The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Rubio And Block Grants! A Sign Of A Deeper Probem

Rubio goes black grants...How easy is it to take away such Grants?

"State's Rights" is at the deep core of conservative principles. As you and I both know, core principles guide us throughout our lives and basically, set the paradigm under which we accomplish life. Marco Rubio's proposal for state black grants is classic state's rights with all associated flaws.

"State's Rights" is dangerous. It is an unfortunate reality, US History is replete with evidence of authority to legislate and to govern spread across decentralized state governments has a deleterious influence on federal governance. Despite conservative, libertarian, and GOP principles, federal governance has provided necessary tweaks for the betterment of society throughout the history of the 'republic.' (e.g., Labor Law, Civil-Rights Laws, congressional war powers). Conversely, a nation with decentralized authority (power) spread across 50 very diverse geographic and legislative realities, in my mind, lays the groundwork for absolute nation killing disaster. 

Think of current national issues that would fall into the realm of states rights if the "New Federalism" was the accepted norm.  Abortion rights, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Transportation systems, potential dismantling of federal agencies, election laws, Human and Civil Rights, are issues that would join with other issues to create a national (or 50 states) "kerfuffle." 

I recently read an extensive article published just after Marco Rubio week ago visit to camera and microphone to speak about his perception of LBJ's former "War on Poverty." It should be noted Senator Rubio spoke to his audience the day after he voted against extending unemployment insurance payments to millions.

The article from Perrspectves Dot Com deals directly with the essence of Rubio remarks. Under the title, "The GOP's Worst Idea to Fight Poverty? Federal Block Grants to the States" the author takes apart the fallacy of "State Block Grants."  

Jon Perr wrote....

Article excerpt
Americans can be forgiven their skepticism. After all, whether concerning health care, education or basic safety net programs, the likes of Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor and their ilk are offering the same failed formula: slash federal budget and hand over the reduced outlays over to the states to spend as they wish. Yet as night follows day, the certain result is a shredded safety net as federal funds redirected to private companies and religious charities undermine public institutions while failing to assist the very people they intended to help.
Take, for example, this week's "major" poverty speech from Florida Senator and 2016 GOP White House hopeful Marco Rubio. As McClatchy reported Wednesday, "Rubio wants states, not U.S., to lead second wave in war on poverty." Complaining that "federal government is incapable of delivering" what he deems (though not defines) as "innovative and highly targeted solutions," Rubio proclaimed:
Therefore, what I am proposing today is the most fundamental change to how the federal government fights poverty and encourages income mobility since President Johnson first conceived of the War on Poverty fifty years ago. I am proposing that we turn Washington's anti-poverty programs - and the trillions spent on them - over to the states. Our anti-poverty programs should be replaced with a revenue neutral Flex Fund. We would streamline most of our existing federal anti-poverty funding into one single agency. Then each year, these Flex Funds would be transferred to the states so they can design and fund creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity.
If you think you've seen this movie before, that's because you have. It's called the Paul Ryan budget 95 percent of Republicans in Congress voted for three years in a row. And we know how that movie ends.
Jon Perr's piece as poignant.  

GOP economic policy continues to fall into the flawed theories of Ronald Reagan's "Trickle-down/supply side" Economics. While I am not an economist, and often argue with people who have studied the many variations of economic theory, I can assert Reagan's policies have failed as we consider the greater society. When we factor-in Paul Ryan's elitist beliefs straight from the writings of NON-economist Ayn Rand, we end with a mixture that can only benefit top income earners. 

While we will not bore you with the pro (s) and con(s) of Ayn Rand, we will provide a basic definition of her in individualist "objectivism."

Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness andCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others. Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects each person's rights to life, liberty, and property and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else. The heroes of Objectivism are achievers who build businesses, invent technologies, and create art and ideas, depending on their own talents and on trade with other independent people to reach their goals.

We find Paul Ryan's affinity for tenets of Ayn Rand's philosophies typical of GOP leaders and endemic in modern conservatism. Ryan and other who subscribe to Rand's writings and philosophies often 'cherry-pick' for that which fits conservative paradigms and modern-day conservatism activism. Numerous writings about the misuse of power, tramping of the rights of the minority (excluding race), and government help to business, seem to be avoided by the GOP. The three areas draw particular attention to Paul Ryan's "cherry-picking" as the embody the essence of Paul Ryan's "Cherry-picking." 

Jamie Frater's December 2007 list of Rand's top 25 quotes includes quite a few social philosophies Paul Ryan's GOP and conservative movement chooses to ignore. they ignore Ayn Rand's Social consideration in favor of  her much more convenient "Individual Objectivism." We chose top 25, "6" and "8," for expediency and linked the webpage.

6. Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.

8. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

You may not agree, but I personally do not find any current GOP doctrine that embraces the social tenets of  Ayn Rand's writings. 

From another perspective, we find an abundance of Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" imbued in every facet of conservative thought and GOP life. Marco Rubio's 'state grants' is a classic example. His speech also speaks to the danger of  the 50 states in the context of "individualism" vs the good of centralized collectivism via the authority of federal governance.  Again, I cite the misfortune of 10 million Americans who live in states denied expansion of Medicaid under the ACA and states where GOP governors refused to setup ACa exchanges.

Rubio's states block grants also sounds like good conservative policy. We suggest his comments a mere sophisms. And, there-in lies our innate aversion to all things conservative. 

Rubio and his political party (and social movement), have no affinity for services and benefits to people who are much less fortunateThere are only few and rare societies on Earth where there is no "under-class." There are no societies on Earth that is without forms of privilege or elitism. Well, possibly those hidden from the ills of modern society in the Jungles of South America, Australia and maybe in Africa, may escape the horrors of elitist privilege, even those societies have endemic hierarchies. Endemic hierarchies that support preserving the society, while providing order within the society. Rubio's GOP and its choice to not follow Ayn Rand's anti-support for business, manifest in political preservation for business while nurturing policy that ignores the needs of mission in society.

Mitt Romney's 47% "takers" is a classic example of the a paradigm of which we speak. His comments also speak to the fallacy of Rubio's speech.

State's Rights is basically the ultimate dream of modern conservatism. They want the right for each state to decided how best to manage society for the good of constituents and residents. Is it such a wild thought to contemplate evidence of how the states (via their legislators) have become targets (willing targets) Of the uber wealthy via organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)?  If state legislators are the subject of lobbyist who funnel money into their campaigns (and we hope the buck stops there), how can the average citizen to expect state's rights to serve as a viable form of government.  If I look 
again at the Jon Perr state map figure above, how can I find rational cause to have faith in a political party that derives bedrock support from the very states shown as most impoverished? Is there an indication economic policy issue there? Moreover, could we expect to see an inordinate influence from religious organization an groups, if the GOP has its way with "Block Grants."

We also suggest it is impossible to separate human paradigm regarding race in state districts which have proven (post SCOTUS Title VII Section Four and Five dismantling) to harbor preferences based in race. If political party will uses race as political campaign mantra (southern strategy), the party will also legislate and manage with regard to race. It would be an expectation of the voters who handed the politician the election. If the same political party maintains a member that is 92% white, we posit that party is incapable of administering in a far and balanced manner when it come to matters of governance, race, gender, women's rights and sexual orientation.

If you have never researched which political party is better for the US economy you should do so.

If you do not understand, nor appreciate,  the good from social programs like Social Security, Medicare and food to dependent children, you should stop listening the GOP and do a bit of research.

If research is not your 'cup of tea", we offer a five minute broadcast segment from Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC The Last Word, and a segment of just how wrong the GOP has been in matters of governance across the full spectrum of Us history.  O'Donnell spins a story with the ACA at its core, but if you listen carefully you will see and hear major failings from the right as been consistent during our life-time.

Marco Rubio is posturing for a run for the GOP nomination in 2016. He is working to "plug the dam" with far-right voters who left him long ago as he spoke about Immigration Reform.  His remarks about "block grants" makes as much rational sense as 50 states maintaining standing armies completely independent of each other. 

Jon Perr's piece simply (with fine details) nails Rubio and GOP false doctrine. We hope you will read the piece to reinforce what we hope is your sensibility regarding handing programs over the variety of the 50 states. 

One has to look only at the current mess in New Jersey ("Bridgegate") to know that state governance lends itself to the power of the few and the misguided decisions of the few at the top.

No comments :

Post a Comment