Your safety is too expensive...

When are people going to realize that safety is an illusion?

The latest "breach" of airport security is a classic example. Sadly, we knew about this guy, he was also on a watch list, and he was still able to slip on board an international flight with his happy sack full of explosives.

Many people simply feel that extra airport scrutiny will make them safer. This incident is an example that it does not. You may FEEL safer, but you are not actually any more safe than you were without it because it is not a focused scrutiny. Of course thanks to this Nigerian idiot we're all now subjected to more intense regulation and scrutiny...Apparently because extra regulations have worked so well. The sad fact is we have technology to truly reduce the probability of incidents like these from occurring, but we are all told they are too expensive.

Conservatively, our nation spends hundreds of billions of dollars making places like Afghanistan and Iraq safe, yet we do not have the money available to make our OWN borders safe? One purpose of government is to protect our borders from foreign threats. Do any of us still really think we can fight the war on terror by invading countries? If so, are we going to attack Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc. ad nauseam until terror stops?

Random searches are about as useful as random foreign invasions.

I need a government that loves me?

There is a belief that the citizens are not fit to govern, or care for themselves. It is important to remember that our elected officials are servants to the citizens; we are not beholden to them.

Rather than government treating us like customers, we as citizens should be treated as owners. There is a vast distinction in these two concepts. The average citizens’ view of government has dramatically deteriorated, and I think there is good reason for that. Rather than exploring alternate points of view, dissenting opinions are ridiculed and vilified. There is much to learn from opposing points of view. We should not be so closed minded that we cannot entertain ideas contrary to our own.

When our political processes become fractured, contentious, and break down to party line votes, the citizen ultimately suffers. This practice of voting in the spirit of special interest, and party boss mandates, does not serve the citizen. In order to change this, we need more independent minded representation. So many of us have lost our connection with our own civic responsibility; it is even more important than jury duty, but we don’t get the letter calling us to action. The call to action must spur from within!

I’ve heard the analogy that citizens’ governing themselves is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. I think a more appropriate view of our current political climate is more reflected by two wolves intimidating eight sheep to vote for what’s in “their best interest”. There is this feeling in our system that we need a powerful government that will protect us from all evil, and even protect us from ourselves.

I wonder; does anyone out there really cast a vote because they think the government can take care of them better than they take care of themselves?

Political Disease

I'm always puzzled by the lack of foresight that political parties tend to exhibit. Case in point, the Vermont Progressive Party recently stated: ‘We refuse alternatives to single payer health care’

Now that type of blanket statement is dangerous. How can we possibly consider a statement like that even reasonable. I actually think the Vermont Progressive Party's platform has some interesting, even admirable statements...

Unfortunately, government is increasingly becoming unresponsive and irresponsible. The two brand-name parties frequently act in concert, because they serve the same corporate interests. They agree to take issues “off the table”, preventing discussion of issues important to most Vermonters: health care for all, property tax reform, energy independence.

We put the interests of the farmers, laborers, students, small business owners and seniors ahead of the interests of the large corporations that influence the other major parties.

Now if a proposal was offered that met the shared goals of Vermonters, and also reduced costs were offered, the Progressive Party would refuse to address that proposal simply because it wasn't single payer? That's an incredibly narrow view of the state. It's also the symptom of a much larger disease in American politics. Intolerance can be quite ugly in any form; especially when it is an intolerance of ideas.

We need true health care reform...

I strongly oppose the current “reform” being proposed because I do not view it as reform at all. It is simply more regulation and bureaucracy heaped on top of a broken health care delivery system. It does nothing to truly reform health care delivery. To do so would require a much greater effort to analyze the existing problems and improve them.

This federal bill does not contain costs. This federal bill does not improve quality and access. We do not need rhetoric, we need reform. A bill that was in the best interest of America would have widespread support, not division along party lines.

We need to leave behind a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. Health insurance should be personal and portable, controlled by individuals themselves rather than government or an employer.

We need to increase insurance competition among both insurers and health providers. People should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines. This simple act alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without increasing taxes.

Simply put, this discussion should be taking place at the state level. We do not need more unfunded mandates from the federal government. Vermont ranks first as the healthiest nation in the state. We can clearly tackle this problem far more effectively than a federal approach. The federal bill does nothing more than create a bleeding ulcer out of a case of indigestion.

Taxation?

A fair tax system would be replacing income tax with a sales tax. We still wouldn't touch the necessities like food and clothing. It would make sure that people were able to provide for themselves before any tax was collected. Taxes would only be on optional purchases. We could control how much tax we're going to spend by controlling our level of consumption. We would have the option of hanging onto our money and living off the basics, or of spending as much as we feel like. We wouldn't be penalized for saving or investing.

In the current system there are plenty of industries, both legal and illegal, that get away with paying no taxes; gambling, drug dealers, cottage industries, undocumented workers. Since everyone has to buy things the tax would cover everyone.

Another system that needs revamping is the outdated property tax system. Property taxes have become regressive in nature. Today they have no relationship to the owner's income or ability to pay. The value of a property for taxation should be fixed at the time the owner purchases the property. That is the only time the true value of the property can be fixed. We currently focus on speculative valuations which results in people being forced to sell their land when the value increases. If the tax valuation is fixed at the time of purchase, individuals will know whether or not they can afford the taxes when they purchase their property. The only time it would change is when properties change hands.

Vt. hospital questions breast screening cutback: Times Argus Online

Vt. hospital questions breast screening cutback: Times Argus Online

Posted using ShareThis

This is a classic example of a federal recommendation that will be pushed through to the states if the current bill presented before congress were to pass. It won't matter if you have a dissenting opinion at that point, you'll be required to pay out of pocket for an exam like this.

Apathy is contagious

Expecting good government requires an active and involved participation from its citizens.

People don't pay attention to government because they think it doesn't affect them. If you work five days a week and the government takes two of those days through taxation, don't you think you might want to know what that money is being spent on?

The 10th Amendment

It is important for all Vermonters to take a careful look at a nationwide movement that seeks to reaffirm a states right to sovereignty from federal actions. This is not a crazy secession idea; it’s a core tenet of the United States Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves. The tenth amendment basically states that all powers not granted to the federal government under the constitution are left to the individual states to figure out.

This is not a liberal vs. conservative debate. Vermont is a very progressive state with a strong foundation in conservatism. In thinking about this topic, remember to cast aside politics for a moment. Vermont is on the frontline in the battle for many fundamental civil rights. With everything from medicinal marijuana to gun laws: Do we want the federal government dictating matters of local concern to us?

There is legislation pending in 37 states seeking to reaffirm this important concept. Remember that Vermont is a very small fish in a very big federal pond. Our leaders are best held accountable when government is local; the people of this state know what is best for them. It’s time to hold the federal government accountable to its own laws.

Thinking...

I can't understand why as Americans we've allowed ourselves to be corralled into fundamental extremes on all the issues.

As an example...if you're against the war on drugs, you must be for legalizing drugs. If you're pro-choice you're anti-abortion. If you think welfare needs reform you must hate poor people. You're either liberal or conservative.

I'm sorry... but free thought involves concepts a lot deeper than simple fundamental extremes. United we stand, divided we fall!

Bottom up reform

Many Americans have begun wondering, where is the change we voted for? We currently have an electorate controlled by Democrats, and many felt that the change they have dreamed of would happen almost overnight. Some have said, “Well, Rome wasn’t built in a day…” to which I typically respond, “yeah, but didn’t they fed people to lions?”

The problems facing this country are not Democrat vs. Republican, they are simply American. The very nature of our two party political system fosters adversity, and unfortunately that does not serve the best interest of this great country. More politicians need to vote with the conscience of their constituency, rather than the lines as drawn by their party leaders.

The bitter reality is that meaningful change does not happen from the top down. Change simply has to take place at the level of the average citizen. We cannot continue to look to our elected representatives to solve all of our problems; rather we have to work tirelessly to effect the change we desire. Instead of career politicians, we need concerned Americans looking out for their fellow citizens, not their special interests.

We need people who work for a living to get involved in politics. You do your time serving, then you go back to working like the fellow Americans you are serving. Politics should never be a career.