A Party of One

In a former life I was a conservative Republican, and in my current role I am a Libertarian. Frankly though, as a passionate proponent of individual liberty, neither old party (or any of the others) suits me ideally. As a free-thinking individual, I am a “party of one.” There are aspects of the Republican credo that I find acceptable although with a few exceptions their elected officials do not follow through on them. The Libertarian philosophy most closely represents my own view, but like any other party, they are highly critical of non-conformity within their ranks. I guess that’s a sign that the LP is “growing up”…. becoming a “real” party. Although the LP still holds the numero uno position with me for affiliation purposes, I am indifferent about the emphasis of some members on the so-called “social issues” just as I am not influenced by social conservative positions. True liberty….individually observed….doesn’t have “social issue” positions.

For those of you who are prepared to stone me or burn my house let me emphasize that I am personally pro-life from conception to natural death, heterosexual, a practicing believer of marital fidelity and a vigorous supporter of faith-based messages in the marketplace. I do not, however, want the state (government) to enforce my positions on others because I understand the fickle relationship between government and the power of enforcement. Whoever holds the power will use it in a heavy-handed fashion to promote their world view and ideology. I do not want my personal liberty and choices to be at the mercy of a majority of unthinking, uninformed and easily-persuadable voters. If I valued the judgment of sheep, I would be a shepherd.

In addition if someone follows a belief system at odds with my own, as long as they do not attempt to force me to accept theirs or to be politically correct when discussing their choices, go ahead, do your own thing. It’s between them and God as long as they do not try to coerce me into accepting, endorsing or providing special protections for them and their choices. The way I view it is that life is a series of contracts…between God and me, between my spouse and me, between my family and me and my circle of acquaintances and me. Some provisions of the contracts are formal, written and witnessed. Others are less formal but understood by the parties involved.

My party of one recognizes the uniqueness of me as an individual. Certainly I share beliefs, philosophies, principles and priorities with others, but not all of those positions with everyone with whom I often agree. We may have subtle differences, or we may vociferously disagree about one major matter or another even if we are in perfect harmony on others. The defining point is that I will not allow a “party” or a “faction,” as our Founders and Framers describe them, design the parameters of my preferences. If the party shares my view, then I applaud it. If it does not, then I oppose it. The party cannot be my sole identity when it is nothing more than a collection of citizens who “generally” support somewhat similar stances … except for when they don’t or when the party routinely violates its own positions. If the candidate of any party represents my views, I will consider supporting her….assuming I find her trustworthy and believable. My consideration is the principles espoused and supported by the candidate…not the label affixed behind his name. And certainly not this one…..

http://youtu.be/QO7VUklDlQw

The principle of liberty is my compass for determining where my allegiances will lie. Lovely rhetoric colored with patriotic jingoism does not sway me. Those who speak of “smaller government” do not convince me. Someone who pledges to do “want the people want” does not impress me. If the people are misled or desire something that is clearly unconstitutional, should our elected officials discard their scruples and their oaths of office to encourage the folly? Not in my world.    

Political parties are not relevant for me anymore. Indeed, the party label may provide a starting point for determining where the loyalties of a particular candidate may lie, but they are not necessarily definitive. For example there are many Blue Dog Democrats that I would prefer over several big government Republicans. Many independent voters claim to “vote for the candidate, not the party.” I guess that I have slipped into that mindset too. The people I support must have individual liberty as their primary criterion for serving. They must honor, respect and obey The Constitution of the United States. Mere lip service will not win my vote or my favor. In fact I despise and loathe career politicians who claim to be small-government constitutionalists but violate that principle rather often. I despise them more than I do the big government types who covet my freedom, my wealth and my property because I know what they want, and I can take measures to counteract them. The politicians who claim to be sympathetic to my priorities and violate them again and again are worthy of contempt.

One advantage with being a party of one is that I’m not concerned with Red States or Blue States. The Electoral College is interesting but not captivating. Liberty, sweet liberty, is the primary impetus for my action and attention. Liberty…first, foremost and forever.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Baseline Bamboozle

For several years I was an umpire for baseball and softball games. We had two clearly defined baselines and two more subjectively defined base paths. To compound the issue, the foul line is in reality a fair line. So, let’s discuss government and clarity of language regarding the term “baseline.” A baseline as defined by the federal government is not as firm or as permanent as a 3” line of white chalk that runs from home plate to first base or from third base to home plate. The government’s baseline is repositioned every year, and, on occasion, is moved more than once per year.

Our inspired leaders of the federal government have apparently determined that the budgeting process is too difficult and acrimonious. To expedite the process they have implemented the baseline budgeting system wherein each item in the budget automatically qualifies for a nearly 8% increase from the previous year. Through the magic of compounding, a simple annual increase of 8% will result in a given line item appropriation nearly doubling after 10 years. This increase continues without regard for the efficacy or necessity of the program. Baseline budgeting is the fiscal version of the “In-laws from Hell” who come to your peaceful home to visit but refuse to leave. In baseline budgeting terms the words “merit and value” are alien concepts. Since the “Control Act of 1974” our elected public officials have allowed this fiscally irresponsible and politically unaccountable method of budgeting drive our nation toward the cliff of financial and economic disaster.

Clearly thirty-seven years of a failed mechanism that is unresponsive to economic conditions or to actual requirements for government sustainability is long enough. The GOP House majority should make baseline budgeting a sensible target for elimination…..not tweaking, eliminating. If an agency, program or department cannot justify and detail budget items on an annual basis, they do not warrant any funding….let alone an automatic 8% increase. If the Members of Congress believe that requiring justification for every agency or program would be too time consuming for the budgeting process, then obviously the government and the budget are too large. No one, I repeat, no one….no Corporation, no household has the benefit of an “automatic pilot” annual increase in funding. To the contrary most of our citizens and companies must struggle year after year in an unfriendly taxation environment and coping with an overburdening regulatory situation. Government should not ever enjoy an imperial status that far exceeds the circumstances of the people.

The baseline budgeting system immunizes government and government beneficiaries from all of the many intervening disruptions those of us in the private sector regularly encounter. It creates an artificial justification for additional and usually excessive government spending. An historical and efficiency analysis of many government programs or agencies would discover that their effectiveness and usefulness are of minimal value. Yet…the money train continues running as their budgets escalate with no consideration of the programs’ value or need. That’s no way to run a railroad, but our elected officials are too lazy and uninspired to thoughtfully examine each line item and appropriation, so they set them on automatic pilot. Most of us are either personally or anecdotally familiar with the public agency that scrambles to spend its excess at the end of a budget cycle in order to qualify for the increased funding of the next budget. Those types of fiscal and mental gymnastics are a direct result of the baseline budgeting madness.  Thus, the two primary motivations for implementing such a stupid and irresponsible system are: cowardly politicians and big-government advocates…..neither of which serve the best interests of the nation, our fiscal security or individual freedom. In essence, the baseline budgeting system guarantees that the cost and size of government will routinely grow without any justification….feeble or valid.

There are thirteen congressional committees that deal with various appropriations throughout the federal government. The chairs of those august committees are euphemistically described as the “Cardinals” because of their power to impact our lives through the appropriations process. It seems however, that they are opposed to reducing expenditures and budgets because their power may be diminished. Baseline budgeting has given the “Cardinals” the cover to allow for automatic increases in spending and power, and it also offers the flexibility to insert individual expenditures to bolster the reelection chances for members (baseline plus pork). The additional targeted expenditures merge into the baseline to ratchet the base upward for the next budgetary cycle. The pork spending is added to the automatic increases to form a new “minimum” for the following budget. But that’s not all…..

President Obama’s politically-laden stimulus spending was dispersed through various departments and agencies. In every case the additional funding through borrowed stimulus funds increased the baseline for the affected department, agency or program. In effect, our excessive indebted spending has been radically increased with no inherent mechanism for reducing it. Fiscally, this is a tragic and deadly consequence of Washington’s spending addiction, but even more troubling is the failure of the GOP House to address this travesty. They promised to repeal ObamaCare, and they have not. They haven’t even attempted to defund it. All of the facets of the Healthcare monstrosity are integrated into the baseline budgeting system. Also, we have not heard anyone from Congressional leadership suggest that the budget-busting 1974 Act should be repealed. Why not? Are they contented with this system and the growing power over our lives that it promotes?

Bottom line: If the GOP House leadership were absolutely serious about reining in our spending explosion, they would seek to repeal The Control Act of 1974 and defund Obamacare and other budget-busting programs, agencies and departments. The power of the purse should be used to change the direction of our country….not on a glide path, but with a “180” directional shift. Government bureaucracies should be put on notice that the gravy train has been sidetracked, and the Constitution of the United States is the new sheriff in town. Duty calls, Congress, please stop ducking your responsibility.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com         or       www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Littlestuff Weekender

Some notes and observations from the campaign trail:


We often drove several hours for a candidate forum whereupon we were allotted 2-3 minutes to sway the audience. Those time constraints required that we develop something memorable to catch the attention of the audience. Here are a few of our attempts to impress the people.

- “There are three reasons that you should vote for me—I’m old, I’m crazy and I’m angry!”

The “old” description was used to flashback to my previous service in the Legislature, adding how many of the people that I served with remain in politics, and emphasizing that things haven’t gotten better in the last quarter century.

The “crazy” descriptor was my justification for running statewide as a third/minor party candidate who believes that principle trumps party.

Finally, the “angry” highlighted my passion for cleaning the stable and restoring Constitutional government to Ohio.



- “Hi, I’m Charlie Earl, and I’m a radical extremist!”

I am radically ticked off that our career politicians, so-called public servants, have allowed the fiscal structure of our country and our state to drift and slide towards bankruptcy.

I am extremely angry that they have spent the wealth of future generations while expanding the Nanny State in an attempt to control our lives.



- (Usually a closer) “Remember, if you’re angry with career politicians, E.A.R.L., Earl is a four-letter word!”





We cherished the opportunity to travel our amazing state “all at once.” Like many of you, I have, over my lifetime been to many venues in our remarkable state, but to see all of it in 9 months was an eye-opener for me. While the Cinci-Dayton corridor and the Columbus-Delaware County areas appear to be doing quite well, the remainder of Ohio is hurting. I can recall driving along SR 104 and observing several rural homes “for sale.” Many of these were of modular construction, with a small shed or barn, and sitting on a 2-acre plot. They represented someone’s dream—a little country home with some room for the kids to roam. A dream that had gone sour.



As an advocate of free markets, I do not embrace the “bailout/debt-forgiveness” strategies of the left. I firmly believe that one of our greatest freedoms is the freedom to fail—to learn and to try again. In order for us to have ample opportunities to recover from our lapses, government must get out of the way, and stay out of the way.



Maybe I’m a Neanderthal, but it seems to me that the more helpful that government is, the less self-reliant the people become. As we observe the monstrous fiscal crisis that is on our doorstep, we wonder if three generations of government intervention have weakened the will, and the ability, of the people to fail, to learn and to try again.



It is my goal to continue my efforts to be an “Evangelist for Liberty” in the months ahead. If any of you need a speaker for your Tea Party, 912, Liberty or Patriot groups, Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions or Chamber of Commerce, please contact me. I promise you a stirring and uplifting message. Although I generally prefer to concentrate on Ohio, I will travel to Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Illinois. I will, in fact, be addressing the Conclave of the Michigan Libertarian Party on February 5th.



You can respond to this blog or schedule a speaking date by emailing:

Earl4sos@gmail.com

cnpearl@woh.rr.com