RT: Video: The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann: How Big Should the Government Be?

http://youtu.be/pFAJlFOimfw

In this editorial Thom Hartmann said that government should be big enough so that everyone has access to a quality education from K-college. And so everyone has access to quality affordable healthcare and I'm assuming health insurance as well in America. I get that Thom is in favor of single-payer Medicare For All making Medicare the sole provider of health insurance in America. I disagree with him on that as well as many other issues but he's definitely in favor of that. My question would be does that mean when he says that government should be big enough so everyone has access to quality affordable healthcare in. America and does that mean he's also in favor of nationalizing the entire healthcare system all together. Similar to what the United Kingdom use to have before they started privatizing parts of their National Health Service. And my question to him on education with him saying that government should be big enough to ensure that. Everyone has access to a quality education in America. Does that mean he wants to nationalize education in America and have the Federal Government. As the sole provider of education in this country.

I agree with Hartmann on regulation to insure that we are all using safe products and services and so forth. Just as long as the public-sector isn't trying to run the private-sector and vice versa. And of course I agree that government shouldn't be running industries and the entire economy and so fourth. I would add education and healthcare to that but where we differ is what else should government be doing. Federal, state and local and for me it starts with the United States Constitution as far as what government has the. Authority to do in America and if you want government to do something that's currently unconstitutional. Then we have a Constitutional process to follow to make that happen. But once you limit government at all levels to doing what it has the authority in the Constitution, it then becomes. About what should it be doing and where I come down on as a Liberal is that big government is government that tries to do too much. No matter whether it comes from the Left or Right and that government should only do for us what we can't. Do for ourselves or do as well.

How big I believe government should be, well to talk about the Federal Government which is really what this about. When we are talking about a national talk show, unless some state or city is named. To start I'll tell you what I do not want government to do. As I said before anything that the people can't do for themselves, that is not organizations business or otherwise can't do for themselves or anything. That the states and localities can't do for themselves or do better for themselves. So I do not want government telling the people what the can say to each other, private citizens that it or what they can say. In public as long as they aren't libeling people or inciting riots, giving away governmental secrets that are classified. That sorta thing, I do not want government telling the people where they can send their kids to school. And I certainly do not want the Federal Government running the schools in this country. I just want government especially the Federal Government to do for us what we can't do for ourselves.

I do not want government trying to run our lives like telling us what we can eat or drink, smoke and so forth. Or making any other personal healthcare decision for us and I certainly do not want government forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. So I'm not a fan of Prohibition really at any level. I want government to defend, protect us not from ourselves but from people who would do us harm. Cleanup disasters as well and create an environment where as many people as possible can be as successful as they can be in life. Not trying to do it for them so I want universal access to quality education in this in country K-college like Thom. But I do not want the Federal Government trying to run the whole system but be there to help with the financing which is different. So overall the Federal Government of my dreams would be smaller including in defense but I would spend more on. Infrastructure, education and job training so even unemployed people and low-income low-skilled workers. Can get themselves good jobs in this country and live in freedom as well.

For me when I blog about limited government, I'm actually talking about limited government. I know thats sounds shocking it's so simple it must be true. But I'm not talking about small government but a government that's large enough let's say to do the things that we need it to do. But not so big that it limits people's freedom to do everything that they can do for themselves. Meaning basically not trying to run people's lives for them.

The Atlantic: James Kwak: "Washington's Backward Retirement Policy": How to Increase Retirement Security Through Individual Freedom and Responsibility

Washington's Backward Retirement Policy: So Wrong, and Yet So Easy to Fix - James Kwak - The Atlantic

The best way to have more retirement-security is through better economic and job-growth with more Americans working. Falling unemployment and rising wages more Americans have the resources to save what they need to plan their own retirements. Rather then government or their employer trying to do that for them which is really what individual-freedom and responsibility is about. Eliminate the middleman or middle women put the power and responsibility with the individual. If we accomplished this what would happen. More people working, more people making money instead of collecting money. More people making more money, more people with the resources to plan their own retirements,  less people in need of. Social Security once they are eligible for it just to pay their bills in their retirement years. More people using their Social Security income like a senior citizen uses their income from a part time job that they have to. Keep themselves busy but actually not needing that job to pay their bills.

As far as pensions are concern I've already blogged this before but I'm for a version of what's called Social Security Plus. The base of Social Security staying in place and not privatized but where workers would have the option to create a new personal retirement account for themselves. That they would be able to put money into separate from their base payroll tax that would be matched by their employer and. Would be tax free in both cases that they would have the option to invest their PRA funds on their own. Like in stocks or in a business and be able to keep whatever they make from those investments but also. Be personally liable for whatever losses they may have as well. But since they now have the funds to make these investments, they should have the knowledge to know what are good investments and what. Are not and be able to make these decisions for themselves rather then their employer or government doing that for them.

We do not need less freedom for the people and more power for the government for our own good. To save Social Security or have a better retirement-system in America but we need more people working. And more people making more money and the ability to make these decisions for themselves.

MSNBC: Video: The Last Word: Lawrence O'Donnell: How Margaret Thatcher Reformed British Socialism

http://youtu.be/VN520bz-Hmk

I'm glad to see MSNBC produce and editorial in favor of Socialism which goes to my overall argument of how far to the left. They tend to be and to the left of American-Liberalism but Larry O'Donnell as I call him makes some good points here. That Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom didn't destroy British-Socialism. She actually expanded it in some cases but what she did was get rid of a lot of the bad Socialism in the British economy and government. Like privatizing a lot of British-industries and companies and lowering the top tax rate from eighty percent to sixty percent. But she kept a lot of the British welfare-state incheck and if anything expanded it. Government spending in the United Kingdom went up in her tenure as Prime Minister as it did with President Ronald Reagan in. The United States and Republicans like to blame that on Congressional-Democrats even though. President Reagan only had one Democratic Congress his last two years as President. But in Britain the party that controls the executive also controls Parliament. Unlike in America with our checks and balances.

The fact is British Conservatism is almost a form of Socialism at least as how it would look in America. And Britain is essentially divided between Conservative-Socialists let's call them from the Conservative Party. That look a lot like FDR New Deal Democrats who are different from the McGovern-Democrats of today. People who put a lot of faith in the welfare-state and central-government to take care of people like the McGovern Progressive-Democrats of today. But also believe in things like a strong military, robust Internationalist foreign-policy, strong law-enforcement. Rule of law and so fourth, tough on terrorism things that the McGovern Progressive-Democrats of today tend to be against. And the opposition being the Democratic-Socialists people to look like the McGovern Progressives in America. So the British-Conservatives are Conservative in Britain but look fairly Socialist in America. Which I believe is Larry O'Donnell's point in this editorial.

As O'Donnell said what Prime Minister Thatcher did was to get rid of the bad Socialism in Britain. In Britain the state-ownership of industries, which is a good thing to do in any country where it exists and. something I would like to do in America. But leave in the Socialism that works in Britain like their
National Health Service and what would be there Social Security. Not the hardcore Conservative that right-wingers in America like to portray her as.

Center for American Progress: Economy: David Madland @ Kira Walter: How to Empower The Middle Class to Empower Themselves

Top 6 Policies to Help the Middle Class that Won’t Cost Taxpayers a Penny | Center for American Progress

Instead of taking the approach of how can we empower government to take care of everybody or take care of the people. Who are currently struggling and create all sorts of new government social-programs. I'm going to take the approach to quote Jerry Maguire, how can I meaning government in this case help you. And I would add to that what government do to empower the millions of Americans who need it help themselves. And have the same freedom both economic and personal that the rest of the country has. And it gets to things like infrastructure-investment rebuilding this country, universal lifelong education and. Job-training so all Americans always have the ability to improve themselves. Tax-reform so we have more companies investing more money in America, especially American companies. And we tax people based on what they take out of society not what they contribute to society. And a national energy policy that finally moves this country towards energy-independence by utilizing our vast menu. Of natural resources, so if you are looking for the Next New Deal, keep looking I'm sure you'll find it.

If I were to write an Economic Bill of Rights for the United States and I may do that for this blog in the future. It would be about education and the right to organize for all workers but that all workers would also have the right to not join a union and operate as a free-agent. And not subjected to union-dues they just wouldn't get the benefits that come with being in a union as well. The education part is also key that all Americans would have the right to a lifelong education no matter the income level or their parents. Always having the ability to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held accountable for what they do with those opportunities for good and bad and. In between so what government would be telling the people that they everyone in America whose. Physically and mentally able would have the ability to be successful in life. No longer stuck in poverty because you come from and live in rural or innercity America.

What government will also do is subsidize your success and for any American whose working would always. Make more then Americans who are unemployed and universal access to education and job-training would especially be available. For people who are not working but need to be, too young or without the resources to retire. We have an economic-system like this and real tax-reform that taxes everybody by what they takeout of society. Instead of what they contribute to society and we would have a true Liberal-Democracy, I know Progressives and right-wingers hate that term but get use to it. Where all Americans would have access to both economic and personal-freedom.

Toledo Blade: Video: President FDR Fireside Chat. 2nd Bill of Rights From 1/11/1944: The Progressive Bill of Rights

http://youtu.be/f3NTUNQzr3k

I'm been wanting to write a blog for a while now on what is the Progressive idea of freedom. Because their hero or the Ronald Reagan of the American-Progressive movement spoked about freedom and the. Need for it a lot and so did Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson and even Teddy Roosevelt where a lot of the Progressive policies were inspired. Henry Wallace who ran for President fror the Progressive Party back in 1948 would be another example of that. I mean I don't think you can credibly call yourself a Progressive and not believe in individual-freedom at least to a certain point. Because a lot of what Progressivism is about is about progress so if you believe government should be taking away a lot of. Our current freedom if not most of it, you are no longer a Progressive but just a pure Statist. That government has to have most if not all of the power for the good of society. Its just that the Progressive notion of freedom is a lot less individualistic then Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals thats all. And puts more faith in the state to serve the people well.

So what is the Progressive notion of freedom at least coming from a non Progressive or someone who doesn't fit the popular definition of Progressive. In its most limited form it would be the freedom not to have to take responsibility for one's own well being. Education of your children, healthcare, health insurance, pension, childcare, unemployment would be generous if you need it. And you wouldn't even be expected to go back to work. Healthcare and health insurance would never be denied to you no matter what, it would never be free but it would always be there for you. You would always have a job no matter what because you would be entitled to one as well well as entitled to make a good living. So perhaps unemployment insurance would go away. Even if you do not bring any marketable skills to the table and whatever you make from your job, if its not enough. Government would give you the rest from tax payers to cover your bills. This probably all sounds like Fantasy Land to non Progressives and what a Socialist-Utopia would look like.

The more mainstream and reality based Progressivism would be about a generous welfare-state to provide the people with the services. That we all need but run by government because Progressives do not trust the private-sector to handle these things. Like healthcare, health insurance and education, a safety net for people who fall through the cracks of the Capitalist-system. Thats financed through high taxes, which is where Progressives need to get back to instead of talking about all of the new. Government services to replace services from the private-sector, pensions being the latest one if Progressives ever want to have real power in America.

The North Star: Healthcare: Luke Elliot: The New-Left and the Ballot Box: How Progressives Can Get Their Policies Into Law

The US Left and the Ballot Box

I blogged about a month ago I guess that the way for Progressive/Socialists or Social-Democrats in America. Can get their policies into law whether its healthcare or pensions or voting. Is with a Federalist approach and not allow the Right to own American-Federalism and that Vermont should be the model. To look at but moving forward across the country at the state level instead of going to the Federal Government. Every time they want to see some new law or program passed. Vermont is probably the most Socialist state in the union, just like New Hampshire is probably the most Libertarian state in the. Union and Maryland my home state might be the most Liberal state in the union. And not to make fun of South Carolina but they are probably the capital of the Bible Belt and the religious-right in America. But what makes Vermont different from other Progressive states like lets say Massachusetts is that they. Believe in Federalism that is they are both Socialist and Federalist they believe in both.

Someone who is lets say a Socialist-Federalist thats not a contradiction necessarily as long as they believe in both. Federalism isn't about Leftist government or Rightist government but its about good government and that government closest to home is the best government. So you could have Socialist-Federalism and have Socialist policies in your state but that its your state thats creating those polices. Instead of Socialists from the Federal Government creating all of these new Federal programs and telling the states what they. Can do with their own money, what Vermont is saying with its very own single-payer health insurance program. Is that we do not need Uncle Sam to try to build our Socialist-Utopia for us that we can do that ourselves with our own money and our own people.

Vermont is saying that the Feds through failure of either inaction or not having the votes. Is failing to deliver the government that we want and that we at the state level can not only do that instead but create. The policies on our own and do not need Uncle Sam to try to do that for us.

C-Span: Video: Lectures in History Preview: Eric Foner: Socialism in America: Why its Never Quite Caught On

I actually saw this lecture about American-Socialism in the summer of 2012 on C-Span. Love to at some point see a lecture from Eric Foner in person but a lot of what he was talking about when. It came to Socialism I agree with but what I'm going to write about as a non Socialist whose interested on Socialism. Just as someone whose also on the Left but not quite that far to the left and as someone whose interested in political philosophy and political history. Why hasn't Socialism picked up more support and why aren't more Socialists holding public office and so fourth.

Historian Foner argues that Socialism has never gone way in America. We agree there but he goes on to saying that Socialism graduated from the Progressive-era of Teddy Roosevelt to the. New Deal of his cousin Franklin Roosevelt to the Fair Deal of Harry Truman to the Great Society of. Lyndon Johnson and we actually agree that Socialism became about the welfare-state or safety-net in. America because it would never make it in America as an economic-policy about state-ownership of industries and enterprises. But where we disagree is that Socialism has graduated into Liberalism today is about the welfare-state. As if Socialism and Liberalism are the same political animal with just different labels which they aren't. Different political philosophies, Socialism is basically about the state and what the state can do for the people. Liberalism is about the individual and what government to a certain extent can do for the people so they can. Take care of themselves and that Socialism is actually alive and fairly well in America and even holds some public offices including in the United States Congress.

It is true that only one member of Congress at least the last time I check calls themselves a Socialist officially. Which would be Senator Bernie Sanders of the Socialist State of Vermont as I call it. But there are other Socialists in Congress Senate and House that probably agree with Senator Sanders 90-95% of the time. But prefer to be called Progressives because of the negative stereotypes that Socialism has in America. And how often it gets linked with Communism to use as an example but that just gets to how successfully the partisan-Right in America. Has campaigned against Socialism and how Americans tend to be somewhat ignorant about political-philosophy. The Congressional Progressive Caucus which is mostly made up of eighty members of the. U.S. House of Representatives and a few U.S. Senators including Bernie Sanders probably agree with. Senator Sanders again 90-95% of the time but again with the negative stereotypes that come with. Socialism prefer to be called Progressives.

Socialism back in the day at least was based not only on the welfare-state, high taxes and high centralize government spending. But also state-enterprises and state-industries, the state owning the means of production of society another words the economy. Which is very unpopular in a country as both Liberal and Conservative as America. State-ownership and nationalizing the economy will never catch on in America I believe. But Socialism based on the welfare-state and the right to organize and education, public-works that type of thing. Has always had a movement in this country at least since the early 20th Century and still is alive and well today.