Third Party & Independents: Archives

David- you know I love this post! I really wish we had managed to pass the balanced budget amendment in the 90s, that ways they would have to figure out a way to get this mess straight. Now as it is, which ever party gets in power will just spend, spend, spend us further into debt. The reason that there is nothing concrete here is because all the talk of fiscal restraint from Kerry and Co. is just a way to get at Bush, not something the Democratic Party takes serious today, or ever (I can re-hash the “did Clinton really care about fiscal disipline or was he forced into it by the Congress opposing his plans” debate again if someone wants to go that route).

My question to you is- do you think Ralph Nader, the man you support for president, has a plan you support to balance the budget and pay back the debt? I know Micheal Badnarik’s plan would cut the majority of federal spending (not simply slow its growth rate), but that I think he would do it in ways that would trouble most americans (not myself- but I am heartless libertarian, as some may say :))…

Working in reverse order: Misha, I could see some heart in Libertarians if they would 1) accept the fact that drug addicts don’t want to be addicted (unless they are wealthy enough to support their habit) and therefore need socialized help, (same with mentally ill, orphaned, and elderly without family of means). And 2) if Libertarians would provide a plan to grant everyone who works 40 hours a week a minimum lower middle class wage. Otherwise, I tend to agree with Libertarians on responsibility by those with the capacity to be responsible.

Ralph Nader. First, let’s agree that neither the Dem’s nor Repub’s, nor Libertarians have a plan that would restore long term fiscal health to our nation without some serious hurt felt by millions. We are just plain in too deep now! Nader proposes and end to corporate subsidies. If a corporation fails, let it! Its holdings and market share will be bought up by competitors and by and large those jobs recreated by the competition. 2) Close all off shore and tax code loopholes for corporate taxes. 3) End corporate lobbying of the people’s representatives and end the practice of becoming a public servant as a stepping stone to a fat salary as a corporate lobbyist. 4) Use the government to set the standards which the private markets must compete to meet. Clean air, clean water, effective forest and public lands management conducted by private enterprise which competes to meet the standards set for the public welfare. 5)Decriminalize (not legalize) recreational drug useage and save billions on prisoners housed and fed on the public tax dollar. 6) Make white collar crime sentencing which involves public monies greater than most other crimes. A crime committed against large populations of Americans (like investors or tax payers) deserve sentences that reflect the enormity of the debilitating effects of such crimes. 7) Force the government to declare war when it goes to war giving full credit and responsibility for war back to the people. 8) Foster corporate education funding. The greatest beneficiary of quality education in America besides the student, is the business or corporation which hires that student. Corporate American should be induced to partially subsidize the education which their enterprises so desperately depend upon. 9) Lower the hurdles and requirements for third parties into the electoral process thus, giving millions and millions of more Americans an incentive and choice to participate in politics and voting and thus share in the responsibility for our nation’s course.

Clinton was a consumate politician and sought broad majority support of his presidency. That is what I believe drove his fiscal policy. He astutely read the winds of change regarding the electorate’s desire for fiscal responsibility when universal health care was so resolutely defeated before it even got written on notepads.

I opposed the balanced budget ammendment at the time. I would support it now. Then, I believed that gross negligence in the area of fiscal policy would result in the party losing to opponents. Little did I know then, that both the major parties would be equally negligent with their control of Congressional purse strings.

I think a lot of constituency groups are expecting huge barrels of social program pork from Kerry which they might not actually end up getting, if there is even so much as a fiscally responsible bone in Kerry’s body. I say that not to disparage him, but to outline the reality that will be facing him.

If Kerry does win, I would not at all want to be in his shoes. Bush will have left the place trashed, and unfortunately Democrats have set the paradigm that it’s invalid to make any criticism whatsoever of foregoing administrations when it comes to problems currently faced. There’s going to be Karma associated with that parameter setting.

Ciggy, I agree entirely. I do not envy any president who follows this one in light of the long term fiscal disaster Bush and his GOP led Congress have fashioned for us. Even the CATO Institute and huge number of conservative and liberal economists are now agreeing that the long term economic picture is bleak at best and no amount of growing the economy is going to solve it.

It takes a lot of courage to step into the oval office under such circumstances, if one’s goal is to improve upon the long term economic future of this nation.

I have to chuckle when I see that, after eight years of the most fiscally responsible government in history, someone spouts off that Clinton wasn’t serious about it and that Kerry will pork out just as bad as Bush & the Republicans.

That’s art It’s funny and sad. :)

And BTW, have you ever seen a Party platform that had the kind of detailed information you seem to be craving? I haven’t.

The party platform is not a plan, it’s a creed. It’s a place to carve in stone what Democrats feel is important, so that we’re all on the same page.

While I agree with almost all of the goals contained within the platform

Give in to the dark side, fellow believer. :)

after eight years of the most fiscally responsible government in history

Dragged to fiscal responsibility kicking and screaming by a Gingrich crew which faced media crucifixion for their dragging efforts at the time. But then, Gingrich’s crew would be doing the same to Bush today.

Pundit- Clinton wanted to increase the government by an amazing amount through his socialized medicine when he had control of both houses of Congress until the American people gave him a big NO and brought the republicans in control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Lets not try to revise history and pretend he was actually committed to limited government and fiscal discipline for all 8 years, ok? :)

The only hope for a Kerry administration actually being “fiscally responsible” is if the republican congress grows a backbone again and oppose his spending schemes like it did with Clinton. Then we can have people for decades from now talking about how John Kerry was a fiscal conservative all along!

David-
(1) You raise some interesting points about people who can and cant be held responsible for their own lives. I think there are two categories in the people you mentioned. One group, I think we totally agree on- which is “mentally ill, orphaned.” Those people had nothing to do with why they are in need, and we should rightly help them, since it would be unjust to expect them to do something they are not capable of. The other category is drug users and elderly people who failed to provide for their own retirement (I am just saying that in descriptive terms- not to put them down). The problem here is that these people were responsible, at least in part, for the situation they ended up in. So, while on one hand I see the problem with demanding that they now do something they cannot do themselves (that is, get off of drugs or provide for themselves), I also see a major problem with forcing the rest of the people to pay for the mistakes that these people voluntarily made. This is why I think charity is the way to go in this situation as the only just solution.

As for Nader’s ideas- I think (1) is one all libertarians would agree with; (2) is another good one, but only when combined with a flat tax that got rid of ALL loopholes, including ones who special interest groups that liberals like, not just corporations; (3) has its heart in the right place just is dangerous to free speech- after all, who would control it? the same government officials; (4) is way too broad to respond to, but I will just say that smart environment measures can fit within a libertarian framework because environmental damage creates negative externalities; (5) you know I agree with; (6) and (7) I think are right on; (8) I do not agree with- although I think the plan in California right now that would allow private companies to contract with schools could provide students with much better education with few downfalls (of course the teacher’s unions are fighting it tooth and nail); (9) you know I agree with.

Hmmm… perhaps this is why when I took a recent survey I got a better match to green/nader than I did to democrats (I agreed with very little on their platform, apparently. I think Greens and Nader are WAY off on many issues, but they are extreme enough to be right on others. (by the way, I got nearly equal libertarian and republican scores). You can take this survey here if you want to kill some time: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/compare/

Misha, The GOP has had control of the Presidency with a Democratic Congress, the Presidency with divided control of houses of Congress, and now the Presidency with full control of Congress and a split Supreme Court. Under none of these circumstances have they ever shown real spending restraint. They have talked a good game, and Gingrich tried I believe in earnest to turn rhetoric into policy, but, to no avail due to reluctance of his own party members, with help from Democrats.

This is why, in terms of the future of our economic way of life, I find it imperative to open the electoral system to third parties who can and will put the pressure on the both the major parties to act far more fiscally responsible than they are currently, or have in the past.

Interesting survey, my highest score was Green Party, 255, followed in order by Democrat 215, Republican 145 and Libertarian 135. For myself, these scores appear to accurately capture what I believe are my leanings.

There are of course millions of Americans who worked all their lives, black cleaning women, black sharecroppers and farmers (see Wa. Post article today on their discrimination), and a large number of educationally challenged who worked their lives in low wage labor positions. All persons are not born with the same capacities and propensities or luck of circumstance. This fact alone however does not entitle them to anything. Combined however, with the fact that they did work through their lives, were not convicted felons, and paid their taxes, I believe they have the right to ask the society they paid into to support with taxes, upon taxes, upon taxes, assist them if their meager earnings throughout their life were insufficient to provide them a place to live, health maintenance care, food, and modicum of independence and dignity as they approach the end of their lives.

We likely differ on this, and in terms of social policy, costs, and values, both sides of this issue have some meritorious arguments. If we lived in Brazil or Argentina, I would agree that our society, in an attempt to assist these people, could do more harm than good by diverting funding for growth and development in the future. But, we do not live in a nation which is on the verge of bankruptcy, and we do not live in a nation in which the elymosenary system is supported sufficiently to provide for these people. Hence, I believe our government has an ethical obligation to its people, while we still are a wealthy nation. I believe the day we turn our backs on supporting the livelihood and consumer capacity of all of our law abiding citizens who work, and those unable to, is the day we seal our fate by undercutting consumerism which buoys our economy through thick and thin.

American Pundit, if you will notice, my article does not address what Kerry will do as President. As we have seen from Bush Jr., the President has absolutely no obligation to abide by the prescriptions of his/her political party platform.

Kerry is a very bright man, and I am confident he recognizes the fiscal meltdown facing us over the next two decades. I am also confident he will enter office intending to prevent such a meltdown. The question is, will he be able to coincide Presidential actions to circumvent or alleviate the fiscal meltdown along with reelection bids and pressures? That is a question I cannot answer. It may be that not even Kerry can answer that question at this time.

One thing is for sure, Bush has no intention of sacrificing today’s political gain for tomorrow’s economic security.

Dragged to fiscal responsibility kicking and screaming by a Gingrich crew which faced media crucifixion for their dragging efforts at the time.

That ignores the fact that Clinton had to shut down the government twice to make Gingrich & crew go back an create a budget that didn’t break the bank. Clinton expended a lot of political capitol on balancing the budget. And he did it by using his veto power, with the backing of the Democratic minority in Congress.

Do you think the pork spending by Congressional Republicans under Bush is a fluke? Clinton kept it in check. I suggest you go back and read some of the newspapers and magazines from the period. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin’s book, “In An Uncertain World” is an excellent economic history of Clinton’s economic policy. Suskind and Ex-Treasury Secretary O’Neill’s book, “The Price of Loyalty” is also a good resource.

Here’s a transcript of Clinton’s speach when he called Gingrich’s bluff:

It is particularly unfortunate that the Republican Congress has brought us to this juncture because, after all, we share a central goal — balancing the federal budget. We must lift the burden of debt that threatens the future of our children and grandchildren, and we must free-up money so that the private sector can invest, create jobs, and our economy can continue its healthy growth.

Since I took office, we have cut the federal deficit nearly in half. It is important that the people of the United States know that the United States now has proportionately the lowest government budget deficit of any large industrial nation. We have eliminated 200,000 positions from the federal bureaucracy since I took office. Our federal government is now the smallest percentage of the civilian work force it has been since 1933, before the New Deal. We have made enormous progress, and now we must finish the job.

Let me be clear — we must balance the budget. I proposed to Congress a balanced budget, but Congress refused to enact it. Congress has even refused to give me the line-item veto to help me achieve further deficit reduction.

That can hardly be described as being dragged kicking and screaming.

AP, I supported Clinton with his fiscal responsibility approach, and on policy he restored my faith in the Democratic Party as capable, over all, of leading the country in the right direction economically. (The lack of a cogent plan for globalizaton was a notable exception however).

I think it is imperative that Kerry, at some point, before the election, do a much better job of presenting some numbers that make sense as to how he intends to bring about the first installment toward eradication of the 10+ Trillion dollar debt we face in 5 years. He must elucidate on both spending cuts and revenue increases. Otherwise, he will appear to be adhering to the Platform which does not even try to make a credible or convincing case for fiscal responsibilty.

Look, the work force is what, 120 million? The Debt is about to be 10 Trillion. A little arithmetic is called for. 10 Trillion divided by 120 Million = a public debt tax obligation owed by each worker of $83,333.33. Add consumer debt to that national debt and you double that amount. “Outstanding consumer credit, including mortgage and other debt, reached $9.3 trillion in April 2003, representing an increase from $7 trillion in January 2000.”

That puts every full-time working American at an average debt obligation of around $165,000. That is clearly and completely irresponsible of the people of this nation. As any working person living on $45,000 a year earnings knows, they are but one misfortune from bankruptcy. That is where our nation as a whole is heading. One misfortune away from bankruptcy!

If Kerry wants my wife’s vote, for example, he will have to provide some hard numbers as to how he is going to deal with this situation.

The lack of a cogent plan for globalizaton was a notable exception however

Actually, Clinton initiated some really good legislation for retraining and unemployment services, not to mention his programs for helping more people get a college education. You have to admit that protecting workers was a tough fight against a Republican Congress. It still is.

And I totally agree on seeing some numbers. Gore and Bush both released their plans fairly late in the campaign, so I suspect it will be the same this time. Bush hasn’t even bothered to offer any domestic plans yet. Patience. We’ll have economists ripping both their plans to shreds soon enough. :)

AP, that is one of the campaign conspiracies that drowns any faith in either of the two major parties. By releasing their economic numbers shortly before the election and not far apart from each other, they conspire to avoid close scrutiny of the numbers by the CBO, OMB, and other non-partisan organization’s capable of assessing the viability of those numbers, before the election. Thus, they conspire to disinform the public all the while maintaining the guise of ‘informing’ the public.

You are of course right about Clinton’s attempt to counter some of the effects of globalization, but, his administration presumed globalization was inevitable and beyond volutary control to particpate in or not. Globalization is purely and simply a design by corporations to increase markets regardless of how or whether consumers are displaced or negatively affected. I want a debate on studies on the net benefits and costs of the U.S. participating in and enhancing the globalization movement.

One of the net effects of globalization, I believe is taking local and regional problems and expanding them world wide. Lack of oversight and regulation being one of those which is exacerbated and grown via globalization.

Globalization is purely and simply a design by corporations to increase markets regardless of how or whether consumers are displaced or negatively affected.

Duh. That’s what corporations do. Anything to make a profit. I have to agree with Clinton on this one. Globalization isn’t even “inevitable” anymore, it’s already happened. I’m sittin’ here sweatin’ my butt off in Singapore while my wife trains a Singaporean to do her job.

There’s no putting this genie back in the box. We definitely need to make sure displaced workers can get help to retrain or get a college education, but the time for “debate on studies on the net benefits and costs of the U.S. participating in and enhancing the globalization movement,” is long gone.

That window of opportunity to discuss America’s participation in globalization may well reopen in 4 years, though, AP. With a ten trillion dollar debt, a Chinese, Indian, and EU GDP’s outpacing ours by far, we will likely have a mandate to reexamine our role in globalization. The issue will be forced if our own consumers start down a long trek of losing working wage consumer buying power. As working families lose more and more discretionary income, a demand on the part of voters to reexamine our political/economic policies will become issue #1.

Any idea of how you’d go about opting out of globalization?

Are you going to force the closures of the McDonald’s, Taco Bells, KFCs, California Pizza Kitchens, Pizza Huts, Levis stores, GAP stores, Hewlett-Packard, Eddie Bauer, and all the other American companies that operate offices and outlets here in Singapore? I sure would miss them, and I suspect closing them wouldn’t help the US economy any, either.

I’m all for a strong economy and rising wages. What’s your plan?

Misha, That test was interesting & fun, but lacking in foreign policy and social issues (possibly because third-party platforms are similarly lacking in those areas?). I got Democratic 272, Green 257, Republican 147, Libertarian 128. This is as I would have guessed, but if you include social issues and the foreign policy issues, I am sure that the Republican platform would drop quite a bit.

-Cf

CF, I took the test you referenced and got these results:

The highest possible rating is 700.

The highest possible rating, given the importance you assigned each issue, is 510.

You rated the Democratic stances 284.

You rated the Green stances 398.

You rated the Libertarian stances 254.

You rated the Republican stances 172.

;)

A. Pundit, I do not have a comprehensive plan. I have a partial plan however, that begins with shaping our laws to benefit our nation for any and all corporations who utilize our national resources to profit. That would include our educational resources, our natural resources, and our work force resources. If they wish to make use of any of these national resources, the laws should be designed in such a way that in order to continue, they must help fund the management, recycling, and replenishment of those resources.

That is the underlying premise of Nader’s plan and I completely agree with it. The goal is not end international trade or end overseas market development. The goal is to recover that which is needed to replenish our national resources in order to continue to function and remain competitive. We are beginning to see the beginnings of a brain drain from our shores. With the rising GDP growths of China, EU, and SE. Asia, we are going to need to stem that flow, or get about the business of replacing that exported brain power through much greater investments in education. Since corporations doing business in America and using American resources are primary beneficiaries of our educational systems in supplying their work force, it makes complete sense that corporations should be partially funding our needs to grow and develop higher quality education in America.

That means eliminating tax loopholes, and, or extracting sufficient revenues from corporations based in part on the volume and level of education they hire. It may also mean some kind of preferential treatment for corporations who make supporting education an integral part of their method of doing business, On the Job Training, corporations for example.

It also means disallowing or punitively deterring American corporations or American Boards of Directors of international corporations from using foreign bases operations as a means of circumventing the same costs American based corporatioans must bear in replenishing American eocnomic resources. Tariffs come to mind as the standard method, but, tariffs are now what is called for. What is called for is making the decision makers of corporations responsible by fining or taxing the profitability of their operations conducted in America, or revoking their license to do business in America if they fail to comply. That would mean ending the citizen status of corporations and placing the responsibility for corporate actions directly upon their management and board of directors. No more hiding behind laws which grant citizenship rights to corporations but exempt them from our criminal laws. Theft by a corporation, fraud by a corporation, must be held as a crime committed by the corporation’s management and board of directors.

Ok, David. I’m going to agree in general with that direction. It sounds like a more extreme version of the Democrat’s position.

Technically, it’s not opting out of globalization, though. It’s mitigating the harm and enhancing the good that globalization opportunities present for the citizens of this country. In general, I agree. So does Kerry. :)

Ciggy, you’re such a liberal!!

-Cf

Just call me the Green Hawk, LOL.

A. Pundit, we will see. It is now appearing as though Kerry will win, so, we will find out.