Al Alborn continues to share his thoughts on where America is now and where it is going. Hopefully, discussion will be about his ideas rather rather than about who filmed Al. No one cares. Trying to pigeon-hole Al into some sort of ideology doesn’t work. He just doen’t fit. If you want to sit down face to face with Al, let me know. He has indicated he would be more than willing to sit down to share ideas.
33 Thoughts to “Al Alborn: Part 2”
Comments are closed.
Archives
Categories
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
All contents copyright Moonhowlings.net
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
That’s why I like Al. He doesn’t fit. He’s a real Independent.
Vote for Al!
Some good thoughts there. I do not agree with Al on every issue; but he really hit on the truth when he opined that China currently owns us and our future. He is absolutely right on that, in my opinion, and absolutely right right on the view that we have to take immediate steps to get out from under that situation. I have become interested, for instance, in a recently expressed idea that we could perhaps create a new type of Federal bond which Americans could purchase with the express purpose of using the proceeds to buy back some of our debt from China. I would think that this could be referred to as a modern version of the old Liberty Bonds which financed our efforts in WWI.
@Wolverine
I LOVE that Federal Bond idea… haven’t heard about it… would buy them.
I wouldn’t worry too much, China’s been dumping our debt, probably looking to diversify. Well, actually, I would worry about that, because interest rates will start to go up, the amount we get to pay to service our OUT OF CONTROL debt will skyrocket……oh well.
That is an excellent idea about the bonds, especially if there was a decent interest rate. Sort of like a municipal bond. Earnings could be tax free…..
Does this thread have cooties?
The other one has over 100 comments. Al is still over here.
Let me say thanks to Al Alborn for giving us all some things to mull over and to discuss.
Al has a real knack for finding common ground.
You’re right, M-h… this is a perfectly good thread. I’ve moved.
The shorter thread is always easier to handle.
I am pondering your medicare question. I believe medicaid is very different for some reason. Medicare has really cut back on some things.
It sound kids are covered with SCHIPS, the poor are covered with medicaid, the seniors care covered with medicare. Who is left? Ahhh. everyone else.
@Moon-howler
I find it ironic that people accepting these successful Government benefit programs (literally and figuratively) designed to “promote the general welfare” would protest against extending a similar program to the least among us who for whatever reason can’t afford or don’t have protection against health problems. Philosophically, you can’t have it both ways. Frankly, it’s the ultimate “National defense” initiative. We spend Billions against threats that probably won’t materialize, yet we begrudge spending a fraction of that to save real lives today.
My thinking is evolving on this issue as age and experience cause me to reconsider Government’s role in our lives. I am for small Government, the Tenth Amendment, and elimination of wasteful programs; however, the principal of “promote the General Welfare” is taking on new meaning to me as I learn more about the problems in our health care industry and the uninsured in our Country.
@Al Alborn “We spend Billions against threats that probably won’t materialize, yet we begrudge spending a fraction of that to save real lives today.”
I’ve been mulling that statement since last night. No one as ever phrased it that way, to my knowledge. As a healthcare professional, I do believe that no one in the United States should go without healthcare. As I sit here in my warm home typing on my Mac and looking around at all we have, it makes me sick to think about the money that is getting flushed down the toilet in an ill-conceived war while our nation sinks farther into debt and nothing fundamentally changing, as so many had hoped a year ago.
I think there are so many ways that healthcare costs could be significantly lowered, and we discussed those ways on the previous thread. I believe you would see dramatic changes from some small steps. Unfortunately, two administrations now have attempted grandiose, “comprehensive” plans so loaded with payoffs to special interests that they were doomed to fail. Americans didn’t trust the 4,000-page plan, and rightfully so. And a leadership that sets up artificial deadlines in order to force a vote on legislation that is too cumbersome to read quickly is now paying the political price in their home districts.
Let go of the sacred cow of trial-lawyer interests and set caps on liability. Allow interstate insurance competition. See what happens. And then take another step. Forget “comprehensive” and start small, start somewhere.
Sorry, what I meant to highlight was what you said on the last thread yesterday: “What’s the difference between defending our residents from Terrorists (very low probability) than from disease (very high probability)?”
I’m really not that prescient to have mulled over since last night what you said at 6 am today.
@Emma
Thank you, Emma. Doing the two things you recommended, “Let go of the sacred cow of trial-lawyer interests and set caps on liability. Allow interstate insurance competition” We both know that each is a sacred cow to specific constituencies. would be a positive step forward. I believe in the “try lots of things, start small, scale the stuff that works fast, abandon failure quickly” approach to new ideas. I also believe that simply improving the processes involved in health care, eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, and focusing on prevention and early detection would save our economy “Billions” (in the Carl Sagan sense); however, I believe the scale of the health care industry and the defensive mechanisms put in place by those who profit from it (specifically lobbyists) make such a worthwhile initiative difficult.
Al, You sound like a very reasonable and realistic person.
What is missing in many (most) of our elected officials is the ability to be reasonable and realistic. Because of the high costs of getting elected to positions, the candidate feels the need to sell out to various special interests before they even get into office. They then pander and cave to special interest groups as a vote for me next time strategy.We (the voters) are a very apathetic bunch, until something (perceived?) touches us personally. Healthcare reform is just one major reform that is needed – the increasing costs to US is tremendous. Funny how no one wants healthcare run by the government, yet, they run the following: Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Services, Miliatry Health, CDC, Prisons Health Services, and more.
I could go with allowing insurance across state lines, if the plans were the same, currently the minimum standards of health insurance is not standard across state lines.
What is the cost of doing nothing in regards to health reform? http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/insuranceprospers/index.html
Next on the list will need to be Social Security reform.
@Pat.Herve
Thank you, Pat. Your points are why I’m in favor of one term politicians. Since those in power will never pass legislation to that effect, it’s up to us to look for candidates who agree to serve for one term and support them. It’s also up to us to establish ballot box term limits for incumbents.
I’m open to the idea of report cards on incumbents so we don’t lose the really good ones; however, that will require much more transparency in Government. Perhaps the one term idea would be incentive for incumbents to be more open.
Emma, I took the liberty of bolding what you wanted highlighted. I hope you do not mind. It is an excellent question and I like most of your answers.
I agree that starting off with a few simple things makes a great deal of sense. I have no idea why it won’t work that way. Maybe it is like knitting…if you see a mistake in knitting and go to fix it, you have a hell of a mess on your hands.
I think 50 states creates part of that problem. I believe we are all in agreement that something needs to happen with health care and that not doing something is going to bankrupt us. However, doing some things that we have heard about whether real or immaginary also are going to bankrupt us.
I believe the Obama plan comes out today. Maybe he will have some common sense ideas. Or maybe not. His might be just as bulky as the congressional proposal. We shall see.
Al, the older I get, the less I see ‘states’ rights’ being a battle cry.
My husband was once invited to give some sort of talk to elementary kids at a career day. He was showing them office equipment or something. Anyway, he told them the earth was shrinking daily. He looked out and saw the frozen look of horror on all their faces and decided he needed to reword his presentation…..
But the earth is shrinking as far as people, goods information traveling about(and disease, conflict) . Back when our ancestors fought and died over the concept of states’ rights it took at least a day to get out of your own state. Now we can cross the nation in 5 hours where it used to take some folks 5 months. Instant news, internet, email, hdTV, radio, satellite, all make instant access to information something we have grown not only to accept but to demand. To step back into a patchwork of different state laws just seems archaic to me.
Another example: What happened to Jim Webb with his gun is totally absurd. He passed through 3 jurisdictions and had 3 different sets of laws to deal with. We shouldn’t have laws that affect our health care, our ‘carrying habits’, our drinking, habits, our driving speed, our rights to certain reproductive health care all determined by whether we have crossed over the state line or not.
My ancestors would probably rise up from their graves but I think ‘states’ rights’ might just not pack the same punch it used to.
Al, on the subject of report cards–most organizations already have report cards. Let’s go with the gun theme. If I am a 2nd amendment nut, I am going to grade Mr. Politician exactly the opposite of a nut who wants to round up everyone’s guns and destroy them.
How do we avoid that?
Pat, you are right on about the huge cost involved in getting elected. I think you have some excellent ideas!
@Moon-howler
Interstate commerce clause… my favorite! If its policy about something that crosses state lines, the Federal Government has a Constitutionally legitimate interest in regulating it… and should step up. For the rest, it’s up to the States. That’s what the framers intended.
Eventually, we will have a national ID card that is our state drivers license, our passport, our concealed carry permit, our benefits ID, etc. etc. etc. It’s a ‘technological inevitability”. I understand the privacy issue; however, the world has just become too complex not to exploit technology in something as redundant and inefficient as our current ID system… although the Contractors will certainly complain.
M-h, you know there will be more than one “report card”. Groups will form along the lines of their beliefs and grade candidates accordingly. Since we are a Democracy, the largest Group (or coalition of Groups) win. I can ask no more than that; however, I would like to be part of the largest group. That’s where sharing ideas come in so that “largest group” may be composed of the folks in the center who have perhaps given up in Government. We just have to give them hope for a better tomorrow.
Actually, I am going out on a limb and say that its difficult in some cases to know what the framers meant. None of them might have meant a word of what we now read. It might have all been compromise…something that they had to all agree on to get the damn thing passed!
It’s actually quite easy to understand what the founders meant, they wrote it down all over the place. In the records of the individual ratification conventions, in letters to each other, in books of the time. They did not mean for their words to be twisted and taken out of context. Then again, hey also knew that the nation would come crashing down due to the unbridled growth of centralized government. So when folks say the founders “would be rolling over in their graves”, I reply “no, they knew this happen eventually.”
So when the framers gave the federal government the power to “regulate” Interstate Commerce (and it certainly makes sense to say, for example, gasoline will be sold in units called gallons), do you think they meant the setting of common measures and currencies to also mean all the other stuff that simple concept has been interpreted to mean?
How on earth do you know what they meant? Their entire frame of reference is different from yours. Saddle on up….
Much of what they did was compromise. It is almost amazing that we have a constitution. Raucus fighting over that bad boy?
Slow, you have delved deeply into the past. You know that words, meanings, etc change over time. You know better than most folks.
Really overt example:
1790- We went to a party over at the Madisons. Everyone there was gay.
2010- We went to a party over at the Madisons. Everyone there was gay.
Lots of compromises in the process of our Constitution. The Connnecticut Compromise brought us our current congressional design. One of the original plans presented, the “Virginia Plan” had congress based upon population only. The “New Jersey Plan” had representation set upon equality for both larger and small States. The compromise? Two houses of congress, one based upon population, one based upon equal representation.
Another compromise was the “Commerce Clause” under which slaves counted as 3/5ths for taxes and population and the Federal government would put off the terrible subject of slavery for twenty years.
So there were great compromises made in order to even write the Constitution, let alone ratify it.
As brilliant as the founding fathers were, it is difficult to find every answer to issues that we have today in the original document. One also has to temper their brillance and consider the lack of political courage to address the slavery issue then and there, as opposed to putting it off for twenty years. This, of course, led to our national tragedy of the Civil War 80 years later.
Thanks, Lucky Duck. You were far more eloguent than I was.
@Al Alborn
Your web site pays lip service to small government with powers limited to those enumerated by the Constitution, but your statements above seem at odds with that idea. Although federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution “to promote the general welfare,” that power is not unlimited. Medicare, Medicaid, and the current healthcare bill are examples of federal activities that involve extra-constitutional powers. So yes, I am against all three.
The federal government does have the power to regulate how healthcare insurance companies engage in interstate commerce. It should regulate the healthcare industry (e.g. allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines). But the government has no constitutional authority to get into the healthcare business or to mandate that citizens acquire healthcare insurance.
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
Article 1, Section 8 The Congress shall have power… to regulate commerce… among the several states. It’s settled law.
Your math is not quite correct. The majority of the federal budget (including the Pentagon’s) is spent on entitlements, people programs, retirees, etc. Weapons programs can always be cancelled (e.g. F-22 cancelled this year), but entitlements continue to increase exponentially until the system inevitably goes bankrupt (Medicare? Social Security?). There is no reason to believe that a national healthcare system would not eventually meet the same fate.
@kelly3406
I’m evolving based upon our recent history and experience. While some follow a progressive philosophy, I do not. I still believe in the enumerated rights of the Constitution. That power is not unlimited. It is limited by our process (Supreme Court review, particularly), our form of Government, and our votes. We have made mistakes. Fortunately, the old white guys who wrote the Constitution were smart enough to include a process for amending it (Article V).
For the many reasons I have previously enumerated (particularly a lapse of ethical responsibility in the free market), I now believe that only the Federal Government has the power to regulate those industries (Health Care and the Financial Sector) who have failed us and that they should, in fact, do so. Where would we be without EPA regulation of Drinking Water, FDA regulation of our drug industry and the foods we eat, etc., etc., etc.
The Government is in the health care business. I personally use the Military Health care system. I’m sure you are familiar with the Veterans Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc, etc. The question is whether or not they should expand their presence in the health care system. It’s a question… not a position; however, it frames the issue (IMHO) more accurately.
Yes, age and experience have changed my view of the world. I certainly respect the opinions of those who disagree and am willing to discuss our differences any time to both learn and inform.
@kelly3406
It’s not about the math… it’s about the principle.
In your mind, I understand. So “regulate”, which most educated folks take to mean “make regular” has a much more expanded meaning to you, I’m guessing. Could mean anything, right? Hey, it’s right here in the OED, “regulate can be interchanged with any other verb a liberal wishes”. You’re right, it’s settled!
I’m curious, is man-caused Global Warming “settled”, too?
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
Re regulate… Interesting interpretation. The Constitution “is what it is”. I’ll defer to Congress and the Supreme Court on the finer points of what the word “regulate” actually means.
Re Global Warming… I’m curious also. Let me know if you find out the answer.