Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'President Obama's Health Care Reform

Source:Liberty Pen- Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson, about President Barack Obama's health care reform plan.

"Thomas Sowell discusses the proposition that government can operate a health system more efficiently than the market." Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

You look at the Affordable Care Act of 2010 objectively, you'll see what is basically a health insurance reform law. As well as expanding health insurance through the private market for people who can't afford health insurance on their own. 

It's not "government-run health care or health insurance" that Democratic Socialists in America were calling for: a single-payer Medicare for all health insurance law, with government-run hospitals, thats similar to Canada or Britain. There's no new entitlement program in the ACA that the right-wing claim is is in it. 

The ACA simply reforms the private health insurance industry to prevent them from abusing its patients. Like dropping them from coverage just because they get sick, ending lifetime caps on the amount of health insurance they can consume. Or kicking them out of hospitals before they are ready, closing the "doughnut hole" in Medicare and making that program more affordable. 

The Affordable Care Act is simply a Patients Bill of Rights, that expands health insurance coverage for 30M Americans who can't afford health insurance on their own or their employers plan, through the private health insurance market, with a tax credit that helps people pay for their health insurance. 

And it's not just President Obama's health care law, but it's also every Democratic Member of Congress who voted for it and got an amendment attached to it. As well as every Republican Member of Congress who got an amendment attached to it as well. They all own at least a piece of the Affordable Care Act. 

What I believe the President originally wanted to do was design a new health care system for America that would be similar to France a combination of private and public health insurance, but where the people not the government would decide for themselves where they got their health insurance and health care. And wouldn't have to get it from a private or public monopoly. Thats what France has and France health care system costs half of what ours does. 

The reason why the President pushed hard for a public option in health care reform, a non-profit health insurance provider that would be independent of the Federal Government that people could choose or not choose. The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law by far but its a good first step in reforming our health insurance system that cost twice as much as the rest of the developed world for similar outcomes. 

I would like to see a public option in the future as well as more reforms to brings down our overall health care costs.

VOA News: Carol Castiel- Interviewing Marc Ginsberg: 'On Morocco's Constitutional Reforms'

Source:VOA News- Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, talking to VOA News about Morocco.

"Voice of America (VOA) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the U.S. federal tax budget. It is the largest U.S. international broadcaster. VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people." 

From Wikipedia 

"Former US Ambassador to Morocco Marc Ginsberg speaks out on the landmark constitutional reforms in Morocco on VOA's Press Conference USA with host Carol Castiel." 

From VOA News

The idea that a country the size of Morocco (32 million people) with a vast amount of land in the Arab (or Berber) world, is even talking about progressive reforms in their Constitution, is a huge step. 

But what I believe what Morocco should do is move to a constitutional monarchy like let's say Spain, where the Monarchy is still there, but doesn't run the executive branch of government (the Administration) but has more of a ceremonial role like in Britain. But where you have a civilian administration with an elected president or prime minister who appoints the cabinet, but has to be confirmed by an elected parliament. 

The good news is the King of Morocco has already sort of moved in this direction where they now or will have an elected Prime Minister and an elected multi-party bicameral Parliament. Morocco could definitely move from being the Kingdom of Morocco where the King is essentially a dictator with vast powers, to the Constitutional Monarchy of Morocco with branches of government, an executive with an Elected Leader, an elected multi-party bicameral Parliament,  and an independent judicial branch, thats appointed by the executive and have to be confirmed by Parliament. 

Similar to Spain, Morocco could be a very progressive country at least in Arabia as well as the rest of the World, that has a ruling party in the Executive with a multi-party Parliament, that respects minority rights for the parties that are not in charged of a chamber in Parliament, or both Chambers of Parliament. That also respects both men and women, racial and ethnic minorities, and religious minorities. Where the people can live their own lives with a basic Bill of Rights and not be thrown in jail when they express their rights. 

This is a system that I believe Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf monarchies should look at as well. There's a clear message that I believe is being communicated in Arabia, that they are tired of authoritarian rule and want they ability to live their own lives and elect their own leaders. 

It's a good sign that the King of Morocco has taken it upon himself to move to reform the Moroccan Government and give his people more power in how they live their own lives and select their  leaders. And I believe what they are doing is something that the rest of Arabia should look at and could learn from.

Senate Democrats: Senator Chuck Schumer- To GOP: 'Grover Norquist's OK Letting Millionaire Tax Breaks Expire in Debt Deal'

Source:Senate Democrats- Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) talking about anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

"Senator Schumer reminded House Republicans this morning that anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist has given permission to let the Bush tax breaks lapse, making it easier for Republicans to support revenues in a debt deal." 

From the Senate Democrats

I actually still disagree with Conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist about his latest position on the Bush tax cuts. Letting them expire would be a tax hike, perhaps not a Tax Raise meaning creating a new tax bracket, but it's definitely a tax hike, for the simple fact that increasing the tax rates on wealthy people from what they are currently now would mean they would be paying more in taxes in both percentage and actuality. 

But thats fine with me because high-earners should pay more in taxes and get a lot of their tax loopholes closed for the simple fact that we have a huge debt and deficit problem that needs to be addressed. And these tax hikes would raise around 200B$ a year in new tax revenue that would paid to help pay down the deficit and debt. Not to be reinvested in the Federal Government on new spending that the so-called House Progressive Caucus and its allies would like to see done with that revenue. 

This revenue wouldn't hurt the economy, because high-earners aren't spending much of this money right now to create new jobs and invest in the economy. And that they can afford these tax hikes right now because of how well they are doing right now and how well they have been doing. 

What I'm not in favor of is letting the all of the Bush tax cuts expire or passing new tax hikes on the middle class. Which again is what the so-called House Progressive Caucus and their allies are in favor of and reinvesting that money in the Federal Government for new spending. 

Passing tax hikes on people who are struggling just to pay their bills right now and perhaps living off of whatever savings they may have and are perhaps unemployed, would be bad for the economy, because these people would have even less money to spend, which means they would spend less. The last thing we want to do right now is create less demand in an economy with low demand, which is one of the reasons for our high unemployment, low economic growth, and Low job growth. 

What we should be doing instead is encouraging the middle class to spend more money to create more demand in the economy. Which would create higher job growth, and higher economic growth and create more jobs to lower our unemployment rate. 

I'm glad to see Grover Norquist come to his senses (so to speak) and wake up to the fact that new tax hikes on the wealthy could be part of a deficit reduction package. Perhaps I'm taking his position too far and some of this on his position is wishful thinking. But he apparently he has opened the door to tax hikes.

Associated Press: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney- 'President Obama Is Willing to Take the Heat'

Source:Associated Press- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, talking to reporters.

"White House Spokesman Jay Carney says President Barack Obama is willing to take political heat from fellow democrats in order to get a debt deal completed.  He also says the GOP needs to compromise for the good of the country. (July 20)" 

From the Associated Press

In the last day some adults have merged in Congress, mostly in the Senate, but a few in the House as well in the Democratic Caucus. But adults have emerged in both party's in the Senate with Republican Senator Tom Coburn and the bipartisan "Gang of Six". And have put together deficit reduction and debt ceiling plan, that would raise the debt ceiling, but would also move to get our deficit and debt under control. 

This bipartisan plan would cut the Federal budget around 4T$ of the next ten years, but do it in a way that not only gets our deficit and debt under control, but doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hurt. 

The House Democratic Leadership led by my Representative Chris Van Hollen (the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) has also offered a plan that cuts about as much as the Coburn and the "Gang of Six" plan. The Van Hollen plan reduces the debt by about the same over ten year and also in a comprehensive way. With tax hikes on people who can afford it the wealthy, as well as budget cuts in defense and in other places. As well as closing tax loopholes, a plan that would cut the debt 75-25 as far as budget cuts over revenue raisers. 

Democrats are already on board on budget cuts and I believe Congressional Democrats would also get on board on entitlement reform, if it doesn't effect people who need those programs right now and into the future and saves those programs. So Congressional Democrats and the White House are willing to give the House GOP 2/3 of what they want: budget cuts and entitlement reform and except for a few, have shown a little willingness to cut tax loopholes and defense. 

The House GOP has basically been in this "my way or the highway approach" thinking they have all the power in the Federal Government, when they really only have 1/3 of it. This is called divided government for a reason. For bills to become laws and not just bills that are sent from one chamber to the other and die. Both chambers and both party's have to work together just to get a bill sent to the White House. 

And then Congress has to work with the President for that bill to become law and for him to sign it. This is something the House GOP doesn't understand yet and why we are still coming up close to the August 2nd debt ceiling deadline without a final resolution. 

The so-called House Progressive Caucus on the Far-Left is not going to get what they want, they don't have enough members or pull a lot of sway except with the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But Minority Leader Pelosi isn't the Minority Leader for nothing, she's not in charged of the House and can't push a bill through it on her own. The Progressive Caucus won't get a deficit reduction and debt ceiling plan that has a trillion dollars of tax hikes in it and guts the national defense. 

The Tea Party Caucus on the Far-Right won't get everything they want either. They won't be able to convert Medicare and Medicaid into voucher systems. They only have power in the House and not much if any in the Senate. 

So for there to be a final agreement that can pass both chambers and get signed into law. The House and Senate are going to have to work together and with the President, to get some thing and give some things. Or nothing will happen.

Solid Principles: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- 'On The Failed Liberal Agenda'

Source:Solid Principles- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican Arizona) 

"An Excerpt from a speech from Barry Goldwater on the failed policy of the Liberal Agenda.  Proof that history is repeating, or liberals don't learn from their own history." 

From Solid Principles

What Senator Barry Goldwater called a "Failed Liberal Agenda" (as he saw it) like the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s and even President Eisenhower to a certain extent, even though he was a Center-Right  Progressive/Conservative (lets say) with the Federal Highway System of the 1950s, wasn't a "Liberal Agenda." At least in the economic sense. 

If you look at the word liberal and what it means politically, which is how I describe my politics, sure it was liberal in the sense of its size and how big it was and how much of it there was, but that wouldn't be the political definition of liberal. 

The agenda that Senator Goldwater from an economic point of view by its political definition, is not liberal. The agenda Senator Goldwater was talking about was a social democratic agenda. Social welfare policies to create the American welfare state, which really isn't a welfare state, but a safety net and they're different.

Like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Welfare Insurance, etc. With the New Deal in the 1930s. And Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, etc, with the Great Society in the 1960s.

These are all social insurance programs that Progressives and Social Democrats were able to push through Congress in the 1930s and 1960s. Now I wouldn't of designed those programs the way they were originally designed and I don't believe anyone who is not a Socialist would design those programs that way today either.

I would've designed those programs, especially for the poor and unemployed, to empower them to get themselves to self-sufficiency. And would've added choice and competition from the private sector as well, so these people would have an option of where to receive their public assistance from. 

And with the programs for senior citizens, again more choice and competition and the ability to finance their own retirements so people aren't so dependent on Social Security in their senior years. But these programs which by far, none of them are perfect and all of them need reform today, have all worked at least to a certain extent.

If you look at Social Security- That program has provided millions of senior citizens the ability to not live in poverty.

Unemployment Insurance- Again has provided people with the ability to not live in poverty and not go homeless.

Welfare Insurance- Which by far hasn't been an overall success, at least up until it was reformed in 1996, has given millions of Americans the ability to not go homeless.

Medicare- Which needs major reform, has guaranteed millions of Americans the ability to have health insurance once they retire.

Medicaid- Which again needs major reform, has given millions of low-income people health insurance that they wouldn't otherwise had.

Public housing- Again no one other than a sSocialist would design that program the same way today. Without that we would probably have tens of millions or more people living homeless today.

All these programs are far from perfect when they were originally designed and don't meet a lot of the demands today and all need to be reformed. But they've all contributed to making America a greater society.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'Barack Obama's Vision'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge.

"(2008) Thomas Sowell discusses his concerns with the unconstrained vision of Barack Obama. Liberty Pen."

From  Liberty Pen

I have my issues with Barack Obama as well. He was actually my fourth choice for President in 2008. We Democrats unlike Republicans, today had a deep presidential field in 2008.

My first choice was Al Gore but he decided not to run for President. My second choice was Bill Richardson but his campaign went nowhere in the Democratic primaries and was unable to raise a serious amount of money. My fall back option was Hillary Clinton because even though I had issues with her which mostly went to character. I saw then Senator Clinton, as very political and looking mostly towards her political career, rather than doing what's right. But I saw her basically as a Progressive who wouldn't do anything stupid or crazy and run too far to the left to appeal to Democratic Socialists in the party.

Obviously none of my choices came through. I didn't support then Senator Obama from the start because I saw him as a Democratic Socialist trying to transform America into another Europe. Which is why the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party threw all of their support behind Senator Obama, rather than Representative Dennis Kucinich, who they are more ideologically in touch with. Because they saw Barack Obama as a candidate who could not only with the Democratic nomination for President, but win the general election over John McCain in November of 2008 which of course is what he did.

My other fear about Barack Obama is that he would tax and spend and not do what it took to protect the country. So far in Barack Obama's presidency my fears going into his presidency have been wrong. My problems with President Obama's leadership now are exactly about his leadership. I see him as somewhat weak, to willing to lay down goals of what he wants to do. And not willing enough to lay down a vision on how to get there. Too willing to say this is what I want done and then forming a committee and telling them: "this is what I expect you to accomplish, tell me what you come up with and I'll let you know what I think about it."

Barack Obama despite all the claims that the Far-Right have made about him, is no Socialist. His faith in the welfare state is clearly limited, which is something I actually like about him. He would actually be an insult to Socialists to call Barack Obama a Socialist. His supporters from 2008 the people that were with him the whole way up until 2010 ,could be called Socialists. Despite all the claims that the Far-Left have made, Barack Obama is no Conservative either and would actually be an insult to Conservatives to label Barack Obama a Conservative.

What Barack Obama is even though his Senate voting record makes him look a lot farther to the left, is a Center-Left Progressive, similar to Teddy Roosevelt. Basically a Progressive similar to Bill Clinton, perhaps a little farther to the left, still a Progressive like Clinton, but more cautious and willing to compromise, rather than make a good deal than just fight the fight. At least thats how he governs, I'm talking more about his governing style. I believe his actual politics are farther to the left and has a bolder vision of what he wants to accomplish.

But President Obama's practical side tells him that only so much is possible and you should just try to accomplish that or you'll be left with nothing. And I believe the same thing can be said about Bill Clinton, who personally is a Progressive-Liberal. ( In the classic and real sense )

As a real Classical Liberal myself ( the reals Liberals in America ) who just views myself as a Liberal, I have my own issues with President Obama and they don't just have to do with his leadership but his politics as well. I wish he was stronger on gay rights like with gay marriage, but I believe he's been strong everywhere else on gay rights.

I wish President Obama would come out for marijuana decriminalization and come out for reforming the War on Drugs more broadly. So we stop treating drug addicts like criminals and treat them like patients that need help. I wish he would come out for prison reform so we can do something about reducing or 2M prison inmate population and start preparing these inmates for life on the outside as well as alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders.

I wish President Obama wouldn't have signed the Patriot Act which I believe is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Which is why he voted against it in Congress. And his latest position on the War Powers Act as it relates to Libya to me is quite frankly scary, the sixty days have long past. But he doesn't believe he needs a Congressional resolution on it.

President Obama is no Socialist or no Conservative. He's a Progressive or at least thats how he governs. Because I believe he believes thats the best way a Democrat can get reelected President of the United States and win Independent voters, who rather make a good deal then fight the good fight.

Liberty Pen: The Charlie Rose Show- Thomas Sowell: The Vision Of The Anointed

Source:Liberty Pen- author Thomas Sowell, on the Charlie Rose Show, talking about his book.

"Thomas Sowell discusses the premise behind his book, "Vision of the Anointed." Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Anytime I here someone or a group of people say that they have a plan or a vision on how to make people's lives better, especially low-income and low-skilled people and they say: "Trust us, you no longer have anything to worry about, we'll take care of you or something." I get skeptical. (To put it mildly)

Who are these great society planners to decide how others should live their own lives and make more people dependent on government for their economic survival? Especially planners who are attempting to plan the lives of others they've never met and never know and in some cases are planning the lives of others from 3000 miles away. 

If you want people to be free especially in a free society and especially for people who haven't had a full taste of freedom because they are lets say economically challenged, they simply don't have the money that middle class people and high- earners and to compound the problem, don't have the skills to get a good job to have those advantages, you empower these people to further their education so they can get a good job and live in freedom on their own.

Let economically challenged America be free. Give them the freedom to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves and their families. Instead of making them dependent on government or more dependent on government, funded by of course taxpayers.

Empower the economically challenged to get the skills that they need to be self-sufficient in life and not need government to take care of them.

All social insurance programs that are designed to help low-income and low-skilled people, should be designed to empower them to take care of themselves. Thats my main issue with the New Deal and Great Society programs, because even though they both provided assistance for people who were economically disadvantaged, they didn't empower them to get the skills that that they need by helping them go back to school or go to school. Or receive additional skills in school to be able to finally take care of themselves. Creating this "culture of dependency" on public assistance for people to survive.

Socialist-Collectivists believe in taxing the rich for one reason: to take from the rich and to give to the poor, like Robin Hood. And they of course have this collectivist view that no one should be rich and be able to make a lot of money. Especially compared to the rest of society, even if their skills and production give them the ability too.

The answer to helping the economically disadvantaged is not to take from wealthy people just to give to low-income people. What we should do instead is to create more wealth.

First, by leaving in the incentives for people to make a good living legally and through hard work.

And to empower low-income people to get the skills that they need to do the same thing. It's the collectivist vs individualist argument.

Liberal economics is about liberating people in need to clime the economic ladder and liberate themselves from poverty. Yes, through some public assistance like short-term financial assistance to help people in need survive short-term. But just as important if not more important empowering people in need to liberate themselves from poverty and live in freedom on their own. That gets to things like education, economic development, and infrastructure. Not to take from people who've already made it to subsidize the economically disadvantaged.