Conservatives Plan to Dismantle Domestic State

By Woody Miller
Guest Writer

During the course of the twentieth century, our nat-ion has made significant progress towards ensuring a certain level of protection and comfort for all of its citizens. Beginning with the New Deal and moving on to the Great Society, we managed to erect a system of safety nets which worked towards insuring a minimum standard of living for those in need; a way to take responsibility for each other.

Now we are seeing a shift away from this toward a new paradigm that demands that each person be responsible only for him or herself. The beginnings of this shift can be traced backed to Ronald Reagan's call to take back America. Take back America from those in need, on welfare and give America back to those who have the moral and ethical bearing to work, accumulate and succeed on their own.

Conservatives today take no pains to hide their belief that government is too big. Their main objective is to abolish government as we know it. Grover Norquist, president of the Americans for Tax Reform, has said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in a bathtub."

Tax reform is how they plan to abolish our government. Contrary to what President Bush might have us believe, his tax cuts are primarily directed at the wealthiest 10 percent of income earners today. With the exception of a brief period between 1988 and 1993, today's top tax bracket is the lowest it has been since 1932. The tax rate on corporate profits has been cut in half since the sixties.

According to estimates made by the Tax Policy Center, the 2001 tax cut will deliver 42 percent of its benefits to the top one percent of the income distribution. Meanwhile, the middle income earners are paying roughly the same amount in taxes that they have been for the past thirty years.

Now we face a fiscal shortfall, a shortfall that will continue for years unless we either raise taxes or significantly redefine the role of government.

Peter Fisher, undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, explains that the federal government is a gigantic insurance company with a sideline business in defense and homeland security. A decade from now he says the policyholders of this insurance company will begin to make a lot of claims in the name of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments. Will we be willing to cut spending on defense and homeland security to close the budget gap?

Given the new philosophy of rugged individualism and personal responsibility, the next programs to go will be those fashioned in the New Deal and the Great Society. Historically these programs have been considered untouchable; not anymore.

Conservative economist Thomas Sowel argues that our definition of fairness today is an incorrect one. He believes we should not expect equality, for equality has never existed. Sowel also believes that the only way to succeed is by admitting to and abandoning cultural imperatives that keep you from succeeding in order to learn from and imitate those cultures that have succeeded. Celebration of cultural differences is wrong-headed, according to Sowel, unless we want those differing cultures to suffer defeat.

These ideas go to the heart of the fundamental premise of this new paradigm, the creation of a new homogeneity for the twenty-first century. We are left with the notion that we must emulate the wealthy who pay little in taxes, who earn their wealth not by labor, but by investment, for they are our betters just by the fact that they have succeeded in a game where the rules are set by them.

By looking to the past we may obtain a clearer vision of reality today.

Don't Legalize the Weed

By Miles Harwell
Guardsman Staff Writer

Although I wasn't alive, I've heard numerous stories from relatives and teachers about the 1960s and how people lived the "hippie" days to the fullest. This of course means that they listened to rock and roll music and did all sorts of drugs with no fear of what the law could do to them. Before I could even become old enough to understand their enjoyment of the time period, I became familiar with the reality of the present, and in short term, the law.

While people in the 60's smoked joints in the middle of the street, people are now arrested for even possessing a little bit of marijuana. Am I mad about this though? Not the least bit.

In an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, writer Bob Egelko presents several cases of people who were using marijuana for medical needs, who were denied their usage of the drug by law authorities. In one case, a woman living in Oroville had six marijuana plants growing in her house for medical use destroyed by federal agents in 2002. She, along with another woman using marijuana for the same purposes, came before a federal court only to have their case rejected by the judge. While Proposition 215 legalizes medical the use of marijuana with approval from a doctor, the federal law bans marijuana with no exception for medical use, as it is still seen as an illicit drug.

Why am I not outraged or even mad about this? Marijuana is still going to be sold illegally despite any legalization of the drug. The people who are out selling pot are usually are doing it to put some money in their pocket rather than having a job or any genuine form of income. Legalizing marijuana and distributing it out of places like the Cannabis Club would just be a glorified way for one dealer to take over a whole territory. What they would be putting out is a product far more advanced than what someone in the ghetto could provide. It is perfected in labs, and grown by professionals, so if made legal, the Cannabis Club will be taking away customers. If the customers are taken away from drug dealers, who are struggling in poverty, then these people will become more likely to be out robbing and killing people.

True, marijuana can be used for medical purposes by people who are really sick, but it's not the only form of medication. I think a lot of the time people use a medical problem that really isn't that serious as an excuse to smoke marijuana. Marijuana, if anything is a preferred drug which people will choose over other forms of medication when another legal form of medication might be just as helpful.

Legalizing marijuana is just another way to give people the opportunity to abuse the system, and by opening this door pot smokers will be more likely than ever to abuse this system. Before you know it, everyone and their mother will have a medical problem that requires a prescription for medical marijuana.

To prevent this medical system from becoming manipulated by drug crazed individuals, I believe that people should wait a few more years before they "legalize it". The world, as it stands right now, isn't ready for it.

Letter to the Editor:

Let's not jump to judgement on Governor Schwarzenegger

We are three into the new millennium and the state of California has yet to have a governor who is committed to doing justice to a state in need of friendly support. The governors in the past have been known to expend an insurmountable portion of Californian's tax income on vast prison systems. Prisons where residents treated tantamount to that of dogs. With Arnold's decisive victory in the election, it appears quite evident the upcoming treats terminator will most definitely have in store for California.

Let us set aside here for a brief moment the reality of Arnold's next to non-existent career as a politician, and his self-glorifying addiction to themes of machismo. The residents of California should be concerned with what type of job this newly-elected official is going to do for them. Will Arnold be able to improve the current state of affairs in California is unquestionably the underlying question behind all the hoopla. Eccentricities aside for the moment, does the master of inflicting disaster have the ability to execute justice to California or will he simply perform as just another puppet in this grand show called the political arena. Personally, I couldn't care less if Arnold used to be a hot dog vendor in his past life, because if he can make an honest effort to improve the welfare of California, then quite frankly, his past shouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, this fantasy bred in optimism does not seem to be case.

Lets face it my good citizens of California, Arnold is a conservative of the highest order, and his reputation as a male chauvinist and a discriminatory personality precedes him. Do you think that Arnold truly cares about the decent, hardworking citizens of California?

These are the people who are not seen on the camera in the backdrop of the bright lights and mayhem that comes with fame. r. Schwarzenegger has six Hummer vehicles in his arsenal, each at an estimated cost of $100,000. What in heaven's name does that say about the man; does it illustrate a nature that breeds greed?