American Enterprise Institute: Welfare Reform- Why? (1976)

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Paul MacAvoy: member of President Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers. 

Source:The New Democrat

"May 20, 1976: This AEI Round Table brings together four experts to discuss whether major modifications are needed in the American public welfare system. Why have welfare costs skyrocketed in recent years? Do these rising costs prove that our welfare machinery is defective? Are there more efficient and more equitable ways to provide for the nation's poor? Can our present programs be improved by minor changes or is a sweeping overhaul required? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the negative income tax? And can proposals to reform our welfare system win political acceptance?

Panelists:

Wilbur J. Cohen — dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan

Barber Conable, Jr. — Representative (R-New York)

Paul MacAvoy — a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers

Abraham Ribicoff — Senator (D-Connecticut)

Moderator:

Robert Bork — solicitor general of the United States

Host:

Peter Hackes"

From American Enterprise Institute

This is the perfect debate that we should be having now today especially when we now have Socialists and socialism on the rise in America in and outside of the Democratic Party, who believe that people shouldn't be forced to work and not just that, but that we should even pay people ( meaning taxpayers ) to not work and pay them well if they choose not to work. Even if they simply don't want to work and would refer to stay home and collect a public assistance check. When what we should be doing instead is not just encouraging low-income and low-skilled Americans to not just work, but get a good education so they can get themselves a good job and not need any type of public assistance at all to pay their bills.

I'll give you just one example of why Progressive is different from Socialist and why Progressives are different from Socialists, and why progressivism is different from socialism, even though there are many of examples of why these two ideological factions are different. And they're not the same political faction with just two different labels. That Conservative is actually different from Libertarian, Theocrat, and Nationalist. And that Progressive is different from Socialist and Communist.

Welfare and poverty in general are the perfect issues to talk about when you're talking about what it means to be a Progressive, because if you're actually a Progressive you believe not just in progress, but creating progress through government action. So if you have a large population of poor people in your country and have a lot of poverty and you're a Progressive, you want to see some progress there. You want poverty to go down dramatically assuming you can't actually eliminate it altogether. Instead of having people in poverty with a public assistance check and other public assistance checks which was the system before the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, you want to actually move people out of poverty and no longer be eligible of public assistance, simply because they make too much money and no longer live in poverty.

I'm not saying that solving the poverty issue in America is easy because if it were it would've solved in the 1960s and we no longer have 1-5 Americans who are eligible for public assistance whether they're working or not. But if we empower not just encourage, but empower low-income Americans to not just work, but to go to school and finish or further their education and even help them get themselves a good job after they now have the skills to get themselves a good job, you'll see poverty go down in America, because you'll now have a well-skilled workforce in your country and there would be no reasons for people to live in poverty, other than that they're lazy or perhaps just irresponsible and simply don't want a good education and a good job. But those people we shouldn't be subsidizing as taxpayers anyway and instead subsidize Americans who don't have what they need right now to live a quality, independent life, but want to be able to do that for themselves.

For people who view themselves as fiscal Conservatives, ( which seems to be a dying breed in Washington right now: fiscal Conservatives ) who are concern about the budget deficit and national debt, you should  be interested in not just welfare reform and welfare to work, because with a lower and low poverty rate in America, you would not just have more people working in America, but more people paying income and payroll taxes and fewer people collecting public assistance. And a lesser need for people to not just work to take care of themselves and their families, but to also subsidize people who either don't work, or work but don't earn enough money to take care of themselves and their families.

Today, we have a budget deficit and national debt that are too big, but we have an economic deficit as well that's part of the income gap in the country where we have too many people who are simply too poor to be able to support themselves in this country and as a result are dependent on both private and  public charity, and being able to work multiple jobs ( if they're working at all ) in order to support themselves.

These are all reasons why we should not only encouraging people who are physically capable of working at all, but going back to school and getting themselves a good jobs. These are all things that we can do with the current public assistance system in this country. Which would be great for our economy have 50-60 million more Americans with good skills and good jobs in this country. But long-term would also be much better for our fiscal outlook. But the best thing of all would be to have all of these people who now have good skills and good jobs.

Commentary Magazine: Abe Greenwald: 'Our Socialist Socialites'

Source:Commentary Magazine- The Democratic Socialists, as well as Hipsters of America, LOL!

Source:The New Democrat

"If there’s confusion about what socialism means in today’s America it should be cleared up by Simon van Zuylen-Wood’s recent article on the hip socialists of New York City. Socialism is mostly a scene—a loosely organized assemblage of youngish people who are connected by a shared aesthetic. That’s pretty much it."

Source:Commentary Magazine

"Provided to YouTube by The Orchard Enterprises

Socialist Socialite · Tricks & Sleeves

Locked out of Space"

Source:Tricks & Sleeves- Hum, I'm seeing a tiger on The Moon: now I know I'm high. LOL

From Tricks & Sleeves

It's not everyday that I agree with anything that is written by Commentary Magazine, except when they're critiquing both the Far-Left and Far-Right in America which is what they do along with National Review as two of the last of the great Center-Right publications in America, along with The Wall Street Journal and a few others. The reason why I'm on the Commentary email list is to see articles like this where Abe Greenwald compares the modern socialist movement in America with a social movement, I want to thank God ( even though I'm Agnostic ) for Commentary.

Source:Real Clear Politics- Yeah, right!!! LOL 

Comparing Socialists with Socialites especially younger Socialists is brilliant, because socialism ( however you define it ) is not just a political movement, but it's a social movement. And I mean social in the sense about people socializing with each other. not socializing businesses ( necessarily ) but people getting together for not just a common purpose, but getting together because they have a lot of things in common.

Source:Science Matters- Welcome to the modern New-Left 

And I'll give a great example of that: I'm paraphrasing and even rephrasing here, but it's the old expression that you're socialist when you're younger and somewhat naive, but as you get older and enter the real world in your career and you settle down, you get married, you have kids you become much more conservative ( in the classic and real sense ) especially with your own money and realize that those high tax rates that you were advocating for and even demonstrating for in your 20s, might not seem so groovy or awesome anymore ( depending on your era but now seem far out or far-left, pun intended ) and seem like they're too much.

And you realize that capitalism, is pretty damn good and is the reason why you have the good job that you have today, are able to own your own home, don't have to rely on the government for your news and information, are able to socialize and assemble with whoever you want, whenever you want, without fear of being locked up simply because of who you're socializing with, can afford to have and raise kids now, etc.

That we all grow up as a country as we enter our mid 30s and get even older and realize we all have bills to pay and if we don't want to be dependent on government or pay high tax rates for our economic survival, we not only have to work hard, but need to be very productive and good at our jobs. And the way to do these things is through the capitalist, private enterprise, liberal democratic order and world. Not by trying to overthrow the current government either through democratic or revolutionary means.

Whether it was the Hippies from the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s or what was Occupy Wall Street from 2011-12, to the Bernie Sanders Movement of today, or the Beatniks from the Silent Generation from the 1950s we've always had at least since the 50s a movement of young hipster radicals who are the coolest and hippest people around, as well as the most politically radical as well, at least coming from the Left.

Hipsters who are not only devoted to their political causes ( until they grow up and enter the real world ) but who are dedicated to their social movement and culture and being the coolest person around who is always part of the current hipster wave if not on top of it. Who look down at people who hard for a living and are successful in life and just view them as part of the imperial, fascist capitalist regime. ( I'm a little rusty with my 1960s and 1970s New-Left vocabulary )

Socialism, has never just been a political movement and it's never just been a political movement in America either. The hippest people in America and outside of America are either Socialists or people who pretend to be Socialists, but in real-life are very wealthy and have made a lot of money for themselves who go out-of-their-way to avoid paying high taxes. And I'm thinking of the Jane Fonda's of the world and other so-called Hollywood Leftists who has been independently wealthy at least since the early 70s if not longer from her great career in Hollywood.

So-called Hollywood Leftists and other hipster Socialists have been around forever and just goes to my point that the coolest people around tend to be Socialists, not that they're aren't on hipsters on the Right: Libertarians, are a great example of that, but the coolest people around tend to at least officially view themselves as one type of Socialist or another. But along with Hollywood Leftists I tend to not take them very seriously and have much respect for them with Bernie Sanders and few others being exceptions to that.

Because again for a lot of these people being a Socialist tends to be a phase for them, but also the most left amongst us in America also tend to be the hippest and are in on all the latest trends  and in on all the latest fashion statements and if anything author those statements themselves whether it's clothing, new technology, coffee, marijuana, whatever it might be. All these great things that come from our capitalist, private enterprise system.

So-called hipster leftists are like the environmentalists who drives a SUV, or the animal rights activist who wears leather jackets and other leather clothing: I mean, who do they think there're fooling or even bullshitting. But Socialists have always represented more than just a political movement in America and outside of America and always will.

Federalists vs. Unitarians: The Great Debate About The Role of Government

Source:Slide Player- The first Federalists. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.[2]

From Wikipedia 

“Would I Be a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist” 

Source:Scott Bradley- question for Scott Bradley.

From Scott Bradley

Source:CIMS Cougars- The first Federalists 

Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[3] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation,[4] bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[5]

Leading examples of the federation or federal state include India, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Argentina, and Australia. Some also today characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the federal union of states."

Federalism, is a big part of my own personal politics and how I describe myself politically. I just go with Liberal or a Liberal Democrat as someone who believes in liberal democracy, ( not the Democratic Party, necessarily ) but someone who believes in individual rights, limited government, separation of powers, decentralization of authority, equal rights and justice: the values that comes from a liberal democracy. I like the term Liberal-Federalist as someone who believes in liberal democracy, as well as the three levels of government: Federal, state and local, but who also believes in liberal democracy and again the individual and equal rights that comes from a liberal democratic federal republic.

From Wikipedia

"A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme. The central government may create (or abolish) administrative divisions (sub-national units).[1] Such units exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail (or expand) their powers. A large majority of the world's states (165 of the 193 UN member states) have a unitary system of government.[2]

Unitary states stand in contrast with federations, also known as federal states. In federations, the sub-national governments share powers with the central government as equal actors through a written constitution, to which the consent of both is required to make amendments. This means that the sub-national units have a right of existence and powers that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government.[3]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a degree of autonomous devolved power, but such power is delegated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which may enact laws unilaterally altering or abolishing devolution (England does not have any devolved power).[4] Many unitary states have no areas possessing a degree of autonomy.[5] In such countries, sub-national regions cannot decide their own laws. Examples are Romania, the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway."

A Unitarian state or Unitarianism ( not the religion, but governmental philosophy ) is the opposite of the federal republic. In a Unitarian government governmental power and in some cases like in a Communist state or Theocratic state, most power governmental and otherwise is centralized with the national government. And in some cases you might have a Unitarian state where you have state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, but where the head of state appoints the people to run the state and local government's.

The Russian Federation today which under their own Constitution is supposed to be a federal republic, but under the Putin Administration they now operate as a Unitarian authoritarian state where President Vladimir Putin is responsible for appointing the governor's of their republics, ( what Russia calls states ) instead of allowing the people in those republics to elect their own leaders. And every Communist state that you will be set up where the national government has most of the power and appoints the people to run the state and local government's, The People's Republic of China, is a perfect example of that.

But a Unitarian state isn't necessarily an authoritarian government. There are social democratic, as well as authoritarian Unitarian states around the world. The United Kingdom, which is one of the great democracies, as well as social democracies in the world is a Unitarian state. In recent years they've delegated more authority to their what we would call state government's. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Kingdom of Sweden, which is also a great social democracy is a Unitarian state. The same thing with the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and I could go on. See, like with Federalists and federalism where you don't have to be a Liberal or Conservative to believe in it, you don't have to be an authoritarian or democrat to believe in Unitarianism. You don't have to be Left or right either. It's just about what type of government you believe in and what's the role of the national government in your country that you want for it.

Scott Bradley: A Law For Everything?

Source:Scott Bradley- Not in a free society?

"A Law for Everything?"

From Scott Bradley

Source:The New Democrat

I actually like this piece from Scott Bradley and I don't mean to be insulting here, but I had him pegged as someone who was more of a Christian-Conservative and not just that but a Christian-Theocrat or Christian-Nationalist who did believe that it was the role of government to not just legislate morality, but to legislate and enforce laws based on fundamentalist religious scripture. So things like alcohol and premarital sex, adultery, along with homosexuality and gambling would all be illegal in a theocracy and that form of government.

But what Bradley is doing here instead is saying that something might be wrong or immoral and not God's will, but doesn't mean it should automatically be illegal. Alcohol is obviously bad for people especially if it's abused, but that alone doesn't mean it should be illegal. And the same thing with gambling, adultery, to use as examples. There's nothing necessarily wrong with premarital sex, but it does violate some people's religious beliefs, but that alone doesn't mean it should be illegal. Which I guess is what Scott Bradley's point would be here.

The great political humorist P.J. O'Rourke once said that he's very socially conservative in the sense as far as how he lives, but he doesn't believe that government should force everyone to live like him, just because his own personal lifestyle is pretty conservative. Me personally, I don't drink alcohol let alone smoke tobacco and I don't gamble, but I would never want government to force other people to make the same decisions that I've made here, especially since they're not hurting anyone else simply by having a drink or smoking a cigarette or gambling their paycheck.

I believe if you're going to have to free society there are certain things and activities that government simply has to put up with in order to protect the freedoms of that society. Including behavior and activities that come with real risk that I've already mentioned and even more like marijuana and even prostitution and pornography. And that government should come in when people are hurting innocent people with the choices that they're making. It's not a question of whether government should legislate morality or not since that question is already moot anyway. But the real question is to what extent and I want government to protract me and every other innocent person from predators, but not try to protect us from ourselves; Which is where I come down as a Liberal.