AND I Am Not A Liberal

Now that I have alienated all of the conservatives that read my articles, it is only fair that I explain how I should not be classified as a liberal either. I made my case for most of the tenets of liberalism I support in part one, so let’s see how I stack up against “the other side.”

As with abortion for conservatives, gun control seems to be a definitive issue when considering one’s level of liberalism. I read the Second Amendment as an American’s right to possess a firearm for whatever reason they deem necessary. If guns are outlawed, then only those who already run afoul of the law will have them. Disarming eligible citizens makes them targets, waiting for an inept police force to “serve and protect” them after they have been victimized.

I find myself at odds with many liberal Democrats over their love of unionized workplaces. In my opinion, unions serve three purposes, to weaken an individual’s relationship with their employer, to force an employer to pay the most money for the least amount of work, and to line the pockets of the union bosses with dues. The idea that more union involvement in the American economy would be beneficial is laughable. They have done more for outsourcing jobs overseas than any horribly capitalist CEO. Also, the union mentality of owning the jobs their workers labor for brings about an interesting question. Do the unions and the employees develop the skills for a position and take applications from and interview different firms for which one will be the most beneficial for the job? I did not think so. Oh yeah, America is NOT a manufacturing economy, no matter how much people complain about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas. That was two economies ago, and nations that have developed beyond agriculture have cost and efficiency advantages over the high-priced American labor force. Now is their time to perform those jobs and create those products, while America innovates in the information economy and beyond.

I do not believe in the oppressive, progressive taxation on income, where those that earn more money pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. I think that income, inheritance, and capital gains taxes punish achievement, while a consumption-based tax system will lead to lower prices and more choice among taxpayers. They will be able to decide how much they pay in taxes based entirely on how much they consume, and the social engineering built into the current tax code through incentives, deductions, and credits will be eliminated. I think that eliminating the 16th Amendment and implementing something similar to the FairTax will provide the best method for assessing and collecting taxes, while shifting a vast amount of influence and power away from lobbyists and legislators and back to the citizens where it belongs. The punishing taxation of corporations will be over, and many will return their headquarters and operations back to the states.

Health care is not a right, nor is it a privilege. Successful people make the right choices with their lives and finances to assure that their health will not be their downfall. Whether it means to take a job that they hate with good benefits or choosing to work independently and choose their coverage. Insurance companies offer the same policies to everyone in a group plan due to governmental regulations, and that carries over to private individuals seeking a policy that meets their needs. Does it make sense that I am covered by my company’s insurance for pre-natal care and delivery with no way to drop that coverage, even though it’s biologically impossible for me to carry a child? Interestingly, that same policy also covers Viagra (which I am not old enough to be considering use of), while it does not cover a vasectomy or any birth control medication for my partner. Since I am pretty young and in relatively good health, my needs for an insurance policy vary greatly from a chronically ill woman in her fifties that may work in the same office, though we are offered the same coverage and premiums. Since the government has no faith in my choices for what I may need, the insurance company is forced to cover us equally. Also, my financial choices allow for health care coverage before my cable and internet, my cell phone, even my vehicle, and rather than living beyond my means, I save money beyond my retirement accounts for a disastrous situation.

On that note, I am fully aware that my contributions into Social Security will be returned to me with a negative rate of return in the best-case scenario. I contribute to a 401(k), a Roth IRA, and a high-yield savings account to ensure my financial future, both immediate and long-term. I have made these choices over living in a more expensive home, driving a newer car, and buying every new doodad and whatsit that comes along. I also believe that anyone that does not make those same sacrifices is a fool. Social Security was never meant to be anyone’s retirement, but rather a short-term safety net for those affected by the Great Depression that would not be collecting their pensions after they found themselves unemployed in the worst financial situation the nation ever faced.

In terms of safety nets, I think they should be handled privately. There are many quality programs that will assist those in need for a short period without the need for federal funding. In my opinion, we have far too many people able to work that have found an easy way to game the system, especially as the “stigma” of welfare and food stamps has been eliminated by the use of direct deposit and EBT cards. The government sets high hurdles for charitable organizations, barring entry to new players and adding administrative costs to existing charities. The citizens of the United States have proven to be the most charitable in the world, flush with foundations and other organizations that raise far more than any other nation in the world. With more money in the pockets of the citizens with the aforementioned tax plan, that is likely to widen that gap even more.

I am a strong believer in the Constitution as it was adopted in 1787, and it has survived since as a living document. Beyond the Bill of Rights, it has been amended seventeen times to change with the times, the most recent to limit Congressional pay raises. One of the most perfect amendments in my view came about in the Bill of Rights, and it is the Tenth Amendment, which delegates powers to the states not governed by the previous nine. Unfortunately, the process for making changes to the Constitution is not easy enough for some, and they have decided to seek out like-minded judges that will “interpret” the Constitution to add more power to the Federal Government’s duties. This bypasses the procedures set forth for changing the supreme law of the land, setting judicial precedent for future Supreme Court and lower court decisions.

The theorists in support of global warming have not presented enough evidence to include me among its believers, let alone someone who wants the government to dictate what toilet they can buy, car they can drive, or degree they can set their thermostat. Environmentalism has changed from a movement truly about preserving life on this planet to a plan to systematically destroy capitalism led by someone who wants you to do as he says, not as he does, in Al Gore. I think that the ideas of conservation, alternative fuels, and recycling are great for the community, but more importantly, for the individual. There is no need for the government to intervene here.

It seems to me that the liberal agenda revolves around group identity, with many programs being designed for “the poor,” “the elderly,” and “the children,” while vilifying programs viewed to be benefiting “the rich.” What this thinking fails to consider is the efforts of the individual. I may be white, male, straight, and from the South, but I know that my life is different from many others who fall into those same groups. Thinking based on group identity splinters society into different races, genders, age, and religions, segregating each group from sharing commonalities with anyone from another classification. This leads to special considerations being made for only certain classes of people, where the recipient group gets special treatment in certain situations, like hiring with affirmative action programs or crime with “hate crime” legislation. These types of group thinking makes one group more important than another, in the interest of “fairness,” when it actually provides an advantage or disadvantage to someone based on something they have no control over.

Most important to me, liberal thought automatically looks to the government to provide solutions to every issue, eventually moving on to preemptively address issues that are not present. Big government does not solve everything, in fact, I believe that it causes more problems than it solves. Personally, the idea of freedom and liberty, unencumbered by government, providing solutions on its own sounds like an ideal situation to me. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”  Ronald Reagan certainly had it right when he joked about those being the nine most terrifying words in the English language.

It is my belief that I have done one of two things with this two part article. Either I have thoroughly alienated everyone who has read them, or there are more liberty-minded individuals than I realize, and I have woken them up from their lives as sheep. Here’s to the latter…

Bill of Rights Blackout!

I just joined Bob Barr in signing his pledge to stop the Blackout of the Bill of Rights:

We the undersigned citizens of the United States petition Congress to rise to its responsibilities and enforce and protect the Bill of Rights through any and all means at its disposal including but not limited to Committee Hearings and legal action through the courts.

You can read and sign the full petition by clicking here or visiting:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/rights/

Thanks!

Barr Endorses Impeachment… Media Doesn’t Seem to Care

On Friday whilst speaking to the House Judiciary Committee, Barr endorses an impeachment inquiry of the sitting President, George W. Bush.  Shocking, eh?  Besides a few bloggers and the Barr campaign itself, NO ONE has covered what I felt was an obvious statement of no confidence in the President.  Take a look at what he had to say below in text and in the video.

We have heard even though this is not, as the Chairman correctly points out, an impeachment inquiry. This committee has the awesome responsibility whether or not at some point in time to conduct such a momentous inquiry. It is not a responsibility of myself now as a private citizen. But if in fact the decision before this committee and the American people is constitutional inquiry or constitutional silence, then by God, I choose constitutional inquiry.

Perhaps the Obama world tour has occupied all of the political news media, and this just slipped into the cracks, as the mainstream media slobbered all over itself on their way back from Europe.

Why I Am Voting For Bob Barr

Recently, I was asked who I planned to vote for in November, since my Presidential preference in the spring primary, Ron Paul, was no longer an option.  I spent a lot of time discussing both presumptive nominees for the status quo parties, John McCain and Barack Obama.  Since the person I was speaking with was a very conservative Republican, I talked first about why I could not support Obama.

I talked about the lack of substance I have witnessed from his campaign from its start over a year ago.  The first thing I noted was that his message of “Change We Can Believe In” was certainly something that I could get behind, as I have been dissatisfied with the direction America has been led for over eight years.  The problems I see with Obama’s message of “Change” is that he does not define what he opposes in the current situation that he wants to “Change” things from.  Since there is not a well-defined starting point, I think it would be hard to pin down what he wants to “Change” to.  Those issues with the lack of substance in his message should be enough to raise serious questions about him as a candidate, but as I followed the primaries and the campaign, I noticed that his charisma and emotional speeches drew nothing but compliments from pundits and many who were swayed by one of those powerful, well-written oratories.  I was able to find a small amount of substance in what I can only describe as a short political career.  I am well-versed in the talking points of his supporters when it comes to the lack of experience that he brings to a position viewed by many as the most powerful world leader.  I know that he served in the Illinois state senate, from 1997-2004, with little to no actual legislating.  I am also aware of his time spent as a “community organizer,” whatever that means.  With very little legislative experience, it seems that fundraising and speaking a prepared, well-written speech seem to be the only experience that Barack Obama has.  He has proposed many social welfare programs, from promising the world to combat “world poverty,” requiring .7% of the nation’s GDP be spent toward that end, to spending money on job creation in an industry that does not exist.  These two programs alone would cost the taxpayers in the neighborhood of $600 BILLION, with no details as to how this would not add to the deficit and ultimately the national debt, other than the wealth envy proposal to “tax the rich,” without consideration to the effects that would trickle down through the economy.  This spending does not meet my economic ideology, nor does it mean a smaller government, but rather more bloated, inefficiencies that just throws money at an issue.  Neither of these meet my ideology for two of the most important issues our nation faces.

Now that I cannot cast a vote for the Democrat candidate, let’s examine his status quo counterpart, John McCain.  Throughout the primary campaigns, I was excited by very little from the Republican party candidates, other than the Libertarian-leaning campaign run by Ron Paul.  Since I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004 and Harry Browne in 2000, I was looking for someone cut from a similar cloth.  I attended the Republican debate in South Carolina in May of 2007, and the only candidate speaking to my needs of a strong economy, limited government, and freedom to choose was Dr. Paul.  Throughout the primaries, his message remained consistent, as it had for the entirety of his political career.  As the candidates dropped out, John McCain was the only one that remained standing as the primaries churned.  It seemed improbable that a nationally organized party would settle for the “last man standing” candidate, rather than someone whose message was as impassioned and powerful as the likely Democrat opponent.  McCain has yet to show a comprehensive plan to address the issues facing our nation, but rather taking the time to change positions on immigration, the environment, and abortion, just to name three.  The economic plan, including a proposed budget, has been through many revisions thus far, with many more to come.  He has fought to limit First Amendment rights through the McCain-Feingold legislation and promises of his pandering to garner votes from many groups has done nothing to limit the size of the federal government.  He stands firm on eliminating earmarks, which stand to remove the specifics of the allocated pork-barrel spending, while still allowing the spending to continue without the limitations of the specifics.  Had he taken a stance of eliminating government excess, by eliminating departments and programs, or threatened a veto of any bill with any sign of pork barrel spending, I might have been able to settle for an otherwise lackluster candidate.  In addition, his “maverick” status gives me no indication of his likely stances on many issues, and the flip-flopping thus far only makes his positions more of an enigma.

As both of these candidates work their political strategies to appeal to the greatest number of voters while showing their differences from the other guy, I am seeing more of what makes them the same.  Both John McCain and Barack Obama have only supported ideas that are certain to grow the massive, bloated largess that is the federal government.  This growth is on top of the government’s largest increase in size it has ever seen over the last eight years.  Barack Obama has not stopped his campaign long enough in one spot to write enough checks to cover all of the expansions of federal programs that he supports.  The “Straight Talk Express” barrels toward continuing our involvement in a Middle Eastern quagmire for the foreseeable future, or 100-10,000 years, whichever occurs first, to the tune of about $10 billion per month.  Neither senator took the opportunity to protect citizens from their spying government when the vote on the FISA bill came last week.  Barack voted against our civil liberties in his support of the FISA bill, and John did not even bother to show up for the vote to save our privacy.  This abstention adds another question mark of where he may stand on the issues of privacy and civil liberties.  Both senators have shown themselves to be willing to cater to the special interest of the environmentalists, as they pander to them with plans of anti-capitalist regulations that protect the environment against a still unproven “global climate change.”  Barack favors limiting industry by capping emissions output at a point obscenely lower than current emissions.  Interestingly, McCain also wants to cap and trade these emissions, penalizing companies for exceeding an arbitrary limit.

Since neither status quo candidate can sway me with their message of change or their bucking of the establishment, I was strongly considering sitting out what could ultimately prove to be the most important election of leadership in the last 150 years.  Having followed the Libertarian Party since I was fourteen, I decided to wait until the LP announced their candidate, so that I could use a vote to further the battle for ballot access to allow for more choice in elections.  When Bob Barr announced the formation of his exploratory interest in seeking the Libertarian nomination, I was intrigued but also concerned.  I liked that he rode into Congress on the wave of the Contract with America, since it did have many good ideas.  My concerns were no different that most liberty-minded individuals, as the memory of a privacy-invading, anti-choice, bigoted Republican representing my party was pushing the limits of my tolerance.  Unlike most Americans, Libertarians included, I took the time to research Bob Barr’s time after losing a Congressional bid to the ever-popular John Linder.  I found that he had studied and promoted some very important issues to me: privacy, security, and medical marijuana.  He also worked against what the Defense of Marriage Act (which he authored) and the Patriot Act (which he voted for) had become.  As with many people, he found he was now a square peg that no longer fit into one of the two circular holes.  Neither status quo party fit him.  I remember when I was in high school, and I tried to figure out if I was a Democrat or a Republican, because I held beliefs that “belonged to both.”  I sought out a different ideology, so I relate with Bob’s so-called “transformation” to Libertarianism.  He found a home that I had discovered already, and I see that he is someone that who most closely matches my political philosophy.  This was the first time that the Libertarian Party had a candidate with national name recognition, and that excites me.  He and I both believe in limiting the size of government, reducing the control government has over our lives, the power of the Bill of Rights, and the sanctity of the individual.  I believe with his leadership and guidance, America can move toward the intended result of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, the end of tyranny.

It is obvious that our country is moving in the wrong direction, and I think that Bob’s campaign is the only choice that actually aims to right the ship.