Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman: 'Path To Socialism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Open Mind with Richard Heffner in 1975. 

"Milton Friedman explains the dynamics that naturally lead toward collectivism---and away from the far preferable state of individual liberty... Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

I guess, in Milton Friedman's world, there would be no public safety net. That if people fall through the cracks of capitalism, that thats too bad and they are stuck in that condition. Unless they can get themselves out of that condition on their own, or help from private citizens. To help them out, that we would go back to the days pre-New Deal, or even the Federal Reserve Bank. And that perhaps we wouldn't even regulate the economy at all, except for anti-monopoly laws. Dr. Friedman, was anti-monopoly. Both public and private and believed that individuals and corporations, shouldn't be able to pollute the environment as well.  That they should even be taxed when they do. Dr. Friedman, is sort of an inspiration of the Tea Party movement on economic policy.

Even though the Tea Party at least generally speaking, isn't as liberal on social issues. There are also some Tea Party members, perhaps a majority even that are in favor of Social Security, or Medicare. Perhaps because they collect from both of those programs, or their parents collect from both of those programs. And they don't want to see the benefits for themselves, or their parents to be eliminated and for them to have to fend for themselves. But would like to see some of these programs reformed in a way that allows for more freedom of choice. But there are also some Tea Party members, people who support Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who's a libertarian ideologically, who would like to see our safety net completely ended or phased out.

Representative Paul, has proposed phasing out our social insurance programs instead of eliminating them right way. So the people who currently collect from them, would still get their benefits. Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson, has proposed transferring these programs over to the States. So Dr. Friedman, has been an inspiration to Classical Conservatives and Libertarians and Liberals such as myself. But hasn't been the Gold Standard for the Tea Party movement, but someone who they've used to generate their own ideas. They agree that what the Federal Government is doing in certain areas is wrong. But they have similar, but different views in how to change them. So Milton Friedman, has been an inspiration to the Tea Party movement, but not its driving force. And more of an inspiration for Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

Libertarians, are clearly against the New Deal and Great Society and other progressive social insurance programs. And is a big inspiration for their movement and the formation of the Libertarian Party. But the Tea Party, is a bit different, because even though there are some Libertarians in this movement, they became a political movement based on a fiscal conservative message and they aren't for eliminating Social Security and Medicare. But would like to see the Federal Government cut back and eliminate spending in a lot of areas. So Dr. Friedman, has inspired parts of their movement, but doesn't represent their playbook. Similar, but different policy's. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

AEI: 'Is Competitiveness Worth Defending: Health Care Competition'

Source:AEI- some guy giving a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From AEI

If you were to design a Healthcare System from scratch, no one in their right minds would design a new health care system based on the American health care system. And perhaps some people in their wrong minds, wouldn't design a health care system based on the American health care System. Everyone in their right mind across the political spectrum from Libertarians to Socialists and perhaps some people in their wrong minds, would design a different health care system from what we have now. 

We spend too much money compared with other developed nations (As far as percentage of GDP) Around 17% and with this weak economy and those health care Costs are only going to climb. We leave out about 50M people from having access to health insurance, some decide to be left out. But the overwhelmingly majority can't afford health insurance. They make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, which in some ways is a good thing, but not enough money to afford their own health insurance. Or they can't afford to buy their employers health insurance plan. 

We spend too much money on health care we don't need and are elective procedures. And we can't afford health care that people need to live healthy and stay alive. And we have a lot of people overcrowding our emergency rooms, getting health care that isn't an emergency, because they don't want make an appointment with a doctor and pay for health insurance or can't afford health insurance. 

What we need in America is a health care system that we can afford, obviously, but one where everyone has access to health insurance and health care. Which of course is easier said than done but is something that we can do and need to do before our health care system eats away at most of our economy. 

To create an affordable, quality health care system in America, gets to things like personal responsibility. Once we set up this system, people get themselves insured that are currently uninsured, but we do a better job of taking care of ourselves, stop smoking, drink less alcohol, eat better, exercise more and better, so we won't need to use as much health care in the future because we are healthier. And we would be able to bring down the costs of our own health care and health insurance. 

The 2010 Affordable Care Act which I supported and still do, was a positive first step in this direction, but just a first step. And even if it had a public option in it, it would've been just a bigger first step. The biggest contribution that the AFA made in my opinion is the Patient Bill of Rights in it, so people can't get dumped because they need health insurance and ending lifetime caps and other things like that. 

What we need in our health care system is more personal responsibility as I just explained. But more choice and competition, not less of it, which is one reason why I'm against single payer health insurance. And this is the reason why I'm in favor of a public option, but I'm not in favor of a public option, but fifty public options or more than that to cover the territory's as well as the states. And let's see what works across the country and what doesn't work. Expand what does work and eliminate what doesn't work. 

Fifty-plus non-profit, independent of government public options, that would be fully paid for that wouldn't have to come out of government tax revenue, because they would be financed by their consumers, that would compete with private non-profit health insurers, subjected to the same rules and regulations. And let's see who does the better jobs and attracts the most consumers. 

Freedom of choice works very well in the rest of our economy and is a big reason why we are the richest country in the World. And is something we should be applying to health care and education as well. And let the best and brightest the people who deliver the best service be rewarded for that. And breakup our monopolies. 

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: 'There is No Such Thing as Public Money'

Source:The Free State- The Iron Lady Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom)

"Margaret Thatcher addresses the Conservative Party conference in 1983." 

From Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says: “There’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money" she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes, like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes. And many more unfortunately. (From my perspective) 

Government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible (if that’s possible) it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible. 

And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive. 

Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed. 

If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy. 

When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen- 'The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in (1967)'

Source:CP Harding- interviewing Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, in 1967.

“Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of Civil Rights legislation. Dirksen served in the Senate from 1951 to 1969 and was seen quite often on the evening television news shows. His banter with newsmen Walter Cronkite and Roger Mudd and his unmistakable “raspy” voice made him famous throughout the country and the world.

This video was shot in Southern Illinois in 1967 or 1968 and features a young reporter (CP Harding) from WSIU Television (Southern Illinois University) asking Senator Dirksen just one question for a proposed children’s news program. Toward the end of the interview the reporter becomes concerned because he was getting a signal that they were almost out of film….and Senator Dirksen just kept talking.” 

From CP Harding

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (1959-69) explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is (or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video) when he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values.

Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

Conservatism when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism.

Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn’t become law, because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation.

Minority Leader Dirksen, didn’t believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually, more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s, because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield (1961-77) and President Lyndon Johnson. (1963-69) They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress that would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neo-Confederate or Tea Party Republicans today, like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s, because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration, conservatism, on foreign policy is about, yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can’t defend themselves against large aggressors, but only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today: Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s.

But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn’t able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they’ve been a pretty powerful party ever since. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- William F. Buckley: 'Drug Legalization'

Source:Liberty Pen- William F. Buckley Jr, on The Open Mind With Richard Heffner, in 1996.

"Buckley makes a compelling case for legalizing drugs to Richard Heffner (Open Mind, 1996). Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

How has the War on Drugs in America has failed, well where should I start because people could write books answering that question and there have been books written answering that question. 

The answer to why the so-called War on Dugs has failed is fairly simple to me: because we've treated narcotic addicts like criminals instead of patients that they they are. Drug addicts who have just broken narcotic laws, like possessing or using narcotics, heroin, cocaine, etc, and I'm not talking about narcotic dealers are treated like criminals and sent to jail and prison for only hurting themselves and not other people. 

When someone can go to a bar and get wasted on alcohol and get a ride home because they are drunk out of their mind, but wake up with a hangover the next day and go about their lives. Even though they've committed the same action as someone who smoked one joint, but are actually worst off by getting drunk and losing brain cells, felt a little different, but didn't lose their senses at all. But the pot smoker could end up in jail and perhaps doing 3-5 in prison just for smoking and possessing a joint or perhaps both crimes. And let's say the drunk makes a bad call and decides to drive home instead, they would be arrested for drunk driving obviously, but not getting drunk. 

Part of my point here is that the whole so-called War on Drugs is nonsense because of how hypocritical it is. Sending drug addicts to prison, first of all for just hurting themselves, sends the message that Uncle Sam knows best and has to protect the people from themselves. Instead of treating adults like adults and letting us live our own lives and making these decisions for ourselves. 

Drug addicts end up in prison where they get no help for their addiction and if anything are more addictive from the time they spent in prison. And have access to other narcotics in prison and get out more addictive and end up back in the prison with the same addiction. You want to know why we have 2M people in prison in America, just look at the population: a lot of them are in there for narcotics related crimes and a lot of them are in there for using and possessing. 

So this is what I would do: first decriminalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol, with the same regulations and taxes. This alone would save our Federal, state, and local budgets on law enforcement because they would stop having to throw people in jail for doing something to themselves and not to others. And would free up valuable resources for law enforcement to go after actual dangerous criminals who hurt innocent people. 

I wouldn't decriminalize heroin, cocaine, meth, etc because of the damage it would bring to our health care system and economy. With all the damage it would bring and the health care costs that would come from it. And people who don't use these narcotics would end up paying for the health care costs of the people who do use these narcotics. And a lot of them wouldn't be able to cover their own health care costs. 

We shouldn't throw these narcotics addicts in prison either, they would be forced into drug rehab and be able to keep themselves out of prison, if they complete rehab successfully. And not have it on their criminal but medical record. And they would pay for their rehab one way or the other not tax payers. This would save our corrections system a lot of time, money and resources that they could concentrate on inmates who need to be in prison. 

Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman once gave a speech about what he called Bad Laws and Bad Laws are laws that are written to protect people from themselves and not protecting innocent people from the harm of others. The War on Drugs in America and in other countries are the perfect example of Bad Laws, because these are laws designed to protect people from themselves and why they don't work.

Euro News: 'President Putin's Main Tasks'

 

Source:Euro News- President Vladimir Putin (Nationalist) Russian Federation.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (but not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Vladimir Putin on his way back to the Kremlin comes as little surprise. The mentor of current President Dmitri Medvedev never lost his de facto title of strong man of Russia. This coming March Putin intends to begin a third term in the highest office. Addressing some of his most faithful supporters, Putin said: "I would like to express my gratitude for your positive reaction to my candidacy for the post of president of the country. This is for me a great honour." 

From Euro News

Vladimir Putin's rise back to the presidency in the Russian Federation looks like corruption to me. That President Dimitri Medvedev was basically just keeping the seat warm for. Vladimir Putin when Mr Putin was Prime Minister because under the RF Constitution, the President is term limited and has to leave office after eight years, but then can come back to power after sitting out one term. Which is exactly what happened here. 

President Medvedev was President from 2007 until now after being Prime Minister and then switched roles with Mr Putin. And now they are switching job titles back, the President being the Head of State in Russia and the Prime Minister being the Head of Government. The President the Chief Executive and the Prime Minister the Chief Operating Officer. 

It looks very similar to what happened in Alabama in I believe 1966 when then Governor George Wallace was term limited and then got his wife of all people to run for Governor. And then after four years George Wallace ran to get the governorship back. 

This doesn't look different from what happens in authoritarian regimes in the Middle East where a President or Monarch there before he's ready to step down from power, passes their job down to a relative. Normally a son like what President Hosni Mubarak tried to do in Egypt by passing the presidency down to his son. President Mubarak basically sparked the democratic revolution that brought and end to his regime. And is one of the things that led to the democratic revolution there. 

This looked exactly of corruption which is almost exactly what's going on in Russia right now. President Putin never had any attention of stepping down from power in Russia and to some extent can't blame him. Its a great job and you are President of a great country with a great population with a lot of natural resources in the largest country in the world physically. 

My point about Russia being is that he should earn reelection there with free and fair open multi-party general elections there and earn the votes of the Russian people in Russia in order to be President of the Russian Federation. 

I believe President Putin is a talented and very intelligent leader that wants to restore the greatness to Russia not only as a military power but as an economic power like in the United States, European Union, Japan, and the Peoples Republic of China. And what they are moving to, he just doesn't want to be held accountable for what he does. 

Going forward with the next Putin Administration in Russia, they've come a long way in twenty years but still have a long way to go to become a real developed nation, Russia is so damn big, basically the size of a large continent as well as country of 150 million people with a large middle class and educated class. With also perhaps the most natural resources in the world and not just oil and natural gas but minerals as well. 

But a lot of Russia is still very poor similar to China, India and Brazil and they have a long way to go to fully develop their country. They need a lot of infrastructure investment as well as developing a health care system that can take care of the whole country. 

Russia has lost something like 10 million people in population because they have a third world health Care system. So they need to develop that as well as their roads, highways, buildings, waterways, airports, and other things. As well as cut down on crime and corruption and then they can become a true developed nations. 

What's going on Russia right now with its two President's to me looks like one dictator passing the torch to another. But at least Russia will have a dictator that will actually use Russia's vast resources to develop its country. Where most of the country can benefit from, instead of using those resources to just stay in power. And Russia could look more like China but freer than Iran. 

Euro News: 'Women Get The Right To Vote in Saudi Arabia'

Source:Euro News- women finally voting in Saudi Arabia.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (e.g., not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia  

"It has been described as an extraordinary development. Women in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia are to be given the right to vote and stand in municipal elections. The announcement was made by the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, at the opening of a new session of the Shura council. He also said women would be allowed to join the advisory council as full members and the changes will take effect from next year. Euro News" 

From Euro News

This is a big step forward for the Saudi Kingdom. (Thats basically a combination of a monarchy and a theocracy) The Kingdom made up of their ruling family and their laws based on Islamic law (or an interpretation of it) with women not allowed to be in public uncovered, they until their next elections not able to vote, and not even able to drive and of course sub-servant to the men in Saudi Arabia. (Which is what Christian-Nationalists want in America)

Saudi Arabia have a very sexist government and culture (at least by Western standards) but these new reforms by King Abdullah is a big step forward in Saudi Arabia and definitely progressive (progressive in its classic and real sense) change especially for a country and a region up until recently has been very slow to progress, but they are now are going through a big revolution. And I believe the democratic revolutions that have gone on in the Middle East (Iran a few years ago) and I believe that movement effected what happened in Tunisia. 

The democratic movements that happened in Egypt and Libya as well as Yemen, because all of the countries can get access to the others countries news (whether the government's allow it or not) especially in this information age and social networking, these different Arab democratic revolutions have played a role in each others country. 

The Egyptian Revolution that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak and ousted the President of Tunisia and hopefully the President of Yemen as well and of course the democratic revolution thats going on now in Syria that will hopefully oust President Bashar Al-Assad, ,but he seems to have an upper hand in holding on to power right now. 

But the Saudi Kingdom sees what's going on in these other Arab states with these other authoritarian regimes falling and they don't of course want the same thing to happen to them. They obviously want to stay in power indefinitely, but I believe the Saudi Kingdom understands and they are more progressive than Syria and Egypt with the development of their economy and are basically a developed nation, in the heart of the third world surrounded by countries that live in poverty like Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and others. And know that they have to change and progress to stay in power. 

Hopefully this is just a sign of things to come as far as progress in Saudi Arabia and that the Kingdom moves even forward and allows women to run for office, has an elected multi-party legislature that represents all of Saudi Arabia. And independent judiciary and looks more like a federal republic in the future, instead of a theocratic monarchy where women and people who speak out against the government are oppressed. But we'll see in the future.

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Mike Wallace Interviewing The Shah of Iran (1976)

Source:CBS News- the Shah of Iran being interviewed by CBS News investigative correspondent Mike Wallace, in 1976.

“In 1976, Mike Wallace revealed to the Shah of Iran that the CIA considered him a dangerous megalomanic and an uncertain ally.”

From CBS News

Source:Aryuo Padafand- The Shah of Iran, talking to CBS News's Mike Wallace, in 1976.

"60 Minutes M. Valles with Shah 1976. Shah Bozorg Mard Iran dar 60 Minutes."

From Aruyo Padafand

What Iran had in the Shah was much better for the America and Europe than what Iran has now in the Islāmic Republic. Because with the Shah we had an ally that would work with, that we would trade with and we could rely on for our energy needs.

With the Islāmic Republic, we have a state that sponsors terrorism and is now attempting to get nuclear weapons. But as valuable as an ally as the Shah was to the West, he wasn’t that great for his own people.

Which was a big reason for the Islāmic Revolution of 1979 and he and his monarchy being kicked out-of-power. Even though the Shah did some positive things to develop the Iranian economy and military, to a certain extent. He was an authoritarian dictator with a secret police that would pick people up off the street. As well as torture inmates, close down publications that seemed unfavorable to the Monarchy.

What’s going on in the Islāmic Republic today, but the difference being that the Islāmic Republic, is bad for its people, but also bad for the Middle East and West. With its sponsorship of Islāmic terrorism groups that have killed Americans as well as our soldiers. Like with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. the Islāmic Republic did replace the Monarchy.

But Iran left in a lot of the authoritarian policy’s that the Monarchy had, as well as probably having some of their own. And they haven’t done much to advance Iran economically in its thirty-two years despite its vast resources in energy and its well-educated public and its middle class. Iran has all the resources that they need to be a first world country, but they’ve mismanaged them so badly. That they are still a third world country.

What the Shah should’ve done and had he done these things, I believe he could’ve saved his Monarchy, was as he continued to build up the economy, education and infrastructure and the Iranian military, then liberate his people. Let them live their own lives which would’ve put them ahead of everyone else in the Middle East. Except for Turkey and maybe Israel, but Iran and Turkey are so much bigger than Israel. But the Shah of Iran would’ve been a very popular leader in Iran had he done these things.

And then maybe with all of these progressive reforms, Iranians wouldn’t have looked to theocrats, the most conservative of Religious Conservatives, to save them and save their country from the Shah. Who in some ways on economic and foreign policy, was a fairly liberal leader, as Middle Eastern leaders go.

The Shah of Iran, I believe would’ve lasted as the Leader of Iran, had he liberalized his large country and became President of Iran instead. With a federal legislature, independent judiciary and of course his people to answer too. And turned the Monarchy into more of a ceremonial institution like in Britain. But he didn’t do those things and was kicked out-of-power.

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Marijuana Community: Dylan Ratigan- 'Legalizing Marijuana is Number One Issue At the White House GOV Website!'

Source:Marijuana Community- MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan, talking about marijuana legalization, being talked about at The White House.

"Legalizing Marijuana is Number ONE Issue At the White House GOV Website!" 

From Marijuana Community

The White House is clearly not interested in decriminalization of marijuana as far as decriminalizing it. Just one issue that I disagree with them on, but there are plenty of people who are in the country who are interested in it, which is why we are now seeing measures on ballots in states to decriminalize marijuana. California being one in 2010 and Colorado will be at least one in 2012. 

Now the question will be will the Obama Administration if they were to get reelected (and thats a big if at this point) would not get in the way of Colorado and not force anti-marijuana laws in that state. I doubt it, they don't seem to be a big believer in states rights and federalism (Letting states pass and enforce their own laws) I hope they would stay out of the way of Colorado and let them mange their own laws and enforce their own drug policies. 

Drug enforcement from the Obama Administration, which is a big disappointment to me because Barack Obama is clearly a very intelligent man with a great legal background. Along with Attorney General Eric Holder and they must be able to see that our War on Drugs is not working and has failed and that it's time we try something else. And decriminalization of marijuana would be a way to reform our drug policies, letting people decide for themselves whether to use a drug thats about as dangerous as alcohol, instead of arresting people for smoking or possessing pot. 

Decriminalization of marijuana is a bi-artisan issue with bipartisan support in Congress with Representative Ron Paul and Representative Barney Frank one of the oddest of odd couples having a bill together to do this. The lessons that we learned from alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and 30s, can be applied to marijuana prohibition from 1937 up till today, that if people want to do or use something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. 

People have been smoking marijuana since 1937 and a lot of them have never been to prison for it. People who are smart with pot and don't get addicted to it, similar to alcohol prohibition. People still drank and organized crime made a lot of money off if alcohol by producing and selling it (tax free by the way) because they obviously weren't going to report those activities to government. 

So if we were smart (which is a gigantic if) we would decriminalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol. And regulate and tax it like alcohol to make it as safe s possible. Decriminalization of marijuana is clearly not the biggest issue that President Obama is facing today. But it's important enough because with our failed forty-year so-called War on Drugs. That they at least look at their drug policies and if anything step back and let the states try some different things here. And see what happens from them. 

Q R Legal: 'Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in Pennsylvania'

Source:QR Legal- attorney at law in Pennsylvania.

"The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty help you apply for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income SSD/SSI in Pennsylvania. The lawyers at the Greensburg office of Quatrini Rafferty will explore your case for filing for either SSD or SSI. If you have been seriously impaired and can no longer work you may be able to apply for Social Security Disability or Social Security Income. The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty can help you with your claim and case and are members of the National Organization of Social Security Representatives. Working on a contingency fee, we get no fee if we don't win you case, no fee charged to you." 

From QR Legal

All this talk about Social Security reform I believe is healthy as long as the proposals are about reforming this critical social insurance program. As long as the proposals are designed to improve this program not to end the program or privatize the program. But whatever the proposal is, it has to include Disability Insurance which is also part of Social Security. So however we decide to reform Social Security, it has to be done in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance. And if anything improves Disability Insurance to make that program as strong as it can be as well. 

My ideas for Social Security reform gets too, choice and competition, as well as decentralization. Not privatization which is a different concept. Privatization is about letting people take over with payroll tax investing it in Wall Street and anything else on their own. And if they make bad investments, too bad for them or they end up getting bailed out by taxpayers. Two options are horrible, as a country we are not going to let senior citizens starve and go without income. At least not anymore and we are not going to bail out people who made bad investments with their own money. 

We have to reform Social Security in a way to avoid both potential disasters. What choice and competition is about in retirement planning or as I would put it, freedom of choice in retirement planning is about, to give people for freedom and ability to plan their own retirements. Which is called Social Security Plus: keep the payroll tax intact, except raise it on people who can afford to pay more to fix the financing and that the current payroll tax would just be there to fund a base income for people on Social Security.  

What Social Security Plus is about, is an additional fund or tax that people could on their own or not set up for themselves to help them finance their own retirement, that they would pay into and their employer would match. That they could invest in the Stock Market as well as other business opportunities as long as they don't take that money out to spend until they are eligible to retire. And the money thats put into a personal retirement account (not my term, by the way) would be tax free, like an IRA or individual retirement account which are private retirement accounts as well. 

As far as decentralization and reforming Disability Insurance goes, this might be the only thing that I agree with Texas Governor Rick Perry and maybe immigration reform. Turn Social Security over to the states in this sense, each state would have their own version of Social Security with their own program. But they wouldn't run them just regulate them like the FEDS as well. Each State would have their own version Social Security that would be a semi-private, non-profit, supplemental pension program. And get the Administration and Congress's hands off of it. 

And with Disability Insurance, anyone physically and mentally capable of working at least part-time, would be required to or at least looking for work and getting trained for work. And Disability Insurance would be required to help them with that. Which would also be my approach with Unemployment Insurance. 

You can't reform Social Security without doing it in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance because they are both part of the same program. And both have populations that depend on it in order to survive, pay their bills, eat, etc. So we have to reform Social Security as a whole in a way that can only make this critical program stronger. 

Mike Gardner: CBS Evening News With Walter Cronkite- 'President Richard Nixon Enlists Governor's Aid In The War on Drugs (1971)'

Source:Mike Gardner- The CBS Evening News, covering President Richard M. Nixon and his failed War on Drugs, in 1971.

"Nixon enlists Governor's aid in the war on drugs. Nixon's psychedelic film experiment." 

From Mike Gardner 

I'm not sure about the exact year of this newscast, but I believe it's 1971. 

President Nixon actually seemed to have some good ideas up front when he launched the fake War on Drugs in 1971. Programs designed that were about prevention and treatment. Teaching students the dangers of using narcotics and get drug addicts into treatment instead of jail. 

Now, had President Nixon actually followed through on those policy's in his five and a half years as President, maybe the so-called War on Drugs wouldn't be the failure and joke that it is today. Where if anything narcotics are more available forty years later than they were then. And where we now have 2M people in prison today, the largest prison population in the world. And we only represent about 6% of the world's population, both China and India have four times as many people as we do and we have more prison inmates than they do. 

We have so many prison inmates, that we have overcrowded prisons and jails all across the country. Where hundreds of thousands of these people are in jail for using or possessing narcotics. You can actually go to prison or jail in America "The Land of the Free" for possession of narcotics. We now have drug addicts taking jail and prison cells that would normally be operated by violent offenders, people who belong in prison and belong there for a long time. 

Actually, one good thing about our overcrowded prisons and cells, is that some states like California (to use as an example) are now releasing non-violent offenders like drug addicts (to use as an example) shoplifters (would probably be another one) hopefully to halfway houses and drug rehab where they can get help for their issues. And help finding a job so they can be productive and saving that prison space for people who need to be there instead. California also has a debt and budget crisis as well. 

What we learned the last forty years in the fake War on Drugs or what we should've learned is how not to fight the War on Drugs. That it's not smart to treat drug dealers the same as drug addicts. Drug addicts are patients with a disease, called addiction they are not able to tell themselves that they've had enough cocaine. Or whatever they are addicted to, similar to obesity or alcoholism, 

Drug addicts should be treated like patients: send cocaine, heroin, and meth addicts to drug rehab instead of jail or prison and put them on what's called a three strikes policy to get them off of their addiction, not cure them, but get them off of whatever narcotics they are addicted to. 

Strike one, voluntary drug rehab. Strike two, involuntary drug rehab in jail. Strike three, jail time as well as more drug rehab in jail. And make them pay for all of their drug rehab as well. 

Drug dealers though should be treated like the criminals that they are because they prey off of addicts in order to make as much money from them as possible. Including blackmail and extortion and these people need to be in prison doing long sentences. And of course give them a shot at building their lives so they can get a legal job once they leave prison. 

The fake War on Drugs is about supply and demand like anything else in our economy. If people want something bad enough, there's going to be somebody to sell them what they want. So if drug dealers have less customers wanting their dope, meaning fewer drug addicts, they'll make less money. 

Euro News: 'EU Food Row Could Spark Poverty Crisis'

 

Source:Euro News- poverty is everywhere.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (e.g., not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"A dispute over aid to Europe's poorest citizens threatens to spark a major food crisis, France has warned. The EU programme currently provides hand outs to at least 13 million poverty-hit Europeans at centres like this in Brussels. But that could be axed after a group of six countries, including Germany and Britain, threatened to pull the plug on a 500-million-euro yearly scheme. Volunteers at charity Resto du Coeur say a cut to the funding would be devastating. Euro News." 

From Euro News

Here's more evidence that America is not the only developed nation in the world, that Europe as well as Japan and Korea have poverty as well. It's not just a liberal democracy like the United States that has struggled with poverty, but these social democracies (even when Conservatives are in power) in Europe has poverty of their own. 

And that even social democracies have poverty as well that they have to deal with and of course if people have more freedom like people do in America as it relates to economic freedom, of course there's a chance that they'll make mistakes with their own lives. Not getting educated enough, having kids too soon before they are emotionally and financially ready to care for them. Or make bad investments with their money, all things that can to lead to poverty. 

With economic freedom at least individual are making their own mistakes, instead of big government doing that for them. They are making mistakes with their own lives, instead of government making mistakes with their lives. Which can happen in a social democracy where the government has more authority and more control over its people as it relates to the economy. 

All these countries in Europe have universal health care, education, pension, transportation, housing, etc. And yet they have people living in poverty, urban and rural, they have homeless people. Chances are some of the people in this video getting this Food Assistance are also homeless. 

Europeans immigrated from Europe obviously to America to the point. that 7-10 Americans are of European descent, not the other way around. Because they wanted their freedom and a chance to make it in the world with economic opportunity. And the freedom to chart their own course in life and by the way. 

Europeans are still immigrating to America today, obviously not as much as hundred years ago with the Jews, Irish, Italians, Poles, etc, but they are still coming. America has proven as a country that if you give people a good education, raise them properly and let them get themselves get a good job and you properly regulate the economy and everyone is paying their fair share in taxes, that Americans can chart their own course in life and make it on their own.  

What Economic Freedom and American Capitalism is all about (not cowboy capitalism that we've seen the last ten years) is about opportunity for everyone to succeed in life on their own. This is how Americans built the largest economy in the world as well as the most powerful military. 

What America has failed to do at least so far, is find a way where most is not all Americans can benefit from American capitalism. Which is why we have such a high poverty rate for a developed nation. And thats a big challenge for America in the 21st Century. 

So the two competing versions of democracy in the world, are liberal democracy from the United States and social democracy in the European Union. Me I prefer liberal democracy because even though we've made plenty of mistakes as a country, at least we are able to make these mistakes with our own lives. 

Durban Zanrik: John Stossel- 'Stupid in America'

Source:Durban Zanrik- Jimmy Kimmel Live With Jay Leno: hopefully not talking to the best that America has to offer.

"Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it." 

From Durban Zanrik

Are we stupid in America as a country? Well, if you consider the fact that a lot of Americans know exactly which rehab their favorite celebrities are currently staying at or which jail they're currently residing at (after being pulled over their latest drunk driving arrest) but couldn't name their own mayor or governor, even if you spotted them their first and last names, perhaps even their city and state, that would suggest to a lot of intelligent people that we're pretty stupid as a country. 

But what do intelligent people know anyway? We're they one of the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone (because they camped outside the store the night before) no, because they have lives and better things to do. 

To sound serious just for a minute: of course not we're not stupid as a country (even with all of our escaped mental patients and morons hogging up our airwaves and media) otherwise we  wouldn't be as developed as a nation as we are, with the largest economy in the world, with a military not only capable of defending ourselves very well, but also other developed nations but do we have stupid people. 

Looking at the intelligence levels of Americans is sort of like looking at Islamic or Christian terrorists: sure, there are terrorists in those groups, but the percentage is so small that you can't define those groups as terrorists, but you have enough spoiled food in them to make their groups look and taste bad. Show me a country that doesn't have stupid people and I sell you my Miami beach house that's located in Minnesota. 

Do we have stupid policy's? Of course in government and the private sector, education being a perfect example of that. 

To give you a couple of examples: we reward educators for their time of service, not quality of service. And once they've served a certain amount time, it's almost impossible to fire them, which is called teacher tenure. And them we wonder (or some of us may wonder) why we are 39th in the world in education, even though we have the largest economy. Because our educators know that they don't have to do the best job they can in order to keep it. Or get a raise, all they have to do is serve a certain amount of time. Where all other professions the employees are judged by the job that they do, not by how long they've been doing their job. 

A major cause for our lack of education in America, gets to  teacher unions, who's number one job is to give their members who pay for their service the best compensation and benefits possible, which they do a great job of. They are not in the business to make our public education System the best it can be. Thats supposed to be the job of our public officials. But if they get a lot of contributions from teacher unions, that makes their job very hard, because they know who pays for their campaigns. 

If we don't educate our students, we are not going to be able to produce enough workers in the future that we need working high skilled jobs and making good livings, making our economy as strong as it can be. And being ranked 39th in the world in education is not educating your students well enough. 

Because of our lack of quality of education (not quantity) we are going to have to continue importing high-skilled workers from other countries and in some cases developing countries like China and India as well as exporting those jobs over there to countries that have the high-skilled workers to work these jobs. Which means we have to treat our education profession which is one of our top five most important professions. Because without it, people wouldn't be able to get the education they need in order to get a good job. 

So we need to treat this critical profession as important as it is. Good workers are rewarded for the work, bad workers are retrained or removed and our customers (meaning the students and parents) get a choice in where they consume this service. We don't as a country treat our education system as important as it is, we allow low-performing educators stay in the system. 

As well as low-performing schools stay in the system, some students are forced to go to bad schools, because of where they live. And then or some of us wonder why we are 39th in the world in education. 

Bill Moyers Journal: 'Hunger in America'

Source:Bill Moyers Journal- a woman who was interviewed for this piece.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"Bill Moyers Journal looks at shortages in America's food banks. For more information, see:Bill Moyers Journal." 

From Bill Moyers Journal

Hunger or food insecurity which I guess would be the new popular term for people who don't have enough food to eat because they can't afford to buy enough food would be what I would call level three in poverty. I four levels - homeless being the worst and level four. Food insecurity being level three. Unemployed and low-skilled with kids being level two. And employed perhaps full-time and maybe another job on the side, as well as collecting Food Assistance being level one. 

Level one of poverty being the best (if you want to call it that) because these people are workers and have work experience and perhaps a lot of it and perhaps they just need to further their education or receive additional job training at work in order to get a good job and move out of poverty. 

But a problem with food insecurity, is that effects all levels of poverty. If you can't even afford to have a place to live, you probably can't afford enough food as well. And of course if you are food insecure, you don't have enough food to eat. 

If you are on public assistance like Welfare Insurance, you are probably collecting Food Assistance as well. And obviously can't afford enough food to eat on your own. And if you are a low-income, low- skilled worker, maybe you can afford enough food to eat or not. Maybe you are not collecting public food assistance, but you are eating at Church and other community places. And perhaps you collect food from food banks as well. 

With the Great Recession, if anything food insecurity has become a bigger problem in America and people that used to be middle class or upper Middle class workers and are well-educated, have now slipped into poverty and have lost their homes. And are collecting Food Assistance because they've been unemployed for so long. 

I have some ideas in how to solve this problem that gets to temporary food assistance for these people. As well as helping them further their education job training so hungry people no longer need this assistance . But ideas aren't in the New Deal or Great Society area. I'm not a Democratic Socialist.  (As if you didn't already know) 

I don't think in welfare state terms to solve these problems, but I do consider myself a Progressive and would like to see some progress here. My ideas have to do with creating a national system of food centers, at least semi-private in the short-term, that wouldn't be run by the Federal Government as well as non- profit, where each state would have their own food assistance system. 

This system would not be run by government and would be semi-private and non-profit with like a national headquarters. But each state would have their own system and these food centers would be a combination of grocery stores and like cafeteria's, with discounted food, with mostly healthy food, that people who are eligible for them could buy their grocery's, eat their meals, spend their money and use their Food Assistance to help pay for their food. 

This would be where individuals and organizations would be eligible to donate their extra food and other food to a food center that would be located in areas with high food insecurity. As we would set up a food assistance system like this. 

We as a country need to do more for people in poverty so they can get better skills and a better education, so they can get better jobs. And be able to move off of public assistance and into the middle class and to self-sufficiency. So they no longer have to collect from these programs which would make them easier to run.

AEI: 'U.S. Demand for Drugs Fuels Cartels'

Source:AEI- event on the War on Drugs.

"The Drug War's New Front Line: Combating Narco-Criminality in Central America

Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:AEI." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

If you look at the reasons why America still has a so-called War on Drugs and why narcotics are still a problem in America forty years after President Nixon officially launched the so-called War on Drugs in America, I believe its pretty simple and two reasons: the way we fight the so-called War on Drugs and how ineffectively we've been at it. As well as Mexico and the large demand in America as Mexico two huge countries, two of the largest countries in the world physically and in population. 

The combine population of both America and Mexico is roughly 430M people. And you are also talking about two of the largest economy's in the world. America still being the largest economy. And these two economy's put together total 16T$ with 430M people. And of course America and Mexico share a two- thousand mile border with each other. Easily one of the largest borders in the world. So there are a lot of resources and demand on both sides of the border to buy heroin, cocaine and meth, and marijuana. 

Marijuana, I and a lot of people would argue not being very dangerous compared with the big  three (cocaine, heroin, meth) for example it can't kill you right away. And again I and a lot of other people would argue that marijuana is as dangerous or as helpful as alcohol and tobacco and should be treated as such. 

America and Mexico, two huge country's that are trying to forcefully eliminate narcotics are actually feeding the problem and keeping narcotics dealers and growers in business by locking up drug addicts and treating them the same drug dealers. And locking these addicts up who have a medical condition in prison where they get no help for their problems and get more drugs while in prison. And if anything get back on the streets with a bigger addiction. 

Mexico has the same issues but they also have a lot of corruption in their Federal Government especially in the law enforcement. And this corruption is a problem not only for Mexico to deal with its so-called drug war, where their officers get paid off by narcotics dealers and gangsters. The good news is the answers to reforming the so-called War on Drugs are fairly simple. 

First of all you stop fighting a fake, so-called War on Drugs and admit that it was a failure and use those resources where we've spent over a trillion-dollars to fight and use them for better things. By decriminalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol and tobacco. 

And with heroin, cocaine and meth, separate the addicts from the dealers. Treat addicts like the patients that they are and get them in drug rehab and halfway houses where they would pay for their treatment and stay as well. 

And treat those dealers like the criminals that they are and put them away in prison. 

As I said before, part of the problem with the so-called War on Drugs is about demand: if people want something enough and are addicted to it they'll do whatever they can to get what they want and to hell with the consequences. So if you teach these people that these drugs are horrible for them, they are not going to want them and their dealers will have less customers to deal their dope to.

Paul Ryan: 'Tax Reform is Key to Fixing the Economy'

 

Source:Paul Ryan- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) Chairman of the Budget Committee.

"Paul Ryan goes 'On the Record' to discuss House Budget Committee video & need for tax reform." 

From Paul Ryan

I believe everyone on the American political spectrum believes that America needs tax reform at the Federal level. It's just a question of how to do it. 

Socialists believe that we should have tax reform that closes a lot of loopholes and also raises rates on everyone, to provide a lot more public services. Which they believe would benefit the economy for everyone. 

Conservatives believe in the flat tax (a middle class tax hike) basically one Tax Rate for everyone or perhaps just three rates. There are also Conservatives that believe in what's called a fair tax, which is a consumption tax taxing what people spend money on. Rather than taxing money that they make. That tax if done right I as a Liberal would be in favor of as well. 

Liberals believe in simplifying the tax code, closing tax loopholes and lowering tax rates in exchange. 

Libertarians, some believe in eliminating the tax code all together and having no Federal taxes. Others who I believe are adults and reasonable, believe in the fair tax, something that Gary Johnson is running on for President ironically in the Republican Party, even though he's a Classical Liberal, but thats a different post that I've already written. 

So there's broad agreement for the need for tax reform in America and its a matter of how to do it. But I believe there's at least one step that has to be done first before we have tax reform figuring out exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. And then how much money through taxes should we raise to fund the Federal Government and then can we afford to do it for the economy and our broader fiscal policy. 

If you want the Federal Government to do more, then you are going to have to raise more money to pay for that or get the economy strong enough to pay for it. If you want the government to do less, then you have to figure out what to reform or cut and based on that how much lower taxes will be. 

I have a two step plan that I've laid out in previous posts that I call government reform. 

First step is reforming the Federal Government to get it back to doing the things that only it can do. And that at least historically has done very well and been efficient and just by reforming the Federal Government and making it work better, you would make it smaller and cheaper with a smaller workforce, whether thats your goal or not. 

My goal in this is to make it more effective and efficient which would make it cheaper and smaller. And to give you a few examples of this: decentralization, independence and consolidation. (Or DIC, if you prefer) But also some reforms as well, but I think DIC sounds better so I'm going with that. 

Decentralization, take all of our social insurance programs and pass them down to the states. But not for the states to run and this is where independence comes in. Each State would have their own system in how these programs operate, that would have to meet basic Federal standards. But each of these programs would be semi-private, non-profit, self-financed community services, and each state would have their own version of each these programs to address the needs that they work on for the people of their state. 

Consolidation - the Interior Department, Energy Department, and Agriculture Department into one new Department of Natural Resources. Take the Public Health Service out of the Health Department including NIH and make it and independent service. And put the Education Department and combine it with the Department of Human Services that would become a regulator of the community services in America. Reform, pull all of our Armed Forces out of developed nations that can afford to defend themselves and put that money into deficit reduction.

And after that the Federal Government would have saved a lot of money and not need a Federal budget of 3.7T$, because we would have saved 200B$ a year alone in defense. About 1.5T$ in Social Security and Medicare because the Federal Government would no longer be running these services. Each State would have their own system for them that would be self-financed, the FEDS would regulate them instead. 

I believe this plan would save the Federal Government and Tax Payers about 2T$ a year. And then I would move to tax reform, eliminating most if not all tax loopholes, but I would settle for most. And then have a consumption tax, taxing consumption instead of income. With low rates on the essentials that people need to survive and higher rates on luxury items. And keeping the same tax credits that are aimed at helping the working poor.

Euro News: 'Iran Due to Inaugurate First Nuclear Power Plant'

Source:VOA News- a member of the Iranian opposition.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Iran's first nuclear power plant is due to be officially inaugurated today amid ongoing concern about the country's nuclear ambitions. Some are also worried about a possible nuclear race in the region. Analyst and critic of the Iranian President, Saeed Laylaz, said: "In this atmosphere, it can bring or it can start a nuclear race, a race in the Middle East to have nuclear power for military purposes and so on. Euro News." 

From Euro News

Iran opening a nuclear plant, there's probably not much that the United States, Israel or the European Union, all countries that of course doesn't want to see the Islamic Republic obtain nuclear weapons, can do to stop them. It wouldn't be irresponsible to bomb a nuclear plant in a foreign country, just because it's a nuclear plant. You would cause a lot of damage killing a lot of innocent people. 

Now if you know that Iran has nuclear weapons in it and that information is clear with other countries understanding that, then that would be a different story, but hopefully Iran is actually building nuclear power for their economy and not for nuclear weapons. But with how badly they've managed their economy the last thirty years, we shouldn't take their word on that.

It's easy to be skeptical about Iran because this is a country thats also deep in natural resources, oil as well as natural gas, they also have a middle class an an educated class. Iranians are generally well-educated, but this is a very large country of 75M people thats still a developing country with high unemployment and poverty. 

Iran is still a developing country that if anything has taken steps backwards since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, with high poverty rate and high unemployment, with an educated workforce. And a lot has to do with the fact that the Islamic Republic spends a lot of their vast resources sponsoring terrorists who support their cause and would like to establish other Islamic theocracies in the Middle East. 

Iran has made it clear that they want to the superpower of the Middle East, just not economically apparently. By the way they've managed their economy, the way their government is set up, how they treat their democratic opposition, that has the education to lead this large country and get their economy going again, by essentially freeing its people to run their economy and put their vast natural resources to work for the country and not just for the regime. And to free the people of Iran to live their own lives and put the skills that they obtain to use to benefit the country. 

Iran is way too big to invade and occupy, especially by one country but even for an international coalition. Iran is three Iraq's both physically and in population. So and invasion and occupation of Iran is almost completely off the table especially for the United States. 

But letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons can't be an option either. Whether they get them in the end or not and they may very well get them in the end, they'll probably get the technology for them and since it's such a large country will probably be able to hide them pretty effectively. 

But what the Arab League, perhaps Pakistan, and India as well, as well as the European Union and United States can do is to support the democratic opposition in Iran, financially and in with other resources. And perhaps through a coalition of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, maybe even Pakistan, and India as well, take out any nuclear weapons that Iran successfully obtains if they are successful. After all peaceful options are exhausted, through the air destroy Iran's nuclear weapons through the air if they obtain them. 

The Islamic Republic of Iran now has a nuclear plant and hopefully thats to benefit their economy and people. And perhaps to a small extent it is, but the international community, can't allow the Islamic Republic to obtain nuclear weapons especially to fund their terrorists allies.