The Atlantic: Alex Roarty- 'Can This Congress Be Saved?'

Source:The Atlantic- "President Barack Obama is applauded as he gives his State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday Feb. 12, 2013. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)NATIONAL JOURNAL." An inside look at one of the most expensive, inefficient, and overpaid institutions in the world: the United States Congress. But we only have the Americans voters to blame for that.

"Much of America prays Dan Boren is wrong. Parents worried about the threat of gun violence certainly hope he is. So do the roughly 11 million people who immigrated to America illegally and the deficit hawks who demand a grand budget bargain.

These men and women are depending on Washington, Republicans and Democrats, to come together and reach an agreement on the national agenda: gun violence, immigration, and the budget. But Boren, a retired House member from Oklahoma, doubts they'll end up satisfied. It's why he left Capitol Hill last year." 

From The Atlantic

To put it simply: the only way to make the United States Congress work which is still divided between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats controlling the Senate with a bigger majority in this Congress, with the Republicans controlling the House, but with a smaller majority in this Congress, is going to have to come from the people. And they are finally going to have to not just say they don't like the current leadership and system that they are getting from both parties but actually do something about it. 

And this starts at the state level where the people say they are tired of the gerrymandering from both parties. And want more competitive House elections, so Representatives would actually have to run for reelection and not just win the primary to return to Congress. And that we get back to some type of regular order in Congress.

Info Wars: Larry Elder- 'Democrats: The True Racists'

Source:Info Wars- right-wing radio talk show host Larry Elder, calling Democrats the true racists.

"Democrats, The True Racists - HD" Originally from Info Wars, but I guess this video was deleted when YouTube deleted Alex Jones's and company YouTube channels. 

Larry Elder was apparently referring to the Southern Democrats (the Dixiecrats) who were Neo-Confederates (right-wing Southern Nationalists) the whole time that they were in the Democratic Party, up until the point that they left the Democratic Party in the 1970s and 1980s, in opposition of the Democratic Party now being in favor of civil and constitutional right for all Americans. Not just for Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, rural men, who've been in country ever since their ancestors left Britain in the 1600s or so. 

What the Larry Elder''s of the world never mention (probably intentionally) is that the Dixiecrats of the 1950s and 60s, who overwhelmingly opposed the civil rights legislation of that era, are Far-Right Republicans today. 

Strom Thurmond and many others who were Far-Right Democrats in the 1960s and 60s, late became Far-Right Republicans. Senator Thurmond (for example) left the Democratic Party in 1964, over his opposition to the civil rights legislation of that decade, for the Republican Party and died as a Republican in 2002. And there are many other examples like that. 

Library of Congress: 'Thomas Friedman & Michael Mandelbaum: 2012 National Book Festival'

Source:Library of Congress- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

"Thomas Friedman & Michael Mandelbaum appear at the 2012 Library of Congress National Book Festival.

Speaker Biography: Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas L. Friedman writes a syndicated column for The New York Times. His book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" was an international best-seller. He has worked for The Times since 1981 and a year later was appointed Beirut bureau chief, six weeks before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. His column on foreign affairs began in 1995. His 2005 book, "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century," was a No. 1 New York Times best-seller and has sold more than 4 million copies. His new book, the best-seller "That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back," was written with Johns Hopkins University professor Michael Mandelbaum.

Speaker Biography: Michael Mandelbaum is the Christian A. Herter professor and director of the American Foreign Policy program at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He has written 10 books on U.S. foreign policy, and Foreign Policy magazine has called him one of the top 100 Global Thinkers. Mandelbaum is also on the board of directors of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He most recently co-wrote "That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back" with New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman." 

From the Library of Congress

I guess a Patriot or a Nationalist in its best form at least to me is someone who loves their country so much that they don't want to see it fail or do badly. So when things are good, they are the first to praise their country and when things aren't going as well as they should or could be doing. 

A Patriot (let's say) would say: "Look, this is an area where we are lacking and need to make some changes here to make it work as well as we need it to." I believe thats the message of Tom Friedman and Mike Mandelbaum, that they didn't write a book to bash the United States like some Socialist or Jihadist, but they truly love America their country and are seeing a country thats not doing very well right now and want it to do better because they believe it can and has to do better for the sake of the country and for the world. 

I probably don't agree with everything in the Friedman/Mandelbaum plan but at least they have one and are on the right course.

Chicago Tribune: Steve Chapman- 'A Balanced Budget Amendment?'

Source:Chicago Tribune- The U.S. Congress.

"Almost unnoticed in Sen. Marco Rubio's response to the president's State of the Union address was a drastic proposal: amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget every year. Or rather, it would be drastic if it were serious, which it plainly is not.

It's not serious because Republicans are no more determined to balance the budget than Democrats. Mitt Romney's budget blueprint envisioned the elimination of the deficit only in the last year of his second term. And no one really believed it. President Obama is even less ambitious.

If the amendment would actually force them to balance the budget, they wouldn't be interested. If they were truly interested, the amendment wouldn't be necessary. 

Nor is it clear it would work. States generally require their budgets to be balanced. That hasn't stopped Illinois and many others from making pension commitments that are financially unrealistic -- in effect, getting around the rule by spending future dollars instead of current ones.

The amendment is a cheap gimmick: a way of feigning fiscal responsibility while making none of the hard, politically risky decisions needed to bring it about. Everyone, after all, wants a balanced budget. But hardly anyone in Washington wants to make the spending cuts or enact the tax increases needed to achieve it.

From the Chicago Tribune 

"A balanced budget amendment is a constitutional rule requiring that a state cannot spend more than its income. It requires a balance between the projected receipts and expenditures of the government.

Balanced-budget provisions have been added to the constitutions of most U.S. states, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland, among others. The Republican Party has advocated for the introduction of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Balanced budget amendments are defended with arguments that they reduce deficit spending and constrain politicians in making irresponsible short-term spending decisions when they are in office.[1] Research shows that balanced budget amendments lead to greater fiscal discipline.[2] However, there is substantial agreement among economists that strict balanced budget amendments have harmful economic effects. In times of recession, deficit spending has significant benefits, whereas spending cuts by governments aggravate and lengthen recessions.[3][4][5][6][7][8] To prevent that, most balanced-budget provisions make an exception for times of war, national emergency, or recession, or allow the legislature to suspend the rule by a supermajority vote." 

From Wikipedia 

I could just  rest my case with the piece that Steve Chapman wrote, but I feel it's my duty as a blogger to weigh and explain why he's damn right about this. Actually, I just want to punish my readers with a lot of boring nonsense, so bare with me. LOL

I agree with Steve Chapman that a balanced budget amendment were even to pass and generally when they do, you are looking a ten-year process anyway and you would probably need some so-called progressive (social-democratic, in actuality)) states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont (to use as examples) to go along with this. The Bible Belt states wouldn't be enough. 

But even if a BBA like this were to pass, that wouldn't stop Congress and the executive branch from spending money. Congress by law is required to pass a Federal budget every year, but when was the last time the Senate passed their own budget plan? Whether you like the Republican House, or not and I don't as a Democrat politically and on policy that is, but at least they do their half of the Congressional budget process and have the last two years. 

The Senate will hopefully pass their own budget plan this year, but Congress under law is required to pass a Federal budget every every year. But you don't see members of Congress, House or Senate being arrested for not passing budgets, or appropriations bills. Something they are required to do every year and the same thing would happen even if a BBA were to become the law of the land.

The fact is these are the three things that are keeping the Federal Government from getting their fiscal house in order. And on course for eventually balancing their budget, is a lack of discipline. They can't figure out when they are spending too much, because it's never enough for them. 

Another thing would be priorities, meaning that Congress doesn't have them and the White House is not being much help here. 

The other being courage and leadership that Representatives and Senators are afraid to tell their constituents the real truth about the sixteen-trillion-dollar national debt and 845B$ deficit and that there's a limit to what Congress can for it's people with their money. And that we simply can't fund everything that the government is doing right now and run them the way they are currently being run. 

Money and time is running out and when it does run out, we are going to see high interest rates that we've never seen before. (If and when the Federal Reserve forces Americans to live with real interest and inflation) Which would be largest tax increase we've ever seen in the country with the cost of living going up everywhere.

Once if ever Congress and the Executive Branch get discipline, priorities and leadership, then they'll go where the money is to get our fiscal house and order. Which is, defense, entitlements and the tax code. And an economic plan that leads to economic and job growth and we are still a long way away from seeing any of these things happen. Which is why a balance budget amendment at this point is nothing but a gimmick. 

If the Federal Reserve ever forces real interest rates on the American economy and people, especially with how much the Administration and Congress borrows every year (because they want to continue to lie to their constituents that government services are free and interest rates are low) then American voters will start to give a damn about deficits and debt, because now they'll be forced to live with it because of the real interest rates and inflation because of all the debt and deficits that the U.S. Government has piled on them. 

Once American voters start to care about deficits and debt, then they'll force their members of Congress to care about it and the members who don't, will lose their part-time jobs with full-time pay at taxpayers expense. And at the very least be replaces by members who claim to care about deficits and debt, if only because their constituents care about it. 

Book TV: The Heritage Foundation- Ben Shapiro: 'Bullies- How The Left's Culture of Fear Intimidates & Silences America'

Source:Book TV- Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, speaking to the right-wing political action organization, Heritage Foundation, in Washington.

"Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of Breitbart.com, contends that liberals are guilty of bullying their opposition and creating an environment that discourages political debate.  Ben Shapiro speaks at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C."

From Book TV

Ben Shapiro is lucky to be living in America where he can say whatever he wants to true or otherwise. And demagogue whatever people who he ideologically disagrees with, without having to worry about the truth and can say whatever he wants to, to suit his own political goals which is to make the so called Left ( as if its one group of people who look at politics and current affairs the same way) which tells you what Ben Shapiro knows about the Left, which is what fish know about basketball.

A big problem with American politics today is that the fringes have too much power. They don't really run things as far as government but they have too much influence over the party they are in and are part of. To the point that if the leadership in their party doesn't do what they want them to do, they risk losing power with having to deal with primary challenges and having to spend resources defeating candidates from their own party. Money they are going to need to defeat the other party.

And when it comes to Congress the fringes represent a big enough block in both parties that if they all vote one way, a lot of times it's the difference in passing or defeating a bill. When both parties have to work together to pass legislation and the Far-Right (or Hard-Right, if you prefer) and Far-Left (or Hard-Left, if you prefer) in the Republican and Democratic parties know this and aren't really interesting in governing but destroying the other party: "Why should we work with them when we would be better off politically destroying them." So they say whatever they can come up with to make the other party look bad.

Ben Shapiro is a perfect example of someone in this case on the lets say hard-right ( to be nice ) or overly partisan right who says things just to make the other party look bad. Including putting words in other people's mouth like what he did with President Obama's 2013 inaugural address. The garbage that if you don't believe in gun control, you are not a real Christian. If you don't believe public assistance and the Affordable Care Act you don't care about senior citizens, poor people and women and so-forth. Things that the President has never said. 

I'm afraid unless Ben Shapiro is even more ignorant than I've have given him credit for being so far, he knows better and has chosen to say things that are simply not true about the President of the United States. Of course the hard-left has people who play the same politics about Republicans but this video is about Ben Shapiro.

A fringe is supposed to be a sort of a loony minority of people who see the real world as something that it's not. Which is why they are such a small group of people because the rest of the country simply knows better and is in touch with reality. Thats sort of the long definition of a fringe but the problem with American politics right now is not so much the fringes but the leadership's in both parties who actually take these people seriously. Because they are afraid to standup to them and Ben Shapiro is part of one the fringes in American politics.

Eisenhower Library: 'President Eisenhower's- Civil Rights Legacy'

Source:Eisenhower Presidential Library- a panel discussion on President Dwight D. Eisenhower's (Republican, Texas) legacy on civil rights.

"When civil rights issues are mentioned, most people automatically think of the 1960s. "Eisenhower's Civil Rights Legacy," was held Saturday, Sept. 24, 2011, at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. This program is a reminder that the Eisenhower Administration laid the ground work for much of the 1960s movement."

From the Eisenhower Library

If I had to guess I would say that civil rights was not on the top of Dwight Eisenhower's legacy when he became President of the United States in 1953. And not something where he was going to push civil rights through a Republican Congress that he had in his first two years. And the leader of a party in the Republican Party where civil rights laws probably had more support for than in the Democratic Party. That for the most part except for Lyndon Johnson and a few others (at the time of the Democratic Leader in the Senate) was against civil rights laws, period.

Perhaps the only interest that President Eisenhower had in civil rights had to do with enforcing the newly open military. That included all races and the different races serving together in the U.S. military. That President Truman put through through executive order because he had a Democratic Congress that wouldn't have supported it. 

Not saying that President Eisenhower was a against civil and equal rights even before he became President. but that he had other priorities that he believed were more important like the Korean War and the start of the Cold War with Russia.

Civil rights is something that more came to President Eisenhower desk's rather than he putting it on his desk instead. When the Topeka and Brown V. Board of Education rulings came to him and he had to decide whether he was going to enforce these decisions or not, 

Dwight Eisenhower was definitely not a racist, but a Southerner who did have respect for the Southern States states rights plank, but decided that the nation as a whole was more important. And that as President of the United States, it was his job to enforce all Federal laws even laws that his part of the country disagreed with which is how he backed the Arkansas education case (to use as an example) that allowed for African-Americans to go to school there and not be forced to go to run down schools where only African-Americans attended because they lived in poverty stricken neighborhoods.

Civil rights is a perfect example of Dwight Eisenhower's judicial and governmental conservatism. That laws have to be enforced and you can't pick and choose which laws are enforced whether you agree with them or not. Thats its the job of the Executive to enforce laws and if you don't like those laws. You can always work to repeal then instead of cherry pick which laws you like. And he reminds me a little of Chief Justice John Roberts in that respect.

PBS: U.S. Senator Tim Kaine- 'Introduces The Created Equal Project'

Source:PBS- U.S Senator Tim Kaine (Democrat, Virginia) 

"Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduces the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Created Equal Project. The initiative showcases powerful NEH-funded films, including The Abolitionists, Freedom Riders, and The Loving Story — films that provide a deeper understanding of African American history and the American story."

From PBS

I support public broadcasting as far as the programming they put on as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities and so-forth. Again, as far as the programming they deliver and the fact they support our current affairs and history programming, as well as our arts and education. Through non-profits and I realize these budgets are only around ten-billion-dollars, if that.

But in the time of high national debt and budget deficits, this is not something that taxpayers should be forced to spend money on when we have a sluggish economy that didn't grow at all in the last quarter of 2012. With high unemployment, as well as private debt, that instead we would be better off using that money for deficit reduction, or economic development like in the area of infrastructure investment, or energy, or tax cuts for business's that invest, expand and hire in America. Which is what we should be doing with these resources instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for to support our history, culture and current affairs programming, as well as the arts.

Rand Corporation: Tamara Dubowitz- 'Eliminating Food Deserts'

Source:The Rand Corporation- Scientist Tamara Dubowitz.

"Can building a grocery store in a "food desert" change food purchasing and reduce health disparities in the U.S.? Tamara Dubowitz introduces an innovative new RAND project that may provide answers.

From the Rand Corporation 

We have at least a couple problems as it relates to access to quality food in America. One, is affordability. We simply have too many Americans who don't make enough money to afford enough.

Two, we have have an obesity problem as well however you want to define that problem, where obesity and diabetes are the two fastest growing diseases in America and what makes that problem even worse, is that they are both preventable diseases and they are both adding to the Un-affordability of our healthcare system. Now 18% of GDP, twice as much as the rest of the developed world.

History Comes To Life: President Dwight D. Eisenhower- 1958 State of The Union Address

Source:History Comes To Life- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, address to Congress in 1958.

"Eisenhower State of the Union 1958"

From History Comes To Life

Dwight Eisenhower might be the Republican President I have the most respect for at least in the 20th Century. Abraham Lincoln is the Republican President and perhaps President most of all that I have the most respect for. But President Eisenhower is the Republican President I probably respect most in the TV age. Because he was the real thing and knew exactly who he was, what he wanted to do and what could be done. And perhaps had the best training of any President we've ever had in being the Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II.

Because no other President had a better understanding of both foreign policy and national security. At least before becoming President of The United States than Dwight Eisenhower. And knew exactly what his number one job as President which of course is Commander-in-Chief. So when he gave his speech about the military industrial complex in 1961, the country almost had to take him seriously because he's someone who was a forty year veteran of the Army and had served in two world wars including leading Allied Forces in Europe during World War II.

Another thing that I respect a lot about Dwight Eisenhower even though I'm a Liberal was that President Eisenhower was a true Conservative. Fiscal Conservative across the board even when it came to defense, a true economic Conservative and understood exactly what the limited role of the Federal Government should be as it related to the economy. Which is how we got the National Highway System and a true social Conservative who understood the need for social as well as economic freedom. And was a pretty effective civil rights President in enforcing the Arkansas school segaration case. And is someone that todays not so conservative Republican Party could learn a lot from.

C-SPAN: U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie- History of The State of The Union Address

Source: C-SPAN- Name this speech and the year that it was given.

"History of the State of the Union Address - Senate Historian Donald Ritchie." 

From C-SPAN 

"U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie discusses the history of the State of the Union address." 

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie.

From CSPAN

The whole point of the United States State of The Union address is for the President to layout the situation of the country across the board and all sorts of issues,And also for the President to layout where he wants to take the country for that year. And a lot of times it depends on how well the country is doing, how popular the President is, what's the situation with Congress, who controls the House and Senate and by what margins and how popular the Congressional Leadership is that will determine what if anything the President will be able to accomplish that year.

Ronald Reagan came in on a big wave in 1981 and even though Congressional Republicans only controlled the Senate, Republicans were up in 1981. Democrats were down and not very popular and were essentially forced to work with President Reagan and the Republican Senate to avoid losing more power now that they only controlled the House of Representatives. But six years later thanks to Iran Contra and Democrats winning back the Senate in 1986 in the Congressional midterms and adding seats to their House majority, President Reagan lost a lot of his power base.

So State of The Union address's can be very effective or not memorable at all and not important. Depending on the President and where the President stands politically, what he wants to accomplish, how realistic it is. And what's his party's standing in Congress and what position the opposition party is in to either work with the President and his party in Congress or try to derail what the President is trying to accomplish, because they feel no need to work with them or are too far apart.

PBS: NewsHour- Jeffrey Brown: 'Boy Scouts Delays Decision on Lifting Ban on Gay Members'

Source:PBS NewsHour- Richard Land: Southern Baptist Convention.

"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 

In January 2013, the Boy Scouts of America said it was considering lifting its ban on gay members, drawing strong reactions from both sides of the debate. The organization then delayed its decision until May. Jeffrey Brown gets views from Zach Wahls of Scouts for Equality and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention."

From PBS NewsHour 

Just to go on the record as a Liberal: I'm against homophobia and homosexuals being denied access to things that they otherwise would have access to if they were heterosexual. But that doesn't mean that private organizations that require memberships to be involved with them don't have the right to do that. 

And of course there's the argument that employers, stores, places to eat and so-forth aren't allowed to discriminate against people for these reasons. Denying people service because of their race and so-forth, but the U.S. courts have ruled differently. They've separated from private organizations and privately run business's that are open to the public. You don't need membership (to eat at a diner to use as an example) or shop at a store, but you do need membership to join private clubs like the Boy Scouts. (To use as an example) And you could argue that they should have that right, but the fact is they do which the courts have ruled. 

Government can't deny people access to education, because they don't like someone's race, ethnicity, color, gender, religion, sexuality, etc and neither can private organizations that are open to the public. But private clubs can, because they're not open to the public, I believe have the constitutional right to do that.

Independent Institute: 'Making Poor Nations Rich- Entrepreneurship and The Process of Economic Development'

Source:The Independent Institute- a book about economic development. 

"Why do some nations become rich while others remain poor? Traditional economic theory has done little to answer this question. Now, through case studies from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, Making Poor Nations Rich argues for examining the critical role entrepreneurs, private property rights, and free trade and other economic freedoms play in economic development.

This volume begins by explaining how entrepreneurs create economic growth and why some institutional environments encourage more productive entrepreneurship than others. The book then addresses countries and regions that have failed to develop because of barriers to entrepreneurship. Finally, the authors turn to countries that have developed by reforms that protect private property and grant greater levels of economic freedom.

Making Poor Nations Rich demonstrates that pro-market reforms are essential to promoting the productive entrepreneurship that leads to economic growth, and where this institutional environment is lacking, sustained economic development will remain elusive."

From The Independent Institute

Let's say you have a country that has a decent amount of land or even a large country physically like Libya or Somali and even has a considerable amount of natural resources as at least in Libya's case, but you have a moderate size population or are even lightly populated like both Libya and Somalia and you are third- world country definitely in Somalia's case that couldn't even govern itself up until recently: so you have this country and you can do with at you please as a country and you have a population that wants to make this country work, but all you need is direction to make that happen. What should you do how should you build your country?

It starts with good governance, not Big Government or Small Government, but Good Government. A responsible executive, legislature hopefully both elected by the people themselves and a responsible independent judiciary. 

Let's say you've already figured out your national constitution and what the role of of government should be in your country, how the national government relates to the state, or provincial and local governments and what they should be doing. And you have a national constitution that doesn't make the national government, let's say Federal Government in Somalia's case a dictator or have most of the power, but with enough power to govern the country and deal with things like the currency and economy. 

Once you've developed your responsible, constitutional, and elected government and a constitution there to protect the people's constitutional rights and guide government as far as it an operate, what it can do, and how it should serve the people, with all the right checks and balances and divisions of power in place and it's there only to serve the people and protect their freedom, now you've formed a system where the people will be free to operate and make their best out of their own lives that they possibly can. 

You can talk about economic growth, free trade, property rights, all you want, but if you don't have a government that respects those things, none of those things are going to happen. And whatever the economy produces, the national government will end up pocketing most of those resources for themselves, at the expense of their people.