Reform Party USA: 'Core Principles of the Reform Party'

Source:Reform Party USA- the official logo of RPUSA.

Source:The New Democrat  

"We, the members of the Reform Party, commit ourselves to reform our political system. Together we will work to re-establish trust in our government by electing ethical officials, dedicated to fiscal responsibility and political accountability." 

From Reform Party USA

I hope the title of this post is long enough, otherwise the hell with it. But I agree with the notion of this blog post from the Reform Party that governing simply shouldn’t be about compromise. That even with a divided government with two parties that do not like each other (which is putting it very mildly) and certainly do not trust each other that both sides at the end of the business day still have a responsibility to not only govern, but to govern well.

And in divided government like today that means taking the best from both sides and putting into a package that works. And throwing out the garbage from both sides instead of just splitting the difference on each key issue. As if that is governing even when trying to go half way on each issue may not and in most cases does not result in a good end result. 

There are plenty of examples going back to the early 1980s when the Federal Government became very partisan with a new Conservative President in Ronald Reagan, with a Conservative Republican Senate. To go with a Progressive Democratic House where they managed to govern very well with divided Congress’s.

It is not so much the art of the compromise that should try to be reached. But the art of the consensus. What do both sides want and on a lot of key issues both sides tend to have the same end goals. And after that has been established now where are both sides, what would each side do if they were completely in charge. In other words: what is the opening offer from both sides so we know where both side is. And after that has been established you look to the common ground.

You find that and you put that in the final package and then after that you look for victories from both sides. The good from each side and put their ideas alone on certain key issues. For example the 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example. Republicans wanted time limits and work requirements in the new Welfare system. Democrats wanted job training, education, and childcare for people on Welfare. What happened is both sides won and the final bill had job training, education, childcare, time limits and job requirements.

You take the good from both sides and throw out the things that probably wouldn’t work. Or that both sides simply can’t live with. Meaning both sides get their victories, but do not get everything they are looking for. Instead of just splitting the difference and running for the middle on the key issues. And that is how you get good government in a divided government.

Huffington Post: Richard Eskow- 'Was This the Social Contract’s Comeback Year?'

Source:Crooks & Liars- U.S. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Democrat, Maryland)

Source:The New Democrat 

"What a difference a year makes. Last year at this time, a president and a party who had just won an election with progressive rhetoric were quickly pivoting toward a “Grand Bargain” which would cut Social Security and Medicare. Leaders in both parties were obsessed with deficits, and there was “bipartisan” consensus that these “entitlements” needed to be cut. The only questions left to debate were when they would be cut, and by how much. To resist these moves was to be dismissed as “unserious” and “extreme” — in Washington, in newsprint, and on the airwaves.

Today the forces of corporate consensus are on the defensive. It’s considered politically reckless to get too far out front on the subject of benefit cuts. Some of the think tanks who advocated Austerity Lite one year ago are focused now on inequality. And, as the leaders of Third Way learned recently, the same rhetoric which earned nods of approval all across Washington this time last year can get you slapped down today." 

From the Huffington Post 

"A promotional video produced by the US government to highlight the projects and programs of the Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression." 

Source:All Histories- from a film about the New Deal.

From All Histories

When it comes to things like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare. Public Housing, Food Assistance (to use several examples) I prefer the term safety net or a public social insurance system or PSIS. Which are insurances that people who need them can collect when, well they need them. But if you able to take care or yourself and you have what is called economic freedom that is the ability to pay your own bills and be self-sufficient in life with money left over to spend in things you want, then that is essentially the American dream.

Then that is exactly what you and this is how a safety net or PSIS would be different from what is called in Europe especially in Scandinavia a welfare state. Where there are all sorts of public programs funded through taxes (not free for the people) there to take care of people. 

I as a Liberal Democrat do not want to have to live off of government or anyone else if I’m able to take care of myself. That would be just one example that would separate me from a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat. Someone who bases their political philosophy on what government can do for people when it comes to economics.

If you want to use the term social contract, fine I’ll go along with that. But what I’m really in favor of when it comes to American capitalism is individual economic power. Again which is another way of saying economic freedom. And what I would like to see in this country and perhaps even go back to is an economic power system that is there for all Americans to be able to take advantage of to create their own economic freedom.

And this is where government plays its biggest role along with regulating predatory behavior. And this comes from making quality education and job training available for everyone universally to everyone K-adulthood if needed. So as many Americans as possible have that individual economic power or people power to be able to take care of themselves. And live a good life however they define that for themselves without having to use public assistance or private charity. In order to pay their own way and bills.

If you are talking about having a federal government so big especially as it relates to economic policy that it is designed to meet a lot if not most of people’s economic needs, you are no longer talking about a safety net or a social insurance system, but a welfare state. A socialist superstate big government at about as big as it can without nationalizing the entire economy and outlawing private property all together. And that is not what I’m in favor of.

Global News: 'Canadian Supreme Court- Strikes Down Prostitution Laws'

Source:Global News- the Supreme Court of Canada.

"Fri, Dec 20: In a unanimous and landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country's prostitution laws, giving Parliament a year to come up with new legislation. Mike Le Couteur reports. For more info, please go to:Global News." 

From Global News

Canada choosing regulation and taxation over prohibition when it comes to prostitution. Something America should do as well.

Chicago Tribune: 'How to Combat Inequality'

Source:Chicago Tribune- money, money, money.

Source:The New Democrat 

"If you're a low-income African-American with a talent for braiding hair, you might have the idea of making money that way. You could start out doing it for relatives and friends and gradually build a clientele that could provide a decent income without a lot of capital. It could offer a way out of poverty and into the middle class.

But in many states, including Illinois, it's not so simple. If you want to braid hair professionally, you must be a licensed cosmetologist. And to get that license, you have to get 1,500 hours of training. A poor woman who wants to pick up a little cash off the books can usually get away with it. But if she hopes to earn a living and can't afford the training, she's out of luck.

That's one of the ways in which the American economic system hinders those at the bottom of the income scale. Many of them grew up with bad schools, crime-ridden neighborhoods and boarded-up shopping centers. Lots of the auto and steel plants that used to provide a middle-class lifestyle on a high school education (or less) have closed. So even as America has grown wealthier, many Americans have not." 

From the Chicago Tribune 

"Income inequality has been on the rise for decades. In the last 30 years, the wages of the top 1% have grown by 154%, while the bottom 90% has seen growth of only 17%. As the rungs of the economic ladder move further and further apart, conventional wisdom says that it will become much more difficult to climb them. Opportunities for upward mobility-the American dream-will disappear as the deck becomes stacked against the middle class and the poor. But others see inequality as a positive, a sign of a dynamic and robust economy that, in the end, helps everyone. And contrary to public opinion, mobility has remained stable over the past few decades. If the American dream is dying, is it the result of income inequality? Or is disparity in income a red herring where more complex issues are at play?" 

Source:IS Debates- what's called income inequality in America.

From IS Debates

I agree with a lot of what was said in this Chicago Tribune editorial about the problems of why people at the bottom of the American income scale are at the bottom and why the people at the top are at the top. And as much as so-called Progressives (or Social Democrats) in America like to try to make the so-called income inequality argument in America about the rich stealing from the poor, it is not true at least in most cases.

The wealthy in America tend to be wealthy, because they have a wealth of education and marketable skills that they have used to create their success. And have either gotten those skills by having wealthy parents who were able to send them to good schools including college, or came from strong middle class families. And went to good middle class schools and ended up going to and graduating from a good college by either getting a scholarship, student loans or working really hard and going to school at the same time. Or a combination of all of those, or some of those factors.

But there are also very successful people in America who didn’t come from wealth or even a middle class family. But had strong enough parents to make sure they not only stayed in and finished school, but got themselves a good education. Even if that meant one or both parents working multiple jobs to make that happen. So if you come from a good foundation even one with not a lot of money, but a lot of love and parents who’ll do whatever they can to see that you have a good shot at succeeding in life and you take advantage of those opportunities, you’ll do well in America.

The poor in America whether they are working or not, tend to have gotten off to a bad start in life. Dad walks out, mom left to raise their kid or kids by herself. Or dad in prison and mom not prepared to raise her kids in a proper way without the skills to do so. And then these kids make it worst for themselves by not finishing school and getting whatever education that they can. Having kids before finishing high school and essentially leaving their mother to raise her grandchildren for them.

And of course kids from both poor and rough neighborhoods falling into the wrong crowd as adolescents. Getting in trouble, not finishing high school and now looking at having a juvenile record and doing time. To go along with not having a high school diploma, having kids to take care of too early in life. Without much hope of giving their kids what their parents couldn’t give them. Which is a good start at life coming with a good education and a good shot at doing well in life.

So these are the main reasons for what I call the income gap in America as opposed to income inequality. So then it is about what should be done about these issues. And for me as a Liberal it always gets to opportunity and empowerment coming from education and job training. Having a public education system in this country that is not run by the Federal Government, but where everyone in the country can go to a school that is best for them.

Instead of being forced to going to a school based on where they live. Which is a big reason for the income gap in America with students not getting the skills that they need in life because they live in a low-income neighborhood. And the Federal Government can help with additional resources to our public schools so all of our public school students would be able to go to a good school.

And then with our low-income workforce whether they are currently working or not for our non-employed low-income workforce, it shouldn’t be about just getting them to work, but getting them good work experience as well as the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. Instead of just putting them to work in low-skilled low-income jobs without the ability that they need to get themselves a good job. 

This is why job creation with our low-skilled workforce needs to also be about job training as well so this population can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. And that means at least getting a degree at a junior college or a vocational school. So they have the skills they need to do well in life. And the Federal Government and private sector with private job training programs can help provide the resources for this.

If you want to do well in America it takes marketable skills and education to make that happen. Without that you are looking at a life of poverty and living in rough neighborhoods dependent on public assistance for your economic survival. And even if you are working dead-end low-skilled low-income jobs with not much if any hope for advancement and making a good living. But with a good education and job skills, you can do as well in life as your talents and you applying your talents will allow which will benefit the country as a whole.

Workers World: Kris Hamel- 'Only Socialism Can Save Detroit'

Source:Kris Hamel- Workers World writer Kris Hamel.

Source:The New Democrat

"Talk given at WWP conference  on Nov. 16 by Kris Hamel.

Workers World Party wants to expropriate the expropriators and overturn capitalism, an economic system whose demise is way overdue. In this age of imperialism and endless war, low-wage and dead-end capitalism, we fight for socialism — not as some utopian dream for a far-off future — but as a necessary and realizable goal today for the liberation of humanity’s majority and the uplifting of the masses of people worldwide." 

You can read the rest of this piece at Workers World. 

"To everyone: Please keep up with OWS at my online daily newspaper, 'Occupy Wall Street News and Videos', supporting the movement here:Occupy Wall Street and visit my Youtube channel for more OWS-related videos. 

Please feel free to share any news or videos to help continue getting the word/info out. That's what it's there for!

Thanks! -Munderlarkst

Above video: Thanks to BigThink.com, a great Web site. Video is from 2008." 

Source:Munderlarkst- left-wing historian Howard Zinn, talking about socialism.

From Munderlarkst

Socialism is one of those things that is hard to explain and define for many people. Which is why it means different things to different people sort of like liberalism. But to put it simply, socialism is anything provided by government for the people that is funded by public revenue. Generally through taxes, but not always and it can financed through state-owned enterprises as well. Which was common in Cuba before they moved to a state form of capitalism a few years ago.

When people tend to think of Socialists, they tend to think of people who are Marxists. Named after the famous Far-Left philosopher Carl Marx. And a Marxist is someone who believes in state-owned economics. And believes the state meaning the central government for whatever given country should own and operate the economy and all of its enterprises on behalf of the people. To see that no one has too little or too much. I guess that would be what I would call a Classical Socialist to go along with the big welfare state. And all the social services that would come from the central government.

But anyone whose familiar with the developed world as it is called that is the wealthy countries of the world that have large middle class populations and even a decent number of wealthy people, but even the fast developing countries of the developing world like Mexico, China and India (to use as examples) know that these countries don’t have state-owned economic systems. And that most of the industries in these countries are in private hands subjected to taxes and regulations by government.

But these countries aren’t completely capitalist either and have large and expansive welfare states. That provide most of the services that people need to do well in life. Like education, pension, health care, health insurance and other services. A lot of these countries tend to be social democratic and run by Social Democrats on the Left. Or people on the Right who even though they might not be Social Democrats aren’t interested in dismantling the welfare state. But in many cases are there to see that it doesn’t expand and that these programs are run better. And even getting competition from the private sector to perform these services as well.

The future of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats especially in America, but the developing world and Europe as well I believe is not the Marxist Socialist approach of government trying to do everything for everybody. But it is the Bernie Sanders wing of the socialist movement. Bernie Sanders the senator from Vermont the only self-described Socialist in the United States Congress.

Senator Sanders is someone who believes in capitalist private enterprise economy. But that is highly taxed and regulated to protect workers and consumers from capitalist predators, but also so the central government has the resources to provide most of the services that people need to live well in life. Which is the type of Socialist that gets elected in America, but also in Europe as well.