CBS News: President Obama- 'Explains Public-Private Infrastructure Investment Program'

Source:CBS News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking about American infrastructure, in Miami, Florida.

"At the Port of Miami on Friday, President Obama again stressed the need to improve America's infrastructure, expanding on a proposal he announced during the State of the Union that would leverage public and private money to fund improvements to roads, rail lines, schools, and other infrastructure projects across the country." 

From CBS News 

Falling poles, collapsing bridges, outdated airports, overcrowded schools, schools falling apart, congested roads, especially in big markets, like Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco (just. To use as a few examples) these are all things that a developed nation like the United States shouldn't put up with, yet we do every year. 

We don't have weak economic and job growth, with 8% unemployment because we don't have enough work to do, or we don't have enough money, we solve these problems. It's because we are not doing the work, we have the workers, we have the available employees, we are simply not lining up the contracts and rewarding construction companies to do the work. 

The US Core of Engineers, estimates that we have 1T$ in needed in infrastructure investment in. America but we are simply not assigning the work, because Congress is not passing legislation, public works bills (to use as an example) and President Obama is not pushing hard enough to pass this legislation. 

I know we have a 1T$ Federal deficit and 16T$ national debt and I'm not talking about borrowing the money to pay for a jobs bill like this or infrastructure investment is the only answer to get our economy going again, but it is an answer that needs to be part of package, an economic growth package.

We don't need a supply side economic policy, where we borrow the money, we could pay for this legislation, through taxing things that we don't need, like tobacco or even alcohol or. Maybe even tax things that we do need, like gas or tolls. But we need a plan like this to put our people back to work. mixed in with tax cuts designed to encourage new investment: small business tax relief, consumer spending, lowering the corporate tax, that comes with eliminating or at least cutting corporate welfare, as well as encouraging hiring workers in America, rather then sending jobs oversees. 

And finally a policy that moves us towards an energy independence, that gets us off of foreign oil, by investing in new American natural resources, including oil and natural gas, nuclear, wind solar, etc. 

These are all thing we can do, we don't have to settle for 8% unemployment, there's plenty of work to do in this country, we are simply not doing the work.

New York Times: Ross Douthat: 'The Obama Era, Brought to You by the Iraq War'

Source:New York Times- "An antiwar protest in Washington in 2007. The war divided the left but ultimately energized it.Credit...Jim Bourg/Reuters" Also from the New York Times.

"WHEN prominent people in Washington spend an anniversary apologizing for being catastrophically, unforgivably wrong about a decade-old decision, you might expect that the decision in question had delivered their party to disaster or defeat. But last week’s many Iraq war mea culpas were rich in irony: one by one, prominent liberals lined up to apologize for supporting a war that’s responsible for liberalism’s current political and cultural ascendance.

History is too contingent to say that had there been no Iraq invasion in 2003, there would be no Democratic majority in 2012. (It’s easy enough to imagine counterfactuals that might have put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.) But the Democratic majority that we do have is a majority that the Iraq war created: its energy and strategies, its leadership and policy goals, and even its cultural advantages were forged in the backlash against George W. Bush’s Middle East policies.

All those now-apologetic liberals who supported the war in 2003 are a big part of this story, because without their hawkishness there would have been no antiwar rebellion on the left — no Michael Moore and Howard Dean, no Daily Kos and all its “netroots” imitators. " 

From the New York Times 

OK, so I agree with Ross Douthat that the Iraq War has been good for the Democratic Party. 

Political history lesson of the day: in 2003 the Republican Party had The White House with President George W. Bush and his administration, as well as a Republican Congress (House and Senate) with small majorities, but large enough for them to put through most of their economic agenda through, at least during that Congress. 

With a divided Democratic opposition that really only had the Senate filibuster as a weapon they could use against the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. And any communications strategy and message that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and the Democratic National Committee could put together against the Republican Party. 

In 2004, President Bush is elected, with a small majority, but enough to get him reelected. House Republicans add a few seats to their thin majority. Senate Republicans go from 51 to 55 seats in the Senate. President Bush is at around 50% approval in late 2004 and going into 2005. This all looks like the Republican Party is not only the majority party, but it's going to be that way for a while. 

As the old political saying goes (or one that I just made up) a governing party and majority is only as good as it's ability to govern and lead. You had a divided Republican Party on Social Security reform in early 2005, with House and Senate Democrats having no political reasons to work with Congressional Republicans on SS reform and that dies in the House and Senate by the summer of 2005. Hurricane Katrina happens in the late summer of 2005 and the disaster and the Bush Administration showing almost no ability to deal with that disaster and cleanup happens as well. 

Going into the summer of 2005, I don't think anyone was predicting that House and Senate Democrats had any real shot at either winning back the House or Senate in 2006, but the debacle in the Iraq War, and hurricane Katrina, President Bush's low 30s approval rating by late 2005, as well as the corruption that was going on with House Republicans that year and into 2006, started this feeling in the country, especially with Democrats and Independents, that united government wasn't working and Republican Party needed a check in Washington. 

So yes, the War in Iraq has been good politically for the Democratic Party, especially when you look at where they were in 2003 and where they were less 4 years later. But the country has paid a helluva a price for it economically and militarily that I believe most Americans would love to go back to pre-Iraq War and thinking there's no real good reason to ever invade Iraq, at least at this point.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Salon: Steve Kornacki: 'Is Rand Paul The Next Robert Taft?'

Source:Washington Monthly- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

"When Rand Paul was announced as the winner of the Republican presidential straw poll at CPAC over the weekend, there was no chorus of boos from the assembled conservatives, a far cry from the response when his father won the same event a few years ago. Unlike Ron Paul, whose political coalition existed as much outside the Republican Party as in it and whose numerous straw poll victories were the product of organized event-crashing that irritated party regulars, Rand has dedicated himself to becoming a force within the GOP -- and CPAC '13 represents the latest evidence that he's succeeding."

From Salon

The mainstreaming of Rand Paul, interesting title for an article. I saw another article in the magazine The Week with the title: "Does the rising of Rand Paul mean and end to social conservatism?" Which are the two things to focus on as well as laying out what constitutional conservatism actually is and how that differs from religious conservatism and they may sound like the same thing but they are actually different.

If you look at Rand Paul's political background whether you want to call it Conservative or Conservative-Libertarian or just flat Libertarian, he's always been in the mainstream in America as far as someone who believes that big government shouldn't interfere in our economic or personal lives. Meaning that government shouldn't try to control us or run our lives or even try to protect us from ourselves. Not that it shouldn't tax, but not tax us to the point where we lose the freedom to control our own destiny and not be dependent on the state for our economic well-being. 

Conservative-Libertarians like Senator Paul, also believe that government shouldn't interfere into our personal lives as well. And what we do in the privacy of our own homes, what we watch on TV, who we sleep with and marry as adults, how we spend our own money, as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. There's nothing radical about this and this view of what government shouldn't be doing is a shared viewpoint on both the Right and Left in America which is why it's mainstream. 

Constitutional-Conservatives or Conservative-Libertarians, believe in conserving the U.S. Constitution and all the individual rights that all Americans get from it. As well as conserving our limited government and preventing government (especially the Federal Government) from getting too big. Wheres Christian-Conservatives or Christian-Nationalists, believe in covering their own culture and religious values. Even if that means using big government to try to enforce their values on everyone else. Which is very different from constitutional conservatism or conservative libertarianism and very different from Senator Rand Paul. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

The Nation: George Zornick- 'A Truly Progressive Budget Vision'

Source:The Nation- U.S. Representative Keith Eillison (Democrat, Minnesota) Co-Chair of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, in the House.

"Paul Ryan’s recently released budget will not become law—at least not any time soon. The Democratic Senate would never pass it, President Obama would never sign it. Ryan surely knows this, and his proposal is a fantasy budget: more an ideological argument than genuine attempt at legislating.

That hasn’t stopped widespread media coverage of Ryan’s proposal, and that’s fine: he’s a leading thinker of the conservative movement, with real power. But corresponding attention should also be paid to the opposite ideological vision sketched out by the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the “Back to Work” budget proposal, released on Wednesday." 

From The Nation

I'll give the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) credit for once: they have moderated a little from 2011. Two years ago their budget plan called for eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts including those for the middle class. And using all of that money on infrastructure and creating new Federal Government New Deal era programs. But even some of their members now see how bad of an idea it is to pass middle class tax hikes in a struggling economy. 

So now what the so-called CPC has  done instead is put all of that new tax burden on wealthy individuals and business's. Leaving our high corporate tax at 35% in place and closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes. So short-term that may sound fiscally responsible because you are attempting to pay for new government spending. But are the results instead, business's move that money out of the country to avoid paying those high taxes.

The so called Back To Work Budget Plan from the CPC is as dead as disco or high-water pants. Or people dancing to disco in high-water pants. People dancing disco in the ocean, in high-water pants (If you can't wear high-water pants in the ocean, where can you wear them?) Why, because very few people in Congress believe that government should have all of that power when it comes to job creation. That what we should be doing instead is freeing up capitol in the private sector so they have work to do and have a need to hire new employees.

What makes great economic sense when it comes to infrastructure investment, is government sets priorities and then rewards contracts to private companies to do the work. Rather than government or the private sector having most of the power and why its the ultimate private/public partnership. 

Infrastructure investment that's needed, especially in a sluggish economy, always makes great economic sense. The question is always how is it paid for. The CPC has their approach, but the reason why a lot of their ideas are usually dead as high-water pants and disco George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, is because they generally don't have much if any power, even in their party and Congress, but they're so far out in left field, even in the Democratic Party. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

PBS NewsHour: 'Paul Ryan Announces 2014 Budget Proposal and Calls for No New Taxes'

Source:PBS NewsHour- House Budget Committee Republicans talking about their 2014 budget proposal.

"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.[7]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Datacast, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source." 

From Wikipedia 

"On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, introduced House Republicans' fiscal year 2014 budget resolution called, "The Path to Prosperity: A Responsible, Balanced Budget." During a press conference at the U.S. Capitol Building, Ryan detailed how his proposal would balance the budget in 10 years by cutting spending and without any new taxes." 

From the PBS NewsHour

If the 2013 Ryan budget is anything like the 2012 and 2011 Ryan budget, we are not talking about a balanced budget. Which would be a budget that eliminates the budget deficit, or actually fixes our fiscal problems. Because once again except for Medicaid, it does nothing to bring down our budget costs. 

Repealing the Affordable Care Act won't do anything for the budget deficit either, because we'll see more people as a result without health insurance and getting free health care at the emergency room, well, free for them. But expensive for anyone with health insurance who has to pay for that health care. 

So again we are talking about a budget plan that goes after 15% of the Federal budget roughly and over a ten-year period thats only around 600B$. And thats assuming you eliminate all of that spending that goes to people who live in poverty. Which I believe not even Representative Ryan is interested in doing and does nothing for the big three. Which is so-called entitlements, defense and the tax code where most of the money on the Federal budget is.

Chicago Tribune: Charles Krauthammer- 'Why We Give Foreign Aid'

Source:The Washington Post- U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Muhammad Morsi: President of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

"Sequestration is not the best time to be doling out foreign aid, surely the most unpopular item in the federal budget. Especially when the recipient is President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt.

Morsi is intent on getting the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind sheik), serving a life sentence for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center attack that killed six and wounded more than a thousand. Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood is openly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and otherwise prolifically intolerant. Just three years ago, Morsi called on Egyptians to nurse their children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews, whom he has called "the descendants of apes and pigs."

From the Chicago Tribune

As Charles Krauthammer argued in his column this is probably not the best time to be blogging about foreign aid, because it's the most unpopular part of the Federal budget, perhaps more unpopular than corporate welfare or pork barrel projects, money for favors, bridges to nowhere, that sort of thing. But foreign aid is important and it only represents around 2% of the entire Federal budget (or twenty billion dollars a year for all of you non- math wizards) and is not something that should be cut to shrink the Federal budget. Because there's not a lot of money there and it would cost us more in the future had we not cut it at all.

I look at foreign aid as I look at public assistance, as an investment in people and in human capital. Not charity which is completely something else, but when done and invested right foreign aid benefits American taxpayers because it prevents authoritarians from taking over third world countries. And builds a larger middle class in those countries so they have the resources to not only buy domestic products in their countries, but also able to purchase American products. Which is good for American companies as well as consumers.

If foreign aid is invested in things like infrastructure, education, health care, things that all countries need to be successful economically, as well as security and not invested in things like crony capitalists or funding terrorists or funding authoritarian regimes that have no interest in developing their countries, but simply use that money to stay in power, foreign aid should be looked at as loans or investments. And when invested well they payoff for the countries giving it.

Buzz Feed News: 'Which Pundits Stood With Rand Paul?'

Source:Buzz Feed News- Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity on Senator Rand Paul's filibuster. I'm sure that it was a fine editorial that a few people saw. LOL

"Rand Paul's filibuster made for strange bedfellows in the punditocracy. Here's a breakdown ranked from most supportive of Rand to least." 

From Buzz Feed News

Whatever your position is on the Senate filibuster and whatever you think of Senator Rand Paul's thirteen house filibuster on Wednesday and the long speech as far as the content of his speech, you gotta admit at least it was an actual filibuster. 

The filibuster rule and the absolute consent rule in the Senate are two different things, but both can be used by both minority and majority members to block legislation, because they need 60 votes to overturn and the Senate majority party generally doesn't have 60 members, at least since 1979 or so. 

So what Senator Paul did on Wednesday was not just object to the legislation, but actually filibustered it, pretty much all by himself. Just like with the Jeff Smith character (played by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. 

Rand Corporation: Karl Lorenz- 'Palliative Care: Improving Quality of Life for the Seriously Ill'

Source:RAND Corporation- American health care for one of our senior citizens.

"When we think of “the seriously ill,” many of us conjure up images of individuals who are older, or in hospitals, or near the end of their lives. In fact, people of all ages suffer from chronic and life-threatening illnesses, and health care professionals are always looking for more effective ways to relieve and prevent suffering among their patients and to enhance the quality of care.

How do we improve palliative care training for health practitioners, and how do we better engage patients in the health care decision-making process?

In this event, Karl Lorenz discusses the delivery of palliative care services, training in palliative care, and how research can improve—and philanthropy can support—this vital aspect of health care."

From Rand Corporation

I believe before we talk about how do we improve the quality of healthcare for the seriously ill in America, we should first talk about how do we improve the funding of our over bloated and ineffective health care system. 

As well as talk about preventive care which would also help us not only bring down our healthcare costs, but improve the quality of our healthcare, because we wouldn't have as many Americans with chronic health conditions that are very expensive to treat, like diabetes (to use as a perfect example) because we would have more Americans in this country who would be taking care of themselves and not getting as sick as they do today, because more Americans would be eating better and exercise, because they would have the financial incentive to do so. And not has the serious diseases that way too many Americans suffer from in this developed country. 

As well as talk about how we can encourage more seniors to be treated at home rather than living in hospitals and nursing homes. And finding ways to fund this.

Crooks and Liars: Mike Lux- 'The Real Mission Of Government: Protecting People, Not Banks'

Source:AZ Quotes- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) making the case for limited government with that one quote.

"Right wing forces in this country are obsessed with the size of government, but the fundamental debate we should be having is not the size of government but what the goal of government should be: what should government’s central mission be? 

Right wing forces in this country are obsessed with the size of government, but the fundamental debate we should be having is not about size but what the goal of government should be. What is government’s central mission?

There are four major views on this question in modern American politics, two in each political party.

The first Republican view is boiled down to the central organizing principle that government should be as small as possible. That’s it." 

From Crooks & Liars

I agree with so-called progressive (actually, social democratic) blogger Mike Lux that there are two philosophies in the Democratic Party. I'm a member of the Democratic Party and believe Mike is a member of as well. The debate being about what the role of government should be in America, we just disagree on what those roles are.

As a Liberal Democrat I believe the role of government is to protect individual freedom for people who have and still deserve it and expand individual freedom for those who don't have it, but need and deserve it and I'll get to what I mean by that later.

The social democratic philosophy of what the role of government should be (that I believe Mike Lux subscribes to as a self-described Progressive) is that government's main job is to protect people, even at the expense of individual freedom. So that no one has too much and no one has too little and that means having high tax rates across the board. So government not only has the resources that it need to prevent anyone from having too much or too little . But to invest on the people's behalf to provide the services that Social Democrats don't trust the private sector to provide or provide as well. 

In a free society and liberal democracy, government's job is not to protect people from themselves, but to protect our individual freedoms. And empower people who don't have the freedom over their own lives to obtain that individual freedom for themselves. In a social democracy, the government's job is to literally look out for everyone's welfare and to protect the collective, even if that means sacrificing individual freedom, choice, and even wealth. 

The Fiscal Times: Andrew Fieldhouse- 'Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus'

Source:The Fiscal Times- Money, money, money, that is never free when it comes from government.

"More than five years after the start of the Great Recession in December 2007, the U.S. economy is still mired in a depressed state of output, and economic growth has decelerated below rates needed to bring us out of this slump. But our current macroeconomic policy — driven entirely by a contractionary fiscal approach — is poised to further slow near-term growth and delay recovery. What is needed at the moment is renewed pursuit of an expansionary fiscal policy in order to restore full economic health. The signs calling for additional targeted stimulus and cautioning against austerity are all there, if only policymakers would recognize them." 

Read the rest at The Fiscal Times

The economic situation today is better, but the fiscal situation is much worse with an additional five- trillion-dollars added to the national debt. Even though budget deficit has falling which is good news. But we still have around eight percent unemployment, an economy thats not growing, but plenty of work that could be done around the country right now, we just need someone to prioritize that work because the private sector is not going to do it by themselves. 

We don't need the Federal Government to rebuild the country, but what we need it to do is making the rebuilding a priority and at least help finance this effort and we need not a 1-2T$ stimulus package, but we need a 1-2T$ investment package and put a lot of that money in infrastructure investment and tell our construction and manufacturing industries we have a lot of work for you to do. And bring in the states and locals and private sector even with something like a National Infrastructure Bank.

We need to bring in the states and locals and get their input on what need to be built and repaired, that benefits the economy and puts people back to work and start awarding around 1-2T$ in contracts to do. This work which would also be boom for our manufacturing industry because of the parts that are going to be needed to do the work. And we need to encourage American as well as foreign companies to invest in this country and bring that money here. 

And that means lowering our business taxes and making us more competitive and we need to pay for this package over a 5-10 year period. And we could do this by closing wasteful tax loopholes and raising taxes on gas and oil and so- forth. And not hurt the economy and we could put millions of Americans back to work.

Crooks and Liars: Susie Madrak- 'Bill Maher: Presents His Thoughtful Sequester Solutions'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about the sequester.

"Nice to know that in this time of sequester madness, we have intellectuals like Bill Maher working so hard to find workable solutions to the impasse. This made me laugh out loud, especially the Rube Goldberg part."

From Crooks and Liars

I have my own solutions to this problem and they seem funny, but they are actually realistic as well.

Lock House Speaker John Boehner in a room with Senate Leader Harry Reid together in a super max prison in a prison cell and treat them like prison inmates doing their time in solitary confinement. With the difference being that they are together, with just enough water and food to survive. And don't allow them to shave to or take a shower or even leave the cell.

Force Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid to share the same cot until they come up with an agreement to end the sequester. And then Boehner and Reid could actually experience what it's like to be in prison, but what it's like to work for a living. Two experiences that I doubt they ever want to repeat again. (Why else serve in Congress) 

To make it worse for the two leaders of Congress: for each day they don't reach an agreement on how to end the sequester, they have to listen to either Britney Spears or Roseanne Barr sing the national anthem in a glass room.

These conditions might sound harsh and would put President Obama in the same cell with Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid. But the President of the United States actually has to work for a living and produce results, a difference between being an executive and a legislature. 

And if people are dumb enough to to try to deal with a debt and deficit by cutting things that work well and are needed as much as things that don't work well and aren't needed, then they should suffer the consequences.

U.S. News: Ken Walsh- 'A Revival of The Culture Wars'

Source:U.S. News- the gun control debate is just one issue in what at times looks like the never-ending gun control debate.

"The battle over sequestration--automatic cuts in federal spending--is dominating the news media today, but that's not what is inflaming political passions around the country. 

"The Presidency" column by Ken Walsh appears in U.S. News Weekly on Fridays. Follow his blog, "Ken Walsh's Washington," online at:

From U.S. News 

I disagree with Ken Walsh here who is someone I like and respect, but the culture wars are similar to the civil war of the 1860s where one side clearly won (meaning the Unionists) but of course paid a heavy price for it. The other side knowing they've already lost but deciding to fight on to see how much damage they can do. Which is why some historians believe that the Unionists won the civil war, but the Confederates won the peace. Meaning there really wasn't much of a peace after the civil war was over with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and other Anglo terrorists groups in this country. 

The Cultural War in America is not Liberal vs Conservative (as Ken Walsh said it was) but Left vs Right. And in some cases America vs the Far-Right in America. The country has already spoken on major issues like gun control, climate change, same-sex-marriage, women's place in the world, integration, and immigration, and I'm sure other issues. There's a solid majority of American who are in favor of these issues, with maybe 1/3 of the country fighting to the very last battle to prevent what they see as their traditional America from disappearing. 

NHL History: 'Montreal Canadiens 100 Years & 100 Stars'

Source:The NHL History- presents the Montreal Canadians.

"The Montreal Canadiens (French: Les Canadiens de Montréal) are a professional ice hockey team based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. They are members of the Northeast Division of the Eastern Conference of the National Hockey League (NHL). The club is officially known as le Club de hockey Canadien. French nicknames for the team include Les Canadiens (or Le Canadien), Le Bleu-Blanc-Rouge, La Sainte-Flanelle, Le Tricolore, Les Glorieux (or Nos Glorieux), Les Habitants, Le CH and Le Grand Club. In English, the team's main nickname is the Habs, an abbreviation of "Les Habitants". 

From The NHL History

To say the Montreal Canadians are the New York Yankees or Boston Celtics or Green Bay Packers of the National Hockey League or even Canada, is to a certain extent true, but doesn't go nearly far enough because hockey to Canada is probably more important then baseball or basketball or football to America. Not that those sports aren't critical to America, but America is surrounded by distractions, not just sports, but across the board and America also has nine times as many people as Canada, so one great franchise is a lot more important to them then one franchise in America.

But the level of success that the Canadians have had compared with the Yankees or Celtics as well as Packers is very similar. The Canadians have won twenty four Stanley Cups and a lot of conference championships as well. Plus a lot of divisional championships, but those twenty four Stanley Cups were accomplished by 1993. 

The Yankees have won thirty I believe World Series but they won one in 1996 and two more in the late 1990s. The Celtics have won seventeen NBA Finals, but their last won was in 2008. The Packers have won 11-12 Super Bowls (if you combine what use to be called the NFL Championship with the Super Bowl) and the Packers won their last Super Bowl in 2010. 

The Canadians won what twenty four Stanley Cups in their first eighty years. No other franchise has matched that type of championship success in any North American pro sports league, which is how they standout from every other pro sports franchise in North America.

The Canadians obviously have not been as dominant as they were in the 1980s or seventies. Haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1993, not sure why considering the market they play in with the fan base and arena and so-forth. They haven't even been back to the Stanley Cup since 1993, I don't believe they've even been to the conference finals since. They haven't been a championship contender since, but none of this take away from what they've accomplished and what they mean to Canada.

The Independent Institute: John C. Goodman- 'What is Liberalism?'

Source:Slide Share- nails it when it comes to liberalism.

"President Obama is said to have made the case for a liberal public policy agenda in his State of the Union speech the other night. But what is liberalism?

The conventional view is that liberalism is an ideology. In fact it is a sociology." 

From The Independent Institute

I'm not sure that progressivism is a good thing to compare to liberalism. For one, and I don't agree with this, but there are Progressives and others who view progressivism and liberalism as the same thing. That some Liberals call themselves Progressives, because of the negative stereotypes that come with being a Liberal. 

The fact is the stereotypes that make Liberals look like dovish socialist-statists or something. Which fits well with Socialist today and back in the day, at least Social Democrats.  And then there are Socialists (Social Democrats, if you prefer) like let's use Michael Moore (to use as an example) where these stereotypes that tend to get thrown at Liberals, fit Socialists like him very well. 

And the other reason being that socialism like conservatism or libertarianism, is a very diverse political ideology, where you have Socialists who look are Marxist-Socialists, who are Marxists basically. And then you have Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders, who is a Democratic Socialist, but also believes in a certain level of private enterprise and capitalism mixed in with a very large welfare state. Similar to Henry Wallace or George McGovern.

What's called "modern-Liberalism" or what I prefer to call the New-Left in America emerged in the 1960s, as a reaction to the Great Society and Vietnam War of baby boomers who came to age of that decade. And formed organizations like Students for a Democratic Society and other lets say New-Left groups of people who backed the FDR and LBJ social insurance policies, but had their own policies when it came to national security, foreign policy, and law enforcement. 

To get to actual liberalism which is the political philosophy I believe in: Liberals simply believe in liberal democracy and that liberal democracy should be there for all Americans, not just some of us. Where we all have the constitutional right to live our own lives and chart our own course in life. As long as we aren't hurting innocent people with how we are living. 

And that government's role is to see that there's an environment there where equality of opportunity  (not result, which is different) for all Americans to be successful life. But then it's up to us as individuals to make the best of the opportunities. That we have with no guarantees.  

Liberalism is not libertarianism or even classical liberalism, because neither people who are Liberals (or Classical Liberals, is you prefer) are antigovernment. We just don't like big government. And it's hard anything that so-called Libertarians today believe that government should be doing. 

And Liberals are obviously not Socialists either, because our philosophy is not built around some superstate government that's supposed to be big enough to manage everyone's economic and personal affairs for them. We believe in a limited, responsible, and financially sound government. But not big government or no government.

The Majority Report: Jonathan Alter- 'On His Calls For Democrats To Embrace Entitlement Cuts'

Source:The Majority Report- with Sam Seder and Jonathan Alter.

"Bloomberg View Jonathan Alter, argued that cutting entitlements will guard investment in discretionary spending, guess how Sam felt about that argument? Sam and Jonathan debated whether or not CPI was a cut and agreed that the wealthy should pay more taxes...

This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report." 

From The Majority Report

Jonathan Alter makes a very good point about the so-called entitlement programs and that the language about how they are talked about. Or what they are called should be changed and that social insurances would be a better way to describe them. 

Alter arguing that the people would collect these social insurances simply when they need them rather than when they reach a certain age. And that if the wealthy who don't need these programs receive these benefits, that they should be taxed on them. Not at hundred- percent, but based on how they would be taxed if that was their total income without the earned income tax credit. And that these should be done for a couple of reasons.

One, for the good of the programs so the finances of them are sured up.

Two, because the wealthy can afford to pay the tax without hurting the economy. 

Social Democrats (what I call so-called Progressives) don't like talking about reforming the social insurance system, unless it's about taxing more and spending more on them. But what they don't seem to understand that if these programs aren't eventually reformed, they aren't going to be around to support.

Samuel Wilson: Ross Perot- 'Balancing the Budget & Reforming Government (1992)'

Source:Samuel Wilson- Independent presidential candidate Ross Perot, in 1992.

"One of several Ross Perot Infomercials that ran during the 1992 General Election campaign."

From Samuel Wilson

The main contribution that Ross Perot brought to the American political system was that he showed Americans how serious our debt and deficit situation was and how big of a threat it was to our economy. 

Without Ross Perot, President Bill Clinton probably doesn't take the debt and deficit situation as seriously as he did in 1993 and drafting the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act and getting it through that Democratic Congress. And even in 1992 as presidential nominee Bill Clinton and making deficit reduction a big part of his economic plan and message. Not saying he wouldn't of done anything about it in 1993 but the comprehensive approach of budget cuts basically all over the Federal Government and new revenue with tax hikes on the wealthy, reforming the Federal Government so it's more efficient with fewer employees. 

So without Ross Perot the United States Government doesn't get its fiscal house in order as early as it in the mid and late 1990s.

Social Justice Now: James K. Galbraith- 'Inequality and Instability: What's Ahead For The World Economy'

Source:Social Justice Now- Texas LBJ School Professor James K. Gabbraith.

"James K. Galbraith holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and a professorship in government at The University of Texas at Austin.

Dr. Galbraith was executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s. He chaired the board of Economists for Peace and Security (1996–2016) and directs the University of Texas Inequality Project. He is a managing editor of Structural Change and Economic Dynamics." 

From the Texas LBJ School 

"Economist James K. Galbraith (Texas LBJ School) one of the country's leading analysts of the financial crisis, speaks on the link between the growing inequality and economic instability. Galbraith, a professor in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, will focus on the argument in his new book, Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just before the Great Crisis... 

From Social Justice Now

I really don't like the term income inequality because that simply doesn't exist in an economy where the amount of money and ability for people to be successful in life, depends on how much you know and how qualified you are to work and then what you do with the skills that you have. In other words: how productive you are in the economy that you operate in. Which is the case in all capitalist economic systems, whether it's in America, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, wherever it is in the developed world. 

People with good educations who apply those skills well are simply going to do better economically than people who don't, it's that simple. So income inequality simply doesn't exist. I'm sure there are people who believe it does which is what the so-called Progressive Social Justice movement (Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, in actuality) is about. But the fact is that income inequality simply doesn't exist anywhere in the developed world.

A problem that the United States has as it relates to the rest of the developed world is not income inequality, but the fact that are economic scale is kinda tilted towards the bottom. That is we have roughly 1-5 Americans who live in poverty or collect some type of public assistance. That they have to have in order to pay their bills and then we have about ten percent of the country whose doing very well economically. 

And then roughly seventy percent of the country thats doing well but not great, good education, owns a home or paying off a mortgage, cars, some money in the bank, but then a certain percentage of that seventy percent (perhaps 1-5 out) of those people who aren't officially poor, but perhaps a paycheck away of living on public assistance or being in poverty themselves. Who have the skills to get them to the point that they are now, but not enough skills to advance beyond that.

The solution to this economic problem that America has is not tell the wealthy that they are doing too well. So that government is going to take a chunk of your wealth to take care of the people who aren't doing very well indefinitely. But the solution is to create more wealth and have a better economy that benefits more people where poverty and unemployment aren't as high. 

Income equality is simply people getting out of society what they put into it. That might sound unfair or harsh, but it's not. It's simply the cold-hearted truth. So to have more people who are able to contribute a lot of society and then be able to enjoy the benefits of their production, we simply need a better education and job training system to produce a better skilled workforce in this country.

Townhall: Jonah Golberg- 'CPAC Unwise To Snub Chris Christie, Gays'

Source:The Week- Governor Chris Christie (Republican, New Jersey) too big to fit into CPAC. Or maybe there's another reason why he wasn't invited.

"What can you do with a man like Chris Christie?

The answer, according to many with the conservative movement: Throw him overboard. And while we're at it, let's toss the gays over the side too.

The popular governor of New Jersey has certainly angered many conservatives, including this humble scribe. During the crucial final days of the presidential election, Christie didn't merely embrace President Obama, he all but endorsed him." 

From Townhall 

"Seemingly everybody to the right of Jon Huntsman has been invited to speak at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference — including formerly moderate Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R). There's one name, though, that's conspicuously absent on the list of invitees: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). CPAC spokeswoman Laura Rigas says that, officially, the conference "schedule is still being finalized, with several more announcements pending over the next three weeks." But multiple news organizations are reporting that Christie won't make the list." 

From The Week

Its not often that I agree with Jonah Goldberg (to state the obvious) he's a Conservative and I'm a Liberal. But you would think that an organization that calls itself the Conservative Political Action Conference, would want one of the most popular governors in America (who also happens to be a Republican) at their annual meeting. 

Governor Chris Christie (if he doesn't eat himself to death) is also a solid possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016. He's big state governor, in a deeply blue state. If he can win statewide in New Jersey and perhaps win there again in 2013, maybe he can do it again in 2016. Just throwing some thoughts out there. 

You would also think that an organization that proud's itself on being big believers in individual freedom and free choice (like CPAC) wouldn't kick people out of their organization for simply being gay. But we're talking about the modern Republican Party that still believe its 1955 and that gays and homosexuality doesn't exist anymore or is perhaps still locked in the closet. 

I'm a big believer in truth, honesty and reason, and because of those values I believe that for political labels to mean anything in America, people who self-describe to those labels should actually have to own the philosophy of those labels before I take them seriously about their self-description. 

For CPAC to call themselves Conservatives (even though neither Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan could win the Republican Party presidential nomination today) they actually have to be Conservatives. And kicking people out of your organization for simply being gay, even though gay Republicans are about as conservative as Republicans get fiscally, economically, and constitutionally, seems to me to be as anti-conservative that an organization can get. 

When the Republican Party whether it's CPAC or some other so-called conservative group tells minorities, Muslims, gays, women, and immigrants, that they're not welcome at their dance, simply because of who they are physically or who they're attracted too physically and not because of what their political national values are, they're no longer conserving as a political organization, but contracting. 

So maybe CPAC should stand for the Contracted Political Action Committee, or even the Confederate Political Action Committee, since they don't seem to like two of the greatest American values that we have which is pluralism and diversity.