To make it even better, Cam Ward, or someone in Congress, should make it where third party members and independent candidates have the same access to the ballot as Republicans and Democrats. How about a better chance for representation Alabama? Will we see it?

“I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

Not only did he promise such things once, but eight times! How can one person fail to complete such an easy promise? All you have to do is set up a couple of cameras and microphones and you can have it on air so the country can see what is really going on.

With this failed promise, one could come to the conclusion that maybe President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are hiding something. What would they be hiding that the American people shouldn’t hear? Let me just say, if you are in Congress, and you need to hide something because you are afraid of what the American people will think, maybe you shouldn’t be doing what you are doing.

Not only is it Fox News, conservative radio, and conservative bloggers who are pouncing on the President with this, but even C-SPAN’s president is asking what happened. Even CBS News and CNN have talked about the failed promise to televise the debates.

America has seen Healthcare reform backfire against those who wish to pass it before. Will Healthcare reform be what brings down the Democratic Congress and the “President of Change” Barack Obama? The 2010 mid-term elections will be the election that tells us so.

Starting tomorrow I want to go full blast on the governor’s race, as well as the other elections going on in Alabama this year. It will be pretty interesting for Alabama in 2010, and I want to be here to help everyone grasp what all is going on the campaign trail. I will also be seeking some interviews with the candidates. For those of you who are knew to my blog, you might want to check out my interview with gubernatorial candidate Robert Bentley. Out of all the candidates, he was one of two candidates to actually respond to my request for an interview. The other was Bill Johnson, but our schedules never met up while he was in Mobile, and maybe we can give it another shot.

Maybe it is just because I am a small name in the state of Alabama, and maybe because my opinion doesn’t matter much. I can say this though, anytime I talk to anyone about the election, I always point out how Robert Bentley seems to truly care about the people of Alabama since he actually wants to get out and talk to people – even no-names like me.

Not all of my focus will be strictly for the elections in Alabama, I will continue to opine on national politics, as well as state and local. For more in depth Alabama politics, I urge you to check out Doc’s Political Parlor, which is now linked in my blogroll. It is truly the best place to get the latest happenings in Alabama, and I could only dream on my blog being anything like it.

So remember to start checking by again tomorrow for all the information on the gubernatorial race. I will be setting up some places here on the blog where you can get to know each candidate better, and compare the views of each of them so you know who you really want to support. For now, check out all of their websites to the right, remember don’t just like someone because you know them or their name, but give them all a chance, and go in with an open mind. This election, just like every other one, is critical for Alabama’s future. A man might have a nice name, but is he (or she) truly the right person for the state?

This year is crucial to us all. We have midterm elections this year, in which we as Americans have the opportunity to kick the politicians, who aren’t for “We the people” and are only in office to benefit themselves, out of office, and to replace them with the right people. The right people are those who believe in the Constitution, who want to serve their people, and who want to reign in the power of government, and restore the country back to where it should be.

We have the chance to stop government waste, government power grabs, and government corruption. We the people have what it takes to do it – we just have to keep looking forward, marching strong, and finish what we started.

2010 will be the year of “We The People”. Will you be a part of it?

Until then, I hope you enjoyed the holiday season, and happy new year.

Political parties destroy the relationship between those who are elected and those who elect. Political parties seek to divide the nation into two main groups, and a few other groups considered crazy and out of touch with the majority. The two main parties dominate the political sphere, and it has created an atmosphere that has ruin debate and created a system in which your views don’t matter as much as what party you are in.

Take for example:

1. If you are a Republican, than you must be a right-wing religious gun-loving American. You wish for less government in the social sector, while at the same time would love to expand the defense of the nation all at the same time lowering taxes and promising to stay within the budget. You love your guns and you especially love God. Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, but pro-death penalty and pro-business. Your hero has to be Ronald Reagan, and you probably love him almost as much as you love Jesus.
2. If you are a Democrat, than you must be a left-wing socialistic America. You believe that the government should have more power all around, but would probably be less likely to go out and bomb people across the world. You believe that Universal Health Care and spending over the budget can only make the country better. You obviously must hate guns and the death penalty, but you’re pro-choice and you would love to see homosexual marriages in every state, and you’re probably willing to force those opinions down the throat of the whole country.

Now, both parties have their pros and cons, but not every single person who says they are in one party or the other agrees 100% of the time with someone else in the same party. Individuals have different opinions and different issues and different ways to solve those issues. Now, to throw a person in a party really doesn’t make any sense, but as we all have grown up you are either Democrat of Republican, and if you’re some other party then you don’t even really matter so why are you even here anyways?

These two parties are broad. Grant it most people in a party agree most of the time with the same party members, but it is just crazy to think that you will vote for someone just because they have a R or a D beside their name on the ballot. If we removed the labels that have lead to these two great Political Parties, then I believe we will make a big step forward in getting the rite people in the office, with more transparency, and a bigger connection between the elected official and those who elected him.

If all elected officials had to be voted because of their name, of who they really are, and what they really and truly represent, there would be a greater diversity of people running for office, and that greater diversity will have more competition, and with greater competition will lead to better performance.

I personally do not align myself with any party, and I will vote for whoever offers the best meal for me. But for me to vote for you because of a R or a D, I would have to be crazy and well out of my mind. Political parties mean nothing to me, and they shouldn’t mean anything to any other American too.

For better competition in the political sphere, for a better performance of our elected officials, for more transparency in government, please for now do not pull the lever because of the party a person is in. In fact, ignore the party, and pay attention to the person. It is the person who will represent you, not the party. If we all do that, eventually it will come about that political parties will not matter, and they will be abolished from society, thus overall creating a better America for you and me.

I honestly hope I will keep this up, as it is very enjoyable. Look for much better writing from myself, and look for post to actually have some good information in it, and not just me blabbering on about my personal feelings towards issues without real evidence in why I believe in what I believe in.

In this current time Americans are showing who they really are, and we are all finding our voice. Well this voice is my own, and you will be able to hear it loud and clear. So sit back enjoy the game, and let’s play ball.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

Added to cato.org on August 18, 2009
This article appeared in the Washington Timeson August 18, 2009.

Do you think America would be better off with a Swedish-type welfare state? This question tends to evoke strong reactions from both the left and right, yet few understand Sweden’s economic history and the revisions it has been making to its welfare-state model in recent years. Sweden was a very poor country for most of the 19th century.

The poverty of those years caused many to emigrate from the country, mostly to the U.S. Upper Midwest. Beginning in the 1870s, Sweden created the conditions for developing a high-growth, free-market economy with a slowly growing government sector. As a result, Sweden for many years had the world’s fastest-growing economy, ultimately producing the third-highest per capita income, almost equaling that in the United States by the late 1960s. Sweden became a rich country before becoming a welfare state.

Sweden began its movement toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was about equal to that in the United States. However, by the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP.

Most full-time employees faced marginal tax rates of 65 percent to 75 percent, as contrasted with 40 percent in 1960. Labor-market regulations were introduced to make it very difficult to fire workers. Business profits were taxed heavily, and financial markets were regulated heavily. By 1993, the government budget deficit was 13 percent of GDP and total government debt was about 71 percent of GDP, which led to a rapid fall in the value of the currency and a rise in inflation.

These policies and outcomes greatly diminished the incentives to work, save and invest. Economic growth slowed to a crawl. Other countries that avoided the excess spending, taxing and regulation of Sweden grew more rapidly, leaving Sweden in the dust. Sweden is still a prosperous country, but far from the top, and its per capita income has fallen to just about 80 percent of that in the United States.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, Sweden began an economic course correction that continues today. Marginal tax rates were reduced for most of the population, and this trend is expected to continue.

The wealth tax and inheritance tax were abolished. Financial markets, telecommunications, electricity, road transport, taxis and other activities were deregulated. Privatization of industry was begun, and the current government is continuing the process. The generosity of some welfare and other benefits has been reduced, with the goal of making work more economically rewarding relative to government benefits. Also, trade liberalization has been expanded greatly. The result has been a pickup in economic growth, and Sweden is no longer falling further behind other developed countries.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

More by Richard W. Rahn

One notable success has been pension reform. Sweden was the first nation to implement a mandatory government retirement system for all its citizens. Sweden, like the United States and most other countries, was faced with an increasing, unfunded social security liability as a result of low birthrates and people living much longer. After studying the problem in the early 1990s, the Swedes approved, in 1998, moving toward a Chilean private pension system, first developed by former Chilean Labor Minister Jose Pinera. (Seventeen countries have adopted variations of the Pinerian system, which has been very successful in Chile.)

The new Swedish pension system has four key features, including partial privatization, individual accounts, a safety net to protect the poor and a transition to protect retirees and older workers. The benefits have been substantial budgetary savings, higher retirement income and faster economic growth.

Those who wish to chase the Swedish model need first to decide which model they seek: The high-growth, pre-1960 model; the low-growth model of the 1970s and 1980s; or the reformist, welfare-state model of recent years. The irony is that the current Democratic Congress and administration are rapidly emulating the parts of the Swedish model that proved disastrous and rejecting those parts that are proving to be successful.

Most Swedes now understand that they still have a good distance to go to further strengthen the market economy to ensure continued growth. Thus, they continue to move toward reducing the size of government rather than increasing it.

If the Obama Democrats were wise enough to learn from the Swedes, they would be moving toward trade liberalization rather than away from it. They would be moving to at least partially privatize Social Security. They would not seek to prevent the abolition of the death tax. They would be reducing rather than increasing regulations. They would be reducing rather than trying to increase marginal tax rates on work, saving and investment. They would be reducing the corporate income tax as was done in Sweden.

Finally, the Obama Democrats would be reducing government spending rather than increasing it and not running deficits as large as those that almost sank the Swedish economy 16 years ago.

Original Article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10462

Robert Bentley, who many in south western Alabama have never heard of, is quite popular in the northern part of the state. He described his popularity as that of Bradley Byrne down here. He’s popular where he is from, and his campaign will focus on building the knowledgebase of his name across the state, and promoting the fact that out of all six candidates, he is the only one that has been in the legislature. Bentley believes firmly that to be a great governor, you have to work well with the state legislature, and he believes that his time in the state House of Representatives has built the needed relationship that it takes to be governor.

Bentley stated that the first problem we must fix in the state is the current unemployment, which is currently at 10.1%. He believes that by strengthening the companies that are already housed here in Alabama, as well as making it economical for new business to come to the state, that the unemployment rate will lower. He stated that this will be his main goal, as the state can never be strong with such a high unemployment rate.

Bentley also has a strong passion to fix the problems with healthcare within the state too, and be believes that he is the most qualified to do so – as he is a doctor. Bentley believes one way to fix the problem is to have health savings accounts. With these savings accounts it will put the money in the people’s hands, and let them decide what they should do with their own healthcare. Whether or not to decide to pay $30 at the doctor’s office today, or $3000 at the emergency room tomorrow, it is all in the hands of the individual. He also believes that with Medicare and Medicaid that we should do the same. This way, the people will learn how to take care of their selves, and not to always rely on the government to take care of them.

Robert Bentley is also thinking about holding healthcare town halls across the state. But first, he said that he must read the health care bill that is being discussed nationally. He said that some politicians don’t get it, that they go into these town halls without reading the bill, and even though they say they will not vote for it, they are unable to answers the questions that the people are asking. Bentley believes that with these town halls that people will get to meet with the candidate, get to know the candidate, and all at the same time get real answers about the bill, and what he believes should be done for the state.

Overall, Bentley believes that to be in politics, you must care about the people who you represent. It comes across to me that he truly does, and that with his experiences with being a representative, and his time as being a doctor, as well as running a business, that he is very qualified for the job. And despite the fact that Dr. Bentley didn’t enjoy the crab cake sandwich as I did, it was an enjoyable discussion and I hope to have lunch with him, and possibly the other candidates soon.

You can also find this article, as well as many more dealing with Alabama politics at www.alabama.newsplatoon.com