October 18, 2005
On GOP Judgement Day
Listening and watching C-Span this morning, Republican Senators were out in force this week spreading the gospel. Not the biblical gospel; the fiscal gospel. They reminded me of the moral degenerate who sees the train just a few feet from his stalled car on the tracks, and yells in prayer, “Lord, I repent, I am a good soul NOW!” After years of plundering the next generation’s wages with spending and massive tax cuts for workers and wealthy today, the Republican politicians in control of the budgetary process for years now, are entering a new election cycle, and the voters are not happy. Suddenly, Republican politicians are professing to voters, “I repent, I am a good fiscal conservative, NOW! “
But, what is their plan? Rep. Mike Spence (R) suggests among other things, deferring the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit for one year, leaving millions of Americans who have planned on this law taking effect, in a lurch. Against a backdrop of Republican's Bankruptcy Reform, many aging Americans will no longer have a way out, should the deferral of the Rx drug plan and rising prices drive them into default on their modest debts against even more modest retirement income. In the name of holding down future taxes, Republicans want today's retirees to 1) go without needed medications, 2) file bankruptcy in their retirement years, or 3) just die and get off the entitlement rolls sooner than later.
Rep. Spence was a member of the Republican Study Committee which released a report in September (MS Word file) recommending ways to pay for Kartrina/Rita, now that ire over their fiscal irresponsibility is a factor in the 2006 elections. In the report the following cut recommendations appear:
Delay the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill for One year - 1 year savings 30.8 billion
Repeal the Highway Earmarks in TEA-LU (pork spending, its a tiny beginning) - 1 year savings 25 billion
Reduce Medicaid Administrative Spending - (fire workers and increase bureaucratic overload) 1 year savings 600 million
Increase Allowable Co-pays in Medicaid - 1 year savings 90 million
Block Grant Medicaid Acute Services - (eliminate emergency services funding) 1 year savings 2.3 billion
Reduce Farm Payment Acreage by 1% - (Wow! 31 million of 100's in corporate subsidies.). 1 year savings 31 million
Eliminate Subsidized Loans to Graduate Students - (let foreign students take the place of these brightest but poorest students) 1 year savings 840 million
Base New Federal Retiree Health on Length of Service - (cut retired gov't. employee's health care) 1 year savings 130 million
Increase Medicare Part B Premium from 25% to 30% - (raise the health care premiums for the poor and disabled) 1 year savings 4.65 billion
Restructure Medicare's Cost-Sharing Requirement - 1 year savings 4.75 billion
Impose a Home Health Co-payment of 10% - (raise the cost of health care for disabled) 1 year savings 1.47 billion
Update the Formula Used for Federal Pension - (cut federal pensioners benefits) 1 year savings 50 million
SUBTOTAL: Tough Options -70.71 billion
All parenthetical explanations above are this authors. They call them tough options. Yep, they are tough. Tough on students, the elderly, retirees, the sick, injured, and disabled primarily. This is absurd in light of what is absent from their proposals, like restoring competitive bidding amongst pharmaceutical companies serving the Medicare program. This one measure alone would likely pay for at least 1/4 of the cost of Katrina/Rita aid. Also absent is NASA's 100 billion moon plan. Republicans are also overlooking responsibility for the 7 Billion per month cost of Iraq via "no-bid" contractors like Haliburton and 100's of millions of dollars absconded in that country. And all of it passed on to the next generation since the war monies are not included in the fiscal budgets, but are transferred directly to the national debt.
The House is now willing to follow through on at least some the President's call to remove 150 federal agencies and programs. Some of those programs are outdated and this is good. But, some cuts will come to the food stamp program at a time when poverty is on the rise. Some veteran's programs and other health care programs will also be on the chopping block. The motivation is due to the pressure of fiscal conservatives to pay for the Katrina/Rita rescue and rebuilding costs, rather than pass those costs on to the next generation. But, let's be clear, this sudden pang of conscience over spending is directly related to fears of incumbents not being reelected in 2006. Not any altruism about responsible government.
The cuts sound good to conservative fiscal hawks, but to this writer, it is impossible to forget the pork, waste, fraud, and abuse spending totaling over 650 billion dollars in 2004 alone according to Sen. Tom Coburn (R) on C-Span this morning. Spending which Republicans and Democrats alike had no moral problems passing on to the next generation when the voters were looking elsewhere. Where was this professing of fiscal responsibility over the last 5 years when the Republican controlled budgetary process put the national debt, according to Sen. Coburn, on track for 11 Trillion Dollars by the end of 2009, double what it was in 2000?
Where was Pres. Bush's veto threat these last 5 years while all this pork, waste, fraud, and abuse was taking place in omnibus bills designed specifically for laying on the pork? Pres. Bush's sudden rebuke of Congressional Spending is, let's be honest, all for show as the 2006 election cycle rev's up. As we move forward, some Republicans will move earnestly to cut spending, but in light of their lack of concern in previous years, such moves appear politically motivated for reelecting Republican incumbents.
This writer for one, won't buy a word of it. Some spending cuts will be made at the same time new tax cuts are issued forth, negating the spending cuts' effect on deficits and debt. If Republicans had any real concern about deficits and debt, they would not be sworn to making earlier economic stimulus tax cuts permanent. The economy needs no more stimuli in light of inflationary pressures. So logic dictates, it is political gain alone that motivates Republicans, not fiscal discipline. Were it otherwise, they would not be pushing to make permanent the 100's of billions of tax cuts for the wealthiest in America.
But, let's be clear. Democrats have the same penchant for spending as Republicans. The only difference has been in Republicans loading the backs of the next generation for their spending while Democrats would increase taxes, and turn right around, and spend the money with little net reduction in deficits and national debt. I have yet to hear a single Democrat call for balancing the budget and therefore end deficit spending. It is time for voters to hit these irresponsible politicians where they live. Vote in 2006, but, do not vote for any politician at the federal level who is already in office.
Just a 5% change in this direction by non-voters and previous voters, will send a resounding message to incoming freshman politicians. They have no career in politics unless they address America's needs. Secure borders, surplus revenues instead of deficit spending, quality education, and an end to corruption in government from no-bid contracts to campaign money extravaganzas and bribes by special interests are all issues of paramount importance to a majority of Americans. But current politicians won't take the public seriously, because they get reelected anyway. It is time to stop them cold in their tracks and put freshman on notice. They take our money, that means they work for us! They had damn well start taking their orders from us on these majority consensus issues. Vote anti-incumbent, and reject short-lived election eve conversions to responsibility and discipline.
Posted by David R. Remer at October 18, 2005 12:58 PMDavid,
You’re right. Dems have the same penchant for spending as Reps. I get email from not only the GOP, but the Dems as well. Here’s a portion of one of the media releases I got today…
For Planning PurposesTuesday, October 18, 2005
CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939
**MEDIA ADVISORY**
DEMOCRATS DEMAND ACTION TO ASSIST WORKING FAMILIES WITH SKYROCKETING HEATING PRICES
Democrats Know We Can Do Better
WASHINGTON, DC – Democratic Leaders from the House and Senate will join together today to call for immediate action to provide relief to working families from this winter’s projected record high home heating prices. While home in their states and districts over the past week, these Democratic leaders heard directly from their constituents about the urgency for action from Washington on this pressing need. As this summer’s record high gas prices turn into this winter’s record high heating oil and natural gas prices, Democrats will continue their fight to provide relief to working families.
And this is going to be paid for….how???
Who is going to shoulder the burden for this “assistance”?
The same people who have to pay the high energy bills in the first place…that’s who!
I have yet to hear a movement in the Congress to repeal all the “pork” they loaded into the budget to help pay for Katrina and this latest demand for energy cost relief.
David…I’m Alllllmost with you on your “vote the suckers out of office” movement.
Much more from either side…and I’ll be there.
Posted by: Jim T at October 18, 2005 02:16 PMThanks, Jim T.
Actually, the taxpayers that will pay for this year’s heating bills on the federal tab will be the next generation of workers still in school. The defiicts and debt for all of today’s spending won’t be paid by taxpayers today, but, by the tax payers of tomorrow, and tomorrow, and generations after tomorrow, as d.a.n accurately points out.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2005 02:20 PMIt’s just so maddening to me. Everybody in the Congress, and I do mean everybody, preaches fiscal conservatism. But when I see things like the massive pork that’s packed into the budget by both Dems and Reps, it just lets me know that all their preaching is nothing more than lip service.
What I don’t think everyone fully appreciates is that we’re going to keep packing pork until the national debt gets so big, that simply paying taxes on it won’t be enough.
One day this debt will grow to such gigantic proportions that the Federal Government will simply implode. This house of cards will come crashing down. It’s not a matter of “if”…it’s a matter of “when”.
Read your history book? Remember what happened to the world economy when the Great Depression happened here? Just imagine what will happen when we finally implode.
$70 billion … that would be a great start!
I’d like to see more cuts too.
After all, do we really need all of these departments, agencies, commissions, offices, etc. ?
Seriously, it shouldn’t be too hard to cut an additional 400 or 500 billion from the budget ?
The federal government ought to be able to operate on less than 15% of GDP.
d.a.n, while I agree, of utmost importance is prioritizing what gets cut. Cuts that will significantly reduce consumerism, will send us spiraling downward, with recession, lost jobs, lost tax revenues, and steepening of deficits and debt.
Republicans want to cut programs that put money into pockets which immediately leaves those pockets on health care spending, home mortgage or rental payments, utilities, food, car payments, etc.
Such cuts will not help except in small measure over many years. But, there are a large number of other programs that would not affect consumer spending significantly. Sunsetting the tax cuts on the wealthy, the 100 billion NASA budget to colonize the moon, federal dollars to charity organizations, federal dollar windfalls by reinstating competitive bidding on federal contracts, and implementing a plan on a short time frame for withdrawing from Iraq. Corporate subsidies, strategic foreign aid cuts, are two other areas.
There is at least a half trillion right there, without impacting the economy or consumers significantly. That is the problem we face. The President and Congress are intent on cuts that will pull almost dollar for dollar out of consumption in the US. And as we all know, consumers are carrying the primary load of keeping our economy afloat.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2005 03:56 PMYou bet. There’s a lot of waste and excessive government. Yes, half a trillion should be easy, without impacting the economy…in fact, it would help the economy. And if they’re not going to fix the tax system, they should give the lower-to-middle-class tax cuts too, to make things more fair. I’d say raise taxes on the wealthy, but I’m always against tax increases, and government is so so so big, there’s many many places to cut spending that won’t affect the economy.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2005 04:26 PMRegarding GOP Judgement Day, check this out:
________________________________________
QUESTION: Do you think the economy is headed in the right direction?
N = 7,882 Margin of Error +/- 1.5%
…….. Yes …… No …. Undecided
Dem …. 4.0% …. 92.0% …. 3.9%
Ind …. 19.8% …. 71.9% …. 8.3%
Rep …. 58.3% …. 28.8% …. 12.8%
Overall Percentages:
28.2% believe the economy is headed in the right direction
63.3% do not…
8.5% are undecided
_________________________________________
The GOP has it’s work cut out for them, if they hope to recover before the elections in 2006 and 2008.
The only difference between the GOP and the DNC is that the GOP spends our money on themselves and the DNC spends our money on their base’s problems.
So, we have a choice, help them or help ourselves. Ourselves, in this case, being members of the working classes.
Rememer: Cuts will only go part way (the gov’t is the number 1 contributor to the economy. Every dollar not spent is 20 cents saved, 40 cents not going to a job, 40 cents not going to KBR, BushCo, et. al.) We really need to reinstate taxes as well as cut wisely. Maybe ending the war wouldn’t hurt either.
d.a.n.
I’d like to see more cuts too.
After all, do we really need all of these departments, agencies, commissions, offices, etc. ?
No! We could get rid of 98% of them and save a couple trillion dollars. But that would mean that congress would have to put about 30,000 bureaucraps out of work, or at least a job.
Seriously, it shouldn’t be too hard to cut an additional 400 or 500 billion from the budget ?
The federal government ought to be able to operate on less than 15% of GDP.
It isn’t, and the government could, but the politicians aren’t going to run the risk of pissing their contributors off. That would mean less money to spend on the lies they tell us during their campaigns. This would mean the poor babies might loose their jobs and have to accually work for a change.
Dave
The only difference between the GOP and the DNC is that the GOP spends our money on themselves and the DNC spends our money on their base’s problems.
When was the last time ANY politician spent money to help the working class?
Posted by: Ron Brown at October 18, 2005 06:03 PMThe only difference between the GOP and the DNC is that the GOP spends our money on themselves and the DNC spends our money on their base’s problems.
Dave,
It might have been that way at one time, but not anymore. The Democrats are 49% responsible too. In fact, they exacerbate problems, vote for pork-barrel and waste too, just to make the other party look bad. They know their turn is coming and they’ll be just as bad. The problem is that the two main parties got this nice little gig goin’ where they just take turns usin’ and abusin’ the voters, while the voters keep voting for them (empowering them) to do it some more.
The Democrats went along with almost everything that Congress has voted on. Check the votes of both parties. You’ll see what I mean. Don’t be fooled. Don’t be seduced by one side or the other. Don’t be seduced into their petty bickering that distracts voters from important issues.
Both main parties are more alike than you think.
Just look at these many similarities.
d.a.n.
Thanks for the link. It hit the nail on the head.
I remember back when I was around 8 or 9(yeah, I can remember back that far) I asked my daddy a policitian was. His answer?
A politician is someone that spends $400,000 to get elected to a $40,000 job.
Promises $2,000,000 in benifits from $20,000 in taxes.
Delivers $20,000 in benifits from $2,000,000 in taxes.
And keeps the voters convinced he’s doing them a favor.
That’s a good one. Hope you don’t mind if I save it and use it sometime.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2005 06:56 PMWhat about returning our corporations to their share of our country’s expenses? Their federal taxes don’t pay for their use of our resources and infrastructure, but they do have, and use, money to make great investments in Washington! Also, I understand our military books are unaccountable— how do we know where all of the over $400B per year is going? Fiscal responsibility and accountability to constituents go hand in hand.
Posted by: David Weller at October 18, 2005 09:52 PMThe terms “fiscal responsibility” and “politicians” should not be used in the same sentence, paragraph or page because the two terms cannot be rationally related to the other given the proven track record of politicians in sqandering other people’s money, i.e., our tax payments to our bloated state and federal governments.
Fiscal responsibility applies to someone who actually cares about spending limits to control their budget. How can anyone reasonably expect a politician to exercise fiscal responsibility when it comes to wasting our tax money, while at the same time knowing that they will not be held accountable for dumping our money down a rat hole infested with their campain contributors and corporate cronies.
Fiscal irresponsibility has a price for us common folks, it’s called bankruptcy. The price for politicians who sqander our tax money on wars of naked agression based on outright lies, who do not hesitate to shovel massive amounts of OUR money to a bloated military/industrial complex that survives and thrives on fictional threats, who do not even pause a second in supporting terrorist states like Israel with billions of OUR tax dollars ever year so they can continue their program of exterminating and displacing millions of innocent people from their lands and dreams, who have no regard and no respect for the very people who entrusted and empowered them by placing their lying, double dealing, cheating asses in office in the first place. Accordingly, vote anti-incumbent across party lines in 2006 to dump the entrenched politicians and to serve as a clear warning sign to the freshmen congressmen and senators that WE THE PEOPLE run this country, that WE THE PEOPLE will not tolerate theft of our tax money and that there is actually a price to pay for grand theft taxpayer money.
Posted by: Terry at October 19, 2005 12:13 AMWell said, Terry, Ron, & d.a.n. Today, on Chris Matthews HardBall, a former politician I think it was said the American people are not aware of what’s going on so consequences are not likely forthcoming at the polls in 2006.
Seemed like a former politician who was out of touch, in light of recent poll numbers showing remarkable discontent with government politicians at this time. The trick is not making voters aware of what’s going on, I think, it is giving them alternate choice of action in 2006. Spreading the anti-incumbent word and the positive results it offers, is what those of us following events must undertake. The dissatisfaction is there, an alternative choice in the voting booth is all that is lacking. We have our work cut out for us, but, this is an opportunity to turn things around.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 19, 2005 02:32 AMBefore our spending problems in Washington are resolved, we are going to have to put legislators in office with the mandate from the people to actually cut spending in real terms, not intangible ones. Everyone is in favor of spending controls until it becomes personal. I would find it amazing that someone living around a military base would actually argue for it’s closure on fiscal reasons. I’m sure the folks in Alaska do NOT want to see the $250M bridge to an island of 50 people eliminated. Why? because it will take jobs and capital away. These people would have to personally sacrifice.
Face it folks, until “We the People” start walking the walk, the politicians are going to do exactly what we want. Spend more money on us. I really believe an infusion of independent representatives in Congress would enable the people to exercise more control, but, we would have to really want it. Want deficit reduction? We will need to sacrifice. We’ll have to see real events like roll-backs of tax cuts, raising of gasoline taxes, deferral of the elimination of the estate tax, etc. etc. along with spending cuts in defense and other entitlement programs. Want to cut defense? You will cut jobs. How will the cities who have major employers like Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc. respond? They will lobby hard to stop the job losses. Want to cut entitlements? Are you willing to cut your Mom or Dad’s Social Security or Medicare payments?
These types of actions will be necessary for us to get the deficit and the debt under control. Until the employers of the folks in Washington (us) start behaving like we mean it, then all the talk about fiscal responsibility is just that: talk.
Posted by: Dennis at October 19, 2005 07:13 AMPresident Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. If voters are reminded of the power they actually hold, and not get caught up in special interests, they can realize that they can make a difference at the polls. The Rs and Ds feed off of their bad union of parties, creating a cycle of “a country of men” instead of “a country of laws”. Put the ball in the voters’ court, and it will be We the People who will take it and run, by voting the two party system out.
Posted by: David Weller at October 19, 2005 07:33 AMDavid Weller, David Remer,
Yes, the people do not yet realize and appreciate the power they actually hold: ___their vote___
That’s because the people have been brainwashed to think their vote is wasted unless they vote for one of the two main-party candidates. The people must snap out of that and realize it’s not true. They must realize what we’ve been doing is not working. The people (and I’m guilty of it too) have been seduced by one main party or the other, seduced into participation of petty partisan bickering that distracts the people from the real work government should be doing to solve the many pressing problems facing the nation.
And the politicians can barely contain their delight as the people continually fall for it and head back to the polls to vote them back into office, and empower them to continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable. And, like David Remer said above (i.e. the politician that says nothing will change because the people don’t know what is going on), the politicians arrogantly believe that the people will never do anything about it.
The politicians are wrong about that. Eventually, the people will do something. If the people don’t select (1)the peaceful option to simply vote only for non-incumbents (which has a good chance to put this country back on the right path), then the people may likely some day choose (2)a less peaceful solution.
The voters should consider option (1).
Vote for non-incumbents and start recalls to remove the most corrupt politicians.
Why should we continue to vote for main party candidates? These are the same people that have been severely limiting our choices by blocking access of 3rd parties and independents to ballots, debates, and elections. They simply take turns at being greedy, fiscally irresponsible, and unaccountable, and it’s endangering this nation’s future.
Our vote is all we have left (at the moment). We need to use it wisely, while we still have it. Currently, 90% of all elections are won by candidate that spends the most money.
Incumbents are hard to remove. Why is that ? It’s because they’re bought-and-paid-for and their big-money backers see no reason to replace a perfectly good puppet. The government is controlled by a few people with vast wealth and power. Government is controlled by the 10% of the wealthiest that have 70% of all wealth in the U.S. Government is for sale. Money in government makes it rotten.
Third parties and Independents should all jump at this opportunity to help spread the message, if they ever hope to finally have a voice in government:
___VOTE only for a
___NON-incumbent / NON-main-party candidate.
___NO exceptions. Repeatedly , EVERY election.
___UNTIL things drastically improve, and the nation’s
___top 10 most pressing problems are adequately addressed.
Personally, I’m tired of the main parties taking turns at running this country into the ground.
I used to be Republican, but no more.
Last night, a Republican fund raiser called me asking for donations.
I said, “Sorry, but I’m no longer a Republican.”
She flippantly said, “Oh, your a Democrat now.”
I said, “No, I sick of both Republicans and Democrats. From now on, I’m voting non-incumbent.”
She giggled and hung-up.
I really feel ashamed and feel like a damn fool for not realizing sooner that I’ve been duped for the last 47 years. Well, no more.
For anyone who is interested, here’s a few of the many benefits to voting non-incumbent.
The good thing about this approach is that it will not strip government of power. It will not simply shift power to another group. It may be one of the few ways to balance power between government and the people, and yield government that is more responsible and accountable, and finally realizes they will be voted out and/or recalled if they don’t start working on the top 10 most important problems facing this nation (that is, the 10 most obvious, uncontentious, no-brainer problems). Here’s a list of 25 to start with. Please feel free to add to the list, prioritize the list, and E-mail it to all third parties and independents.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 09:23 AMI left the Republican party while Nixon was in his first term. I’ve never been a Democrat, or a member of any other party.
I reckon youall can say I’m a nonaffiliated conservitive.
My wife and me have decided to try and find third party or independent canidates that we can identify with the best and vote for them.
If the get elected and act like the idiot they replaced, we’ll vote to fire them.
Like they say in Chicago:
Vote early, Vote offten.
We must bypass most of the media, because they are mired in the same two party system as many families over the decades; most have taken “one side or the other”, as if life was a duality. Voters must grasp the fact that they own this great country, and that it is in their hands only. I think public financing of elections returns the purse to the people, and allows pressing issues to dominate the debate. The voter must take charge, for the good of their local, region, state and country.
Posted by: David Weller at October 19, 2005 10:51 AMDavid Weller
You have a whole heap of folks that agree with you on both sides of the fence.
Ron Brown,
Good for you. You’re smarter than me.
It took me much to long to see the truth.
David Weller,
We’ve definitely need to get the big money and influence peddling out of government.
Government should not be for sale.
We seriously need some serious Election Reform.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 12:41 PMd.a.n.,
You’re right on the money with me on most of your webpages so far; same for everyone else. I am a recent resignee of the Reform Party, including as National Press Secretary— there is a factional war there right now, and it is just a progression of the philosophical fighting that started early on.
However, by having a common enemy (incumbents, mostly Rs and Ds), we can clean up government and begin having a responsible and accountable government working for the USA— We the People. Thanks
Deficits don’t matter. Reagan proved that.
Posted by: Ms Schwamp at October 19, 2005 04:00 PMd.a.n
It took me much to long to see the truth.
At least your seeing it. I just wish a lot more would.
Posted by: Ron Brown at October 19, 2005 06:01 PMDeficits don’t matter. Reagan proved that.
=D That’s good stuff! Ray-gun proved a lot, for sure.
Posted by: taylor at October 19, 2005 07:10 PMSchwamp, deficits may not, but huge debt, does. Look at the Republicans scrambling in the headlines jeering and condemning the passing on of huge debt to the next generation of workers which of course becomes their taxes. Some of them are actually fiscally conservative, finding their voice as the new election begins.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 19, 2005 11:47 PMDavid,
But, let’s be clear. Democrats have the same penchant for spending as Republicans. The only difference has been in Republicans loading the backs of the next generation for their spending while Democrats would increase taxes, and turn right around, and spend the money with little net reduction in deficits and national debt. I have yet to hear a single Democrat call for balancing the budget and therefore end deficit spending. It is time for voters to hit these irresponsible politicians where they live. Vote in 2006, but, do not vote for any politician at the federal level who is already in office.
I don’t think the Green Party would be any different. In fact, I suspect it would be a lot worse if suddenly the Green Party found itself in power. It’s illustrative that you berate Republican’s for overspending, and criticize them for proposing to cut spending as well, because it will hurt, “students, the elderly, retirees, the sick, injured, and disabled primarily.” It’s the same old, tired, liberal rant.
Cutting entitlements is inhuman so we must raise taxes! What a surprise! This is precisely how the Democrats would respond. After raising taxes, what do you think they would do? Why, there are tremendous needs out there… we can find a few more entitlements to fund can’t we? This is how democrats continue spending. At least a Republican will consider cutting spending — and have. Remember that it was not until there was a Republican Congress (Contract with America ring a bell) that deficit reduction began to take place.
Funny thing to say considering it was Clinton who lead in a policy of “Pay as you go”, Eric. Now we are seeing Republicans in their element. Spending Billions of dollars to kill people and feed their top 10% constituents. That’s what a Republican believes in, afterall.
Posted by: Aldous at October 20, 2005 02:43 AMBoth D’s and R’s are spending like crazy.
In fact, I’d venture to say D’s are spending as much as possible to make the R’s look as bad as possible.
Personally, they’re both irresponsible and unaccountable. But, they just love it when we’re seduced into participation in the partisan bickering and blame-game, while they simply take turns usin’ and abusin’ the tax payers.
If you really want to fix government, don’t keep falling (and I’ve been guilty of it too in the past) for their clever distractions.
Democrats will probably win both houses and the executive branch back in 2006 and 2008, but I seriously doubt anything will change that much. They (as a whole) will continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable, and will cleverly continue to blame each other, while they continue to take turns doing it.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2005 06:44 AMd.a.n.:
I agree with the shell game you describe. As long as Democrats and Republicans can use the argument that “the other guy does it worse”, and as long as a significant amount of the voting public accepts that argument, the politicians on both sides of the aisle are on the gravy train.
Consider for example the responses that we often get when talking about politicians. A person might say they are slick, greedy, power hungry, lying unethical cheats—-and these are the more complimentary terms. But then ask that same person if they voted for THEIR congressman, and all too often the comment is “Well of course! He/she is not like the rest of the bums. He/she is really good and has done lots of good (pronounced ‘delivered lots of money, be it pork or otherwise’)for our district.”
The politicians positively LOVE this. Its similar to inner city gangs who convince neighborhood youths that the OTHER gang is far worse, so join our gang. The only difference between the inner city gangs we revile and politicans is….is….is…well, damned if I know what the difference is!
I’d disagree with your assessment of how the ‘06 and ‘08 elections will go. I don’t see evidence that Dems will win back Congress—I think that’s a bit of a pipe dream for the left. They may win some seats back, but I don’t see the math working out for them to win control. As far as the White House, too early for my predictions. The predominant predictions from the ‘00 and ‘04 elections was that Bush would never ever win, but win he did. Predictions are fine, but I simply think there is too much time to pass to credibly make an accurate prediction.
However, on a baseball note, being a long suffering Detroit Tiger fan, I will hazard a prediction that they will win a World Series title within two years. Then again, Taiwan has a 10 year old pitcher who looks pretty good, Rahway, NJ is fielding an impressive team, and the Japanese Little League system has been very productive of late. But I still think the Tigers might be able to take em. ;)
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 20, 2005 09:14 AMjoebagodonuts,
That’s an interesting handle. How did you arrive at it?
The politicians positively LOVE this. Its similar to inner city gangs who convince neighborhood youths that the OTHER gang is far worse, so join our gang.Yep ! The politicians sure do love it. They’re havin’ a big laugh, cause we keep votin’ ‘em back into office (and I’ve been guilty of it too). We actually empower them to keep doin’ it to us.
The only difference between the inner city gangs we revile and politicans is….is….is…well, damned if I know what the difference is!That’s funny. There’s not much difference really between D’s and R’s either.
Yes, you’re right of course. No one can know the future for certain, or whether the D’s will win back both houses and the executive branch. But the way things are going, it ain’t hard to see that happening. Both D’s and R’s are screwing up, but the R’s are going to get most the blame, which is why I think the R’s are going to lose some offices.
However, the people should hold both D’s and R’s accountable, and not fall for the blame game, that cleverly leaves us thinking we’ve only got one of two crappy choices.
esimonson,
CNN reported:
Threat of veto overshadows GOP budget bill
debt_clock
October 29, 1995
Web posted at: 9:06 p.m. EST
From Correspondent Claire Shipman
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A House-Senate conference committee meets this week to hammer out a final budget bill while GOP legislators are working under the shadow of a veto threat from President Clinton.
The federal debt is almost $5 trillion and climbing. Republican lawmakers, now facing the task of merging House and Senate balanced budget plans, say their labors would hold that figure steady by the year 2002.
Along with Republicans doubling the national debt in 2008 in just 8 years, your revisionist history just doesn’t hold up. Republicans needed a Dem. president’s threat of veto to control spending. Once the Dem. president was gone and a Republican was in, spending went absolutely crazy, deficits went sky high, and the national debt put on track to double by the end of Bush’s term.
Republicans have no defense. They talk the talk of fiscal discipline, but history clearly shows that haven’t the spine to walk the walk.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2005 10:33 AMd.a.n.
An old boss of mine use the term ‘Joebagodonuts’ to convey an ‘everyman’ or ordinary guy status on someone. He’d say something like “Well, any Joebagodonuts could do that” or “So, I’m talking to Joebagodonuts…”
So its a way of holding myself in check, and letting me know that I’m just another ordinary guy with an ordinary opinion with an ordinary ability to check information and reach ordinary conclusions. As I’ve been wont to say, “I ain’t no Einstein.”
David:
I find some agreement with what you say, but not to the extremity that you say it. Republicans have not been fiscally prudent, and Bush should have vetoed the transportation bill the instant it went over the limit he set. But we can’t forget a couple thingsL
A) Bush took over a faltering economy that had ridden a wave and was on its downturn. Making projections from the economic predictions and realities in 2000-02 was far different than making predictions from 1997-98. I recall an insurance company back in the 80’s that projected 30-40% returns on the cash value portion. Needless to say, their product on paper looked fabulous. Also needless to say is that projecting 30-40% returns out for 30 years is not and never has been accurate. Neither were the surplus projections at the end of the Clinton term.
B) The US has faced a number of cataclysmic events over the past 5 years. 9-11 hit the economy hard. The accounting scandals rocked the financial world and caused consumer confidence to flag. Bankruptcies such as Enron and Global Crossing among others caused economic disruption. The tech bubble burst, causing the stock market to plummet. The war in Iraq has cost a lot of money (I recognize this as a ‘choice’, as opposed to an event that simply happened).
David, these events created some of the expenditure, though I cannot accurately say how much. You seem to discount all spending as bad, without recognizing that some of it simply was necessary. I know you’d probably have spent differently, such as working on our borders, but I think you too would have spent money. I’m with you on the wasteful things…lets just not consider everything wasteful.
Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 20, 2005 11:31 AM… But we can’t forget a couple things.A) Bush took over a faltering economy that had ridden a wave and was on its downturn. Making projections from the economic predictions and realities in 2000-02 was far different than making predictions from 1997-98.
True. However, both D’s and R’s have spent way more then they should have, and every bill is laden with pork.
B) The US has faced a number of cataclysmic events over the past 5 years. 9-11 hit the economy hard.True, and aside from the terrorists themselves, airlines and government are largely to blame for 9/11 because they ignore warnings from other countries that we should do better security screening for airline passengers, and we should secure the door to the pilots cabin.
The accounting scandals rocked the financial world and caused consumer confidence to flag. Bankruptcies such as Enron and Global Crossing among others caused economic disruption. The tech bubble burst, causing the stock market to plummet.True again. That’s another failure of the government to adequately enforce the laws to prevent large scale investor / stock fraud.
The war in Iraq has cost a lot of money (I recognize this as a ‘choice’, as opposed to an event that simply happened).Yes it is costly, in lives and money. And, unfortunately, the intelligence used to argue for the war was incorrect. I’m not saying it was totally the wrong thing to do, if it was done right, but I’m not sure it was worth the lives of 2000 Americans.
Yes, I agree, it’s not all wasteful spending.
However, a lot of it is wasteful, and a lot of it is unnecessary. Do we need all of this stuff ?
Here’s an example of the tough choices Congress has been making:
[] Pork-barrel or FEMA ?
[] Congress votes itself raises or give salaries of troops in active duty ?
[] $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame or more armor for humvees ?
[] $150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga. or secure the nation’s borders (which Al-Qaeda is infiltrating) ?
[] $250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] $250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] $775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.) or shore up Social Security and Medicare ?
[] $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation or improve public education ?
[] $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage or prosecute investor/stock fraud ?
[] $5000 for gold embossed cards for Air Force One or bullet proof vests for troops in Iraq ?
So, I’m not nearly as understanding.
Especially when:
[01] there’s an $8 trillion National Debt (that would take 127 years to pay down by paying $1 billion per day; that’s the daily interest);
[02] Social Security and Medicare are still being plundered;
[03] entitlements are facing future shortfalls;
[04] we are facing energy vulnerabilities, and possibly energy shortages;
[05] pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole (which tax payers will get the bill for; just like the S&L bail-out);
[06] falling wages due to globalization (or global pillage);
[07] an aging population that will grow poorer as they enter retirement;
[08] 77 million baby boomers that will soon start drawing benefits;
[09] a ridiculous tax system that wastes hundreds of billions in paperwork alone, and neither party wants to fix it because they like the way they’ve perverted it because it benefits them mostly;
[10] increasingly unaffordable and unreliable healthcare;
[11] declining quality and increasing cost of public eduction;
[12] government is arrogant and alienates our allies;
[13] an arrogant President that has the gall to call the “Minute Men” vigilantes, and pretends to care about security while Al Qaeda and thousands of illegal aliens cross the borders daily;
[14] pandering and promising more and more entitlements, creating a population that is increasingly and pathetically dependent on government;
[15] Corporatism, Corpocrisy, and insufficient and/or selective law enforcement to discourage investment/stock fraud;
[16] legal plunder: perversion of the laws to do the very things the laws were supposed to prevent (e.g. selective application of the law, abuse of eminent domain laws, arresting and executing innocent people, pardons for felons, etc.);
[17] both main parties won’t address election reform and election fraud; hell, we’ve got illegal aliens voting in our elections;
[18] both main parties are blocking access of 3rd parties and independents to ballots, debates, and the democratic process;
[19] both main parties refuses to be transparent and above board; refuses to stop being sneaky; otherwise they would pass a “ONE PURPOSE PER BILL” law and a “BALANCED BUDGET” law; instead, they like to hide huge amounts of pork, graft, bribes, and waste in BILLs that are thousands of pages long, and nobody can figure why anyone voted for or against any BILL;
[20] and an irresponsible and unaccountable government, that doles out pardons even when the politicians are caught and convicted of fraud, theft, and other miscellaneous felonies (even when some of them pled guilty);
[21] fiscal irresponsibility that is going to lead to inflation and more economic instability; especially if countries buying that debt (which is turning into a catch-22) start getting nervous about all that debt, and the falling dollar;
[22] fiscal & moral irresponsibility that is endangering the future and security of the nation;
Did I forget anything? I’m updating my list, as it grows longer and longer, as do-nothing politicians won’t tackle tough problems for fear of risking re-election.
Like Ron Brown’s father told him when when he was young (which eludes to how long this has been going on) and asked what a politician is, his father said:
A politician is someone that spends $400,000 to get elected to a $40,000 job.
Promises $2,000,000 in benifits from $20,000 in taxes.
Delivers $20,000 in benifits from $2,000,000 in taxes.
And keeps the voters convinced he’s doing them a favor.
JBOD, the I agree. The economic stimulus of sunsetted tax cuts was very much needed in 2001 through mid-2004. But the economy is now in good shape and the biggest threat to it in the future is the growing debt and interest on that debt in a rising interest rate environment.
To continue the spending and make the tax cuts permanent is as foolish and ignorant of basic economic realities as it gets. The catastrophe’s make up less than 800 billion in deficit spending, to date. Yet, the debt has grown by more than 2 trillion to date. That difference of 1.2 trillion added to the debt is the utterly irresponsible and indefensible act of Republicans in control of the budgetary process. I have no quarrel at all with the spending for 9/11, or homeland defense (except that we still don’t have homeland defense), nor the Iraq spending given the mistake to invade was made, nor the costs of rescue and recovery to date for the hurricanes. But, all of those only equal less than 800 billion spent to date. The other 1.2 trillion was government completely out of control of itself.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2005 02:08 PMEven though I don’t agree with him in alot of issues, I am helping a Libertarian run for Congress. We respect each other a great deal, and we have a common enemy in the two-party system. In the tradition of Ron Paul, a Lib. who won a Congressional seat as a Republican here in Texas (I live in Republican Abilene), we need *leadership* in cutting back the fed. govt. share of costs. I do believe in this movement of voting for non-incumbents; we can do one step more by supporting a quality Independent or Third Party candidate, such as what I do in forwarding news articles to him.
Posted by: David Weller at October 20, 2005 02:19 PMDavid Weller, I couldn’t agree more, especially if a 3rd party candidate has an acceptable issue platform.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2005 02:28 PMThis is the LAST place these budget cuts should come from, especially now:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Finance Republicans, aiming to find $10 billion in savings, have reached a deal on health care budget cuts and will release details on Thursday afternoonPosted by: womanmarine at October 20, 2005 02:33 PMSenate conservatives had hoped to trim Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, by about $10 billion over five years but moderates on the panel pushed for some of the savings to come from Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly.
This could include up to $50 billion in savings over five years on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid
David, interesting article.
Schwamp:
“Deficits don�t matter. Reagan proved that.”
Taylor:
“=D That’s good stuff! Ray-gun proved a lot, for sure.”
Actually Taylor, I think it might have been Nancy and her astrologer who came up with that utterly nonsensical notion. Meanwhile, Ronnie was getting lost in the corridors of the Whitehouse muttering “I can’t recall”, and spending a good deal of his time playing with his “Bonzo” at Bedtime. ;^)
Posted by: Adrienne at October 20, 2005 02:56 PMSchwamp: “Deficits don’t matter. Reagan proved that.”
We’re still paying for those deficits, and will be for decades (maybe centuries).
Afterall, if we start now paying down the debt by $1 billion per day (it has to be more than the interest or the principal keeps growing), it would take 127 years to pay down the National Debt.
Of course, that also means we would have to stop borrowing (or printing) $1 billion per day to pay that interest. So, we’d really have to come up with $2 billion per day. That’s $730 billion per year. The governments revenues are already $2.2 trillion per year (19% of GDP), which is alread too much.
Those are the numbers. It’s not that complicated.
With no fiscal discipline in Congress, and a National Debt that has grown larger every year for the past 45 years, how will we ever get ourselves out of this mess ?
What’s the likelihood of Congress ever becoming disciplined enough to do that ?
How bad, how painful, how dangerous does it have to get before the people insist government stop endangering the future and security of the nation ?
Not only will our children be paying for this mistake all their life, but so will their children, and their childrens’ children, and their childrens’ children’s children. 127 years if we start now ( http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/NationalDebt.xls )
And, that’s only if nothing bad happens and we can stay on schedule.
Folks, I think it’s safe to say, we’re in some deep $#!+
Something has to be done soon. The longer it is delayed, the worse the problem will be. If we continue to do nothing, and continue to spend and borrow and print more money, we will have an economic melt-down that will make the Great Depression look like a mild recession. And it could last for decades.
Roughly 50% of the voting eligible public actually vote. Typically/historically a very small percentage of those vote third party and/or write in. From the remaining number about half vote Republican and half vote Democrat (give or take a few percentage points.)
For the sake of discussion,if the present condition continues, the non-incumbant voting movement (which I am in favor of although I feel it is the precursor to a three party system) needs to come up with sizeable numbers.
In what I think is a very viable scenario, 90% of the 50% of eligible voters who actually vote will remain faithful to their main party candidate, leaving 10% (divided equally between (R) and (D) as an initial base of non-incumbant or third party voters.
In other words, IMO the non-incumbant voters will constitute too small of a number to make a measureable impact. UNLESS ;
1. A large portion of the 50% of eligible voters who do not vote can be harvested by the non-incumbant movement or,
2. A higher percentage of the main party voters from the 50% of eligible voters who do vote can be encouraged to join the non-incumbant movement.
Steve, quite right, if you look at an impact nationwide. That won’t be accomplished in one election cycle.
The strategy has to focus on some key races, where 2 or 3% of previously non-voters, show up to vote challenger instead of incumbent. Over 2 or 3 election cycles, with growing media attention on those key races where anti-incumbency made a difference or threw the pollsters estimates out of whack, the impact could be quite significant.
Like any huge task, it has to be taken in incremental steps over time, building success on previous success. The anti-incumbent sentiment in America exists, it just needs to be tapped and exercised in media noteworthy ways, a couple at first, and more next time.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2005 06:06 PMAdrienne, check out VOID for a more thorough exam of the conclusion to this article. Ideas in action.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2005 06:09 PMsteve smith,
The idea is not just one 3rd party/independent, but many 3rd parties and independents.
And experience isn’t nearly as valuable as honesty and accountability.
Also, one of the most important goals of government reform must be transparency.
That can be achieved by simply examining the many, over-complicated (by design, to hide what’s really happening) procedures and systems, and simplify them.
A good example of over-complication used to perpetrate graft, pork-barrel, waste, and unnecessary spending is the way BILLs are loaded up with thousands of pages of unrelated items, making it impossible for anyone to know why anyone voted for or against the bill, and allowing them an easy way to excuse voting for the pork-laden bill. The solution is simple: Only allow ONE PURPOSE PER BILL.
Thus, a bill may contain many items, but they must be related to the purpose of the BILL.
Then we, the people, will see what’s really happening.
There are lots and lots of simplifications that can be made to make government more transparent.
And, transparency discourages illegal and unethical behavior, which will lead to responsibility and accountability.
So, all 3rd parties and independents should be paying close attention. This is their chance, all of them, to get on the ballots, give us more choices, and allow the people to have a voice in government.
Because, as it is now, the two main parties are trying to limit access of 3rd parties and independents to the ballots, debates, and the democratic process.
The idea is not solely to have one third party or independent on the ballots. The goals is for all of them to get on the ballots. If they don’t, they may be missing a rare opportunity to finally have a voice in government.
steve smith,
Yes, of course, it’s unlikely 3rd parties and independents will ever unseat all incumbents.
That’s OK. However, all the people have to do is get more choices on the ballots, try to unseat as many incumbents as possible (especially the truly irresponsible, no-account, do-nothing politicians).
Even if only 10% are unseated, it will hava a huge impact on the political landscape. It will give the people the power and solution they’ve been searching a long time for, but failed to realize the solution was there all along.
It will give the voters, the people the power to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable. It may be the only way for voters to peacefully force a balance of power (not simply shift it) between government and the people.
If the people don’t do this, they most likely will still some day (after a much longer wait) still get a responsible and accountable government, but it will most likely be via the hard road. The people should consider their two options:
(1) Deal with irresponsible government now, before it’s too late,
(2) or, let things keep running their course (the course history has shown us), and learn the hard way.
So, of course, nothing is perfect, but as David says (essentially), every journey must start with the first few steps. We must not discount, or search for problems only. Also consider the many benefits. I think they vastly out-weight the alternative consequences, which we may start seeing signs of in the next 5 to 10 years.
The path were on now is alarming.
Just look at these many serious problems that politicians won’t tackle for fear of risking re-election. The system is dysfunctional. Government won’t reform itself. It’s up to the people to reject the main-party partisan bickering, and clever distractions that keep us from seeing that government is failing us. Voters must do their part. That’s why they have a vote. They’re supposed to use it to vote for responsible government. Not who will bring home the most pork-barrel (much of which doesn’t help the tax payers, but greases the corrupt system of graft, bribes, political repayments, etc.).
steve,
I know you’re on board with the idea. Thank you. Considering your situation, it’s admirable that you care about this, instead of spending your time out somewhere vacationing and partying and havin’ a good ole time.
David:
I’m curious. When the tax cuts were originally proposed, my recollection is that Democrats were very against them. Then they seemed to shift to the idea that tax cuts might be okay, but they did not like the areas that Bush was cutting, and they proposed alternatives.
You say you support the tax cuts from ‘01-‘04, but where did you stand on them THEN? Were you for them or against them?
It seems to me that many people now recognize that the tax cuts did in fact spur the economy. But many of those same people were not in favor of them back in ‘01 and spoke vehemently against them. Only now are they altering their previous stances.
Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the research capacity to find David Remer comments from back then to know what you were saying then, so I’m asking for your honest (as always) answer.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 20, 2005 08:05 PMJBOD, I wasn’t writing for public venue back in 00-01. I was for the tax cuts, because jobs were being seriously threatened by the recession, and economic stimulus was needed. The fact that the tax cuts were sunsetted, made me feel it was a responsible thing to do. If the recession had continued and my wife lost her job at the insurance company, (many others were laid off) we would have been in serious trouble, since I was in the middle of constructing a house and which would have been ruined by weather if I had had to take a job, leaving the roofless structure to the elements.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2005 08:36 PMLike Ron Brown’s father told him when when he was young (which eludes to how long this has been going on) and asked what a politician is,
That was around 1954 or 1955, so yeah dan a long time. Most likely long before that.
David Weller, I couldn’t agree more, especially if a 3rd party candidate has an acceptable issue platform.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2005 02:28 PM
DITTO!
Yes, of course, it’s unlikely 3rd parties and independents will ever unseat all incumbents.
But if they unseat enough incumbents it’ll sure get the attention of the ones left.
From the VOID poet-laureat:
We can be in fashion,
Or we could be in style
We can be in haste,
Or we could wait awhile
We can be in waste,
Or we could move a pile
David-
Jeez, I posted the obligatory fiscal discipline entry with the bad Dire Straits joke in the title. Give me some credit.
Joe-
I had the opposite issue with my screen name. As a person who frequents entertainment sites, I typically used the same kind of handles that normally pop up there, with a personal touch. I thought for a moment about using some sort of tag, but for me, that was one bit of insulation too much.
Your nickname (which I further nick) is quite respectable. Mine tend to be more towards the Dungeons and Dragons end of things, and as much as I enjoy being a swordswinger in the videogames, I’d feel silly posting under that name. Usually, I don’t identify myself so explicitly. But if I were to comment on the serious, life and death issues, I’d feel kind of weird doing so behind a name like Kethdrich or Daanhalen (actual names), so I decided to use mine.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2005 12:01 AMIf we do wait awhile,
We will be in a deep pile,
And with faces with no smile.
: )
d.a.n,
With respect to your following…
“The idea is not solely to have one third party or independent on the ballots. The goals is for all of them to get on the ballots. If they don’t, they may be missing a rare opportunity to finally have a voice in government.”
IMO it is possible to have “too many” choices. I don’t think that more is necessarilly better.
Related example,
I worked for a company that had a procedure of counting items that arrived by truck and were being received into inventory. It was very important to have accuracy so they had a system where the person inside the truck would count and record what he sent off the truck. A second person counted the items as they came in the door (on conveyor) and a third person counted the items just prior to going into the reserve stock area. There had to be a certain number of a variety of SKU’s.
Agreed, in this day and age it was an antiquated system. I found in analyzing the results of this 3 person count that the error rate was abnormally high and therefore unacceptable.
Management’s answer was to put a 4th counter in place. After I pointed out the lunacy of this, we took a more efficient course.
Steve Smith-
Well, if the first guy miscounts, it throws everybody off, and any errors from the first or second will compound what the third gets mistaken.
I don’t see how that relates to choice, though. That’s more a problem of information error, compounded by the number of hands used.
I think the better argument is one of political stability. The more minor parties with large followings that develop, the more likely it is that the decisions of a small minority of voters will overcome the vast majority. Beyond three or four serious contenders, I think it’s just a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2005 02:15 PMStephen, I haven’t a clue as to what you are referring to in your comment to me above.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 21, 2005 02:49 PMsteve smith wrote:
IMO it is possible to have “too many” choices. I don’t think that more is necessarilly better.
steve, part of the objective is to also make it difficult for the few that abuse vast wealth and power to know who to campaign for.
A major part of the problem with government today is that it is “for sale”. We’ve got to reduce the influence peddling, graft, and big money that greases the corruption and revolving door of irresponsibility and unaccountability.
Thus, we need more choices on the ballots.
And, we’ve got to stop letting the two main-parties from blocking access for third parties and independents access to voting ballots, debates, and the democratic process.
What we have now, unfortunately, is 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. Incumbents are difficult to unseat (by design), because the big money behind them likes the predictability of the puppet they bought and paid for. They don’t want to waste campaign money on a new candidate…not unless they’re not playing the game right and allowing themselves to be influenced by the few with vast power and money that strive to control them.
As for counting, that can be resolved with computers. They’re already in use, and used to count votes, and now record votes also. Also, to reduce election fraud, we need a better identification system (e.g. biometrics). But that’s a discussion for another day.
Beyond three or four serious contenders, I think it’s just a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.If we don’t get control of our irresponsible and unaccountable government, we’re going to have worse than a constitutional crisis. Besides, wanting to limit voting choices is undemocratic. We need more choices. Not the same old tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum , trying to block access for 3rd parties and independents, so they can continue to take turns gettin’ theirs, votin’ on pork-barrel, graft, perk$, rai$es, superior benefit$, and being irresponsible and unaccountable. Both main parties have proven they can’t responsibly manage or improve: the Nation Debt ($8 trillion), Social Security, Medicare, pensions $1.6 trillion in the hole, heatlhcare, education, secure borders, FEMA, national security, tax reform, campaign reform, term limits, pork-barrel, corporate/investor/stock fraud, energy department, etc.
In fact, there’s really no difference between either of the two main-parties anymore. They’re both excessively corrupt, arrogant, and irresponsible, and both parties continue, within our dysfunctional bass-ackwards federal government system, for fear of risking re-election, to adequately address this list of serious problems as they grow every day in number and severity.
Voters are running out of ideas.
They’ve binged-and-boinged between the two parties for decades, and it isn’t working.
Voters need more choices on the ballots for many reasons. The problem is not really that complicated. Not really. Government is irresponsible and unaccountable, and it is now up to the voters to peacefully force government to reform, to peacefully restore a balance of power between the government and the people. The people must now do their part, reject the two main-parties that are takin’ turns using and abusing the voters, and vote only for non-incumbents, and continue to do so until government increases transparency (so we can see what they’re doing (e.g. such as ONE PURPOSE PER BILL, etc.)), and stop ignoring the many serious problems facing the nation. While one or two of these serious problems alone can not cause much trouble, the culmination of 4 or 5 of these problems (e.g. energy vulnerability, 77 million baby boomers, aging population, looming shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare, war, terrorism, potential energy shortages, rising energy costs, the astronomical National Debt, inflation, etc.) have the potential to cause an economic melt-down that could lead to poverty and suffering of a magnitude we’ve never witnessed before.
Both main parties are irresponsibily, incredulously, and insanely endangering this nations future and security.
I see d.a.n, dazzle them with numbers. Good plan
Posted by: steve smith at October 21, 2005 06:54 PMd.a.n.
I may not agree with you on politics, except occasionally, but I DO like your style. Keep it up!
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 21, 2005 07:01 PMBut, let’s be clear. Democrats have the same penchant for spending as Republicans. The only difference has been in Republicans loading the backs of the next generation for their spending while Democrats would increase taxes, and turn right around, and spend the money with little net reduction in deficits and national debt. I have yet to hear a single Democrat call for balancing the budget and therefore end deficit spending. It is time for voters to hit these irresponsible politicians where they live. Vote in 2006, but, do not vote for any politician at the federal level who is already in office.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2005 11:38 PM
Sorry. That paragraph above was meant to answer David R. Remer’s question.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2005 12:07 AMI have yet to hear a single Democrat call for balancing the budget and therefore end deficit spending
DNC web site: A Strong Economy
I fully understand David, that you need to also cast Democrats as reckless fiscal villains to make any Third Party look more viable. Yet, absent a propaganda tool like Fox News, anyone who thinks the Dems can be fiscally responsible will need to go searching for such corroborating evidence.
There were sensible, fair amendments to the Bankruptcy Bill offered by Senate Dems that were defeated. Soon, many destitute victims of Katrina will find that no longer an option.
I’m convinced that many more Americans need to directly feel the pain of such Republican hypocrisy before they will act politically.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 22, 2005 05:34 AMYes, and that pain may not be far off.
More than one economist predicts that previous decades of fiscal irresponsibility, and other pressing problems may culminate around 2010 :
___________________________________
For all his optimism, Dent sends a chill up the reader’s spine when they hit the section in which he asks the provocative question, “What will your life look like in the next depression,” which he sees coming by the year 2008-09 [and lasting for over a decade].
At that time, he forecasts earnings will fall and stock prices will plummet for much of the next decade. Unemployment will hit 15 percent. Businesses will go under and unemployed stockbrokers will be looking for jobs driving taxis.
___________________________________
Then read The Comming Generational Storm :
___________________________________
Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns authored the book entitled The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America’s Economic Future. The MIT Press published the book in March, 2004. It is in print with ISBN 0262112868 . In the Prologue on page xii, the authors say the United States was “heading into one God-awful fiscal storm, the full dimensions of which are hard to fathom.” Further, they say on page xiii the book offers suggestions for United States public policy and personal finance to help deflect the “storm”. Moreover, they state: … “We feel we have some unique insights into the demographic and economic problems facing our country based on our own research and that of other economists and financial analysts. Our goal is to leave you with a real sense of what’s coming, why it’s coming, when it’s coming, and where national and personal economic salvation does and does not lie.”
____________________________________
Here’s some other interesting data:
http://www.markswatson.com/Depression1.html
Here’s another good read, revealing corporatism and corpocrisy: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2005 10:57 AMIn the main of American corporations fulfilling their charter (they have no interest in America), they will lower costs and raise revenues by any (legal) means necessary. Now, the US trade deficit is hovering around $500B a year— that is money drained from our country’s assets to China and other sovereign states. Does this explain why we have a large National Debt and zero personal savings? When are we going make fair trade deals as a country?
Posted by: David Weller at October 23, 2005 06:55 PMDavid Weller,
I often wondered why the U.S. wouldn’t make fair trade deals. I now understand it. It’s rooted in Corporatism and Corpocrisy (both rooted in greed of those the control the corporations and governments). Free markets and enterprise are good, but corporatism and corpocrisy are not. This was learned in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, which resulted in many laws to stop the abuses of the trusts (i.e. anti-trust laws), to ensure a fair market and competition. But, now it is a world-wide problem. Borders between nations allow corporatism and corpocrisy to thrive.
These countries purchansing and investing in our National Debt may someday be the victims of the largest ponzi-scheme ever perpetrated on the world. They’re about to find themselves (in the next 5 years or so) a Catch-22 in which they won’t know if they should keep investing in our National Debt, or stop loaning us money.
Wny?
(1) Because, if they stop, the U.S. will print more money to pay the $1 billion per day in interest alone, the dollar will fall, and their investment will shrink.
(2) And, if they continue to invest in our National Debt, and we continue to spend and borrow, we’ll reach a point where we have to print more money to pay the daily interest that is growing even larger due to more loans, and teh value of the dollar will fall, and their investment will shrink.
So, you see, either way, they’re screwed.
It takes a long long long time for the consequences of what we do to be seen later (many years, and often many decades).
But, we’ve been spending and borrowing like crazy, and growing the National Debt every year for the last consecutive 45 years, and almost every year for the last 60 years.
The consequences of that fiscal irresponsibility will eventually occur. It’s not a matter of if.
It’s a matter of when. The only way to avoid it is to stop borrowing, cut spending everywhere possible that won’t greatly impact the economy and send it into a downard spiral, and start paying down the debt. It won’t be easy. It may now even be impossible. The next decade will probably tell.
d.a.n.,
Remember, the government and the consumer is suffering— thanks to “neato” credit card ads we get in the mail, on TV, in magazines and on the Internet, we have high consumer debt, which has led to the low personal savings.
————————————
From the Center for Responsible Lending:
“The Plastic Safety Net: The Reality Behind Debt in America” shows how for many Americans the credit card has replaced the savings account for unexpected or emergency spending needs.
Those surveyed said they used their credit cards to pay for unexpected car or house repairs, medical expenses — and basic living expenses. Here’s the staggering number: One of three households reported using credit cards “to cover basic living expenses on average four out of the last 12 months.”
“And thanks to low interest rates and soaring home values, Americans cashed out $333 billion in home equity from 2001 to 2003 in an attempt to free up much-needed cash,” the study found.
And with increased debt comes a whopping decrease in savings accounts. Nearly 60 percent of those surveyed had less than $1,000 in nonretirement savings.
———————————————
David Weller,
You are correct to not ignore the staggering personal debt. That’s #5 on my list of serious problems
Our nation has weathered much ( http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/The80YearCycle.gif ), and no one thing (e.g. National Debt, Personal Debt, Social Security, energy shortage, etc.) is likely to cause a problem.
However, the danger is a culimination of a few of these many problems, at the same time (e.g. energy shortage, an aging population with 77 million baby boomers retiring and soon drawing on Social Security, $50 trillion in personal debt, pensions $1.6 trillion in the hole, National Debt of $8 trillion), along with the other numerous problems, growing in number and serverity (because politicians won’t risk tough issues for fear of risking re-election).
That is what could cause our economy to unravel, and bring on a serious recession (maybe even a depression). It’s also a result of decades of fiscal irresponsibility and unaccountability.
If something isn’t done very soon (if it’s not too late already), there mostly likely will be some very painful years ahead (probably starting about 2010, and lasting until 2020 or longer).
Every year, someone comes out with a book or article that says we’re headed for a depression or recession. All of them are correct. All that no one knows for certain is when. It’s really hard to determine, because the economy can take a lot of abuse, and it takes many years (usually many decades) for the consequences to be apparent.
The reason I think it will be soon (e.g. about 2010) is because:
(1) that’s about the time many baby boomers will retire (or be forced to retire),
(2) they will start drawing on Social Security & Medicare, they have not saved sufficiently (partly because many lost a lot of money in the 1999-2002 recession with rampant stock/fund/investor fraud and bankrupt pensions),
(3) pensions are already $1.6 trillion in the hole,
(4) they will start spending much less in their retirement,
(5) there won’t be enough tax payers (fewer workers per entitlement recipient),
(6) national debt will grow ever larger,
(7) government will have no choice but to print money to pay the staggering daily debt (over $1 billion per day now, that will soon double),
(8) countries currently investing in our national debt will get nervous (maybe panic), which will accelerate and magnify the problem,
(9) globalization (or global plunder) will continue to lower wages as corporatism and corpocrisy cause corporations to flee to other nations with very cheap labor,
(10) many baby boomers will become bankrupted due to aging and the increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health insurance,
(11) and increasingly expensive energy costs; perhaps even energy shortages
And, that’s probably an optimistic outlook to some degree. It could be much worse. Especially if we experience more natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes, sunamis, etc.) or war, or terrorist attacks.
Our irresponsible and unaccountable government has been pandering and promising so much for the last 60 years (more than realistically possible), spending, and borrowing, that it’s just a matter of time before it’s consequences will be felt. Some of the signs are already appearing. And when it does, it will then be clear how irresponsible the government has been.
d.a.n,
Could you please expand on “pensions are already $1.6 trillion in the hole”? Is this for the corporate employee? I know that Washington is taken care of (very smart people who know how to take care of themselves first). Thanks
d.a.n.
Maybe something like Japan has gone through the last decade.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 23, 2005 10:04 PMCraig
I have a theory about the US of A ( and I think Japan’s National Debt is in worse shape), and that is that the people and their government are “co-dependent” of each other. The people elect “representatives” who will bring home the bacon; but over time, their smart leaders become abusive (irresponsible and unaccountable). I spoke with an authority on Roman government yesterday, and she, like most people, are very critical of the US government, essentially calling them “thieves”; I’d like to check out her book on Cicero, who she calls a real patriot (not the patriot code word of the Republicans).
Posted by: David Weller at October 23, 2005 10:37 PMDavid Weller,
The Pension Benefit Guarnty Corp (
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030731-081957-8615r.htm ) is $350 billion in the hole (as of JUNE-2005), and pensions nation wide (all inclusive) are $1.6 trillion in the hole, which will affect 44 million.
Guess who’s going to get the bill for these government insured/guaranteed pensions ?
Yep. The Tax Payers.
Just like the S&L bailouts in the early 1990’s.
This is going to be a real kick in the a$$.
And, the Medicare shortfalls are an even bigger problem. The National Debt is about to jump another $2 trillion in a few years to cover the Medicare shortfalls.
I was in Japan in 1993, and they were hurting then. They’re still hurting. That have a similar aging population problem. Also, they too had some pretty poor banking and fiscal policies. They are a much smaller country, so change happens faster. Japan has been going sideways for about 14 years now. But, I’m not really sure what Japan’s real situation is.
David Weller,
You are right. The government, in its perpetual desire to grow and control, meddles in everything everywhere, and wants to be responsible and accountable for nothing.
Through pandering, the government creates dependency. Once that happens, the government has more leverage. Leverage is power. Power corrupts absolutely.
The only way to resolve this (if it isn’t too late) is to oust the irresponsible and unaccountable government. Many in government already know we’re in trouble, and they’re just trying to get theirs first, as fast as possible, so they can weather the storm (one they created). After ousting the irresponsible and unaccountable government, we need to sharply reduce spending (where possible, in areas that won’t hasten an economic disaster), and stop borrowing and printing money. Otherwise, the government will have no choice but to print more and more money, in which case, you will need a wheel-barrow of U.$. currency to buy a single cup of coffee.
All third parties and independents should spread that message (vote for non-incumbents ; and preferrably, not main-party candidates, since the two main parties are just takin’ turns usin’ and abusin’ the tax payers, gettin’ theirs, votin’ for pork-barrel, graft, and waste, while foolishly ignoring or oblivious to the numerous problems facing the nation ).
If an economic melt-down occurs, or something like a great depression, there may be at least one consolation. The generation that emerges from it will probably be one with courage, strength, and morals. Just like the American Revolution, American Civil War, and the Great Depression.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2005 11:21 PMCraig,
Similar to Japan?
Maybe. I’m not sure.
_______________________________
(Year 2000) The scope of Japan’s economy is second only to that of the United States. Records indicate that Japan’s gross national product was $2.577 trillion in 1999 versus the United States’ was $4.864 trillion Japan’s continued rapid economic growth since the nation’s modernization began in the later half of the nineteenth century has gained the world’s attention.
_______________________________
The Japanese have a relatively high standard of living. When I was there in 1993, despite a recession, it looked pretty nice. I especially liked the rail system (except during rush hour).
I’d have to research it though.
Personally, if I had to guess, I think things are looking better in Japan, and worse in the U.S. I haven’t seen anywhere that Japan has a debt (relatively speaking) as big as the U.S.
Craig, what do you know about Japan’s economy?
Are they doing OK or not ?
Have you seen Harry S. Dent’s addendum to his last book? He added a year on his estimate before the next down-turn, but that was before all the hurricanes, and flood in New Orleans.
The economy is stable now, and probably will remains so for a while, but it’s lookin’ bad.
Is this cash advance post an unsolicited promotion or has Watchblog extended approval for it?
Posted by: steve smith at October 24, 2005 10:32 AMIt’s spam. But, it’s exemplifies some serious problems in the U.$.
(1) credit card applications out the a$$
(2) identity theft; the fastest growing crime
(3) $50 trillion nation-wide personal debt
(4) a nation that has become almost completely fiscally irresponsible
d.a.n.
Did you see this story?
I thought immediately of the tightening of the bankruptcy laws and recent studies showing that the majority of personal bankruptcies are due to health issues.
If congress had been attending to its own fiscal responsiblities instead of pandering to the credit industries favorite bugaboos, we might be in better shape now.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 24, 2005 02:49 PMM.W.
No, I hadn’t seen that.
But, I know what they mean (from experience).
Even with insurance, the costs are astronomical.
Also, it’s appalling how much they try to charge those with no insurance (i.e. no contract for discounts). The Health Care system in Texas has major problems. I like what Florida did. They let doctors practice without Malpractice Insurance.
Insurance is getting so high, I’m of a mind to start self insuring. Rather than pay $600 per month for health insurance, open up a savings account, seed it with $30,000, and start putting that $600 per month in that account. Then, if I never get sick, or hurt, I’ll still have the money.
The only way this health care problem will ever get fixed is to get the middle men out of it (insurance companies and government).
That is, the medical community could take a payment directly from subscribers. Subscribers are covered if they get ill. There’s no need to have an entire insurance industry and dead-weight drawing salaries, just to have them trying to make medical decisions. And, the government meddling in anything is inviting disaster, waste, abuse, and more taxes.
Add to it the now 30% interest rates being charged by many credit card companies and their push this month to substantially increase the principal payments to a minimum of 1%, raising the monthly payments substantially for those holding debt on 3 or more credit cards, and you have what appears to be a conspiracy against the poor, lower, and above median income middle classes in this country, that is and will growingly result in credit servitude for life for many, or ducking the system entirely in favor of a black market existence.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2005 02:15 AM
I just saw that 1% minimum on a “change of terms” from the credit card company.
Debt is a growing problem.
www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/winwar.html
Kieron McFadden wrote:
… emerge from this heaving sea of human misery. The most marked of these is the prevalence of debt.
And, here’s some alarming data about the staggering and growing $40 Trillion in personal debt in the U.$. New records are being set year after year.
mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-b.htm
And National debt (now over $8 trillion) is growing fast, and may soon exceed GDP.
brillig.com/debt_clock/
It’s enough to even make the most optimistic worry a bit.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
