Paul Ryan: 'Paul Ryan & Chris Van Hollen Advance Bipartisan Budget Reform'

Source:U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) and U.S. Representative Chis Van Hollen (Democrat, Maryland) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee.

"In a bipartisan effort, leaders from the House Budget Committee introduced the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act earlier today. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., joined MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss this effort to target wasteful Washington spending." 

From Paul Ryan

Is the line-item Veto the silver bullet to fixing our debt and deficit issues? Of course not, even if we were able to eliminate all Congressional earmarks because those earmarks only in Washington would 20B$ be only but compared with a Federal budget of 3.7T$. 20B$. Only in Washington in the larger scheme of things, does 20 billion dollars a year qualify as only. (Imagine if members of Congress had to work for a living) 

But what the line-item veto does is help with our debt and deficit because it could eliminate up to 20B$ a year in wasteful spending. And thats just in the Federal budget alone, Congress appropriates all the time out in emergency. They'll appropriate under in emergency just because they don't feel like paying for things. 

And what a Line Item Veto would do is empower the President, whoever the President is to eliminate things from spending bills that are wasteful and have nothing to do with the spending bill that it's attached to. 

A line-item veto is not good enough, we also need earmark reform as well, getting rid of earmarks that have nothing to do with the bills that are attached to. 

As well as earmark disclosure, meaning a member of Congress that authors an earmark, their name would be on the earmark that they are offering and where the earmark is going and what it's for. 

Along with forcing all earmarks to come under the PAGO policy including in emergency bills. Meaning that all earmarks would have to be paid for. These things alone could save the Federal Government and taxpayers 20B$ a year. 

Glad to see Representative Ryan and Representative Van Hollen (Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) working together. Hopefully their roles will be reversed in the next Congress, which is a different debate. Actually, working together on something because they've already proven that they are great at taking the opposite position. So to see them actually work together, shows that there's hope for bi partisanship in Congress and that it isn't dead yet.

Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: The Welfare State (1980)'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Milton Friedman documentary about the welfare state.

"Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman"

From Commonsense Capitalism

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government, because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. 

No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival.   

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)

NFL Network: NFL 1972- America's game: 1972 Miami Dolphins

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins FB Larry Czonka.

Source:The Daily Post 

"NFL America's Game Super Bowl 7 Champions 1972 Dolphins." 

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins DT Manny Fernandez.

From David Stronach

What's the definition of perfect?  I guess it's someone or something that lacks weakness and doesn't make mistakes.  That's an impossible accomplishment, especially when we are talking about human beings. If we were perfect, what would be the point of living?  We've accomplished everything and therefore can't learn anything else because we are perfect.  I guess we could show the world what we know and spread our perfection around so to speak. Hey, look at me, I'm perfect, be like me.  This is all nonsense.

None of is perfect and I wouldn't have it any other way, because we learn whether we are intelligent by making mistakes. The 1972 Miami Dolphins were not perfect, but they did have a perfect record.  They played 17 games and won 17 and, when it comes to sports, that's the best you can do. But they didn't have a perfect team, they just made fewer mistakes then anyone else in the NFL in 1972 and had a perfect record.  They played the best as a team that season, so much better that they went undefeated, and they did this by being the best team.

They didn't have the best talent.  I would argue that the team they beat in the 1972 AFC Final, the Oakland Raider, had better talent and a better team even though they lost 2-3 games that year and the Dolphins lost none.  I would also argue that the Washington Redskins, the team they beat in Super Bowl 7, had better talent and a better team as well.  If their quarterback, Sonny Jurgenson, who's one of the best QB ever and in the Hall of Fame (a better QB than the Dolphins' QB Bob Griese, who's also in the Hall of Fame) had been healthy and played in that Super Bowl, I believe the Redskins would have won, but of course we'll never know.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins were exactly what a great team should look like. They understood what kind of team they had, the type of talent they had, and the type of players. They didn't win because of the overwhelming talent they had, not including their Head Coach Don Shula. 

The Dolphins had five Hall of Famers from all on offense, except for MLB Nick Bonoconti. QB Bob Griese, FB Larry Csonka, WR Paul Warfield, and OG Larry Little. They ran a Power Ball Control Offense that ran the ball about 70% of the time. Their No Name Defense was exactly that.  Most of the players on that defense weren't known outside South Florida very well until they won that Super Bowl.  Perhaps not that many people in South Florida were familiar with the No Name Defense, but they were all very good players, defensive tackle Manny Fernandez, middle linebacker Nick Bonoconti, safety Larry Anderson, and others. 

Head coach Don Shula knew what type of team he had in 1972, that they weren't going to blow teams away with their talent and had to beat teams as a team, run the ball well, and run the ball a lot, Bob Griese hitting key passes off of play action, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense, stuff the run, attack the QB, and get a few takeaways. 

The 1972 Dolphins, the team with the perfect record, won because Don Shula knew exactly what type of team he had, what type of system to have, and how to utilize his players to get their best performance and execution every week for all 17 weeks. And he had the players who understood that if they made 1972 about themselves rather than the team, they were going to fail and maybe even not make the playoffs. But together as a team, with every player and coach understanding their role the best that they could and playing their part, they would be champions.

The Federalist Society: 'Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring'

Source:The Federalist Society- holding an event about the Arab Spring, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

"The Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group hosted this panel on "Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring" on Saturday, November 12, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention.

Environmental Law: Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring

10:45 a.m. -- 12:15 p.m.

State Room - Overflow: Senate Room

--Mr. Hernando de Soto, President, Institute for Liberty and Democracy

--Prof. Steven J. Eagle, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

--Prof. John D. Echeverria, Professor of Law and Acting Director Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School

--Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law

--Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit... 

From The Federalist Society

Property rights are essential in a democracy, especially in a liberal democracy, because it's one way people can limit the power of government, because they have property and they can limit what government can do to them. 

In America government has to have permission under law and the U.S. Constitution to enter or take property from individuals. Without property rights the State would essentially own everything. Even the Communist Republic of Cuba has now recognized the need for property rights in a functioning society. 

Jeremy Arendt: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: 'The Tyranny of Control (1980)'

Source:Jeremy Arendt- Donald Rumseld: former U.S. Representative (Republican, Illinois) and Secretary of Defense (President Gearld R. Ford) 

"Government planning and detailed control of economic activity lessens productive innovation, and consumer choice. Good, better, best, are replaced by "approved" or "authorized." Friedman shows how "established" industries or methods, seek government protection or subsidization in their attempts to stop or limit product improvements which they don't control. Friedman visits India, Japan and U.S."

From Jeremy Arendt

If you look at the Federal Government in America and its size post-World War II, we've generally spent around 20% of our GDP on the public sector. Defense, law enforcement, foreign affairs, social welfare, etc. 

And then you add state and local governments, government total in America at all three levels have spent around 30-35 of our GDP on the public sector. 

And then you go to the Federal, or national government's in Europe, except for the United Kingdom, which basically has basically unitarian government without much if any provincial or local governments, they generally spend around 50-60% of their GDP on their public sectors. And thats just as their national level. 

So the the role of government has gotten bigger in America than it was before the Great Depression, but if you're someone who believes in individual freedom and freedom of choice, which I do, I still rather live in America, than anywhere else even in the developed world.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

John Boehner: 'GOP Highlights American Energy Production & Infrastructure Jobs Bill'

Source:Speaker of the House John Boehner- and company talking about their jobs bill.

"At a press conference, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA), Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) and Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) announced that House Republicans will soon unveil legislation -- the American Jobs & Infrastructure Act -- linking expanded American energy production to high-priority infrastructure projects." 

From John Boehner

Yesterday the House Republican Leadership introduced their first serious jobs bill in this Congress. Introducing an energy and infrastructure investment plan that has bipartisan support in the House. That would open more parts of the country to energy production including, oil production. And use the revenue thats collected from that through leases to pay for infrastructure investment. So we would be able to put more people to work in the oil and gas industry as well as construction workers in the construction industry. 

Now, I would expand this plan to include other energy sectors, natural Gas, electricity, nuclear power, solar, wind put everything on the table. Not pick winners and losers and use the lease revenue from these energy sectors, to pay for infrastructure investment in the short-term, but also create a National Infrastructure Bank to fund our infrastructure investment for the long-term, which would also help our manufacturing industry in the short and long-term as well. Because of the equipment that it would take to do all of this work. 

But this plan that the House GOP Leadership introduced Thursday, is a good first step. And something that should be considered by the Democratic Senate and White House. And at least House Republicans are finally taking the need for infrastructure investment in America seriously and even proposing their own plan. Perhaps they are hearing this from their constituents and perhaps even construction company's in their own House districts, that there's a lot of work to do here and we would like to be hired to do this work. 

Forbes Magazine: Jim Yong Kim- 'The Next Phase of Health Care Reform: Providing Low Cost, High Quality Medical Care'

Source:Forbes Magazine- Jim Yong Kim: President of Dartmouth College.

"To save costs, we need to fix the delivery system says Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim.  And he's got a plan to do just that." 

From Forbes Magazine

The 2010 Affordable Care Act wasn't about healthcare reform in general, but about health insurance expansion. And regulating the private health insurance industry with a Patients Bill of Rights. And these things will help bring down our healthcare costs with everybody contributing to their own healthcare costs. As well as some reforms in Medicare and some other reforms in Medicaid. Which were less positive because it made millions of more people eligible for Medicaid. But without paying for it leaving the bill to the states which they aren't going to like. 

So the first round of healthcare reform (as I call it) was about health insurance expansion and regulation. Not so much about bringing down our long term healthcare costs. And that gets to things like expanding healthcare, more hospitals and clinics, taking better care of ourselves as a country, so we don't have to consume as much healthcare in the future and only getting Healthcare that we actually need to stay healthy and survive. And discourage things that are more on the luxury side of healthcare, like certain plastic surgery's, massages, that sort of thing. 

The Federalist Society: 'A Federal Sunset Law'

Source:The Federalist Society- Professor William Eskridge: Yale Law School.

"In the years since the New Deal and the Great Society, a huge number of federal statutes have been enacted into law and have become permanent fixtures of American life.  Repealing these statutes is politically impossible because one needs a majority of the House of Representatives, sixty votes in the Senate, and the President's signature to repeal a law.  The cumbersome mechanisms of bicameralism, the Senate filibuster, and the President's veto, which were meant to ensure limited government, now serve the wholly different purpose of entrenching big government by making federal laws immortal.  This panel will consider whether Congress should pass a general federal sunset law that would require that most federal statutes sunset after ten or twenty years unless they are re-enacted by the two Houses of Congress together with the President.  Arguably, such a law would return us to the Framers' vision where small government was entrenched instead of big government being entrenched.  Many states have adopted sunset laws, and maybe now it is time for the federal government to follow their good example.  Thomas Jefferson once proposed that even the Constitution itself should sunset every 20 years -- an idea that James Madison wisely rejected.  But even if the Constitution ought not to sunset and even if a few landmark laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ought not to sunset, surely most federal laws ought to be periodically in need of being reenacted.  This panel will examine that question.This panel was featured as Showcase Panel IV at the 2011 National Lawyers Convention on November 12, 2011." 

From The Federalist Society

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) deliberately designed a governmental system and Federal Government to make it difficult for them to pass laws. And more difficult to make the Federal Government more powerful and intrusive, with things like the the three co-equal branches, executive, that carries out laws and can propose them. 

Congress that writes laws and oversees the other two branches including themselves. The Judicial Branch that obviously decides cases in the criminal and civil justice system. And sometimes passes on cases as well as ruling on the constitutionality of laws that the executive and legislative passes. And of course forcing the executive and legislative branches to work together to pass new laws. 

This is what checks and balances are about to make it difficult to pass laws and even harder to pass laws. Because even if one party controls both the White House and Congress, if the opposition party has enough Senate seats, they can block legislation that the Senate majority party is trying to pass. And even if one party controls both the Administration and Congress, to amend our Constitution, that takes a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, as well as 67 states to pass and amend the Constitution. 

James Michi: 'Glenn Beck-Ben Franklin Health Care'

Source:James Michi- Glenn Beck talking about Ben Franklin.

"Ben Franklin and Health care was not ever around government it was all private. its unconstitutional in the eyes of our founding fathers! gov must get out of health care  NOW!" 

From James Michi

Glen Beck using Ben Franklin to make his case that health care reform at least at the Federal level is unconstitutional, by saying that Ben Franklin's vision of health care was to raise private money to build hospitals. And apparently thats all it takes to give people more health care in America. And that government at least not the Federal Government has no role in it. Is interesting but not accurate. 

Another thing that Glen Beck uses to make his case is the U.S. Constitution and says that no where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the Federal Government authority in health care. Not to expand health insurance or expand health care by financing through taxes, community health centers, and other infrastructure, which were part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. 

What Mr. Beck doesn't mention is the Commerce Clause and the Welfare Clause, which clearly gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate interstate commerce, which health care clearly is. So that means the Federal Government can regulate both hospitals and health insurers. 

The Welfare Clause gives the Federal Government the authority to look after the welfare of its citizens. Which means things like Unemployment Insurance and Medicaid are constitutional, to help people to are out-of-work, get by while they are looking for another job, health insurance for people who can't afford it who live in poverty. 

I'm not making these points as someone who''s a believer in Big Government, because I'm not. Just to say that just because you disagree with something, doesn't mean exactly its unconstitutional, it just might be a bad idea instead. I don't disagree with aspects of the New Deal and Great Society, because I believe they are unconstitutional, but I disagree with how they were set up and managed. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Are Medical Costs Controllable (1994)?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Dr. Charles Sanders, participating in this Firing Line debate.

"Episode S0999, Recorded on January 26, 1994. Guests: Richard Janeway, J. Ward Kurad, Charles A. Sanders. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Yes!, is our guests' resounding answer to the title question--and without

unmaking what is generally agreed to be the world's finest health-care system (CS: "One

of the best things about the Canadian system is the proximity to the U.S."). Drs. Sanders

and Janeway emphasize portability (the ability to retain your medical insurance if you

change jobs) and insurance for catastrophic illness--which, says Dr. Janeway, could be

taken care of for "not a huge amount of cost to the American public per year." Dr.

Kurad--who was driven out of active practice of his specialty by "the paperwork mill

and the hassles with insurance and Medicare"--tells persuasively what business can do to

cut the red tape." 

From the Hoover Institution 

In 1994, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress (House and Senate) pushed for health care reform and seeing that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance. And two of the areas that they focused on where quality, affordable coverage and controlling medical costs. 

Congressional Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and House Minority Leader Bob Michael, strongly opposed the so-called Clinton Care approach to health care reform which would mean more government involvement in the health care system. And this is what the Firing Line debate is essentially about.  

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)

20th Century Vision: 'PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Report Iowa Caucus 1988'

Source:20th Century Vision- PBS News anchor Jim Lehrer, David Gergen, and Mark Shields, talking about the 1988 Iowa Caucus.

"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, Between the Lions, 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 

"PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Report Iowa Caucus 1988" 

From 20th Century Vision

When then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole was running for President back in 1987-88, he won the Iowa Caucus, beating both Vice President George H. Bush, who was considered the establishment candidate, as well as beating Reverend Pat Robertson who was the Christian-Conservative candidate. That made the 1988 Republican primary race for President a two-candidate field between Minority Leader Dole and Vice President Bush, giving each candidate a target to shoot at. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich- 'Where is The GOP Headed (1984)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

"Episode S0627, Recorded on December 6, 1984

Guests: Newt Gingrich, Bill Green. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Gingrich was already a leader of the conservative wing of the GOP, and Mr. Green was prominent among the remnant of "Rockefeller Republicans." Ronald Reagan having just become, barring the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, a lame duck, Mr. Buckley asks his guests to focus on "the future of the Republican Party post Reagan." They do so more in terms of programs and philosophy than of personalities, in a crisp exchange. Mr. Green, for example, defends the Federal Government's public-housing program: when it was begun "fully half of the housing in this country either lacked indoor plumbing or was so run down it was a real threat to the life and health of the people... Now, as we've gotten to the point where the housing in this country is much better, a much better case can be made for something like the housing voucher ..." Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand, sees modern liberalism as still "find[ing] it very hard to believe that average people can do anything for themselves, and so they have a tendency to provide more and more professional help, which somehow doesn't help you." 

From the Hoover Institution 

This photo is from another video of Representative Newt Gingrich’s 1984 appearance on Firing Line With William F. Buckley. But that video where this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

By 1985 the Republican Party was doing as well as it ever had perhaps in the entire 20th Century. With President Reagan just being reelected in a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. And Senate Republicans retaining control of the Senate and electing Bob Dole as their Leader. 

And House Republicans while still in the House minority, but with 190 or so seats, giving them a chance to win control of the House in 1986 and make Bob Michael who was the Minority Leader, the next Speaker of the House. 

The Republican Party had Ron Reagan as President, Bob Dole as Senate Leader and Bob Michael as their Leader in the House. With a popular President the Republican Party was probably at their height of power in 1985. 

What this interview with Representative Newt Gingrich in 1984 was about, was where was the Republican Party headed in the next 2-4 years and perhaps after President Ronald Reagan. With Newt Gingrich being one of the Republican visionaries in Congress and the broader Republican Party.  

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)

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: 'The Role of Liberals in the Republican Party'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R, Maryland) in 1978.

"Episode S0313, Recorded on March 16, 1978

Guest: Charles McC. (Charles McCurdy) Mathias

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

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (Republican, Maryland) appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in March of 1978. But the video from where this photo came from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line- U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: Republican, Maryland: on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1977.

"The role of Liberals in the GOP." Originally from Firing Line With William F. Buckley.

Sen. Charles Mathias who was a Republican Senator from the great State of Maryland from 1969-87. And before that a Representative from the great State of Maryland from 1963-69. For a total of twenty-four years in Congress (and yes, I’m familiar Maryland political history) probably should’ve been a Democrat all along.

Which is why Senate Leader Bob Byrd or his deputies in 1978, tried to recruit Senator Mathias to run for reelection as a Democrat in 1980. Because Sen. Mathias supported things like the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978, civil rights in the 1960s and I’m sure several other things and probably voted with President Jimmy Carter as much or more.

Then Senator Mathias voted against President Carter and may have voted against President Reagan as much as he voted with him. Jimmy Carter and Ron Reagan being extremely different politically and both fit in well with their parties.

Senator Mathias was a Liberal Republican (if there is such a thing) from again the great State of Maryland. A very liberal Democratic state where the voter registration is something like 70% Democratic. To get elected as a Republican in the State of Maryland, especially statewide. Senator Mathias had to vote Democratic. Or at least vote with Senate Democrats enough to seem liberal enough to Marylanders to get reelected.

Moderate Republicans or people who I would call classical Conservative Republicans can get elected and reelected in the Republican Party. Because they vote republican on economic policy. 

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)

World Ahead Publishing: Kasey S. Pipes- 'Dwight Eisenhower, Not Lyndon Johnson, Was First Civil Rights Champ'

Source:World Ahead Publishing- Little Rock, Arkansas, is literally one of the first battles of the American civil rights movement.

"Kasey Pipes, author of "Ike's Final Battle: The Road to Little Rock and the Challenge of Equality," describes how Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower -- not LBJ, as liberals often claim -- was America's first civil rights president." 

From World Ahead Publishing 

Dwight Eisenhower was the first American civil rights President, at least post-Abraham Lincoln. The only thing I would add to that is that he didn’t run for President to be that, but it sort of hit his desk with the school segregation issues that hit the American South in the 1950s with President Eisenhower believing he needed to act on that.

Source:Dwight Eisenhower Presidential Library- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Kansas) meeting with Dr. Martin L. King and other American civil rights leaders, probably in the 1950s.

Dwight Eisenhower, was not the first President to come out in favor of civil rights or human rights for everyone in America. Abraham Lincoln deserves the credit for that for the Civil War that ended slavery and freed the African slaves. And Harry Truman allowed soldiers of different races to serve together with an executive order in I believe in 1945. 

What President Dwight Eisenhower deserves credit for and I believe its accurately reported in his presidential legacy, was enforcing rule of law in America for all the people. Rule of law as a Progressive Republican, is something that Dwight Eisenhower believed in deeply and I believe he picked that up in the military. If Rule of law is not properly enforced, then rules and laws become meaningless.

Ike Eisenhower, saw his job as President to enforce rule of law. Something he did very well as President, with enforcing all of those U.S. Supreme Court decisions that allowed students of different races to go to school together and sending the Army into Little Rock, Arkansas to make sure the Governor of Arkansas allowed those African-American students go to school with the Caucasian- American students there at Central High School in Little Rock. 

And these types of decisions not just enforcing laws that you agree with, but enforcing all laws which is what rule of law is about, would not play well today with the Far-Right of the Republican Party. Which is one reason why I believe Ike Eisenhower wouldn’t be able to get the Republican nomination for president today, because he was a Center-Right, Progressive Republican, who not only believe in the Constitution, but equal rights and constitutional rights for all Americans. 

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)

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Two Friends Talk: Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1990. 

"Episode S0873, Recorded on October 11, 1990. Guest: Ronald Reagan. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are no fireworks at this meeting of two old friends, but there is broad and deep discussion of the world and how Mr. Reagan may have changed it. WFB: "Conceivably, might there be USSR-American cooperation in developing SDI?" RR: "Well... I have told [Gorbachev] that I would advocate making that information open to the world ... in return for all of us destroying our nuclear weapons. But I said the reason for having it is- I used the example of World War I. I said all the nations of World War I met and outlawed poison gas, but we all kept our gats masks. I said, Who can say that down the way somewhere there won't be another Hitler, there won't be another madman that could use the knowledge of how to make weapons and blackmail the earth?" 

From the Hoover Institution 

“Two Friends Talk: Reagan and Buckley”

Source:Guy John- “2/7/1986 President Reagan with William F Buckley in the White House Residence during Private birthday party in honor of President Reagan’s 75th Birthday”

From Guy John 

“William F. Buckley was a public intellectual, commentator, and founder of National Review, the magazine that arguably launched the modern conservative movement as we know it today. Would there even be a conservative movement without Buckley’s leadership?

And if so, is he responsible for the Trumpist turn Republican Party has taken? Does Buckley bear some blame for the direction in which conservatism has developed?” 

From the Niskanen Center

It’s good to see Ron Reagan together with Bill Buckley. As far as I’m concern two of the fathers of the modern classical conservative movement. Who both had a role in making that movement national starting in the mid 1960s. With Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign that went a long way in putting classical conservatism on the map in American politics, because of the states that Senator Goldwater was able to reached. Winning Southern states that up until 1964, the Democratic Party had owned and Senator Goldwater was able to win a few of them. And of course Richard Nixon was able to win a lot of Southern states in 1968 as he was elected president. 

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)

Reagan Foundation: 'State of the Union: President Reagan's State of the Union Speech - 1/26/82'

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) giving the 1982 State of the Union address.

"President Reagan's State of the Union Speech - 1/26/82. For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation ." 

From the Reagan Foundation 

This photo is from the 1982 State of the Union speech that President Reagan delivered to that joint session of Congress, with Vice President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Texas) and Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neal (Democrat, Massachusetts) behind the President. But the video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now. 

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) giving the 1982 State of the Union address.

If you listen to President Reagan’s 1982 State of the Union Speech and then listen to President Obama’s 2009, or 2010 State of the Union speeches, they are similar at least in this sense: "Times are tough, we passed a program to deal with the bad economy. Things are improving a little bit and had we not passed our program, things would be worse had we not done anything.” Same thing was said in 1982 from President Reagan and President Obama said the same thing in 2010. Because the situation was similar, an awful recession and high unemployment in both cases.

The country probably wasn’t buying either speech that much, because President Reagan’s Republican Party dropped thirty plus seats in the House in 1982. And I don’t know how they managed hang on to the Senate. (Maybe that’s a future post) And President Obama’s Democratic Party dropped sixty-two seats in the House in 2010. 

Both Presidents inherited awful economy’s big reason why they were elected President. The economy’s so bad that it wasn’t until late 1983, that the economy began to take off again. With high economic growth and a falling unemployment rate. A big reason why President Reagan was reelected in a landslide.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Freedom vs. Fairness (1980)'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- Professor Milton Friedman, on the Phil Donahue Show in 1980.

"Milton Friedman discusses freedom vs. fairness. From: Donahue - 1980"

From Wide World of Wisdom 

Milton Friedman has a point when he talks about freedom vs. fairness, when he says he’s not for fairness, but for freedom. Give people the freedom to live their own lives and resources to make that happen for them. 

I believe what Professor Friedman is talking about here, is justice, which is not the same thing. In a true just or free society, the people have the right and ability to take out of society what they put into it. That not everyone is entitled to a successful, rich life, just the people who are successful, who've done well for themselves and society. 

Unlike the socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) definition of economic fairness or justice, that everyone in society is entitled to live well, simply for being alive. Regardless of what they produce for themselves or society, if anything.  

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)

James Miller Center: President Ronald Reagan- 'Address on Tax and Budget Legislation August 16, 1982'

Source:James Miller Center- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) Borrow and Spender.

"In this address, President Reagan speaks about the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 or TEFRA and discounts claims that this is "the largest single tax increase in history," stressing that one-third of the increased tax revenue will come from those evading taxes. This legislation represents a departure from the 1981 tax cuts, although Reagan notes it resulted from a difficult compromise."

From the James Miller Center

In the late 1970s 1978 or 79, Republican Senator Bill Roth who was on the Senate Finance Committee and Republican Representative Jack Kemp, over in the House, together introduced the Kemp-Roth bill in the House and Senate. Which was deep tax cuts across the board. 

Supply side tax cuts, meaning there weren’t budget cuts to pay for them. neither Member of Congress was the Chairman, or Ranking Member of their committees. They were also Conservative Republicans serving in a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President. So they both knew that their legislation wouldn’t pass, at least in that Congress.

Kemp-Roth was about the 1980 general election, hoping of course Ronald Reagan is elected President and that Republicans pick up a lot of seats in Congress and even take over the House, or Senate, or both. 

Congressional Republicans picked up a bunch of seats in the 1978 mid-term elections, especially in the House. But they had a long way to go going and Democrats kept control of Congress for 1979-81. But Kemp-Roth help set the stage for the 1980 general elections with high taxes becoming unpopular across the country. With a very weak economy with high unemployment, the recession of 1979-80 and everything else. And Ron Reagan knew this and made Kemp-Roth part of his 1980 presidential campaign.

Ron Reagan becomes President of the United States in a landslide in 1980, Senate Republicans take control of the Senate pick up thirty seats in the House. President Reagan is pretty popular from the beginning, the assassination attempt in 1981 actually helped in a sense. Because his approval rating went up. Senate Republicans had the votes in the Senate, the question was whether they can pass Kemp-Roth in the Democratic House. Which was controlled by Speaker Tip O’Neil who was a very Progressive Democrat (to put it mildly) and didn’t believe in tax cuts. 

The thing that the Reagan Economic Recovery Plan is that the economy goes back into recession in 1982. The Federal Reserve wanted to wipe out inflation and high interest rates, before it did anything else. It wasn't until interest rates and inflation were finally under control by 1984, that the American economy finally took off. And I'm sure the Reagan tax cuts had some impact on the recovery, once inflation and the high interest rates were no longer a major factor in the economy. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.