PoliWatch Analysis

Suffrage: Not what we expected.

2008-04-29T05:20:31Z

Rational, thoughtful, educated, informed, and with a vested interest; these were the hopes of many of America's founders for the integral characteristics of those who vote and participate in the democracy portion of our Republic. Universal suffrage wasn't even close to being considered desirable at the founding of our nation.

Yet, universal suffrage is what we have delivered unto ourselves in the name of Women's rights, African American rights, Civil Rights, and Ignorant and Uneducated Rights. America decided that even the ignorant and uneducated are entitled to a voice in electing not just their district representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives as originally intended, but the Senate and the President as well.

]]> Many attempts along the way were made by states to insure education and literacy were part of the voting experience. But, for the most part, where these attempts were made, the motives were publicized as racist as most of the states attempting such tests were former slave states. Thus, literacy tests were denounced by the general public and the Supreme Court as having no legitimacy. This was the case despite the fact that our Founding Fathers quite specifically designed a system in which democracy would be participated in by that class of people most likely to have the most education, be best informed through literacy and news print, and vested in the protection of what's theirs from those in power. Namely, these were white male landowners.

The issue of who should participate in our democracy is not however a settled issue. Just this week the Supreme Court upheld a state's right to require picture ID in order to vote. It should be quickly noted that in this narrow ruling, the state's right was upheld on the conditions that the state provided such ID free to those requesting it, and that those without it could still vote on the provision that they would provide such ID immediately after the election to validate their vote. The ACLU, opposed the Court's ruling. On this issue, many ACLU supporters stand at odds with the ACLU.

Democracy should not be left vulnerable to wholesale fraud or abuse. That, most people would agree with. Indiana's ID law is one way of addressing the fraud and abuse of the voting system. Though fewer agree this is the best way. But, the issue of whether voters even have the capacity for informed, rational, educated, and self-interested voting is a far more controversial issue, and one with far greater consequences for America's future and governance than the Indiana voter ID issue.

Yet, neither the media, nor the politicians, nor the public seem interested in the issue. Just as Ethanol subsidies and fuel conversion were adopted by the Congress and President, only to have been proved to be a very bad idea, universal suffrage too has enormous costs and negative consequences associated with it.

Many scholars and political philosophers would argue that the reason this issue is settled is because all measures to test voters have proven to be discriminatory and unfairly, unjustly, and unequally applied, with horrible negative social consequences bearing down on other citizen and human rights. But, something in their arguments rings hollow when compared to reality.

States reserve the right, and the Court's have upheld their right, to deprive felons of voting rights. This constitutes a judgment that a person upon conviction, is deemed from then, and forever, to be unqualified to vote, without opportunity to prove differently or appeal, and shall remain a life sentence regardless of any other sentencing provisions. This is far more permanent a judgment than a voter awareness test in which a prospective voter may fail one year, but, upon improving their civics education, pass the test the next year. Is not the lifetime loss of voting to a convicted felon more onerous than a voter awareness test in which the voter at least has the opportunity at reprieve from their former ignorance?

The concept of the Founding Fathers that voters should, with some measure of assurance, be capable of understanding the import and consequence of their vote, in order to better insure responsible government, is a valid concept. Implementing the concept has been fraught with racism, class warfare, political party warfare. The concept of responsible government, is entirely void and null in a democracy if it is not the voters to whom elected officials are responsible to. Yet, we have witnessed decades of both the major parties abjectly failing the expectations of the majority of voters, culminating in the present with both the Congress and the President having some of the the lowest approval ratings in American history.

Not all the blame must fall upon the politicians. The voters themselves, specifically those who would never read an article like this, vote for candidates, yet allow ignorance and disinterest to dominate their political perspective between elections, relying on their Party to tell them how good or bad their politicians have performed. Needless to say, objectivity and holding their representatives to account for their actions is not what follows from such ignorance and disinterest in what politicians do between elections.

Would it be possible in America to require voters to know their precinct number, their Congressional and Senatorial District numbers, and the names of their US Congressional representatives and challengers before becoming qualified to vote? Would it be possible to ask American voters to name 5 of the 10 original Bill of Rights and what rights they protect, in order to qualify to register to vote?

The answer is clearly no, at this time. But, isn't that answer precisely the explanation for so much that is dysfunctional and unnecessarily costly in our federal government today? Our democracy was never intended to be overseen by an ignorant and civics undereducated electorate. Voters should be able to give an informed definition to the word the 'electorate' before being allowed to become a member of it.

We don't grant children the right to vote due to lack of education and rational judgment in their own self-interest. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Why should we not impose the same constraint upon adult voters demonstrating a similar lack of education and rational judgment about learning civics as our children? Surely a vote in one's self-interest requires a minimum of objective information and education about our process and government. It is a fundamental question and issue that must be addressed before America can reclaim a responsible democracy with the results the Founders intended. (The word responsible here being defined as 'the ability to respond appropriately').

'All men are created equal"... but, all voters certainly are not, anymore than all students of math or music are created equal. Universal suffragists failed to take into account the reasons the Founders did not advance universal suffrage, and those reasons were sound and valid, if not also peppered with other unsound and invalid motives of the Constitution's signers. America is on the wrong track, and this is one of those fundamental and unquestioned reasons why.

Universal suffrage should be an American goal, accomplished by elevating the education and information breadth of all potential voters universally to a minimum qualification. Universal suffrage which permits political automatons to vote as they are directed by their Parent's unquestioned Party affiliate is guaranteed to produce the kind of government and political system most Americans no longer trust or have confidence in today.

Janus McCain

2008-04-16T21:02:30Z

Sen. John McCain is the most conflicted candidate I have seen since Richard Nixon. It is as if the left mouth Of Janus McCain doesn't know what the right mouth is saying, thus they contradict each other before the same public. Let's look at some examples.

Yesterday, in an obvious bid to pander for votes, McCain proposed a gasoline tax holiday for the summer. This is the same McCain who said in a GOP debate: "we can reduce these greenhouse gas emissions." The man's gratuitous ignorance of economic behavior is on display here. Lowering the cost of gasoline drives up demand and usage, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Raising the cost of gasoline, decreases demand for gasoline and thus reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Janus McCain is conflicted.

]]> Referencing the 2005 Roads and Infrastructure Spending Bill, McCain said:

Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country. Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer ...

Now, McCain wants to divert 10 billion dollars from roads and bridges to pander for votes for his presidential bid. Which is it, Janus McCain? Are you for shoring up American infrastructure upon which so much of your corporate sponsor buddies and the rest of us depend, or, are you for redirecting 10 Billion for that purpose to your election campaign in the form of pandering to voter's constricted pocketbooks months before your presidential election?

Many a blogger elsewhere has commented on McCain's disposition to build infrastructure for Iraqis at a cost of 10's of billions to American tax payers. But where is his fidelity to Americans and their infrastructure? There is a clear answer to that question and you can find it in the oratory of Grover Norquist. Sen. John McCain does have one consistent theme miming Norquist, however, and that is to bankrupt federal government as a means of forcing it to cut back spending. Thus, any measure that will cut federal revenues like extending the Bush tax cuts permanently, deepening deficits and increasing national debt as a way of getting to entitlement spending is OK with Sen. John McCain.

Yes, the logical conclusion to McCain's budgetary and economic policies is to privatize Social Security and end Medicare spending for the poor and uninsured. Fits right in with Bush's and Republicans insistence on fashioning the Medicare Rx drug entitlement expansion in the most costly way possible to tax payers; no competitive bidding for prescriptions. Fits right in with Grover Norquist's plan to give the economy and plight of workers completely over to the corporations, removing federal government from interceding on behalf of those crushed by the excesses of free market capitalism, oligopolies, foreign trade policies, and immigration policies which throw millions of people out of work, out of income, and out of hope.

McCain wants smaller federal government. He wants to freeze all federal spending for two years except for military benefits and defense spending. This clearly signifies McCain's priority system. War and military first, and everything else and everyone else takes a back seat. This also reveals yet again Sen. McCain's incapacity to retain more than one priority at a time in his head. His this or that approach to issues precludes the kind of holistic multi-faceted solutions so many of our challenges require of our leaders, like climate change and energy policy.

McCain's vision of energy policy is Nuclear Power, with a mere mention of the generic category of other alternatives. Never mind that this approach replaces one byproduct crisis (greenhouse gas emissions) for another (nuclear waste disposal) and both with monumental costs associated with their respective byproducts.

Sen. McCain was for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, before it applied to him. Now that it applies to him, he insists it should not apply to him. Janus McCain speaking out both sides of his face, yet again as he is sued for violating his own law. This does not compare to Obama's voluntary statement that he would enter the general election using public funding but changing his mind after recognizing a windfall through internet donations. Obama's action violates no laws. McCain's action allegedly violates the law that made his name a household word.

McCain's capacity to contradict himself in public however, is nowhere so evidenced as in February when accused of catering to lobbyists: "the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response...and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter." Yet, Sen. McCain said in Sept. of 2002 in sworn depositions:

"I was contacted by Mr. [Lowell] Paxson on this issue,"

NewsWeek writes: "McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption" - even though McCain denied doing anything improper."

One final note. In McCain's interview with Chris Matthews yesterday (MSNBC), Sen. McCain said he wanted to give young people a vision of the future. Of course, this is an upside down statement in an election year, though one commonly made by politicians. It is the people and the Constitution and Declaration of Independence that have always provided the vision of the future, and it is up to voters to find a candidate that best reflects that vision. It is not for candidates to give the voters the vision the candidate wants them to have. That is best left to authoritarians and dictators.

When it comes to integrity, McCain hasn't got it. Sen. John McCain is about as disintegrated a candidate as one could find for the 2008 elections, barring schizophrenics in oscillating fits of paranoia and omnipotence.

Green Energy Future?

2008-03-28T19:14:35Z

My thanks to David Remer for permitting me to blog here at Poliwatch. I am an independent voter with a heavy lean and support for the Green Party.

I want to address the convergence of America's desperate reach for a sustainable energy policy. And America's ability to maintain and produce an even healthier environment. Such a convergence is not on track at this time.

It is a mistake for the public to believe all the Green ads by the likes of Exxon/Mobil and the Coal industry, who are spending 100's of millions a year to shore up their public image in the face of enormous controversy over their profits and subsidies, as well as their lobbying against measures that would truly move energy into the Green zone.

]]> The Waste Management corporation, for example, is a leading provider of comprehensive trash and waste removal, recycling, and so called "environmentally safe waste management services". They advertise regularly featuring their landfill methane recovery to add to our energy resources. I visited one such site North of New Braunfels, Texas recently. A literal mountain of trash and garbage many stories high, with pipes coming up out of the ground to funnel captured methane into holding tanks.

One problem, for miles one can smell both the methane and stench of garbage (bacteria emitted greenhouse gases from consuming organic wastes). Which means, these mountains of buried organic materials from soiled diapers to cat litter waste to yard clippings are in fact leaking enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere. The capture methods are incredibly inefficient, and methane is a major atmospheric greenhouse gas. It is good they are capturing a percentage of the methane, but, the fact is they are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Advertising themselves as green, is misleading, bordering on a lie. I say bordering, because if Waste Management didn't collect our garbage into landfills, we would create dumps of our own in our own neighborhood empty lots, and no methane would be recaptured in these dumps. To truly address this issue, Waste Management would have to work to end its current line of business by lobbying for an American wide effort to minimize organic waste and maximize constructive organic waste recycling.

This is why Steve Spence at Green Trust writes of a professor Seymore Garte's book entitled, WHERE WE STAND: A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet :

Garte points out the fallacies in standard right- and left-wing approaches—the planet is not in imminent danger of imploding, he says, but neither will it be saved by the free market—and shows how most improvements over the past 40 years have been the result of government intervention.

The Free Marketplace has only two priorities, survival against competitors and profits. All of their actions are motivated directly or indirectly by those two motives. Any measure that will increase the cost of doing business without the benefit of compensatory increase in revenues and profits, will be avoided and fought. This is a maxim of the free marketplace. Is is very important for the American public to come to understand this basic driver in the relationship between capitalist lobbyists and government. Because if elected officials rely on the capitalist lobbyists to form public policy, neither energy independence nor a safe ecological future will exist for our children.

Coal. Coal is dirty. Coal is organic waste (carbon based), which nature buried and sequestered millions of years ago. And here we are digging it up and sending all that carbon back into our environment. Coal proponents like VP Dick Cheney and Sen. Larry Craig, are singing the praises of carbon sequestration, which is a fancy way of saying we burn or synthesize coal for energy and capture the carbon emissions and rebury them in the ground.

Mining coal remains dirty and polluting. The concept of permanently burying trillions of tons annually of coal waste gas underground without leaking back into the air of our children and grandchildren is a 'pipe dream'. We may clean the smokestacks and recapture CO2, but, burning coal releases a host of other toxic gases and they aren't on the radar in the new Energy Bill proposal.

Congress and the Bush administration are approaching this problem completely backwards. They are taking the present situation of global pollution and climate change and asking what can we do to improve it without offending or costing anyone too much. The approach that is needed is the JFK man on the moon approach. This approach specifically sets the goals that will meet the needs of the next generation for a safe and dramatically reduced cost basis for independently produced energy, and works back to the present, with investments in the research to meet the milestones to getting there, as well as making the sacrifices of choices that will keep the time table intact.

The American people may as well wait for Santa Clause to deliver a better future if they intend to await Congress and the corporations that black mail and bribe Congress to deliver such a future. Such a future will require homeowners to create their own energy with small capital investments. Such a future will require mass transit quadrupling, and dramatic changes to city and housing planning with jobs and business in the hub of housing, allowing folks to walk to work again or ride a bike. Such a future requires home based recycling of family wastes and dramatically altering packaging into reusable and recyclable products by residents at home. Such a future requires paring dependence on fossil fuels to an absolute minimum and mission critical use only.

General Motors waited until it was long past its window of opportunity to compete with foreign manufacturers delivering on smaller, lighter, and more economical vehicles for one simple reason. Annual profitability and investor demand for profits per share demanded it. So it will be with the oil companies, that the ravages of global climate change will be well upon us and them before they will accept more costly and less profitable measures. And they will never give up their position as supplier of energy for a profit in favor of individual produced energy production measures.

The people, the voters, must demand that better future for their children by refusing to vote for the politicians now in office who simply cannot and will not share that vision of the future. The best chance America has is if voters increasingly rely upon new politicians elected on campaign platforms built by public demand for that better future.

NYTimes: American Taxes Too Low!

2007-10-22T13:09:00Z

A New York Times editorial this morning says America isn't collecting enough taxes. The editorial argues that this leaves America unable to compete against other industrialized nations. Where the government's of China, India, and European nations provide their citizens with health care, their companies, free of the cost of employee health care, are able to make competitive products at a lower cost than in the U.S.

]]> It is a staggeringly sound argument. And this real world economic fact of life must be reckoned with. By raising taxes and providing basic and preventive health care, our government will make our American companies more competitive in the global marketplace. This reality, that foreign producing nations gain competitive advantage against American producers by offering government sponsored health care, strikes at the morality of Republican and Libertarian positions on health care.

The position of U.S. conservative economics is that individuals should provide their own private health care with whatever means at their disposal or, do without until it becomes life threatening and requires a public assistance visit to the Emergency Room. For 47 million, or 15% of current Americans, that means doing without health insurance and preventive health care, and waiting for their medical condition and suffering to become so severe as to warrant treatment on the public's tax dollar in the Emergency Room, at 4 to 10 times the cost. It is impossible to find any compassion in this kind of conservative policy.

The whole notion that health care should be allowed to "trickle down" to citizens if the nation's economy is booming, and citizens should just die or suffer when the economy suffers at the hands of government and private industry policy, puts foreign nations on a far higher moral rung than the U.S. In America our founding documents speak of "promoting the general welfare" of its citizens, but, conservatives find ever creative ways to circumvent that goal when it comes to citizen health care.

Sen. John McCain in last night's debate responded to the health care issue much as a Democrat or foreign nation's system would with one important Republican exception. He spoke of our having the highest quality health care in world. But, he failed to mention that the best care is available only to the wealthiest. He also neglected to mention that American hospitals kill 80,000 Americans each year through malpractice and mistreatment, in part, due to the haste required by medical personnel to treat the maximum number of patients as fast as possible, to produce the highest profit margins for the investors and corporate heads.

McCain also failed to mention that small but increasing numbers of western citizens are electing to go to India for major surgical and medical treatment due to the fact that their tourist medical industry provides top notch care at between 3 to 20 times lower cost than would be incurred in the U.S. McCain did acknowledge that the U.S. must bring the cost of health care down but he is short on details as to how to accomplish that little trick.

But, when McCain recommended removing the employer's tax (Medicare), he was saying what the NY Times article is saying, that companies should not bear the costs of health care. But, that is where McCain's ideas part company with what foreign nation's are doing. He recommends that the government give individuals and families tax credits of $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families. In so doing, he straddles the fence trying to get back over on the conservative side. In other words, he is saying take taxes from Americans with one hand, and give a portion back with the other, leaving citizens to come up with their own devices should their health care spending exceed the tax rebate. There is an illogical and non-sensical nature to this proposal. He is a Republican candidate, after all.

The rest of the Republican candidates are anchored in the typical Republican view that health care is essentially a private affair, if you can afford it. Romney says each state should devise their own system or none, but health care should not be a federal concern. While Republicans agree that corporations and companies should not foot the bill for health care, which would make them more internationally competitive, they don't address the humanity issue of 10's of millions of Americans having to do without.

For the past 20 years on average, health care costs have increased 2% more than real wage increases for the poor and middle class. Which accounts, in part, for why the number of uninsured Americans has been rising. Leaving Americans to suffer or die for lack of affordable preventive health care, is by foreign nation standards, unconscionable. Yet, this is precisely what Republicans advocate, not in campaign words of course, but, in the consequences of their policy proposals.

America does indeed, for purely economic reasons, need to relieve American companies of the burden of providing health care insurance, or face the perpetual loss of jobs and opportunities to overseas growing economies and companies. But, the answer is not to leave the American citizen to suffer maladies until they warrant a life threatening stage in the Emergency Room where, if they survive, the cost to the taxpayer will be 10's of times higher than had they been treated before the condition became an emergency.

The Republican view of health care, lacking compassion for suffering, points directly to the need for another kind of health care system. It points to a non-profit system, with the American people as the insurer. And yes, this would mean higher taxes in exchange for a more competitive economy.

Government not-for-profit underwriting (government sponsored basic health insurance), which eliminates the costs of profits to insurance companies and lowers overhead costs, would go a long way to reduce the inflation of health care costs in America. To catch up to the rest of the industrialized world, the single payer system could contract with non-profit medical delivery organizations, clinics, and hospitals first and foremost, provided they are quality delivery organizations, as another method of lowering overall health care costs for Americans. Which would provide incentives for even more non-profit medical treatment centers to be created.

And let's be clear, a single payer not-for-profit health care system, which offers only basic and preventive health care, does not preclude the private medical and insurance industries competing for the plethora of other elective, or more highly specialized medical services, which the wealthier citizenry may purchase. That market will remain, contrary to the scare tactic rhetoric by Republicans that quality care will disappear.

Poll: Americans: Hopeful, but Very Critical

2007-10-21T07:26:58Z

In the clearest sign yet that the 2008 elections will continue the growth of the anti-incumbent sentiment, a new Reuters / Zogby poll demonstrates Americans are extremely disappointed in current politicians, but, hopeful about the future. Logically, that sentiment portends removing more of the current politicians and bringing in new ones campaigning on change.

]]> Let it be said at the outset, this poll does not measure how logical American voters are. Therefore, while logic dictates that if Americans wish to see their hopefulness fulfilled they will change leadership in the Congress and White House, this poll in no way measures whether voters will, in fact, vote out current politicians for new ones (except for President where there is no choice in the matter). Many pundits would argue that Americans look to a new president as fulfilling their hopes for the future and will continue to vote most Congressional incumbents back into office.

If they are right, voters would act illogically in doing so, since, the Congress is responsible for far more regarding American's future well being in their daily lives than the President. The President cannot change health care, insure quality education for children, drive down the cost of living, reduce or increase taxes, or improve quality of life without Congress taking the necessary legislative action.

However, approval of Congress is even lower, 11%, than for the President, 25%. If voters vote their disapproval, the 2006 anti-incumbent voting will be greater in 2008. In 2006, many analysts interpreted the election results not as anti-incumbent, but, as a shift from Republican to Democratic by that growingly powerful voting group called "swing" or Independent voters. Others argue regardless of the "swing", voters had to vote against Republican incumbents in order for Republicans to lose so many seats in 2006.

Given the even greater disapproval numbers toward Congress, and the greater number of Democratic incumbent politicians, it is difficult to circumvent the speculation that such disapproval will translate into Democrat incumbents losing seats in 2008. Difficult is not impossible however. Opponents of this view would argue that what was begun in 2006 in switching from a Republican to Democratic Congress, will continue in 2008, as voters seek greater distance from Republican resistance to Democrat's attempts to end the war in Iraq, deal with health care, entitlement programs, and border security - immigration issues.

The Poll numbers seem to support this latter argument, in part. Of those sampled, 43% said they would be voting in the Democratic Primaries, while only 38% said they would be voting in the Republican Primary elections, leaving 19% unsure. What remains to be seen however, is how many of these voters in the primary races will be voting for a challenger instead of the incumbent? Primary results will be watched carefully for this, since, if the anti-incumbent sentiment shows up in the primary results, attended by small voter turnout, the impact on the Nov. 2008 elections could be huge.

Independent voters who wish to express their disapproval of Congress, logically should do so in the Primary elections. For in the Primary elections, one's vote is most potent in removing an incumbent, while preserving one's party leaning (since far fewer voters vote in the Primaries). In other words, liberal leaning independents can remain faithful to the Democratic Party while still removing a Democratic incumbent from office, by voting for a Democratic challenger. Of course, the same is true of conservative leaning independent voters. It remains to be seen however, if voters actually think this way. Given the considerable visceral basis for American voting behavior of the past, it can be argued that American voters simply do not vote rationally, but, vote either for change, or keeping things the same; against the current party in office, or for it, respectively.

The independent voter however, is the fulcrum for the 2008 elections in both the Congressional and Presidential races. Party loyalist voters will establish the baseline, favoring Democrats these days as more voters are registered as Democrat than Republican, but the election results will be largely determined by the independent voters. Curiously, only one Republican candidate for President seems to understand this, Rudy Guiliani.

For it is only Guiliani who appears to be campaigning both for the primary and general election audience. All of the rest of the Republican candidates are campaigning for their base Republican voters either as a Bush lookalike, or rebel candidate (Ron Paul). That is to say, the rest of the GOP candidates are not campaigning to the independent swing voters who don't buy into the far right social, economic, or national security positions of the Bush led Republican Party. Guiliani on the other hand appeals to some independent voters as the in-between candidate liberal on social issues, and conservative on national security and economic issues, and to his Party base as the only GOP candidate capable of defeating the Democratic nominee.

With the exceptions of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, all of the Democratic candidates are campaigning both to their base for the Primary election and the "swing voters" for the general election by promoting cornerstone issues and policies of appeal to both camps of voters. If Congressional GOP and Democratic candidates are following their presidential candidate's path, Democrats are poised to gain more seats in Congress by virtue of this broader campaigning appeal to both party loyalists and independent voters.

The poll reflects that voters are optimistic that changing leadership in government will be good for the future. Sixty three percent of those polled said they were very or, fairly confident their children will have a better life than they do. Only 26% of these same people said, however, that the U.S. is headed in the right direction. This seems to clearly indicate Americans are seeking a change in leadership in government. The candidates who run on the "change" theme, and offer hope for the future in their stump speeches and debates, are more likely to appeal to the broadest group of voters. Not exactly a revelation. But, given the polling, it begs the question: Why are Republicans running on Bush's policies?

Even Guiliani, appears to fail to recognize the import of this polling data, since, his positions on economics and national security largely mirror President Bush's, and Americans have clearly rejected those, (Bush's approval ratings at 25%, less than the percentage of registered Republican voters). If this analysis holds up, it appears regardless whether Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is the Democratic nominee, America will have a Democratic President in 2008.

That prospect however, raises alarm bells for many independent voters, who have turned sour on one party government. All other considerations aside, the imbalance of open Republican seats outnumbering open Democratic seats in the Congress, indicates the Congress will remain in Democrat control. Independent voters hoping to avoid a one party government have two choices, vote for a Republican president, or vote for a Republican Representative and Senators. The numbers of independent voters who will reach this level of analysis regarding their vote however, will likely be small, and will prove insignificant to the general election results.

It is far more likely most independent voters will vote anti-incumbent and, or, vote Democratic in order to vote for change. In both cases, it appears clear from the analysis of current polls, that the 2008 elections will be a windfall for Democrats, and another one party controlled government. That said, it would be foolish with over 12 months to go, to place a money bet on the outcome. In American politics, the potential for unforeseen events which could transform election results always remains large and real. Another terrorist attack, an independent candidate for President, or an economic recession are but a few potential events that could change the election results of 2008.

Regardless of the results in 2008's elections, some things ironically are not likely to change without a monumental anti-incumbent vote. Campaign financing, the wealthy special interest bribery and control of lawmaking, increasing losses to competition overseas, and the refusal by Congress to decisively and effectively deal with the looming national debt / entitlement spending crisis will not change, without a wholesale booting out of incumbents from both the Democratic and Republican held offices. And the prospect of such a wholesale removal of incumbents is not yet in the cards for 2008. But, there is reason to hope, as long as the anti-incumbent option grows in the consciousness of the American voter.

Constitutional Convention Begins October 19

2007-10-14T23:21:57Z

Believe it or not, in a barely covered announcement made on October 5, which I just ran across, a Constitutional Convention will commence on October 19. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito among others will preside. 23 proposed amendments and changes to the U.S. Constitution are on the agenda for debate.

]]> It is an educational mock Constitutional Convention put together by University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, author of the book, A More Perfect Constitution. A growing number of able persons are debating, contemplating, and pushing for our next Constitutional Convention. Many say it is inevitable and necessary. Fewer say we are ready for it in this generation. Some arguments follow, much of which I was unaware of before a this bit of research.

The blogs are full of comments to discussions of a Constitutional Convention which charge that it would result in a runaway process with all manner of horrible changes wrought upon our nation and people. While respecting their concerns, which were also mine prior to being introduced to FOAVC this Summer, such comments are imparted from a state of ignorance. The U.S. has witnessed a runaway Convention before, in which, the delegates went way beyond their mandate and instructions in the drafting of a new Constitution.

But, the ratification process required to adopt what the delegates proposed, caused fierce fighting within some of the states before ratification could be achieved. It was our first Constitutional Convention and it achieved its goal to create a more perfect union through a constitutional democratic republic. One which has survived enormous challenges for over 2 centuries.

A convention held in modern times could not possibly achieve any results which were not bi-partisan. It would only take 13 state's delegates to nullify the Convention's product. Given that there are more red or blue states than the 13 required to reject ratification, the delegates could run as wild and radical as they wish in redrafting our Constitution, but, without consensus between red and blue state delegates, the runaway proposals would not alter a single letter of our current Constitution. Fears of gratuitous overreach are unfounded. The greater concern is that so much time and effort be spent with no changes to show to for it. The consequences of no Convention or, one that produces no change, are negative for a growing number of Americans assessing these options.

But if our current Constitution has survived for over 2 centuries, why should anyone attempt to change it now? It is a valid and important question with incredibly important consequences. While there are many, many arguments to support a call for an Article V Convention, there are 3 which are chief among them, Executive Power which has grown entirely out of the balances and checks devised by our founders, the partisanship of judicial appointments, and the incredible corruption of the political process by both special interest money and the 2 political parties.

The President now has taken unto its own office the war powers specified in the Constitution as belonging to the Congress. Over many presidents this shift has occurred. And America is now faced with the very real potential of president using Executive secrecy and expanded powers to attack other nations like China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, or Pakistan, which could engage the U.S. in a conflict whose retaliation posed grave risks to the U.S. homeland, compelling the Congress to underwrite the war even though the Congress would never have approved the attacks if the proposition had been posed to them.

The branch of government responsible for, and charged with, the duty to insure the checks and balances and principles of the U.S. Constitution, has become partisan; an outcome not anticipated by the founding fathers, and which is producing partisan oriented review, instead of impartial judicial review. And the Supreme Court as a result, has failed time and again to preserve the checks and balances between the original 3 equal branches of government contemplated in the thinking of our founding fathers, many of whom were well versed in the writings of Charles Montesquieu,, the architect of the modern concept of separation of powers.

We are witnessing at this very moment, the most monumental neglect of America's challenges and needs going forward as a result of the two party deadlock in the Congress. The two major political parties are now so consumed by the prospects of home district reelection, that their ability to act decisively, effectively, and bi-partisanly is virtually non-existent for existing and looming crises like illegal immigration, entitlement spending, the AMT taxes, and the growing national debt. Campaign financing has resulted in legislation that favors donor special interests instead of solving the nation's and the people's challenges. In fact, very often, the special interest influence results in legislation that creates more problems than it solves, like the Medicare Rx drug plan, which increases national debt and created non-competitive inflationary costs in the health care system.

Larry Sabato's book, noted above, addresses these and other issues of serious concern for our nation. And the mock Convention will address many of these concerns as well. It is my fervent hope that the student delegates to the mock convention are aired on C-Span. I believe these delegates may display far more knowledge of, and insight into, our Constitution than most of our representatives in government today, and certainly more than most voters.

Issues such as campaign finance reform, executive power overreach, war powers resting in the Executive Branch instead of the Congress as our Constitution specifies, can no longer be addressed by the 2 party political competition which, now passes for Constitutional process in name only. Political parties, modern technology, speed of information and action, universal suffrage combined with even less knowledge of civics by our voting citizenry than at any other time in our history, have culminated in serious imbalances of power and accountability. Combined, they constitute a process which is broken. It is broken in large part because precedent in law and action have now cemented departures from the original constitution into acceptance by our courts, politicians, and agencies of government, in ways that now make a far more imperfect union.

One of the incredibly important things our Constitution did was to define, quite specifically, government process. But, it did so for the 1780's, not the 21st century. Political parties were not even in place when our Constitution was drafted. Hence, the drafters could not anticipate the consequences of them on the process they designed. Many of our founders, in one fashion or another, agreed with Jefferson, Madison, and Washington as Sabato recites:

In a letter to James Madison in 1789, Jefferson wrote these wise words: "[N]o society can make a perpetual constitution . . . .The earth belongs always to the living generation . . . .Every constitution . . . naturally expires at the end of 19 years." Madison agreed, warning that their generation should be prevented "from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens" on posterity.

George Washington was blunt when he wrote in 1797: "The warmest friends . . . the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections . . . .I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

Eric Lane and Michael Oreskes, authors of "The Genius of America" maintain that the U.S. Constitution should be a document that inspires change as the people and the nation change over time. Eric Lane is a law professor at Hofstra University School of Law. He was formerly a director of the New York City Charter Revision Commission, New York State Commission on Constitutional Revision and counsel to Senate Democrats in New York. Michael Oreskes is the executive editor of the International Herald Tribune. Formerly he was a political correspondent, Washington bureau chief and deputy managing editor at the New York Times.

Together with Larry Sabato, Eric Lane and Michael Oreskes discussed their books and the Constitution in a program aired on C-Span today, conducted at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. In opposition to a Constitutional Convention would be a host of small groups claiming to know what the original intent of our founding fathers were. Libertarians make this claim frequently. Less well known and wide ranging are Code Pink on the left, and Citizens for Constitutional Government on the right. But, the simple logical truth of the matter is, no one can possibly know what the founding fathers would have intended for the Constitution if it were being drafted today, with the advent of campaign financing, threats of attack by foreign terrorists without a national identification or cohesion, the digital information age, electronic surveillance, and international law and the U.N.

In the quote by Jefferson above, the 19 years refers to the average span of a generation in their day. Today, a generation is more like 30 years. Hence, Jefferson would today call for a Constitutional Convention to be held every 30 years whether changes were agreed upon or not, as part of the process of keeping the process alive and invigorated for each generation. There is much wisdom in this line of reasoning.

Today's Politicians - Inept, Corrupt, and Wrong!

2007-10-08T18:31:08Z

Our politicians just can't seem to resist throwing tax payer's dollars away and increasing the national debt. You are not going to believe this. They can't seem to get much else right, either.

Stephen Barr writes about the President's advisory board on federal employees pay having recommended a 2.5% across the board pay raise for the coming year. So, what do you think Pres. Bush and Congress do with that information? Reject it, of course, and propose a 3% and 3.5% raise respectively, instead.

]]> What part of the two words 'fiscal responsibility' do these politicians not understand? Does our national debt surpassing 9 trillion dollars ($9,000,000,000,000.) mean nothing to these politicians? Is this some kind of competition between the White House and the Congress for government employee loyalty bought and paid for with unwarranted pay raises and higher future taxes? It is very difficult to come up with some other rational explanation. Do you voters really have to wait until they bankrupt our government and society before you stop voting these incumbent politicians back into office again, and again?

It is truly incredible how these politicians reward loyalty even for breaking the laws of our nation. J. Scott Jennings, the deputy White House political director, left his job Friday to become a high paid lobbyist for Peritus Public Relations. The man should be going to jail instead of through the 'public office to lobbyist revolving door'. This is the man who delivered private political PowerPoint briefings on Congressional elections to agencies in our government including the Peace Corps which is an illegal use of tax payer dollars, as the Wash. Post reports. How long are you voters going to tolerate these incumbent politicians willful disregard of our laws?

Despite a host of laws to prevent nepotism from invading our federal government, WaPo writer Christopher Lee writes:

In the most recent report, released in May 2006, investigators found that 23 agencies hired 144 political appointees into career positions from May 2001 to April 2005. In at least 18 cases the agencies did not follow proper procedures, the GAO found, citing problems such as hiring appointees with limited qualifications, creating positions for specific individuals, and disregarding veterans' preference laws.

As a veteran, I am very offended by this practice. When voters vote their objection at the polls in the only way the Constitution provides, by voting for a challenger instead of an incumbent who is responsible for these reprehensible actions which undermine the good intents of our constitutional government design?

Are voters going to vote based on what they see in political advertising? Yes, for the most part. Ironic isn't it? The one source of information about candidates which absolutely cannot be trusted is the primary source of information upon which voters will vote. Let break down how this works. Let's take Hillary Clinton for example, though its true for all candidates. She and her operatives have raised $75 million dollars to spend on advertising her for President. Much of that money will go to public relations and advertising / marketing firms, who will design and test various messages and images on small numbers of potential voters to see which is most convincing. Having crunched the numbers, they will recommend the most convincing advertisements for Clinton's campaign to purchase and promote on TV, radio, and print media.

Will that advertising tell the public what her weaknesses are? Will it tell voters about where she stands on issues they aren't focused on at this time? Will these ads reveal Clinton's position on issues the majority of the public won't agree with her on? The answers to these questions are no, No, and NO! Is it any wonder then, that voters end up so disapproving and discouraged by the politicians they elect? Then why reelect them if the government they produce is not what voters expected? Answer: all those millions of dollars of advertising. Isn't it time voters refused to make their voting decisions based on paid advertising?

How long will Americans turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of incumbent politicians? Congress this last week passed a Bill that would stop the IRS from including the write off of a defaulted mortgage in bankruptcy court in the defaulter's gross income for that year. Can you believe this? These are mostly the same politicians who previously approved the IRS sticking it to folks who went bankrupt, lost their homes, and got hit by the addition of as much, or more, than $100,000 in their IRS gross income for the year, as if defaulting on their mortgage constituted income in the first place.

Was it right to stick it to mortgage defaulters before this year and wrong to stop the practice this year, just because there are more of them? Or, was it wrong to stick it to defaulters before, and right to stop the practice now? In either case, most of those voting this week were responsible for sticking it to bankrupt taxpayers before. Should they be reelected? If you think not, you too may be a Vote Out Incumbents Democracy supporter.

Voting Out Incumbents: Getting Easier

2007-10-06T05:28:35Z

Voting out incumbents, whose results as elected leaders are disappointing, is getting easier. In prior elections, one of the main obstacles to voting out an incumbent has been getting enough information about challengers to afford voters a reasonable alternative candidate to vote for. The internet to the rescue!

A number of political action sites are now providing comprehensive lists of incumbents and challengers, to include links to their campaign web sites and much greater volume of information about their pasts and qualifications. One such site is SourceWatch which updates its site regularly, covering not only the politicians and candidates, but, lobbyists, and campaign financing, as well as who is behind the news stories.

]]> Vote Out Incumbents Democracy has a continually updating list of challengers for every Congressional race in every state, as candidates announce and file their candidacy with the Federal Elections Commission. These listings all include the challenger's web site. This page also provides zip code look up of your incumbent representatives and their records (courtesy Vote Smart, see link below).

An outstanding organization and web site is Project Vote Smart. Vote Smart is the premier voters self-defense web site designed to provide voters with all the information they need to make an intelligent voting decision covering everything from where candidates get their money from, who they are likely beholding to, and how incumbents have voted on the many bills that came before them on the Congressional floor.

In researching this information as part of my responsibilities at VOID, I was struck by two main categories of information, 'Hype' and 'Record'.

Hype is the kind of information about candidates and politicians bought and paid for either by the parties, candidates themselves, or their opponents. 'Hype' is designed specifically to hide lots of factual information about a candidate or party, while accentuating either the positive or negative, often out of context of the record. Included in 'Hype' are the web sites of the candidates themselves, obviously designed to hide the negatives and highlight the positives as they think voters want to see them. Also included in this category are the partisan PAC (political action committee) sites whose purpose is to promote one party or political perspective over others, like Swift Boat Veterans, or MoveOn.org. While 'Hype' sites can be informative, in as much as they will provide factual information which clearly favors their slant, they come up very short in providing context and a complete picture or information base about their targets of discussion.

'Record' sites may have a slant or bias by their owners or funders, but, their mission statement, charter, and obligations under non-profit and tax exempt non-partisan laws, require that their main purpose be to inform and educate on a factual and more holistic information set. These sites often provide records of historical time lines, biographies, or fairly political records of candidates, (hence the term 'Record' site as opposed to 'Hype') These sites are far more comprehensive in the information they provide and are largely accurate and complete as far as context is concerned for the information they provide on candidates, parties, and politicians. More prominent 'Record' sites include Real Clear Politics, Open Secrets.org, and of course, the incredibly rich and diverse C-Span web site.

I don't think it is unreasonable to classify voters into 3 broad categories based on their information sources.

Party voters who seek information legitimized by Party sponsorship
"Handed" partisan voters who may not identify strongly with either of the major parties but have a strong left or right partisan lean who seek information from left-handed or right-handed partisan sources, and often read and cite 'Hype' sources
And true independent voters who rely in some major part on 'Record' sites, as mentioned above, and who seek amd are drawn toward candidates most likely to work to solve the problems and issues of concern to them, regardless of party affiliation.

America's future rests in the hands of these 3 categories of voters, and there are many new information sources springing up each election cycle to cater to each of these groups of voters. But, recently, elections have been decided by the "handed" and independent voters, making them the target audiences of candidates and parties after the primary elections. From this writer's perspective, it is very encouraging the number of new and varied 'Record' information sources arising out of the growth of that group of voters who identify themselves as Independents. Clearly, large numbers of independent voters remain biased against one party or another.

But if, and there is some evidence to support this, independent voters are more likely to acquire information from 'Record' sources as opposed to 'Hype' and clearly partisan sources, this group may indeed become the true political brokers of elections in the future. These swing voters are more inclined to give incumbents the boot for poor results. And because of their information sources, they are more inclined to focus on issue solutions and the pragmatism of the candidate they vote for, as opposed to political party ideology, spin, or rhetoric. And that would have to be a distinct improvement in American politics.

Democrat's DREAM Act Defeated!

2007-09-27T22:56:32Z

Democrat's attempt to hide their 'Amnesty and Leave the Borders Open' bill, by burying it in the Defense Appropriations Bill, has failed. Some 490,000 NumbersUSA supporters, and many thousands of other Americans, hit their Senators again with raucous dissent via phone, fax, and email at this sneaky and underhanded attempt to revive the Amnesty bill which, failed last summer as a stand alone bill.

]]> The stink of hypocrisy made opponents ever more fervent to halt Democrat's attempt. Democrats have for years criticized Republicans for using this very same tactic of hiding legislation in totally unrelated bills in order to sneak it past the public and media and fellow representatives. Now that Democrats have the slimmest of majority in the Senate, they are adopting the corrupt tactics of the former Republican majority. It is shameful and despicable that Democrats who campaigned on change and ethics would stoop this low to move legislation they perceive as a political windfall for their party, if only they can sneak it past the public.

Worse, many Democrats brand NumbersUSA as a right wing Republican organization. Another despicable Republican tactic now adopted by many Democrats. NumbersUSA is not affiliated with the Republican Party nor is it partisan in any way. It is a single issue organization attracting supporters from across the political spectrum including the ever growing majority of Independent voters. It seems the oft heard criticism that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to political dirty deeds, is proven true yet again.

These shady and underhanded tactics by Democrats are jeopardizing their sway with Independent voters. If they don't halt their Republican mimicry in shady politics, their confidence in Nov. 2008's election outcome may be seriously compromised when all the votes are counted.

I extend my thanks and appreciation to my fellow Republican, Democrat, Third Party, and Independent comrades who worked and supported the effort inside and outside NumbersUSA to halt this travesty by Democrats to weaken American sovereignty, public health, law and order, and national integrity. Democrats have but one thing to gain by such a bill, their belief that 3/4 of immigrants legal and illegal given amnesty, will become Democratic voters. Which means the Democratic leadership is willing to sell out our nation for the sake of increasing their political power. They must be stopped from doing this. And thankfully we did stop them again, this time. The amendment was pulled from the Defense Appropriations bill.

Intense Political Weeks in America

2007-09-09T04:51:46Z

This last 7 days has witnessed one of the most packed weeks for political news and activity I have ever seen. From a rash of Republican retirement announcements to a rash of new information about Iraq, on balance, it appears many wrongs and ills are being set right, and a few not. Following is a recap.

]]> Sen. Chuck Hagel, thought by some to throw his hat in the Presidential election ring, announces retirement from the Senate and no run for President.

Rep. Paul Gillmor, an Ohio Republican who served in the House of Representatives for nearly 20 years, was found dead in his apartment. No evidence of foul play.

The much covered retirement of Sen. Craig.

The Democratic Senator whose life was spared after a massive stroke 8 months ago, made his return to the Senate this week. Sen. Tim Johnson, whose spared life, also spared Democrats from having to submit to Dick Cheney's tie vote breaker in the Senate, is reported to have all his cognitive abilities intact, though his body has been less cooperative.

Former Senator Fred Thompson formally threw his hat into the Presidential election ring this week, but, to less enthusiasm that had been expected, and too late in the season say many, to lead the field. But, like many Republicans of late, Thompson's reentry to public politics is tarnished by scandal.

The GOP is desperately trying to put together a party re-branding marketing and advertising campaign to bring back voters they've lost, according to one Politico article this week. But, it will prove difficult to market the very same qualities which Republicans failed so miserably at. Here is an excerpt:

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) recently created a small, ad hoc advisory group of fellow members to help restore the GOP brand as the party of small government, fiscal discipline and tough-minded foreign policy.

The Wash. Times reports that efforts at withdrawal from Iraq have stalled in Congress. But, there may be a sea change coming in the Senate as Reuters reports:

"This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, who has always opposed the war but until now voted to fund it.

On the other side, and in another Reuter's article, Republicans vow to fight any new bills calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq, citing progress there.

These party positions are drawn against a background of reports from Iraq citing limited improvement in overall violence, the relatively secured al_Anbar Province and many Baghdad neighborhoods cleared of sectarian rivals either by murder or relocation. A report (PDF) of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, chaired by retired Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones is released, and states clearly that Iraqi forces are not capable of securing Iraq.

While severely deficient in combat support and combat service support capabilities, the new Iraqi armed forces, especially the Army, show clear evidence of developing the baseline infrastructures that lead to the successful formation of a national defense capability. The Commission concurs with the view expressed by U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi experts that the Iraqi Army is capable of taking over an increasing amount of day-to-day combat responsibilities from Coalition forces. In any event, the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities independently over the next 12-18 months.

In the aggregate, the Commission's assessment ascribes better progress to the Iraqi Army and the Ministry of Defense and less to the Ministry of Interior, whose dysfunction has hampered the police forces' ability to achieve the level of effectiveness vital to the security and stability of Iraq.

Politico reports there is a new strategy by Democrats which seeks bi-partisan support for finding closure to the war in Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are calculating that it is futile to continue their months-long campaign to force an immediate end to the war, particularly after Republicans and a few Democrats returned from the summer recess intent on opposing legislation mandating a strict timetable for pulling out U.S. troops.

There appears to be a conundrum in all this for Republicans and a silver lining for Democrats, politically. Pres. Bush has made clear he will not withdraw from Iraq while he is President. A bi-partisan effort led by Democrats to reduce troop levels, however, before the 2008 elections has all the appearances of being the most that Democrats can accomplish with a Republican president. Given public opinion has soured on the war in Iraq, Republicans face the 2008 elections as the owners of the Iraq war, and primary obstacle to ending it.

If this perception is widely held in the public view come Nov. of 2008, this all adds up to a Democratic sweep in both Houses of Congress and the White House, all other things being constant. Unless a Republican candidate for President announces an intent to quickly remove American forces from the fighting in Iraq in his first 100 days as President, it appears unlikely Republicans will be able to circumvent the sweep that lies ahead.

Meanwhile, Congress is passing bills at a regular clip, and some come with a sting attached for the White House. A bill sponsored by Rep. Jack Murtha passed on votes of 395 to 13 on Aug. 5. It was the Department of Defense Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2008, and it comes with some stinging limitations on how Pres. Bush and the Pentagon may use those funds.

The more controversial Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 by Nancy Pelosi passed on Aug 4, on votes of 241 to 172. The Senate version will likely be dissimilar.

On Aug. 2, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization bill passed the Senate 68-31, which millions of families around the country will be relieved to know.

The House, on Aug. 2, passed HR 3159, 229 ayes to 194 nays: An Act to mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. If passed in the Senate, this will bring relief and some joy to thousands of families of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surprisingly, Republicans who reiterate support for the troops and often accuse Democrats of not doing so, opposed this bill.

In a hopeful article by Reuters it is reported: President George W. Bush prepared for an Asia-Pacific summit in Australia, saying on Friday the United States would consider a peace treaty with North Korea if it gave up nuclear arms.

Pres. Bush is expected to sign the bill which which overhauls "U.S. college student aid by slashing subsidies to lenders and using the money to boost student assistance by $20 billion was approved by Congress on Friday", as reported by Reuters. Good news for students.

And against a backdrop of increasing tensions between the White House and Iran, an optimistic article by Reuters reports:

The United States said on Friday there was potential merit to Iran's nuclear transparency deal with U.N. inspectors, after earlier branding it a diversionary gambit to forestall tougher U.N. sanctions.

It is complicated. It twists and turns. Nearly everyone associated denies culpability. But, the controversy surrounding Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (D) is not, and will not, go away. In this tale of earmarks and a Congressman too close to government contracts for comfort, it is likely Kanjorski has more to answer for, and the government and spending hawks, show no signs of letting up on this continuing investigation which portends corruption by somebody.

The GOP's UN-Fair Tax Goal

2007-09-01T20:51:49Z

Unable to make any headway in the Congress for a national retail sales tax, now referred to as the "Fair Tax" proposal, proponents have embarked on a different strategy. And so far, it's working.

When Republicans were in control of Congress, a debate was begun on how to eliminate the progressive income tax system which imposes higher rates for those accruing greater incomes. The two main alternatives to Income Tax reform were the Flat Tax and the Sales Tax (now spun into the "Fair Tax" by name).

]]> Republicans now champion the "Fair Tax" proposal which would impose little to no taxes on person's and corporations of wealthy means. But, how to force the "Fair Tax" option into the 2008 race, in the absence of any major candidates championing it as part of their campaign, was the question posed to its proponents. They came up with an answer.

The Washington Times, in a piece of high spin writing, reports:

[Fair Tax] supporters have taken a decidedly outside-the-Beltway approach to stirring up support, using activists in places like Iowa and early-primary states such as Florida to try to win attention in the presidential contests.

"We got there by deciding there were a few places in the country that candidates had to talk face to face with people," said Ken Hoagland, the spokesman for Americans for Fair Taxation, the nonprofit group pushing the FairTax. "We knew that people love the FairTax, and we would have very little success lobbying in Washington, so we took our message to people in the primary states and asked them to take the message to the candidates."

The article goes on to say that such a bottom up strategy of getting proponents into these campaign areas to encourage Republican voters to ask the Republican candidates about their stand on the "Fair Tax" plan, has had some success. The Times article explains that six GOP candidates have signed on. They report Mike Huckabee was asked about it by so many potential supporters while campaigning, that he was forced to inquire into the plan, obtain a copy of it, and upon reading it a couple times, concluded that he will champion it as part of his political campaign for President.

As far as this bottom up approach to forcing an issue into an election campaign, this strategy is proving successful. Another aspect of the strategy is more commonplace and familiar, highlight the positives and never speak of the negatives, leaving those to the plan's opponents, which will in part, paint the opponents as naysayers by their own words. The Washington Times partakes in this strategy adding the following 'highlight the positives' commentary:

Supporters say they could abolish the income tax, the Internal Revenue Service and the April 15 paperwork headaches and replace it with a 23 percent tax on all retail sales. There are no exemptions, but the government would pay a monthly rebate to every taxpayer to make up for what is spent on essentials such as food and clothing.

At first read, it sounds good. Yet, there are some contradictions here upon re-read. What agency of the government is going to process those rebates to the poor? Surely, some form of Internal Revenue Service will need to oversee that process. So the argument that the Internal Revenue Service would be eliminated is only partially true. Then there is the direct contradiction in one sentence, there will be no exemptions except for low income consumers who will be exempted in part via rebate checks on taxes paid for necessities.

But, critics of the plan have ample evidence to counter-attack this proposed revenue strategy besides those made obvious in the selling points. Wealthy persons have tax incentives to give to charity. With a sales tax system, the tax based incentives for charitable giving are gone.

Next would be critic's question: Who doesn't pay a fair share for government services? Answer: the wealthy folks in America and corporations and businesses. Bill Gates tax returns are not publicly available as far as I know. But, it is safe to say, that Bill Gates average spending for his personal life is insignificant compared to his annual income and net wealth. Bill Gates Microsoft shares alone amounted in the last year to $25 Billion dollars. Even if Bill Gates purchased 10 million dollars a year of goods and services in the U.S., his sales tax contribution to pay for federal government services and benefits would amount to less than 2.4 million dollars assuming "Fair Tax" rates of 23%.

Sounds like a lot. But, consider this. Bill Gates wealth has increased each year since the initial offering of Microsoft stock in 1984 by 1.15 billion dollars per year, on average. Based only on his MS stock holdings, his percentage of tax to income is 2.4 million divided by 1.15 billion, or, 0.2 percent, or 2/10's of one percent of his annual increase in wealth. Of course this percentage would be smaller for Bill Gates, because his net annual growth of wealth in other stocks, bonds, income and holdings is significantly more. Compare this to a wage earner making $60,000 per year who spends $60,000 per year whose tax rate is 23%, nearly one fourth of all their annual income.

It is also important to note, that Bill Gates utilizes far more government services than the $60,000 per year wage earner. Bill Gates uses our roads and bridges, trains, and airways far more than the average worker, all of which receive federal tax dollars and serve Microsoft's needs for shipping his products, employees, and supplies. Gates uses far more of the Securities and Exchange Commission's services, Fed. Communications Services, Fed. Trade Commission's services, Interstate Commerce Commission's, US federal court services, and other federal government services which protect his business and ability to enforce his contracts, patents, and trademarks, domestically and internationally.

Microsoft too would be largely exempt from taxes, since it purchases an extremely small amount of retail goods and services, and wholesale goods and services would not be taxed under the "Fair Tax" plan, which does not include a value added tax, commonplace in Europe, which insures business pays a share of the government services which it benefits from.

In addition, the national sales tax proposal would completely eliminate corporations and businesses from paying a share of the costs for the very government that protects and defends the marketplace in which they create their profits. Further, the sales tax would, according to some proponents, also remove employer's incentives and obligations to provide health care insurance, retirement pension plans, and other programs like 401K matching as part of their compensation packages for their employees. This would not come about in the initial passing of the so called "Fair Tax" plan, but, would follow as amendments to the system as their lobbyists coerced and bribed Congresspersons seeking reelection to erode these obligations in subsequent bills.

Hence, the net effect of a national retail sales tax critics will argue is this: Those who use the most of federal government's services, and benefit most from them, would pay the least percentage of their income in taxes to fund government services. This is precisely why Republican's needed to create the misnomer name for this sales tax proposition that would counter the truth of it on its face by calling it the "Fair Tax". It would be anything but fair as those with the most earned dollars and biggest users of federal services, would pay little to nothing for those government services, compared to their less fortunate fellow citizens.

It would be a mistake for current Income Tax reformers and Flat Tax proponents, to underestimate the power of Republican's salesmanship on this issue. Their grass roots up strategy to promote the national sales tax agenda can be enormously effective. The reason is that it is being sold to voters before they have the opportunity or benefit of counter arguments or debate. Which means by the time this proposal is introduced in Congress for debate, a large segment of the population will have already been sold on the idea, and view protest and debate by Democrats as purely partisan having no merit. It is a brilliant strategy which should not be ignored.

Big Brother or Uncle Sam: Look Alikes

2007-08-31T23:46:39Z

The face of George Orwell's Big Brother and that of the bearded Uncle Sam are morphing into each other at an accelerated rate. Soon, we can take the composite of both as the new face of America, and plaster it on high technology high definition digital Ad Displays from Times Square to the Golden Gate with the caption, "Uncle Sam is Watching You".

]]> As Democrats and some Republicans alike in Congress struggle to obtain memos from V.P. Dick Cheney's office regarding unwarranted (illegal) wiretaps enacted by President Bush's authorization, another step was just taken to authorize cutting edge NSA spy satellites to be turned on the American people by local law enforcement agencies to spy on work places, homes, back yards, persons, and vehicles en route, all in the name of upholding the law.

The Wash. Post report states the Bush Administration has approved a plan to give "law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers." This makes the movies on this topic appear ancient as this kind of technological advance wasn't even dreamed up by fiction screen writers of Enemy of the State. There is no question that observing and recording the actions of every person in the borders of the U.S. 24 hours a day would radically reduce crime, eliminate terrorist actions underway, and insure the absence of groups of Americans assembling for the purpose of influencing and altering the actions of government.

The question is: Do we want Uncle Sam watching our every move in the name of protecting us even from ourselves? If the answer is no, then it is prudent for Americans to halt this giant step in that direction by the Bush Administration. America fought a Cold War against the communist Soviet Union which, if it had this technology, would without question have used it to protect the government from its own people. There would have been no rebellion by Chechnyans. The KGB would have known of Gorbachev's moves before he made them. Glasnost and Peristroika would never have entered into the English language or news pages around the world. The people would have been completely suppressed from supporting Gorbachev or Yeltsin's bold initiatives.

Power seeks to protect itself and endure. This is no less true of power in America than in Communist Russia or China. And America upon embarking on the justification of this technology in the name of Good, will have no more hope of preventing the spread of this technology to Russia and China than it had of preventing nuclear weapon proliferation. If Pres. Bush is successful in enacting this use of power, there will be no moral, legal, or international basis upon which the United States can argue against tyrannical regimes from employing it as well for total population suppression purposes. This technology turned upon its own people by government is the enemy of freedom and liberty. For there can be no freedom of action if one's actions are monitored and intersected when they appear suspicious to those controlling the technology.

George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, and a host of lesser known writers have warned the people's of the world that this day was coming. But, who would have guessed that it would be the United States that would set this precedent for tyranny to flourish throughout the nations of the world, 50 years ago? Then, we would have said: "It could never happen here". Yet, here it is.

The day has arrived, and the face of Uncle Sam and Big Brother are morphing into a composite of a new face of the future. A future where liberty and freedom absolutely must be redefined to mean security. It is Benjamin Franklin's nightmare come true: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither". America and Americans are being tested at this very moment on whether or not they are capable of freedom and liberty. If the Bush administration proceeds without the people rising up in condemnation, America and Americans will have failed this historical test.

Unknown American Hero

2007-08-28T20:48:33Z

Increasingly, a measure by which many Independent voters determine whether or not to vote for an incumbent or their challenger, is based on who is funding their campaign and in what amount. One American hero is largely responsible for the public having that ability. His name is Fred Wertheimer.

Fred Wertheimer is a name and face which Independent / Third Party voters, and all voters concerned with responsible, ethical, and accountable government, should get acquainted with.

]]> In an excellent article about Mr. Wertheimer, Jeffrey H. Birnbaum of the Washington Post writes: For 36 years, Wertheimer has worked tirelessly to change congressional ethics and campaign finance laws. This year he conceived and championed the most consequential part of the soon-to-be-signed lobbying bill: a provision that requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" campaign checks for them.

Much of the data on who is giving big checks and who is taking them, can be found here at the Federal Elections Commission web site, thanks in no small measure to Mr. Wertheimer's decades of effort.

Mr. Wertheimer, thank you. You are like water pouring over rock, year after year, eroding the rock in the grinding and unyielding motion of your efforts toward passage, until one day the canyon of free flowing information needed by voters to make an informed decision is carved wide and deep for all to benefit from.

A.G. Gonzalez Resigns

2007-08-27T20:46:21Z

Just months ago, defiance by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush, in the face of critic's calls for the A.G.'s resignation, was frustrating for them. The frustration ends today.

]]> A close friend and advisor to Pres. Bush since the President's days as Governor of Texas, Gonzalez became a lightning rod from the beginning of the process to elevate him to Att. Gen. Weighed down by Constitutional battles over his advice that certain Geneva Conventions did not apply to America's handling of prisoners in the War on Terror, that surveillance of Americans in efforts to monitor potential terrorists abroad, and most recently his nearly complete loss of memory regarding his role in the firing of 8 Republican U.S. Attorneys and attacks on those attorneys character's to justify their firing, Gonzalez is expected to resign this morning.

Reuters covers details and some background in this story entitled appropriately enough, Attorney General Gonzales resigns. His resignation follows a long list of resignations from the Bush Administration over both terms, leaving critics with only 2 primary targets for vacating office left, V.P. Dick Cheney and the President himself. Critics will have another frustrating long wait to see these two gentlemen exit the White House for the last time; Jan. 20, 2009, to be precise.

There will be official reasons for his resignation, unofficial reasons, and speculation as to the real motives. But, the trend of cabinet members and other White House officials resigning in the wake of controversies and criticisms that won't go away, is all too familiar. Clearly however, the President's legacy will not be served by the resignations. Nor will confidence in this administration be restored as a result of another in a long list of resignations to date.

So, it may prove to be the case, that what the White House reports as reasons for this resignation will actually be truthful; the interest of public service from the Attorney General's office, not hampered by investigations and an ongoing barrage of legal maneuvers to force Attorney General to answer Senators Arlen Specter's (R) and Patrick Leahy's inquiries from Congress. In other words, to further the interests of getting the people's work done.

Some Republicans and Democrats alike have been dismayed and frustrated by Gonzalez' performance in his office. Like Katrina, the War in Iraq, torture, and illegal surveillance, A.G. Gonzalez has cost the Republican Party registered voters, now estimated at 31%. Several percentage points behind Democrats and several more behind Independents. But, his resignation serves little political purpose at this point, the damage is done, and history will not allow removing his tenure from its pages. This appears to leave only the motive of restoring morale and efficacy in a Justice Department troubled by low morale and controversy now hindering the Department's ability to recruit the best and brightest to fill vacant positions.

There appears to be no cause or justification for rejoicing at Gonzalez' resignation. It is sad chapter in American history that politics, controversy, and incompetence have so dominated the inner workings of U.S. government, that a list of needs of the nation and the American people continue to go unmet and unresolved. And the list grows with each passing year, to include:

Finding an exit strategy for the deficit busting war without progress in Iraq.
An ever wider divide between the wealthy and the Middle Class, and renewed growth in the numbers of poor.
Projects that appear to have no end in sight such as border security, restoration of damage left by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and addressing a crumbling infrastructure.
Needed reforms now growing in number, from Social Security, Medicare, Health Care, Campaign Finance, greater lobbying and ethics reforms, and recently added and looming, the need to reform the seemingly unlimited power of the Executive Branch to deny and reject Constitutional design for 3 co-equal branches of government replete with oversight and accountability powers.

In a long repetition of government taking 1 step forward and 2 back, the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez represents another step forward. Many will call this progress. Many would say closing this door will only lead to opening another into more scandal, more politics instead of governance, and another 2 steps back. I would count myself among this latter group, until the voters in America revolt at the election polls, canceling the tenures of vast numbers of incumbents who demonstrate with ever greater frequency, their inability and lack of desire to put America back together again.

'08's Economic Woes to Hit Republicans Hard

2007-08-23T20:43:18Z

Many think the '08 elections will be all about Iraq. They are wrong. A co-equal issue for voters in '08 will be pocketbook issues. The current sub-prime mortgage debacle has spill over effects that are going to hit millions of voters with either pocketbook losses or pocketbook anxiety.

A majority of voters have never bought into the Bush administration's rosy economic rhetoric. But, now, growing percentages of them are workers being laid off; companies are paring back, consumers are hitting Wal-Mart's and Home Depot's revenues negatively, and health care continues to eat bigger chunks of paychecks. GDP is now projected between 2.4 and 2.7 percent, and more bears are throwing the Recession word around (inappropriately, I might add.)

]]> But, one worker's lay off influences political perceptions for far more than the worker themself. A Politco article by Mike Allen entitled: Pocketbook worries coming to forefront says: "financial security - will be central to next year's presidential race." It is important to note that this sub-prime debacle is not likely going to hurt the Wall Street crowd significantly. Many of them are calling the retrenchment in the markets a welcome opportunity and return to fundamental valuations.

But the spill over effects are hitting automobile sales, home sales, home improvements, and increasing numbers of employees in the mortgage industry, small home contractors, Home Depot and Lowe's, are going to be out of work as these industry's operations are pared back as a consequence of tighter credit, and lower consumer sales. Add to that escalating health insurance premiums, other out of pocket medical costs, further erosion in pension plans and the looming threat to Social Security sustainability at current levels, millions and millions of voters in 2008 are going to be hard pressed to approve of Republican's economic policies still intact.

Congress' approval rating dropped to 18% this last week. But, as bad as that sounds, potentially valid arguments are being made that this will not hurt Democrats in the '08 elections. It has been readily accepted that Democrats will gain seats in the Senate because of 3 times more Republicans up for election than Democrats, exposing Republicans to more losses of incumbents seats than Democrats. But, until very recently, Republicans actually saw the potential of recapturing the House. That potential has been dramatically diminished in the last several months as a wave of Republican representative retirement announcements have unpredictably taken place.

Josh Kraushaar and Patrick O'Connor of Politico wrote an Aug. 16 article revealing this unanticipated blow to Republican prospects entitled: Dems' chances to boost House majority surge. They write:

The retirements come at a time when the National Republican Congressional Committee is lagging well behind the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in cash on hand and can ill afford too many retirements in competitive congressional districts.

Republicans need to pick up 16 seats to win back the House, and every new tight race makes it more difficult for them to do that.

Some more Republican incumbents are involved in accusations of scandal, hurting their prospects further. Public sentiment is very negative on Congress, but, it would be surprising indeed if Republican's internal polls were not showing diminishing prospects for public support of Republicans in 2008 for White House, Senate, and House seats. The logic here is that if the public is disappointed by the Democratic Congress' inability to halt Republican's "stay the course" policy in Iraq, the answer is to remove Republicans from Congress. Additionally, the majority of the working middle class public has maintained a dim view of the wealthier getting wealthier as their own real wages erode from inflation in health care and energy costs and low wage growth. The current financial insecurity simply reinforces the dim view of Republican economics these last several years.

Some pundit writers, this one included, predicted an upset in 2006, on the basis of the exodus from the registered Republican voters to Independent status, in greater numbers than occurred for Democrats. There is nothing in the current news environment to warrant altering that same prediction for 2008. Of course, it these predictions are proved valid, it means America will suffer another one party government, including the likely potential of shifting the Supreme Court back to a 5/4 liberal philosophical bent.

There is though, another scenario, far less likely, but, greater than ever before, that public sentiment toward both Democrats and Republicans sours to the point that Democrats still pick up seats, but, an unpredictable number of Democrat incumbents also lose their bid. The anti-incumbent sentiment continues to grow, and Independent registered voters rolls continue to grow. This constitutes a major wild card, with a remote chance of altering the perceived trend today of a Democratic landslide victory in 2008.

I personally don't believe this will happen in 2008, however, it will become more likely with each election, and may become probable by 2012 or 2014's elections. That will coincide with the Social Security and Medicare crisis coming to dominate nearly all other political issues, as the national debt exceeds 11 to 12 trillion dollars, more than double 2000's. Reality in 2014 will hit like a ton of bricks and both of the duopoly parties and their incumbents will be held to political account as never before. Especially if a number of popular or, known, independent centrists and moderates rise to candidate levels.