The Freedom Bulletin

The Democratic National Committee decided to try to be cute and create a parody of conservatives called the Republican Tea Party Contract on America. The items on the “agenda:”

1. Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
3. End Medicare as it presently exists
4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil
5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes
7. Abolish the Department of Education
8. Abolish the Department of Energy
9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency
10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

This list doesn’t seem half bad!

Take, for example, abolishing the “Affordable Health Care Act.” That would (gasp!) allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to buy health insurance. Contrary to what the mock Contract says, abolishing this law would not “put insurance companies back in charge” but would restore some freedom to consumers. If forcing everyone to buy health insurance doesn’t put insurance companies in charge, nothing does.

And abolishing Social Security isn’t a bad idea either. People should be able to decide for themselves how or whether to save for retirement instead of having money taken from them. People who have paid into Social Security are entitled to receive benefits, but if Social Security was phased out starting with people who are just entering the work force, then people would no longer need it because they would be able to keep their own money and save, spend, or invest it as they wish.

If the DNC was being serious with this Contract, then I would applaud them for having some good ideas. Not perfect, but good overall. It’s too bad they’re being sarcastic, because instead they just come off as ignorant and mean-spirited.

For the first time since current budget rules were enacted in 1974, Congress will not pass a budget blueprint this year. “It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit-reduction plan, which is expected in December,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Instead, Congress plans to pass a “budget enforcement resolution,” which only concerns next year’s budget instead of planning for the next five to ten years, as a budget blueprint would.

I don’t know about you, but to me, this doesn’t look like a good sign for fiscal responsibility. Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) seems to agree.

Chris Matthews was on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Thursday, and one of the topics of discussion was Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican who just won the primary in the Kentucky Senate race. Matthews made the following comment about Paul:

“He’s a philosopher, and philosophers shouldn’t run for office. He’s an absolute purist.”

The comment was a reference to Rand’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a federal law that prohibits private businesses from racial discrimination. Rand believes that private companies should be able to decide for themselves who to do business with, and the national government should not have the power to force them to accept customers if they don’t want to.

Although I don’t completely agree with him on this issue, I admire Rand’s opinions and his philosophy. Why does Matthews say that philosophers shouldn’t run for office? By “philosopher” and “absolute purist,” Matthews seems to mean someone who has a consistent set of beliefs, based on reason instead of conformity to popular opinion. At least that’s what Matthews is criticizing Rand Paul for. I don’t see why you wouldn’t want someone like that to run for office. Would you rather have a politician who stands for nothing and cares about nothing but getting elected? In my opinion, only philosophers and purists should run for office.

Rand Paul does not have any campaign experience, so he is still learning how to balance being true to his own beliefs with trying to get elected. It’s not surprising that he is already getting criticized in the press, since he actually stands up for liberty, and there are bound to be many people who oppose that.

I like to think that I have a consistent set of beliefs that I stick to. My philosophy is different in some respects from Rand Paul’s philosophy of libertarianism (or paleoconservatism, depending on who you ask) but there are also lots of similarities. In general, I admire people who have unpopular views and stand up for what they believe in, and Rand Paul, unlike the majority of politicians, is such a person. He is criticized for being radical, on the fringe, outside the mainstream, et cetera. But in a society where the mainstream consists of nearly unanimous support for income taxes, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, and degrading airport security measures, I fail to see how being outside the mainstream is a bad thing. I hope that Rand sticks to what he believes in and resists the pressure to move toward the center. It reflects badly on our society that believing in liberty makes someone part of the “fringe.” A Senator with a consistent, pro-liberty world view and the courage to act on it would be one of the best things to happen to America in many years.

Rand Paul, libertarian Republican and son of Ron Paul, won the primary in the Kentucky Senate race! This is great news for the Republican Party and for liberty in America!

I apologize for the dearth of new posts in the past few weeks. I just wanted to alert you, if you live in Massachusetts, to gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker’s cool new campaign – the “Had Enough” tour.

Ad is from Baker For Gov’s Youtube account. Also be sure to follow the new tour on Twitter if you have an account, @MaHadEnough.

Go Charlie! Let’s vote out the Democrats and make this a two-party state again.