I stand with...defunding ALL companies, Federally

It's a radical notion, I know, but in reality one must ask - is funding special interest groups a role of the Federal Government? The answer is very obviously 'no'. We seem to understand this when it's 'evil' corporations. Of course we don't condone it when the Government pumps millions (and sometimes billions) into what we see as 'for profit' corporations. Or, at least, most of us do not. But when it's a special interest group or a 'non-profit', people seem to take sides based on whether they personally agree with whatever cause the company is peddling. That's an incredibly stupid way to decide how to spend a communal fund of money.

So, why not just stop it all together. We know that healthcare subsidies are a function of STATE governments...not Federal. Why then not let states decide which healthcare companies to run subsidies out of? Why did the Federal Government ever even become part of the narrative where Planned Parenthood funding is concerned? It's certainly not an expressed or even implied role of the Federal Government. In fact, it's far outside any reasonable interpretation of Constitutional functions.

Well, for one, the Planned Parenthood debate provides a platform on which both sides can soapbox come Federal Election time. You see, unfortunately, too many people only care about elections every four years. They might not even know that their own home state funds state run subsidies out of Planned Parenthood and Federal Funding is secondary to that. And while it is one-thousand times easier to make your concerns known to State and Local officials than it is to the nebulous web of insider nonsense that happens in Washington, most rarely utilize that power and, instead, stake all their hopes and dreams on one single man (or woman) who runs for President of the United States - an individual so far removed he or she cannot possibly represent the majority of American people or interests.

In the interest of fairness to the taxpayer, legitimate oversight, and keeping the Federal Government from picking favorites, doesn't it just make good sense to stop wasting Federal Tax Dollars on subsidies of any kind? And can we stop pretending that if you oppose Federal Subsidies you hate women, or farmers, or bankers, or whatever else such advocates imply? If the Federal Tax Rate were as low as it should be, to only handle the issues the Federal Government is required to, then imagine how much more money would be available to State revenues that have a more reasonable opportunity to make efficient and cost effective decisions in regard to safety nets and healthcare for the poor.

The great thing about this Planned Parenthood debate is that it allows us to talk about ALL the lobby groups that buy politicians off to see to their interests (as PP does). But, unfortunately, we aren't having that conversation. The real issue here isn't about abortion at all. It's about the function and role of the federal government. For both sides of the aisle, it's further proof that neither mind lobbying or special interest spending so long as it is their special interest getting paid.

Free Candy Sounds Good!

The burden of being a political junkie and a Millennial is that you will, undoubtedly, have at least one friend who believes Bernie Sanders is everything right for America. But you will find that these same people cannot stand Donald Trump (who can blame them?). This is interesting because, in many ways, Trump and Sanders are trying the exact same tactic to get voters, they just present it in a different package. Admittedly, the Sanders package is a hell of a lot more enticing.

As with nearly every election cycle since the beginning of Democracy, Candidates are essentially running on the idea of who can give out the most free candy. Republicans, who often pride themselves on being small government and anti-entitlement are just as guilty of this as the Democrats who have no shame about buying votes with free shit. But, this election cycle the big 'stories' seem to be Trump and Sanders appeal. Most Trump Supporters, I find, to think he's going to stop 'business as usual' and overhaul the 'crony capitalist' system because he knows how it works. That is, of course, ridiculous, but it parrots exactly the same mentality that leads people to Bernie Sanders. Granted, Sanders motives are very likely more pure than Trump's, neither of them has a cogent or reasonable plan to actually stop the Government from getting into bed with Corporations. In fact, both of them would probably make the problem exceedingly worse with more Big Government regulation.

In a proposed election cycle where we were faced with the very real possibility of another 'Bush v Clinton', same old tired politics, I expected a rebellious vote. I had hoped, though, that people would focus their attention on candidates that want to maximize freedom and minimize Government's intrusive hand into our lives. They have chosen the opposite. More of the same, just on steroids. It really does make one wonder what the actual fuck is wrong with the American voter. When polled, most Americans hate the direction of the country. They hate the tax rates, the size and scope of the government, the wars, the over extension of funds to other countries, the fact that more and more people are underemployed, and that there seems to be no way to get out from under the broad shadow of government influence. And their reaction is to support candidates that want MORE government intervention, regulation, taxation, influence and international hostility.

The same people who cannot stand the inefficiency of the DMV, Post Office, VA, Medicaid, etc are running to candidates who support SOCIALIZED Healthcare.

The same people who hate Crony Capitalism are supporting candidates who want to extend regulations what will be overseen by the very people who created Crony Capitalism.

The same people who hate paying taxes are voting for candidates who's spending plans include increasing taxes, but those tax increases cannot possibly be limited to the rich because: math.

The same people who don't want war are supporting candidates who would likely escalate tensions over the next four years.

The same people who are sick of government overreach, still want candidates who tell them they will fix all of their personal problems as if it is the role of the government to help you though your life, and by extension, the role of the tax payer.

And then you have even more audacious plans. Bernie Sanders supports all manner of FEDERALLY SUPPORTED freebies and entitlement expansions (apparently he doesn't understand how money or the constitution works) and people are lapping it up.

Why? The key is in the word Free. Regardless of any meager studies of economics, the voters of the United States of America still don't  to understand that there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'. They are myopic. They look at socialized medicine by their own personal experience rather than the bigger picture. They see: I can go to the hospital and not have to pay. But you do pay. You pay in taxes. You pay in less innovation, older technology, longer wait time, sitting on lists, and being at the mercy of a bureaucrat rather than simply your doctor. And with something as important as your health, is that really where you want to pay? The reason single payer healthcare keeps popping up is because the best way to fix the system is complicated, complex, and takes many moving parts. It allows us to keep our SUPERIOR private system AND allow for access to those who struggle to get insurance. And that takes time. It takes thought. It takes reading through pages of boring legalese. Doesn't it feel so much better to just say, "I want free healthcare!"

Because Free Candy sounds good. It's why basically every Candidate from Trump to Bush to Cruz to Clinton to Sanders are all campaigning on Free Candy. Either it's: 'We will build a border to keep those dirty Mexicans out!' thereby 'protecting' people's 'entitled' jobs, or 'We will pay down the debt by taxes on production never by taxing the middle class', or 'we can have paid maternity leave without any disruption to women's employment or increase in tax (except the evil rich)', or 'Americans are entitled to be taken care of from birth to death'...it's all free candy to the voter. And if the voter really believes the 'free' candy is sustainable by taxing only the top 1%, what should they care how horribly it infringes on property rights, liberty, or basic common sense?

But what happens when that 1%, taxed to its limit stops producing? What happens when they stop hiring? The entitlements become even more overreaching and who do you think pays? Do you think it's the wealthy who can afford to flee for more hospitable economic situations? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, it could be YOU paying for those entitlements as YOU struggle to make ends meet yourself? Free candy isn't free. And it is temporary. It's a populist calling card for campaigns, no different than the Student Council candidate telling the school he will provide cheese pizza every day in the Cafeteria when all he really wants is something to pad his College Application.

Someone let me be a debate moderator

I don't think i'm alone in thinking the CNN moderators were not very good. They were easily walked over, didn't push hard enough, and led the longest, most useless debate I recall ever watching. Maybe i'm being harsh but after more than three hours and barely a mention of the Economy, I really don't think CNN can handle debates.

Okay, some good things happened. In a set up designed to get the candidates to battle each other (purely for ratings not substance), we did see Trump put in his place a few times, especially by Carly Fiorina. Rand Paul had a stellar soundbite on the War on Drugs, and we all got confirmation that Jeb Bush toked back in the day. But here is the main problem: because the media is feeding on emotional voting rather than guiding voters to more intelligent discourse, every conversation was designed to pit candidates against each other. You need not do this. Most of the candidates biggest problems is in their own stand-alone positions. So, I gave myself an assignment. What is the one question I would ask each candidate if I were moderator?

There are rules. I would first instruct the candidates that their answers are to reflect their own positions NOT be used to attack another candidate...even Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. The must answer the question, not talk around it. They are allowed up to 5 minutes to answer the question but may not used that time to grandstand or recite talking points. If any of these rules are broken they would be buzzed until they answer the question properly. So, here are my questions for each individual candidate starting from the bottom (at debate time).

Rand Paul: 

You claim to care about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Generally speaking, you have exhibited this position in you career as Senator with the exception of one issue: Gay Marriage. I understand that your proposed solution for the issue of marriage equality is simply to have the government get out of marriage altogether. That is consistent with the small government principle, however currently the government does facilitate legal marriage and there seems to be no reasonable expectation that it is close to changing. So, if the government has a monopoly on legal marriage, wouldn't denying gay couples the right to marry in that system be a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Chris Christie:

You have said you will utilize the might of the Federal Government to go after pot smokers and sellers even within states where marijuana is legal. How is that in any way small government? If you believe in State's Rights, and use of marijuana does not violate anyone else's rights, how can you justify using the strong arm of the Federal Government to meddle in state issues? Furthermore, why do you believe that the Federal Government should have the authority to criminally prosecute people for crimes that have no national security implications? At what point do you draw the line on what State Rights the Federal Government is allowed to disregard?

Mike Huckabee:

You have ardently supported Kim Davis in her crusade to deny gay couples in her county marriage licenses even though the SCOTUS has ruled that refusing to allow gay people to marry is a violation of their 14th Amendment Right to 'equal protection under the law'. You have further asserted such a ruling is a direct attack on religious freedom. Would you be as ardently supportive of violating the rights of others, as a government employee, in the name of religion, if the religion of the person doing the discriminating was not Christianity? For instance, would you support the right of a Muslim run DMV to deny women drivers' license on the basis of religious belief? What about a Hindu head of the Department of Agriculture banning all forms of cattle slaughter?

John Kasich:

Having happily taken Federal funds for both Common Core and Obamacare, how can anyone be certain you are committed to deep cuts in Federal Spending? What, exactly, would you cut? Would you be willing to commit to reforming the tax code?  If so, how?

Marco Rubio:

I'd like clarification on your immigration policy. For some audiences, you've supported a path to citizenship and for others you have said you do not support such a path. Which is it? If you do support a path to citizenship, what would be the obstacles to that citizenship? If not, would you create a special status for undocumented residents? Do you still support building a wall across the border? If so, how would you pay for it?

Carly Fiorina:

You have used very strong language in regard to possible American enemies, especially with regard to Russia and Iran. It is very easy to say you will make them respect America as a power, but how do you propose, exactly, to make either country do what you wish without pushing us toward an offensive stance and the brink of war? Other than rebuilding military arsenals, how, exactly, would you propose we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? How much more money do you plan to put into American Defense, and at what point would you say that the world's problems cannot be solved by us?

Ted Cruz:

You are willing to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. When you know this reflects poorly upon the GOP politically, why? Would you reallocate that $500million to other programs for poor women to receive healthcare? If so, which ones? If not, how would you suggest these women get necessary preventative care? Is 'principle' always more important than compromise? Or are you going to be as stubborn about every issue as President as well? Can you work with people with whom you disagree? Would your Presidency be as polarizing and partisan as Obama's has been?

Scott Walker:

You have said you'd build a wall on the Northern Border, too. That is, of course, unrealistic. Is this indicative over a predisposition to overspend and take on projects the Federal Government cannot afford? Fiscal responsibility is more than busting public unions, it means deep cuts to a bloated government. What programs, specifically, would you cut, and how would you pay for any new projects?


Jeb Bush:

School Systems have, traditionally, been run locally. This has allowed the schools to keep a close eye on progress since learning is such an individual endeavor. You support Common Core. Why? Doesn't Common Core take the decision making out of the hands of those who see results and put it into a formula which cannot possibly work for every individual child? Would you, as President, implement any other incentive-based federal programs that get states to comply with national standards in any other department?

Ben Carson:

I'm concerned about a comment you made about homosexuality some months back. You used the rate of homosexual activity in the prison system as a sort of evidence for homosexuality being a choice. Now, of course, I recognize this is your personal belief and I'm not likely to change it, but it does call into question your reasoning skills. Do you really believe prison turns people gay? If so, how do you explain homosexual people raised by the same parents as straight siblings? What causes someone to 'choose' a sexuality that makes life harder? As a doctor, how can you disagree with the overwhelming medical and psychological consensus on this issue?

Donald Trump:

I feel confident, you will not follow the rules, but here goes anyway. Why are you so mean spirited? Is it for political gain or because you are actually just an asshole. :)*

*Sorry. I cannot even take this guy seriously. I'm not going to waste my time on a question for a guy who only loves himself.

The American Populist Nightmare

I think it is safe to say that the 2016 Presidential Election has been nothing if not interesting. With Donald Trump and his insane rants bringing in double digit numbers and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders surging against the supposed shoe-in, Hillary Clinton, we can be sure of one thing: The people are fed up with both major political parties. And in that upset they are, unfortunately, turning to populism.

Populism: 1. the political philosophy of the People's Party. 2. any of various, often anti-establishment and/or anti-intellectual, political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than traditional party or partisan ideologies. 3. grassroots democracy; working class activism; egalitarianism. 4. representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.

All of that might sound okay, right? I mean, what's wrong with democracy or the will of the people? Well, for one, democracy has condoned some of the greatest atrocities in human existence. Let us not pretend that because the people vote for it, it is inherently good. The people loved the Nazis. The people supported Slavery. The people backed segregation, anti-sufferage, xenophobia, protectionism, the Bolsheviks...I really could go on and on. And we are always talking about the 'will of the people' in America, as if this is some unanimously pure idea. It's not. It suffers from the same problem as democracy for the same reason. People can be wrong. People can seek to violate the rights of others by use of the government. And, if we can trample liberty in the name of 'the will of the people' we have no right to even pretend we have freedom and might as well light the Constitution on fire. The people are consistently showing their contempt for Foundational Principles every single election cycle.

Populism has been on the rise for a while. I mean that it's been infusing itself into American politics almost since the beginning of our Republic. In recent years, though, the heightened partisan bipolarity in political discourse has shot populism to the top of political issues. Trump's assertion that Mexicans are criminals and taking away good jobs? Populism. Jeb Bush's 'we have to fix education whether or not our fixes actually work'? Populism. Half the GOP candidate's support for Personhood Bills? Populism. Hillary Clinton's assertion that opposing Planned Parenthood is akin to ISIS? Populism (and disgusting). Bernie Sander's class warfare based on the idea that the rich just need to be punished and everything is their fault? Populism.

And here is the problem...none of those positions are factually accurate, helpful, or reasonable. And yet, they drive political discourse. Are average Americans talking about the debt? Not really. Are they talking about encouraging economic growth? Nope. Are they talking about criminal justice reform? Nah. Are they talking about the steam rolling of personal liberty both in the name of national security and protecting 'feelings'? A little, but not much. No, what they are talking about is Trump, Mexicans, abortion, and the 1%. This is what we've devolved to. Who can twist the emotions of the electorate to the point that they will vote for you. Who can get the most tweets and followers.

There is a movie that I'm sure most of you are familiar with called Idiocracy about a man who is in hibernation for like 500 years and wakes up to find that the whole country is stupid and the political system is such that justice is based on a 'battle to the death' scenario. People get their opinions from the Corporations that own everything. The President and his cabinet are idiotic but beloved. It has become a cliche to invoke this movie in comparison to the trajectory of discourse today...but this is a cliche based on reality. My god! We are now a political system where debate questions come from Twitter and Facebook! The media is so entrenched with the political elite they bury stories and promote emotional voting. They stoke the fires of populism on purpose to gain ratings. And Government-sponsored Crony Capitalism (which NO candidate has realistic plans to fix but for Gary Johnson who hasn't even decided to run yet) IS our reality and it continues to get worse. The populist call to 'punish corporations' has the interesting effect of helping them because they pay the politicians to write the legislation.

I completely understand the disgust with the political structure as is. The Republicans and Democrats are woefully out of touch. They have spent so long buying votes, you cannot tell where one begins and the other ends. Republicans are clinging to socially backward ideas. Democrats are clinging to class warfare and identity politics. Neither party seems trustworthy. But there is a better option than populism. Have a sound ideology based on your values. Do the research and be informed about all issues, not just the ones that make you feel feels. Do not compromise those values and do not submit to the government when it does.

Populism is a sickness. It is the sickness that will march us happily right into the Idiocracy. So long as the electorate refuses to take a serious look at the problems in our country and face hard truths and make unpopular decisions, we will continue to overspend, overtax, violate personal rights and property, and just kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.