The Rightful Function of Government

Although I realize beforehand that in order to fully explain what I write below will take an entire treatise, I am outlining what I believe to be the function of government, and its limitations.

The power of Government (local, state, and federal) should be limited to only that which is necessary to ensure or enhance the efficient operation of society.

The size and manner of operation of Government (local, state and federal) should be extended only to the point necessary to ensure its efficient operation.

The goal of any Government should be to minimize its influence upon the individual while maximizing its effect to cause an efficiently operating society.

The default should be, when solving a problem, to go from no government intervention to full government control not start at the opinion that government is the solution to solve a problem.

Any government program should, on a yearly basis, justify both quantitatively and qualitatively how its existence provides for a benefit greater than the burden required to fund such a program.

The government of a just society would temper the realization that the only guaranteed rights are those set forth in our Constitution with the fact that a large segment of our society has, by action of law, not been able to enjoy and benefit from these guaranteed rights until relatively recently.

Question about Gay Rights

In a discussion, I was asked my opinion on Gay Marriage. While I do not speak for the Modern Whig Party, much like the differing opinions in the Democratic party, I believe that the denial of Gay Marriage rights is unconstitutional. Currently, there is a national "right" called marriage. It is not really a "right", but a status that affords the citizens that obtain a legal marriage certain benefits which include tax and survivorship benefits. In order to obtain this status, a man and a woman must have a legitimate marriage, either performed as a civil ceremony or as a civil ceremony which is part of a religious ceremony. By having a legitimate marriage, individual states cannot deny certain benefits afforded on a national level (each state has different benefits, but the marriage must be recognized).

And this is where the ban on gay marriage runs aground Constitutionally. Assuming all else is equal, each citizen is supposed to have rights equivalent to others in the same position. In other words, a woman is supposed to have at least the same rights as a man, and a man in one state is supposed to have at least the same rights under the US Constitution in one state as another. The Constitution is a quid pro quo document. It is stated in the Constitution that there must be a separation of church and state. Taking all of those together, it is illogical, and mere ideological based thinking, to deny the right of a man to marry another man when they have the right to marry a woman. That would mean that in certain situations, rights are curtailed merely based upon gender. In other words, remove all of the religious and moral arguments. At the very core, the denial of gay marriage rights is gender based discrimination.

Notice how I did not insert any moral aspects. This is merely based upon case law and logical thinking. I can be opposed morally to gay marriage yet, if I believe in the Constitution, I have to affirm the right of marriage to those of different sexual persuasion.

But, for the sake of argument, let's inject morality into this discussion. The number one reason why people argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is tradition based upon the fact that this country was founded by Christians. While I do not want to get into a lengthly discussion of the Christianity of our founders, they were also white, men, and half slave owners, so by that logic, we should also remove the rights of minorities and woman and bring back slavery. Do you see the absurdity? But I digress. Let's get back to the moral aspects. So, if the union between a man and a woman is more moral than the union between a woman and a woman, why are their laws permitting divorce? Divorce is the absolute destruction of a marriage, and in some religious orders, a moral sin. Yet, we seem to be comfortable as a society with this aspect.

See, the problem with morality is that it only works for those with the exact same viewpoints. While it is great that we live our lives in a moral fashion according to our own beliefs, what is our right to force our morals onto others? I cannot remember where I heard this, but to me, this rings true. "I am fearful of the day in which my guns and my religion are controlled by the same organization."

Fortunately, for us, America is composed of people with morals and ethics that span opinions. While we must legislate baseline morality (e.g. no killing, no theft, etc.), we should rely upon our Constitution and our desire as Americans to include all rational and reasonable viewpoints. To me, although others in the Modern Whig Party may have differing opinions, this type of thought process is the way of the moderates and the way of the Georgia Modern Whig Party.

Are Whigs Republican-Lite

There is a great discussion going on right now in a posting the Daily Kos about the article of the Georgia Modern Whig Party made it look like we were Republican-lite. There are some great comments and some offhanded insults, but really most were genuine in their analysis.

Unfortunately, because of space, my comments regarding my political ideologies was unfortunately cut-off. Mr. Howard provided a great, balanced article, but I think the fact that he only invited comment from the Republican county leader evidenced that I may have not made my point. I am a moderate. I believe that the solutions to a problem come from various sides of the political spectrum. We are reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans that are increasingly left behind by their parties. We believe in being socially progressive.

But, please let me be clear, I believe that ideological based solutions are incomplete and an incompetent manner in which to govern. How long do we as citizens have to suffer from dealing with politicians that pander to their extreme base by offering solutions based not on logic or data, but rather, on ideologies. The constant and incessant attempt to fit the proverbial square peg in a round hole is hurting us all.

To the leaders in Georgia, and from what I have gathered by talking to my fellow citizens in Georgia, being a moderate is not about being a middle of the road type of person. That tends to lead someone to believe that we believe in nothing, which is absolutely untrue. Rather, we believe that being a moderate is not succumbing to ideologies and putting forth rational, common sense solutions.

We believe in principles and goals, not ideologies. We believe in accountability and measurability, not ideologies. We believe in having an open mind, realizing that listening to opposing viewpoints is an opportunity to learn rather than a sign of weakness. No single one of us has all the answers, but together we do. It is this moderate thought process that gave us the Constitution.

How do politicians in DC "Cut taxes"

Every president for the past 20 years have professed to cut taxes, both individual and corporate. While corporate taxation is relatively straightforward, the way in which individual taxes are cut involves a slight of hand in a lot of instances. The Federal government can promote these things called "mandates", basically standards or laws that state and local governments must enforce or comply with. These mandates are often social or commercial programs that involve the actual spending of money. What the federal government does is push the cost down to the states, thus lowering the federal government expenditures, thus giving them the ability to "cut taxes". For example, to implement and comply with No Child Left Behind, states had to spend significant money. This is state money, thus requiring the states to either cut other programs or raise state taxes. So, the federal government gets to have its cake and eat it too. Not only do they get to tout the fact that they started a great program, but they also get to tout that they did not raise, and possibly did lower, taxes. In the meantime, states are left with the bill.

think about this when you read the healthcare bill and how it will be funded.

Re-adjusting the Size of the House of Representatives

A lawsuit was filed by a group called Apportionment.US. the suit alleges that the current allocation of seats in the HOR is unconstitutional. When the seats were allocated in 1911, the difference in population was minimal. In the last 90 some odd years, America has grown a little bit. It should be an interesting lawsuit to monitor. Unfortunately, these sorts of cases have typically been thrown out because the "harm" to the individual plaintiffs have usually been found to be too remote. Hopefully, they found a nice hook to keep it in court.

Fiscal Responsibility Does Not Equal Fiscal Conservatism

Much has been made about the need for fiscal conservatism to come back to Washington, but why then does the Modern Whig Party say "fiscal responsibility" rather than "fiscal conservatism"? One of the main concepts of the Modern Whig Party is common sense solutions. The solution should be derived from the problem itself, not based upon a preconceived notion of ideology. That is where fiscal conservatism becomes a real issue. Throughout the reign of the Republicans in the past decade, President Bush and the leaders in Washington touted, professed fiscal conservatism. It was their mainstay, their platform. But, we know it didn't work, and in fact, had the opposite effect. Deficits under the Republican were out of control and the government expanded in a manner unseen until President Obama took the reigns. Why?

Some would say corruption, greed, power. Yes, those cannot be ruled out. But, the larger issue is that the "theory of fiscal conservation" is just that, a theory. Reduce government spending, reduce the size of government. Great notions, but without more, it often leads to either expansion of government or inadequately funded mandates. How many times in the past 20 years or so did the federal government send mandates to the states, yet under the guise of fiscal conservation, did not fund the mandates? The congress people in Washington can tout their conservative principles for re-relection, yet, have failed to provide a real, common sense solution. They have merely succeeded in hiding the ball, shifting the spending from the federal government to the states. Now that states are broke, federal mandates are requiring the federal government to step in and fund the states, thus, leading to a massive expansion of government.

The best solution is Fiscal Responsibility. It is not about bigger government, smaller government. But rather, Fiscal Responsibility is about the Right Size of Government. It begins with the manner in which the problem is solved (discussed in another post below) and ends with finding the right, non-ideological biased solution to achieve the results. Fiscal Responsibility is about looking at the solution without preconceived biases, finding the common sense solution, and setting forth the right size of government intervention (if any) to meet the needs.

Fiscal Conservatism is an idea. Fiscal Responsibility is a solution.