Six of One, Half Dozen of the other?

                If I hear, “Why not vote for Romney, he’s better than Obama…and that’s who you should care about beating.” one more time…I’m going to scream.  Who is to say that I want Romney over Obama…for instance, Obama would only get 4 more years to wreak havoc…while Romney would have a potential 8 year disaster plan.  Advantage: Obama.  But what about all the differences…well…I see these things as “basically the same ice cream, with a different flavored topping."  Let me use some popular examples…so you can put it into perspective when deciding who you want to vote for.

                War: Obama has us in undeclared wars, along with Presidential prerogative allowing strikes in Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq…and soon to be Syria, Iran and who else?  Mitt would continue undeclared wars but he also has said he is committed to stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities.  His position on his website is to seek out everyone in the world who would plot against us…continued pressure (money) given to occupied countries to buy their cooperation.  Gary would pull us out of all undeclared wars, return our troops to US soil and stop all foreign aid to countries.  Our military policy would be one of a defensive nature.  He could reduce spending immensely if we didn’t have 100+ bases in the Middle East, Japan, Germany…etc.  Let those countries defend themselves.

                Values: Obama has evolved to support Gay rights for marriage.  Although he has a storied history with drugs, he continues the war on drugs and the spending for this has reached levels that cannot be sustained…all the while drug use has not been curbed by any of it.  Obama also believes that abortion is a right, and supports the woman’s right to choose.  Mitt believes that life begins at conception and has called for Roe v Wade to be overturned.  He believes that marriage is sacred and should not be extended to gays…because it is “for the wellbeing of civilization”…meaning that as long as it is best for society, he should be able to usurp personal liberties.  Gary believes in choice until the fetus is viable out of the womb.  He believes prostitution would be safer if legalized, and since it is going on, it wouldn’t necessarily grow in popularity.  Gays are individuals, and deserve the same rights as anyone…and the role of government is not to manage marriages, nor to decide who should be allowed to love someone else.   Medical marijuana and recreational drug use are still safer than alcohol, and the federal war on drugs currently is not producing results to curb the demand for drugs.  Save the money, release the prisoners and focus on the health aspect, not the criminal aspect of drug use…we can do more by seeing drug users as people, not criminals.

                Health Care: Obama…well, he did Obamacare.  Mitt has a sticky past with this issue, we all know that he was the architect…but let’s examine his ethos and extrapolate his position.  He already thinks that  the “wellbeing of civilization” trumps individual liberty, and here are some more quotes, “health care is essential source of well-being for the individual and family”…so government intervention is ok?  “The role of the federal government is to  create a level playing field for competition.”…wow…so free market and personal liberty…again take a backseat (or roof rack) to the common good?  Mitt also believes that the wealthy should get fewer benefits (Social Security/Medicare) than those that are more “needy”…even though they contributed more than most to the system.  Gary simply believes that the answer can be found by allowing states to explore different methods and learn from other states who have succeeded or failed.  The federal government has no role in the distribution of health care services.

                Government Role in Business:  Obama believes that the government can have an active role in choosing which businesses succeed or fail, even if that means taking stake holding positions with taxpayer money and “bailing” out companies who are not fit to survive without the moneys.   Mitt wants to have “limits to regulatory costs” and “structurally change the bureaucracy” to allow more flexibility in business to endure the regulatory costs incurred by governments meddling.  Gary would eliminate corporate taxes, the government’s role is not to create wealth, jobs or winners and losers.  Government and its agencies should not meddle with business without a valid and provable infringement of the rights of others.

                Gun Control:  Obama is willing to plant guns in criminals’ hands to fabricate a reason to write more gun control laws, even if it means a few government agents protecting our border are shot and killed with those guns.  Mitt will “enforce all laws on the books” and never mentions whether he would limit the scope of the ATF and other out of control agencies without oversight by congress.  If Obama gets a law written, I assume Mitt doesn’t care enough about liberty to work to overturn it, he would just enforce laws on the books.  He has admitted that the NRA doesn’t love him…and neither should people who care about their safety enough to not wait for police to defend themselves.  Gary has stated that gun laws don’t work to combat crime, as criminals don’t follow laws.  He supports the individual’s right to defend himself, and the second amendment is there to limit the government from infringing on the rights of the individual.

                Spending:  Obama loves it…can’t get enough.  Mitt wants to cut $500 Billion/year starting in 2016?  What?  Gary wants to cut 43% of the spending in the first year to balance the budget.  These cuts would be to military, foreign aid, wasteful programs, as well as agencies that are not supporting the role of government.  States would get grants to figure out their own issues and the role of the federal government would be pared back to constitutionally designated roles. 

OK.  Those of you that loved Obama’s positions…you won’t change no matter what.  Those of you who supported Mitt’s positions…you will vote for him.  BUT, if you can read this and see that it is "Six of one, and a half dozen of the other" with Mitt and Obama…then you KNOW…It’s gotta be Gary for President 2012.

-Rev

The Softer Side of Libertarianism

       I am guilty of being a mean bully when talking about libertarianism as an answer to many of the problems our current system is mired in.  In fact, I have been called many names by many people because my answers, while true to libertarian principles, don’t offer the warm and fuzzy feelings to get people who are “feelers” to come along with the common sense approach libertarianism offers.  A case in point:

                I think that we should allow someone with 10, 20, or even 30 kids with 5 or 10 different women to suffer the consequences of his irresponsible actions.  But inevitably, the “feeler” says, “what about the kids…do we let them starve?”  Damnit.  As much as I want to punish this idiot for his reckless behavior, how can I demand a consequence that hurts the kids?  This is the problem with Malthusian responses, and this is what happens when libertarian principles are applied decades (or centuries) after governmental policies have taken hold.  We need to find a way to pry the lips of the recipients from the teats of society without sounding like draconian heartless monsters.  What if there was a dyed in the wool liberal, but he wasn’t a mindless fool with no common sense…maybe he works in the same office.  What if we had a civil conversation without emotion, on just the issue of…say…unemployment.  What would that sound like?

                I did this, and it was very eye-opening.  You see, he was on unemployment briefly, and he knows people who still are (who doesn’t?).  In my line of business , salesmen start out on salary, build a route, and when it becomes advantageous (or  someone is not pushing themselves because they are happy on a salary) there is a conversation with the boss that goes something like this.  “Hi John, starting next month, your salary will go away and you will get a commission on your sales.  This commission is currently going to be $200/week less than your salary, so we are going to give you $200/week to make up for it this month…but next month, we will only give you $175/week…the next month, $150/week…until you are only on commission.  This is your incentive to really bust your butt and get your sales up…hopefully you will be much higher by the end of the 2 months and you won’t miss the extra money, but if you aren’t, you will either make due with the fruits of your labor, or you should look for different line of work.  We think this is fair, and are willing to help you in any way, but the clock is now ticking.”   Why not apply this principle to unemployment?  Genius.

                I went one step further, I proposed that due to current levels of unemployment fraud (to the tune of $19 BILLION), we should allow CPA’s and businessmen to petition the State to take over this endeavor.  Before you go ape-poop over this, hear me out.  Three companies are started by entrepreneurs who staff their company and hire case managers who get paid (as does the company) on a % of money saved vs people helped OFF the system.  These companies are audited by the State to make sure they are running by the books, but if you don’t think private managers will be more efficient and effective than the current morons doling out money to whomever (mostly because it isn’t their money, and they get paid and pensions for just showing up) then you are part of the problem anyways.  There would be competition, as the three companies would be fighting for the best success rates…and this could be by offering a temp agency service, retraining and schooling…etc.  Get the FED out of the equation altogether, and let the states experiment with different theories and tactics…will it be perfect out of the gate?  Probably not in every state, but isn’t having 10 or 20 states try something new and succeed, better than all 50 states failing with the same method?  Well, my liberal friend and I still disagree about a lot of things, but this meeting of the minds really accomplished something, and he also doesn’t think I’m a big bully who wants kids to die in the street now.  So…is this a perfect system?  No.  Is this the perfect Libertarian answer?  No…but it is a lot better than our current system, and it utilizes the principles to which we subscribe, while allowing the warm and fuzzies to be felt by those who distrust anything privately handled…and who knows…maybe the next big company employing thousands can be the one that helps fight fraud and government waste by taking on the role of unemployment distribution?  Or…maybe we can have some of those genius IRS accountants quit/get fired and go to work in the private sector…saving the public kajillions of dollars in public pensions, salaries and benefits?   Who wouldn’t support that idea?

                You won’t hear solutions from the Republicans or Democrats…because to offer real solutions is to admit that the system is broken…and make no mistake, these two parties OWN this system.  When either party talks about overhauling any program…they are just whistling with a mouthful of cinnamon.  There is no way either party will undertake real reform, because the visceral response from the “opposite side” will always kill it.  Then we have a decade of fighting back and forth with statements like, “They want women dragged out into the street”, or “they want to kill all the female fetuses which is the real  war on women ”…are you kidding me?  You are what we have to choose from?  How about you allow real people to sit down with no party agenda, no blowhard mouthpiece making up things to polarize their base…someone like me…who represents the softer side of libertarianism…hahahaha, I’ll never get used to that. 

- REV