December 17, 2007
American Reform Party: A Lot to Love
Would this party platform interest you?: -Cut the size of government. -Balanced budget discipline. -Simplify the tax code. -Campaign finance reform. -Recall measure to remove legislators. -Cap immigration to 200,000/yr. -Universal single payer health care system. -No subsidies to health threatening polluters.
You can read the rest of the American Reform Party platform issues, adopted in 1999, here. This is the only Party I have ever seen that champions voting out the incumbents on its website. In light of all that has happened in the last 7 years, it is obvious America would have been far, far better off if the majority in Congress and the White House had been staffed by American Reform Party members.
Instead we have lost 7 years with little to no progress on any of these key Party Platform issues of the American Reform Party. And these are all issues the majority of Americans wish we had made significant progress on. Perhaps this Party is worth a second look.
Posted by David R. Remer at December 17, 2007 08:08 AMIf we cap immigration at only 200,000 a year, the country’s economy will slide because there will be fewer and fewer people to be consumers…people are not replacing themselves via birth of children…this is one reason social security will eventually be in trouble, as fewer and fewer workers have to “support” more retirees…we need a growing population to support a growing economy.
Our population is only growing because of immigration at this point in time.
Posted by: Rachel at December 17, 2007 08:53 AMi’m in favor of a viable third party, be it ARP or some other party.
As you pointed out in a previous post, the Constitutional crisis that this country is experiencing is real. This country needs a distinct change of course. It needs to get back to the ideals of a representative government, allowing states to govern themselves with little federal interaction.
As for ARP. ARP’s principles remind me of the many Jefferson virtues that made that man great. i could support ARP.
Posted by: john trevisani at December 17, 2007 08:56 AMRachel, infinite growth in population is not an economic solution. Our population has grown by leaps and bounds since throughout its history and continues to today. And with increasing population size must come increased size of government, and greater pressures on the sustaining aspects of our natural resources.
Stable population and an economic model that is also stable and accomodative of zero population growth should be the goal. Infinite population growth as a solution is a Politician’s answer: fix one problem by creating many others.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 17, 2007 10:14 AMJohn, I think I could too! I will be communicating with them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 17, 2007 10:22 AMDavid:
No one said “infinite” growth, but with the population actually shrinking without immigration to make it grow, who is going to buy our consumer goods? Where will we find employment if we’re not producing anything??
Posted by: Rachel at December 17, 2007 12:28 PMRachel, legal immigration can reasonably be defended as maintaining zero population growth or decline. The 200,000 figure ARP recites was a 1999 figure.
With illegal immigration our population continues to grow. The official census in 1990 was 248,709,873. The official census in 2000 was 281,421,906. If you remove 12 million illegals from that census, our population still grew 22 million.
The official census in 1950 was 150,520,798. Estimates now put our current census at over 300 million. Doubling our population in 57 years hardly gives cause to be concerned over declining population, Rachel.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 17, 2007 02:30 PMThe American Reform Party has a lot of good ideas.
There are only a few things on their platform that are questionable and/or not well defined.
David: No one said “infinite” growth, but with the population actually shrinking without immigration to make it grow, who is going to buy our consumer goods? Where will we find employment if we’re not producing anything??Your model for continued population growth is flawed. Where does this belief that we must grow the human population come from? You believe growth is necessary? It is not. In fact, it will make everything worse. Especially when the millions immigrating every year are less educated, less skilled, and more need.
As for buying our goods, what goods? In case you haven’t noticed, there are more jobs in government than all manufacturing in the U.S., and that problem is greed and unfair trade deals by greedy, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, which we repeatedly reward with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
Rachel, the world population is growing by 211,000 per day. If you think growing the population is a good idea, then you should ask China and India about all of the wonderful benefits of over-population.
The fact is, over-population magnifies most (if not all) problems. A 200,000 (or smaller) cap sounds good. Currently, we are allowing (each year) 1 million to immigrate legally, and 2 million to immigrate illegally. That’s 3 million per year, and it is already the fasted growing population of any country in the world. Do you really want to emulate China and India? Are you really so certain that populations must grow to sustain a society and/or economy? How did societies in centuries thrive when their population growth was almost flat compared to the last 500 years?
This tiny planet is not infinite.
It has limitations.
Over-population is already a problem now.
Just consider the famine and energy issues of today. The sea level has risen 8 inches in the past 100 years. For every foot rise, there is (on average), the water line moves inland 100 feet. How is increasing population going to help that?
In 1959, there were 12.16 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 3 billion people).
In 2006, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 2.81 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 13 billion people).
However, arable land is being lost at the alarming rate of over 38,610 square miles (24.7 million acres) per year.
Therefore, by 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 6.865 billion acres / 13 billion people).
At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn’t grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!
Why Not Join The ARP Revolution & Vote Out The IncumbentAbsolutely.
Of course, the two-main-party-duopolists hate this.
But it makes no sense to keep giving a FOR-SALE, irresponsible, Do-Nothing Congress dismally low approval ratings (some as low as a record low 11%), and then reward incumbent politicians and Congress with re-election rates of 95% to 99%. No wonder they are corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, and ignore the majority of voters. It is because they are rewarded for it. Do that with your children and see what happens. In no time at all, they will be so rotten, there may be no way to undo the damage.
Posted by: d.a.n at December 17, 2007 04:08 PM“Perhaps this Party is worth a second look”
Thanks for the info David. I’ll be happy to give it a look.
-Establish a universal, single-payer health program across the states and the nation
-Develop long-term programs to protect Social Security
-Replace electoral college with popular vote
-Keep our United Nations dues current
Worth a look? Sure.
Worth a second thought? Nope.
I’d rather work to stop this movement towards a liberal European socialist form of govt and keep fighting to get our Constitutional Republic back on course.
Thanks though.
Two major problems.
1. National sales tax.
2. National health care.
Neither are any good for this country.
The national sales tax is even more regressive than the current income tax system we have now.
National health care aint nothing more than government seizing more control over our personal lives.
Ron Brown:
National health care aint nothing more than government seizing more control over our personal lives.
Do you have something i can reference to support this claim?
What exactly are you afraid of with a Nationalized Health Care system? The armed forces already have it; are you saying that their health care isn’t any good?
Posted by: john trevisani at December 18, 2007 09:51 AMkctim, obviously, ARP isn’t for everyone. Thanks for the comments. They would have addressed challenging issues which the GOP and Dems have refused to, however. Now, instead of challenges, most of these issues have become out of control threats to our future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 18, 2007 10:41 AMRon Brown, government controlling our personal lives by offering minimal basic health care to All Americans in place of the current system which absolutely fails that objective?
Sorry, I just don’t see the logic in your argument. It sounds like you are saying that government will choose your living room wall colors for you if universal single payer health care is enacted. It just doesn’t ring true, somehow.
Are you aware growing numbers of Americans are electing health care procedures in foreign nations, both Americans with, and without, health insurance? And tourist health care is a rapidly growing industry in India and other nations competing ever more capably against our own broken system that fails more than 40 million Americans?
Do you really want America’s health care system to go the way of the Big 3 auto manufacturers, so myopically intent on short term profits that they lose market share and long term profitability to foreign competitors? Because that is where the current system is heading.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 18, 2007 10:48 AMThe fact is, over-population magnifies most (if not all) problems.
The thing is, we don’t have a shortage of anything…we have distribution problems…and once families are lifted out of poverty, they have fewer children…why not get back to the common good that raises all peoples, not just the rich and we could have quite a good world society…
Posted by: Rachel at December 18, 2007 11:10 AMRachel, on a cost and supply basis, we do indeed have enormous shortages, in fossil fuels, fresh water, adequate paying jobs, quality teachers and schools, effective, competent, and responsible politicians, and many other shortages like affordable health care. Not to mention and total and complete absence of long term strategy and consensus on how to address the growing challenges facing the survival of our quality of life.
I agree with you on getting back to the policies, but, the need to do that is precisely because of the enormous shortages growing in our country.
One of the major philosophical challenges facing the U.S. is the inherent conflict between a consumer based capitalist economy and all that entails and absolute demand upon our present and future for conservation and preservation. They are diametrically opposed and hence, America is paralyzed in the face of future challenges requiring conservation of what we have as opposed to wasting it, preservation of what we have as opposed to marketing replacements through planned obsolescence, and prudent savings as opposed to flagrant wish fulfillment.
Our system will alter, or we will fail as an economy, an environment, and as a nation. We need changes to our system, but, they must be intelligent, comprehensive, holistic changes, not political changes of facade, compromise, and delay. And therein lies the greased slope we need to climb.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 18, 2007 11:55 AMRachel wrote:Our planet has limitations.d.a.n wrote:The fact is, over-population magnifies most (if not all) problems.The thing is, we don’t have a shortage of anything…we have distribution problems…and once families are lifted out of poverty, they have fewer children…why not get back to the common good that raises all peoples, not just the rich and we could have quite a good world society…
It has limited resources (fuel, water, arable land, etc.).
And the human population (currently at 6.7 billion and growing by about 1 billion every 12 years) is increasing by 211,000 per day ! (that’s all births minus deaths).
Currently, the arable land per person is only 1.15 acres per person.
An acre is not very much.
Can you grow enough food on an acre to live off of?
By year 2039, there may only be 0.53 acres of arable land per person.
So, is there really plenty for everyone?
There are many organizations sounding the global over-population alarms, but many seem to disbelieve it. Obviously, more education is required.
One of our biggest problems with regard to wealth distribution in this country is that some cheaters are are using and abusing others. Our country is turning into a plutocracy, as evidenced by these 10+ regressive/oppressive systems that are hammering the majority of Americans, worsening the disparity trend, and rewarding a very few that own most wealth and assets. These regressive/oppressive systems are squeezing the middle-income group (the majority of Americans), and these regressive/oppressive systems did not all come about by mere coincidence.
This isn’t about some grand conspiracy theory. This is what ALWAYS happens when corruption gets a toe-hold within government and society, and a complacent and apathetic electorate fails its duty to never let that happen, as evidenced by 40%-to-50% of voters that don’t even bother to vote, and too many of the remaining voters that blindly pull the party-lever and abdicate their voting responsibility to THEIR party, which is all to happy to use and abuse that loyalty.
Yes, there is no real shortages, but we can not steal it from the have’s and give it to the have-not’s, because whatever means used to legally plunder or attempt to live at the expense of everyone else will end badly (as they always do).
Part of the solution is Education so that enough American voters understand that the plutocracy.
Education will lead to the badly-needed actions needed to put an end to these many regressive/oppressive systems.
The American people can thrive and prosper if they are quite simply put a stop to these regressive/oppressive systems that have gradually but surely been imposed upon them over many decades by a severely bloated, parasitic, wasteful, corrupt, FOR-SALE, do-nothing federal government they have allowed to grow completely out of control.
And that ain’t gonna ever happen by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
Ron Brown wrote:
- Two major problems.
- 1. National sales tax.
- 2. National health care.
- Neither are any good for this country.
- The national sales tax is even more regressive than the current income tax system we have now.
- National health care aint nothing more than government seizing more control over our personal lives.
Ron Brown,
You are right. The FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales Tax/Prebate System has a tax curve that is essentially the top half of a circle (i.e. REGRESSIVE). Yet, someone produced reams and reams of studies and reports to try to prove that taxing spending will be progressive relative to income (which it is not unless everyone spends the same percentage of their income). People need to ask themselves four questions:
- (1) WHO will love this 30% National Sales Tax/Prebate system?
- (2) And WHY?
- (3) If the goal is to prove that taxation is progressive (or at least neutral) relative to income, then why tax everything but income? Ask for the proof that the income tax curve will be at the very least: NEUTRAL (i.e. a flat percentage) on income above the poverty level).
- (4) How did something that it relatively simple become so absolutely and completely complicated and difficult to prove it is at the very least, a NEUTRAL tax? That in itself should be telling you something. Abuses often starts with over-complication. The current system is a perfect example of over-complication for nefarious reasons.
After the prebate ($2400 for single person, $5902 for a family of 4 runs out, all spending is taxed at a flat 30%; not to mention state, city, and county taxes added to it. There is a better way: simplify the current system, get rid of all tax loop-holes and deductions, only tax income above the poverty level by a flat 17%, and get rid of corporate income taxes, because those are essentially hidden sales taxes that get passed onto consumers (foreign and domestic) and help to over-complicate the tax system. After all, Warren Buffet’s income tax rate in year 2006 on his $46 Million was 17.7% (BTW, capital gains are taxed at 15%; much lower than the average 21% rate that most Americans pay). However, the tax rate for his secretary’s $60K salary was 30%. The tax system is REGRESSIVE due to a myriad of tax loop-holes that hammers the middle-income groups. Later, after the 77 million baby boomer bubble passes and the debt is reduced, the 17% income tax rate could be reduced too. But it is so massive, it will be quite a while. But we are not likely to ever get out of the hole by shrinking the middle income group. The warfare on the middle income group is real. 1% of the U.S. population (currently about 303 million) that had 20% of all wealth in year 1980 now has 40% of all wealth in year 2007, while household incomes for most Americans have stagnated or fallen (especially if you also consider that there are more workers per household).
The idea of a Nationalized Health Care system it’s a real dilema, since the federal govrernment is so good at screwing up almost everything it touches.
There is currently one valid argument for it: the current healthcare system is so bad, as evidenced by the 195,000 people that are dying annually due to preventable medical errors (in 2000, 2001, and 2002), that a National Health Care system might be better than what we have now?. Especially when our current medical system is the 5th or 6th leading cause of death.
A HUGE problem with the current healthcare system is: unnecessary middlemen.
In the long run, what are these millions of people working in the Medical Insurance industry providing? Are they providing a net benefit? How, when some are making a LOT of profit from it? How is all that profit not unnecessarily driving up costs of everything to finance their millions of salaries, stock prices, and capital gains? Not to mention a medical billing process that is probably worse than our nightmare tax system, and massive Medicare fraud.
As a result (and medical providers are regretting it too; i.e. HMO is now a dirty word), the healthcare providers are getting squeezed too.
Also, A severely mismanaged Medicare system, and massive fraud, is shifting massive costs to other people. Medicare limits simply cause fees to be shifted to other patients. This is yet another example of adverse results of government meddling. When will we learn?
The healthcare providers could set up a Direct Pay System (or systems) for all people that want to participate (e.g. paying 2.5% of salary for a single person), and cut out the unnecessary middlemen completely. Medical costs will come down when there aren’t so many middlemen making a bundle of money off the rest of us, and trying to make medical decisions they are not qualified to make.
There is no reason the Medical Community can not deal directly with its customers; their patients, and if the Medical Community does not try do it, it can look forward to a Nationalized Health Care System. Do you think that is really what the Medical Community wants? Not likely? But if they keep dealing with too many middlemen, instead of directly with customers, then that is exactly what the Medical Community will get, and it won’t improve the healthcare professionals’ situation at all. It will make their situation worse than it already is now, as the government starts trying to control everything the medical community does, and does what the federal government does best: screws up almost everything it touches.
Many loathe the idea of government running the Health Care System, because:
- the problem with asking the federal governmnet to do anything is that, too often, the one thing the federal government does very well is screwing up everything they touch.
- of the way Medicare is currently being managed (or mismanaged).
- then take a look at Social Security. $12.8 Trillion has been legally plundered (borrowed and spent) from it, and it is now essentially pay-as-you-go … and fine timing too with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching.
Still, a Nationalized Healthcare System might be better than what we have now, but that does not mean it is the final best solution. It only means it may be better than the current system, which is failing, is unaffordable, unreliable, and dangerous.
To make matters worse, the federal government is creating too much new money out of thin air, to pay for all of the many things it meddles in (the list is so long, it would fill volumes).
As a result, the U.S. Dollar is falling like a rock.
A Nationalized Health Care system will cost a lot.
Just look at the current state and cost of Medicare.
If a Nationalized HealthCare system is created, it may be an improvement over the current situation. However, a lot of doctors and health care professionals may leave that profession. If getting the government to do things is better, should we get the government to do everything? Already, a lot of doctors limit and/or refuse to accept Medicare patients. It’s not easy trying to live at the expense of everybody else. But we keep looking to the government and insurance companies, and they are all too happy and willing to use and abuse the majority of us. Especially when they know that most of us will still reward them for all it anyway with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
john and David
Just look at everything else the government gets involved in. They start telling folks what to do and what not to do in order to stay in the program.
Do ya really think that it’s gonna to get involved in health care and not start telling ya how to live, what ya can eat or not eat, etc? If ya do you have a lot more faith in government than I do.
Also would you want some idiot up in DC deciding if your life worth a $25,000 operation that could save it? What about that same idiot deciding if a loved one’s life is worth $250 for a prescription that they could die without.
And with the current bunch we have in DC don’t put tricks like that past them.
I aint arguing that health care in this country aint in a bad fix. Because it sure as hell is. But the government, with is expertise at screwing up everything it gets involved in, taking it over sure aint gonna fix it.
The best way to fix health care is to get both the government and the insurance companies out of it. If folks have to start paying out of their own pockets for health care two things are gonna start happening. Folks will start going to doctors and hospitals that offer the best care at the lowest prices. And doctors and hospitals will start lowering their prices in order to get and keep patients. And ya just might see the price of prescription drugs come down too.
But sense folks don’t want to spend their own money on things they claim are very important to them, or take responsibility for their own or their family’s health, we’ll have to deal with either the insurance crooks or the government crooks.
Both are a lousy choice.
Ron said: “Do ya really think that it’s gonna to get involved in health care and not start telling ya how to live, what ya can eat or not eat, etc?”
Good point. But, they won’t tell you what to eat or not eat, they will tell manufacturers and distributors what they can manufacture and distribute and where. It’s a subtle difference, but, more accurate. The government is not going to police individual eating choices directly, they will limit the availability of choices to “healthier” ones.
In fact, that is already happening. I simply don’t find this a bad thing. I would like to see government mandate more aerobic exercise throughout the entire educational experience including MBA and PhD programs. Good for the students, good for the society. It’s a win-win. Yes, the choice to be lazy is reduced. But, hey, one always has the choice of home-schooling.
Societies this large must have the ability to manage its future for sustainability, and that inevitably results in limited individual choice. Just as society cannot tolerate murder, it limits the acceptability of murder and the choice to murder.
Note however, that the government never really takes the option to commit murder away from any individual. It simply assures potential murderers that there will very likely be a price to be paid for the exercise of that particular individual freedom to act against the society’s interests.
Company’s will never be banned from making junk food, but, as the government limits where that junk food can be sold, market demand for it will drop, the cost of distribution will rise as will the price of the product, and hence, many company’s will voluntarily elect to discontinue to sell that product as other more profitable and high demand products present better opportunities.
Modern American’s tend to want to segregate into discrete experiences government, enterprise, consumers, and individual choice, as if these were entirely separate spheres of influence. They aren’t separate at all, but, very, very intricately and integrally interdependent with each other.
Which makes the management of any and all systems in a society of 300 million people very complex and regretfully, specialized. Rats have limits to productivity, as do lions and even ants. Exceed their productive limits and their are natural costs incurred that will reduce the population back to sustainable and more nearly optimal numbers.
The limit on human population growth and density is the species capacity to manage its satisfaction, production, and delivery systems for its population numbers. Those systems for managing satisfaction, production, and delivery completely broke down in Rwanda. And the result is now history, genocide, civil war, and mass death by dehydration and starvation. They are similarly breaking down the Sudan with similar predictive results.
Los Angeles systems partially broke down periodically as in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the late 1980’s, and appear to again be breaking down currently with influx of illegal immigrant populations. The results are predictable. Violence, disruption of civil order and production and delivery systems, and death. And it will continue to break down periodically as management fails to meet the satisfaction, production, and delivery systems necessary to support such a density of population in that geographic area.
The same thing has already happened and is happening in Detroit and Flint, Michigan. That city has been experiencing a slow and agonizing death since the late 1960’s. They have let it get so bad, that is questionable now whether attempts to attract new business and investment to these areas is even worth the cost of advertising zero taxes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 20, 2007 02:28 AMHey d.a.n.
or anyone else who can answer this question: I’m a medical student and really interested in the state of health care. A lot of what I read has shown that MediCare is actually a pretty efficient system, especially compared to the private sector. Yet you say it massively mismanaged. I’m interested to hear why you think so and if you know any good sources I could read to learn a little more about that view point.
Thanks
Neil
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
