Showing posts with label Small Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Small Government. Show all posts
20100924
20100623
Government Accountability
Recently two nations have discovered vast potential resources that could transform their country from poor third world affairs toward second world status; Ghana with oil and Afghanistan and minerals. With great wealth comes power and responsibilities. These governments cannot appropriate this income for their own use, even if well intended to serve its people. A government that does not depend on its citizens will not be accountable to its citizen.
A government comes to depend on its citizens through two primary ways. Firstly through taxation to acquire income for governmental function. But this alone will a recipes for corruption; obligue noblesse cannot be institutionalized or relied upon. Also firstly, side by side with taxation is election. True election can only exists in a open Democracy where there are competitive election and true counting of the votes. Secondary to taxation and election has to be term limits. Once elected the power acquired through taxation will make incumbents the favorites for elections. Term limits for all elected officials is a necessary safeguard against corruption, but not necessarily accountability.
The final and ultimate safeguard against a corrupt and unaccountable government must rest with its citizens. Whereas elections is a political manifestation of this, the potential for more must exists, even if only on the periphery beyond conversation. The population must be armed for the potential event of insurrection against a corrupt, unaccountable and unjust government. On the most base of level, the government must fear those it govern so that boundaries will be respected beyond the written law.
The United States has all the requisites for government accountability. With regard to the new found democracy of Iraq, as well as that of the nations of Ghana and Afghanistan, my advice is to arm their population as a first step toward an accountable government. Yes this will make formation of a new government more difficult, but this difficulty arises from ensuring that the population to be governed is agreeable with the nature of the government. Growing pains ensure appropriate future limits.
A government comes to depend on its citizens through two primary ways. Firstly through taxation to acquire income for governmental function. But this alone will a recipes for corruption; obligue noblesse cannot be institutionalized or relied upon. Also firstly, side by side with taxation is election. True election can only exists in a open Democracy where there are competitive election and true counting of the votes. Secondary to taxation and election has to be term limits. Once elected the power acquired through taxation will make incumbents the favorites for elections. Term limits for all elected officials is a necessary safeguard against corruption, but not necessarily accountability.
The final and ultimate safeguard against a corrupt and unaccountable government must rest with its citizens. Whereas elections is a political manifestation of this, the potential for more must exists, even if only on the periphery beyond conversation. The population must be armed for the potential event of insurrection against a corrupt, unaccountable and unjust government. On the most base of level, the government must fear those it govern so that boundaries will be respected beyond the written law.
The United States has all the requisites for government accountability. With regard to the new found democracy of Iraq, as well as that of the nations of Ghana and Afghanistan, my advice is to arm their population as a first step toward an accountable government. Yes this will make formation of a new government more difficult, but this difficulty arises from ensuring that the population to be governed is agreeable with the nature of the government. Growing pains ensure appropriate future limits.
20100620
Obama
In less than a year and a half of a four years term, the majority of Americans have come to understand the nation made a mistake with his election. Obama's failures span all fields of government from domestic economic policy, environmental protection, health care reform, foreign relations, as well as military direction. At the core the failures arise from a mismatch of core values between what American values and Obama's own ideology as well as a failure of leadership, believing rhetoric sufficient to inspire actions without sufficient ability to direct people of ability to apply their expertise.
Whether Obama is a fool or a knave has become irrelevant; the time for that debate has passed. The time now is how to minimize his ability to damage this nation. Personally I believe Obama is both a fool and a knave, a highly dangerous combination but insufficient ground for impeachment. With our divided government, the definitive mean to contain Obama lies within either the Judiciary or the Legislative. Unfortunately, the integrity of the Justices in the defense of the Constitution is under threat with Obama's appointment of judges as approved by Congress. Thus the key to contain Obama is to apply all reasonable resources to neutralize the leftist Democrat control of the Legislative Congress. All competitive House elections must be turned away from the Democrats. At this point I do not believe there are any such creature as a conservative Democrat; they must all be turned out. If permissible, safe Republican races must also turn from RINO incumbents to conservative new comers unless this turn threatens election of a Democrat.
The secondary line of defense against the harm of an Obama presidency will be the the states. Both the governorship and the state legislatures must move toward conservative ideals of less dependency on the Federal government. A dependent state government are willing victims of federal over reach that is the hallmark of the Obama administration. And among the ranks of current or former governors, someone with true leadership and executive experience will we find a challenger for Obama come 2012.
Update:
Roger L Simon wonders if Obama has lost interests in being President and believes this would be a dangerous situation for us all.
Whether Obama is a fool or a knave has become irrelevant; the time for that debate has passed. The time now is how to minimize his ability to damage this nation. Personally I believe Obama is both a fool and a knave, a highly dangerous combination but insufficient ground for impeachment. With our divided government, the definitive mean to contain Obama lies within either the Judiciary or the Legislative. Unfortunately, the integrity of the Justices in the defense of the Constitution is under threat with Obama's appointment of judges as approved by Congress. Thus the key to contain Obama is to apply all reasonable resources to neutralize the leftist Democrat control of the Legislative Congress. All competitive House elections must be turned away from the Democrats. At this point I do not believe there are any such creature as a conservative Democrat; they must all be turned out. If permissible, safe Republican races must also turn from RINO incumbents to conservative new comers unless this turn threatens election of a Democrat.
The secondary line of defense against the harm of an Obama presidency will be the the states. Both the governorship and the state legislatures must move toward conservative ideals of less dependency on the Federal government. A dependent state government are willing victims of federal over reach that is the hallmark of the Obama administration. And among the ranks of current or former governors, someone with true leadership and executive experience will we find a challenger for Obama come 2012.
Update:
Roger L Simon wonders if Obama has lost interests in being President and believes this would be a dangerous situation for us all.
20090710
Sarah Palin's Resignation
Two thoughts on John’s post at Powerline on Sarah Palin to comment on.
Is Sarah Palin an arch-conservative? No. She has social conservative beliefs on military, religion, gays, and abortion, thus she has taken a stance and of a character that does appeal to arch-conservatives. That she does not seek to impose these beliefs during governance should make her appealing to independents. As a politicians who believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, and good governance as you pointed out, she should be appealing to all voters. I do not believe this has changed at all since August of 2008. Yes, her selection as McCain’s Vice-President running mate opened doors for her and you can argue she is being an opportunist. But given the opportunity to make a positive impact and real change for our nation, she should explore her potential to do so. In fact, I believe it would be irresponsible for anyone, not just her, do hide out and not make a difference.
Is Sarah Palin a target of political attacks? Certainly. Not just in the media but also by frivolous ethic charges. All the ethics charges evaluated thus far has been dismissed. Has the cost been significant? Not really though half a million dollars is a lot. Has the ethics charges been crippling to her governance? Probably and this is hurtful to Alaska’s use of tax payer not just in terms of money but in terms of man power and resources. Has the ethic charges been crippling to her ability to be a politician? Certainly. To resign because of it and retreat from public life would add fuel to the fire and embolden other attacks on other politicians, right or left. To resign because of it and enlarge her public life would completely defeat the political motivations behind the attacks. After all, aren’t the ethic charges intended to anchor her down in Anchorage (i know Juneau is the capital), shut her down and silence her voice? If so, then whenever she appears in the lower 48 at any and all sorts of political and economic events it will be a complete victory over those who seek to corner and limit her political influence.
Is her resignation politically risky? Yes. But to maintain the status quo is defeat. To be paralyzed politically, cost your states resources on frivolity, and encouraged continued devious political attacks, just so she can claim a full term as Governor when campaigning in 2012 is irresponsible.
Is Sarah Palin an arch-conservative? No. She has social conservative beliefs on military, religion, gays, and abortion, thus she has taken a stance and of a character that does appeal to arch-conservatives. That she does not seek to impose these beliefs during governance should make her appealing to independents. As a politicians who believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, and good governance as you pointed out, she should be appealing to all voters. I do not believe this has changed at all since August of 2008. Yes, her selection as McCain’s Vice-President running mate opened doors for her and you can argue she is being an opportunist. But given the opportunity to make a positive impact and real change for our nation, she should explore her potential to do so. In fact, I believe it would be irresponsible for anyone, not just her, do hide out and not make a difference.
Is Sarah Palin a target of political attacks? Certainly. Not just in the media but also by frivolous ethic charges. All the ethics charges evaluated thus far has been dismissed. Has the cost been significant? Not really though half a million dollars is a lot. Has the ethics charges been crippling to her governance? Probably and this is hurtful to Alaska’s use of tax payer not just in terms of money but in terms of man power and resources. Has the ethic charges been crippling to her ability to be a politician? Certainly. To resign because of it and retreat from public life would add fuel to the fire and embolden other attacks on other politicians, right or left. To resign because of it and enlarge her public life would completely defeat the political motivations behind the attacks. After all, aren’t the ethic charges intended to anchor her down in Anchorage (i know Juneau is the capital), shut her down and silence her voice? If so, then whenever she appears in the lower 48 at any and all sorts of political and economic events it will be a complete victory over those who seek to corner and limit her political influence.
Is her resignation politically risky? Yes. But to maintain the status quo is defeat. To be paralyzed politically, cost your states resources on frivolity, and encouraged continued devious political attacks, just so she can claim a full term as Governor when campaigning in 2012 is irresponsible.
20090126
Government & the Economy
I recognize that in difficult economic times, the public expect the government to act. And it would be appropriate for the government to act but clearly not all actions are beneficial.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
20081116
Republican Party: Abandon the Evangelical and Shift to Center?
The point of a political party should not be about winning elections, nor should it be about pandering to the voters. The point of a political party is to enact positive change to our nation, and that means moving the middle away from the middle. The left understood this very well, why do we not? By moving toward the middle and abandoning out core principles we deserve to lose each and every time.
I am not religious. I do not see the evangelical faction of the Republican party pushing God onto the agenda. I see them as pushing a pro-life and pro-family agenda and i have no problem with either of these. Even as a libertarian the government still has to protect its weakest members and maintain the most basic unit of our society and community.
Having said this, I think the party should push these on the State level. Abortion is not and should not be a federal issue. It has no place in our constitution and all powers not explicitly given to the feds in the constitution belongs to the state. We should leave it there.
I would say the same of marriage. Having said that, I also think marriage should be a church issue and make civil unions a legal issue. I personally think civil union legal rights should only be given to families (i.e. couples with kids), whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual).
The party should continue to push for strong nation defense primarily on the national level. Other aspects of the Republican principles like small government, fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity, and personal responsibility apply equally to State and Federal levels.
I am not religious. I do not see the evangelical faction of the Republican party pushing God onto the agenda. I see them as pushing a pro-life and pro-family agenda and i have no problem with either of these. Even as a libertarian the government still has to protect its weakest members and maintain the most basic unit of our society and community.
Having said this, I think the party should push these on the State level. Abortion is not and should not be a federal issue. It has no place in our constitution and all powers not explicitly given to the feds in the constitution belongs to the state. We should leave it there.
I would say the same of marriage. Having said that, I also think marriage should be a church issue and make civil unions a legal issue. I personally think civil union legal rights should only be given to families (i.e. couples with kids), whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual).
The party should continue to push for strong nation defense primarily on the national level. Other aspects of the Republican principles like small government, fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity, and personal responsibility apply equally to State and Federal levels.
20081111
Political Party & Elections
With the recent 2008 election losses, some commenter have suggested that the Republican Party become more centrist in order to win. I think this misses the point of political parties in general. If the goal of any political party is to win election, then it is only about empowering some to lead others. Shouldn't we be primarily concerned about where we are being led to? It has to be about ideology first.
And if the party's ideology is in tune with the center, then how can any candidate from that party even possibly be leading rather than just manage the status quo once elected. Now if the status quo is great, then we may not want to expend the effort to make things better. But i assure you that things can be better. And once the premise that things can be better, then you have to ask how can you enact policies to change and make things better. And as soon as you do so, then you are proposing non-centrist ideas.
The goal then of any party is to suggest actionable plan that appeals to the center, to be adopted by the center, to make the party ideals mainstream. When this occur, it is not the party becoming more mainstream, it is actually the center being shifted toward the party's ideology. Thus in order for a party to be successful, it must have non-mainstream non-centrist ideas. However, if the party actionable plan is too extreme, then it will not appeal to the center. Society adopt changes very slowly.
In a previous post i suggested some principles the Republican party should adhere to, cultivate, and build upon.
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. These ideas continue to appeal and resonate with most Americans. Thus the solution for the Republican party to win elections is not to become more centrist. Rather, it is for the Republicans to offer and deliver meaningful changes and improvement to America that remain congruous to these principles.
And if the party's ideology is in tune with the center, then how can any candidate from that party even possibly be leading rather than just manage the status quo once elected. Now if the status quo is great, then we may not want to expend the effort to make things better. But i assure you that things can be better. And once the premise that things can be better, then you have to ask how can you enact policies to change and make things better. And as soon as you do so, then you are proposing non-centrist ideas.
The goal then of any party is to suggest actionable plan that appeals to the center, to be adopted by the center, to make the party ideals mainstream. When this occur, it is not the party becoming more mainstream, it is actually the center being shifted toward the party's ideology. Thus in order for a party to be successful, it must have non-mainstream non-centrist ideas. However, if the party actionable plan is too extreme, then it will not appeal to the center. Society adopt changes very slowly.
In a previous post i suggested some principles the Republican party should adhere to, cultivate, and build upon.
Strong National Defense
Small Government in Society
Conservative Fiscal Policy
Fair Economic Opportunity
Culture of Personal Responsibility
Traditional Family Value
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. These ideas continue to appeal and resonate with most Americans. Thus the solution for the Republican party to win elections is not to become more centrist. Rather, it is for the Republicans to offer and deliver meaningful changes and improvement to America that remain congruous to these principles.
20081108
My Political Party
As part of my on going “back to the blackboard” rethinking of everything (political), I want to work out some ideas on what and how I want my political party to work. When I say “my” what I mean is the party I want to be a part of rather than having my own political party.
Firstly, I want to know what are our core principles. I want these principles enshrined in the party's charter or its constitution. The principles that matter to me, and ones that I also believe to have broad appeals are:
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. The current issues and challenges should always be considered, referenced and debated on these core principles. While these should be our principles, our actions should remain decisive, ethical and magnanimous. Our means must be compatible with our goals.
Secondly our spending priorities should be:
Thirdly I would like the party to interact more with its members. The party cannot be just about fund raising and votes. I would like to see that every year (or every other year) a convention is held for party members. During this convention current stance in response to current issues and challenges should be addressed. Proponents and opponents should debate where and how the party should respond. Then the members (those present and over the net) votes and thus party positions delineated and updated. Politicians can also make announcement for the upcoming year.
Fourthly political candidates for the party should be judged based on how close they are to the core principles of the party. Their appeals are determined through a series of state level election. The states should be grouped regionally; one state from each region would then hold its primary election each month. Allow a few weeks for the candidates to debate, retool, hold rallies, and then repeat with a new set of states, again one from each region. The states within each regional group can decide among themselves what order they shall hold their primary election. Likely I would prefer that each primary election is limited to party members but at the same time, each primary election should also serve as recruiting opportunity for non-members to join up and thus vote.
What I do not want my party to be a hateful opposition party. When they other party cannot do something, we should take no glee if the America would suffer for it, we should say we can do it. When they do something right, we don’t say that it was no good, we say we can do better. I also do not want my party to be into identity politics. We should court Hispanics because they share many of our principles of small government, conservative fiscal policy, and economic opportunity. We should reach out to African-Americans because only through returning to traditional family value, accepting a culture of personal responsibility, and embracing economic opportunity can they be strong and free. We should stop bashing gays. We should be pro-immigration and come up with a new term for “illegal immigrants.” We cannot be viewed as an anti-minority or anti-immigrant party.
The funny thing is that I have never truly identified myself as a Republican until this election. I voted for W and have been fairly happy with him (I am primarily a Strong National Defense guy) and since he won, I could remain an independent. I was never really all that into McCain until Palin. Now that the Democrats are in power I figure the best way get them out of power is to throw my lot in, for now at least, with the Republicans. And if the Republicans do not offer me participation other than my vote, then I will still judge each candidate based on my party platform and vote appropriately.
Firstly, I want to know what are our core principles. I want these principles enshrined in the party's charter or its constitution. The principles that matter to me, and ones that I also believe to have broad appeals are:
Strong National Defense
Small Government in Society
Conservative Fiscal Policy
Fair Economic Opportunity
Culture of Personal Responsibility
Traditional Family Value
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. The current issues and challenges should always be considered, referenced and debated on these core principles. While these should be our principles, our actions should remain decisive, ethical and magnanimous. Our means must be compatible with our goals.
Secondly our spending priorities should be:
1. Fund our party organization and groups on all college campus. They will be the future of the party. Even if they don’t, an educated voter is much preferred over an ignorant one.
2. Develop a 50 states effort. If we give up states like California, Washington, and New York we will never win.
3. Fund election campaign. How much funding support should consider the candidate compatibility with party principles, appeal to party members, and electability.
4. Fund charity projects. Our ultimate goal through politics is a stronger and better America, but crisis will develop that will transcend politics. We have to demonstrate we care for more than political power.
5. Fund research projects. We need proof that our principles as applied to the issues are actionable, effective and beneficial.
Thirdly I would like the party to interact more with its members. The party cannot be just about fund raising and votes. I would like to see that every year (or every other year) a convention is held for party members. During this convention current stance in response to current issues and challenges should be addressed. Proponents and opponents should debate where and how the party should respond. Then the members (those present and over the net) votes and thus party positions delineated and updated. Politicians can also make announcement for the upcoming year.
Fourthly political candidates for the party should be judged based on how close they are to the core principles of the party. Their appeals are determined through a series of state level election. The states should be grouped regionally; one state from each region would then hold its primary election each month. Allow a few weeks for the candidates to debate, retool, hold rallies, and then repeat with a new set of states, again one from each region. The states within each regional group can decide among themselves what order they shall hold their primary election. Likely I would prefer that each primary election is limited to party members but at the same time, each primary election should also serve as recruiting opportunity for non-members to join up and thus vote.
What I do not want my party to be a hateful opposition party. When they other party cannot do something, we should take no glee if the America would suffer for it, we should say we can do it. When they do something right, we don’t say that it was no good, we say we can do better. I also do not want my party to be into identity politics. We should court Hispanics because they share many of our principles of small government, conservative fiscal policy, and economic opportunity. We should reach out to African-Americans because only through returning to traditional family value, accepting a culture of personal responsibility, and embracing economic opportunity can they be strong and free. We should stop bashing gays. We should be pro-immigration and come up with a new term for “illegal immigrants.” We cannot be viewed as an anti-minority or anti-immigrant party.
The funny thing is that I have never truly identified myself as a Republican until this election. I voted for W and have been fairly happy with him (I am primarily a Strong National Defense guy) and since he won, I could remain an independent. I was never really all that into McCain until Palin. Now that the Democrats are in power I figure the best way get them out of power is to throw my lot in, for now at least, with the Republicans. And if the Republicans do not offer me participation other than my vote, then I will still judge each candidate based on my party platform and vote appropriately.
20081105
Conservatives & Republicans
Conservatives and Republicans are not synonymous. The contentious line between the two will only be highlighted with this election losses. There has been consideration for Republicans to build a bigger tent to get more independent voters. Conservatives have considered moving to form their own party that better represent their thoughts. And then there are the Libertarians, with many similar ideologies.
I believe the Republicans should continue to be a political machinery to elect candidates. I believe the Republicans should be a party of strong national defense, sound fiscal policies, small government, personal responsibility, economic opportunity, and family value.
I believe if people can identify personally with 3 or 4 of these six platform, then they should be welcomed into the party, as long as there will not be compromises on the other 2 or 3 platforms. Then we can have that big tent without driving away conservatives or independents. I do not believe there needs to be or should be a split between Conservatives and Republicans. I also believe that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party and conservatives to continue to have some differences of opinion as a contest of ideas can only make both stronger.
I believe the party should also reach out to Libertarians for similar reasons.
I believe the Republicans should continue to be a political machinery to elect candidates. I believe the Republicans should be a party of strong national defense, sound fiscal policies, small government, personal responsibility, economic opportunity, and family value.
I believe if people can identify personally with 3 or 4 of these six platform, then they should be welcomed into the party, as long as there will not be compromises on the other 2 or 3 platforms. Then we can have that big tent without driving away conservatives or independents. I do not believe there needs to be or should be a split between Conservatives and Republicans. I also believe that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party and conservatives to continue to have some differences of opinion as a contest of ideas can only make both stronger.
I believe the party should also reach out to Libertarians for similar reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)