Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Cruz & Paul - The Original Intent – Non-intervention in times where growth is required – Self-Defense only
One may say what they like about “political parties” and ideology, either Democrat or Republican, right or left, however, to break ranks on occasion, in the vein of George Washington seems proper. Referring to the brouhaha surrounding certain Libertarian and/or Tea Party Senators preferring to stay out of foreign frays, running against the grain of the commonly held belief of what has become known as either Republican aggression or Democrat aversion to intervention, both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have come under fire for their views on foreign policy issues. It is the wrong approach to pigeon hole either as self-serving and or off the holy grail of current events and political party lines – they are merely asserting the original and very smart foreign policy recalling the first President, George Washington.
The founders put little stock in political parties, as they felt that the focal point would be taken away from the business of a limited government and put upon a bureaucracy of the few. In this point of view, taking away of the common United States allegiance and placing it squarely in one political camp or the other, doing the good of the Party before doing the good of the nation.
Politicospeaks to Cruz walking a Reaganesque line when it comes to the Ukraine – strength through peace, and he comes under not a little criticism (view the political party comments). One might recall that peace through strength was also one of the tenants of Washington. Build up the defense, when the treasury was on the low side.
As to the piece by the Washington Post’s , Rubin, on Rand Paul being the “odd man out” in the GOP on foreign policy, she may have a point, as far as the body politic is concerned, however, again, in the vein of what is proper, Paul is doing what is right for the nation, not the GOP in all instances.
Or perhaps both articles are reflecting a concern by those who like the status quo, and the rising appeal of both Senators to a fairly wide range of independent minded individuals. There comes a time when one should look back at the history of the nation, rather than hold fast to the popular stance, and should one agree with a member of another political party, for the good of the nation, then so be it. The fact that there is much mud-slinging and finger pointing as to which Party is correct is somewhat bothersome, when the individual who is standing alone makes more common sense. The nation is buried in debt, cutting the armed forces, and investing (or attempting to invest) in major social programs, which may make this the perfect time to sit back, build a nest egg and enhance the military while using diplomacy. This allows for time to build back the treasury and the military and further prosperity the outcome of which would, indeed be one similar to Reagan’s. Which, recalling, a nation building from within both financially and militarily, is one which enjoys a bit of peace and prosperity, and the ability (which is key) of protecting itself should the need arise.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Krystal Ballover at MSNBC lays out the case for why she feels Elizabeth Warren, brand new Senator from Massachusetts, should run for the Presidency on the Progressive Democrat ticket:
This view is puzzling because Warren and her policies are quite popular.(MSNBC)
For starters, she is a strong backer of lifting the minimum wage which is massively popular across the ideological spectrum.
And Warren’s supposedly radical idea that we should expand Social Security by more accurately calculating the cost of living is also very popular. The National Academy of Social Insurance found that 7 in 10 Americans preferred expanding Social Security and paying for it by lifting the income cap to our current system.
But Warren has really made her name by fearlessly challenging banks and trying to reign in their predatory practices. Here again, she’s got the public’s backing with 68% of Americans believing that banks are hurting the country. On the issue of inequality, to me the central issue facing our nation, voters overwhelmingly believe inequality is growing and that the government should do something about it. So, if Warren’s a radical leftist, well I guess much of the country is as well.
The real problem is not that Warren is too left, it’s that we’ve allowed our politics and what is considered the “center” in our politics to be pulled farther right. That’s no accident. A lot of money has gone into convincing us that the moderate, centrist responsible thing to do is to lower corporate taxes, cut social security and basically let banks do whatever the hell they want. So yeah, Warren might be too liberal for the donor class, and Bill O’Reilly might want you to think that she’s too liberal for America, but America overwhelmingly disagrees. It is long past time for a course correction.
That doesn’t mean Warren can’t fundraise. In fact, she raised more in her Senate race than any other congressional candidate in the country. It turns out that there are a lot of folks who’d be willing to make a small investment in some actual people-powered, unbought democracy.
Although Ms. Ball finds that one might think Warren is too far left (seriously), all of her policies are wildly popular – the question remains, with whom? – Generally, the minimum wage is popular among a segment of the society that believes all things should be equal –and that tacking on the price of a raise to the customer is not an issue, nor the burden the small employer – go figure. – Who needs jobs and affordable groceries/fast food anyhow?
Inequality in voting does not keep most American’s up at night –there is an old history book, circa 1860, that offers an overview on the duty to vote: Once, in one place, and as a citizen, one got a ticket to vote – granted women were not given that ticket – times have marched on but the principals are the same.
Yes, the banks, we can all agree we’d love to have more in them, but, stretching the hard earned money of those still employed in order to put money into savings is becoming more difficult.
Had she said, nice old lady, a professor, looks like a grandmother, who can’t trust their grandmother – and she’s feisty, a carpetbagger from Oklahoma who suggested she had some Cherokee blood in her veins (the tribe hotly denies), in order to get tenure at Harvard. – So smart, and not above a bit of larceny.
Presidential Material – absolutely, especially if one is one the left –watch for a Warren center-right makeover and that will be the writing on the wall.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Club for Growth Scorecard – Where the Senate and the Congress Fall when it comes to Pro-Growth legislation – A 2014 Voters Guide
The Club for Growth has released it’s scorecard for the 2013 legislative body – the ranks from 1(high) to N/A – (insufficient votes to register) can be found here at www.clubforgrowth.org/progjects/scorecard.
Not surprisingly, the top members who are not likely to legislate the nation further into debt and promote economic growth are Cruz (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Paul (R-KY), Enzi (R-WY), Risch (R-ID), Scott, (R-SC), Inhofe (R. OK), Corurn (R-OK) (The Waste Book Author), Cornyn (R-TX and Toomey (R-PA) round out the top 10 in the Senate. The House has Frank Trent (AZ-8-R) at the top, and Peters (MI-18-D) rounding out the bottom – scores 100% perfect to the single digits (Club for Growth).
Poltico was quick to point out that two Democrats did fairly well on the list, holding at 40% were “Retiring House Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina. (This was followed by:) The GOP lawmakers that the Club ranked below Matheson and McIntyre are: Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida (38 percent), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida (37 percent), Michael Grimm of New York (37 percent) and Chris Gibson of New York (37 percent). Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) tied the two conservative Democrats at 40 percent. (Politico)
What this tells us is that normally split fairly evenly along party lines (with pro-growth meaning fewer taxes and incentives for businesses to hire, (simple version), there are variances in each party, and according to the state or district one represents.
One might however, be more inclined, in this economy that, although improving, is nowhere near where it needs to be in order restore significant j job growth, to check the other name on the ballot in 2014 when every single one of those Representatives are up for reelection and elect a new citizen representative.