Romney Gaffe

                Earlier today a video tape was leaked on the internet that shows Romney giving a speech to some political supporters in a private setting. In the video, we can clearly see Romney speaking at the head of a table. In this speech, Romney makes what may be the most horrific gaffe of his life. 

Here’s the text:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.” Shortly after this part Romney says “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

And the video:

                Even the most novice of politicians knows not to 1. Make harsh general statements, 2. Alienate large groups, and 3. Slander potential voters. IT’S JUST COMMON SENSE! Now Romney will have to spend most of his precious time and money trying to bandage up this blunder. He might as well just admit defeat now because it would take nothing less than a miracle to save his popularity.

                And think about what this does to the Republican Party’s image. Now many people will see the GOP as a bunch of elitist assholes who think that all Democrats are lazy welfare collectors. It’s stupid stuff like this that is making the Republican Party lose all credibility. Conservatives are supposed to stick up for the masses, not beat them down with cruel judgments.

                In the time that it took for me to write the three paragraphs above, I’ve already seen six references to this video on social networking sites. Holy crap Romney. If you’re betting on a Republican victory this November, you might want to check yourself. 

Gary Johnson 2012

                With the presidential election coming up in November, there’s been a lot of talk about the candidates. Turn on any news network and you’ll see political analysts talking about Romney’s most recent speech or Obama’s fiscal policy. With all this talk about the Democratic and Republican nominees, people have seem to forgotten that there are other candidates from other parties running in this election. In this blog post, I will talk about the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson.

                Gary Johnson served as Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 as a Republican. During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to a stringent anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy driven by a cost–benefit analysis rationale, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together [1]. Also, as governor, Johnson fulfilled his campaign promise to reduce the 10% annual growth of the state budget, pushed for a school voucher program, and argued in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. After leaving office, Johnson founded the non-profit Our America Initiative in 2009, a political advocacy committee seeking to promote policies such as free enterprise, foreign non-interventionism, limited government and privatization.

                On May 11, 2011, Johnson decided to run for president under the Republican Party. After two successful debates and aggressive campaigning, Johnson still couldn’t muster up the popularity required to win a Republican primary. So, on December 28, 2011, Johnson withdrew his candidacy for the Republican Party and declared that he was running for the Libertarian Party.

                As a Libertarian candidate, Johnson holds fiscally conservative, socially liberal views, and a philosophy of limited government and military noninterventionism. Here are his positions on the major issues [2]:

·         Foreign Policy: Bring home all of the troops and strive for military noninterventionism.

·         Education: End the Department of Education and give local areas authority over the schools.

·         Spending/Deficit: Balance the budget, reform costly entitlement programs, and audit the Federal Reserve.

·         Economy/Taxes: Replace the IRS with the ‘Fair Tax’ and eliminate government involvement in the economy.

·         Civil Liberties: End the assault on individual privacy and create a neutral government that does not promote specific beliefs.

·         Immigration: Simplify the legal immigration process and create policies that will hinder illegal immigration.

·         Energy/Environment: Eliminate government subsidies for energy programs and apply a cost-benefit analysis approach to environmental regulations.

               As you can see, Gary Johnson stands in the middle of the Democrats and Republicans. Socially he is liberal while economically he is conservative. While the Libertarian Party still doesn’t stand a chance against the two major parties, it’s always nice to know that there are other options out there.

[1] http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17162855.html

[2] http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

On the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

                Back in 1994 Congress enacted a law known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This ban prohibited the production of certain assault weapons for a ten year period. When the ban expired in 2004, Congress decided not to renew it. Now, in the wake of the Aurora shooting and other crimes, many people are arguing for increased gun control. The question now is should Congress renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

                Well let’s look at the facts. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, between the years of 1994 and 2004 under the federal ban on assault weapons, there was a 66 percent reduction in assault weapons being linked to shootings [1]. The reasoning behind this being that criminals found it harder to obtain assault weapons under the ban. Furthermore, studies by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence show that if the Act had not been passed and the banned assault weapons continued to make up the same percentage of crime gun traces as before the Act’s passage, approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 years—an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced to crime each year [2].

                These stats prove that assault weapons were used less in crimes, but they don’t necessarily prove that lives were saved. According to Christopher S. Koper in his study entitled: Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, crimes will just be committed with other guns. The study points out that the decline in assault weapon use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs [3]. So if Congress were to renew this ban, then criminals will simply use other guns instead. Also, since the ban only prohibits the production of assault weapons, people will still be able to legally buy and sell previously manufactured guns. Though, one can argue that the rise in demand for these weapons caused by the ban would increase prices for assault weapons and thus make it harder to obtain them.

                In the end the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is inefficient because it still makes it possible for criminals to obtain assault weapons legally. If the government truly wants to regulate gun control, renewing the FAWB is not the right choice of action. 

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/gun-control-laws_b_1730567.html

[2] www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf   

[3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf 

Budget Control Act of 2011

                Last year Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 which, among other things, created a last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling. Part of the deal included tasking a ‘super committee’ with finding a deficit-reduction plan by November, 2011. As an incentive, the debt ceiling bill included a spending cuts measure to encourage the committee to move quickly or face the self-imposed penalty of sequestration. Sequestration involves across-the-board spending cuts which would cut the debt by $1.2 trillion in the 2012 and 2013 fiscal budgets. This bill was created in hopes of solving the debt-ceiling crises once and for all.

                But sadly the success of the bill relies on bipartisan cooperation within Congress, something that will not happen anytime soon. Since the super committee failed to come up with a deficit-reduction plan last year, it’s up to Congressional leaders to accomplish this feat by January, 2013. As the bickering in Congress continues, the chance of sequestration occurring becomes more and more likely. If sequestration were to go in effect, cuts would be made to Medicare, military and intelligence agencies, education, and more. On November 14, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta wrote a letter to Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham [1] explaining the ramifications of the full sequestration defense cuts. “Should these cuts take place over the next 10 years,” he said, “the United States would be left with its smallest ground force since World War II; the smallest Navy since 1915; the smallest fighter force in the history of the Air Force; and the smallest civilian work force in the Defense Department's history.” The result of such cuts could be catastrophic.

 But with such a huge national debt, what other choices do we have but to cut spending? Some on the left propose that we lessen the budget cuts by raising taxes. They maintain that the current tax rate is too low, at least for the wealthy, and that by raising taxes the government would be able to keep major programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, at a functioning level. Opponents to this proposal, however, claim that raising taxes would reduce the tax payer’s average disposable income and hamper the already fragile economy. So basically, we’re all screwed no matter what we do.

The sequestration was meant to spur Washington to make a compromise and solve the debt crises in a timely manner. Now, it threatens to cause chaos. If you care about the wellbeing of our country, then I suggest that you write a letter to your congressmen and senators asking them to please hurry up before we lose all stability.

[1] - http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/opinion/bennett-sequestration-defense-cuts/index.html?iref=allsearch

Government Interference

                Recently, a major topic in the media has been the extent of the role of government in our personal lives. Some believe that government interference infringes on people’s rights while others believe that government interference upholds people’s rights. This topic has stirred up a heated debate in American politics and will definitely have an impact on the 2012 presidential election. The Obama administration supports big government and economic interference while Romney supports small government but with certain limits to personal freedoms. But how would these ideologies, if put into action, affect our lives? Which ideology would be best for America? How much government interference is too much?

When analyzing this topic we must first ask ourselves why we have a government in the first place. In the U.S., our government performs five functions:

                1. Establishing justice:  The government establishes a system of laws that we all agree to adhere to. This creates a foundation on which we can say what is right and wrong and dispense justice accordingly through the judicial branch.

                2. Insuring domestic tranquility: The government has the responsibility of keeping the country safe from potential threats. This is mainly carried out through the police force, National Guard, and Department of Homeland Security.

                3. Providing for the common defense:  The government has the authority to raise an army in order to protect the country from foreign threats.

                4. Promoting the general welfare: The government helps those in need with unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.

                5. Upholding freedom and liberty: Americans are ensured the specific rights outlined in the constitution.

Theoretically every action the government takes falls under one of these five categories. Every law that is enacted by Congress is purportedly designed to carry out one of these functions. However, certain actions/policies can be perceived as being harmful or contrary to these functions depending on one’s viewpoint. For example, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 the government stepped up security at the airports and used profiling to single out passengers and do extensive searches on them. Some say that the government was in the right by insuring domestic tranquility while others saw this action as a violation of the government’s function to uphold freedom and liberty.

What we must realize is that no matter what action the government takes, there will always be people in support of that action and people in opposition to that action. Since we can’t make each individual happy, we need to focus on the larger scale. What would benefit the U.S. as a whole?

Let’s look at the marijuana controversy. There is a large grass roots movement calling for the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. Proponents of this idea claim that the crackdown on marijuana is too taxing on our economy, that marijuana has excellent medicinal benefits, that private industry will expand with marijuana-oriented businesses, and that marijuana is not physically harmful. Critics, however, argue that marijuana impairs judgment and the senses, that legalizing marijuana will send a bad message to the youth, and that marijuana can cause long term physical damage. While the opposition to marijuana legalization bring up good points, it’s still debatable whether or not keeping marijuana illegal benefits the U.S. as a whole. Some argue that the government is performing its function to promote the general welfare by keeping marijuana illegal. Others say that even if marijuana is harmful, one would still have a choice to consume the product or not. Furthermore, supporters proclaim that the government should legalize marijuana because it expands freedom, which is the 5^th function of the government.

If we’re trying to benefit the U.S. as whole, then why not legalize marijuana? Why not let people smoke marijuana at their own risk? It will only make the users happy and will not affect those who do not use the drug. What’s the point of limiting freedoms for no apparent reason? In this case the government interference is limiting the rights of the people.

If we look at things logically and analyze the actions of the government in respect to the five functions mentioned above, we can help prevent the government from neglecting to look at the welfare of the U.S. as a whole.