As promised, today starts what I hope to grow into a Wednesday feature here at the Crank Files... a symposium of sorts between self-identified American conservatives to talk about conservative beliefs and how they inform our opinions in the American political context.
Today's topic: Domestic policies.
Now, that's a huge category - Constitutional rights, laws and law enforcement, taxation, social and education programs, welfare and retirement programs, commerce and corporate "bailouts," infrastructure and ecology, transportation, as well as new proposals like socialized medical care and the creation of a national security paramilitary force - in short, everything the federal government is in charge of currently and the current Obama administration is pushing to become in charge of.
Take a bite or the whole pie. What do you as a conservative want domestic policy to be? What specific programs would you enhance or abolish? Any new domestic policies you would propose? What is the expected result from the changes you would make?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
conservative domestic policy
32 error messages:
testing comment field...
A quick response, but I'll be back when I can.
Domestic federal power held in balance by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I've found that my elected representatives at the state level are more easily held accountable.
Right now, the federal government is usurping the states' venue and demanding that the states enforce the federal-level entitlement programs. The usurpations and demands are disguised as federal subsidies paid out to states that come into line with federal policy.
Just a note here. Steve Harkonnen reports trouble getting a comment to post here. I'm not blocking comments from anyone so I hope he'll try again.
Let's start respecting ourselves so others will again.
Get a national language, and let it be English, please.
Close the borders in a meaningful way so people, again, think this country's worth getting into, not just good for freebies.
Oh, heck, Beamish, this is too complicated for me today to go into much detail but i can't wait to hear others' and your comments; Let's just say I want to FEEL America's greatness again....that people feel pride in self reliance, teach their kids to love this country, have enough good jobs, have our kids told studying and learning are good things not for chumps, quit indoctrinating kids, get an honest media that tells the who what why where and why...
I'd stop paying anything to illegals.
I'd close immigration for five years till we clean up the mess we already have.
.etc........sorry.....i'm brain dead today; I'll look forward to hearing others. Be back.
He, who governs least, governs best.
Our Constitution demands some things of the federal government. Unfortunately, the Constitution also gives wide latitude to the Congress … I cannot imagine what they were thinking about, unless they never imagined the possibility of a Nancy Pelosi or Hairy Reed. We did make some mistakes along the way, which I believe irreparably damaged the 9th and 10th Amendments. Specifically, and I do advocate this, we should go back to having states appointing US senators – it is the state’s shared power with the federal government. I advocate this: the federal government should NOT do anything that the states can do for themselves. Citizens do not have a right to health benefits; but if a state wants to provide them, it is a matter under their authority rather than that of the federal government.
What about welfare programs, or reaching out to the infirm? Well, if you ever wondered why so many kids toss their parents in old age homes, it is because given government subsidies, it’s the least painless way to go (for the kids, I mean). Maybe we should expect children to care for their aged or infirm parents. What kinds of kids are they, anyway? I know … I’m an old guy. Can it, Beamish. But once again, if the people of MO want to provide those services, then the people of MO should be willing to pay for them. It’s true that democracy works best at the lowest possible level. So, let’s make it work, beginning with state sovereignty. Finally, let us note that it is much easier for taxpayers to balk at state taxes than it is federal taxes. (And, let’s repeal that stupid idea, too.)
Is that enough for now, Beamish?
Again this is the area where I diverge the most from Conservatism.
The Immigration and Health care systems are broke and the question is where do we go from here.
On immigration it is preposterous the system of appeals and cases spanning two decades. The system needs to move to a vocational basis with more emphasis on speed.
As stated before I am for real regulation of business. All powers need to be checked in a healthy system.
I take the classical liberal Adam Smith position as to the "role" of the sovereign in domestic policy...
"Wealth of Nations" (Book IV, Ch IX)
It is thus that every system which endeavours, either by extraordinary encouragements to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than what would naturally go to it, or, by extraordinary restraints, force from a particular species of industry some share of the capital which would otherwise be employed in it, is in reality subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote. It retards, instead of accelerating, the progress of the society towards real wealth and greatness; and diminishes, instead of increasing, the real value of the annual produce of its land and labour.
All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society. According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.
Beak, 70% of AMericans like their health coverage (I HATE mine, so as a solid conservative who'd NEVER want nationalized healthcare, I'd have said HELL NO in any survey, so the number's probably higher..when you're paying almost $900 a month with an $8K deductible, what's to LIKE? (but we've met the ded. this year and it's sweet getting stuff done.>"FOR FREE")
Beamish, I came to write something Mark Levin said ...it seemed to apply to the subject here:
"Most Americans want to help their neighbor, they just don't want to go broke themselves"
ya
Character limitation on posts here. This is part I of a two part post.
Constitutional Rights:
I'll start this one off mentioning a discussion I had with Misfit via email earlier today. As Americans, we all have basic Constitutional rights, right? So my argument is this: why do gays demand a special set of rights, different from those rights of normal people, when they choose the lifestyle of being gay?
Food for thought. On with this.
As a conservative, I believe that the original documents our founding fathers created and published are not necessarily being conformed to by our current state of government. That in mind, I disagree with judicial actions that do not follow the constitution, bill of rights, and feel that there are some activist liberal judges who have crossed the lines of law numerous times and should be ousted.
Laws and law enforcement:
As a conservative I feel that there's still far too much lack of communication and cooperation between our law enforcement agencies, and that the FBI should give as much possible lead time in allowing local law enforcement to do their jobs instead of coming in screaming "we're taking over" when the FBI can be as incompetent as ever. Further, I feel that the current FBI director needs to be FIRED for continuing secret ties with CAIR. But that's another discussion.
Taxation: I believe that our constitutional rights, especially the rights to own property, have been seriously impounded/hampered by multiple taxes such as real estate, payroll, and Capital Gains taxes.
Social and education programs: I feel that as a conservative we're stepping into the boundaries of Socialistic programs where we're a Capitalistic society. Now, I know this appears strange coming from me, but the only thing I dislike about the BNP is that they are definitely a Socialist Party. I just like SOME of their ideas; however, back to topic, I feel that our government's socialized programs are making people lazy. Our citizens expect far too much from our government, but seeing now that Nobama is calling for certain kinds of LAMPS in our homes, that's going WAY overboard.
Education: There is far too much emphasis on Liberal history rewrites, and the history revisionists (liberals who write textbooks for schools) are sadly winning. My favorite hate thing on education is the fact that textbooks lie to our kids about Senator Joe McCarthy. "McCarthyism" is the biggest made up lie on history. McCarthy was catching actual Communists in government; turns out that all of them were Liberal activists who supported the means of Socialism and Communism. Too bad ol' Joe never finished the job, but anyway, our education system on top of that needs to be revamped. Americans are honestly on the retarded end of a scale where they don't know general geography let alone there's people in this country - COLLEGE GRADUATES - who wouldn't be able to point out Iceland on a map. That is PATHETIC. Thanks, Liberal teachers, for NOT doing your job.
Welfare: As a conservative, I see a vast difference between what is written in the Constitution as to what is applied nowadays:
"PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the GENERAL WELFARE..."
PROVIDING general welfare is not written anywhere in our Constitution; therefore, welfare is nothing but a SOCIAL HANDOUT to lazy people who refuse to help themselves and get out there and WORK. As a conservative, this annoys the living crap out of me.
This is part II of a 2 part post.
Retirement Programs: I'm on the government dole and get half of my military monthly pay I earned while in active duty for the rest of my life. I feel I deserve this. If you feel different, sorry. However, retirement programs shouldn't become an experiment in socialism. Keep them simple, but most of all, KEEP THE UNIONS OUT OF IT AS UNIONS ARE NOTHING BUT A CROCK. I've had to deal with one when dad got injured at Ford's....his workmen's comp took far too long to come in but it came in after I wrote to Rep, Dingle, (D) Michigan, who was at the time my Mother's representative. His office, although Democrat, did a bang up super job in getting Dad's workmen's comp rolling in.
Commerce and corporate bailouts: PUT GM OUT OF BUSINESS. They ran their business stupid and had UNIONS push and pave their way toward bankruptcy. Again, NOTHING in our Constitution annotates where the government will 'step in' to 'assist' private businesses. That entire bailout program was a farce and people should go to jail over it.
Infrastructure and ecology: We should preserve as much as we can our natural resources - but avoid the politicization of it. Global warming is a crock. Infrastructure...our nation's roads are in a shambles thanks to big government. Again, the politicization of a program that technically shouldn't be politicized, period.
Socialized medical care: I feel a conflict of interests here since I am medically secure with Tricare as being retired military. It is one big socialized program and bears an overburdening of debt. The entire system needs to be cleaned and fixed; however, where does it state in our Constitution that government needs to provide health care?
The creation of a national security paramilitary force: It creeps me out, frankly. I have visions of the Black Panther group who acted like thugs in Philly during the elections. Not good at all and I think as a Conservative it is a complete and total waste of taxpayer's money and further demonstrates how Democrats just love big government programs like this thing that is about as useless as a cat flap on a fridge door.
Obama - He is clearly out to bankrupt our country.
'appy polly logies for being so long winded in here. But big thanks to Beamish for not using steel chairs with 220 current.
Do I yet qualify for my Che Guevara T-shirt yet, so I can burn the effin' thing?
As a libertarian-conservative "fusionist" I agree heavily with the idea encapsulated by Mustang - "he whos governs least, governs best."
Indeed my conservative respect for a civilized society coupled with my libertarian mistrust of those that would increase government power is the ultimate expression of faith in the power of law and order - we are individuals with personal sovereignty consenting to be governed by laws. My answer to the question "how much of my personal sovereignty should I consent to being governed by another or a government?" is "not much."
Mustang and Always On Watch touched on another pet cause of mine: States rights. It may seem odd to argue for a concept maligned (and quite frankly, misused, by Democrats rebelling against the election of President Abraham Lincoln, the Constitutional bans on interstate confederations, minting currency, and violation of laws against the use of slave labor in federal territory.) Indeed, mention "states rights" and the minds of too many go to the Southern Democrat fight to continue slavery rather than enumeration of powers of state government vs. the enumerated powers of federal government. State governments used to have a voice in the federal government via election of Senators by appointment of the state's legislature. It would be in the best interests of the people of a state to elect a legislature that will in turn appoint Senators to Washington DC that will represent them. The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed, and the language of Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution restored.
More later...
It seems to me that anytime the federal government butts into functions which belong to the states and to individuals, we end up with costly and unfairly-distributed entitlement programs.
As says the old proverb: "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry."
The general-welfare clause has opented a lot of doors which should never have been opened. In my view, our Founders would never have interpreted that clause in the way it's been interpreted since the mid-1940s.
I heartily concur with this statement by Mustang:
we should go back to having states appointing US senators – it is the state’s shared power with the federal government
I also believe that there is some merit to another bygone restriction on voting, i.e., only property owners were allowed to vote. I know that some would object on moral grounds. But it is a fact that property owners generally have more stake in their country and its future.
Don't get me started on health insurance. I'm on the short end of that particular stick -- never mind all the years of paying in, paying in, paying in. I admit that if a cheaper and decent government plan comes along, I'll jump aboard. Financially, Mr. AOW and I will have no choice.
Realistically speaking, as any other kind of insurance, health insurance requires a pool of high risk and low risk insureds. At this point, much of the health-insurance pool is high risk, thus jacking up the monthly premiums.
Here in the D.C. area, we all know that if one feels failing health coming on, one had better find a government job to get a good health-insurance plan. Ultimately, just who is picking up the tab for the employer portion of those monthly premiums?
Maybe we'd all be better off without any health insurance (except for those who did military service)? A scary thought, I know. But I do remember a time when health insurance wasn't a given and when more bargaining for medical care was possible for individuals.
Two things that just popped into my mind....
1. It used to be that both husband and wife couldn't work for the federal government. And, when both husband and wife were working for different employers, they had separate health-insurance plans.
2. Health-insurance plans today are quite a bit different from days gone by. And the plans are so damned complex too, with lots of loopholes for denial of coverage.
Ugh!
Check out how our so-called elected representatives like to spend our money.
AOW,
I'd object to the idea of limiting voting rights to property owners because our government is already steadily becoming the owner of more and more property - and industries. Those that have managed to stay out of government housing would find themselves incapable of escaping it. No one would have the right to vote, or worse, only those who met the government's mutating definition of "property owner."
...which flows into my objection to government managed health care.
If health care were housing, would the government give you a mansion, or a formaldehyde soaked trailer?
I will take a small bite to start (not promising it won’t turn into a huge chunk as I write…) Starting with babies. Yes, babies. At first, they are born as little egomaniacs only concerned with their own survival: how do I get food, warmth, and other basic necessities in order to survive? As these babies grow into toddlerhood and childhood, they begin to realize that there are other people around them who have needs as well.
This is the split in the road. The drivers are parents. I’m not quite sure at what moment in time it began…but when our society took the road of appeasing our children rather than training them up as they should go, the potholes began to become more evident in the destruction of the family.
Those little dear ones we call children grow into adults and what they are taught in youth helps to form how they will live as adults. Hitler understood this too well. He knew that in order to control the future, one must control the present (the children) thus, being able to control everything.
Currently, the children are being raised by a corrupt government, which can only lead to future grooming of the agenda of whichever philosophy sits within the government. Most conservatives already understand the underlying beliefs that have infiltrated the ruling factions of the U.S. government.
Children have an innate understanding of right and wrong, instilled within them by their Creator. Children also have a quality that can be very easily manipulated: wanting to please the adults around them. This is the inroad needed to direct children in certain ways of thinking. Entitlement, political correctness, ‘diversity’, universal acceptance, lack of allowance to fail, and feminization of males --all lessons that can be found in the current social atmosphere in which we live.
Add to that, the lazy parenting style now adopted in most families as well as parents who care more about the free babysitting through public schools than the training and raising of their own offspring, and we have the many issues we face today (possible more discussion on this later.)
Until conservatives really find their voices and decide not to be afraid to take action against this issue, and the many posted in this comment section…we will continue to see the rapid decline of our free society.
Leslie,
I will probably throw some red meat specifically to social conservatives with next Wednesday's continuation of discussion of conservative approaches to domestic policies.
Domestic policy discussions with conservatives usually go in the direction of "there can be no government solution to a government perpetuated problem" (which makes the anti-government libertarian side of me scream "Yes!")
If there were no government controlled public education system, issues like prayer in school, the creation-evolution debate, and the schools-are-daycare-babysitters mentality all go bye-bye.
So, is this debate over with, or what? I was actually getting entertained and learning stuff here.
Steve,
No, not over. Ongoing and continuing every Wednesday. When you're back from your reconnaissance mission in Europe, we'll probably be on foreign policy. :)
Hey, I might try and hit this thing someway, somehow...if we hit a wifi spot w/wife's itouch, it's on!
Beamish,
I understand what you're saying about property owners.
The definition of "property owner" was one who owned or had a mortgage for real estate. I don't recall how much land was required.
Let me cite an example of how one of my friends changed once she became a property owner.
Before Vicki was a property owner, she was a liberal, if not far left. I don't recall.
But once she bought her own condominium, she switched politics. What caused the change? Real-estate taxes!
She voted Dem in 1980, for Reagan with great gusto in 1984.
I've seen similar changes in immigrants. At first, they are all about getting entitlements. Then, once they own property, they become more conservative. They often switch parties!
I don't know how to briefly explain the problems with health insurance. But I'll say once again that employers are letting go those who opt in for health coverage and hiring those who don't. That's what happened to Mr. AOW at age 58. He is able to work a low-level job, but he does have several pre-existing medical conditions which will jack up his health insurance to $1000/month. No way can he earn that amount!
Actually, I believe that all of us would be better off without any health insurance, provided medical bankruptcy were eliminated. It is the fear of the bankruptcy which causes me to shell out nearly $1000/month right now. I have already checked: there is no way to shelter assets from medical bankruptcy.
My sister-in-law, BTW, did have medical insurance, but went bankrupt anyway because of an at-risk pregnancy and birth. The illegal in the same hospital walked debt free. The venue? Southern California.
I fear that America today is already so far into "I deserve this, I deserve that" as opposed to the original idea of earning. So many things are now considered rights or entitlements! I lay the start of the escalation of that insanity at the feet of FDR.
At the rate of taxation, present and coming down the pike, there won't be enough left of one's earnings to buy anything; 90% of those earnings will go for taxes.
I'm on an I-hate-taxes kick right now. I just got my real-estate tax bill: it now costs us $500 a month in local tax for this pre-WW2 house, a tear down. In 2001, the tax on this same house and land was $200/month. Of course, my neighbors with the newer homes are paying $1000 a month in real-estate taxes. The lion's share of all that tax revenue goes into the public school system.
Ah, well. I look forward to next week's discussion.
AOW,
Did you know that Franklin Roosevelt's presidential campaign smear tactic against Herbert Hoover was to call Hoover a "socialist" and a "communist?"
Now, calling Hoover a socialist wasn't too far off the mark, as Hoover was decidedly anti-capitalist (he even wrote an anti-capitalist book) and created a good chunk of the government programs that Roosevelt criticized as a candidate, then expanded gargantuanly as a President.
Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Progressive, Liberal - leftism's war on capitalism has done a lot to make our government dysfunctional.
Tax policy is probably going to be its own topic of discussion.
This is the first I've seen of the new format. Cool! I think the answer to everything is socialization, naturally, so if we can have a federal government system of Health Care I'm sure it will work just famously.
Government over the people, for the well being of the stupid people who don't know what's good for them, by the people in positions of power within the government, is the New Gettysburg Address.
Beamish,
Have you read Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny? The book explains so well our nation's gradual and horrible slide into the Nanny State.
MZ,
"We hold this sarcasm to be self-evident..."
AOW,
I'm a big fan of Mark Levin, but I haven't read that book yet.
We should consider that nothing that is happening in our country today is a fluke. Of course, it is always possible to write the musings of an old guy off to the fact that yeah, he’s one of those old codgers … just another conspiracy theory from someone who suffers from sundowner’s syndrome. On the other hand, while it might be difficult to prove any of this in a court of law (or public opinion), the evidence is overwhelming.
Consider the weight of this discussion so far. Do we think for a moment that any of what is happening is by accident?
* What role has the so-called Hollywood elite taken to feminize America? One cannot watch a commercial on television these days without noticing that men (husbands, brothers, fathers, grandfathers, uncles, or they guy down the street) are portrayed as idiots. Sure, “it’s a guy thing” may be funny … except that such never-ending messages (over time) do tend to convince people that men truly are idiots.
* It is impossible to see any televised program without a disproportionate percentage of the cast portraying queer lifestyles. This constant stream of exposure to disgusting behavior, over time, causes people to accept queer as normal. We might wonder what the word queer means; it means odd, abnormal, or unusual. So they invented a new word: gay. Then they made everyone believe that being gay was cool.
* Did anyone think that the production of the movie The Three Hundred was only an appreciation of the classic Greek story of Thermopylae, or did it have more to do with making a pathway for homosexuals in the military?
* What do we see happening on the internet, these days? There appears to be a plethora of products and services for women that invalidate any need for men at all.
* Even some websites are catering to women, billing themselves as conservative. One of these is a site called “Smart Girl Politics.” It is where women supposedly feel comfortable expressing their views in a feminine environment. Many of these views aren’t conservative at all … they are feminist views disguised as conservativism, and hardly anyone notices what is happening.
* Imagine how so many people have come to see themselves as “victims” of society. Females are victims to stupid males. Blacks are the victims of white-racist society. Whites have systematically eradicated American Indians. Hispanics are angry because white people want to exclude them from living in the United States. Now, we even have Muslim extremists demanding recognition of their bizarre religion, at the exclusion of traditional Christianity.
And no one seems to be pushing back. Now we even have demands for income redistribution (because it’s fair), and National Health Care (because everyone has a right to unlimited supplies of Viagra at the taxpayer’s expense), and the federal government is looking out after everyone through socialized programs. We can discuss these issues until we are blue in the face, but until conservative Americans begin pushing back, there won’t be any conservatives left in this country. Seriously, does anyone here think that Bush was a conservative? Does anyone see any true conservatives in the GOP? The last president we had that was right of center was Ronald Reagan. If none of this is of concern to us, then we have already lost the war.
Mustang,
On the product and content of Hollywood, TV, websites, and the internet in general, what's a conservative solution?
Personally, I don't watch television because that's all you ever see dumb males on TV do ;)
Seriously though, in the limited context of what conservatives want the government to do (besides "as little as possible"), how do you bring about the changes in media and internet outlets without curtailing the freedom of speech and expression?
There are plans in a group in Hollywood that's growing by the day...to accomplish precisely what you suggest, Beamish...'changes in the media' Wait for it. :-)
Great comment, Mustang..I agree.
Except I just joined Smart Girl Politics because it looked okay to me and a friend I trust is a member..I didn't look THAT carefully, just figured it was okay..dayum. I'll have to look again!
You pose an interesting question, Beamish. Like you, I watch few television programs. I’d rather read a book. For those of us who choose not to watch television, we can do little about the program assault on morality. Among conservatives who do watch television, they mostly confine themselves to switching channels. That isn’t enough, in my opinion.
Network programming is a statistical game predicated on the opinions of social scientists who advise programmers and advertisers. If you watch television, however, you will see the same advertisers on every channel in the prime-time slots. But what I think conservatives could do is generate local campaigns to send letters to these advertisers, and tell them that they are boycotting their products unless or until two things happen. (1) The advertisers drop the program we find offensive, or (2) the network drops the offending program.
Until something like this begins to happen, there won’t be much change in the attitudes of networks and Hollywood producers. And let us note that while we generally regard Hollywood producers as a bunch of leftist idiots, they are (hypocritically) motivated by the almighty dollar.
//What do you as a conservative want domestic policy to be? //
Name an issue. The solution that offers the least government intrusion is always the way to go.
Post a Comment