The Great Distraction

There are times in every man's life when he realizes that the place that he loves and calls home is not what he thought it was. And though it may alienate him from the rest of the community around him, he knows in his heart of hearts that he must take a stand against something. There is a bill that was passed by the Indiana State Legislature, HJR-6, that will define marriage in Indiana as only between a man and a woman. And while there are many emotional and moral reasons why I am opposed to this, I will stick to the fundamental beliefs that government regulating behavior never ends with what people intended.

As someone who has held a belief in a limited form of government, I find it a bit ridiculous that some people who claim the same train of though advocate for this law. The government was originally designed to serve the basic needs of the people that they couldn't provide for themselves, as well as to help oversee issues between the states. In modern terms, the government should only provide defense services as well as making sure that the states are running smoothly. That is the role that the Federal Government was originally designed to have and no where in there is the room for the regulation of the behavior of people. The state governments are designed much in the same way. The states are intended to provide services like education, safety, transportation (roads, highways, bridges), and some very basic social programs (if they have to be enacted they should be at the state level). Again, no where in that description is there room for a regulation of someone's behavior. The government has no role telling people what they can and cannot do. They exist to serve us, not regulate us.

Another reason is the fact that this goes against what Gov. Mitch Daniels has said on the national stage. While the governor has been starting to lay the foundation for a possible run for the White House, he has called for "a truce on social issues" until the national debt is under control. Meanwhile, the state that he controls is busy enacting laws against homosexuals while slashing billions of dollars from every form of education. And the problem is, most people won't realize that they are being distracted from what really needs to be taken care of. While people's children are facing larger class sizes, less after school programs, cuts in athletics and music, and higher tuition costs, they are going to be engaged in a emotion-filled debate over a topic that has no Constitutional standing in government. They are being distracted by something that doesn't need to be addressed and all the while, letting the government get away with not actually accomplishing what really needs to get done.

Finally, there will be people that make the claim that America was formed on Biblical principles, and therefore should enact laws based on those principles. However, that is a very selective reading of the document, as they obviously miss the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause states that government will not endorse or establish an official religion for the nation. That means that despite whatever religion the Founding Fathers may or may not have had, the government cannot base laws off of any religion. You will see the same people make the case for anti-Shari'a laws in various states across the country. Yet, they feel that the Bible can be used instead? The Constitution does not say that Christian beliefs and texts can be used, but Muslim ones cannot. It states that the government shall not establish ANY religion or have ANY religious test. Therefore, using the argument that America is a Christian nation is unconstitutional and cannot be made.

Ultimately, it is up to the people to decide whether or not they are going to allow their representatives to make this decision in their name. We can make sure that our representatives actually tackle the problems that face us, while not being distracted by the petty laws that have no business even being discussed. It is time that we stand up against our representatives using the passion of people's convictions against them. They need to take care of the people that need it and actually deal with the problems that we face. Rather than masking budget cuts and the difficult choices that we need to face together by bringing up unnecessary and divisive laws, they need to tackle the real issues head-on while letting the people they "represent" have a voice. And if they cannot do this, maybe it is time to give someone else an opportunity at the Statehouse.

The Healthcare Puzzle

A court in Florida, as well as in Virginia, has declared that the mandate clause in the healthcare overhaul bill is unconstitutional. The judge said that Congress does not have the power to force people to purchase a product, while the White House claims activism in the judiciary (as does all people that are on the losing end a judgement). And while the debate is far from over, there are other things at work that need to be addressed.

First, this is a good day for people that continue to hold the government accountable for sticking to the Constitution. While the document is inconvenient and causes problems for a government that wants to get things done quickly, that should not be looked down upon as a problem, but a success. The Constitution was designed to get in the way of the government and make legislation and projects take time to get things right. In that sense, the blocking of a healthcare bill is the right thing to do. Too many times the Constitutionality of a bill is overlooked "for the good of the nation" (cough, cough, the USA PATRIOT ACT, cough, cough), and this was an instance in which that wasn't allowed to happen.

And while that is a very good result to come out of the decision, there comes a backside to this. While John Boehner, the new Speaker of the House, claimed that the foremost expert on the financial impact of legislation, the CBO, was wrong, the fact still remains that repealing the bill will have significant financial consequences. The bill lowers healthcare spending overall, through a variety of measures, and that allows the deficit to be lowered by billions of dollars. However, the Republicans have been so insistent on repealing the measure that they refuse to look at the positives. Like any group that does not get the news it wants, the Republicans in power have essentially called the CBO unreliable, and then used a out of context quote by that very panel to make another point for their side of the healthcare debate. The fact remains that repealing a bill simply because your political opponents passed it is not a good enough reason to do it, especially when it causes significant financial damage to the country.

Now we could get into the many problems facing America, but I prefer to be an optimist. While we argue and debate topics like healthcare and the overhaul bill, it is important to remember that there are many different angles that need consideration. And while this bill has run into some grey areas with the Constitution, and therefore will be subject to further Judicial Review, it also does a lot of good. So, putting all my history of Republican bashing aside, I am willing to issue them a challenge instead. For all of the American public and the good of the Constitution, repeal the bill. But, you need to put something else into place that either matches or increases the positive financial and health benefits of the bill that the Democrats passed. If it can be done, than I will sing your praises. However, if it can't, than there needs to be a serious conversation about whether or not repeal is the best option right now. Because while America is a land whose laws need to be enforced, that won't do any good if she collapses under the weight of her own debt. A flawed America is always better than a dead America.

Good intentions, Bad results

There was a post on Yahoo! News asking the question: Has Obama kept all of his campaign promises? In the article it discusses various things that the Obama Administration has accomplished and what it hasn't. While candidates should be held accountable for what they promise on the campaign trail, this is also a perfect opportunity to change the tone of the entire debate.

Ever since FDR passed the New Deal in the 1930's, Americans have expected their politicians to do everything from getting them a job to helping them keep their homes. And while some of the expectations of the American public are reasonable (safe streets, competent schools, passable roads), the Obama Administration has taught us that putting all of your faith in the government often leads to disappointment.

Government is limited by political pressures from all angles. Everyone from senior citizens in Florida, to multi-billion dollar corporations want a piece of the government pie. And while politicians of both stripes continue to promise more and more to their constituents, we have found that government is capable of accomplishing less and less. With the exception of the Lame Duck session, Congress could hardly agree on any solid legislative goals, with Democrats in the House passing whatever they wanted, and Republicans in the Senate keeping anything that didn't have an (R) by the author's name from even being considered for a vote. Meanwhile, the American public grew more and more frustrated with the way that Congress was conducting business and decided to elect a new party into power in the House and even the score in the Senate. This, of course, came after they did the same thing in 2008. And in 2006. And in 2004.

See the pattern starting to develop? It is the same story every year. Democrats and Republicans both promise to do amazing things to their constituents, who are so burdened by debt, foreclosures, and feeding their families that they believe that government can help make their lives better. And when that party comes to power in Washington, it does start to accomplish some goals, only to have those accomplishments reversed when the other party comes to power on a wave of fear-mongering and doomsday language. So, the party that was just ousted decides that if the other party can win by doing that, then they will too. Pretty soon, both parties are hell-bent on reversing each-other's agenda, without any clear motive of helping the American Public.

The moral of the story? It is quite simple, government does not solve problems. Especially when you have a free and open democracy/republic. As more and more people ask whether Obama has kept all of his promises or not, they should really be asking whether continued faith in the government is worth it or not. And hopefully they realize that the time to shrink government and open up free markets is here. When solutions are finally able to escape the vicious cycle that has engulfed Washington politics, the American Public will finally have the relief that they have looked for the entire time.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Someone commented on my posts and said that for a Libertarian, I seem to only target Republicans and not Democrats. They are partially correct, in that I target Republicans more often than Democrats, but this is the reason why. Democrats are the party of Big Government. They say so in their platform and don't shy away from it in their campaigns or literature. They believe in Big Government principles, and while I definitely do not share those principles with them, I respect the Democrats for at least honestly representing what they stand for to the American public.

The Republicans, however, are not that forward with what they actually stand for. If someone was to actually read their platform, or the infamous "Pledge to America", it would sound quite similar to Libertarian ideals. They claim to stand for smaller government, lower laxes, lower spending, less regulation, etc..... However, their actions do not match their words. In the new legislative rules that govern the House, the Republican majority passed regulations that essentially equaled to stricter Pay-As-You-Go rules, which force new House bills to secure funding before they are legally allowed to be passed. The new rules require that major entitlement bills can only be established with cuts or elimination of other entitlements. It also forbids a bill being passed that increases federal spending in one, five, or ten year windows. While that may sound like a good Small Government bill to pass, the exceptions listed in the bill make it a whole new ball game.

They allowed extending the Bush tax cuts, repealing the Health Care bill, cutting estate, small business, alternative minimum taxes, and trade agreements to be exempted from the new rules. Essentially, they have successfully exempted their entire legislative agenda from being tied down, while at the same time trying to gain political points for "battling the deficit and debt". They are telling the American people that they can sneak by them without any fear of consequence or repercussion.

What is even worse is that they have completely ignored the group that is qualified to accurately predict the financial impact of a bill, the CBO. The CBO, or Congressional Budget Office, is a non-partisan organization that reads legislation passed or considered in Congress and determines the financial implications of enacting that bill into law. They sent Speaker Boehner a letter that told him repealing the health care bill would add billions of dollars to the deficit over the next ten years. His response: "I don't think it will". Completely disregarding the most qualified experts in budget analysis by any member of any party is irresponsible. He refuses to acknowledge, or simply doesn't care about, the potential consequences to repealing that bill. Boehner honestly feels as though he knows better than the people who make it their career to accurately predict these things without bias or opinion drawn in.

The Republican Party is my main target of attack for this reason: they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. They have said time and again that they stand for reducing the deficit and battling the debt, all while recklessly increasing military spending and cutting taxes (which is how the government/military gets its money) and exempting themselves from rules that would otherwise battle a serious problem facing America today. Big Government policies are not the way to achieve stability and growth over the long term. And while Democrats push for these policies, they do so out of conviction and do not hide from that fact. It is time for Republicans to finally man-up and do the same. From the USA PATRIOT ACT, to the Cut-As-You-Go rules, the Republican Party doesn't stand for smaller government and more freedom. It is just the other side of the Big Government coin, and it is time that it is taken out of circulation.

All I Want for Christmas Is A Financial Collapse

Well, Christmas is behind us and it is back to work for Congress and the political community. While everyone is gearing up for what looks like one of the most explosive sessions in Congressional history, I feel a need to take a look back into what has transpired in the Lame-Duck session.

While Republicans in Congress threatened not to allow any work to be accomplished unless their agenda was passed, that attitude quickly changed as they worked toward comprehensive changes to American policy. Don't Ask Don't Tell, the controversial policy that banned Gay and Lesbian individuals from serving in the military, was repealed with sweeping Bi-Partisan support. Also enjoying Bi-Partisan support was the START Treaty, which created a new weapons deal with Russia, despite the continual objections by Republican Senator John Kyl of Arizona. Jobless benefits were extended for the long-term unemployed, giving people much needed cash during the Christmas season. Finally, 9-11 rescue workers will finally feel no need to worry about healthcare benefits, after Jon Stewart helped to fan anger over the bill's blockage by Republicans in Congress.

While all of these things were moves in a positive direction, there was one thing in particular that was a move in the other way. The Republicans in Congress threatened to block two key pieces of legislation, the 9-11 worker's bill and the Jobless benefits extension, because they would add to the deficit. The Republicans claimed that though they felt bad for both those groups, they could not justify passing those benefits until the National Debt and Budget Deficit is brought under control. That excuse would be understandable if they did not threaten to shut down the legislative process for extension of the Bush-era Tax Cuts.

Now for those that do not know, President George W. Bush, in an effort to spark the economy after the dot-com crash, cut the tax rates for all tax brackets. While they had temporary economic and political benefits, the worth of the tax cuts was negated by the upcoming wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two wars boosted government spending to heights not seen since World War II. With the government's income being reduced by the tax cuts just put into place, the deficit ballooned to levels not thought possible. Republicans that are serious about deficit reduction should shutter at any mention of putting these irresponsible tax cuts back into place. It is wrong for the country and wrong for its citizens.

Republicans in Congress used the guise of cutting taxes to gain cheap political points. They claim to want to fight the Debt and Deficit, the two poisons that are killing America's future. However, they seem to pick and choose which projects they want to fight and let pass. What they don't tell the public is that those tax cuts that sound so good to the people actually counter what the Republicans claim to stand for. While the cuts put more money into the pockets of Americans, they also cut the government's income without significantly cutting the government's spending. These cuts are irresponsible and will add to the significant budget deficit that continues to grow.

Ultimately, if the Republicans are going to continue to claim that they are fighting for fiscal responsibility, it is time for their actions to match their words.

Behind the Numbers

There have been numerous reports recording an "enthusiasm gap" between liberals and conservatives. And while it is documented that a layer of complacency exists between the people in power and those out of power, the evidence used for this argument is....... ridiculous.

In an article on Politico, a source I frequent, the argument made for the existence of the enthusiasm gap is the registration of new voters. The argument was that when compared to '08, there have been significantly less new voters registered at college campuses, a place where liberals tend to congregate. However, they failed to recognize exactly what that meant.

While there were less new registered voters at college campuses this election cycle, there was such a significant increase in the number of new voters in '08 that there has not been enough time to get more people registered. College campuses have lost students due to the economy and more importantly, the ones that were newly registered in '08 are probably still in college today. That means that they would no longer qualify for new voter status, thus creating a drop in the number of new voters registered at college campuses.

Now, I am not blind to the current political climate. And even though I feel that anger directed at only one of the major parties is misguided, I also recognize that the current state of affairs has the Republicans poised to make gains in Congress. However, before they rejoice over less "liberal, elite, educated masses at college" in the voting pool (which by the way, when the @#$! did it become a bad or elitist thing to be educated???), they should start to look into the factors behind the numbers and not just the numbers' existence. While college students may not be enthused about voting for Democrats this November, it is not an indictment to that party but the two-party system as a whole. Both parties should be shaking in their boots, because no matter who takes over, nothing will change. And we're not going to take it anymore.

The Shoe Story

I once had an argument with a good friend of mine over education cuts. It was after Gov. Mitch Daniels had announced that due to budget shortfalls, he was going to cut education spending for a second time in a span of a month. My argument was that education cuts do not affect poor schools the same way that they affect schools in affluent districts. My friend didn't buy it. Then, I told him about my shoe buying experience.

I know that shoes and education policy may not seem to correlate but stick with me on this. My little sister had a choir competition at Ben Davis High School. It was in the middle of the school year, so I was in need of some new shoes. Conveniently, the school is across the street from a Foot Locker Outlet Store, so I went inside. I browsed and browsed and found a couple pairs for about $10 a piece and went up to the counter to pay for them. While he rung my shoes up, the friendly clerk asked my what my shirt said. I didn't even think about it and stretched out the printing so he could read it clearly. That was, if he could read at all.

You see, the clerk behind the counter preceded to tell me that he couldn't read at all, but that he made due by recognizing symbols that he saw everyday. An American citizen around the age of 20 was illiterate. It was unthinkable to me. And that is when I realized that things like that don't happen in the Carmel or Fishers areas. There isn't illiterate store clerks that live and work in Hamilton County. This was a man who lived, and will probably die, in one of the poorest areas of Marion County and will most likely never be able to read a book, magazine, newspaper, or website.

This is my point. Education cuts do not affect Carmel and HSE the same as they affect Gary Public Schools and IPS. When Carmel has to redistrict or consolidate an elementary school, it is a minor inconvenience for over-scheduled soccer moms driving their kids into class. When IPS has to shut down an elementary school, it means that single moms working two jobs now have to choose between making it to work on time and paying the bills, or getting their kids to school. The sad part is that many mothers pick the job over their kids schooling.

Legislation like No Child Left Behind is an example of schools held hostage. While schools that are already under-funded and written off fight to keep their students literate, the government gives a majority of the money to schools that are already achieving a 99% graduation rate and think of literacy as a preschool issue. The way things are going is backwards. And the more we allow, the worse it is going to get.

The time is now. We cannot continue to allow our schools to be held hostage. I am not saying that schools in affluent areas have done anything wrong, or should be stripped of any Federal or State assistance. Rather, they need to take less, since their constituents have the means to take on more of the funding responsibilities. The more money that is placed into inner-city school systems, like GPS and IPS, the more students, faculty, and staff that they will be able to retain. When more students graduate, more of them are literate and able to function as a productive member of society. The crime rate goes down, college attendance and graduation goes up, and entire neighborhoods and cities can be turned around.

It doesn't take much, but what it does take is determination from the government to finally correct their mistakes on this. Let's start funding the schools that actually need it. Let's start giving students in urban areas a fighting chance. Rather than punishing them for being born there, let's give them the best education in the world, and not force them into the cyclical world of poverty.

Let's eradicate illiterate store clerks once and for all.