Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Salon: AP's Norma Love: Former U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman dies at 82: The GOP Losing Another Northeastern Republican

Former U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman dies at 82

The term Northeast Republican gets thrown out a lot, from the far right a Northeast Republican would be a Moderate-Liberal Republican. Someone who looks like a Democrat but from time to time votes and governs like a Republican on economic issues. But for a Northeast Republican I'm guessing a Northeast Republican is a Republican who can get elected in the Northeast. Elected statewide even, like the George Pataki's Governor of New York for three terms, Bill Weld who was Governor of Massachusetts. A Democratic heaven, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins both serving in the US Senate right now together. Senator Snowe actually leaving Congress at the end of this year, which I'll get into later but basically she is a. Northeast Republican, there's that term again, former Senator Judd Gregg who served as a Representative, Governor and then Senator from New Hampshire was a Northeastern Republican. Even freaking Mitt Romney was a Northeast Republican before he decided he wanted to be President was a. Northeast Republican politically and perhaps still geographically, depending on where he calls his current home.

Now I'll tell you my definition of a Northeast Republican, a Republican whose economically and fiscally conservative. Who believes in a strong defense and whose also a Conservative Internationalist on foreign policy but whose moderate-tolerant. On social issues, Liberal even or Conservative in the classical sense, Libertarian even but does not go along with the religious right or Neoconservatives on social issues. Is not caught up in some 1950s mindset of what America is and anyone who doesn't fall in line with that is. Either a Liberal or Socialist or just flat out Un American, former Senator Warren Rudman from the live free or die State of New Hampshire. Can't get much more Liberal or Libertarian and anti Big Government then that, was a Northeast Republican and represented the best aspects of Conservatism. And represents exactly what's wrong with today's GOP who predicted back in 1996 that the GOP would no. Longer be a major political party if they stayed on their current course ideologically.

Warren Rudman was a great Senator who was one of the best people to ever serve in Congress, in his twelve years. In the Senate and represented both exactly why the Republican Party use to be the Grand Ole Party and why they aren't today. Because there's just not enough Northeastern Republicans left in the Republican party.

American Prospect: Mike Konczal: The Great Society's Next Frontier: The Role of Social Insurance

The Great Society's Next Frontier

This is why I like to read Progressive blogs and other publications, to not only see what they are thinking but. To have these discussions and debates and as a Liberal and there's a big difference and I'll get to that later, social insurance is a perfect example of that. I manage to even debate these issues with Social Democrats from time to time, without being called a corporatist. Or a sellout to American Capitalism, Conservative even which is the funniest charge I've heard so far and I can go down the line but if you. Are familiar with Progressive rhetoric you should know the rest but this is a perfect area of where we disagree

Liberals and Social Democrats even disagree on what grand package of programs that social insurances should be labeled under. Social Democrats call it welfare state, I and other Liberals call it safety net, sounds similar but there's a difference. A welfare state implies free money if there's such a thing, for people to either  be taken care of by government or welfare. For people who for whatever reason or reasons can't pay their own bills but if you are familiar with social insurance. You know its not free because of how its financed, take Unemployment Insurance which comes out of our paychecks and we. Collect from it when we are guess what unemployed, so UI is obviously not welfare but money for people. Who need it when they are unemployed and then once you are working again, you go back to paying into UI. To keep that program running for the people who need it in the future.

A safety net is different because its there to catch us when we literally fall in the economy, lose our job, not making. Enough money to eat adequately or pay our own rent, keep the heat on etc, its there to help sustain us when we are down. But this is what a safety net also does or is suppose to do and a lot of times does and I would go further to make this part of the safety net. Work better, its there to not only help us when we are down but help us get back up, Welfare to Work or TANF from 1996, perfect . Example of that, meaning while people are down and collecting public assistance its there job to get themselves. Back up, while you are on Unemployment Insurance, its your job to be either looking for work or in job training to find other work. Same thing with TANF and government helps you finance that.

The next phase of the safety net in America as I call it, again depends on who you ask but if you are asking. Leftists such as myself, Liberal or Progressive your answer would get around to how to improve it, Progressives would say. It should look more like Sweden and that we move towards a Democratic Socialist model, where not only healthcare and health insurance. Would be provided by the Federal Government like in Sweden but where Unemployment Insurance would be like a middle class income. Where childcare would be provided for by government, education including higher education would be. Provided by government and I could go down the line but I'll spare you for now. That would be the Social Democratic model, Liberal Democrats such as myself have a much different approach.

As a Liberal I go with the Jack Kennedy/Bill Clinton model, that is "not ask what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country", and with WJC Bill Clinton for you non Clintonian's, that is welfare should no longer be. Free but only there for the people who truly need it and that all physically and mentally able people should be expected to work, even if they have kids. And that government can play a role in empowering people who are mentally and physically able to work but. Lack the education to do so, with those skills so they can be self sufficient, rather then having a Swedish style. Welfare state thats there to provide services for people who can get those services themselves.