I also find it ironic that Conservatives need to ask for money to promote these conservative principles. I would think if the principles are so great, they should promote themselves. If the principles are so great, you shouldn’t need money to promote them.
(And, as always, if you think I’ve drawn the wrong conclusions here, I’d be interested in you pointing out where I’m wrong.)
We all know Pete King is a disreputable cretin. While IRA gunmen were exploding car bombs in Belfast and trying to assassinate Margaret Thatcher, Pete King was energetically protecting those murderers who fled to the United States from deportation. But having a total absence of morals and honor is no reason to tell an easily disproved lie to the world.
The Sandy aid bill started out as a tight $17 billion package to which New Jersey Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen added $33 BILLION in pork, or at least something that could pass for pork in broad daylight. There were such things as $500 million for weather forecasting and to help create an ocean zoning plan; $10 million for FBI salaries; $2 billion for road construction across the country; funding for the Head Start program; roof repairs at the Smithsonian; $150 million for fisheries across the country; and 16 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program–the favorite political slush fund of big city mayors.
In short, 80% of the mammoth bill would be spent more than a year after the disaster and over a fifth of it would not be spent on anything remotely resembling disaster aid.
The tough vote some Representatives and Senators cast was not against aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, it was against the grotesque actions of a handful of New York Democrats and Republicans who wanted to hijack a tragedy in order to use taxpayer dollars to buy votes. That is what is called leadership.
Maybe Pete King should just shut the hell up and go back to his core activity of coddling terrorists. Then he’d merely look craven and not grossly dishonest.
Hurricane Harvey is still slamming Texas and New York douchewad, Pete King, tweets this: Ted Cruz & Texas cohorts voted vs NY/NJ aid after Sandy but I’ll vote 4 Harvey aid. NY wont abandon Texas. 1 bad turn doesnt deserve another — Rep. Pete King (@RepPeteKing) August 27, 2017 […]
Mitch McConnell and his unenthusiastic team Congress returns from its latest week-long vacation to face, once again, an Obamacare repeal and replacement bill that no one except lying Paul Ryan supports. After a week away, they’re even less keen to deal with Trumpcare than before they left. Sen. Richard […]
On February 4, 2016 House Republican leaders announced the formation of six committee-led task forces charged with developing a bold, pro-growth agenda. (For updates, visit speaker.gov/confidentamerica.)
In and of itself, putting forth a pro-growth agenda is a great thing. Congress should always be working on a pro-growth agenda. But, the question becomes is this the right pro-growth agenda for the 6th District.
Supposedly, President Obama hasn’t done anything to save Americas economy. It’s like the past seven years never happened for Republicans. And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) says he has a “bold, pro-growth agenda” for 2016. In his weekly address Saturday, Ryan laid out the “mission statement” of that agenda:
“We want to save the American Idea for the vast majority of Americans who believe it’s just not there for them anymore. We want America to lead again. We want America to be confident again. That is our mission.
“By giving the people a clear choice in 2016, we will seek a mandate to do big things in 2017 and beyond.”
Watch Courtesy of Speaker Ryan’s Press Office:
Here is their plan.
These discussions will focus on five areas.
First, national security. How do we go about building a 21st-century military? What do we need to do to make sure we’re equipped to defeat ISIS and the threat posed by radical Islamic terror? How do we make sure we are secure here at home?
Next, jobs and economic growth. Our economy is far from its potential. Wages are still stagnant. Families are suffering. How do we fix our tax code? How do we rein in our regulatory state? How do we maximize our energy potential?
Third, health care. Obamacare has driven up premiums, limited choices, and taken away access. These are not the signs of success – they’re the signs of failure. If and when we repeal Obamacare, what solutions will lead to lower costs and a truly patient-centered health care system?
Fourth, poverty and opportunity. There are 46 million Americans living in poverty today, and a big part of the reason is we have a safety net that catches people falling into poverty. How do we lift people up, bring them back into the workforce, and restore upward mobility?
The last piece of this agenda – and it’s so critical to all the others – is restoring the Constitution. The president’s executive overreach has undermined the Constitution and damaged the people’s trust. What needs to be done to restore the separation of powers and protect our constitutional liberties?
I disagree that this is the best “pro-growth” agenda.
First, while national security is important, it should not be first on the list. Unless it is assumed the way to grow the country is to grow the military-industrial complex. This is where we might need some more discussion. But, assuming that one believes that by growing the military-industrial complex we grow the economy, is the GOP saying the way to grow the economy is for the government to spend more money? That seems a lot like Keynesian of them. And since I don’t think they follow Keynesian economics, I suspect they are thinking something different here.
I am in favor of national security. As I am in favor of financial security and personal security. And I want to defeat ISIS and all religious fundamentalists that want to force their ancient world view on others. But, to make sure we are “secure here at home” as they say, we need to also focus on right wing Nationalist that threaten our security here at home. We also need to talk about how to keep guns out of the hands of Islamic, and White Nationalists hands in order to be more secure here at home.
Second, I agree our economy is far from its potential. I agree that wages are stagnant and families are suffering. But, I don’t agree that taxes and our “regulatory State” is most to blame, if at all. I think the reason wages are stagnant is that Globalization and improved manufacturing and transportation technologies are driving wages down It is now cheaper to ship a widget from Vietnam to Los Angeles than to ship from Detroit to Los Angeles. And since a worker in Vietnam makes an average of under $200 dollars a month there is no reason for a US Company to pay their workers more.
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this problem. So, while I am happy to have this on the agenda for growth, let’s not fool ourselves that simply reducing taxes and eliminating regulations will have the effect we all want – Higher wages.
Third, I agree that health care belongs on this list. And I would like to see changes made to Obamacare. But, I don’t want the requirement for “pre-existing” conditions to go away. And I don’t believe simply saying we should go to a “truly patient-centered health care system” without full transparency to the outcomes of the service providers with result in a better health care delivery system. My personal belief is we need to go to a “Kaiser” model.
Fourth, the statement that the way to solve poverty is to eliminate the safety net is ludicrous on its face. Unless I’m wrong, poverty has been around for a long time. If I am not mistaken, the Bible even talks about poor people. And, how do you eliminate poverty while at the same fighting to eliminate the minimum wage. The question I would ask is what does the GOP think is a annual salary of a full time that would eliminate poverty? And if so, what are they doing to ensure someone that works full time achieves that wage. As I said in #2 above, I think giving all our money to multinational corporations who ship jobs overseas and put all that money into un-taxable foreign bank accounts, is to blame? The GOP seems to assume that you’re poor its because you want to be poor. They seem to think that the best to eliminate poverty is to just give all that money to rich people and corporations, because they’ll share some of it.
Lastly, the GOP seems to think that putting the Constitution first will grow the economy. This made me laugh. This is the party that assumed, when they won a majority in Congress, that Obama’s re-election was inconsequential, that it was the Republican who had been given a mandate by the people, and that the president had to do precisely what they say. They are the ones who have violated the Constitution again and again to legislate religion, to stab the president in the back in the area of foreign policy. Executive overreach? How about legislative overreach?
Ryan is certainly using the right language, pretending to have learned the valuable lesson of the years he pretends never happened:
“To do that, we can’t just be an opposition party. We have to be a proposition party. If we do not like the direction the country is going in – and we do not – then we have an obligation to offer an alternative.”
The big problem with Ryan’s agenda is that as Robert Reich has demonstrated, that alternative has already been tried, and look where it got us in 2008.
Ryan closes by saying,
“We see it as our duty here in the people’s house to offer real ideas, to tackle the real issues head on. We want a confident America. Now it’s time to get to work.”
I agree we need to tackle the real issues. But, I don’t consider repealing Obamacare for the seventieth time without a clear plan to 1) cover pre-existing conditions and 2) prevent families from bankrupt in order to save a family member as the best way to grow America.
Pay Attention 6th District. Just because they say they’re going to fix things does not mean that it will actually fix things.
In the latest GOP Debate Ted Cruz was asked a great question about Healthcare and Obamacare.
“Today there are millions of people who gained health insurance from Obamacare and they now rely on it. So the question, Sen. Cruz, if you repeal Obamacare, as you say you will: Will you be fine if millions of those people don’t have health insurance, and what is your specific plan for covering the uninsured?“
And here’s Cruz’s response. While, he completely dodged the question of what will happen to the millions of poor people that need help getting insurance, his answer is never-the-less informative:
“If I am elected president, we will repeal every word of Obamacare. Now, once that is done, everyone agrees we need health care reform. It should follow the principles of expanding competition, empowering patients, and keeping government from getting between us and our doctors. Three specific reforms that reflect those principles: Number 1, we should allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. That’ll create a true 50-state national marketplace while will drive down the cost of low-cost catastropic health insurance. Number 2, we should expand health savings accounts so people can save in a tax-advantaged way for more routine health care needs. And Number 3, we should work to delink health insurance from employment, so if you lose your job, your health insurance goes with you, and it is personal, portable, and affordable, and I tell you, Bret I think that’s a much more attractive vision for health care than the Washington-driven, top-down Obamacare that is causing so many millions to hurt.”
Here is the Video:
Let me restate his three suggestions for healthcare:
Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. That’ll create a true 50-state national marketplace while will drive down the cost of low-cost catastropic health insurance.
Expand health savings accounts so people can save in a tax-advantaged way for more routine health care needs.
Work to delink health insurance from employment, so if you lose your job, your health insurance goes with you, and it is personal, portable, and affordable,
Let me start my review by clearly stating I agree with all three of these points. I think Healthcare Insurance should be national. In fact, I think it should be national and single payer. (I’ll talk a lot more about this in future posts.) I think there should be health saving accounts that people get tax benefits for. And I think we should delink health insurance from employment.
So, I agree with Ted on all three of these things. However, I disagree with Ted and Other conservatives when they say that is all that needs to happen.
Obamacare does two things: 1) removes preexisting conditions as a reason to deny insurance, and 2) Subsidizes insurance for the poor.
Cruz did not answer the question about what happens to those people that rely on those two things to get insurance.
The reason he did not answer it is that Cruz, like many conservatives only think healthcare should go to those that can afford it. Conservatives call people that cannot afford healthcare “Losers.” And they have said often they don’t want to help these uninsured losers.
It is not in the best intent of the community to put healthcare into the hands of the free market oligarchies, who see it in their best interest to deny care to those they may deem too expensive to cover, because it would harm profits. Cruz seems to be in favor of this happening, since he didn’t even touch upon it in his response.
The only people Conservatives plan helps are the wealthy and business owners who will no longer be required to offer coverage to their employees. His plan is in no way whatsoever beneficial community.
When I go to a restaurant I want to know that employees have health insurance so they don’t come to work sick and get me sick.
Conservative healthcare plans would bring America back to an era of people dying because they can’t afford coverage.