Third Party & Independents Archives

David,

” instead of voting for a Republican or Democrat, vote against whichever one is in office”

The problem is that If the vote out incumbents movement is not highly publicised, people will still be left on election day wondering,am I throwing away my 1 vote or are we all on the same page and really sending a message where my 1 vote really is 1 of many?

Time and pressure reduces mountains to river delta silt, Andre’. Time and pressure. The pressure is there, it is going to take time and money to spread the word. The folks over at VOID, and a number of journalists are spreading the word, like Broder, James Silver and Sue Ellis, and Charley Reese in his article, “Incumbents Out”.

The word is growing and spreading. Time and pressure, Andre’.

David

Eventually people want to vote for something instead of against everything.

Beyond that, not much happens spontaneously in politics. It takes organization to get out the vote. I have worked on these things and I see how hard it is. Most of the people who work on the campaigns are just volunteers. But those who plan and run them, even on the local level, are semi professional. They remain in place each election cycle. They plan for the next and their party rewards them with a postion, maybe even a paid job. An anti vote just can’t be so organized, at least not more than one time.

Time and pressure wear down the mountains, but time and pressure also raise new ones. For every Appalachian chain, you have a Cascades.

Voting anti-incumbent, Jack, is voting FOR something, as I indicated in the article. It is a vote FOR more responsible, more multi-partisan, and more efficient government conducted by those who hold office.

Leave it to a Republican or Democrat to react defensively to this article. To be expected, however. If I were a loyal Democrat or Republican supporter, I would be nervous about this potential too, and do what I could to discourage it.

Any particular reason you left out the Constitution Party, David? Are they fragmenting or something?

Voting party lines only works if you can excecpt everything that party stands for. I’ve found in talking to people that most Democrats and Republicans cann’t except most of what their party stands for.
Both parties are doing a lot of talking about what they’re going to do about the country’s problems. The only problem is what they are doing is shouting so loud that no one can hear them.
They say they’re going to reform Social Security.
They vote for pork.
They say they’re going to improve education.
They vote themselves a pay raise.
They say they’re going to secure our borders.
They vote for more pork.
They say they’re going to address health care.
They make it harder to file for bankruptcy.
They say they’re going to reform election financing.
They vote for even more pork.
They say they’re going to balance the budget.
They spend more money.
They say they’re going to get rid of corruption.
They vote for a whole heap more pork.
It’s no wonder that the voters are feeling disenfranchised. They hear talk of promise, but hear even better the shouts of the actions of our elected officials.
This is the time to send OUR EMPLOYEES a message.
WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE AINT GOINA TAKE IT NO MORE!
The only way that they’ll get that message is to vote the incumbents out. And keep doing it until they get the idea that THE OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY are their bosses and want REAL results. Not BS.

David,

I was not reacting negatively to the post. I just want to know that by voting out the incumbent that:

1. I’m getting the better public servant.

2. There are others who are with me on this, so when I cast my vote it actually works to get rid of the incumbent.

David:

Nice article. I agree with Broder on many things. I think a part of this dilema is the negative style of politics. Both parties are in a peeing war and are angry because they are getting wet.

The problem I have with the approach of vote out all incumbants is that “all” incumbants are not the problem.

How about an approach of voting for those that:

1. Have a positive agenda you can generally support.

2. Have clean ethics. (Well that means vote out all incumbants).

3. Does not engage in “gotcha” politics.

4. Presents themselves as a statesman.

What I see as a problem is that in the 90’s while the Republicans were tearing down Clinton, they were tearing down themselves. (Thus the polling numbers for Republicans in Congress).

Now as the Democrats are tearing down Bush, they cannot see that their own popularity is going down at about the same spead as Bush. Of couse in a few years both Bush and Clinton will be gone, and what is left is Congress that looks so much like the bar scene on star wars!!

I agree with you that both parties are a mess. It is too bad we can’t put out a scale like those special interest groups, and score politicians on professional conduct. (Actually this is a good idea!!). Someone like Joe Leiberman would be high up on the Democratic side, maybe McCain on the Republican side. These two would “score” over 90. Those “hacks” like Kennedy and Delay, would score lower. Maybe you and I should invent it!! We could have a “Jack Ass” scale that measures “Jack Asses” no matter what party they are from.

That actually might help. Imagine getting to run against the number one Jack Ass from the opposing party, that was scored that way by a non partison group. Imagine the community presure when the rankings came out!!

Craig

Andre, most freshman Congressional politicians, and many books have been written on this very topic, enter office to take care of the nation’s and people’s business. But they walk smack into the incumbent controlled party-line brick wall, which tells the freshman, you will not be reelected if you don’t get on a couple of Committees where you can sponsor legislation and take part in hearings, and we, the incumbent party loyalists, control the Committee assignments. So you play ball with us, and we can help you get reelected. Try to do the nation’s or the people’s business without our approval, and you won’t get anywhere in this Congress or your party’s backing.

Hence, great intentions by new incoming politicians get compromised, watered down, or deleted from their intentions by the incumbent machinery of Congress with strong ties to lobbyists, wealthy campaign donors, and other special interests who could care less about what is good for the country, especially when what is good for the country wouldn’t be so good for them, their companies, or their small minority constituents.

I have yet to see an incumbent take on his party or the backroom deal corruption to the extent that it would make any difference and which would surely lose them their party’s backing in their reelection bid. So, I have to disagree, the incumbents are the heart of the problem.

That does not however, mean that incumbents can’t be retrained by the voters to attend to the voter’s demands first, and lobbyists, campaign donors, and special interests last. They can be retrained, but, only by a sustained anti-incumbent movement at the polls in 2006, 2008, and 2010, which should be enough for even the densest of them who remain incumbents, to realize that their is nothing to be gained by avoiding the tough multi-partisan problem solving our nation and the majority of Americans agree must be undertaken.

The American people, polls show, are in agreement that Soc. Security needs to be saved, deficits halted, our borders made secure, our educational system improved to meet the needs of the majority of American families, and rising health care costs must be halted. A growing anti-incumbent minority at the polls in coming elections which says, until these problems are solved, I will continue to vote anti-incumbent and convince others to do the same, will bring politicians about and force them to give the American people what they want. For nothing moves a politician like the threat of losing their next reelection.

A threat btw, which political parties, lobbyists, and campaign donors have used for decades. Time for the voters to fight fire with fire.

Craig, I think all incumbents are the problem and explain why in my reply to Andre above. If they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. I don’t see incumbents turning away from special interest campaign donors, lobbyists, and their parties in order to move ahead with the American people’s agenda. I have seen a few conscientious Congresspersons, say the system is so corrupt, that they can’t do any good for the people and leave office voluntarily. To them, respect is due.

For the rest, the old political maxim holds true, (catch 22, really) that says, I can’t help the people if I am not in office, and I can’t stay in office unless I tow the party line, and take the bribes of special interests, campaign donors, and succumb to the pressures of minority population lobbyist groups.

That maxim is precisely why the American people’s will is NOT being done. And it is up to anti-incumbent voters to make Congressional tenure so unpredictable that politicians are willing again to put the majority of American people’s agenda before all others.

David,
You and Mr. Border bring up some good points. The average American even 15 years ago could of been brought together and united if the political leadership had any Common Sense.

Question, et All

Given all the political promises made by both the Democratic and Republican elected officials, do you believe that they are working to build “The Better World” as directed to do so by our parents in the 70’s?

Does anyone waht to give me odds on how many Americans will say yes?

Thus, the next natural question to ask is; does this mean Congress is not doing their job?

And again I ask those on the Left and Right to defend the party’s actions over the last 40 years. Does any hardliner want to try?

Finally, since only those who seek these public offices can effect the changes that are required to put America back on the correct path than allow “We the People” to judge all candidates and incumbents based soley for their support for fulfilling the Founding Fathers Vision and that of Our Elders. So why should any American Citizen waste their single vote on any candidate that can not see beyong their own greed?

BTW, what would America look like if “We the People” had our way?

Craig,
There is a website that allowed people to judge our Elected Oficials; however, I can’t find the one that I was looking for. However, here is a Na hrf=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/who_runs_your_world/quiz_and_games/4220972.stm”>BBC Site on the New Leaders of the World which could be used as a model to select the new political leaders in America. The one thing that is strange in this survey is on who was selected in the top ten.

1 - Nelson Mandela
2 - Bill Clinton
3 - Dalai Lama
4 - Noam Chomsky (pictured)
5 - Alan Greenspan
6 - Bill Gates
7 - Steve Jobs
8 - Archbishop Desmond Tutu
9 - Richard Branson
10 - George Soros
11 - Kofi Annan

Do you notice what is missing? Times they are a changing.

Sorry,
Here is the website BBC Who will Rule the World One of these days I’ll learn to preview first.

Henry:

That is pretty interesting stuff. Wow, George Soros!!

What I was looking for was a way to rank elected officials by their approach to politics and the public. Have the committee be across the board and confidential. Maybe have Democrats and Republicans separated so at the top you would have the best Democrats in terms of statesmanship in one column and Repubicans at the other. Then have of course the bottom. I guess the hope would be to encourage good statesmanship. My theory would be that if the bottom 5% or so where embarrassed enough to shut up, the polling data for Congress would improve across the board.

Craig

Craig

The problem I have with the approach of vote out all incumbants is that “all” incumbants are not the problem.

How about an approach of voting for those that:

1. Have a positive agenda you can generally support.

2. Have clean ethics. (Well that means vote out all incumbants).

3. Does not engage in “gotcha” politics.

4. Presents themselves as a statesman.

Now can you name me 5 incumbents that have all 4 qualifacations?

Henry
Do you notice what is missing? Times they are a changing.

Yeah, someone with enough brains to address the real problems of this country.

Ron,
Like I said, it depends on where one draws the line for I to want to here of just one good idea.

Craig,
Like I said, they do have a poll out that you can do that, but I can’t find the link that I saved to it.

Incumbents are formidable opponents.

They vote themselves war chests to run their campaigns on.

The vote themselves “safe” constituencies.

The vote themselves reduced competition.

I am just one of many who is willing to take them on while my vote still means something.

I will not enable the abuse and corruption any longer.

I’ve been spending alot of time talking to people about VOID. Today I talked to a friend of mine on the phone who is a confirmed Democrat. He lives in New Jersey so he started off talking about the recent race for Governor there, he stated he would never ever ever consider voting for a Republican. After he went on quite a rant about how disgusted he was with government in general I told him about VOID, he bookmarked the link thru my blog but after explaining just the basics agreed that given the way things are? He would consider voting for a Republican.

That’s how it’s done, person by person, especially those who are tired of the way things are. He and I have been friends for years so I believe it was my expressing to him that thanks to David I had come to the realization that my voting for third party candidates at a federal level was not going to bring change around made him start to re-think his position.

Honesty…that is what this is all about and one of the major reasons why I support VOID. It can work.

What an up-lifting anecdote, Lisa! Thank you!

Thanks Stephanie, you’re doing the same thing by bringing up VOID when you post places as well.

It’s going to take alot of us but? It’s possible and I agree with David’s theory that now is the time.

Back years ago when I took real estate classes we learned about the “snowball effect” and this principal works for VOID as well. The more people we talk to about it that support it? The more people they talk to that will end up supporting it until? We have that giant snowball that will mow anything in it’s path down.

:-)

I’m sorry, but voting for someone simply because they are not the incumbent is simplistic and ultimately irresponsible civic behavior.

“Throw the bums out” is only sensible when their aren’t even worse bums waiting in the wings, which puts you right back at square one: the necessity to actually examine each candidate’s record and occasionaly pick the lesser of two evils if neither candidate squares EXACTLY with what you want.

This idea that everybody who hold public office deserves to be tossed out is dangerous, in my view, because it ignores the fact that (1) some people who hold office actually do an exellent job, and (2) some of those who don’t do an excellent job are flying in the face of the greater public good because that’s exactly what their consituencies want them to do—represent their district, township or state at the expense of others. That’s simply the messy business of democracy, however, and is based upon the inherent selfishness of voters who think first about their own interests.

Sometimes the best person for the job is an incumbent. Sometimes it isn’t, and there may be a time when you actually have to decide to vote for somebody who has been videotaped using crack in a motel room with a prosititute because the guy who wants to take over his job is a Neo-Nazi who wants to make Adolf Hitler’s birthday a national holiday. Or do you just vote the Neo-Nazi in because he’s not the incumbent and because the incumbent doesn’t have a record of voting to “making health care” more available and to drive down defecit spending?

Being an informed, responsible voter is hard work, and there is no solution as simple as just voting for the guys who don’t currently hold office.

And anyway, there is no guarantee whatsover that non-incumbents would be any better with, as David puts it, “deficits, border security, education quality, providing affordable and sustainable safety nets for our elderly, disabled, and unemployed, and getting control of inflationary health care costs and lowering the hurdles to health care access.”

I supsect, David, that based on your list of issues you consider important here, your real quarrel is with voters themselves who don’t share the policy positions you have (and who elect people who also don’t share them).

You talk about replacing leaders, but it seems that you really want to replace the voters. But that’s not actually a democratic impulse, now is it?

Stephanie,
Excellent! I’m glad to see more and more awakening to that which is known by most of our elders.

Lisa Renee,
Keep talking to others and show them that we can governing ourselve better than what we are doing.

Mr. Sanger,
To give into what you know to be wrong is the same attitude that OBL is hoping Americans will do. Can you point to me anytime in American History that our Society when pushed has not sought to do what was right? Our government and those who prosper from their activites may do what is wrong, but our society has always sought and fought to do what is right regardless of the cost.

Now, IMO it seems that the Republican Party wants America to take the “Wimp Clause” and say that our elected officials are only Human so they can be “Close Enough” and their “Total Incompetance” does not matter. Why do you think that over half of those who support the President in the War in Iraq have left him.

I do not know about you, but I grew up knowing it is my duty and responsiblity as an American to keep our government on the path of what is Right and True based on facts not somebody trying to blow smoke and telling that which I know to be wrong.

David,

I love the quixotica of it all But here’s the interesting thing—it could turn tables as this is actually a GREAT WINDOW FOR IT.

What we have are pissed off republicans and many will refuse to vote knowing their vote is just good thrown out after bad. Now this isn’t 100% obviously but it is enough for the greens and left to slide the tables. Whether that means a removal of all incumbents I, and you, would doubt that but it would be a movement in a climate of very disappointed republicans in respect to their own parties noxious gross spending.

Some republicans may choose more conservative democratic candidates as an option if available even if the S.S. DNC isn’t in ship shape as a unit, this is their year for some gains anyway. The dems should be working to become the party of fiscal discipline image-wise as they now have the atleast rudemaentary clout for atleast some of those talking points especialy on budgetting. And if something like this takes hold via putting ‘anti-incumbent vote’ links out on every blog and post site in mudville—the desired result to some extent will take effect. I’m positive as I trawl conservative sites and hear their dismay at new federal spending.

So with republicans irate at the spending coupled with this movement if wide-spread enough it may actually slide tables to a new balance on the hill. there’s reason to really believe it would.

I wish you all the best of luck with this as I’ll spread the word around too. Granted my interest is the return to a democratic house and senate but I’ll throw the idea and links around the net and I hope the greens will pull together and do the same. It’s time for regeim change and all it might take is a little html.

If you find (or possibly produce) anymore links or sources post them.

What we need are dems/greens/indies to post links everywhere and we’ll see the desired change in several states and districts potentially as this is definitely the year.

The more they screw-up up there, the more the movement takes hold. So strike while the iron’s hot David. Drop posts everywhere on every blog and website even with little or no explaination of even what the links are. People might even be turned off if it has a green party preamble/overture to it so maybe just the post is sufficient. I’ll chuck it around the ballpark.

Sounds like a plan David. I’m game.

Novenge, quite right. If Republicans lose their majority in the Congress, the Republican party will dig deep to understand why they lost those voters, and will come up with a plan to win those voters back.

That is the power of an anti-incumbent vote. But, more, we don’t want musical chairs by the Republican and Democratic parties anymore, taking turns at paying lip service at election time to the people’s agenda, only to go back to catering to the lobbyists, donors, and special interests the day after election.

That is why we are working to convince the anti-incumbent voters to vote anti-incumbent in 2006, 2008, and 2010 and beyond if necessary, until Congress demonstrates real multipartisan results with legislatioin that actually solves problems, not just this year, but for decades to come. We want solutions that will last; not solutions which are replaced every election cycle or two by a different administration and new majority in Congress. That is wasteful of American tax payer dollars, inefficient use of government resources, and more, it threatens the long term stability of America’s future.

This has to be a growing movement well past 2006 before substantive and long lasting changes take place in Congress which restores democracy by the many, instead of influence by the few.

I’ve been getting some interesting reactions from people that I talk to about VOID. Most all are tired of the irresponsiblity and corruption they see in Government these days. Most all also agree that we need to change things in Washington.
I get those that agree the way to get Government working for the people again is to get rid of both major parties and get new blood in there. I get those that believe that putting the Democrats back in power is the way to solve everything. I have those that believe that putting more Republicans in office will solve all the problems.
The ones that bother me the most are the ones that say that it doesn’t matter whos in Washington, nothiing is going to change. These are the folks that either have never voted or have quit voting because all they see is business as usual regardless of what party is in control.
It’s the last type that VOID needs to get the message to the most. If only 1/4 of the disenfranchised voters would vote for a nonincumbent I beleive that the incumbent politicians would recieve a wake up call like they’ve never had.

Rob Brown, absolutely correct. With only 2 to 3.5 million votes needed by anti-incumbents to alter the outcome of Congressional and Presidential races, it is vital that the word be spread to the 85 million who did not vote previous elections, many of whom are third party supporters who didn’t vote because they knew a third party candidate could not win against the Republocrat gerryrigged system.

We are working on it. More volunteers at VOID will mean more of those voters will be reached.

Voters who go to the polls questioning whether or not they are voting “for” or “against” something or someone, who are “staying the course” on strict party line voting or are struggling with the possibility that they may be “wasting” their vote, in all liklihood have not taken the time to educate themselves on the issues.

Lacking this education, they cannot help alter and/or change that which is askew. In many case, they are not even aware of the magnitude of some problems.

If only half of the 85 to 100 million age eligible voters who typically do not vote in major elections would go to the polls armed with purpose, knowledge and conviction, a highly visible message will be sent to the incumbents.

As we grow in staff and volunteers at VOID the messages will be received loud and clear.

I don’t remember who it was or when but there was a Senator that once said.
“There are people that do things, and there are people that take the credit. The to trick is to be one that does. There’s alot less competition.”
Which catagory do you think our current crop of polititians fall into?

sanger,

“…the necessity to actually examine each candidate’s record and occasionaly pick the lesser of two evils if neither candidate squares EXACTLY with what you want.”

And what do you do when neither is even remotely close with “EXACTLY what you want?” Most people are refusing to vote. That is the typical answer. VOID is offering a better, more productive alternative.

Craig Holmes wrote: The problem I have with the approach of vote out all incumbants is that “all” incumbants are not the problem.

That’s my favorite naysayer’s objection.

QUESTION: Uhhh…but what about the good politicians?

ANSWER: WHAT GOOD POLITICIANS ?

Even the best look the other way (by their own admission).
Even the best vote for pork-barrel and waste.
Even the best ignore the nation’s pressing problems for fear of risking re-election.
Even the best too much time raising big-money from their big-money donors.
Even the best fuel the petty partisan warfare.
Even the best vote themselves raises, cu$hy perks, and enjoy benefits and medical plans (paid for by tax payers) superior to those received by the tax payers

So, unless someone can name at least 20, 50, 100, or 218 (half) of the 435 in Congress, then what’s the point of keeping any of them, because they’re obviously not policing their own ranks, and they’re all looking the other way.

So, give me a list of 10, 20, 100, or 218 good politicians and I’ll pull up their voting records one by one, and show how all of them are irresponsible and unaccountable, vote for pork-barrel, graft, spend all their time raising money from their big-money-puppeteers, fuel the petty partisan warfare, look the other way, and many don’t even show up to vote much of the time (Like Rep. John Conyers, who got the next to the worst record for not even showing up to vote).

It’s time Americans do again what they did in 1952, 1976, and 1994:

VOTE OUT all incumbents.
EVERY Election.
REPEATEDLY.

This time, however, keep doing it UNTIL government implements transparency, to yield responsibility, and accountability, and starts to resolve this nations top 10 most serious problems (instead of ignoring them, as they have been). A list of good things to start with, see this list and the list of pressing problems above.

Andre asked: David, I was not reacting negatively to the post. I just want to know that by voting out the incumbent that: 1. I’m getting the better public servant.

Andre,
What we have now is so bad, that I’m not sure they provide any net benefit to society. Why? Because they are bought-and-paid for. They ignore the voters. They enjoy a 95% re-election rate. They ignore the nation’s problems. The won’t tackle tough issues for fear of angering their big-money-donor-puppeteers. The all look the other way. Government is FOR SALE. But, if someone thinks it’s bad now, keep doing what we’ve been doing, and watch it get worse. That’s what government does…grow more and more corrupt, until finally forced to reform. Whether peacefully, or not-so peacefully, reform must always have the force required. Reform rarely occurs or is sustained without force. Voters have done this before. They will do it again. That’s the voters’ right if they so choose. I strongly recommend all voters do it now, and keep doing it for a while, so that the big-money-donors won’t know who to bet their vast wealth and power on. That type of disruption is necessary to end GOVERNMENT FOR SALE.

We have reached a point where it doesn’t matter who we vote for as long as they are NOT indoctrinated already within the status quo.
What good is political experience if the politician is irresponsible and unaccountable?

Andre asked: I just want to know that by voting out the incumbent that: 2. There are others who are with me on this, so when I cast my vote it actually works to get rid of the incumbent.

Andre,
There will be others voting non-incumbent.
But, also, the math is on our side.
Even though the House enjoys a 98% re-election rate, many races are close. Only a few percentage points are needed to change the outcome of many elections.
But, some may be right about the chances of successfully ousting irresponsible government. Even if the chances of accomplishing good are low, should that diminish the effort to try? The point is though, the longer we are unsuccessful in educating Americans about how corrupt, ineffective, and costly government really is, the harder, longer, costly, and more painful it will be to reform that dysfunctional government. Sooner is better than later. In fact, I’m not sure this nation can withstand one more decade of such moral and fiscal bankruptcy.

The way I see it, we (Americans) have a choice:
(1) peacefully force reforms now by removing the deeply ingrained, corrupt, do-nothing politicians from their cu$hy, coveted seats now, before is too late. Do the smart, peaceful, responsible thing we were supposed to be doing all along. Vote out corrupt government.
(2) Or, continue doing what we’ve been doing, pretend there will never be any consequences, wait and let it get worse and worse. Let our serious problems continue to go ignored, grow in nubmer and severity, and wait for an economic meltdown that will significantly change life as we now know it.

Personally, I think the Democrats stand a good chance of winning back both houses and the Executive branch. That’s my prediction. However, nothing will change much. Once the Democrats get their turn, they’ll do the same thing, grow increasingly corrupt, ignore problems, and we will be just that much further down the road to ruin.

So, regardless of the chances, I’m dedicated to helping to educate Americans that government should never be ignored, because it invites abuse. Even if we’re never successful, doing nothing will guarantee failure. So the only choice really is to advocate change to oust irresponsible government and replace it (repeatedly, if necessary) with those that finally understand their career will be short if they continue to ignore the voters. It’s that simply really. And, it’s the responsible thing we should have been doing all along. We have already ignored too many problems for far too long. Now the correction toward reform will be more difficult and painful. The longer we wait, it will only get worse. The debt will continue to grow. Over-spending will continue. Graft, waste, and government growth will continue. Finally, the government will start to print money. We’ll return to double-digit inflation as in the late 1970’s and 1980’s.

So, many think a repeat of history is unavoidable.
They may be right.
But, doing nothing won’t help at all.
So, why not at least try?
Even if some think it is futile?
Or, even if some think it is unnecessary, is it wise to discount the vast evidence of government corruption? That is why no one can give me a list of 20, 50, 100, or even 218 persons in Congress that are responsible and accountable. Because there are very few (if any), because they all look the other way. That in itself is enough reason to oust all of them, because it proves there is NO peer-pressure at all. They have become so corrupt, the bar is set so low, they all look the other way.

I have no doubt, if reforms don’t come this decade, reforms will come in subsequent decades.
But, how will those reforms occur?

Even for those (and I don’t think you, Andre are one of those) that think everything is hunky-dorey, wouldn’t it be prudent to at least research and examine some of the potential outcomes of the path we’re now on?

Is it really all that far fetched that we may be on the road to a severe economic meltdown ?

Consider the following and then ponder their individual impact and then their combined (possibly simultaneous) impact on the nation?

(1) National Debt of over $8 Trillion (predicted to be $10 trillion in only a few years) representing over $38 Trillion in interest over the next 127 years;
(2) GPBGC and pensions $1.6 Trillion in the hole;
(3) a generational storm (77 million baby boomers earning less, spending less, saving less, pay less taxes, and drawing from already burdened Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid systems);
(4) health care crisis;
(5) war in Iraq, Afghanistan;
(6) energy vulnerability;
(7) globalization, continued loss of jobs and manufacturing;
(8) Americans have vastlin increased their debt (up to a staggering $32 Trillion);
(9) declining quality and increasing cost of public education, further reducing our competitiveness in an increasingly global economy;
(10) increasing competitiveness, globalization;
(11) International Corporatism and Corpocrisy;
(12) the disappearing 40 hour work week;

That’s a partial list. It doesn’t even address the dysfunction and corruption with government and the legal system.

Also, one last thought. For those that think the U.S. government is responsible and accountable, and we should worry about any of them, consider some of these fine examples of what our illustrious Congress has been doing, and some of the very difficult decisions they make daily:
[] Vote for $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail or Vote for body armor for troops with armor ?
[] Vote for $1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck or more funding for disabled veterans ?
[] Vote for $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud or more armor for humvees and military vehicles ?
[] Vote for $84,000 to find out why people fall in love or secure the nation’s borders ?
[] Vote for $1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] Vote for $19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence or shore up the plundered Social Security and Medicare systems ?
[] Vote for $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws or funding for flu vaccines.
[] Vote for funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys or improve public education ?
[] Vote for $219,000 to teach college students how to watch television or vote use that money for scholarships ?
[] Vote for $2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe or secure the nation’s coastal ports ?
[] Vote for $20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] Vote for $160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest or reduce election/voting fraud ?
[] Vote for $800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley or better medical care for injured soldiers and veterans ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft or funding for better defense systems ?
[] Vote for $16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument or funding fight diabetes, aids, and other diseases ?
[] Vote for $1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument or improve existing and operational water treatment and sewer systems ?
[] Vote for $6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce or better intelligence that would prevent us from going to war for the wrong reasons ?
[] Vote for $10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency or funding for communications and aerial surveillance of our borders and coastlines ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to research soybean-based ink or funding to increase produce production ?
[] Vote for $1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center or reform our ridiculous tax system ?
[] Vote for $57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two or more and better weapons and armor for active duty troops.

And how about that Randy Cunningham?
Think he’ll get a presidential pardon or some strings pulled somewhere?

And, has anyone lately heard about millions of U.S. tax dollars the pentagon is spending to pay for propaganda and stories in IRAQI news papers. The reason it costs so much is because we have to bribe the IRAQI new papers to print the stories. One example: $1200 for one story. $900 to the newspaper, and $300 to the middleman.
What the hell is up with this crap?
But, watch. As usual, no one will ever be held accountable.
And, what was the $300 million to the Lincoln Group for ? And, they’re not the only group receiving big money.
The U.S. tax payers should be wondering about this.

And, how about government officials and employees flying all around, all over the place at the tax payers expense. A lot of those trips have been revealed to be for some very questionable trips.

But, to see billions and billions wasted daily, see http://cagw.org and if it makes you angry, sign the action letter(s) to reduce waste and fraud.

Or, better yet, join VOIDnow.org and help encourage others to the irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents in the federal government.

And what do you do when neither is even remotely close with “EXACTLY what you want?” Most people are refusing to vote. That is the typical answer. VOID is offering a better, more productive alternative.

People who are refusing to vote are either tuned out and not interested or not dissatisfied with the status quo enough to even go to the polls, a problem that VOID does nothing to address because their stated agenda is content-free.

In the last election, the importance of who got elected was greater than it has been in generations, and a huge percentage of people still didn’t go to the polls.

Those who didn’t go in 2004 are simply not receptive to efforts to change their minds based on a campaign to throw out the likes of Barack Obama, John McCain or Hillary Clinton (incumbents who happen to quite popular) in order to replace them with a pig in a poke.

Now, you can say, “Well, in 2004 people felt like they weren’t being given anything to vote for and felt like theire voice wasn’t going to be heard anyway and so didn’t bother to vote.” And you might be right. But VOID is even further from giving people anything to vote for—it’s whole appeal is based on being against something (but against something the great majority of the public isn’t even informed about to begin with).

No, we should call VOID what it is. A transparent and obviously futile strategy by third party types to attack the two party system in order to pave the way for enacting their own agendas, agendas which the American public simply doesn’t want.

Get behind this VOID thing all you want, but it’s simply not going to resonate with enough people to make any diffference.

If you want to make real changes, then perhpas you should support the efforts of those who are already elected to make them (as many are trying to do) or try to replace them with people you think are closer to your own philosophy.

David Remer & D.A.N.& Lisa Renee—all,

Guys now I’ve looked over both ‘V.O.I.D.’ and ‘ONE SIMPLE IDEA’ (both great by the way—O.S.I. having a good deal more substance) but I think the real selling point needs to be to let the anti-incumbent voter know that he is not alone in voting out these incumbents. Some means of showing strength through numbers. What’s needed is an actual roster or some sort of sign-sheet that can show just how many will be doing this on the left, right and in third parties.

What if there was a petition of some sort by which people who may be considering this can see how many will be participating and possibly bringing in O.S.I. numbers into the V.O.I.D. numbers.

This will make the selling of this alot easier if people know that they aren’t alone. Perhaps even pages of people’s ideas like testemonials if I may borrow the term. Not exactly testemonials but exerpts of people’s ideas and why they may be voting out incumbent members.

D.A.N., THe ONE SIMPLE IDEA has a great look BTW and has loads of details that appeal to the right wing. I know the right wing can really grasp it from their own angle. But we need some accounting of numbers so as to make people more secure with idea. Now I assume you’re doing e-mails but there also needs to be perhaps a newsletter to keep them on until the elections, we don’t want to lose them inbetween. So to with VOID.

Is that possible? It would really keep them on to have some guess-timate of numbers and districts and a newsletter to keep them tied on.

Note: VOID needs more substance as to why, perhaps a few good substantive essays would help the site.

ALSO possibly mission statements and definitely an activist front to get people to post these links everywhere online even perhaps on non-political sites.

I can also send links to OSI to newspapers in highly republican districts to see if they bite. If all politics is local, OSI, those districts are home plate. I will also try to get others involved from activist sites, people who genuinely love this sh*t. I’ll also throw this at CNN/Lou Dobbs to see if I get a bite there. I’m compiling press addresses now.

Sanger said: “If you want to make real changes, then perhpas you should support the efforts of those who are already elected to make them (as many are trying to do) or try to replace them with people you think are closer to your own philosophy.”

They have been trying that all of the last century, Sanger. Those who keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result…

The truth is, your comments reflect fear of the unknown, and of change, a very human quality… but, for many, change is precisely what is going to be demanded and the only power the voter has over Congress is the vote, and voting incumbents out is the exercise of that power. Hence, you comments reflect you ardent position of protecting the status quo, and as many are discovering, the status quo is the foe of the American people.

Novenge, I question whether you checked out the VOID site, since, everything you call for is already in place there.

Novenge,

Thank you for the ideas, analysis, constructive criticism, and helping to educate the voters.

We are working hard to address all of those issues. We’re just getting started. VOIDnow.org is only a few months old almost. We welcome all those willing to help (and constructively criticize too). Thanks.

BTW, would you be willing to write essays and post it at VOIDnow.org ? I (and others too) might like to hear more of your ideas (and criticisms). The petition thing is a good idea. We have a guest-book. But, how about a petition to all third parties and independents to jump on this opportunity, get on the ballots to give voters better choices, and help educate voters about the numerous reasons for the worthlessness of the current incumbents who enjoy a 95% re-election rate. Third parties and independients should encourage voters to oust these incumbent parasites, and send a loud-and-clear message to government that the status quo ain’t gonna be tolerated any more, starting now, for several elections to come. We can do it now, or we can wait until later when it will be harder and more painful.

Everything else is futile without first addressing the root cause of the problem. Irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents.
The corruption, greed, laziness, fueling petty bickering, and ignoring voters and problems facing the nation are the result of lazy incumbents that arrogantly enjoy a 95% re-election rate. Only the voters can change it. Do it now peacefully, or do it later when it’s more painful and possibly not so peaceful. Look at history. If we never learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it.

If this VOID stuff catches on, I hope it can be exteneded into some other areas.

Here’s a good idea. The public schools in my area are terrible and I think the solution is to fire all the teachers. I don’t see any possible objection to this idea—do you?

There are some great and dedicated teachers working among them, yes, but they all ought to be fired.

I don’t care who replaces them. Homeless people, convicted felons, child-molesters—whatever. So long as they aren’t currently part of the system.

Hey, it’s the same idea that VOID is working with, so why not?

sanger,

“If you want to make real changes, then perhpas you should support the efforts of those who are already elected to make them (as many are trying to do) or try to replace them with people you think are closer to your own philosophy.”

Been there, done that. It works fine at the local (city) level, but at state and federal levels such efforts don’t matter unless you have the campaign donations to back you up, which I (along with the majority of Americans) don’t. If the “representative” part of our democracy was working our citizens would be more active in their government, but it’s not. I’m not okay with that and am working to change it; if you are, that’s your choice.

Sanger, VOID isn’t asking you, or any other party loyalist to vote anti-incumbent, ergo, VOID cannot hope to remove all incumbents, nor does it necessarily desire too. What it does want to do is make incumbency tentative based on performance and solving our nation’s problems. The sooner Congress solves our nation’s biggest problems, the sooner the desire to vote anti-incumbent goes away.

This is a multi-dimensional position VOID takes, across time and elections, dependent upon Congressional results, and amassing ever larger numbers of anti-incumbent voters UNTIL the remaining incumbents and incoming freshman agree to put their lobbyists, donors, and special interests aside in order to address the major problems of concern to a majority of Americans.

I understand some may not grasp the complexity of this organization’s mission, and that’s fine. VOID believes everyone should vote, and vote according to whether they believe the current system is as good as it gets, or it can be improved upon by making incumbency dependent upon actual real life results for the American people instead of lip service at election time.

Bush has had 4 years since 9/11 to secure our borders, why is it just now, when Republican poll numbers are tanking and an election is less than a year away, that border security is now on his agenda? Lip service for elections, that is all it is, and many of us are buying this political ploy which assumes we voters are dummies with no choice. We do have a choice, and we will express it in growing numbers in 2006, 2008 and beyond for as long as it takes.

sanger,

“Hey, it’s the same idea that VOID is working with, so why not?”

No, it’s not, sanger. Teachers do not have the kind of control over their schools that incumbents have over our government. The parallel is bad. Now, if you were talking about the school board, the superintendent, and the budget committees in your state you’d be on the right track.

What it does want to do is make incumbency tentative based on performance and solving our nation’s problems. The sooner Congress solves our nation’s biggest problems, the sooner the desire to vote anti-incumbent goes away.

I still think this is a basic misreading of both the problems in goverment and voter dissatisfaction with those problems.

Take this example: neither Nancy Pelosi or say, Orrin Hatch, are able to deliver solutions to the problems plaguing our country. Is that because they don’t have ideas? That they lack the will to implement them? Absolutely not. They have some very specific ideas about what the nation’s problems are AND what to do about them. Stalemate occurs not because politicians don’t solve problems but because the American population itself can simply not agree about the proper course of action.

If Pelosi’s San Francisco Bay area consituents had their way, we’d see all kinds of “solutions” to problems enacted by the government. If Orrin Hatch’s Mormon consitituents in Utah had their way, we’d see an entirely different set of “solutions.” But because we live in a democracy, neither Orrin Hatch and his supporters or Nancy Pelosi and hers are able to get their way.

Ergo, the supporters of both politicians are angry at incumbents and the government in general. That doesn’t mean that Pelosi and Hatch don’t very effectively represent those who elected them.

What you find in poll after poll is that voters are furious at incumbents—not their own, but somebody else’s. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the Mormons in Utah who elected with Hatch with %70+ of the vote don’t get a chance to vote out Pelosi just because she’s one of the incumbents they’re unhappy with.

We’ve been through this debate before, actually, on the question of congressional term limits (I’m surprised, actually, that term limits isn’t what VOID is advocating for).

Remember The Citizen Legislature Act? It would have restricted congressional terms to 12 years.
It was part of the Republican’s Contract with America in the nineties, and it failed.

And David, why is Bush only now taking up border security? It’s because for all the dissatisfaction expressed by voters about immigration, when push comes to shove genuine border control is political suicide. There are just too many people (business interests on the Republican side and human rights advocates and Hispanic voters on the Democratic
side) to actually make it happen It’s part of the congnitive disconnect of voters.

If there is an actual clear and united public will for something to happen, politicians are only too happy to score points in making it happen. The public is divided about everything, however, and the stalemate whether incumbents or the challengers are elected in future elections.

sanger,
That’s cute. But your argument is a non-sequitur. You’re trying to compare apples with oranges. That’s a clever tactic, but it’s really just a tricky way to cloud the issues, obscure the facts, extrapolate to extremes, and (curiously) protect the status quo. Why?
First of all, teachers are held far more accountable than Congress persons. And teachers don’t wield nearly as much power. So there’s not nearly as much potential for abuse is there? OK, you don’t have to answer that.

Instead, sanger, I’ve got a challenge for you, if you’re up to it?
Since you assert there are some good teachers, you appear to believe there are some good politicians?

OK. Please name some of them? Go ahead. Give us some names and prove your point. Give us 10 names. Give us 20, 50, 100, or 268 (half) of the 565 in Congress.

Do you really know? Have you researched our Congress persons? If you can’t, then how do you know? Do you believe at least 268 are responsible and accountable?

This is exactly what politicians are hoping for. The very thing you are doing. You’re defending them. For cryin’ out loud, why worry about voting out a good politician?

WHAT GOOD POLITICIANS?

The chances of voting out a good politician is about as likely as the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning. But, let’s suppose for a moment that you are correct. Who is it that has a record of being responsible and accountable? Who in Congress has not voted for pork-barrel?
Who in Congress rejects or voted against their greedy, unfair, cu$hy retirement perk$ far superior to those of the tax payers that fund them?
Who in Congress rejects money from big-money-donors?
Who in Congress rejects soft money?
Who in Congress truly promotes campaign finance reform?
Who in Congress has not looked the other way?
Who in Congress is really a responsible person, because I think they would stand out drastically and unmistakably apart from the likes of the rest in Congress?
Who in Congress is not on the following list:
__________OUR U.$. CONGRESS_________________
7 that have been arrested for fraud;
19 have been accused of writing bad checks;
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses;
3 have done time for assault;
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit;
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges;
8 have been arrested for shoplifting;
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits;
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year;
____________________________________
And who in Congress doesn’t vote like this?
Just consider some of these fine examples of what our illustrious Congress has been doing, and some of the very difficult decisions they make daily (while our troops are dying):
[] Vote for $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail or Vote for body armor for troops with armor ?
[] Vote for $1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck or more funding for disabled veterans ?
[] Vote for $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud or more armor for humvees and military vehicles ?
[] Vote for $84,000 to find out why people fall in love or secure the nation’s borders ?
[] Vote for $1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] Vote for $19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence or shore up the plundered Social Security and Medicare systems ?
[] Vote for $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws or funding for flu vaccines.
[] Vote for funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys or improve public education ?
[] Vote for $219,000 to teach college students how to watch television or vote use that money for scholarships ?
[] Vote for $2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe or secure the nation’s coastal ports ?
[] Vote for $20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] Vote for $160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest or reduce election/voting fraud ?
[] Vote for $800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley or better medical care for injured soldiers and veterans ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft or funding for better defense systems ?
[] Vote for $16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument or funding fight diabetes, aids, and other diseases ?
[] Vote for $1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument or improve existing and operational water treatment and sewer systems ?
[] Vote for $6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce or better intelligence that would prevent us from going to war for the wrong reasons ?
[] Vote for $10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency or funding for communications and aerial surveillance of our borders and coastlines ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to research soybean-based ink or funding to increase produce production ?
[] Vote for $1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center or reform our ridiculous tax system ?
[] Vote for $57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two or more and better weapons and armor for active duty troops.
____________________________________

Does any of that (above) strike any of you as a responsible and accountable government?
I would certainly expect much better from someone that believe themselves to be superior.

So, it doesn’t matter who. I’ll be glad to pull up the Congress persons records, headlines, and history and demonstrate how truly irresponsible 99% in Congress are. I will tell you now that there are very few that are reasonably responsible. The best chances are to find a brand new freshman. But, watch out. Their voting records are public. You may be surprised to find out how some of the vote (or how many don’t even show up to vote). So, you’d better do your research carefully, because all challengers thus far have failed. It’s not because I’m clever. It’s because Congress is so corrupt. So, give us 4 or 5 names, and be prepared to defend them. A few have provided 2 or 3 names, only to be confronted with some things they didn’t know. I sort of like John McCain, but you’d be surprised about a few things he’s done and said too. Even John McCain has sneaked pork-barrel into BILLs and, by his own admission, looks the other way. The fact is, the bar is set so low, that all of them are guilty of something significant. It doesn’t take but a few minutes of research to prove it, because there are several things all in Congress are guilty of.

And, here is one of many that is truly disgusting. Here’s something that really pisses me off, that all in Congress are part of, just like they all vote for pork-barrel, are too beholding to their big-money-donor puppeteers, all refuse campaign finance reform, all reject term limits (or anything to limit their abuse of power), vote themselves rai$e$ and superior perk$, ignore tough issues for fear of risking re-election, look the other way, and refuse to police their own ranks:
_______________________________
It doesn’t matter if you are Republican or Democrat. This should be an issue in all elections until it is resolved.
2008 Election Issue:

Get a BILL started to place all politicians on Social Security.

SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN for Congress persons:
COST TO Congress persosns: $0
________________________________
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for these persons in Congress who think they are superior to the rest of us, and arrogantly believe they are entitled to superior benefits, and feel they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago these greedy, arrogant Congress persons voted their own benefit plan into existence. And, it’s worth noting that no one has recently felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When the Congress person retires, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Nice eh? And, there may also receive increases from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7.8 Million, with their wives drawing $275K during the last years of their lives (based on an average life span).

Younger Congress persons who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. And guess what the cost to them personally is for this superior plan: $0.00
That’s right. Nothing to them. This cu$hy perk that incumbents voted for themselves is free to them. You and I (the The People) pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Fund.
________________________________
SOCIAL SECURITY for tax payers:
COST TO Tax Payers: currently 12.65% of gross income.
From the Social Security Plan which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire, we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
________________________________
Thus, the non-superior person (i.e. not a member of Congress) would have to collect the $1,000 monthly for over 68 years to equal Senator Bill Bradley’s benefits.
Social Security may not have been perpetually plundered and facing looming shortfalls if politicians participated in the same system.
That is why a change is needed to help ensure the survival of the system. Voters need to remove this cu$hy golden golden fleece retirement plan from under the Senators and Congress persons. They should not have a system superior to The People. Government should not be an avenue to superior benefits and perk$. Voters first need to vote out all of these greedy incumbents, and put them them into the same Social Security plan with the rest of us. Then, perhaps, they will manage Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid more responsibly? Perhaps they will stop plundering these systems?
Yes, let’s then see how fast Congress would fix these systems.
______________________________________

d.a.n, I think you’re misunderstanding my point.

There are actually ZERO politicians that I really admire that much, so it would be beside the point to start naming those I agree with on this issue or that. I respect many others in completely different walks of life far more than I admire any politician. There are writers, artists, musicicians and scholars who I respect a great deal, and I frankly believe that politics just doesn’t attract the best and brightest.

But the question is what to do about it.

Jesus Christ is not a sitting Congressman, now is he? But is Jesus Christ running against any incumbents in Congress? My sources say no.

If a crack-smoking bribe-taking a-hole is the incumbent, then what do you when his challenger is a crack-smoking bribe-taking a-hole who bites the heads off of live chickens?

A hyperbolic example, I know, so let me ask you this theoretical question: what are you going to do when you walk into the voting booth and see that your choices for office are Barack Obama and David Duke? Will you vote for Duke even though he is a white supremecist because he’s not the incumbent?

If you say no, then why? Is it because you’d rather vote for the guy who comes closer to sharing your own values? Once you admit that, the entire anti-incumbancy crusade is exposed for what it is. A refusal to make the hard choices and compromises a thinking citizen has to make as part of the democratic process.

In life you have to make choices, and politics is a part of life where you have to have make choices that are sometimes if not always imperfect.

Blame politicians all you want. They deserve it, and it you won’t get one peep out of me to the contrary.

But behind the problem is the voters. Is it because voters are self-centered? Sometimes, yes. Stupid? Sometimes, yes. But the most important fact is that we can’t get politicans to solve our problems for us because voters in this country have completely different and often opposite opinions about how to solve them.

The politicians we have in this country reflect the voters we have in this country, and the status quo is a result of a stalemate not primarily between office-holders but the voters who elect them.

Look at the polls and the election results. In this country, if half the people believe one thing, the other half believes the exact opposite.

New office holders won’t do a single thing to change who the voters are, so today’s challengers will be tomorrow’s incumbents and we’ll back exactly where we started.

Very good points, all around

“This is the time to send OUR EMPLOYEES a message.
WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE AINT GOINA TAKE IT NO MORE!”

Hell yes, Ron, however, I remain unconvinced of the utility of this strategy. I think that this may have worked, say, pre-Clinton. However, with both parties merging into one unidentifiable power-mongering cesspool of corruption, I don’t think it matters who is in office so long as they have a R or D tagged to their name - they will support the system and the status quo. We must show them that, while political parties will always be essential to our system, it is not necessary for them to be among the numbers. Only then will they seriously consider changing their lying ways. And so, here I must concur with Jack…

“Time and pressure wear down the mountains, but time and pressure also raise new ones. For every Appalachian chain, you have a Cascades.”

…and I would remind you that wearing down the mountains with time and pressure takes a long, long time…with these parties selling our rights and our children’s future to the highest bidder, how much time do we have before there’s nothing left to save?

sanger,

To answer the question about the choice between two bad choicies:
We also need better choices, and the two main parties in many states are making it almost impossible for 3rd parties and independents to get on the ballots.
Also, voters need to start recalls when necessary.
And, voters need to start insisting on transparency (such as ONE PURPOSE PER BILL) so that voters will know who to keep and who to vote out.

You are right about the voters being to blame also. You may be right that it is futile.

But I don’t see the sense of resigning to futility and despair, since no one can know for certain that failure is guaranteed.

However, doing nothing will almost certainly guarantee failure.

Which is better?
(a) Doing nothing?
(b) Or trying to promote education and ideas to bring about peaceful reform?

I pick (b) even if it eventually fails.

We can resolve our many serious problems:
(a) the smart, responsible way,
(b) or the hard, painful way (again).

We can:
(a) try to make history by doing something smart and responsible,
(b) or merely repeat history (again).

Even for those, like myself that suspect we’ll probably all have to learn the lesson the hard way (again), why not at least work to avoid the bad path (again)? Why not try to do better the next time? Why denigrate the idea? Isn’t it possible that you may be wrong? Even if you don’t progress and reform are possible, wouldn’t it still be prudent to always encourage those that seek to make government more transparent, responsible, and accountable?

sanger wrote: New office holders won’t do a single thing to change who the voters are, so today’s challengers will be tomorrow’s incumbents and we’ll back exactly where we started.

sanger,
You may be right, but I refuse to accept your conclusion as if the voters can never change. True, while history often repeats itself, things are always happening to make new history too. The American revolution gained independence and freedom. The civil war ended slavery. It’s possible that people can be educated to keep voting out irresponsible incumbents until:

(a) politicians provide the transparency to let voters know who to keep and who to vote out, or who to start a recall against;
(b) politicians simplify several over-complicated and perverted rules and practices that reduce transparency;
(c) politicians stop ignoring the serious issues facing the nation and adequately address the nations top 10 most serious problems;

________________________________

Rahl_seeker_of_Truth wrote: …with these parties selling our rights and our children’s future to the highest bidder, how much time do we have before there’s nothing left to save?

Rahl_seeker_of_Truth,
You are correct to be concerned.
How could any prudent person not be?
Based on history, analyses by several economists using complex models, I personally don’t think the U.S. can withstand another decade of fiscal and immoral bankruptcy. Our $8 Trillion in National debt represents $38 Trillion in interest over the next 127 years. We’re currently paying over a quarter of every dollar for interest alone on the National debt. And some nut cases out there are urging Congress to spend and borrow even more, and say the debt is nothing to worry about.

But, consider that and the impact of one of the following, or the impact of several simultaneously:
______________________________
[01] Social Security and Medicare are still being plundered;
[02] entitlements are facing future shortfalls;
[03] we are facing energy vulnerabilities, and possibly energy shortages;
[04] the GPBGC and pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole (which tax payers will get the bill for; just like the S&L bail-out);
[05] falling wages due to globalization, cheap foreign labor (global pillage);
[06] 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;
[07] increasingly unaffordable and unreliable healthcare;
[08] declining quality and increasing cost of public eduction;
[09] arrogant government alienates our allies;
[10] 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;
[11] pandering and promising more and more entitlements, creating a population that is increasingly and pathetically dependent on government;
[12] Corporatism, Corpocrisy, and insufficient and/or selective law enforcement to discourage investment/stock fraud;
[13] 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, repeated release of repeat offenders of violent crimes and child molestation crimes, pardons for felons, etc.);
[14] both main parties won’t address election reform and election fraud; hell, we’ve got illegal aliens voting in our elections; the levels of election fraud in 2004 are alarming;
[15] both main parties are blocking access of 3rd parties and independents to ballots, debates, and the democratic process;
[16] both main parties refuse to be transparent and above board; they both refuse to stop being sneaky; otherwise both 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;
[17] 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 plead guilty);
[18] constant over-complication (by design) to reduce transparency and accountability;
[19] fiscal irresponsibility that is likely 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 (like China) about all that debt, and the falling dollar;
[20] fiscal & moral irresponsibility that is endangering the future and security of the nation;
__________________________________________

It’s understandable why sanger believes voting out incumbents is hopeless. It may all be hopeless. It may be too late.

But, as stated above, why not try to make things better? Despite the probability of failure, is it not prudent to try to avoid failure ?

Education is needed.
Voters need to learn what their true role in Democracy is really about. Voters need to learn how to use their vote to peacefully force government reform, because government will never reform itself.

“history often repeats itself, things are always happening to make new history too. The American revolution gained independence and freedom. The civil war ended slavery”.

yes, but both of these events have something in common which your scheme does not share… the system won’t change itself because in order to get into office, you have to run as a D or R, and in order to run as a D or R, you have to fall in line and conform to the status quo… if you manage to get into office as an independent, you won’t get anything accomplished. They have the system on lock down.

I have to agree with Sanger,
“New office holders won’t do a single thing to change who the voters are, so today’s challengers will be tomorrow’s incumbents and we’ll back exactly where we started.”

…not because voters can’t change, but because under the current system, politicians can’t.

Don’t get me wrong,
it *is* time for a change, but more than that…

it’s time for a revolution.

…and here’s my proposition for one possible alternative;

rather than “get out the vote” - mindless propaganda stemming from the two major political parties, which suggests that voting is our duty or a privilege… how about “shut out the vote”.

voting is a right - not a duty, not a privilege. to suggest that we *have* to vote, regardless of whether or not there is anyone worth that honor, is obvious manipulation meant to lend legitimacy to a government which is failing to meets *its own* duties and obligations. voting is only a privilege for those whom it is cast.

This “shut out the vote” campaign will be far easier than the aforementioned “eliminate the incumbents” effort… it preys on the inherent lethargy of the average person. Most citizens resent (at least to some extent) having to take time off of work or school in order to stand in line for hours simply to cast a vote for a shiftless, greedy politician who is, at best, the ‘lesser of two evils’.

i would also note that it will be hard to convince citizens to vote for a person with whom they are diametrically opposed, concerning values and issue-stances, as would be necessary to categorically eliminate the incumbents.

I think that the suggestion that voting is actually an ‘option’ alone will garner attention. the media will have no choice but to cover it, having no political horse-race to place wagers on.

It is also likely to create dissention, dissolution, and disillusionment between the parties and their current constituents - when the parties have to counter this argument, but are unable to come to a consensus, and finally resort to labeling the effort as “unpatriotic” and “treasonous” as is so often heard of so many ideas these days.

the population is ever-increasing, hence the electorate is on the rise, and yet voter turnout is on the decline… for precisely the reasons we’ve all been discussing. this movement will build on the moment of a trend that is occurring of its own volition, and will thus require far less effort on the part of its proponents.

finally, this campaign will deliver the only message that the parties will hear, because it is the only possible method of their demise (short of an *actual* revolution, which might be necessary anyway). the time wasted at the polls could be better spent protesting the bastards you want to vote out.

rather than more of the same (with a new twist), i would posit that it is in fact time for something drastic… if not this, than something equally revolutionary. but please don’t ask me to waste my time by casting another useless vote for another worthless partisan robot.

Sanger, Rahl, et.al., your comments have an underlying assumption, which is false, thereby negating the conclusions you draw.

The false assumption is that most people who run for Congress are corrupt before entering office, or are easily corruptible, upon entering office. The facts as recorded by biographers and historians simply contradict that assumption. Most folks seeking office are good people, with an immense concern and care about improving government and our democracy.

Diogenes is quite correct, it is the incumbents who pull their strings when freshman enter Congress offering them the following deal, “Play ball with us corrupt incumbents and play along, or we will insure that your participation in Congress is impotent, without Committee assignments, without hearings, and with little if anything to show your constituents when reelection time comes.”

This is precisely why the voters must target the incumbents, who are beholding to the campaign donors, lobbyists, their party, and other special interests with agendas which that of the majority of American citizens.

Incumbents live for reelection. If that reelection is no longer assured because of a small but, election altering anti-incumbent vote, then the incumbents will seek to address the issues of the anti-incumbent voters. The supporters of VOID seek resolution to our major problems which I have outlined before and above.

If incumbents are forced to demonstrate solutions to those issues as a condition for reelection, they will. That is how VOID shall achieve the position of power broker for the benefit of a majority of Americans who want border security, and end to deficits, an exit strategy for Iraq, improved educational performance, and a vast reduction in the influence of small numbers of special interests on legislation affecting a majority of Americans and tax payers.

This is not a monumental feat. As I describe in the article, Power in Small Numbers, only a few million anti-incumbent votes across the nation in an election year can alter the outcome of elections both for the two major parties and individual incumbents. If this anti-incumbent voting block demonstrates its power to alter elections over a couple of eletion cycles, the incumbents will have no choice but to address their concerns with real results in order to cause them to disband as a voting block.

Sanger said: “What you find in poll after poll is that voters are furious at incumbents—not their own, but somebody else’s.”

Sanger, you haven’t been keeping up with the latest polls, which now show a dramatic shift against incumbents of their own districts. If what you say above were true, then yes, VOID would have a tougher hill to climb. But, what you say is NOT true, anymore, hence, VOID is positioned at the right time, and with the only strategy that will address the needs of voters with their newfound anti-incumbent sentiment directed at their own, as well as other incumbent representatives.

David, I didn’t mean your site pre se, I was talking about the OSI site. And yes it is a really great informational activist site, no complaints with any of it. It’s busy and get’s your attention could use some paragraph separation but a damn fine site and draws excellent and needed conclusions.

Now I’ve been compliling media lists as I’ve also been testing the waters as far as getting these links out there to these two sites. So if you guys get requests for link logos, just know what I’m doing.

My main interest with some of this is to reach disenfranchised voters first then go more mainstream as the road straightens out (get further along into 2006). I’ll keep you informed on your site as to the progress, Voidnow.org. But I am contacting people to get these links on other sites and will continue, week by week.

I want to get so many gerrymandered behinds replaced in DC and I think it’s possible to target certain districts heavier than others where they roost. I’m going to wait a little bit on the local papers until around late summertime or early fall, September-ish. but go full frontal on the website links and then in March-April hit the bigger media and see if I get a few good bites there.

If the dems take back The House and Senate, there is the possibility for impeachment hearings on Bush. Granted they should find the cajones to be more than just a milquetoast player. I think we might find the fight though.

I don’t like all dems on the hill but we have to find our way back to something that resembles sane domestic and economic policies. Roll back those tax cuts, get our debts balanced and stop the depletion and carnage of the middle classes. I personally want to see a congress that won’t play softball with GWB and grant him any little thing his undeserving little neo-con fratboy ass desires, this is one way of thwarting that.

So e-mail your favorite sites to carry the link to these two really great sites and get the word around that people do have an option and I think there are many who WILL take it very seriously and not just as an idle thought or bickering point, people are fed up. It’s an afront to the establishment but it’s also a means to doing something about corruption too. So get the links to these sites around town as it were.

Who knows what it will shape up to be but it’s sure to prove interesting.

Diogenes,

Hmmmm. What do you mean by “shut out the vote” ? Do you mean “don’t vote at all” ?

That might send a message, but where’s the necessary force ?

Voting out incumbents has the peaceful force needed to restore a balance of power between government and the people (not merely shift it, or strip government of all power to accomplish anything), and peacefully force government to simplify over-complicated procedures (designed to reduce transparency), and be more responsible and accountable.

It is simply the right thing to do.
Whether voters decide to do it is up to them, but the main problem is that too many people have resigned to futiltiy to try, because they haven’t been educated about how to wisely use their vote to make it count the most. Too many voters currently have allowed themselves to be seduced into the circular pattern of petty partisan warfare, and (ironically) voting for the same irresponsible politicians that fuel that distracting, petty partisan warfare.

Also, voting out incumbents has a historical precedent (e.g. 1952-1958, 1976-1980, 1992-1994, etc.).

Anti-incumbency is a message that works for a while, and has the necessary force requied to incent politicians to reform some.

The only problem with previous anti-incumbent strategies is that voters forget or fail to realize that them must subsequently capitalize on their accomplishment by also requiring changes to increase transparency, and then vote out irresponsible incumbents once voters have the transparency to know who is irresponsible and unaccountable. This will create peer-pressure amongst Congress persons to police their own ranks, rather than look the other way.

Who can argue against transparency ? Such as ONE PURPOSE PER BILL that would make it difficult to sneak pork-barrel into a 10,000 page BILL ? How about a BALANCED BUDGET amendment (except in extreme emergencies) ? How about stripping Congress of their right to cu$hy, superior retirement entitlements paid by the tax payers, and forcing incumbents to participate in the same Social Security and Medicare systems they currently plunder and mismanage ?

There are many such obvious, simple, no-brainer solutions.

Of course it won’t be easy to educate the voters.
But, even if failure is possible, there is nothing wrong with trying to encourage voters to simply do the most simple, safe, logical, inexpensive, non-partisan, partiotic, peaceful, and responsible thing (that they should have been doing all along when ever necessary) to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too !

obvious, simple, no-brainer solutions

Novenge,
Thank you so much.
There are a lot of different ideas and beliefs of how to accomplish the same goal (i.e. create more responsible and accountable government), but I also believe the best way is simply the right way. No clever schemes. No over-thinking. Just the right thing. Voters need information and education. Many have given up. Many have resigne to despair and futility. Many have bought into the partisan trap. Voters need to know there’s a responsible, peaceful remedy that has been there all along. Simply vote out irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents.
And don’t worry about the very very few good politicians. If they’re really that good, they will survive the wrath of the voters’ anti-incumbent solution.

Diogenes wrote: Don’t get me wrong, It *is* time for a change, but more than that… It’s time for a revolution.

Diogenes,

I agree. Reform is needed now. It is needed periodically. History shows a cycle may be at work here. The cycle seems to reflect some of the good and bad human traits. Humans have a tendency to seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort and pain. Sometimes that path is corrupt. The corruption only ends when the corrupt way becomes too painful. Hence, government, when allowed, seems to always be growing corrupt. Then voters get fed up. Force is always required. Sometimes, there is peaceful force and sometimes it is not-so-peaceful force (i.e. revolution). But, government never reforms itself. Citizens need to learn to stop repeating the same mistake over and over of letting government grow corrupt, reforming it, and starting all over again. Voters should realize the importance of tranparency, elimination of over-complications to reduce transparency, elimination of abuses, superior perk$, and arrogant politicians, and the requirement to always keep a close watch on those with power. Since power corrupts, transparency for those that wield is is required at all levels.

You may be right. Revolution may be what eventually happens. Or, perhaps another great depression and some civil unrest. Regardless, there is a strong possibility that it will be painful. The longer government is allowed to grow corrupt, the worse it will be to undo the damage.

The 48 trillion national debt, looming shortages in entitlements and pension systems, insufficient retirement savings nation-wide, increasing global competition, energy vulnerabilities, an aging population (77 million baby boomers), a looming generational storm, record high of $38 trillion of personal debt, declining manufacturing, and the contiued growth of government to nightmare proporations are already culminating now, simultaneously to create a serious situation. In fact it might already be too late (according to some respected economists).

However, we should still first try peaceful force.
If peaceful force fails, then I have little doubt that we will have to learn the hard, painful way (again).

But, there still seems to be a small chance that American voters can be educated and enlightened to learn to reject corrupt government and do the smart, simple, and responsible thing to fix it.

Novenge said: “So if you guys get requests for link logos, just know what I’m doing.”

Thank you so much for your support and assistance, and dare I say it, service to your country. One doesn’t have to be in the military service or government to do this nation great service in protecting, defending, and growing our own democracy.

Project Vote Smart

This is a site that rates the politicians and posts their positions on a number of issues if they agreed to submit it. Several, including, President Bush have refused to submit answers to the questionnaires. The site is a little more complicated than I think it should be, but it is nonpartisan and offers quite a bit of information.

Here’s two good sites to see voting records:
http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
http://bolson.org/gov/us/senate/BySenator/

And, ofcourse, this is a must see:
http://www.cagw.org

d.a.n.

“there is peaceful force and sometimes it is not-so-peaceful force (i.e. revolution).”

Revolution does not, by definition, preclude a peaceful method of its implementation, but otherwise…

I agree, entirely.

The reality is that politics in general has become too partisan, and nothing is getting done the way it should be. The fighting and bickering is a disgrace, and the people who suffer are the Americans who put everyone that’s in office in office. We need to make smarter decisions in the future, and as a voting country, be better versed on history and the history of our political players and their decisions, so that when promises are made and broken, we can call them on that and judge our political party contenders on merit, not rhetoric.

Cully Perlman
President
Degreedate.com

www.degreedate.com

agreed. now…how do you propose to do this?

Cully, Diogenes,

How can it be accomplished. Heres how…

Consider this great opportunity for all 3rd parties. I already know for a fact that this has not escaped them. They plan to capitilize on this movement. This could provide an unusual chance for 3rd parties to finally have a voice in government, and provide many better choices to the people. And, they will understand the goal to instill transparency and peer-pressure to police their own ranks. They will already understand the consequences that current incumbents arrogantly scoff and ignore.
But, watch. As the momentum grows, there will be some in both main parties that start to grow concerned, and they will try to dream up all sorts of reasons why voters shouldn’t vote out incumbents. They’ll point to their experience. I’d answer, what good is you experience if you are corrupt and look the other way. That’s the price incumbents should pay for looking the other way.
Incumbents will allege that nothing can get accomplished without the support and power of a single party. I’d answer that is exactly part of the problem. They have been corrupted by their power, and the two main parties just take turns using and abusing the people, and try to block access to ballots, debates, and the democratic process for all 3rd parties and independents, effectively only leaving the voters with two crummy choices between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.
The incumbents will allege that newcomers to Congress won’t have any power and can’t be effective because they will be outsiders to the two main parties. I’d answer again, that it precisely the problem. Should voters simply resign to the corruption and abuse of power? That is essentially an admission of guilt, and an abuse of power by both main parties.
The incumbents will tell not to waste your vote on a 3rd party, because no 3rd party has any hope of winning. I’d answer again, that such a statement demonstrates the unmitigated gall and corruption of the two main parties, their nasty attempts to shut out 3rd parties, and ignores the fact that continuing to vote for incumbents isn’t working is it?

Hence, simply vote out incumbents, because they don’t deserve to keep their cu$hy, coveted seats of power, and incumbents are all ethically challenged and all look the other way. That’s the price they should pay for looking the other way. Hence, voting out incumbents:
(1) is the most simple, honest, safe, non-partisan, peaceful, inexpensive, logical, fair, and responsible way to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. Government should not be FOR SALE. Voters should simply oust irresponsible incumbents. It’s what voters should have been doing all along.
(2) has the necessary peaceful force required. No other peaceful plan does.
(3) can peacefully force a restoration of the balance of power between government and The People, with out merely shifting power, or stripping all power from government to accomplish anything.
(4) will save time. We are running out of time. History repeats itself. If we ignore it, we will be doomed to repeat it (again). This plan can yield results faster than what we’re doing now. What we’re doing now ain’t workin’ is it? The nation may not be able to weather another decade of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
(5) can create change, which is historically always required. Some disruption is always needed to create change. This plan promotes a peaceful solution. But, if it fails, the final solution may be a repeat of history anyway, which will be harder and more painful.

Think about it.
Is what we’ve been doing working?
Of course not?
Why? Because incumbents have perverted and over-complicated everything to secure their cu$hy coveted seats of power.

Some people state the lamest reasons to keep these incumbents in office. For example:

QUESTION # 1: But, some are good politicians. Shouldn’t we re-elect them?
ANSWER # 1: No. Treat Congress as a whole. Like a team. That team is losing, and doesn’t deserve to stay in the game. Besides, that sort of individual consideration is how they cleverly continue to hold on to their cu$hy, coveted seats.

QUESTION # 2: But, how will this help?
ANSWER # 2: It will work because the newcomers won’t be able to ignore what just happened. Especially if voters follow through, and submit a short To-Do List to government to start simplifying processes that have been cleverly over-complicated for the sole purpose of abusing them, and the voters. And, the people should also demand that politicians stop ignoring this nation’s pressing problems for fear of risking re-election.
The details can be worked out, but only after voters get the politicians attention. Everything is futile until the voters peacefully force politicians to be transparent, accountable, and responsible. Transparency is very important. Voters must learn to insist upon transparency, otherwise, government always grows corrupt again.

QUESTION # 3: What if there’s not enough people that will vote non-incumbent?
ANSWER # 3: Not that many votes are needed. Examine the math. Many elections are won by small margins. Voters can have a huge impact with only a small percentage of the votes. Incumbents, that currently enjoy a 95% re-election rate might get a little surprise. But, currently, there’s no wonder incumbents are so irresponsible, greedy, FOR SALE, and look the other way.

And, for those that have any doubt about the arrogance and irresponsibility of incumbents, please explain the following.

All pro Void people:
Does this type of movement not require total trust in each other?

As Cully said- “The reality is that politics in general has become too partisan”

Do you think hardliners would be the only ones worrying about the otherside not voting in support of this measure?

How do you get person “A” to vote out the incumbent who supports their pet issues and instead vote for a person who does not support their pet issues?

Not trying to knock VOID, but with todays political climate, I dont know if it could work or not.

kctim,

I don’t know for certain either.
Education is the key. Spreading the word is the key. Visit my site and F.A.Q. and visit VOID.
People like me and others at VOID have put a great deal of thought into this. David R. Remer has spent decades pondering it. I have spent the last year working on it.

None of us can know for certain if it will work.
But, we all feel like it is the best approach, and feel like only the voters can change it now (peacefully), or later (perhaps, not so peacefully). There is historical precedent for that too.

But, can we resign to futility and despair and do nothing? Or should we do the one honest thing that makes the most sense. It’s simply the most logical, safe, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing to do to peacefully force government to be responsible too.

I haven’t seen any better ideas yet. Nothing else I’ve seen has the necessary peaceful force required to make it happen. Force is an important and necessary ingridient. A simple To-Do-List that insists upon transparency and simplifications of overly-complicated processes is needed to test Congress. If they can’t execute the items on the list, they too should be voted out or recalled.

I don’t really think some complex, tricky scheme or strategy will help. Just a simple, honest, justifiable, and logical solution. Simply demand transparency, and peacefully force it to happen. That’s all. It may not be an easy thing to to, but it is the simple and logical thing we should do, and should have been doing all along.

Some suggest continuing what we’ve been doing.
That doesn’t work.
Until someone has a better idea, that factors in human nature, and contains the peaceful force required to insist upon change, I’m stickin’ with VOIDnow.org.

And, we may not want to wait much longer for a better idea to come along, because many serious problems may soon all blow up in our face. And, the longer we (the voters) wait, the harder and more painful reform will be. And, we may certainly not want to wait until a not-so-peaceful solution results.

I’m not sure we can weather another decade of fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, it may already be too late. Some economists are not painting rosy pictures after 2009.

Also, anti-incumbent movements already have historical precedent (see 1952-1958, 1976-1980, and 1992-1994). Almost half of Congress was ousted in 1980. The only mistake they made in the past was not following through with a no-nonsense, no-brainer, common sense To-Do-List with focus on Transparency and Problem Resolution.

David:

Nice article. I want to make a case that the elections of 2006 and 2008 wont be a throw the bums out election.

I read an economist that said that basically the presidential approval ratings were a proxy for the stock market. So I tested the theory today. First I used the S&P 500 Total return. I also used ABC ending approval ratings from this source:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicalcommentary/a/historical_prez.htm

(remember I was just fooling around)

Then I invented a formula which is:

(S&P composite three year return + S&P composite five year return)/ two

- three year average CPI.

I compared these numbers to the last appoval rating from the above sourse and improvised for George the second.

Here we go!!

Predicted Actual

Eisenhower 60 59
Kennedy 57 63
Johnson 51 49
Nixon 34 24
Ford 43 53
Carter 48 34
Reagan 58 64
Bush I 57 56
Clinton I (g) 61 65
Bush II 47 51
Current 51 46 (Rassmussen)

Since the S&P 500 total return had the following returns:

2000 -10.14
2001 -13.04
2002 -23.37

My formula should continue to rise. My cheezy prediction formula is predicting that the Presidential approval ratings are set to rise as long as the stock market does better than the above returns.

Craig

Oooops:

Add 50 to the formula:

(S&P 3yr ave total return + S&P 5yr ave total return)/2 + 50
- 3 yr average cpi. Those are the numbers on the left. Sorry the columns didn’t line up right. You might need a decoder ring.

Craig

Craig,

You may be right about that.
But, if you are, that’s actually unfortunate.

Good market performance is probably temporary,
because government, like a virus, will continue
to grow ever larger, choosing to believe it is
invincible, and will continue to spend and borrow until it is too late (if it isn’t already).

How about China getting nervous and saying they
are going to start investing elsewhere, because
they are predicting inflation in the U.S. ?
What if other countries follow suit and refuse
to loan the U.S. more money ? You know what is
going to happen. They will be forced to print
more money. Remember double digit inflation in
the 70’s and 80’s ? That’s where we’re headed.
How will that affect the markets ? And as, 77 million baby boomers approach retirement (thankfully, not all at once), they will earn less, pay less tax, spend less, and start drawing on entitlement systems that are already burdened, under-funded, and Congress continues to plunder them. And, the GPBGC and pension systems are $1.6 trillion in the hole. And, Americans have record level debt over $32 trillion nation-wide.

And the following stunt that Bush and the GOP is about to attempt isn’t going to help Bush’s ratings. The “Open Borders Lobby” is going to pull a dirty legislative trick in an attempt to pass a Temporary Worker Amnesty that will give a legal status to 10-20 million illegal aliens currently in the US. I hope this pisses off millions of other Americans as much as it does me. I don’t know about other Americans, but this one thing alone leads me to be thoroughly disgusted with Bush and the GOP. This type of crap is largely why I am now non-partisan (no longer Republican, even though I see both parties, hand-in-hand are doing this crap).

This is why voters need to VOID these greedy, corrupt, irresponsible, unaccountable, bought-and-paid-for, FOR SALE influence peddling, hypocritical, do-nothing, arrogant bums.

I don’t know Craig. I like optimism in people, but not to excess. You may be underestimating the growing anger and disgust that people have for both main parties. And all these claims that the economy is wonderful, home ownership has increased, etc. is not ringing true. We continue to lose manufacturing. In fact, there are more jobs in government than all manufacturing. As for home ownership, those people don’t own those homes free and clear. The are deep in debt. If the economy turns bad, there will be massive foreclosures. And, a large reason people bought real estate was because the market sucked. And what about Harry S. Dent’s predictions? Here’s no longer alone with models forecasting a not-so-rosy time in the near future. The only reason we have the illusion of a healthy economy now is largely due to massive borrowing and spending.

So, you can call me a pessimist, and dooms-dayish, but I simply have a hard time seeing past several serious issues that continue to grow in number and severity while government continues to grow and grow to nightmare proportions.

Dan:

How about China getting nervous and saying they are going to start investing elsewhere, because they are predicting inflation in the U.S. ?

If you look at this website:

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html

This shows some interesting information on inflation. TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) are securities where the government adds the CPI number to the bond each year. If you subtract that number from the non inflation protected securties (US Treasuries) you get a forcast of inflation for the next thirty years, as forcast by investors. Here are the numbers:

Inflation expectations:

5 years 2.35

10 Years 2.27

30 years 2.51

Inflation is well in check and should continue to be so for a very long time.

As for China, there if they did as you fear, we would simply buy less Chinese junk. We are codependent with the Chinese. They cannot do what you suggest without hurting their own economy. China has 1,000,000 people leaving the farm for the city every MONTH. There is no way they can change policy.

Craig

David/Dan:

I would appreciate both of your comments on this little game I am playing. If you look at the formula above and then subtract the approval rating on the last day of office from the predicted approval rating and then rank the Presidents here is what you get.

Ford +10
Reagan + 6
Kennedy + 5
Clinton + 4
Bush I + 4
Bush II + 4 (first term)
Eisenhower -1
Johnson -2
Bush II -7 (current)
Nixon -10
Carter -14

My formula would predict that an average president would have an approval rating of 52%

Three year S&P 500 tr 12.84%
five year S&P 500 tr -1.74%
three year ave CPI 3.12%

(12.84-1.74)/2 +50 -3.12%

Looking at Rasmussen (daily tracking) has Bush at 45%.

Bush is at -7.

This means that Bush is in trouble. (Duh).

Craig

Craig,
I don’t know. That is certainly an interesting approach to predicting presidential ratings.
But their is no doubt that the stock market, economy, and psychology has a lot to do with ratings. So, it may work out. Keep me posted. I’m curious as to whether your formula is a good predictor. Where do you get the data?

Regarding inflation, I personally think 2% inflation is bad. But higher inflation is even worse.
The problem is, the American people have had inflation for so long, they have been conditioned to think 2% is a good thing.
It isn’t. We don’t have to have inflation.
A 2% inflation rate means a loss of 11 cents per dollar every five years.
You know why that inflation won’t go away?
Because government prints money.
They don’t just borrow it. They print money that is not backed up by value.
It lets government be irresponsible.
It is destabilizing. It is a value destroyer.
It lets government borrow and them shrink away the debt with inflation. To hell with the fact that it is destabilizing. Since when did government care about the future?

I agree (for different reasons) that Bush’s ratings are in the dog house and will stay there. And he’s not helping his party at all. His own party is starting to jump ship too. Bush has done a lot of stupid stuff lately. But none of what Bush has done even holds a candle to this, except that he’s lost his veto pen. Perhaps he should pull his thumb out and look …. he might find his veto pen somewhere there. And, I’m really ticked off at him and Congress for their delinquincy regarding border security and illegal aliens. Two weeks ago, an illegal alien shot and killed a Dallas policeman. The authorities know exactly where illegal aliens are, and they do nothing to apprehend them.

And, guess who is going to get more blame come 2009 or 2010, if an economic melt-down occurs.
Yep, they’ll blame it on Bush.
And, he’ll deserve it since he last his veto pen.
But, they should blame all of Congress.
They all need to be voted out and replaced with someone that will take the job serious.

And please don’t anyone tell me they do.
Otherwise, I’ll have to post tons and tons of crap to prove they aren’t.

Dan:

I personally think 2% inflation is bad

2% inflation is below are national average for many years. It is actually healthy.

Craig

Oh, I realize inflation has been higher in the past.
And, the current inflation rate isn’t the real problem.

But, what will it be in a few years?
When the interest on massive debt, as it grows ever larger must be paid, government will print more money. They will have no other choice.
So, what will inflation be in a few years?
That’s the real issue about inflation.

Also, I’m not sure I believe the reported inflation rates. The CPI doesn’t properly account for energy and home prices. The basket of goods they use to calculate the CPI is flawed. While many other indexes have risen, the CPI remains roughly the same.
Thus, a lot of people suspect inflation is really higher than reported. People should look at the CRB index, because it’s been strongly rising since 2001, while the CPI hasn’t. There’s something fishy about that. So it is understandable if people don’t believe the report inflation rates. Fuel and electricity prices have drastically jumped. There is price instability in a lot of other areas.

I remember in the 80’s when it was double-digit.
But, the point is, there should be no inflation.
Inflation is caused by printing money with no value behind it. It is destabilizing. Government does that to shrink debt too. The whole sneaky strategy is a value destroyer.

And, government keeps borrowing, spending, and printing money, and growing government ever larger.

Look at this.

How long is it going to take to pay down an $8 trillion National Debt? We can’t grow enough, immigrate enough, or tax enough to pay that off any time soon. I estimate about 127 years. But, if government creates double digit inflation, they can eat up that debt in half the time (e.g. 64 years or less). But, that also means everyone’s money will become more worthless.

Some people think that can go on forever. That way, the government really never has to pay off the debt. It just makes it dissappear (and your savings too).

Dan:

We have never paid off the debt from WWII and we are doing ok.

Craig

Craig, debt has to be viewed in terms of net revenues. As any responsible consumer knows, some debt like collateralized debt of a mortgage, or convenience debt like credit cards whose balance is paid at the end of each month, or emergency debt, to cover unanticipated indispensable loss to be recovered from by sacrificing other consummables until the debt is paid off so one restores one’s financial resiliency in the event of another such loss later on, are all examples of responsible debt.

But, a permanent state of indebtedness is a drain on one’s potential as the interest paid on permanent debt is a huge opportunity cost where that same money could have been invested and added to wealth were it not being paid as interest make others wealthy. Our national debt is subsidized about 40% by foreign investors, which means 40% of our interest payments of over 1 Billion dollars a day is going to make foreigners rich instead of Americans or improving America’s infrastructure for the tax payers.

Also, high national debt, creates a hole the country digs for itself, which must get deeper and deeper with every military conflict, every natural disaster, and every dollar of new deficit spending. It is a hole that can, and apparently is, getting so deep, future generations may not be able to crawl out of it without severe hardship and loss of quality of life in America.

Next year has all the earmarks of being another catastrophic hurricane season, with porous borders, another terrorist attack is as possible tomorrow as on 9/10, 2001. And with each such event, the debt and the interest on that debt goes deeper and deeper as long as deficits are the norm. Republicans have no plan to end the deficits. Bush is calling for halving the deficits when he leaves office. This is not responsible. Democrats are calling for paygo, or pay as you go, wherein any new spending must be paid for. That is not a solution to our national debt nor does it end deficit spending, but, it does halt the increases in deficits. Republicans don’t want to exercise even that much discipline.

A pox on both their houses. Incumbent politicians believe they have no choice but to impoverish our nation’s future in order to get reelected tomorrow. They must be shown the folly of their thinking and the wrath of the voters for such harmful and dangerous leadership in government. The way to express that wrath is with one’s vote. Vote out incumbents and vote in challengers of any party, doesn’t matter. The new politicians will want to be reelected too, and they will know that won’t happen unless they act very differently than their incumbent predecesssors.

Craig Holmes wrote: We have never paid off the debt from WWII and we are doing ok.

True, they never paid all of it off.
But from the following graph (see link below), you can see they paid some of it back.

But, that is not the relavent issue.
The issue is the size of the debt, then and now. It was huge after World War II, but it’s even larger now (4 times larger after adjusting for inflation).

Look at this graph. graph of the National Debt in 2005 dollars and 1950 dollars.

As you can see, our debt in 2005 is quadruple what it was in 1950. Look at the National Debt in 1950 dollars. It too jumps sharply starting in 1980. It is this 25 years of fiscal irresponsibility that is the problem. It is out-of-control and may now be too large to ever deal with.

It all started to go terribly wrong in 1980.
That’s the point.

Craig, So you say we’re doing OK. If you say we’re doing OK, then you obviously don’t think the National Debt is anything to worry about?
So you don’t think $1 billion per day on interest alone is a problem. And what about the additional borrowing on top of that?
The government is also borrowing $1 billion per day to pay that interest. That means the debt is actually growing by $2 billion per day!
But that’s not a problem?. Not even a little? Not even with these simultaneously culminating problems ? Not even with our irresponsible and unaccountable government ?

Craig, you’re certainly optimistic. That doesn’t make me a pessimist, just because I’m trying to raise a red flag that we might be threatening our future. I wish I could ignore the probems, because I’ve got better things to do than fight this crusade for more fiscally responsible government.

But, with all of the pressing problems we have, even some economists showing concern, a whole slew of books stating the impact of the potential generational storm, wouldn’t it maybe be time to say…hmmmm, well…
Maybe a little caution is needed?
Maybe the debt is something to worry about?
Maybe government is irresponsible and unaccountable?
Maybe Social Security and Medicare are being mismanaged?
Maybe our list of pressing problems are being ignored because politicians now ignore problems for fear of risking re-election?
Maybe our government is FOR SALE?
Maybe we do have too much election fraud?
Maybe we are getting too close to the edge?
Maybe we shouldn’t ignore history (lest we repeat it)?
Maybe, just maybe, we are threatening the future and security of the nation?

Well, I could be wrong. Perhaps I should just put on my rose colored glasses, take a Prozac, and chill too ?

Craig,
Also, the $258 Billion debt in 1945 (at the end of WWII) would only be $2.7 Trillion in 2005 dollars.

The National Debt now is $8.1 Trillion in 2005 dollars.

What about that? Are you still maintaining “we are doing OK” ?

Look at this graph and please explain how “we are doing OK”.

Sorry Craig, I’m not buying it. Especially if you include all of this too.

BTW, Would I be correct to guess you are a financial advisor? Just curious. I’m not denigrating that profession or anything whatsoever. Just curious.

DAvid and Dan:

I think we have gone over this before. I believe what is important is wealth. I used to preach each month to a group of men who were debt free!! I am speaking of the Union Gospel Mission.

1. Foreign Debt. When we pay the interest on our bonds, a portion goes to foreigners. What do we get in return? Cheap labor is the answer. You have to add to the figure what it would cost Americans to buy at home. In a twelve trillion dollar economy to pay a couple of hundred billion for access to cheap goods is a great deal!!

2. Relative Debt. As long as the federal debt grows at the same rate as the nominal growth rate of the economy, (Real growth plus inflation) doomsday will never ever come because the economies growth will exactly match the growth of debt. It is like a hiker who weighs 100 lbs carrying 20 lbs of gear, and one weighing 200lbs carrying 40 lbs of gear. The weight feels the same on both.

3. Dan’s scarey chart. Put the growth rate of the economy on the same chart and compare the two.

4. Interest payments on the debt are down in real and relative terms. It costs less to finance the debt because there is a world wide savings glut right now. Other countries are saving too much capital. This is driving down our interest rates so that the increased debt is cheaper to finance than the lower debt of ten years ago.

5. The area where I agree with David is on future entitlements. If we look to Japan as an example (They have demographics like our but are further ahead on the age wave thing), they had to borrow to where the government owes close to twice our country on a relative basis. We need to be careful as not to have the federal debt grow faster than the economy.

6. Should we raise taxes or cut spending to balance the budget two fast, we could cause a recession as we did in the 1990’s.

7. There is no way to forcast how bad the hurricane season will be next year.

8. We should remain in a low inflationary environment for many many years. If anything we have more to fear from a disinflationary spiral like Japan has experienced.

9. Next year should be above average in equity (stock)returns, and below average in real estate returns.

10. The economy should slow next year.

That is all for now!!

Craig

Oh and the dollar should fall modestly next year in response to fed easing in the second half of the year.

Craig

Craig, there is no direct relationship between wealthy Saudis receiving interest on our debt and cheap products. Checked the price of gasoline lately? Holds true for all trade relations, there is no direct relationship.

Your relative debt answer is nonsensical as it describes a scenario that does not exist. Our national debt will have doubled by the end of Bush’s term in office. As ballparks go, our economy has not even landed in an American ballpark in approximating a doubling by 2008, but landing somewhere in China or Japan.

“7. There is no way to forcast how bad the hurricane season will be next year.”

Not according the concensus opinion of meteorological scientists whose trend charts are predictive, not 100%, but, better odds than you get in Vegas.

But, like I said, at best, a defense for current policy is rationalization, which you have aptly presented Craig. But rationalizing only allows people to be more comfortable with the negative conditions they are responsible for creating. Rationalizing never solved a single problem. That is why Republicans poll numbers won’t be bouncing back. They are rationalizing instead of solving. The national debt and record deficits are a tax upon our children’s earnings, and these deficits directly contradict Republican rhetoric about wanting to lower taxes and not pass our burdens on to future generations.

The hypocrisy is exposed, Craig, rationalize all you will, for rationalization is the first cousin of hypocrisy.

Craig,
I tip my hat to you to always find the silver lining. And you probably think I always find the negative. In a popularity contest, I’d probably always lose. But, if I’m right, we will all lose.
You said “we are doing OK”.
That worries me too.
Especially, because you seem very knowledgable in finance.
About the growth. Does that growth rate factor in inflation? If not, then growth is much smaller. And, I’m always suspicious of these reported growth rates, just like the flawed CPI calculations, and reported price stability.

So what do you think 2010 will be like?

The problem is, none of us can really prove it.
We have history, formulas, charts, theories, models, etc. We all look at data, and draw our own conclusions, and they vary greatly. And, I learned a long time ago that few ever see the next recession or depression coming. Do you want a finacial advisor that is unjustifiably optimistic, or a bit more defensive (say realistic perhaps)?

But, we will all find out later, eventually.
I hope so, even if you are right and get to say “I told you so”. If you’re right, then we will not have to suffer what I think is coming, which will mostly likely be a depression. Not just a recession. Unless government can become fisally responsible. What’s the chances of that?

I correctly predicted the 1999-2000 collapse.
That wasn’t difficult though. It wasn’t hard to see how that run-up was doomed. I warned many people to bail while their stocks were priced high, and get out ASAP. Move it to something more stable or put it in the money market for a while. Most ignored me, and they paid dearly for it. Some lost 40 to 70% or more. It was a bloodbath. And, most have still never recovered over 6 years later. I kept saying, what’s your broker or advisor say? They said BUY! BUY! BUY! What impact did that have on that line of business? A lot of brokers finally got the axe for making everyone else broker. : )

Dan, in economic and fiscal matters, true conservative values dictate that one take a pessimistic view of the future, prepare for it, and reap the rewards if the future has a more positive outcome.

As evidenced by his comments, Craig’s views are not truely conservative. They are those of a closet liberal that would argue everything is fine, and we can spend on the frillies like tax cuts for the wealthiest 1/5 or 1% of the population, since tomorrow will just take care of itself. Saw that thinking in Democrats for decades which is why I left the Democratic Party years ago.

David:

Craig, there is no direct relationship between wealthy Saudis receiving interest on our debt and cheap products. Checked the price of gasoline lately? Holds true for all trade relations, there is no direct relationship

Sure there is. Oil is a commodity. Oil is traded in dollars. Should the dollar fall, oil prices go up. The more US treasuries the Saudi’s buy the more stable the dollar.

Our national debt will have doubled by the end of Bush’s term in office.

Federal Debt 9/30/00 $5.6 Trillion
Federal Debt 9/30/05 $7.9 Trillion

Projected Debt 9/30/08 $11.2 Trillion

Projected annual deficit (11.2 - 7.9)/3 $1.1 Trillion per year. That is three times the 2005 deficit!!

The national debt and record deficits are a tax upon our children’s earnings, and these deficits directly contradict Republican rhetoric about wanting to lower taxes and not pass our burdens on to future generations

agreed. It’s about the same size burden as our parents left on us.

Craig

Craig, but our parents didn’t leave us with a burgeoning third world eating our competitive lunch in industry after industry, now did they?

Dan:

So what do you think 2010 will be like?

2010 is a very hard year to predict because the age wave is on the way.

Dent in his book about the age wave believes we will be in a big depression by then. Jeremy Siegel in his bood “The future for Investors”, believes that we will be ‘ok’ because foreigners (read “china, india”) will take up the slack and keep markets stable. There is an enourmously wide margin of error. Just to confuse the picture more in “The world is flat” Friedman believes that globalization will cure everything.

Here are some of the variables:

On the negagive is the aging of america. What is happening to some extent (David, I see this weakness in you a bit) is the error of extrapolation. This error assumes that todays assumptions will stay true. For instance I think baby boomers will delay retirement on their own. Baby boomers have changed the world at every step. It is safe to assume that we will redefine retirment as well. If assumptions stay true, then bad things will happen here. I don’t believe assumptions will stay the same. I believe people will adjust.

2. The Internet (new economy) is real. Personal productivity gains are huge relative to the past. This is because of the technology revolution. This is one of the reasons why inflation is so low. Just this last week I read an article how unit labor costs are declining this year even as wages go up, because of increased productivity. That is disinflationary.

3. David and you consistently extrapolate out a wartime economy into the future. The deficit will come down as a % of GDP when Iraq begins to wind down. (This is already happening). Counter this with increases in domestic spending which David is very good at articulating and the deficit in 2010 is hard to predict. My guess is it will be lower. This is not all intuitive. Muni Bond prices have been very strong. That is an indication that there is an expectation among the wealthy that their taxes will go up.

How does globalition, the tech boom, high productivity, and the age wave all fit together?
I am not sure. Here are some predictions.

1. Low inflation. I am more worried about disinflation.
2. Low interest rates.
3. The stock market subsantially higher, but it might be declining by then. Up from here, but then rough in 2009, 2010.
4. Incumbant popularity should rise from here, no matter what party. (write this down David). A year from now public opinion of both President Bush and Congress will be higher.

You asked for the time, and I built you a clock. I expect a good couple of years in front of us, but then I am not sure. 2006 will be slower growth. The fed will start reducing rates. The dollar will fall some. The stock market will do well. Foreign investments should do well do to the dollar falling. Housing should be flat.

Craig

David:

Craig, but our parents didn’t leave us with a burgeoning third world eating our competitive lunch in industry after industry, now did they?

No, but that was the industrial age, and this is the information age.

Craig

Yes, the Information Age soon to be housed and dominated by India, and already dominated in part by Japan and albeit, via illegal means, China.

Craig,

Thanks for the response and predictions.
That’s interesting. I hope your right.
I’m just not yet convinced by that data.
I agree that the next few years will appear OK, but that is dangerously deceptive.
Like I said, none of us know for sure.
But, I’d recommend caution and more fiscal responsibility.
Especially, since government seems to have no self control, continues to spend, borrow, print money, and grow government ever larger, and do this sort of crap.

The real wild card here is government.
And our federal government is irresponsible and unaccountable.
So, people should be concerned. Very concerned.
And, from the graph I provided (above), you can see that fiscal responsibility doesn’t exist. And we can grow, tax, or immigrate enough to cover it. And, there’s also our other pressing problems, which all exacerbate the debt and deficits.

Hence, I think Harry S. Dent), and Scott Burns (the Coming Generational Storm) have it right, and they don’t even factor in the irresponsibility of government.

You have to factor in human nature too.

Government is always growing more corrupt, if allowed to. And, after a while, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop the corruption, even though everyone sees it.

So, that’s why it is crucial for voters to peacefully force government to reform and become more responsible and accountable. They are the wild card. Their irresponsibility has the capacity to unravel society as we now know it. It has happened before. It can happen again. And, the way things are shaping up, it looks like we have a few more years of maxing out our credit cards (not to mention $42 trillion in personal debt nation wide), before the $#!+ hits the fan.

Dan:

I am not all that impressed with Harry Dent. I have read the book you highlight. He is predicting the Dow at 40,000. we can’t pick and choose. If Harry is wrong he is wrong. You can see that I buy in a bit by saying the next few years should be “good years”. There is a fir piece form “good years” to the Dow at 40,000.

What Harry Dent doesn’t do is include globilization in his numbers. He assumes that the economy has the same varibles as it did in the 1920s. As Mark Twain said, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes”. There are some parts that are the same, and some parts different.

Harry Dent also predicts a budget surplus!!!

Why do you pick up on Dent’s negative predictions and not the positive?

Craig

David, Dan:

As evidenced by his comments, Craig’s views are not truely conservative. They are those of a closet liberal that would argue everything is fine, and we can spend on the frillies like tax cuts for the wealthiest 1/5 or 1% of the population, since tomorrow will just take care of itself. Saw that thinking in Democrats for decades which is why I left the Democratic Party years ago.

You would be wrong to view my views through any political lens. Reviewing the material I review regularly, I haven’t the slightest idea of their party affiliation. It’s a pretty broad amount of data. It’s kinda fun.

Craig

Here is a group of doomsdayers talking in 1998. There are always predictions of doom. My first doomsday book was the “depression of 1990”. I am surprised the author is still quoted here. Just keep a little powder dry.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june98/y2000_6-11.html

Craig

Craig, the value of doomsayers is to raise alarm to sufficient levels as to bring about avertive action. If we keep jacking these deficits to 12 or 14 trillion, even your CATO institute agrees, we are in deep trouble. Since, we are already committed to 11 trillion, 12 to 14 is just around the corner, another bad year of hurricanes, a terrorist attack upon a city, an incursion into Iraq by Iran, or the death of Musharraf and his replacement by Islamist Fundamentalists. Any of these, and many, many others, any one of which, could be the nudge into the 12-14 Trillion dollar national debt. With Trade Deficits on their trend line over the last couple decades, our economic condition becomes unsustainable.

The American people cannot afford to allow Bush’s cutting the deficit in half in 2008 as a means of keeping his promise to be fiscally responsible. We need the deficit to be zeroed out by 2008 in order to have some pad with which to face the next adversity to come our nation’s way.

David:

For the numbers to mean anything you need to put a date on them. We will have a 100 Trillion Dollar deficit someday. After all we had a 1 Trillion dollar deficit. Someday a 100 Trillion dollar deficit will be relatively smaller than our 8 Trillion dollar deficit today.

You did say earlier that we will have an $11 Trillion dollar deficit in 2008. I disagree with you on that one.

I don’t disagree with much of what you say. When I say “it’s fine”, it is because I believe in the error of extrapolation, which states that doomsdayers extrapolate trends to extreme when the reality is trends change. The economic curve turns.

Whoever is president in 2008 will try to “fix” real or percieved problems of the previous administration. You and Dave are clear in saying that if we continue on our path bad things await. But hear me on this, we wont get there because the economic curve will turn. Doomsday wont arrive because everyone knows that data you are presenting.

The guy who wrote the book (mentioned in the left’s column) about “Depression 1990”. It was based on caculations from the crash of 1929 as compared to the crash of 1987. Three years until 1932, three years until 1990. Alan Greenspan knew the numbers as well. So you know what he did? Exactly the opposite of what his forfathers did in 1929. They opened up the economy with liquidity, and lowered rates. It was a non event. In the Nineties there was “The millenium bug” about Y2K. Y2K and didn’t happen becausd we were able to over come it.

The same is likely to be true about the coming age wave and your concern about debt. It’s not a secret in the slightest. As long as investment money is cheap, people will borrow. When it gets more expensive people will quit. Right now foreigners are over saving as we are undersaving.

On the other side of the coin, people very likely will be working longer. I just read today that longevity is up to 76 years old. Up 2 years since 1980. About a year a decade. With technology, and a lack of workers in the future, I think we will all be working longer. So what?

Doomsday is not going to come because the curve will change. Why do I know the curve will turn? Because it always does,and because we can see the road plainly in view.

9/11 (economically) is a whole nother thing. When something new hits us that we haven’t experienced before, we have a learning curve.

Craig

Craig said, “You did say earlier that we will have an $11 Trillion dollar deficit in 2008. I disagree with you on that one.”

Disagree all you want, check out CBO and OMB numbers for the cost of legislation already on the books. The 11 trillion figure does not include spending deficits to be added by Bush and Congress between now and the end of 2008. Differences in the numbers are partially due to rosy revenue scenarios (OMB) vs. more realistic (CBO).

David:

So you are projecting a deficit of over a trillion a year?

Craig

An anti-incumbent vote is an idealistic answer to the problem. Great theory, but, it won’t work. The entrenched power structure will not let it work, just as they have not permitted a third party.

The cities are corrupting the elections. When you have cities reporting vote tallies of well over 100% of the eligible voters, you know you have a problem. And who is responsible? Of course, the entrenched power structure of corrupt politicans and their hack judges.

Massachusetts voting out Kerry and Kennedy? Don’t make me laugh.

No, there is only one way to turn things around, but an armed revolution will never happen. Therefore, prepare for the worst.

Just ramblings from an old man who has seen too much in his days around the world.

BTW, IMHO, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is one incumbent who should remain a senator and a physician.

Craig, no, my government is projecting that, I am just reporting it.

Frank Dee, I understand your pessimism, and there is no doubt some voter fraud will take place. However, as we have witnessed, it is getting far more difficult to get away with voter fraud with all the interest groups peering into the process and courts willing to review these cases.

But, proof that your pessimism is not as warranted as it seems is in the anti-incumbent elections held just last month in various places in the country. Check out the Anti-Incumbent News column over at Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy (VOID) for details.

David:

Craig, no, my government is projecting that, I am just reporting it.

Where? (puzzled here). Where is the government projecting trillion dollar deficits?

Craig

Craig, I never said trillion dollar deficits. I said 11 trillion dollars national debt by the time Bush leaves office.

CBO numbers Gross Federal Debt year end 2004 to 2008 based on what is budgeted today (actually August of ‘05 - lastest projections.)

7,355 7,944 8,551 9,185 9,854

Note that 05 is not even over yet and we are 8.1 Trillion, while CBO’s August projections for end of ‘05 have the debt at 7.94 Trillion.

Note these figures do not include Iraq costs in 07 - 08, nor natural disasters, nor any of a number of other items that could, and some will rise as additional non-budgeted expenditures between 07 and 08.

CBO’s debt as % of GDP for these same years:

37.2 37.7 38.1 38.7 39.2

Note: these numbers include large increases in income tax revenues, which as we know, are not going to be forthcoming as Bush and Congress are moving in the other direction on income taxes, cutting, not raising.

For the rest, I leave the homework for you. I am not being paid to research information for WB readers, they have access to search engines just like I do.

Shave a little off the projected income tax revenues; (these numbers above reflect latest August ‘05 data and assumptions) as we have already seen this week, Congress is cutting taxes faster than they are decreasing spending. And, add Pension Guaranty Corp. bailout by the Federal Gov’t. or another Katrina, or just the costs of Iraq tween now and the end of ‘08, and we are in the 11 trillion dollar national debt range with ease upon Bush’s leaving office.

Craig, you are suddenly silent. :-)

frank dee,

“No, there is only one way to turn things around, but an armed revolution will never happen.”

don’t be so sure. armed revolution is not the only way (nor the best way) to proceed, and no one can guarantee success, ever….yet things will change. they always do.

Frank Dee,

Ah….good for you. You mentioned Tom Coburn. Do you live in Oklahoma? I was born there.

Tom Coburn wrote a book about the corruption in Congress. So, he’s actually one of the very few in Congress that is actually standing up and pointing out the corruption. Unfortunately, he does it in a book, instead of the press, or daily, in Congress. But, still, that’s better than nothing. His book speaks of much of what you said above. Here’s what was said about Tom Coburn’s book, BREACH OF TRUST:
[] explores how the system co-opts even some of the most reform-minded congressmen with promises of power, influence, and the all-important pork-barrel projects to keep voters in hock for another win at the polls;

————————-
[] names names of prominent GOP politicians — including party leaders such as Dick Armey, Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert — who stymied promised reforms to preserve their own power, perks and back-scratching personal relationships with liberals;
[] documents the rise and fall of the “Republican Revolution” and explains why it failed to live up to its promises;
[] shows how the entrenched, self-serving powers-that-be that rule Washington always manage to block the reforms our country desperately needs;
[] explains why careerism in Washington is at the root of budget deficits and out-of-control government expansion;
[] tells readers how to see through the fog of political rhetoric and phony promises, so they can make wise, informed decisions about current and future political issues and candidates;
[] offers realistic ideas for how individual citizens can help take back government power from the venal, lying politicians who are only in it for themselves;
[] how Washington resists reform and makes outsiders insiders, Coburn offers a candid look at the inner workings of Congress — revealing why the system changes politicians instead of vice versa. Full of shocking behind-the-scenes stories.
[] Tom Coburn fought against the corrupt system by which his classmates were seduced.
_______________
I’ve researched many in Congress, including Tom Coburn, and he is one of a very few that has not voted for much pork-barrel. If you look at some of the bills he attempted to add amendments to, he was trying to reduce pork-barrel, but the bills still contained some pork-barrel, and he was rarely successful at getting the pork-barrel removed via amendments to the bills. This is by virtue of the bar being set so low. Still, Tom Coburn is an extreme minority.

I only have a few problems with Tom Coburn:
___________________________________________________

Tom Coburn (Republican Senator, OK):
[] Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) (no surprise there)
[] Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) (no suprise there, as they continue to plunder it)
[] Strongly favors prayer in public schools; suports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) (which prayer I wonder?)
[] Strongly opposes reduction of use of coal, oil, & nuclear energy (ofcourse he does…don’t want to piss off his big-money-donor puppeteers)
[] Supports Social Security privatization (while Congress continues to simultaneously plunder surpluses?)

So, while Tom Coburn may be one of the very few somewhat responsible politicians, he still didn’t want to ban soft money? And, his insistance on prayer in public school bothers me. And, he is voting the party line on the Social Security issue. Also, I’m a little worried by something Coburn said during a debate with his opponent:
________
Coburn said:
labeling the election as “a battle between good and evil” with himself portrayed as the “good” and evidently by default casting Carson in the role of “evil”.
________
Brad Carson said:
“The battle with al-Qaida is a battle of good versus evil. Osama bin Laden is evil, not your political opponents. This isn’t a political jihad; this is an election.” … “As a Christian and a family man, I’m deeply offended by being referred to as evil. I have been called a lot of things in my political life. No one has ever referred to me as evil.”.
________
That, along with Tom Coburn wanting to make a law for organized prayer in public schools, concerns me. Why? Because we can all pray anytime we want and nobody can stop that. Why does it have to be organized in the public school? And what type of prayer will it be? Budhist? Jewish? Muslim? Public school is not the place for organized religious activities, since there are obvious logistical problems, there being numerous vastly different religions, or atheists with no religion. The way to respect all is to not organize it and force people to pray, swear, or pledge. But, that’s for another debate. Thus, Tom Coburn worries me a little about whether he is too controlling, or truly understands live-and-let-live.

But, congratulations for picking one of the very few incumbents that may even come close to deserving their coveted seat in Congress. Just don’t forget about the voting record above, the refusal to address big-money-donors controlling government, his refusal to ban soft money, being too beholding to his big-money-donors, spending a lot of time raising money for re-election, and also, too often, like the rest, looking the other way. Even the best can be seduced into the status quo.

So, in my opinion, and many others based on the growing anti-incumbent sentiment, too few (if any) incumbents deserve to stay, and that is the unfortunate price incumbents should have to pay for looking the other way.

The only other thing I’d like to say is there is already historical precedent (see graph) of voters getting fed-up and peacefully voting them out incumbents by the hundreds (almost half in 1976-1980). So, peaceful force is possible and recommended over revolution. And if it fails, violent revolution may be unavoidable. But, while we still have the right to vote out irresponsible government, we should do so and peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable, with nothing more than our vote, used wisely to oust those that don’t deserve it. What’s the harm in trying?

David:

I can buy the 9.8. I just couldn’t figure out the 11 Trillion.

I am not sure your are right about the Iraq numbers not being included in the CBO figures.

In the end, it doesn’t much matter as we accept different information. We are not going to reach doomsday from a federal point of view because debt minus the war is growing at the same pace as the economy. In addition the areas that are moving to excess the economy will turn because it always does.

The only negative I can see that we might go through something like Japan because of demographics, but even that is called into question by some leading economist. (Jeremy Siegel for one).

Craig

Craig, you mean debt minus a whole bunch of Congressional spending which is off budget. That off budget crap is a way of duping folks like yourself into believing we are not bad off.

And no, debt as I pointed out, is rising far, far, far faster than inflation. Do some homework, Craig, before believing this government. I sure hope you don’t plan on having kids, because if you do, they are going to suffer for all this debt and the blind faith folks such as yourself place in this government of tricks, smoke and mirrors.

I see you are now even rejecting or hiding out from the warnings and writings of staunch conservatives who are alarmed and appalled by the debt and deficits. Must feel pretty safe hiding in that cacoon of faith you appear have surrounding you. Such a cacoon requires nothing on your part, no letters or phone calls to Congress, no action to change, not even a thought at the voting booth, since faith dictates voting the same ones back in again.

Cushy!!! But will the next generation hold folks such as yourself in high regard? Ahh, sorry, such questions are meaningless aren’t they? Your not running for office.

David:

And no, debt as I pointed out, is rising far, far, far faster than inflation.

So is the economy.

I sure hope you don’t plan on having kids, because if you do, they are going to suffer for all this debt and the blind faith folks such as yourself place in this government of tricks, smoke and mirrors.

I am a grandfather. The current federal debt load as a percentage of the economy is nearly the same (69% of GDP) on my date of birth as it is now.

I see you are now even rejecting or hiding out from the warnings and writings of staunch conservatives who are alarmed and appalled by the debt and deficits. Must feel pretty safe hiding in that cacoon of faith you appear have surrounding you. Such a cacoon requires nothing on your part, no letters or phone calls to Congress, no action to change, not even a thought at the voting booth, since faith dictates voting the same ones back in again.

This is a bunch of crap. So the federal debt burden is the same now as when I was born and I am suppose to see a crisis here some how.

Craig

Craig, the economy is growing at around 3.5% per year. The debt has grown by 69.7% since 2000, which works out to 13.94% per year. (2000, 5.65 Trillion vs. 8.1 Trillion today).

Your comments reflect a lack of homework, yet again. One simply cannot claim to be a student of the economy or expect others to lend credibility when one refuses to work with the factual numbers on the table.

David:

Your comments reflect a lack of homework, yet again. One simply cannot claim to be a student of the economy or expect others to lend credibility when one refuses to work with the factual numbers on the table.

You are looking at too short a time frame. Like I have said many times in our discussions, you are committing the error of extrapolation. You are assuming the trend will continue until we go over the cliff. The trend line will turn.

On a long term basis you want the debt of the country to grow at the same rate as the nominal rate of the economy. (This used to be 6%, but now with lower inflation projections it should be 5%).

In times of recession this number should be increased, in times of prosperity it should be lowered. We are in an “anomoly” because we are at war, and have been hit by some unexpected major expenses such as Hurricane Katrina.

If you look back at our system on a fifty or sixy year period of time you can see the system work very well.

Bush is on the right track in terms of reducing the deficit in half before he leaves office. Even so, Bush is a spender. In 2008 whoever replaces Bush will be a fiscal conservative. 2008 and forward will be a time of reduced deficits. It is how our system works.

The error of extrapolation is defined as:

“The assumption that current trendlines will continue indefinitely thus incurring great heartship on the economy.”

The truth is that trend lines turn. So relax and prepare for the turn. The economy is in great shape and the debate is over when we bring troops home not if. There is no reason for this high of a deficit to continue.

Make sure and wear your seat belt, as the trendline will be turning back toward fiscal restraint and lower deficits.

Craig

Craig, your belief in American debt and deficits as a good thing is untenable. More than 1 billion dollars a day leaves tax payers pockets to pay the interest on the debt and they receive not a single government service for those dollars.

I am done discussing this topic with you, since, it is obvious you would rationalize bringing on the end of the world if it would save the reputation of your political party.

I heard the same argument made by political parties about the Viet Nam war, that critics were just looking at too short a time frame. End result was catastrophic. The polls show Americans are not buying that “just give us another decade of deficits to vindicate our policy” argument.

David:

You are really trying to move my arguement to fit your purposes. Or you really don’t understand my position at all.

Policy does need to change. It isn’t a case of continue with the status quo in running deficits at this level. What I would advocate is lowering the deficit growth to less than Nominal GDP.

This also has nothing to do with my political party. It is dangerous to mix the two. There is no evidence that either political party manages the economy better. If there is an advantage it is slightly democrat.

Just as the debate in the election of 2000 was “what should we do with the surplus”, the debate in 2008 if it is a domestic debate will be “what should we do about the deficit.” Either party will move to lower deficits.

I am not rationalizing anything. I am stating facts. The facts are that economic curves change directions. Clinton and the Republican Congress greatly improved the deficit situation. Bush with his tax cuts, and a recession plus a war, reversed course.

My simple point to you is that the course will change again, and the economy will be fine whoever is elected to the whitehouse, and which ever party wins.

I believe you are wrong about the debt of the country because you extrapolate no change in policy to go over a cliff. I agree with you that if we didn’t change course, bad things would happen. But the point I can’t seem to get you to understand is that we always change course.

Your reaction has been to claim I haven’t done my homework, or that I am in denial or am too much a Republican. Those are rationalizations.

What will be interesting is to watch this unfold. It will be interesting to watch the show. Through the years we can compare notes, and see how the economy reacts.

Thank you for the debate,

Craig

Craig

Craig, it will indeed be interesting to see it unfold.

What I see is a two decade rise in trade deficits, fiscal deficits, and unprecedented export of American dollars and national debt, showing no signs of abating. You insist it will change.

But, I look just a few years ahead and I see enormous problems opposing attempts to get deficits and debt under control, like the growing Pension crisis, Medicare becoming unaffordable by 2020 with a balooning population in need of its assistance, and of course, the continuing trade gap with India, China, and Japan.

The time to deal with deficits is when the economy is good. The time to raise taxes is when enormous wealth chases more wealth. The time to cut waste fraud and abuse is when the economy is strong. Yet, at this optimal time for all of these potentially smart and conservative actions, little more than lip service is paid in addressing them.

Yes, Congress cut 50 billion in spending a few weeks ago, but, then turned around and passed a bill calling for 94 billion in tax cuts, half of which would benefit the top 1/5 of 1% of wealthy Americans. This is insane.

In a few short years or sooner if another calmity hits, we will not be able to address fiscal health issues without harming the quality and stability of life for 10’s of millions of Americans, if not more.

I agree things will change. But, the cost of delaying fiscal changes today, will be social upheaval and dramatic losses of quality of life standards for many millions of Americans tomorrow. Perhaps that is the Republican strategy. To set the stage for social upheaval in 2009 and 2010 when in all liklihood Democrats will regain share of power providing an opportunity to blame it all on the Democrats. I don’t know. But it is a plausible explanation for the incredible lack of discipline and responsibility for our economic future as currently displayed by the President and the Congress.