The Baseline Scenario: Opinion: James Kwak: Friedrich Hayek Supported a Guaranteed Minimum Income

Friedrich Hayek
The Baseline Scenario: Opinion: James Kwak: Friedrich Hayek Supported a Guaranteed Minimum Income

Friedrich Hayek, supported the Guaranteed Minimum Income and Milton Friedman supported the Negative Income Tax. Good for them and the libertarian movement, because it shows that perhaps the least politically diverse political movement in America even has some diversity with some competing ideas in it. The Negative Income Tax by the way, would replace all public assistance programs for the poor and give people in poverty one check every month that would have all of their public assistance benefits every month in one check. Bill Buckley, a Conservative Libertarian was against that.

Now here are my issues with what is called the Guaranteed Minimum Income, or the Guaranteed Basic Income, however you want to put it. As a Liberal, I want everyone to be incentivized to do as well as they can in America so they don’t have to live in poverty. The best way to move people out of poverty is to supply quality education, job training and infrastructure in communities that come up short in these areas. So kids from these communities can get themselves a good education and so their parents can finish and further their education and get themselves a good job and get out of poverty all together. That is how you beat poverty. Education, job training, infrastructure and good jobs.

Once you take away the incentive like with a Guaranteed Basic Income for Americans to do well in life and do as well as they can so they and their kids don’t have to live in poverty, because whatever job they have, or if they choose not work, because their income is now guaranteed no matter how productive they are, you’ll see a major drop in productivity in America. And as a result a major drop in economic growth. Because companies are no longer producing the quality of products their customers are accustomed to. And as a result people aren’t spending the money they normally do. Which is a big part of our economic growth, consumer spending. Why? Because no matter what we are all guaranteed a minimum income that keeps us out of poverty.

Posted in War on Poverty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason: Opinion: Steve Chapman: Martin O’Malley – Unknown But Not Implausible

Liberal With Results

Liberal With Results


Reason: Opinion: Steve Chapman: Martin O’Malley – Unknown But Not Implausible

I think Steve Chapman in his Reason piece makes some of the best points that I’ve heard about Martin O’Malley yet. His point being that O’Malley has already accomplished a lot of what Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton say that they want to do. He’s the only Democratic presidential candidate with not just real executive experience, or a lot of it, but executive experience that has come with real positive results.

Raising the minimum wage in Maryland

Moving people out of poverty in Baltimore and Maryland

Improving education and investing more in it in Baltimore and Maryland.

Legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland.

Outlawing the death penalty in Maryland.

Reducing crime in one of the biggest cities in America in Baltimore. And lowering crime in Baltimore faster than any other big city mayor.

Decriminalizing marijuana in Maryland.

Martin O’Malley, doesn’t have a record of fighting for progressive and liberal values. He has a record of accomplishing liberal and progressive goals based on those values. Here’s a former state governor that left his state with the best public schools in the nation. You can say you’re a fighter, right. But boxers like politicians are judged by their records. Anyone can fight a good fight and come close. But at the end of the day it comes down to what have you done for me lately. Did you accomplish what you set out to do, or did you fight a good fight, but still came up short. Martin O’Malley, has a clear successful record of accomplishing what Liberal and Progressive Democrats say they want.

What separates Martin O’Malley from Senator Bernie Sanders, whose been in Congress since the early 1990s and before that was a small town mayor in Vermont and even Hillary Clinton, who didn’t have a great record as Secretary of State and left that office with Benghazi on her plate, is that the Governor’s two main opponents are fighters and have fought good causes. But what has either one accomplished while they’ve been in office for such a long time. They are both big names and well-known and both have real pop culture appeal to them. But what have they done for anyone lately? With Governor O’Malley, he can answer that question clearly and give people a list of accomplishments. And yet not many Democrats have even heard his name yet.

Posted in Martin O'Malley | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Milton Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice: The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman Round 2

Classical Liberal

Classical Liberal


The Milton Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice: The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman Round 2

Phil Donahue, is probably as far-left as a TV show host could be, at least in his time. And yet even with his staunch slant and support for government interference, government assistance and government taxation, he was a hell of an interviewer. Especially when it came to intelligent people who came from lets say the opposite side of the political spectrum. Someone like a Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would be another example. Not sure if he ever interviewed Bill Buckley, but that would’ve been a great interview and show as well. Donahue, would let his guests speak. He would also make his case and they would have a back and forth. And he would also get his audience involved.

What you had in Phil Donahue, was a Collectivist. From the left in the form of a Progressive, or even Progressive/Socialist. Making the case that private enterprise, private enterprise and even capitalism come with risks. If not dangerous and perhaps are even bad things. But its better than Marxism and total state-ownership when it comes to economics. But if we’re going to have capitalism and private enterprise, they need to be well-regulated, which means highly regulated, for someone with a more Socialist background. And you need a government big enough to take care of people who don’t do well in the private enterprise system.

Milton, didn’t come the exact opposite direction on the Right. Because he did believe in things like regulations when it came to the environment. And even came out for reforming the safety net, instead of eliminating it. But he didn’t like high taxes and highly centralized government and wanted as little government, especially the Federal Government involvement in the economy. So you would have Donahue in this interview always not just making the case for government and even central government involvement in the economy, but making the case for more government involvement in the economy. And yet these two men could have a very good and productive discussion and debate on these issues. Because they actually listened to each other.

Posted in Milton Friedman | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: Video: Megyn Kelly: Free Speech Under Assault

Big Government Assaulting Free Speech

Big Government Assaulting Free Speech


Liberty Pen: Video: Megyn Kelly: Free Speech Under Assault

Hate speech, which I believe this anti-Muslim event and their drawings of Muhammad clearly falls under, is protected by the First Amendment. Government, can’t shut someone up, because they, or other people disagree with what someone is saying. Or are even assaulted and even find it hateful. You don’t like liberal democracy and our liberal First Amendment, perhaps America is not the country for you. And you would be better off living in the Middle East, or some place where you won’t have those issues to deal with.

And another great thing about the First Amendment, is when some asshole says something hateful about some group, guess what, that person opens them self up to replies and responses. People being able to tell that person what they think about what that person has to say. And even hold rallies against that person. Bill Maher, who I don’t generally put in the asshole category and tend to even agree with him when it comes to his criticisms about the Christian-Right and Muslims, when he doesn’t lump all Christians and Muslims as bad people, or whatever. Found out how liberal our First Amendment is last fall. About his comments over Islam.

When the Far-Right in America, whether its Rush Limbaugh or some other fathead, says provocative if not derogatory things about Latinos, Muslims, even women, Americans let Rush know exactly what they think about him. When Megyn Kelly even, accuses President Obama of trying to bring socialism to America, or whatever she’s complaining about the President, or says that he’s governing like a dictator, I correct her on my blog, when I don’t have anything better to do. You know Free Speech, is not for everybody. Meaning not everyone can handle it as far as listening to it. Of course all Americans have the First Amendment right, but not all Americans can handle other Americans having that same right. So they try to shut the other side up.

To quote President Andrew Shepard from The American President, which is one my favorite movies. “America is hard. You have to want it to be able to handle it.” More of a paraphrase than a quote, but you get the idea. And President Shepard played by Michael Douglas, was referring to Free Speech. He said that we all have this right, but that right protects all Americans right to Free Speech. And he basically said that the Free Speech is only worth something if Americans are willing to fight for someone else’s right to speech. The right for someone to say and believe things that you might find disgusting.

Insulting speech and hate speech, we have to fight for those things to. Because when Americans are no longer able to be critical and even say things that are offensive, we lose the ability to be individuals. And end up just agreeing and loving each other and never learning anything new. Because we see everyone as perfect. And there’s nothing perfect, or collectivist about liberal democracy and Free Speech. It’s a very imperfect system and form of government. But it’s still the best system in the world and why so many people leave their country that doesn’t have these rights to come here. Instead of going to Europe, or Canada. Actually, people still leave Europe to come to America.

Posted in Free Speech | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Life & Liberty Magazine: David Housholder Interviewing Gary Johnson in 2012

Liberal-Libertarian?

Liberal-Libertarian?


Life & Liberty Magazine: David Housholder Interviewing Gary Johnson in 2012

Any chance I get to speak out and speak up for liberalism, I do that and that is exactly what this opportunity here is. Which is what I’m going to do in speaking out for liberal internationalism. David Housholder, a self-described liberal-libertarian, I guess interviewing Gary Johnson, back in 2012 about foreign affairs and national security. Governor Johnson, I at least believe he fits that same label. And I add liberal to that, because he doesn’t bash government. And say government has practically no role in serving people in need. But takes more of a federalist approach to those issues. And is not even against a strong national defense, or an isolationist. But believes America can’t defend the world by ourselves and that our partners need to contribute to that defense as well.

I haven’t seen many speeches and ideas from Gary Johnson when it comes to foreign policy and national security. But what I get from this interview back in 2012 on these issues is that we aren’t that much different, but I’m going to add a few things to it. Like with Europe and why isn’t Europe defending itself, instead of Americans taxpayers having to pay for that. Same thing with Saudi Arabia, which already has one of the largest and most developed militaries in the world. Japan and Korea, two of the largest economies in the world and two of the most developed economies in the world. And yet American taxpayers have to pay for the defense of both of those countries. That defense, should be the key word here. Protecting our own first. Working with our allies when issues like innocent people being murdered by their own government, or being invaded by a predatory country.

Not that I’m in favor of adopting the Scandinavian, or European social democratic economic model, but a big reason why their welfare states are so generous, is because they spend so little on national defense. Why is that? Because America at the expense of American taxpayers has Europe’s back when it comes to national defense. Same thing with Japan as well. We should be moving past NATO and instead Europe should develop their own European Defense Force as either part of the European Union, or some new federal European state. And be the main provider for their own defense. And that would mean they would need to spend 3-4% of their own resources to do this. Which would be an economic boom for them and allow for them to bring their unemployment way down. America, Canada, Turkey, the Slavic states not including Russia, could still be major partners with Europe.

I believe the main difference between the liberal internationalist model when it comes to foreign policy and national security and the neoconservative model and the libertarian-socialist model, comes to use of force.

Neoconservatives, base their foreign policy and national security policy almost if not squarely on the use of force. They believe you always have to sound tough and be able to back up your verbal toughness. That there’s nothing that America can’t do by itself when it comes to the military. That money is no object even debt and deficits when it comes to national security. You spend whatever it takes at all costs and then perhaps figure out how to pay for that spending down the road.

Then you move over to the libertarian-socialist model when it comes to foreign policy and national security. Combine former U.S. Representative’s Ron Paul with Dennis Kucinich, they were actually friends in Congress and worked with each other on these issues. You combine Libertarians with Social Democrats, or Socialists and you have a libertarian-socialist dovish isolationist foreign policy. Where they believe America could do well by cutting our national defense by 2/3 if not more. Libertarians, would use that money to get rid of the income tax. Socialists, would use that money to bring the Scandinavian welfare state to America. And we wouldn’t even work with our allies when there’s horrible human rights crisis’s around the world. Other than maybe supplying humanitarian aid to certain countries.

What the Liberal-Internationalist says and I’m one and so was Jack Kennedy, my political hero and a lot of other Liberal Democrats were and are, is that you have to be strong both at home and abroad. But that your partners have to play their part as well. They either pay you for their defense, or they invest their own resources to defend themselves. So yes, pull all of our Americans troops and bases out of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. Or have them pay us for their defense. But you don’t act just because you’re strong enough to act. You act when your national security is at stake. When human rights are being abused like a lot of people being murdered. When you can play a positive difference. And you work with your allies when the situations come up. The differences between Smart Power, which is what liberal internationalism is. Versus shoot first and ask questions later. The neoconservative model. And No Power, the dovish isolationist model.

Posted in Gary Johnson | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason: Interview: Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg: Gary Johnson on Donald Trump, Presidential Election and Life as a Pot Company CEO

Liberal Democrat?

Liberal Democrat?


Reason: Interview: Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg: Gary Johnson on Donald Trump, Presidential Election and Life as a Pot Company CEO

Gary Johnson, should run for president, because there’s a reasonable chance he would actually be in the general presidential debates next year. Because there’s a movement to expand the presidential debates and allow for third-party candidates. But even if he weren’t able to get into the general debates, we could see presidential debates next year made up of the third-party candidates taking on each other. And we could see at least one broadcast network picking them up. These are things that the Democratic-Republican Presidential Debate Commission, I mean the Federal Presidential Debate Commission, are considering right now.

As far as Gary Johnson for president, I said this four years ago. But I believe he would make a great Liberal Democratic presidential candidate. And people told me he was a Republican and yes it gets cold in the North Pole. But stating the obvious doesn’t accomplish anything here and that’s not my point anyway. As he said in the interview with Nick Gillespie and he put it that most Americans tend to be rabidly liberal on social issues and fiscally conservative. The way I would phrase it, is that Americans tend not to want big government in either their wallets, or their personal lives. We don’t want government to direct how we live our own individual lives. Just regulate how we interact with each other. Prevent us from hurting innocent people and catch and punish us when we do. Something the Far-Right and Far-Left in America, will probably never understand.

What that means is that Americans want presidential candidates who know who they are for one. Gary Johnson, obviously knows that with a twenty year record of supporting both economic and personal freedom in America. And two, Americans want presidential candidates who speak for them and to them. They’re looking for a presidential candidate who doesn’t tell them what they want to hear and then governs in a different way. But someone who knows who they are says what they believe that brings a lot of Americans behind them. And won’t try to take their personal, or economic freedom from them. If anything, would expand both personal and economic freedom. And instead stop people who hurt innocent people.

Most Americans, probably think of Liberal Democrats as people who campaign to get the Washington Redskins to change their nickname. Or campaign to get talk radio show host and other commentators that don’t like, from being able to say their piece. Who campaign for censorship against the opposition. Or try to outlaw products that are unhealthy for us. Who want women to not be treated equally as men, but better. Who think Americans, tend to be stupid and need a big government to protect us from ourselves and run our lives for us. Who want speech that offends them to be censored if not outlawed. But the Democratic Party, has a growing movement of actual Liberals, who don’t believe in any of those things. Who don’t identify as libertarian, but don’t want big government in our economic, or personal affairs, or in our mouths try to shut us up when we say something offensive.

Gary Johnson, doesn’t want to end the safety net, or legalize all current illegal drugs in America. He just wants to get America’s national debt under control and be able to balance the budget at some point. And to allow for Americans to live freely and is someone who could speak to this growing movement of Americans who believe in similar things. And this movement includes Liberal Democrats such as myself. I don’t have any illusions here. If Gary were to run for president, the Far-Left would beat him up. And I’m not sure he would have the adequate resources to be able to defend himself. At least not early on, but he’s someone who speaks for a lot of Americans. Including young Democrats who manage, or run business’s now. Who love personal freedom, but doesn’t want big government running their business for them either. Which is why he would make a great presidential candidate.

Posted in Gary Johnson | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Week: Opinion: Ryu Spaeth: Is To Kill a Mockingbird Racist? The Movie Certainly Isn’t

To Kill a Mockingbird
The Week: Opinion: Ryu Spaeth: Is To Kill a Mockingbird Racist? The Movie Certainly Isn’t

I saw the To Kill a Mockingbird movie last night in preparation for this piece. And I’ve seen it before, the last time probably five years ago. And I haven’t actually read the book, so I can’t comment on that intelligently. But the movie, even though it certainly shows racist characters, it’s certainly not a racist movie. If Ryu Spaeth, is asking whether the To Kill a Mockingbird movie is racist, with all due respect, that is a silly question. It is about a young African-American man in the deep South in the 1963s, who is falsely accused of murdering a young Caucasian women. And the defendant, being represented by a good veteran Caucasian lawyer, who not only knows his client is innocent based on the evidence, but does what he can to get him acquitted.

Now where is the racism in this movie? This movie is about a town in rural Alabama in the 1930s. Where the people there are not well-educated and struggling just to survive. Where the town is overwhelming Caucasian and probably Anglo-Saxon at that and who probably sees African-Americans and that is not what they called Black people back then, but they saw Africans as their ancestors who owned African slaves did. As animals and property, not as human beings. And yet one of the members of this community is falsely accused of raping a young Caucasian women and one of the members of this Anglo-Saxon community, does whatever he can to defend Tom Robinson. An African-American man accused of raping a young Caucasian women.

The To Kill a Mockingbird movie, is about the times, essentially. What life was like in very rural Alabama in the 1930s for both Caucasian and African people in this community. And racism, is obviously a factor here, like it was everywhere else in the country and perhaps a bigger problem in Alabama and the deep South in general. But this movie doesn’t make one community look better than another community, or members of one community look better than another, simply because of their race. This movie was about showing what life was like for people in this community in the 1930s. And how justice was carried out and how the community responded when one of their members accuses someone of seriously hurting them. Nothing racist about that.

Posted in Classic Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment