KPBS: Howard Jarvis: Prop 13 History

Source:KPBS- a look at the tax revolt in California, from 1978. Not 2003.

"In 1978 disco was king, Jerry Brown was Governor, and the people ruled. They voted two to one in favor of Proposition 13, rolling back property taxes." 

From KPBS

If you look at what the Tea Party movement is today and what the Howard Jarvis anti-tax movement was back in the late 1970s, its very similar: government taxes and spends too much. There's where that term tax and spend came from: high tax rates were already unpopular by the mid 1970s. 

Both President Gerry Ford and presidential candidate Ron Reagan, made tax relief apart of their 1976 presidential campaigns. And Jimmy Carter becomes President in 1977, the economy tanks in 1978. Not because of President Carter, but by 1978 unemployment, inflation and interest rates were all going up and economic and job growth were going down. 

The opposite was happening in what you need for a strong healthy economy, the good numbers plummeting and bad numbers skyrocketing. And California felt this as bad as anyone similar to the economy there today. 

Howard Jarvis started an anti-tax association, took it to Sacramento as well as Washington, to campaign against high tax rates and campaign for tax cuts, that of course were put into place in 1981 when Ron Reagan became President, but President Reagan went a hell of a lot farther with their tax cuts. 

Prop 13 in 1978 was about limiting the growth of property taxes and cutting property taxes. But like a lot of things that get started in California, they tend to spread across the country. And fiscal Conservatives started organizing and this had an effect on the 1978 general elections in California. But also the mid- term elections in Washington, where Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate. 

Ron Reagan being the smart politician he was and someone who was pro-low taxes and anti-big government, saw this movement coming but about fifteen years later in 1964 when he worked for Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, but it didn't become popular until 1978. 

1978 is when the economy dipped and people saw their taxes getting higher while their incomes fell, because state government's raised taxes to be able to finance their operations. With the sluggish economy and this is one of the things that started the Reagan Revolution in 1980. That brought him into the Presidency in a landslide over President Carter.

Euro News: 'Libya Ponders Sharia Law'

Source:Euro News- does the Libyan Transitional Council really want Sharia Law?

"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 

"The new Libya is considering how it will live by Islamic Sharia law, which includes some traditional practices which some countries consider inhumane.

 Many Westerners were among those horrified when this vision was voiced just days ago amid celebrations over the death of Colonel Gaddafi.

It was by no means the first time such a prospect was raised, when the chairman of the Libyan National Transitional Council, said: "We as a Muslim nation take Sharia as the basic source of law." 

From Euro News

With todays announcement by the Libyan Transitional National Council, that they are adopting Sharia Law and going to use Sharia Law to influence how they write Libya's National Constitution, looks bad from my perspective. And looks like they may be on the road to Islamic Theocracy where racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women are essentially treated like garbage (to be kind) with strict conditions on what they can do and how they live. And when it comes to women, on things like how they can dress. And can they even go to school and get educated or not and this is not the direction that Libya should be headed in. 

Thats what happened in Afghanistan pre-Afghan War that started in 2001, where people were literally murdered for things like adultery, under the Taliban Regime. And this not the direction Libya should be going in. They have so much more potential and can be so much better than that. And this is what exactly Iraq was able to avoid another country with a lot of potential when they formed their new government and Constitution.

What Libya should be looking at is a government thats evidence based that looks to do what's best for the entire country and to move it forward. Not things that could divide the country and potentially start new civil wars down the road. Which is what happened in Afghanistan and may happen in Iran as well.

FOX News: U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann- 'Separation of Church and State is a Myth: Fox News Debate'

Source:ZAPDOS- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) perhaps talking about a Constitution that she personally wrote, but not the U.S. Constitution.

"Michele Bachmann describes her explanation of the first amendment and freedom of religion using the founding fathers." 

From ZAPDOS

When Representative Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson or Senator Mike Lee, say and of course former President Ronald Reagan and former Senator Barry Goldwater (these are all Republicans, by the way) say they are anti-big government, I believe them and so should you. Because they know what individual liberty is all about: the liberty for free people to live their own individual lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty. 

Every time I hear Representative Michele Bachmann or Senator Jim DiMint complain about the overreach of big government, or here them speak in favor of states rights, I gotta laugh. Because either they are lying, or they don't know what they are talking about, or don't completely understand what they are talking about. Which is pretty sad considering they are both members of Congress and pretty influential members of Congress, at least in the Republican Party. 

The New-Right in America (or Far-Right) loves Big Government, they're just not aware of it. Sure, corporate taxes and regulations, taxes on the wealthy would be down (if not eliminated) under their watch. It's just that Uncle Sam and his army of nephews and nieces would move in to people's home to try to force every single American to live what they could call a Christian, moral life.  

When it comes to individual liberty, as long as you're doing what the Christian-Right and approve of, you're OK. But when you don't, even if you're not hurting anyone with what you're doing, you got a major problem and could be found libel for a criminal offense. 

That's not Barry Goldwater's, Ron Reagan's, Ron Paul's, Gary Johnson's, Mike Lee's and others definition of individual liberty. When someone tells you they are against big government, why don't you see if they understand what they are talking about. Because you may be surprised in what you find out.

It would a dereliction of duty if I didn't comment on what Representative Bachmann said calling Separation of Church and State a myth. Again, we're talking about a lawyer here who doesn't understand the First Amendment. Perhaps it didn't exist when she was in law school and she's come back in another life. Or they didn't teach her about the First Amendment in law school. 

The U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts known as the establishment clause and free exercise clause. But at least she's qualified to run for President, even if she's not qualified for the job itself.

Channel 4 News: 'Alex Salmond Defiant on Scottish Army Question'

Source:Channel 4 News- Alex Salmond: Leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party in Britain.

"Channel 4 is a British free-to-air public-service television network with headquarters in London, a National HQ in Leeds and creative hubs in Glasgow and Bristol.[1] The channel was established to provide a fourth television service to the United Kingdom in addition to the licence-funded BBC One and BBC Two, and the single commercial broadcasting network ITV. It began transmission on 2 November 1982, the day after Welsh language broadcaster S4C's launch. Although largely commercially self-funded, it is ultimately publicly owned; originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA),[2] which was established in 1990 and came into operation in 1993. In 2010, Channel 4 extended service into Wales and became a UK-wide television channel." 

From Wikipedia 

"SNP leader Alex Salmond says an independent Scotland would not have sent troops to Iraq." 

From Channel 4 News

When you look at the United Kingdom of Britain you see four native people's living there, the English of course living in England, the Scottish living in Scotland, the Welch living in Wales and the Irish living in North Ireland. These people are spread out and of course Britain is a diverse country both racially and ethnically, but Britain is still about 80% english and around 10% Scottish.

But even with all of this diversity and the fact that Britain is basically made up of four different Nations. And those States believe they can all govern themselves. Britain has a very centralized government, not even a federal government, but one government that governs the whole country and controls most of the tax revenue. 

One of the reasons why Britain's taxes are so high even compared with the European Union because their national government controls so much of their tax revenue, unlike the European states where most of them have federal government's, as well as state or provincial government's, as well as local government's. 

And I believe this is a big reason why Scotland, Wales and North Ireland which are all basically provinces or states inside of Britain, have all been calling for more autonomy in how they govern themselves. 

 These States would like to raise their own tax revenue, tun their own schools, law enforcement, build their own infrastructure, run their own health care, etc. The things that most state or provincial government's get to do as a state or province. A lot of things that Canadian provinces get to do or American states get to do as well. 

Instead of all the power in Britain being centered in London at Westminster, that Britain goes to a to more of a federal system, where England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland have much more authority to govern themselves. And they all have their own state government's effectively with an executive and an assembly, and their own judicial system. 

What the UK Government could do is be there to do what most national government's do, but the states are able to govern themselves as well. With these states still being able to send their reps and lords to the UK Parliament. And have their representation there and work in partnership to some degree in how the country is governed. 

Instead of the UK Government trying to govern this big country of 62M people, small in land, but with a large population, by themselves and doing everything on their own. If the UK Government would give their states autonomy in how they run their affairs, then I believe there would be less call for independence for these States. Because they would feel that they would have more of a say in how they govern themselves and more freedom to live their own lives.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Senator Charles Percy- 'A Foreign Policy For The GOP (1967)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois)

"Guest: Charles Percy. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution. 

For more information about the Firing Line broadcast records at the Hoover Institution Archives, see:OAC. 

"September 11, 1967: Senator Percy is a bit given to the stump-speech mode ("I truly believe that we will fight Communism just as effectively, if not more so, [by not] fighting it just in Havana and in Hanoi. We have to fight Communism in Watts; we have to fight it in Newark, and we have to fight it in Harlem; and we have to fight it by building a better America there, and not giving any chance for a Communist society to point to the hypocrisy of America and say that the American dream is only available to some people"), but we do come down to earth periodically, with concrete observations about, e.g., Yugoslavia, Poland, and Red China." 

From the Hoover Institution" 

From Firing Line With William B. Buckley 

This photo is also from the Firing Line With William F. Buckley interview of U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois) from 1967. But the video from which the photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois)

When this show aired, this was before even President Richard Nixon was President. In 1967 Progressive Democrat Lyndon was still President. Had Senator Barry Goldwater defeated President Johnson in 1964, the Republican Party probably would've had a consistent message when it came to foreign policy. 

But pre-1969, the Republican Party was completely out-of-power in the Federal Government and had fairly small minorities in Congress (House and Senate) so what Bill Buckley was trying to do here with this interview with Senator Chuck Percy (Republican, Illinois) was to try to get an idea where the Republican Party at that point stood when it came to foreign affairs and national security. Which is a tough task for anyone, especially a junior senator which is what Senator Percy was at this point, even a junior senator an U.S. Military veteran like Senator Percy.  

What Senator Percy seems to be arguing here is that for America to have credibility abroad and be taken seriously abroad and be a true beacon of freedom (that Conservatives seem to want us to be) that we need to be strong as home as well. That the best way to fight communism and Communists at home, is to have to strongest society and freedom for as many Americans as possible at home. Which is why he was talking about poverty in Los Angeles and other places in America.

Senator was arguing that the best argument for Communists, is all the poverty and lack of individual freedom for so many Americans at home. Which I believe is a very solid Progressive Republican argument. 

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)

Americans For Tax Reform: Follow The Money With Eric Bolling- 'John Kartch Explains How Harry Reid's Tax Hikes Hurt Small Businesses'

Source:Americans For Tax Reform- Vice President Joseph R. Biden (Democrat, Delaware)

"ATR's John Kartch Explains How Harry Reid's Tax Hikes Hurt Small Businesses" 

From Americans For Tax Reform

President Obama and Senate Leader Reid have come out in favor and have proposed what's called a millionaires tax, which would raise taxes on anyone making a million$ a year or more. To pay for the American Jobs Act which has now been broken into several different bills, after the Senate GOP Leadership blocked the whole Legislation last week. 

The millionaires tax proposal would also pay for long-term debt and deficit reduction by raising taxes on individuals making a million$ a year or more. An additional 5% increase in tax burden that these people would be required to pay. To help pay for the AJA and to help finance debt and deficit reduction and people who quite frankly can afford to pay this tax.  

And now there's a growing bipartisan consensus that there's not only a need for tax reform that would eliminate most if not all tax loopholes and even raise the top tax rate at least in the short-term. But then lower all tax rates in the long-term to help pay for debt and deficit reduction. 

This is something that Senator Tom Coburn one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress Has already acknowledged, as well as the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission, as well as the Rivlin-Domenichi Commission.

There's only so much revenue that can be cut in the non-Medicare and Social Security social insurance programs. That by the way only represent about 15% of a 3.7T$ Federal Budget with a 14T$ National Debt and a 1.8T$ National Deficit. Defense, Social Security and Medicare represent around 2T$ in the 3.7T$ Federal budget and about 60% of the Federal budget. 

I hope I haven't put you asleep with all of these numbers. (By the way) We are always going to have those programs, Congress will never allow for those programs to disappear. But since they all represent a solid majority of the Federal budget. We have to find a way to make savings in those programs without hurting them. 

We also need tax reform that eliminates tax loopholes in the short and long-term, as well as raises taxes on the wealthy (people making a Million$ a year or more) not for new spending (other than the AJA) but to help pay down the national debt and get our debt and deficit under control. So we can have a strong growing economy in the future. 

A millionaires tax is exactly that: a tax hike on people who can afford to pay more in taxes. At a time when we have large debt and deficit's. There's not the votes in Congress right now to pass a millionaires tax and the President and Congressional Democrats understand this. But something they want to have and use as well as take to the people when they finally get around to reaching a debt and deficit reduction agreement with Congressional Republicans. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly- The Equal Rights Amendment (1973)

Source:Hoover Institution- Firing Line With William F. Buckley, debating the Equal Rights Amendment, in 1973.

“In this episode, conservative activist and attorney Phyllis Schlafly (1924–⁠2016) and feminist activist and professor Ann Scott (1929–⁠1975) go head-to-head as they discuss the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed equal rights regardless of sex. The amendment was first proposed in 1923, although support ebbed and flowed throughout the 20th century. At the time of this episode in 1973, it was unclear whether or not the ERA would be ratified. Schlafly and Scott discuss what they believe would be the consequences of the amendment if it were ratified, touching on topics such as a military draft for women, divorce and family dynamics, and economic ramifications. Schlafly campaigned vigorously against the ERA, arguing that the amendment would eliminate privileges enjoyed by women in a society that upholds traditional gender roles. Scott, meanwhile, ardently maintained that the ERA would benefit both men and women by mandating equal treatment under the law. The ERA ultimately was not ratified, and the debate continues today.”

From the Hoover Institution

"Taped on March 30, 1973 The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as Buckley puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn."  

Source:Amazon- Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr.

From Amazon 

"Guests Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Scott debate the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading.

In this Battle of the Feminists episode, conservative Phyllis Schlafly and liberal Ann London Scott debate the consequences of passing the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly was the National Chairman of the STOP ERA campaign, while Scott was Vice President for Legislation for the National Organization for Women. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading. Scott died of breast cancer two years after this episode." 

Source:IMDB- Firing Line With William F. Buckley.

From IMDB 

This photo is from a video of the Firing Line With William F. Buckley episode about the Equal Rights Amendment in 1973, with Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly. But that video is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Debating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1973.

I believe all good Americans across the political spectrum believe in equal rights for all people. That there’s now a consensus that’s still growing as we get younger and more liberal as a country that we shouldn’t be allowed especially the public sector, to be able to discriminate against anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, color, creed, nationality, religion and now even sexuality. That in a liberal democracy like America, free people meaning free people not a particular type of people, have the constitutional right to live freely and not be harassed by government.

No American under the U.S. Constitution can be discriminated for the reasons I just laid out by the public or private sectors. That it says in the U.S. Constitution that all men meaning people, not just men, have the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That these are constitutional rights.

And if you’re a Constitutional Constructionist like U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia, you take those words to mean exactly that. Even though our Founding Fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution didn’t mean those constitutional rights to apply to everyone. And things like laws attempting to block people from eating, voting, working, going to school, just because of their race, just to use as examples, are unconstitutional on their face. Because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The question is how best to enforce these constitutional rights. How best for government to enforce them. To me those enforcements are already there in the U.S. Constitution. And thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Law of 1968, Federal, state and local government’s, can no longer get way without enforcing these constitutional rights for everyone.

The problem during the civil rights debates of the 1950s and 60s wasn’t our Constitution. The problem was that not everyone and several states weren’t enforcing our constitutional rights equally. But those laws cleared that up and now if people are unfairly discriminated against, they can take legal and civil action against that.

People are unjustly discriminated, now have recourse with either the executive or judicial branches, they can file a complaint with either or take the people who they believed unfairly discriminated against them to civil court and get their case heard. And if they win be rewarded at the expense of the defendant, for the discrimination they suffered.

The reason why I’m not in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment, even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, because it’s not needed. It would simply be an addition to what’s already there under the U.S. Constitution. All men and women have to be treated equally under law. The law can’t discriminate based on gender or race as well as the other distinctions.  

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: 'We the People Will Legalize Marijuana, Not President Obama!'

Source:Marijuana Community- MSNBC talking about marijuana legalization.

"We the People Will Legalize Marijuana, NOT Obama!" 

From the Marijuana Community

Here are the reasons why marijuana will be decriminalized in America

Young people, people in my generation and young support it, overwhelmingly, now apparently (according to the Gallup Poll 50%) of Americans are in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. And not all Americans are under fifty, a lot of Americans aren't. 

We have 2.4M people in prison in America or under some form of public supervision, the largest Prison population in the world (on a per-capita basis) hundreds of thousands of those people are under supervision, because of drug related crimes. 

Our country is essentially broke with a 14T$ debt in a 14T$ economy ,and most of our states are broke as well and looking to cut spending everywhere, including in corrections. And states like California are now looking to release non-violent offenders. Like drug offenders and this is already happening in California as Governor Jerry Brown announced a couple of weeks ago. 

Americans tend to want to be able to control what they put in their body's and how they live their lives, as that Gallup Poll suggests. And of course there's the hypocrisy of our War on Drugs: where we essentially have three drugs in America that represent about the same amount of health risks: alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, but two of them legal, of course alcohol and tobacco. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Larry P. Arnn: 'On the Declaration and Constitution'

Source:Hoover Institution- Larry P. Arn: President of Hillsdale College.

"Larry Arnn, who earned his graduate and doctorate in government from the Claremont Graduate School, is the president of Hillsdale College. He discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, what the founders gave us and how the Declaration of Independence mattered at the time." 

From the Hoover Institution

The United States has a Constitution so Americans and government know exactly their liberties and powers are. So new authority isn't drawn up as we go along and so that government can't take people's liberties away from them. That there are laws and procedures that government has to follow before it takes people's liberty away. And even once people have been arrested, they still have certain basic fundamental constitutional rights that have to be respected. 

The main reason why it's so difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution, two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, as well as two-thirds of each of the states having to approve the propose amendment to the Constitution, is so people who perhaps don't respect our constitutional rights as much as they should be respected, aren't able to mess with the Constitution. That there needs to be more of a consensus to change our Constitution and restrict our constitutional rights. 

The main reason for our Constitution (which I consider the most liberal document ever written) is became it was written by Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians, our Founding Fathers. And when you get people like that in the same room together, you should expect a Constitution that looks like what they wrote, a very individualist document. 

The United States was created to get away from the United Kingdom which was dictatorship in the form of a monarchy. That heavily taxed people in the American colonies, without representing them in Parliament. That restricted what religion they could practice if any and basically their ability to live their own lives. 

And these eventual Americans wanted to get away from this authoritarianism so they can have individual freedom. Thats why they wrote the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights listed with a lot of individual liberties. A lot of liberty for people to live their own lives. 

The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document, obviously. Thats why it has a bunch of amendments to it, but still they did a hell of a job. And gave us a lot more freedom then we were getting from the United Kingdom and it really was a Declaration of Independence. Because we were declaring our independence from the United Kingdom and wanted our freedom with the United States. 

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) created the foundation for creating the greatest country in the world, because it was based on individual freedom. I just wish they declared individual liberty for all people in America including the African slaves, but again they were not perfect. 

Without the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the United States is not a liberal democracy. Because then our liberties could be taken away from us probably my majority vote and we would become more of a majoritarian democracy. Which is a different form of government than a republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Which thanks to the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives us that. 

Eric Cantor: Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace- 'Majority Leader Eric Cantor Discusses the GOP's Plan for Jobs & Economic Growth'

Source:Eric Cantor- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

"Majority Leader Eric Cantor Discusses the GOP's Plan for Jobs & Economic Growth on FNS" 

From Eric Cantor

Looks to me that the House Republican plan to get the economy going again is centered around cutting regulations. Hopefully not around Wall Street, because we've seen what happens in the last ten years what happens when you don't regulate Wall Street. The Wall Street scandals of 2001-02 and 2008 that led to the Great Recession that we are still three years later struggling to recover from. 

Congress just passed three trade deals last week and where's the rest of their plan. The tax cut plans have come not from their House Leadership, but from. Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) as well as some of their presidential candidates like Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry. 

The only plans that relate to the economy that House Republicans have drafted or pass relate to the Federal debt and deficit, meaning cutting them. But those are long-term plans to get our debt and deficit under control over the next ten years. They don't have much if anything to do with creating jobs in the next year or so for 2012. 

The only economic plan thats come out of the Federal Government, that has tax cuts in it has come from President Obama. Someone the Far-Right likes to call a Socialist. Tax cuts are supposed to be a Republican issue. 

I'm not saying that tax cuts are the magic bullet for economic and job growth in America. But tax cuts have always been the magic bullet for economic and job growth for Conservatives. For more than thirty- years now, going back to the mid and late 70s.

President Obama's economic plan is built around infrastructure investment, middle class tax cuts, small business tax relief, and free trade. He's been successful so far in one area, free trade with the deals that were passed last week. 

The President wants to create a National Infrastructure Bank that would take care of the financing of our infrastructure investment. That would be self-financed and be independent of the Federal Government. As well as extend the Payroll Tax Holiday for workers and extend it to employers as well. 

I wish President Obama would go farther by maybe cutting the 10% tax bracket to 5% to encourage consumer spending, as well as Debt Relief for the middle class. Let them deduct their debt from their taxes. As well as reforming our Unemployment Insurance system, making it proactive by turning them into employment centers. That would help unemployed workers find jobs, giving them assistance to go back to schools and get retrained. I believe the House Republican Leadership would be open to that idea as is the President.

House Speaker Boehner has already expressed interest in infrastructure investment as part of an economic plan. And is interested in creating a six-year highway bill and President Obama has expressed interest in regulatory reform. So maybe there's a deal that can be reached between the House and White House. As well as between Senate Democrats and Republicans.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'The Implications of Watergate (1973)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking about Watergate in 1973.

"Episode S0092, Recorded on May 16, 1973. Guests: James O. Powell, Reg Murphy, Robert P. Clark. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From  Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"The semi-annual occasion on which the guests put their host on the firing line-in this case, mostly on the subject of Watergate, which had been simmering since just a few days after the break-in the previous June but had only become the daily staple of our front pages when Gordon Liddy, Howard Hunt, and five others were put on trial in January. WFB and his guests mostly remand the details of what happened at the Watergate and who ordered it to a time when more evidence is in; instead, the crackling discussion ranges from the possibility of changing the presidential tenure to a single, six-year term, to how Congresses have historically dealt with a President who has been repudiated but is still in office (e.g., Herbert Hoover in 1931), to the continuing war in Vietnam. WFB: "If you live in a society in which lawlessness becomes intellectually fashionable, as it was in this country during the last ten years, you beget, I think, a counter-countercultural lawlessness of which Watergate is an example."

From the Hoover Institution

The Watergate scandal from the summer of 1972 to the summer of 1974, was a horrible political scandal, that not only lasted two years, brought down a presidency, a president that was reelected by a landslide, distracted the country from many other problems that we were facing with a weakening economy, rising unemployment, rising health care costs, more people being without health insurance, an energy shortage, trying to get out of Vietnam, etc. It happened at about the worst time that any political scandal could hit us, where we had other issues that needed to be addressed.

And perhaps the worst part of the Watergate scandal, is that it never had to happen or become a scandal, it was completely unnecessary. President Nixon would’ve been reelected by a landslide in 1972 anyway. Had he announced what he knew about Watergate as he knew it and had come clean his administration probably would’ve got some heat from it at least in the short-term. With Congressional investigations. 

President Nixon would’ve done himself and the country a lot of good in the long-term by admitting what he knew about Watergate from the beginning, because he would’ve been able to put Watergate behind us, because he would’ve been able to end his part of the scandal early on. Because the country would’ve known that he wasn’t guilty of anything. And he would’ve been able to move on with his presidency and attempt to address some of these issues.

Without the Watergate scandal as far as President Nixon covering it up, he would’ve gone down as a very successful President. Perhaps one of the best president’s America has ever had, with all of his foreign policy success’s. And this would’ve given him an opportunity. to address some other issues. As they relate to economic policy and getting the economy going again, creating a national energy policy, which President Nixon actually did make an attempt at, as well as health care and Welfare reform. 

Instead what happened the Republican Party dropping back to where they were in the 1960s as far as seats in Congress. In the House and Senate with Democrats having large majority’s in both chambers. As a result of the 1974 mid-term elections.

But because of the Watergate coverup, that’s the main if not only political issue that not only the Federal Government was dealing with, but what the country was paying attention to. Including even watching the Watergate hearings on TV. 

As a result of the Watergate scandal and coverup, the Republican Party got hammered in the 1974 mid-term elections. Democrats picked up something like thirty seats in the House and six in the Senate to add to their majority’s. 

And of course Democrats won the White House in 1976 while retaining their large majority’s in Congress. But thanks to President Carter, Republicans got a lot of those seats back plus some new ones in 1978 and 1980. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Representative Paul McCloskey & Allard Lowenstein- Dump Richard Nixon?

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley U.S. Representative Paul McCloskey (Republican, California) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1971.

"Episode S0001, Recorded on May 26, 1971. Guests: Paul N. McCloskey, Allard K. Lowenstein. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"For this first installment of Firing Line broadcast on public television, we have as our guests two men actively seeking to dump President Nixon. Mr. Lowenstein's organization had voted in favor of impeaching him for high crimes and misdemeanors-no, not Watergate, which was still more than a year away, but rather his conduct of the war in Vietnam. For the same reason, Mr. McCloskey had announced that he would challenge the President for the 1972 Republican nomination. (As it happens, by the time of the New Hampshire primary Mr. Buckley was backing John Ashbrook for the Republican nomination-not because of Vietnam but because of President Nixon's trip to China.) A certain amount of fun & games, but then serious and deeply informed analysis of the Vietnam War itself and the history of American intervention abroad." 

From the Hoover Institution

Richard Nixon, wasn't a very popular President his first couple years as President, with the Vietnam War that he inherited and with the anti-war movement that was going on as well. 

President Nixon inherited a lot from President Johnson when he became President. And made a lot of tough decisions, like expanding the Vietnam War in an attempt to bring North Vietnam to the negotiating table. Which in the end worked. But he paid a heavy price for it politically and wasn't really a lock to get reelected until the spring or summer of 1972. After the Nixon Administration reached and agreement to end the Vietnam War with North Vietnam.

President Nixon, also had two successful foreign policy trips to Russia and China and opening up relations with both countries. The first American President to arrive in either country. 

Dick Nixon was about twenty years ahead of him time on foreign policy. Whether you like him or not or are in between, you have to give him credit for that. He's one of the most intelligent politicians and President's we've ever had. And for that reason he could see how things were developing and how they were going to look in the future. And this "Dump Nixon" movement in the Republican Party must of been a reaction from I guess the libertarian wing of the party.

Republicans who believed the Vietnam War was a mistake and one of the reasons why they elected Dick Nixon was to end the Vietnam War. But he expanded that war before he ended it. They must been the people behind the "Dump Nixon" movement. And thats not what they were looking for, but a complete end to the war. 

It's a huge risk to take on your own President the leader of your party, when he's in his first term. Which is exactly what President Nixon was by 1971. Because again President Nixon was no lock to get reelected in 1971, he wasn't very popular at this point.

Also the Democratic Party still has solid majorities in Congress (both in the House and Senate) and losing the presidency in 1972, which of course didn't happen, but had that happen, the Republican Party would once again find themselves out-of-power in the Federal Government. Just like in the 1960s when Congressional Democrats added to their majorities. Republicans had to retain the White House in 1972 to further their momentum that they made in the South in the mid and late 1960s. 

I wasn't aware there was a "Dump Nixon" movement. I didn't believe Republicans ever did things like this. The only other time I'm aware of this happening was in 1992 when Pat Buchanan and his supporters took on President George H.W. Bush and ran against him in the Republican primary's and had some success. This kinda thing generally happens in the Democratic Party, when the Far Left believes the President is not what they call progressive enough, like today.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The New Frontier & The Great Society (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking about The New Frontier and The Great Society, in 1966.

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The New Frontier: The Great Society. 

Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Jr. 46.9K subscribers. Episode 008, Recorded on May 6, 1966 Guest: Richard N. Goodwin." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Goodwin was present at the creation-as WFB reminds us, he is credited with supplying "that ominous phrase, 'The Great Society' "-and he defends the Johnson program ably in this good-tempered session. RG: "Well, I think the Great Society ...represents a change or a breaking point from the ideas of the New Deal. I think the essential idea behind the New Deal was that rising prosperity, more equitably distributed among the people, would solve most of the problems of the country. . . . Now, having succeeded-not completely, but to quite a degree-in that effort ... we find it doesn't solve the major problems, the kinds of problems you talked about in your campaign [for Mayor of New York] ...and that now we have to turn our attention, not only ... to relief of the poor or dispossessed, but to the quality of life of every American." 

From the Hoover Institution 

This photo is from an interview that William F. Buckley did with U.S. Representative Wilbur Mills (Democrat, Arkansas) who was Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, when President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda was passed in the mid 1960s. But the video is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking about The Great Society in 1967.

One of the things if not the main thing that united the Republican Party in the mid and late 1960s, was President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda and all the social insurance programs that came with it. Similar to President Clinton in 1993-94 with his deficit reduction plan, crime bill, and failed health care reform attempt. 

Conservatives in America saw the growth of the Federal Government in the 1960s as a threat to individual freedom. Which is why they united behind Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and conservative candidates for Congress in 1966 and 68. And why they united behind Richard Nixon for President in 1968.

The GOP saw the Johnson Administration wanting to make America like Europe with a large welfare state. With things like Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Public Housing, increasing public education funding from the Federal Government, etc. 

And conservatives in America like Bill Buckley and others saw all of these programs as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. And didn’t like the new tax hikes that came from Medicare, especially since America was a fairly low tax country. Pre-FDR New Deal, LBJ Great Society and still a low tax country today compared with Europe. But Classical Conservatives and Libertarians, still believe that America is still overtaxed as a country.

American Conservatives wanted to get behind candidates and politicians who would work to downsize or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society. And they saw the Johnson Administration and Secretary Wilbur Cohen (of the Department of Health, Welfare and Education) as people who wanted to make America more like Europe from the Federal Government. At the expense of individual freedom and state and local government's and try to centralize the power with the Federal Government.

This is how Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and other Conservatives got into to power. And how Dick Nixon got back into power in 1968 and how more Conservative Republicans got elected to Congress in the late 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. 

This is how the Republican Party became relevant again in the Federal Government and across America by running against the New Deal and Great Society and saying that they want to change it and still try to solve the same problems. But do it in a way that gives the people more individual freedom in how they solve their own problems.

In some ways the Goldwater defeat in 1964 and the LBJ Great Society was great for the Republican Party, because it brought them together and united them behind the same agenda. And why you saw more Conservatives run for Congress and get elected especially in the 70s, 80s and 90s. People like Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Orrin Hatch, Al Simpson, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and may others. Because the Republican Party came together behind the same agenda. And how the Rockefeller faction of the party almost faded away.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Firing Line with William F. Buckley: U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield- 'Was Barry Goldwater a Mistake?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) in 1967.

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Was Goldwater a Mistake? Episode 081, Recorded on December 14, 1967 Guest: Mark O. Hatfield." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"William F. Buckley: "Description: Senator Hatfield, from the liberal side of the Republican Party, positions himself perfectly in his opening answer: Goldwater wasn't a mistake in a parliamentary sense, because "the Republican Party deliberately nominated [him] in open convention," after primaries and state conventions made it clear he was grass-roots Republicans' choice. However, "I don't think Senator Goldwater as a person was rejected so much as was Senator Goldwater's basic approach to problems. He tended to evoke fear." Much is discussed--from the leadership qualities a President needs, to the different factions within the Republican Party--but Senator Hatfield, who attributes much of Goldwater's fear-evoking to his "off-the-cuff types of responses," never says anything that could disqualify him as the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1968." 

From the Hoover Institution 

This photo is also from the interview that William F. Buckley did with U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) in 1967, but the video from which the photo came from is not currently available online.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) in 1967.

By the time the 1964 presidential campaign came around, the Republican Party was already in bad shape. They lost the presidency in 1960, Democrats controlled Congress with huge majorities. And even added to those majorities in 1962. 

After 1962 the classical conservative base of the Republican Party, felt the needed to fight back and take control of the party as they did in 1964. After what they saw as moderate leadership from the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s. And they saw Vice President Richard Nixon as a moderate presidential candidate.

This is how Senator Barry Goldwater became the 1964 Republican presidential nominee and one reason why Dick Nixon didn't run for president in 1964 and why Governor Nelson Rockefeller was treated so badly at the 1964 Republican Convention, was because a new political faction was in charge of the GOP. 

The Conservative-Right in the GOP believed the Kennedy-Johnson Administration was moving the Federal Government too far away from federalism. And growing the Federal Government too rapidly with the Great Society and they felt the need to step up and nominate someone who they saw as a Classical Conservative and a Constitutional Conservative. Who would bring the Federal Government back in line with the U.S. Constitution.

This is how exactly Senator Goldwater ran his presidential campaign and even had some success in the South. And won some Southern states that the Democratic Party use to own. 

1964 was the start of a movement in American politics, that started to move the South from being a purely Democratic region and made it more competitive for Republican candidates. Which is one reason how Dick Nixon was elected President in 1968. And got reelected in a landslide in 1972 and how the Republican Party won 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88. Four of those elections that they won were by landslides.

The Republican Party paid a heavy price for Senator Goldwater's landslide lost in 1964, but for only two years. From 1965-67 where the Democratic Party had the presidency and huge majority's in Congress, but it was a short two years, because by 1966, President Johnson was starting to become unpopular. And Congressional Republicans picked up 47 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Republicans were still in the minority in both chambers of Congress, but back in the ballpark, with a shot at making Congress competitive.

Because in 1968 Republicans picked up five more seats in the House to give them 192 and seven in the Senate to give them 43. So the Democrats no longer had such huge majorities in Congress and be able to over run the minority party. Because the Republican Party now had new states and districts that were put in play for them. In some ways the 1964 general elections was a great defeat for the Republican Party. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: House Minority Leader Gerald Ford- 'Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer? (1968)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

“Gerald Ford had been in the unenviable position of becoming the House Republicans’ leader following the 1964 debacle, in which his troops were reduced to a minority of 140, as against 295 Democrats. Then again, as Mr. Buckley suggests, there was nowhere to go but up, and the GOP had rebounded nicely in 1966. Mr. Ford-as the nation would learn more extensively a few years later on-is not the liveliest speaker, but he does a good job of explaining what he and his colleagues mean by “constructive alternatives” to the Democrats’ initiatives, and there are some good exchanges-e.g., on the minimum wage, and on Hubert Humphrey. WFB: “And [Humphrey] may have an interesting future.” GF: “Well, not as interesting as he would like, but it is going to be interesting.”

From the Hoover Institution

In 1964 the Republican Party was at its lowest point since the FDR New Deal era as far as their power in America. Especially in the Federal Government, where they were the opposition minority party. 

After 1964, Democrats had the presidency with President Johnson, they had huge majority's in the Congress with 289 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. The Senate Republican minority couldn't even block anything on their own. And this was back when it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. And yet the Republican Party had one of the most effective Senate leaders in Senate history, in Everett Dirksen.

After 1964 House Republicans, a very small minority party, only had 140 seats but they did have a very effective Minority Leader in Gerald Ford, who went on to become Vice President of the United States and then of course later President of the United States, who was pretty effective at keeping his conference united against what the President wanted to do. The Great Society being a pretty good example of this. 

Minority Leader Ford was also very effective at coming up with alternatives to what President Johnson and House Speaker John McCormack brought to the House floor, but the Republican Party was going through a very rough period.

After 1960 the Republican Party had been thrown out-of-power, when Vice President Richard Nixon lost the Presidency to Senator Jack Kennedy and Democrats retained large majority's in both the House and Senate. And to make it worse, House and Senate Republicans both lost seats in the 1962 mid-term elections. 

Generally the opposition party picks up seats in Congress in the mid-term Elections, but Congressional Republicans lost seats in the House and Senate in 1962, when they were a small minority party to begin with. The Republican Party was in pretty bad shape. And then of course in 1964 when Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson and Democrats again picked up seats in the House and Senate as well.

After 1964 House Republicans felt they needed a new voice and new Leader and Gerry Ford was a very effective Minority Leader. And he helped his conference rebuild itself. And this is where Senator Goldwater's presidential campaign was very successful, because he got the party back to classical conservatism and won some states in the South. And Minority Leader Ford was able to take that message to the House and his conference. And effectively communicated their message on TV and radio and in print.

House Republicans under the leadership of Minority Leader Gerald Ford, were able to offer and alternative agenda to President Johnson and House Democrats. And House Republicans picked up 47 seats in 1966 and Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. And in some ways 1964 and the aftermath was the start of the Republican Party rebuilding. And building their party in the South. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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

U.S. Global Leadership Coalition: 'Barbara Bush on The Importance of Foreign Assistance'

Source:U.S. Global Leadership Coalition- Barbara P. Bush talking about foreign aide.

"October 3, 2011 - Barbara Pierce Bush, former President George W. Bush's daughter, says that reducing foreign aid would have "enormous implications" for the United States.

Visit:The Daily Caller  to watch the rest of this video and read the full article." 

From the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition

I believe in foreign aid if it's done right and goes where the money is needed to help the most people as possible, that can't survive without it, people who aren't a threats to America, especially if they get a chance at life from the start, enough quality food, quality health care, quality education, etc. And as long as it's targeted to the countries that can use this aid to help their people: developing countries with responsible national government's. 

Foreign aid shouldn't be for developed countries that can take care of themselves. Or for countries that sponsor terrorism and oppress their people. Iran would and Syria would be excellent examples of that, but South Africa would be an example of where foreign aid can pay off and not only benefit South Africans, but benefit America as well and make sure that we continue as valuable allies. 

Bad foreign aid would be foreign aid that goes to countries and then they either sponsor terrorism. Or harbor terrorists in their countries, where those terrorists are threats to America. Pakistan would be a good example of that and its time America reexamines its relationship with Pakistan as well. 

Where the foreign aid goes to corrupt government's and those people pocket the money, or give that money to terrorists, Africa would be a good example of that as well, that would be bad foreign aid. Foreign aide should be about helping developing countries, develop: Central America, South America, Africa, wherever, helping them develop their security so they can defend themselves from terrorism or other countries. 

Columbia would be an excellent example of t where foreign aid can help both the Columbian people, but America as well with debt relief, helping them sustain their federal budgets so their government's can meet the needs of the country. 

As long as foreign aide is going to developing, but responsible, unified, and constitutional government's and where the foreign aide actually gets to the people who need it, I'm in favor of foreign aide, because it helps them, but is good for America, because it creates new partners and markets for America, which is a plus for everyone involved.

Euro News: Prime Minister David Cameron- 'We Will Never Join The Euro'

Source:Euro News- Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative, England) United Kingdom.

"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 

"There have been tough words from the British prime minister at the annual Conservative Party conference, where David Cameron defended his government's economic policies. "The threat to the world economy and to Britain is as serious as in 2008 when world recession loomed. The euro zone is in crisis, the French and the German economies have slowed to a standstill. Even mighty America is questioned about her debts. The only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. Euro News" 

From Euro News

It's actually probably a good thing right now that the United Kingdom is not part of the European Monetary Union right now. And forget about the politics or national and ethnic pride that Brits have. The states in the European Union are going through far worst fiscal problems than Britain. 

For one, Britain acted on there's a lot earlier and the Cameron Government has paid a large price for that politically. And the European Union is still trying to decide how to move on their debt and deficit issues and get them under control. 

Greece is probably in worst shape then anybody and having to deal with the International Monetary Fund (or IMF) Had Britain been part of the EMU all along, they would probably be in the same shape as Europe, because they wouldn't of ever been able to act as quickly. 

So when Prime Minister David Cameron says that Britain will never be part of the Euro (at least while he's Prime Minster of the United Kingdom) he's dead on and monetary policy is just one reason. 

Britain used to be an empire the most powerful country in the world. That of course has lost a lot of that power the last two hundred years. While the European Union has gained a lot of power the last sixty years and if they were to ever unify and become a nation state would be one of the top two most powerful countries in the World. After the get their debt and deficits under control. 

The United Kingdom still sees itself as a world power and to a certain extent still is. More influential than Germany, France, Italy and their other European neighbors on their own and want to hold on to that power on their own. Besides, the United Kingdom just Mainland Britain, is made up four people's with their own lands: England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland. And at least three of them would like their independence from the United Kingdom. Similar feeling that Americans have before their Revolutionary War that led to the United States being formed. 

The last things that the English, Scottish, Welch, and Irish want is to go from being part of one empire. In the United Kingdom to another in the European Union, or United Federation of Europe, or whatever Europe would call themselves. But the United Kingdom would be a great ally with this new Federal Republic, if Europe ever united, because they have similar interests and issues they both have to deal with. 

As long as the the European Union has the EMU or one day even unifies, the UK will still be the UK a separate country on their own. As they should be, they do very well on their own. And are still a world power with plenty of influence and are still the United States strongest ally not including Canada.

The Federalist Society: Richard Epstein- Redistribution of Wealth

Source:The Federalist Society- Cato Institute Fellow Richard Epstein.

"The Federalist Society presented this panel discussion on Redistribution of Wealth at the 2009 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2009. Panelists included Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University Law School; Mr. Steve Forbes, Chairman and CEO of Forbes Inc. and Editor of Forbes Magazine; Prof. Jed Rubenfeld of Yale Law School; Mr. Andrew L. Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union; and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as the moderator. Part 3 of 11." 

From The Federalist Society

If you understand the actual definition of redistribution of wealth and not the political definition of it, you know that there's always been at least some amount of wealth redistribution. And chances are if you live in America, that you believe in at least some form of wealth redistribution. 

If you go by the political definition of wealth redistribution, then you got this idea that it's about robbing the rich to give to the poor. But again if you know the actual definition of wealth redistribution, you know that it essentially means to take money from one area to give to another. And if done right, you take money from an area that has a large surplus of money to give to an area that doesn't have enough. 

To use as examples- building schools, military bases, roads, bridges, etc, is wealth redistribution, because you are taking money from New York to build a road or bridge in Alabama. (Or use whatever two states you want to use) Or if people are unemployed and are collecting Unemployment Insurance, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to give that money to people who are unemployed. 

Or with Social Security and Medicare, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to help finance the retirements of people who are retired. 

These are all forms of wealth redistribution and if you are against these things, then you would be in a small minority. And even in a small minority in the Republican Party. The question to me is not whether we have wealth redistribution or not, because of course we do and have always had, the questions for me would be, how much of it should we have. And what we should be using it for. 

Since wealth redistribution is usually talked about in how it relates to poverty, I'll focus on that in this post and go from there and to start out I'm not in favor of taking money from the rich or anyone else, to take care of the poor. 

What I am in favor of is using some of this revenue, to help the poor empower themselves to become self- sufficient and that gets to temporary financial assistance, education, and Job Placement, things like Welfare to Work (or TANF) as well as retraining low-income workers on the job so they can move up in their company's and not be stuck working dead in jobs their whole lives. 

We should also be retraining unemployed workers so they can can get jobs in other fields, especially if they lost a job or in a job in a field thats gone and is not coming back as a result of free trade or company relocation. And doing all of these things cost resources and the money has to come from somewhere. 

And I rather take that money from America then borrow it from Russia or China. It's not a question of whether we have Wealth Redistribution or not, because of course we do and we've always had, but it's a question of how much wealth redistribution we should have. And what's the purpose of it and how we can best spend this money that will do the most good for the country.