Over the past several months there has been much said about the Republican party, and how it has left much of it's conservative base in the dust. Much of McCain's Republican conservative base will either stay at home or hold their nose and vote. That's what I'm hearing and reading. Peggy Noonan has been chowing on the GOP, but that's not really new for her, she's always pointed out the flaws. Maybe that's her way of saying wake up and start standing up for the original principles we all hold dear, controlling spending, limiting government expansion and keeping freedom at the forefront.
It occurs to me that there are many Democrats who also want their party back. Many of them will also stay home or hold their nose and vote. It seems the party of Jefferson has gone very far astray. It almost seems like the party of Marx, no offense, but that's how it seems to many.
Everyone wants change, but there is no definition of that change would be.
Here is the change I want:
When citizens vote on a referendum it should not be subject to judicial overturn. Judges should not make laws, the original intent was for them to determine the constitutionality of new laws and to execute justice.
Tougher gun laws should not even be an issue. We have the second amendment for a reason.
Taxes should be a last resort, not the only solution. It's ok to cut spending and phase out programs that have outlived their purpose or have just been a failure.
Bills should be clean, not filled with hidden items like amnesty for illegals in the Iraq appropriations bill.
Representative districts should make sense and be cut for the voters not the elected official or any party.
Eminent domain needs to become rare. Private property rights have become almost non existant. Seems most municipalities want to tell us what to do in our own yard.
These are a few changes I'd like to see, but not hearing them anywhere. They are pretty basic, and I think they cross party lines. I'm sure there are more we'd all like to see, so please comment.
Individual Media Bloggers
-
Movie Quotes18 hours ago
Local Community Focused Blogs
-
The Perfect Storm1 day ago
-
Moving over!4 months ago
28 comments:
SB, that is true in more ways than one. This is something I thought about often:
In Communist and Socialist countries, it is rare for the citizens to have private property ownership rights. That's what separates the U.S. from those countries. At least that's what I used to think. The difference between them and us is that in those countries, the government is responsible for almost everything. If a company fails, it is the fault of the government and they have to absorb the costs. If a private sector business fails here, the owners have to bear the hardships and costs, including the shareholders. All that is fine! The problem I have is that we, the people are responsible for everything, even though we have much government involvement, like taxes on everything they can think of taxing. Let's take property tax for an example. You bought and payed for the property and have to maintain that property. Now you have to pay taxes on that property to keep it. If you don't, it will be taken from you and sold on the courthouse steps, probably to someone on the "inside" of government that knows things that only the government and few others know. It's like insider trading in the market. In many states, there is a personal property tax imposed on the people. This is tax on things like cars, tractors, boats, etc. If not paid, those things will be confiscated. We pay taxes when we buy, and we pay taxes to keep what we buy. We also pay taxes to drive and taxes to smoke and drink. We are held accountable unless we are unemployed by choice or a member of the government.
One other point: In the Socialist and Communist countries, the government decides where you work and how much you deserve to earn. They even decide which apartment you get according to your family size. I know, I've been to Bosnia and Croatia after the breakup of the former Soviet Empire. Here, we decide where we work and how much we earn by choices WE make. Sounds good so far! However, the government decides how much we take home after taxes are taken from us. This gives us the feeling that we have some control over our income, not the government. This is only partially true. We have more laws than the Communist countries! Here the government wants you to know what you can do and what you can't do. This way, if you break the law, you will pay a fine, more money for the government. In Communist countries, laws aren't that important to know by the people, since most don't have the money to pay fines. The government just takes away what they gave you "for free"! So then you fend for yourself, in which case you break even more laws for survival. Here, certain people break laws, but not for survival, but to get more, ie greed. Other people break laws because they think they are owed things they have not earned, because that's the way they think due to the "victim" mentality they have been taught by the politicians they generally vote for and the government schools they attend.
Bottom line? We are a long way from what our founding fathers envisioned, are we not?
SB, excellent writing as always, you continue to be my favorite in the local blogosphere.
The essence of your message is inarguable, The government has, for all intents and purposes invalidated the constitution. Personal property and freedom of choice are on their way out.
SB, I agree with Anon above.
"These are a few changes I'd like to see, but not hearing them anywhere. They are pretty basic, and I think they cross party lines. I'm sure there are more we'd all like to see, so please comment."
You only left out one important change I would like to see, as I've mentioned many times in my comments. I'm not so sure that all the issues you mentioned, cross party lines.
School Choice! We need to privatize the school system. As long as the left controls the schools, we will never change. Seems the government doesn't mind privatizing some government work but draws the line when it comes to school choice. Of course, that reason is political. They don't really care if the kids get a good education or not, as long as they can put their own kids in private schools at the taxpayers expense. The same with Social Secutity. Politicians have their own retirement accounts that they vote for, not the people. Note: The PA political leaders want to privatize the toll roads and some of the interstate freeways, because they can no longer raise taxes to cover the cost of building and maintaining the roads, without a rebellion by the tax payers. They need to do the same for education, then maybe we will be able to compete with the third world countries in math and science. Even China is getting ahead of us. Look what Japan did to us! Can you imagine a country many times larger than Japan and what they will be able to do to us? China has enough people, technology and natural resources to produce goods for everyone in the world at low prices. They also don't have to worry about intrusive government regulations and environmental and animal rights groups stifeling their production capacity. Seems as though they are becoming more like we used to be and we are becoming more like they used to be and still are to a large degree as long as it doesn't mess with their economy. Just something to think about!
S, quite a lot to digest. The income tax is the one that bothers me the most. We work so hard for our money, and so much of it is confiscated. It's quite offensive.
Anon, thanks for your nice comments. Hope freedom of choice and private property rights make a huge comeback as a priority to most Americans very soon.
stealth - You and I have school choice right now. You are free to send your child to numerous private schools in the area. What your issue seems to be is that you do not wish to pay your fair share for the public school system. Just because you have children does not entitle you to direct your funds to the places you individually see fit. People with no children do not have the luxury, why should you? The last thing the public school system needs is a massive decrease in funding. The last thing -I- want is my tax dollars funding any religious school of any kind.
Regarding property rights, I expect all of you to be opposed to the state smoking ban which prohibits property owners from exercising their rights in their own places of business. As a non smoking fan of the US Constitution, I find it repulsive that a non-partisan group wish to regular private business and the use of a legal product.
And to the original poster, Marx? Please. The Democratic party has essentially been out of power for 8 years. And I recall those previous 8 years to be much better than the latter, economically speaking. Enough with the alarming words.
Where is my damned lapel pin? I'm feeling awfully stuffy and conservative in here.
CB,
"You and I have school choice right now. You are free to send your child to numerous private schools in the area."
Are you free to send your kids to whatever school you want without paying extra? If the government said you are entitled to a free Yugo for your car but if you want a Buick, you'll have to pay out of your pocket and still pay taxes for your Yugo whether you take the Yugo or not. And you must pay as much in taxes for your Yugo as your Buick.
"Just because you have children does not entitle you to direct your funds to the places you individually see fit."
Why not? I can direct my money to go wherever I want for other products or services I need or want.
"The last thing the public school system needs is a massive decrease in funding."
The public schools receive money according to the number of students they have. Your argument doesn't wash.
"The last thing -I- want is my tax dollars funding any religious school of any kind."
The last thing I want is my tax dollars for is a failed public school that doesn't have competition like all other areas in the private sector. Competition makes things better. But I don't have that choice, do I? I thought people on the left believed in freedom of choice! Only when it comes to abortion, right? Keep arguing and I'll cut your arguments in shreds every time.
CB,
"And to the original poster, Marx? Please. The Democratic party has essentially been out of power for 8 years."
I wonder why, too Marxist maybe?
Stealth that's laughable, your arguments are illogical and weak.
CB, The Patriots also deserved their superbowl wins. Losing after going undefeated all year is the market place working things out.
S, school choice is something we do agree on, in large part because we are spending more money and our children are not doing better.
CB, sorry the Patriot comment belongs on the other post. I agree with you on the smoking issue.
On the national level, the collectivism Clinton and Obama are discussing is very much like Marxism. You have to know that.
The democratic party has actually been in power for almost 2 years now. Congress controls the purse strings, which I'm sure you also know.
stealth - You are cutting my arguments to shreds? Why did you conveniently skip the part about childless people paying their fair share for an educated society?
smarte blonde -Collectivism? Are we using Ayn Rand terminology now? Your "collectivism" is my "society." A society means pitching in to help the less fortunate whether they be elderly, disabled or poor. Some see taxation as confiscation, others see it has the "dues" one pays to keep a civil society. I find it utterly disgusting that we as the richest country on earth cannot even guarantee basic healthcare for our citizenry.
As for the Democratic majority, it is flimsy at best. The only true power is either in a government whose executive and legislature are controlled by a since party (the arrangement which resulted in our disastrous economy and the current Middle Eastern wars) or a veto-proof majority. The Democrats have neither.
CB,
"stealth - You are cutting my arguments to shreds? Why did you conveniently skip the part about childless people paying their fair share for an educated society?"
Your point? If we don't have children we should not pay, simple.
Are you making your neighbors car payments?
LOLV,
"Stealth that's laughable, your arguments are illogical and weak."
If you can't make your counter point, then you have no argument. Laughing at me is something you seem to do often to people you disagree with.
Both of you are obviously big government people! I am not. No one can deny that the government has too much control over our lives, everything from education, taxation and how they use our tax money and in our personal lives, like smoking and drinking, (I don't do either). We, the people should have more control of our own lives which means that we should be more responsible for ourselves instead of turning that over to the government. The government loves it! They get more votes and more power that way! LOLV, you can laugh all you want if that makes you feel good.
Your point? If we don't have children we should not pay, simple.
Are you making your neighbors car payments?
So only PARENTS benefit from an educated populace? I see. If that is the depth of your argument, I see there is no point in continuing down this road. Education is the cornerstone of a democracy and without a FREE education available for all, the democracy becomes heavily slanted in one direction.
And yes, your utopian vision of personal responsibly is a noble one but it is simply not realistic. Should a child pay for the mistakes of his parents? Should a child go without an education because her parent's don't believe it's important? Absolutely not and it's one of the reasons that attendance is MANDATORY and not negotiable. It is law. Law set by the people for the people.
Captain -
You state that people should "pitch in" to help others. I fully agree.
Our difference is I believe it should be voluntary.
You believe that the government should force people to do so.
One method is liberty. The other is authoritarianism (another 'Ayn Rand' term).
CB,
"without a FREE education available for all, the democracy becomes heavily slanted in one direction."
Education is not free. In fact, it is costing us a lot more than it should. The bigger problem with the public system of education, is that they are failing, especially in the inner cities. We need to try something that works. As far as being slanted, it already is--to the left! We, the people deserve better.
"Education is the cornerstone of a democracy"
No, freedom is. Out of freedom comes the ability to compete and out of that comes excellence in everything we aspire to do.
"Should a child pay for the mistakes of his parents?"
No, but if we had freedom of choice in education, like vouchers, maybe in a few generations, we would have more responsible parents that care more about their children than themselves. Lack of choice and too much government and left wing bias in our schools is why we are where we are.
"Should a child go without an education because her parent's don't believe it's important? Absolutely not and it's one of the reasons that attendance is MANDATORY and not negotiable. It is law. Law set by the people for the people."
Graduation should be mandatory also but it isn't. That's why the drop out rate is about 50% in the inner city schools where most minorities live. Yes sir, those laws really did a lot of good over the last 40 years or so. Unwed mothers are about 70%, out of wedlock births about the same. this is why we have so much poverty and crime. The public schools are failing due to what they are being taught, what they are not being taught and the lack of dicipline. Teaching self esteem should tell us something. Self esteem can only come from hard work and study, which gives us pride and self respect. When something fails for 40 years or more, it is time for something different.
"And yes, your utopian vision of personal responsibly is a noble one but it is simply not realistic."
I'm not the one that has a utopian vision. My vision is one of reality and hope. Most of the kids in the failed schools have no hope. Freedom means success and failure and to learn by our mistakes, something the libs in government don't care about, since they are not held accountable for their mistakes. The same government that offers failed schools to our children mostly send their kids to private schools with bodyguards at our expense.
"Law set by the people for the people."
Show me where the people made this law you are talking about!
Stealth said, "The public schools receive money according to the number of students they have."
Pennsylvania has not allocated state education funding by student counts since the mid-1980s. When the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh student counts started falling, those districts convinced their legislators to change the formula (to protect their funding). The formula is quite complicated now, but it is largely based on the wealth levels of individual districts and their current funding levels. (There is a minimum 1.5% increase from year to year, usually called a "hold harmless" increase.)
I don't believe any of the major Federal funding programs are based on overall student counts. Most are based on wealth-based formulas or the number of students who qualify for "free and reduced price lunches."
Stealth, in my opinion, the failure of inner city schools is more directly attributable to the failure of inner city families than it is to the performance of the schools or the teachers.
Show me where the people made this law you are talking about!
You are familiar with the United States Legislature, are you not? You are familiar with the concept of representative government?
CB, I hope we never again see the day when either party has a veto-proof majority.
CB,
"You are familiar with the United States Legislature, are you not? You are familiar with the concept of representative government?"
I sure am! Show me the law that the "people" made. You can't.
"Pennsylvania has not allocated state education funding by student counts since the mid-1980s."
The largest determining factor for funding is student count, and you know it. How dare they fund by wealth of the district!
Well, I better have my chaufeur drive me back to my 160 acre estate so I can give orders to my black maids and butler in an effort to get ready for the grand festival I'm having for all the corporate business execs in town. After, we may run the thoroughbreds out in the back 40. It's a tough life out here in the countryside. How am I doing so far CB? Do I sound like the Kennedy's, the Edward's and most top Democrats and all their billion dollar buddies like Soros and the Hollywood crowd, as well as top News Media elites. I know, they are compassionate and busy helping all the poor people with their sleeves rolled up in the Ghettos with their tax paid bodyguards. Of course, they are not spending their money, they are spending ours---but they are doing it for the "children"---and the votes keep coming in! SB is right, we need change, in both parties!
Alan Earnshaw made a statement that I'm sure the "let us take care of you" segment will go into seizures over. That the failure of the inner city schools is a direct result of the failure of the inner city families. Wow, I agree somewhat, but which failed first, the families, or the schools? Sort of like the chicken and the egg, isn't it?
I think LBJ's promise of a "Great Society" is what spurred it. They took a good idea way too far, like everything else. Just my Humble opinion.
Stealth,
I made the comment about school funding, not CB. I've been on the East Penn School Board for over 6 years, so I know a few things about school funding issues. I assure you, Pennsylvania state funding is not tied to student counts.
AE, if that is true, then why would school vouchers take money away from the public schools? Also, if you are correct, all schools in the same district would get the same funding according to COL. It has to cost more to educate 3000 students than it does 1000 students, all things being equal. Student count has to tie into the funding of that particular school. Where is all the money going? Metal detectors and security guards? I would really like to know.
Good article Addicted. I agree. I think the government failed first in creating the welfare society and all the victim groups. They were doomed from the start.
AE, I agree with you on the failure of the families, but the schools have to be partly responsible. After 5 generations of the lower classes being told that they are victims, it's no wonder the families and the schools are failing. My 2 oldest daughters are school teachers and taught in the public schools for a few years before quiting. Some of those schools were in the inner city and they were a mess, to put it bluntly. It will take several generations to overcome these problems and I don't think the public schools will be able to handle the kids. Discipline is so important and this is really lacking in the public schools, but not in the private schools. Mayor Rendell is going to lease or sell the local highways to a Spanish consortium so the government won't have to deal with the taxation associated with these highways. They need to do the same for the schools. If someone else has a better answer to solve the problem with parents/students versus teachers in the public schools, I would like to hear it. I don't blame teachers as much as the politicians using education for political advantage and the teachers unions, who care only about getting their dues. The unions and the Democratic party are too closely tied to be of any help to the real issues that confront the schools. They have a vested interest in the status quo.
I sure am! Show me the law that the "people" made. You can't.
stealth, when you understand the concept of representative government, you will answer your own inquiry.
CB,
"It is law. Law set by the people for the people."
People don't make laws! Did we vote on it? You made the statement, now show it to me! Do you want the government you elected to make any law they want? Many laws were made before you and I were born. When they no longer apply, they should change. That's why we have legislators. Only the constitution should remain the same. Public education is not in the constitution. The Democrats don't want choice in education because they want the poor to remain mostly government dependant. More votes that way.
Post a Comment