Response: Has Government Sold Out?

It is true, Christa. Sometimes it is difficult to see where the interests of our law making bodies reside, or rather, what motivates them. 

For the presidential election of 2012, hopeful Ron Paul has raised approximately $12,804,591. Of this amount, he has spent $9,993,586. $1 million from his fundraised money has been spent on private jet chartered flights, far more than any other candidate. There is a luxury that exists as a benefit of being a public servant. This luxury, for the sake of an efficient and honest government, should not exist. 

It is mentioned in your blog that "ninety-three to ninety-four percent of congressional seats are won by the candidates who spend the most money campaigning." Campaigning should not be such an extravagant event. Firstly, it opens the door to corruption through large contributions made in the faith of future reimbursement. The percentage of the population that contributed more than $2,400 in the 2010 election cycle was 0.06%. Secondly, the race becomes one of popularity, who can self-advertise better, not who has the best ideas on how to recuperate a crumbling system. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is a point you brought up -- it blocks out lesser known or new candidates, those with far less reach into people's and businesses' pockets, creating a system of candidate recycling. The less money an obscure and individual campaign raises, the less credibility it has, no matter what principle base they stand on; the more obscure the newcomer, the more difficult it is to raise campaign money. 

An imposed limit on campaign donations, or maybe even a limit on campaign budgets, seems to be a proper course of action. Candidates will have to stand on their words, not their popularity or connections. 

It has always been hard for me to trust candidates who supposedly side with the under privileged in this country when they themselves do not need to worry about whether or not they will make enough money to pay the electric bill, even if they have been in that situation before. It's about modesty. I've never liked White House galas. They remind me too much of a pre-revolution France. 

A proposition.

The money we pay in taxes is funneled into various state and federal projects. Our monetary participation in the maintenance of these programs is compulsory. I propose that the funding for federal programs become optional. The plan would be as follows: we would continue paying a certain amount of taxes, but, instead of paying blindly to the federal government, we get to choose which programs our money supports, i.e. civil construction, war, social welfare, public education etc. This would allow the people to vote with their money for which programs survive.

There are various branches under the social welfare program -- unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.  My first contention is that of federal contraction. In approximately a decade, our government has accumulated a federal debt of a little over $15 trillion. $2.738 trillion of this national debt can be attributed to social welfare programs. With the proposed change, whatever is donated towards these programs may be used, no more, no less. This way, the federal government would not have to pay for the monetary difference this program accrues; they would survive based on whether or not the people want for it to exist. Certain branches, such as food stamps, may be eliminated for lack of funds, while others could survive. It cannot be denied that the federal government has overstretched its finances. It's time to contract.

My second contention in support of this proposal is personal liberty. I am forced by law to pay a "membership fee" if I want to live in this country. This money is used to support the system that in turn supports me. This is fair. Nothing is free. However, what if my money is being funneled into programs I disagree with? I am forced to pay into a Social Security fund that is being used for ulterior purposes. I am forced to pay into Medicaid and Medicare, programs I am not allowed to participate in because I am not poor enough. I help pay for a war I may not agree with. If I am going to pay to live here, I would like to choose where my money is invested. I do not want to fund a war, a personal retirement fund I may never see, the unemployment check of someone who has too much pride to work in a school cafeteria.

My third contention can be simply stated as "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." This last contention is closely tied with my argument for personal liberty. The current system works as follows: federal and state programs decide upon which programs are to exist, we pay taxes, they take care of the rest. The only way to control which programs exist is by voting for candidates, petitioning, protesting, etc. These are all indirect. We still rely on the officials to create actual change. If we were to implement the new system, the people would have a direct say as to what our government funds. If the majority of the United States does not want to fund a war the federal government believes we should fight, it will not be funded. Instead, they would rather fund public education. If people have enough self-restraint to invest in their own retirement, they would instead pay into a private account, or not pay at all. The people would use their tax dollars to create a nation of their own, not one decided by a few hundred individuals.

If we were to work out a new system similar to the one proposed, the American people would have more control over their lives and over the system they belong to.

The borrowed $15 trillion may seem free now, but future tax payers will have to pay, with interest. It's time we buy what we can afford.

Response: Drug induced hazes on the American Dime...

In her post Drug induced hazes on the American Dime…, Maureen argues for drug screenings as a prerequisite for receiving federal aid such as unemployment benefits and food stamps. Her contentions include not using tax payers' money to help people self-medicate and distributing those benefits to people who will use it to stand back up. 

I agree with her position on this issue -- I do not see anything wrong with implementing this screening process. It seems fair to both tax payers and other individuals in need of assistance. As Maureen stated, these programs are meant to be temporary solutions while individuals find a way to support themselves once again. This all being said, I do not think drugs are bad. They are, however, a luxury item. Social welfare programs are not meant to fund individuals so that they may purchase nice purses or drugs. That is not where my "hard earned money" is supposed to go to. Instead, it is meant to help someone survive. Drug testing is warranted.

The monthly assistance Maureen states Florida grants, $250, is really not a lot of money. For someone who truly needs that money to get back on their feet, there is no elbow room. 

Privacy vs. Security

Societies have become super-connected; technology has destroyed barriers of distance. Isolation has become a rarity in our modern nation. Satellites, telephones, cellular phones, internet, televisions, and radios have dwindled disparities between local communities, tying us together through a common knowledge shared by a national community. The government encompasses our lives, from the water we drink, to the building codes architects must abide by. It regulates our markets and dispenses nutritional advice. It wages wars in foreign countries to prevent future wars from happening. It oversees the production of national assets -- roads and sewage systems. It maintains a public system of education open to all. It protects us. We have laws, guidelines in all sectors of our society one must follow so that peace and order may flourish. Law enforcement officials protect these laws. The justice system punishes any breaches. A revolutionary idea that makes America free and just is "innocent until proven guilty." The American Constitution's Fourth Amendment protects its citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by authorities. The USA Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001. It bypasses the Fourth Amendment in many instances and has drastically lowered steps authorities have to follow in order to look through records and personal property. In an ambitious effort to curb foreign and domestic terrorism, lawmakers have given the proper authorities the right to do almost whatever it takes to locate and prosecute "terrorists." In the process, they have eradicated privacy and created a police nation. President Obama signed a four-year extension on this bill earlier this year.

A common argument for this bill's existence is that an individual has nothing to fear if there is nothing to hide. It will not affect an innocent person. Actually, it will protect this person.

Now, think of foreign wars; how, since Communism became a "major" threat to democracy, the USA has become involved in these wars. Think of Iraq. Ask how many soldiers have actually encountered certified terrorists. The concept between these wars and the USA Patriot Act are the same -- prevention.

The counter argument still holds -- prevention means protection, and the innocent still have nothing to fear.

Now, think of the recent immigration laws being passed. Alabama's law enforcers are allowed to arbitrarily pull over individuals and ask for identification.

The probable cause leading to the questioning of an individual is no longer anything that person has physically done. Whim has taken the place of probable cause. And racial profiling. And ulterior motives (reports have shown that the USA Patriot Act is rarely used for the detection of terrorist activity).

Americans have become guilty until proven innocent.

The counter argument still holds -- the innocent will be proven innocent.

So, what's so wrong with this new direction our national government has taken?

Thin lines

David Post writes in his The Question Is Whether Kafkaesque Or Orwellian Is The Appropriate Adjective post about a technique the government has employed to curb unlawful material found on the internet. Essentially it is a "domain name seizure", where the government, given probable cause, is allowed to pull the plug on any website without prior warning to the website's host. Post's intended audience, I suppose, is anyone who has the time to question the government and its actions, whether highly publicized or not. His credibility is unrecognizable. Post claims this act to be "nightmarish." He fails to add any evidence to his claim and his logic gives way to emotion.

Scenario: a man is driving erratically on a freeway. He passes a cop and is immediately pulled over. While speaking to the cop, he slurs his words together. This is probable cause for a cop to ask you to step out of you vehicle in order to determine whether or not you are fit to drive. In the event you are arrested, you will have a trial, your guaranteed due process. In the case of domain name seizure, this seems to be a similar thing. You are not being declared guilty once your domain name is seized and your website disappears. You are simply being "arrested". Post argues that this seizure is an atrocity, but it is nothing more than a cop arresting a drunk driver who reeks of alcohol. They will still get their due process and be let free if they are innocent. I think domain name seizures are okay, as long as there is probable cause (obvious cause, really) to their unlawful nature.

Fences: how many and where?

In the op-ed column, Phony Fear Factor, Paul Krugman expresses his views on the conservative party's opinions regarding the cause of our national economic dilemma. Conservative politicians and economists widely believe the Obama Administration is culpable for the torpid economic recovery, mainly job growth, we've experienced since The Great Recession occurred in 2007. He further explains the conservatives' main claim for this drag as "costly regulations and higher taxes." Krugman states in his editorial that this is not the case. Evidence from prior recessions shows that economic recovery is a slow process, and that, compared to the 2001 economic recovery, we are mending much faster. Also, large businesses are making good profits, but not investing in growth. The reason is poor sales. There is no need to expand the work force if there is little product demand. That would be bad business. The perpetuance of these pugnacious "delusions" conservatives hold on to, Krugman theorizes, is firstly their proclivity to believe what they will despite empirical evidence (their rejection of "climate science and even the theory of evolution") and secondly their need to incriminate the Obama Administration for "everything bad in America." His final claim is that our economic troubles grew from little regulation, and that the conservatives' goal is to deregulate even further.

There are points I agree with Krugman on,  and points I have too little economic knowledge on to make an informed opinion. I agree with his claim about conservatives strongly holding on to their opinions despite scientific evidence. Despite a study showing evidence against gay service members causing any disruption in the armed forces, some conservatives still fought to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell alive. It is hard for a government to improve if representatives continue to cast their votes based on opinionated grounds. I also agree with his statements regarding the slow job growth America has seen. If there are no increased demands for a product, it would be illogical and disadvantageous for a company to expand the production of such a product via a larger work force. They would invest in a market that doesn't exist and lose money, probably causing large layoffs in an attempt to balance their check books. The catch is, with a weak work force and little civilian monetary funds, how are consumers supposed to demand more and stimulate the need for a larger work force? Regarding Krugman's last claim about the need for more government regulation in the business world as a means of fortifying the economy, I'm not sure what kind is needed to stimulate growth. Most government regulations I've studied in macroeconomics, such as subsidies, price ceilings and floors, and heavy taxations, have all been explained to have negative economic repercussions and usually favor big business and wealthy civilians, creating a larger gap between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, further deregulation would allow for greed to run rampant. Despite all this, one thing I do believe is politicians need to stop searching for a place to put blame and look to the future, using scientific evidence to guide them towards a solution. However, as Krugman said, this is difficult since even conservative economists have the tendency to support conservative "delusions," making the discrimination between fact and fiction difficult, especially to the untrained eye.

Casinos, revenues, addiction, and choice.

In a plan to raise revenue and stimulate job growth, American states are legalizing casinos, a business that accumulated $25 billion in profit for state governments (a large percentage of this amount coming from state lotteries). Massachusetts is the latest state to have a proposal for legal gambling approved by the House with a 123-32 vote. This plan is expected to create 15,000 jobs in the state. However, there is strong objection against legal gambling in the state of Massachusetts. Rep. Ruth Balser equated legalizing gambling to "setting up crack cocaine shops."Les Bernal, executive director of the Stop Predatory Gambling Foundation, states "...it represents a phony prosperity...a business that's based on people losing money." Gambling addiction can become so detrimental to some individuals that a "self-exclusion" list has been established in Illinois. Approximately 8,300 people with gambling addiction problems have voluntarily added their names to this list, prohibiting their entrance to gambling establishments.

This article is worth reading because it touches an important issue in America today - how far should our government go to protect the health and safety of its citizens? We have various governmental agencies established for the sole purpose of creating and regulating quality standards. The Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are two examples (other agencies: http://www.iem-inc.com/linkreg.html). History has shown that without a national standard of quality and enforcement, the quality of produce sold by private enterprises can be quite dismal, as was the case with the early processed foods industry. Regulation seems to be a necessary and protective action. The difference between these agencies and the arguments against legal gambling, however, is who is being regulated. Industries are regulated by these agencies, protecting individual safety, whereas individuals are being regulated by the presented arguments that oppose legal gambling, which also protect individual safety. The latter, however, infringes upon personal choice. If an individual wishes to spend his days on his couch, watching television and nurturing his obesity, that is his choice. If an individual chooses to copiously smoke cigarettes, that is his choice. If an individual wishes to work daily on his tan without wearing any protection against UV rays, that is his choice. The same goes for which religion you choose to adopt or which football team you cheer for. These are our choices. Most importantly, these are all choices that may or may not harm solely the individual who makes them. In other words, it's our personal business. It is only logical that if state governments have warrant to prohibit gambling on moral grounds, that they also have warrant to prohibit certain kinds of foods, pass-times (excessive shopping, smoking, drinking, etc.), beliefs, and products. Individuals legally become adults at the age of eighteen, and yet, some government bodies and their representatives feel the need to continue holding our hands in matters that should only be decided by the individual. Succinctly, I support traffic laws against drunk driving because the actions taken by these individuals have the possibility of infringing upon another individual's liberties, mainly life. I do not support traffic laws enforcing the use of adult seat-belts because, since it is only my own life at stake, it infringes upon my individual liberty of choice.

I believe the government is morally obligated to protect citizens from one another and foreign invaders. That is the basic purpose for which it exists. I do not believe the government has moral justification to protect citizens from themselves. At least not the kind of government in which I want to live in. 

So, in government, what is moral to you? 

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0915/Casinos-multiply-as-states-such-as-Massachusetts-hunt-for-jobs-revenue/(page)/2