My Dearest One,
I saw you with him in the park today
Your hand clasped in his like ours used to be
Memories like leaves scattered by autumn wind.
I read today you are to wed him
In the chapel beside the brook
Where we first embraced
Left with the whisper of what could have been
I saw you in the park today
Hand in hand with a little girl
An angel who was your reflection
It broke my heart and shattered my soul
Shards of glass that can’t be unbroken
I wish you only happiness
It’s as if we never met
That’s just as well
These words are my farewell
The words of this unsent letter
Left dampened by tears
Ryan Patrick Christiano 2009. All rights reserved.
Friday, February 12, 2010
A Depthless Darkness
Feet upon the softly fallen snow.
Looking down the depthless darkness.
Mirror beneath of still and blackened glass.
Beckoning, taunting, calling.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Toes touching cold concrete.
Moonlight the mistress of this night.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
The wind stills its dance.
Silence shares its secret.
The depthless darkness calls us all.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Distant lights blink their distress.
The time has come for eternal rest.
Arms grasp the air.
One last whispered prayer.
The depthless darkness rushes forth.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Hope still shimmers in the fading light
A faltering flame, this night.
The promise of a renewed twilight.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Ryan P. Christiano Copyright 2009. All Rights Reserved.
Looking down the depthless darkness.
Mirror beneath of still and blackened glass.
Beckoning, taunting, calling.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Toes touching cold concrete.
Moonlight the mistress of this night.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
The wind stills its dance.
Silence shares its secret.
The depthless darkness calls us all.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Distant lights blink their distress.
The time has come for eternal rest.
Arms grasp the air.
One last whispered prayer.
The depthless darkness rushes forth.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Hope still shimmers in the fading light
A faltering flame, this night.
The promise of a renewed twilight.
The snow falls softly upon the path.
Ryan P. Christiano Copyright 2009. All Rights Reserved.
A Passage From The Treatise 'Unshackled': An Addressed To The Inhabitants of Iran. By Ryan P. Christiano
The Iranians must unshackle themselves from tyranny, and take their rightful place beside the American people at the altar of Liberty. We support you, we are with you. Liberty sits in silent contemplation in the darkened shadows of tyranny, waiting for the clock to strike.
The Hour is now upon you, rise forth and fight for what nature hath intended for you since the dawn of time.
If you are to lose your life in this Cause, you have surrendered your life so that your fellow brothers and sisters, so that your posterity may, live in Liberty. There is no more just or moral a sacrifice.
If you shall live, you will be the sentinel of Liberty.
Shatter the chains that shackle you, Inhabitants of Iran. The everlasting Glory shall be yours.
Set about your task with intrepidity.
The very future of Freedom now rests with you.
The crack of the rod can only find you in timidity so long. Nature shall hath Her way. She cannot be shackled forever.
Nature meant all of mankind to be free, born into the state of nature. Tyranny is thus an unnatural and pecuilar condition.
Strike at your chains. The strike shall ignite a Great Spark that will ignite a fire of freedom across your country, and across the world.
The Fire of Freedom burns in you, it still burns in the eyes of Neda, and in all those whom cry out to be free.
The spark, once ignited, is not to be extinguished.
It consumes the Tyrant, and lights the way for the liberated.
We shall be awaiting you, at the eternal flame of freedom.
As it was meant to be, it shall be, and forever more again.
The Christiano Health Care Plan or The Prevent Martha Stewart From Ever Poll Dancing Again Act.
Since the current health care proposal has now gone the way of the videotape, may I humbly submit my proposal.
I despised the proposed health care legislation, I perceived it as the antithesis of liberty. As one should never tear down without erecting something in its place, here is this writer's health care proposal.
Please try not to lose the will to live while reading the policy proposal, it gets rather policy wonkish in parts. Health care reform is about as sexy as watching Martha Stewart poll dance, however, it is an important issue of life and death for many Americans.
We can work together to reform health care, but it must be the proper kind of pragmatic reform that will have the support of the American people. The last piece of legislation was a lot of things, but the will of the American people it was not.
With thanks to The Reason Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, The University of Chicago School of Economics, Mr. John H. Cochrane, and Mr. John Mackey, for information and inspiration to guide my hybrid proposal, I give you my health care reform proposal.
I await your phone call, Mr. President. Well, not really, but one can dream, right?
Allow individuals to completely control their health plan. Laws currently linking health insurance with an individual's employer should be abolished. Allowing the money employers spend for insurance to be converted into additional income for the employee. The employee may then search the free market for the lowest priced coverage with the greatest benefits that they need, and not the plan that their employer imposes upon them. Severe the link between employer and employee health insurance coverage. This would immediately inject cost consciousness into the individual's insurance decisions. Health insurance should be personal and portable, controlled by individuals themselves rather than government or an employer.
Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
Large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for every American. Either employment-based, through stocks and mutual funds, or through tax credits.
Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. All Americans have the right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state. They should be able to use that insurance wherever he or she may live.This would immediately increase competition among both insurers and health providers, driving costs down. A recent study suggested that this simple adjustment could cover as many as seventeen million uninsured Americans, without costing taxpayers a cent.
Doctors and other health professionals should be able to take their licenses from state to state. This would provide greater competition among health providers. Also, develop medical clinics in private retail outlets across the nation, as is currently being done by Wal-Mart and CVS Pharmacy.
Provide vouchers to Medicare enrollees. Medicare enrollees should be allowed to choose any health plan in the free-market, and they should be allowed to keep the savings resulting from if they decide to choose an economical plan that fits their unique, individual needs.
"Health - Status Insurance". Medical insurance covers your medical expenses in the current year, minus deductibles and co-payments. Health-status insurance would cover the risk that your medical premiums will rise. If you are diagnosed with a long-term, expensive condition, a health-status insurance policy will give you the resources to pay higher medical insurance premiums. Health-status insurance covers the risk of premium reclassification, just as medical insurance covers the risk of medical expenses.
With health-status insurance, you can always obtain medical insurance, no matter how sick you get, with no change in out-of-pocket costs. With health-status insurance, medical insurers would be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people, and to compete intensely for all customers. People would have complete freedom to change jobs, move, or change medical insurers. Rigorous competition would allow us to obtain better medical care at lower cost. Health - Status Insurance is the brainchild of health care analyst, and University of Chicago Economist, John H. Cochrane. This policy would protect those with pre-existing health conditions.
Tort Reform. Cap punitive damages in civil litigation, and mandate that the losing party in a given case pay legal costs of the prevailing party. This would reduce nuisance lawsuits. This is only one small aspect of Tort reform that could save the health care industry billions of dollars every year.
Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not.
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance
Abolish the Federal Payroll Tax. Funnel the funds instead into individual state pools that can provide "catastrophic insurance plans" to every American. This proposal would have the added benefit of helping small businesses recover in the current economic recession/depression.
I despised the proposed health care legislation, I perceived it as the antithesis of liberty. As one should never tear down without erecting something in its place, here is this writer's health care proposal.
Please try not to lose the will to live while reading the policy proposal, it gets rather policy wonkish in parts. Health care reform is about as sexy as watching Martha Stewart poll dance, however, it is an important issue of life and death for many Americans.
We can work together to reform health care, but it must be the proper kind of pragmatic reform that will have the support of the American people. The last piece of legislation was a lot of things, but the will of the American people it was not.
With thanks to The Reason Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, The University of Chicago School of Economics, Mr. John H. Cochrane, and Mr. John Mackey, for information and inspiration to guide my hybrid proposal, I give you my health care reform proposal.
I await your phone call, Mr. President. Well, not really, but one can dream, right?
Allow individuals to completely control their health plan. Laws currently linking health insurance with an individual's employer should be abolished. Allowing the money employers spend for insurance to be converted into additional income for the employee. The employee may then search the free market for the lowest priced coverage with the greatest benefits that they need, and not the plan that their employer imposes upon them. Severe the link between employer and employee health insurance coverage. This would immediately inject cost consciousness into the individual's insurance decisions. Health insurance should be personal and portable, controlled by individuals themselves rather than government or an employer.
Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
Large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for every American. Either employment-based, through stocks and mutual funds, or through tax credits.
Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. All Americans have the right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state. They should be able to use that insurance wherever he or she may live.This would immediately increase competition among both insurers and health providers, driving costs down. A recent study suggested that this simple adjustment could cover as many as seventeen million uninsured Americans, without costing taxpayers a cent.
Doctors and other health professionals should be able to take their licenses from state to state. This would provide greater competition among health providers. Also, develop medical clinics in private retail outlets across the nation, as is currently being done by Wal-Mart and CVS Pharmacy.
Provide vouchers to Medicare enrollees. Medicare enrollees should be allowed to choose any health plan in the free-market, and they should be allowed to keep the savings resulting from if they decide to choose an economical plan that fits their unique, individual needs.
"Health - Status Insurance". Medical insurance covers your medical expenses in the current year, minus deductibles and co-payments. Health-status insurance would cover the risk that your medical premiums will rise. If you are diagnosed with a long-term, expensive condition, a health-status insurance policy will give you the resources to pay higher medical insurance premiums. Health-status insurance covers the risk of premium reclassification, just as medical insurance covers the risk of medical expenses.
With health-status insurance, you can always obtain medical insurance, no matter how sick you get, with no change in out-of-pocket costs. With health-status insurance, medical insurers would be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people, and to compete intensely for all customers. People would have complete freedom to change jobs, move, or change medical insurers. Rigorous competition would allow us to obtain better medical care at lower cost. Health - Status Insurance is the brainchild of health care analyst, and University of Chicago Economist, John H. Cochrane. This policy would protect those with pre-existing health conditions.
Tort Reform. Cap punitive damages in civil litigation, and mandate that the losing party in a given case pay legal costs of the prevailing party. This would reduce nuisance lawsuits. This is only one small aspect of Tort reform that could save the health care industry billions of dollars every year.
Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not.
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance
Abolish the Federal Payroll Tax. Funnel the funds instead into individual state pools that can provide "catastrophic insurance plans" to every American. This proposal would have the added benefit of helping small businesses recover in the current economic recession/depression.
In Defense of Liberty. A Treatise.
A question that has always swept through my mind like a great brush fire, and that has never been answered to this writer’s intellectual satisfaction, is how does homosexual marriage infringe upon another individual's natural rights?
An argument from quarters in opposition to same- sex marriage has centered on the rather curious proposition that homosexual marriage infringes upon the individual’s religious liberty, i.e. his inalienable right to practice the religion that his conscience dictates.
As if two same-sex individuals, exchanging their vows in the Unitarian church next door to another individual’s Catholic Church, as he attends Sabbath services, in some manner, shape, or form infringes upon his ability to worship freely as he so chooses.
His house of worship could not be constitutionally, or morally, compelled to wed homosexuals, so this fear is heretofore unfounded.
Another common argument that those in opposition often fall back upon is the 'slippery slope' paradigm.
This argument often begins with the thesis:"If we give the right to homosexuals to marry (as if rights were ours to dispense like pieces of candy), then individuals will marry animals, or engage in polygamy.
The fact that such a distortion makes a mockery of the centuries old natural rights tradition, does not even dawn on those proposing this line of argumentation.
Natural rights are not about homosexual acts, lude public spectacles, or Romanesque orgies.
Such intentional fallacies disgrace the memory of courageous individuals such as Sidney, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Gordon, Trenchard, and many other brave souls, all whom advanced natural rights to their own peril, and in some cases, gave their lives for the sacred truth.
Liberty is not for one man to define. The Deity is the first and final judge.
As for those of mere flesh and bone, we are to utilize reason as our guide when formulating a framework for Liberty. Will we make errors? Yes, certainly. History shows us this clearly enough.
However, we conduct our best efforts in good faith, attempting to, but never quite able to, fully realize those words enshrined in our nation's sacred text:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A government that grants moral sanction to no marriage, and lawful recognition to all consensual marriages, is a government that at long last lives up to our sacred creed, and allows all individuals to pursue the destiny that will grant them the greatest happiness, while respecting the equal and inalienable rights of those individuals around them.
This should be a starting point upon which to construct a respectful framework for this complex and contentious debate.
This writer has never proposed a federal law for homosexual marriage. I have never proposed a state law, per se.
If one seeks the will of the people, either in favor or in opposition of the position I have offered forth, to be expressed through the ballot box, this would be amenable to me.
With one minor caveat, inalienable rights cannot be stripped or added to by a decree of law, or through the ballot box. Otherwise, they would be less than inalienable.
In this writer’s philosophy, rights are derived from the Deity and are transferred to the individual.
The individual then delegates some of those rights to the government, such as for the common defense etc.
The individual retains those rights unquestionably, even when delegating said rights to the State.
The government's sole legitimate function is the protection of those rights.
For the sake of clarity, this writer is not stating that homosexual marriage is a natural right per se, however, I am arguing that the individual has the right to self-ownership, or individual autonomy within the limit drawn around him/her by the equal rights of others.
The government exists solely to protect the rights of the individual. It has no other legitimate moral authority, sanction, nor function.
In the Lockean sense, every individual as a moral agent is "free, equal, and independent".
We may indeed make errors of moral judgment, but ownership of our own lives means that society must limit its interference to moral suasion, not coercion.
The government is coercion by its very definition.
Society, by means of the State, has no legitimate moral authority to violate the natural right of self-ownership, nor infringe upon the free will of the individual.
This is the 'Liberty' found in the sacred sentence: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
A government that lawfully recognizes private marriage "contracts" between consenting adults is neither a threat, nor subversion, to Liberty.
Rather, it is Liberty lived.
Ryan P. Christiano. Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.
An argument from quarters in opposition to same- sex marriage has centered on the rather curious proposition that homosexual marriage infringes upon the individual’s religious liberty, i.e. his inalienable right to practice the religion that his conscience dictates.
As if two same-sex individuals, exchanging their vows in the Unitarian church next door to another individual’s Catholic Church, as he attends Sabbath services, in some manner, shape, or form infringes upon his ability to worship freely as he so chooses.
His house of worship could not be constitutionally, or morally, compelled to wed homosexuals, so this fear is heretofore unfounded.
Another common argument that those in opposition often fall back upon is the 'slippery slope' paradigm.
This argument often begins with the thesis:"If we give the right to homosexuals to marry (as if rights were ours to dispense like pieces of candy), then individuals will marry animals, or engage in polygamy.
The fact that such a distortion makes a mockery of the centuries old natural rights tradition, does not even dawn on those proposing this line of argumentation.
Natural rights are not about homosexual acts, lude public spectacles, or Romanesque orgies.
Such intentional fallacies disgrace the memory of courageous individuals such as Sidney, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Gordon, Trenchard, and many other brave souls, all whom advanced natural rights to their own peril, and in some cases, gave their lives for the sacred truth.
Liberty is not for one man to define. The Deity is the first and final judge.
As for those of mere flesh and bone, we are to utilize reason as our guide when formulating a framework for Liberty. Will we make errors? Yes, certainly. History shows us this clearly enough.
However, we conduct our best efforts in good faith, attempting to, but never quite able to, fully realize those words enshrined in our nation's sacred text:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A government that grants moral sanction to no marriage, and lawful recognition to all consensual marriages, is a government that at long last lives up to our sacred creed, and allows all individuals to pursue the destiny that will grant them the greatest happiness, while respecting the equal and inalienable rights of those individuals around them.
This should be a starting point upon which to construct a respectful framework for this complex and contentious debate.
This writer has never proposed a federal law for homosexual marriage. I have never proposed a state law, per se.
If one seeks the will of the people, either in favor or in opposition of the position I have offered forth, to be expressed through the ballot box, this would be amenable to me.
With one minor caveat, inalienable rights cannot be stripped or added to by a decree of law, or through the ballot box. Otherwise, they would be less than inalienable.
In this writer’s philosophy, rights are derived from the Deity and are transferred to the individual.
The individual then delegates some of those rights to the government, such as for the common defense etc.
The individual retains those rights unquestionably, even when delegating said rights to the State.
The government's sole legitimate function is the protection of those rights.
For the sake of clarity, this writer is not stating that homosexual marriage is a natural right per se, however, I am arguing that the individual has the right to self-ownership, or individual autonomy within the limit drawn around him/her by the equal rights of others.
The government exists solely to protect the rights of the individual. It has no other legitimate moral authority, sanction, nor function.
In the Lockean sense, every individual as a moral agent is "free, equal, and independent".
We may indeed make errors of moral judgment, but ownership of our own lives means that society must limit its interference to moral suasion, not coercion.
The government is coercion by its very definition.
Society, by means of the State, has no legitimate moral authority to violate the natural right of self-ownership, nor infringe upon the free will of the individual.
This is the 'Liberty' found in the sacred sentence: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
A government that lawfully recognizes private marriage "contracts" between consenting adults is neither a threat, nor subversion, to Liberty.
Rather, it is Liberty lived.
Ryan P. Christiano. Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.
Body Scans: Stripping The Constitution Of Its Power
My friends know that this writer is quite hawkish regarding the war against Islamic Extremism. I supported the Afghanistan War, and I endorsed the Iraqi Liberation.
So it may come as somewhat of a surprise to some of my more hawkish friends that I find the idea and concept of body scan imaging revolting, and abhorrent to our Constitution.
Body scans clearly violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We have to look to the definition of 'unreasonable' whenever determining if a government action violated the individual's Fourth Amendment rights.
I believe a 'virtual' nude image being taken of an individual as he or she undergoes the security screening process at an airport easily reaches the 'unreasonable' threshold.
If the screener taking and evaluating the images had a warrant that was sanctioned by a Judge, then it could be deemed reasonable. Emphasis on could.
I think the security screening lines are long enough without the added complication of having each person wait while a Judge signs off on a warrant.
Even without any Constitutional issues, body scan imaging violates the individual's natural right of self-ownership. You own your body, and only you may give consent to have a nude rendering of your body photographed or scanned.
A consequence of self-ownership is the right of privacy. Some search the Constitution for a 'right to privacy', when in reality they were born with the unalienable right of privacy from the moment they drew their first breath.
No document, decree, or declaration can grant you rights you already possess.
While security is vital, we must always take care that we are vigilant in ensuring that specific measures taken to secure us, do not inadvertently strike away at our natural rights, like a hammer creating sparks against a steel rod.
My counter- proposal to body scan imaging is behavioral profiling. This technique has been utilized with success by Israeli security forces, among others.
Body scans are unconstitutional violations of the individual's natural rights.
There are far better techniques to keep both our lives, and our rights.
Copyright 2010 Ryan P. Christiano. All Rights Reserved.
A Call To Liberty For Chris Christie
Christie Needs To Run As A Libertarian Republican.
By Ryan P. Christiano.
The numbers tell the tale, if former United State’s Attorney Chris Christie is going to have a chance of defeating the profoundly unpopular Democrat incumbent Governor, Jon Corzine, he must look toward liberty.
This past summer, Mr. Christie enjoyed a double digit lead over Governor Corzine. New Jersey’s fiscal crisis is of a magnitude that is nearly beyond comprehension. The reality of a bankrupt state also having the distinction of being the highest taxed state in the nation should have had Mr. Christie winning the election from his porch armchair, while he slowly sipped lemonade.
Add to the mix an unemployment rate of ten percent, the highest in the Garden State in well over two decades, and it seemed New Jersey Republicans were about to retake the Governor’s mansion after years in the political wilderness.
Now, Mr. Christie suddenly finds himself in a time, and race, that he most likely does not recognize. An insurgent Independent candidate, Mr. Chris Daggett, has come out of nowhere. He is barnstorming the state with the energy and passion of a young Paul Revere, warning of partisan traitors, in a state where fifty percent of the population are registered as ‘unaffiliated’.
In other words, Mr. Daggett’s message is catching on. A more immediate concern for Mr. Christie is that Mr. Daggett is siphoning votes from Mr. Christie, and not Governor Corzine. Most polls show Daggett averaging about twelve percent. Daggett’s showing is quite astonishing for such a traditionally liberal, partisan state.
Mr. Daggett is unlikely to win the election; however, he has now demonstrated the best showing for an Independent or third party candidate running in a New Jersey gubernatorial election since Murray Sabrin, a Libertarian.
Mr. Christie is running a Republican Party primary campaign in the general election. He needs to infuse his message, agenda, and vision with a healthy dose of liberty, if he is to have any chance of defeating an entrenched billionaire such as Governor Corzine.
A wide swath of New Jersey citizens are fiscally conservative to moderate, while reflecting a more moderate temperament on social issues. A social conservative cannot win statewide elected office in New Jersey. This has been the political reality for the past several decades.
Mr. Christie’s recent pronouncements of vetoing any bill on his desk that legalizes same-sex marriage have caused him harm. Moreover, his constant equivocations on the medicinal marijuana legislation that is currently winding its way through the state assembly, and its probable passage, have not helped.
Both issues have a significant groundswell of support among the citizenry, and Mr. Christie’s pandering to a base he has already captured, is complicating his campaign.
Mr. Christie does not have to support either issue if his conscience does not permit, however, he could take a conservative stance and declare that the people should decide on the role and scope of government in these matters through referenda.
Mr. Christie additionally needs to advance several unconventional fiscal policies. Mr. Daggett is calling for a mixture of tax decreases and revenue stream reallocations, i.e. new types of taxation, while Mr. Corzine is touting phantom property tax reform in a state beleaguered by astronomical property taxes. Mr. Christie can do one better.
He can call for an across the board one time flat tax, or even better yet, a gradual phasing in of a user-fee government, an incremental shifting away from direct taxation, to a fiscal model based on payment only for the government services each individual utilizes. This policy has already been introduced into the debate by the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, Mr. Kaplan.
Chris Christie has a unique opportunity; a center-left state is fed up with failed decades old statist policies from both sides of the aisle. He can turn the page and reorient his vision toward liberty.
Mr. Christie should have a streamlined and coherent defense of economic and social liberty. Where else would a call to liberty resonant as deeply, than in a state that has been witness to, General Washington valiantly leading his men across the icy and foggy waters of the Delaware River, to the whispered promise of freedom beyond.
By Ryan P. Christiano.
The numbers tell the tale, if former United State’s Attorney Chris Christie is going to have a chance of defeating the profoundly unpopular Democrat incumbent Governor, Jon Corzine, he must look toward liberty.
This past summer, Mr. Christie enjoyed a double digit lead over Governor Corzine. New Jersey’s fiscal crisis is of a magnitude that is nearly beyond comprehension. The reality of a bankrupt state also having the distinction of being the highest taxed state in the nation should have had Mr. Christie winning the election from his porch armchair, while he slowly sipped lemonade.
Add to the mix an unemployment rate of ten percent, the highest in the Garden State in well over two decades, and it seemed New Jersey Republicans were about to retake the Governor’s mansion after years in the political wilderness.
Now, Mr. Christie suddenly finds himself in a time, and race, that he most likely does not recognize. An insurgent Independent candidate, Mr. Chris Daggett, has come out of nowhere. He is barnstorming the state with the energy and passion of a young Paul Revere, warning of partisan traitors, in a state where fifty percent of the population are registered as ‘unaffiliated’.
In other words, Mr. Daggett’s message is catching on. A more immediate concern for Mr. Christie is that Mr. Daggett is siphoning votes from Mr. Christie, and not Governor Corzine. Most polls show Daggett averaging about twelve percent. Daggett’s showing is quite astonishing for such a traditionally liberal, partisan state.
Mr. Daggett is unlikely to win the election; however, he has now demonstrated the best showing for an Independent or third party candidate running in a New Jersey gubernatorial election since Murray Sabrin, a Libertarian.
Mr. Christie is running a Republican Party primary campaign in the general election. He needs to infuse his message, agenda, and vision with a healthy dose of liberty, if he is to have any chance of defeating an entrenched billionaire such as Governor Corzine.
A wide swath of New Jersey citizens are fiscally conservative to moderate, while reflecting a more moderate temperament on social issues. A social conservative cannot win statewide elected office in New Jersey. This has been the political reality for the past several decades.
Mr. Christie’s recent pronouncements of vetoing any bill on his desk that legalizes same-sex marriage have caused him harm. Moreover, his constant equivocations on the medicinal marijuana legislation that is currently winding its way through the state assembly, and its probable passage, have not helped.
Both issues have a significant groundswell of support among the citizenry, and Mr. Christie’s pandering to a base he has already captured, is complicating his campaign.
Mr. Christie does not have to support either issue if his conscience does not permit, however, he could take a conservative stance and declare that the people should decide on the role and scope of government in these matters through referenda.
Mr. Christie additionally needs to advance several unconventional fiscal policies. Mr. Daggett is calling for a mixture of tax decreases and revenue stream reallocations, i.e. new types of taxation, while Mr. Corzine is touting phantom property tax reform in a state beleaguered by astronomical property taxes. Mr. Christie can do one better.
He can call for an across the board one time flat tax, or even better yet, a gradual phasing in of a user-fee government, an incremental shifting away from direct taxation, to a fiscal model based on payment only for the government services each individual utilizes. This policy has already been introduced into the debate by the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, Mr. Kaplan.
Chris Christie has a unique opportunity; a center-left state is fed up with failed decades old statist policies from both sides of the aisle. He can turn the page and reorient his vision toward liberty.
Mr. Christie should have a streamlined and coherent defense of economic and social liberty. Where else would a call to liberty resonant as deeply, than in a state that has been witness to, General Washington valiantly leading his men across the icy and foggy waters of the Delaware River, to the whispered promise of freedom beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
