For Liberals: What conservative policy do you support?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

This is impossible to answer. There were Republican policies in the 1950's that were outstanding and really helped the country.

Building the interstate highway
The creation of NASA
Making the uber rich pay their fair share
The emphasis on science and education

But those are all things of the past and the GOP doesn't stand for any of those anymore. What's awfully odd is they look at those years as a "Golden Age" in America. Stating their current policies ruins the notion of a "clean" debate so I will have to stick with "impossible to answer".

Correct.


And conservatives during the 50s and 60s correctly understood that although government wasn't always the answer, it also wasn't 'the enemy,' where America is at its greatest when government and the private sector work together to realize important National goals, such as the interstate system and the space program.


This is the common sense and pragmatism that conservatives lost at the advent of the Reagan years, when conservatives abandoned common sense and pragmatism and replaced it instead with strict, blind adherence to political doctrine and dogma, in conjunction with prostituting themselves to the social right and Christian fundamentalists.

As opposed to Democrats who lean the other way and thing more government is the answer to EVERYTHING..

 

[auditor0007]

Define "Conservative Policy".

Please.

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

The problem is that when a sensible conservative position arises, as soon as there is any bipartisan agreement on it, a large part of the right labels it a sell-out and it is no longer "conservative". Examples:

1. Earned income tax credit.
2. Cap-and-trade pollution control.
3. Romney-care.
4. McCain style campaign finance reform.
5. McCain/Rubio style immigration reform.
6. Reagan endorsed gun control.

In fact, I would be hard put to find any bipartisan measure that the "conservatives" would accept even if they first proposed it. Can you name one?

There's another thread for that topic but it looks like all the action is here, so I'll respond here.

I'm a conservative and if I cold start with a blank slate, I'd institute mandatory health insurance coverage. No one would be permitted to be without insurance. I'd cancel EMTATA which mandates that hospitals must provide emergency care even to those without insurance. Screw that because that sets up perverse incentives. If we let some people die due to not having insurance, that's a big slap in the face which wakes people up and gets them to buy insurance.

The problem I have with the liberal version of this mandatory insurance buy-in is the redistributive design to send more benefits to the elderly and the poor.

So, in principle I see nothing wrong with mandatory insurance coverage. I just can't support the way liberals have added on a whole bunch of other features to the mandatory buy-in.

I'm not sure there is any way to do this, but while I completely agree on mandatory health insurance, I believe health insurance should not be provided for by the companies people work for. Private business and governments, local, state, and federal should not be providing that health insurance. Everyone should have to purchase it privately. I have no problem with subsidies for those who cannot completely afford the premiums, and if you become temporarily unemployed, the government can pick up the tab until you find employment again, contingent on you not having very much in savings outside of your retirement savings.

 

[auditor0007]

Define "Conservative Policy".

Please.

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

Conservative is as Liberal does out there Mr. R., and I'm not really an extremist, so putting things in terms of white and black and blue and red is difficult for me.

I favor reasonable over right or left.

Tell you what... you suggest a favorite conservative policy of yours, and I'll let you know if I think it's reasonable.

How about this one.

Public accommodation laws.

NO ONE should be able to force someone to do business with them. This shouldn't even a liberal/conservative argument.

In other words, you are fine with businesses not serving blacks or anyone they choose not to. Sorry, I'm not going along with that one.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Define "Conservative Policy".

Please.

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

The problem is that when a sensible conservative position arises, as soon as there is any bipartisan agreement on it, a large part of the right labels it a sell-out and it is no longer "conservative". Examples:

1. Earned income tax credit.
2. Cap-and-trade pollution control.
3. Romney-care.
4. McCain style campaign finance reform.
5. McCain/Rubio style immigration reform.
6. Reagan endorsed gun control.

In fact, I would be hard put to find any bipartisan measure that the "conservatives" would accept even if they first proposed it. Can you name one?

There's another thread for that topic but it looks like all the action is here, so I'll respond here.

I'm a conservative and if I cold start with a blank slate, I'd institute mandatory health insurance coverage. No one would be permitted to be without insurance. I'd cancel EMTATA which mandates that hospitals must provide emergency care even to those without insurance. Screw that because that sets up perverse incentives. If we let some people die due to not having insurance, that's a big slap in the face which wakes people up and gets them to buy insurance.

The problem I have with the liberal version of this mandatory insurance buy-in is the redistributive design to send more benefits to the elderly and the poor.

So, in principle I see nothing wrong with mandatory insurance coverage. I just can't support the way liberals have added on a whole bunch of other features to the mandatory buy-in.

I'm not sure there is any way to do this, but while I completely agree on mandatory health insurance, I believe health insurance should not be provided for by the companies people work for. Private business and governments, local, state, and federal should not be providing that health insurance. Everyone should have to purchase it privately. I have no problem with subsidies for those who cannot completely afford the premiums, and if you become temporarily unemployed, the government can pick up the tab until you find employment again, contingent on you not having very much in savings outside of your retirement savings.

Do you see that as a position held by conservatives though? With my example I tried to illustrate that I could support a universal health program favored by liberals and I could support the government forcing people to carry insurance. Both of these positions are not widely favored by conservatives. So I tried to find a liberal position that I could support but my caveat is with the redistribution component.

You have mandatory coverage, which seems to be favored by liberals, you have redistribution, also favored by liberals. Is it the private insurance coverage that you think MAKES SENSE? See, I think universal makes sense, I think mandatory coverage makes sense. I'm conceding those points to liberals as the better way forward.

That's the kind of vibe I had hope to foster with both threads. That said, I'm a bit confused with your POV. Would you clarify?

 

[auditor0007]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

Look at the revolving door. It doesn't have to be an incumbent. A regulator at the SEC or FDA resigns and then takes up a job with the company/industry he was regulating. Where is Geitner today? You can put up all sorts of roadblocks but so long as that big honeypot is still there tempting people, people/corporations are going to find ways to get more than their fair share of honey.

As for term limits do you believe that there is any benefit to experience as a legislator?

The revolving door is a tough nut to crack and it swings both ways, Geitner came into government from the financial system, did his best to help them out and went back whence he came. Without unduley restricting an individual's right to pursue his chosen career and livelyhood how do you bust that cycle. I know there are regulations in place to limit the effects but they're obviously ineffective. Got any ideas?

For top level appointments, so long as they're not corrupt and self-dealing, I'm not so worried about the revolving door. My bigger concern is lower down with career bureaucrats. I'd say a 10 year 90% income surtax on the increased salary (the differential) they get from a new employer who they used to regulate.

For the top guys, they should be limited to salary packages that are no greater than what they gave up when they entered. I don't want Cabinet Officers using government service to enrich themselves. If they were making a million per year then they are restricted to an inflation adjusted $1,000,000 per year when they depart government. The details can be fleshed out but the point that guides this is no personal enrichment.

This though is only a small part of the problem. Appropriations is the big time, same with rent-seeking via legislation. I don't know how to stop that - the honeypot is too big of an attraction.

This would not work very well, because most of these people would never take the high profile government job to begin with. Most of these people come into their government position taking a huge pay cut. When they leave, they go back to what they were previously making in the private sector. It's like being president. People don't take the job, after being elected, for the great pay. Most of them could earn much more in the private sector.

 

[Rikurzhen]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

Look at the revolving door. It doesn't have to be an incumbent. A regulator at the SEC or FDA resigns and then takes up a job with the company/industry he was regulating. Where is Geitner today? You can put up all sorts of roadblocks but so long as that big honeypot is still there tempting people, people/corporations are going to find ways to get more than their fair share of honey.

As for term limits do you believe that there is any benefit to experience as a legislator?

The revolving door is a tough nut to crack and it swings both ways, Geitner came into government from the financial system, did his best to help them out and went back whence he came. Without unduley restricting an individual's right to pursue his chosen career and livelyhood how do you bust that cycle. I know there are regulations in place to limit the effects but they're obviously ineffective. Got any ideas?

For top level appointments, so long as they're not corrupt and self-dealing, I'm not so worried about the revolving door. My bigger concern is lower down with career bureaucrats. I'd say a 10 year 90% income surtax on the increased salary (the differential) they get from a new employer who they used to regulate.

For the top guys, they should be limited to salary packages that are no greater than what they gave up when they entered. I don't want Cabinet Officers using government service to enrich themselves. If they were making a million per year then they are restricted to an inflation adjusted $1,000,000 per year when they depart government. The details can be fleshed out but the point that guides this is no personal enrichment.

This though is only a small part of the problem. Appropriations is the big time, same with rent-seeking via legislation. I don't know how to stop that - the honeypot is too big of an attraction.

This would not work very well, because most of these people would never take the high profile government job to begin with. Most of these people come into their government position taking a huge pay cut. When they leave, they go back to what they were previously making in the private sector. It's like being president. People don't take the job, after being elected, for the great pay. Most of them could earn much more in the private sector.

I agree. I tried to address that in the bolded text. I'd even allow them to earn an enhanced salary after the leave government to compensate them for their foregone revenues. So if Geithner was making $500,000 per year before arriving at Treasury, stayed there for 4 years at $250,000, then he could take a job at $1,000,000 per year and face no surtax for two years ($500,000 - $250,000) x 4 years = 1 million in foregone earnings and with a new $1,000,000 salary which is $500,000 greater than his pre-Treasury salary, it would take him two years to catch up. Thereafter he faces a big tax on that $500,000 gain for X years.

I hate seeing guys going in leaving a job at $400,000 level, putting in 6 years and then getting a job at the $3,000,000 level. Stinks too much like a payoff to me.

 

[Agit8r]

The Peelian Principles of policing:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yep, national sales tax, 10%. You buy it , you pay taxes on it, no loopholes no deductions, no rebates. Just 10%(I would favor excluding food and utilities though)

So what was your effective Federal income tax last year? I ask because you're probably hitting yourself with a tax increase.

 

[Bush92]

Less taxes, less government, = more freedom and liberty.
Eliminate: Obamacare,Department of Energy, HUD, Education, Civil Rights Division of Justice Department, most of EPA, Labor, Commerce. Also, institute block grants to states so they can institute own programs.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yep, national sales tax, 10%. You buy it , you pay taxes on it, no loopholes no deductions, no rebates. Just 10%(I would favor excluding food and utilities though)

So what was your effective Federal income tax last year? I ask because you're probably hitting yourself with a tax increase.

LULZ I doubt it, my wife and I paid $106K in federal income tax last year. Yes , I admit we're quite comfortable and the $106K didn't hurt me as much as $10K would hurt a person who made $100K say, but the purpose of the tax isn't supposed to be to "hurt people" its' supposed to be a fair way for EVERYONE to contribute to the economic welfare of the government.

 

[rdean]

So where would you cut the $500 billion defense budget?Those overseas bases are too many you say, so which should be closed or should all of them be closed?

Look, I'm interested and I'm also interested in where you'd propose to cut domestic spending.

McCain has the right idea. Totally stop earmark budget spending. I am in no position to say which bases remain open, and which one closed, but I recognize pork barrels when I see them. The Pentagon has been trying to close air bases here in Tucson for years, but has been blocked every time by Congress, which, presumably, is because they know more about what the military needs than the military does.

It is too late to go into detail about domestic spending, but for the most part, other than the military, there is little common ground between conservatives and myself on that issue.

Conservatives only complain about spending because it's what their ignorant base wants to hear. They are masters of welfare, food stamps, medicare and government help in all it's many forms. Their states are the least productive and their schools are a mess. Glad I never had to go to one for more than a couple of months.

 

[rdean]

Less taxes, less government, = more freedom and liberty.
Eliminate: Obamacare,Department of Energy, HUD, Education, Civil Rights Division of Justice Department, most of EPA, Labor, Commerce. Also, institute block grants to states so they can institute own programs.

Which freedoms are you missing?

 

[chikenwing]

Do you think that this could be brought about in the US or do you really need a blank slate society where there are no legacy issues to contend with?

The Constitution is truly an amazing document. Even if the Monkeys who wrote it couldn't afford to live by it. Well, not and maintain the standards they'd become accustomed to.

As more and more minorities use its definition of 'all' to claim their rightful piece of the American Pie, we take baby steps toward a reasonably fair system.



Time.

Time and variety.

the problem that I see conservatives have with the constitution is they are under this notion that the majority rules ... they forget that is the constitution that rules and not the majority ... the seem to over look that thought all the time ... so I would say conservatives Idea of forcing a woman to do what they choose and not what the woman themselves choose to do... is one thing that I could never accept as a conservative way of thinking...

Conservatives?

Conservatives are actually under the notion that "Conservatives rule". They don't like the vote. They would rather dispense with it or at least have a very high bar as to who can vote. They make no bones about this.

The only bone si you be legal to vote,that's it no matter what you think you know. Color gender or party affiliation matters not. But people like your self continue tp try and tell the world what someone else thinks and wants,typical.

 

[chikenwing]

So where would you cut the $500 billion defense budget?Those overseas bases are too many you say, so which should be closed or should all of them be closed?

Look, I'm interested and I'm also interested in where you'd propose to cut domestic spending.

McCain has the right idea. Totally stop earmark budget spending. I am in no position to say which bases remain open, and which one closed, but I recognize pork barrels when I see them. The Pentagon has been trying to close air bases here in Tucson for years, but has been blocked every time by Congress, which, presumably, is because they know more about what the military needs than the military does.

It is too late to go into detail about domestic spending, but for the most part, other than the military, there is little common ground between conservatives and myself on that issue.

Conservatives only complain about spending because it's what their ignorant base wants to hear. They are masters of welfare, food stamps, medicare and government help in all it's many forms. Their states are the least productive and their schools are a mess. Glad I never had to go to one for more than a couple of months.

Conservatives only complain about spending because it's what their ignorant base wants to hear.

Ignorant used by R dean priceless!! The hate is strong in this one.

Do we not have a massive debt problem or not?

 

[Sallow]

Do you think that this could be brought about in the US or do you really need a blank slate society where there are no legacy issues to contend with?

The Constitution is truly an amazing document. Even if the Monkeys who wrote it couldn't afford to live by it. Well, not and maintain the standards they'd become accustomed to.

As more and more minorities use its definition of 'all' to claim their rightful piece of the American Pie, we take baby steps toward a reasonably fair system.



Time.

Time and variety.

the problem that I see conservatives have with the constitution is they are under this notion that the majority rules ... they forget that is the constitution that rules and not the majority ... the seem to over look that thought all the time ... so I would say conservatives Idea of forcing a woman to do what they choose and not what the woman themselves choose to do... is one thing that I could never accept as a conservative way of thinking...

Conservatives?

Conservatives are actually under the notion that "Conservatives rule". They don't like the vote. They would rather dispense with it or at least have a very high bar as to who can vote. They make no bones about this.

The only bone si you be legal to vote,that's it no matter what you think you know. Color gender or party affiliation matters not. But people like your self continue tp try and tell the world what someone else thinks and wants,typical.

Conservative policies and laws say otherwise.

In most states where conservatives rule? They try and have a very limited voter registration, followed by a requirement of ID, after registering, followed by limiting the amounts of places to vote, followed by limiting the time which you can vote, which generally falls during the week, when people work.

It's pretty deliberate.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So where would you cut the $500 billion defense budget?Those overseas bases are too many you say, so which should be closed or should all of them be closed?

Look, I'm interested and I'm also interested in where you'd propose to cut domestic spending.

McCain has the right idea. Totally stop earmark budget spending. I am in no position to say which bases remain open, and which one closed, but I recognize pork barrels when I see them. The Pentagon has been trying to close air bases here in Tucson for years, but has been blocked every time by Congress, which, presumably, is because they know more about what the military needs than the military does.

It is too late to go into detail about domestic spending, but for the most part, other than the military, there is little common ground between conservatives and myself on that issue.

Conservatives only complain about spending because it's what their ignorant base wants to hear. They are masters of welfare, food stamps, medicare and government help in all it's many forms. Their states are the least productive and their schools are a mess. Glad I never had to go to one for more than a couple of months.

Independent study of which states have the best schools.

States With the Best and Worst Schools - 24 7 Wall St.

Top 10 (actually 11 ) in descending order

Virginia
Colorado
Washington
Pennsylvania
Florida
Minnesota
Vermont
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Maryland
Massachusetts

Bottom 10 in descending order

Oklahoma
Michigan
South Dakota
South Carolina
Alaska
Alabama
W Virginia
N Mexico
Louisiana
Mississippi


Obvious conclusion? Political ideology has very little to do with the success, or failure, of a state's educational system

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Conservative policy:

1: Welfare is important, but the fed government is the least efficient manner in which way to administer it. Better for welfare to be administered in the family, in the Church, in the city, and in the state. In that way the people who are in need may actually GET help, instead of tax money simply supporting a poverty-industrial complex where people like Jesse Jackson and groups like the Urban League get rich.

2: Pacem parabellum.

3: Don't start wars. Finish them. The constitution says that ONLY congress can declare war. The war powers act is therefore unconstitutional. By the way, if we go to war, we will not only win the war, but we will instill our western culture on your defeated culture. That worked well for Japan, we will do the same thing for the next nation (or quasi-nation like ISIS or Al-Qaeda) that we declare war on. Also, if we declare war on a nation or quasi-nation, national boundaries no longer count (Sorry Iran/Syria/ISIS/Hamas/Al-Qaeda, the gloves are off and you're toast if we declare war on you).

4. Secure our borders. If you don't belong here, or have permission to be here, you're not getting in. I don't care that you've walked 400 miles and been raped twice by the coyotes, you're not getting into my house. Fix our immigration laws so that we can welcome more high-qualified immigrants, yet make it very unwelcome for those here illegally....so that they will leave.

5. The 10th amendment. It's in the constitution, and has been perverted to that point that if the wind is blowing right the federal government claims the right to regulate your farts (might blow across state line, so it can be federally regulated). Wickard v. Filburn is the root of much of this, and needs to be immediately corrected.

6. The rest of those amendments to the Constitution, especially the first 10 (called the Bill of Rights for you public school students), are important. Especially the 2nd amendment.

6.A. The First amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This doesn't mean that the government must remove any reference to God in our culture.

7. Laws that are written in plain English, not legal style old-english, so that the common man can understand what the law says, and what the law means.

8. MUCH simplified tax code. Get rid of the myriad tax loopholes, yet broaden the base of tax-payers. Nobody should be able to make millions without paying taxes, yet everyone should have some skin in the game.

So, liberals, do you agree with any of this? Don't go to the "Well Republican's don't do this either"....there are many republicans who are not conservative.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So where would you cut the $500 billion defense budget?Those overseas bases are too many you say, so which should be closed or should all of them be closed?

Look, I'm interested and I'm also interested in where you'd propose to cut domestic spending.

McCain has the right idea. Totally stop earmark budget spending. I am in no position to say which bases remain open, and which one closed, but I recognize pork barrels when I see them. The Pentagon has been trying to close air bases here in Tucson for years, but has been blocked every time by Congress, which, presumably, is because they know more about what the military needs than the military does.

It is too late to go into detail about domestic spending, but for the most part, other than the military, there is little common ground between conservatives and myself on that issue.

Conservatives only complain about spending because it's what their ignorant base wants to hear. They are masters of welfare, food stamps, medicare and government help in all it's many forms. Their states are the least productive and their schools are a mess. Glad I never had to go to one for more than a couple of months.

Independent study of which states have the best schools.

States With the Best and Worst Schools - 24 7 Wall St.

Top 10 (actually 11 ) in descending order

Virginia
Colorado
Washington
Pennsylvania
Florida
Minnesota
Vermont
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Maryland
Massachusetts

Bottom 10 in descending order

Oklahoma
Michigan
South Dakota
South Carolina
Alaska
Alabama
W Virginia
N Mexico
Louisiana
Mississippi


Obvious conclusion? Political ideology has very little to do with the success, or failure, of a state's educational system

The study lists some stats about schools per state but does not list the criteria for making it's evaluation. It also does not list the time frame in which it did the study. It also does not list how many schools per state were inspected, how many teachers were evaluated, whether the standards for 11th or 12th grade proficiencies are consistent from state to state...

in other words, the study is really, really lacking in internal data. It also does not list who financed this study. So without that information, there is no way in the world to know how "independent" it is. Anyone can claim to be independent, but that does not mean they are, not by a longshot.

 

[rdean]

So where would you cut the $500 billion defense budget?Those overseas bases are too many you say, so which should be closed or should all of them be closed?

Look, I'm interested and I'm also interested in where you'd propose to cut domestic spending.

McCain has the right idea. Totally stop earmark budget spending. I am in no position to say which bases remain open, and which one closed, but I recognize pork barrels when I see them. The Pentagon has been trying to close air bases here in Tucson for years, but has been blocked every time by Congress, which, presumably, is because they know more about what the military needs than the military does.

It is too late to go into detail about domestic spending, but for the most part, other than the military, there is little common ground between conservatives and myself on that issue.

Conservatives only complain about spending because it's what their ignorant base wants to hear. They are masters of welfare, food stamps, medicare and government help in all it's many forms. Their states are the least productive and their schools are a mess. Glad I never had to go to one for more than a couple of months.

Independent study of which states have the best schools.

States With the Best and Worst Schools - 24 7 Wall St.

Top 10 (actually 11 ) in descending order

Virginia
Colorado
Washington
Pennsylvania
Florida
Minnesota
Vermont
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Maryland
Massachusetts

Bottom 10 in descending order

Oklahoma
Michigan
South Dakota
South Carolina
Alaska
Alabama
W Virginia
N Mexico
Louisiana
Mississippi


Obvious conclusion? Political ideology has very little to do with the success, or failure, of a state's educational system

The study lists some stats about schools per state but does not list the criteria for making it's evaluation. It also does not list the time frame in which it did the study. It also does not list how many schools per state were inspected, how many teachers were evaluated, whether the standards for 11th or 12th grade proficiencies are consistent from state to state...

in other words, the study is really, really lacking in internal data. It also does not list who financed this study. So without that information, there is no way in the world to know how "independent" it is. Anyone can claim to be independent, but that does not mean they are, not by a longshot.

Worse, look at the bottom 10. Which one isn't bright red?

 

[rdean]

Less taxes, less government, = more freedom and liberty.
Eliminate: Obamacare,Department of Energy, HUD, Education, Civil Rights Division of Justice Department, most of EPA, Labor, Commerce. Also, institute block grants to states so they can institute own programs.

Which freedoms are you missing?

Waiting for that list?