Simplicity in Government

About a week ago, I received my Alaska Voter's Guide in the mail. I always look forward to reading these guides because each candidate has a statement regarding their goals and what they stand for (much more enlightening than all the pointless mud-slinging and gossip that is found in the media). I first read the statements by our presidential candidates. Neither the Republican nor Democratic candidates really said much of anything beyond vague statements that they will bring reform in Washington and fight for our future. Then they listed the "goodies" that they promise to give us, like more free money, health care, alternative energy resources, etc. I was not impressed. So Americans are stuck with choosing the "lesser of two evils" when they cast their vote for president next month. Unless we "waste our vote" on one of those smaller guys who has no chance of winning anyway.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -John Quincy Adams

Voting for principle and standing alone is what I plan on doing this year. I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican or Democrat. Look what they've done to our country for the last 80 years! I am going to vote for Chuck Baldwin, member of the Constitution Party. He would like to return our country to a limited government based on the Constitution (do you remember that quaint historic document? Apparently all the guys in Washington have forgotten about it). His platform is the only one I've read that talks about any kind of real reform. He wants to bring home our troops from the 130 foreign countries where they are stationed and concentrate on defending our own borders (provide for the common defense). He would work to get rid of the Patriot Act, "free trade" agreements, and all other laws and organizations that limit our freedoms. He would work to end all socialist activity and bring us back to our Constitutional roots. I agree.

A word about socialism: Many people applaud all the various state and federal programs that are meant to help our fellow man with health care, housing, food, etc. I disagree. It's not that I am against social programs in general, I just know that the government is the absolute worst organization to carry out these tasks. I would be surprised if even 1% of our tax money ends up at the intended destination. The other 99% is wasted in overhead costs, corruption, etc. Anyone who works for the government knows that the system is bogged down with extreme waste, inefficiency, political red tape, and too many employees. These social programs should instead be carried out by the groups that are actually good at what they do. I'm talking about churches, private charities, and social organizations like the Lions Club. These groups have always worked to improve communities and provide necessities to those in poverty. They run (mostly) on private donations, donations that could be much larger if the average citizen and business could bring home more of their profits (instead of having their profits stolen by the government). Sure, there would be Scrooge-like people that never donate. And I'm sure there would also be corrupt charities that would con people out of their money without helping the poor. At least donations to these corrupt charities would be optional, whereas the current corrupt government does not give us that option!