Is There Such a Thing?

David, you wrote: “There is no mechanism in our political system to hold politicians accountable for the results of government, other than the vote by the citizenry…… Political parties serve but one master, and that is control of power. All, all other values, criteria, and pursuits are secondary to this master.”

This theme of non-accountability runs through nearly every post you read relative to politicians, elected officials, political appointees, ambassadors, Judges, and the like. The political parties not only control the power, they use the power. Whether it’s gerrymandering, bringing lawsuits and filing complaints against opposing parties, funding the defense of their elected members, etc. The major parties have no problem with members like Ted Stephens, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham and the like. In fact, the parties will support those type people until the last breath.

Your wrote: “Failing this, political parties will rule our future, and that is no future most of us would want for our children. A future defined by the aspirations for power is no future at all for America. That future cannot and will not make first priority: good jobs, safe infrastructure, available medical care, quality education, just and fairly applied laws, and peace and security in our world, neighborhoods, and homes. Political parties are the voter's enemy, and non-partisan independent voters constitute the hope and salvation for our nation's future.”

At the top of my priority list would be: to protect the integrity of the Constitution, to protect the sovereignty of this country, and to protect the democratic principles by which we live. The latter including several of the priorities you noted. I agree that currently, political parties are the enemy of the voter and the Independent voter is key to achieving reform of government.
Therefore, to address the lack of accountability and the potential of the Independent voter lets proceed thusly. Found a new 3rd Party with built-in Citizen Oversight for Party members serving in government or quasi-government positions. This would bring new people with a different attitude about how government should be run. Hopefully this Party would attract some of the 70M retiring baby boomers that would be willing to serve in government for a few years. Likewise, this Party would attract a good number of the so-called Independents, now about 35% of the electorate. Let’s use the current DOJ Mucasey as an example. He recently stated that there would be no firings over the recent hiring of Attorney General’s using biased political views in the process. Since he is accountable to no one for this in-action that’s basically the end of the story. Now, assume the DOJ was a member in good standing with a Party with Citizen Oversight. If a specific number of Party members register a complaint a mandatory up/down vote would have to be held. The DOJ might survive the vote but if he failed to garner 66% of a favorable vote he would be automatically rejected from the Party. The DOJ would no longer be supported for any future political endeavors. If he survives the vote, well, there’s always the next time.

A new Party with new people with a new attitude with a new tool for accountability. A means to effect needed reform and keep it that way. David, you gotta like that!!

Sobering. From the gitgo I’ve realized that it would be a real dog fight to get this perceived solution to government reform and oversight pushed to the top of the heap. My thoughts are to get a few people of like mind together and flesh out the Rules for a Party with Built-in Citizen Oversight. Get the rules established, the major one being that it takes a two-thirds majority vote by Party members to add, change, or delete a rule. Once you’ve got the rules nailed down, THEN establish the Party legally and start collecting members. From that point it doesn't matter how powerful forces may distort the original agenda, the party members will have oversight of other party members who are elected or appointed to serve in some government or quasi-government position. Agree, a quicker way to gin up a party is to co-opt an existing party but therein lies the rub. Powerful forces are already at work there and they might not want to implement the same Rules I have in mind, etc. I believe you can sale this idea at the grassroots level. Going to try a few firehouses and community centers over the summer. Will also promote FOAVC and VOID. A parallel fight for reform.

I think a party that supports some common-sense philosophies would do quite well.

The time for all third parties to capitalize on the 9% approval ratings for do-nothing Congress.

But why is it all third parties don't push the common-sense of voting-out-all-bad-politicians, when it clearly would help them get elected?

Why is it that few (if any) third partys will capitalize on all Congress members blatant violation of Article V?

HHHHMMMmmmmmmmmmmm . . . perhaps it is because too many of those third parties are no better than the two-party duopoly they rail against?

The voters have a simple solution righte under their very own noses, that doesn't cost much, that doesn't require a third party, that is safe, peaceful, and responsible.

Simply stop rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election.

Don't worry.
Eventually, most voters will finally do that, when failing to do if finally becomes too painful.

David, your response to the idea of a new party with citizen oversight is appreciated and helpful. I am hopeful that by the end of the summer or at least by the end of November I will have a sense of what the general public thinks of the idea. It would be nice to get to the point where some coordinated planning is necessary and I’m sure you could be of much help in that regard. Thank you.
d.a.n., you wrote: “But why is it all third parties don't push the common-sense of voting-out-all-bad-politicians, when it clearly would help them get elected?
Why is it that few (if any) third parties will capitalize on all Congress members blatant violation of Article V?”

Couldn’t agree with you more. I assume that their attitudes about politics are not necessarily pure. People look at the duopoly and try to mimic them. Maybe they think the duopoly is the standard bearer for political parties. Maybe they are all chasing power. Not a good idea. And why are 3rd party agendas so wacko? Even the better parties have agendas loaded up with all kinds of divisive issues that preclude them every getting a majority agreement on anything. If you look at the Vision for USA page on my website you will see that it is void of divisive social issues and goes toward issues are surely within the purview of government to deal with. To implement a mainstream party we should resist divisive issues and focus on issues relating to constitutional, sovereignty, and long standing democratic principles, which have all been diminished and demeaned in the name of corpocracy.

Take Bob Barr for example. Here is a fellow who was a staunch supporter of the GOP agenda and now he is supposedly a staunch supporter of the Libertarian Party. That’s quite a stretch. For what purpose does he seek to represent us? Again, I would hope to fill the ranks of a new party with some of the 70M retiring baby boomers and find many who would be willing to serve in government for a few years. My idea for a pres. candidate would be someone like David Walker, the ex-C/GAO.

I strongly support VOID and FOAVC. FOAVC is in my Vision for USA page and I have a separate page up for advocating for VOID and FOAVC. I do have some questions about the long term effect of VOID on the political system. For example:

An organization needs some continuity in personnel to function as it was intended. Someone needs to know how to pound a gavel and turn off the lights at night, etc. If, over several election cycles, most of congress is voided who would be left to remember the SALT treaty, or the history of social security, etc. Granted congress could still function but seems so much would have to be regurgitated and relearned that it would function just barely. I would think right now with the Russian situation congresspersons are calling out to the whitehairs as to how they might deal with the situation based on what is known historically about dealing with the Russians.

I’m not sure I like the idea of sending in a bunch of new congresspersons and have them flail away at what they think the depth and breadth of reform should be. What might we get out of that? As slow as congress moves any reform might take 10-15 years. I would like to see VOID be successful but at some point down stream seems there should be some new political parties with new attitudes about government and with built-in citizen oversight. Political parties, with strong coordination with constituents, could plan for major reform and set an agenda for reform. If those political party leaders and congresspersons whose actions, or perceived actions, don’t meet voter expectations then they get rejected from the party. That should dramatically speed up the reform process and gain a much broader and deeper reform as well.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

David R. Remer wrote: NONPARTISAN? INDEPENDENT?

David R. Remer wrote: With registered Independent voters now outnumbering Democratic or Republican registered voters, the words 'non-partisan' and 'independent' get misused and abused by partisan interests.

Too many people (perhaps most) do not like anyone who thinks differently from them.
If you are not a member of THEIR party, or THEIR religion, or THEIR whatever, then you are the ENEMY, and you will be shunned, criticized, ostricized, smeared, and (if possible) destroyed.

Independent and non-partisan can be, are not necessarily the same thing.
Some independents (i.e. Greens, Libertarians, etc.) can be just as partisan as Democrats and Republicans.
Then there are the liberal and conservative labels.
The problem with all of these labels are the are often inaccurate and/or misunderstood.
Many people that consider themselves liberal or conservative actually aren't.
But people are making decisions based on these inaccurate and/or misunderstood labels.

David R. Remer wrote: But, in a very real sense, it will be independent voters who will decide the popular vote between McCain and Obama. That fact, does not make independent voters partisan.

I :

• used to consider myself a Republican, but now see the folly in that, and no longer give a damn WHICH PARTY the politicians are in, since most (if not all) politicians are too false, too corrupt, too FOR-SALE, too incompetent, and too irresponsible, and it is quite simply because too many bad voters repeatedly reward bad politicians with perpetual re-election. If anyone is offended by that, that's too bad, and their taking offense to it is most likely because the truth hurts.


• used to wallow in the petty partisan warfare, and belittled Democrats.


• used to tell jokes about Democrats.


• used to pull the party-lever.


• used to, essentially, wallow in the petty partisan warfare.


• now understand the self-delusion all too well.


• now understand that few (if any) politicians in EITHER party in Congress sufficiently give a damn about the future and security of the nation. Most (if not all) are simply too corrupt. Most (if not all) care more about their own self-gain, giving themselves cu$hy perks, benefits, and 9 raises between 1997 and 2007.


• now understand that too many bad voters = too many bad politicians


• now understand that the voters have the government that the voters elect.

Blind loyalty to THE PARTY is self-delusion, rooted in many bad human traits: complacency, apathy, too much laziness to think for oneself, fueling blind partisan loyalties, irrational fears and hatreds due to fear mongering and smear tactics, and many other manifestations of unchecked greed and selfishness.
Of course, the blindly partisan anti-anything-MY-PARTY will disagree.
At least until that becomes too painful.

And when those blind partisan loyalties finally becomes too painful, voters will hopefully finally do what voters did in year 1933 (3+ years (too late) into the Great Depression), and vote out a whopping 206 members of Congress.
Unfortunately, as in 1933 (3+ years into the Great Depression), it won't avoid the painful consequences of repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election, but the sooner, the better, because the pain and misery will simply get worse and worse the longer voters keep shooting themsevles in the feet.

In a voting nation, an educated and responsible electorate is paramount.
Thomas Jefferson said:

• "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

But, perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are:

• deep in debt


• jobless


• homeless


• and hungry ?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect.

A great quote by Jefferson that I haven’t heard before. Agree that you must have a cause or money, each being sufficient to sustain the other. The cause is definitely the easy part. However, I do believe it is possible to rally the people to your cause in large part due to the Internet. Whether projecting your cause or soliciting donations the Internet permits players on a much smaller scale to be competitive. Currently, the public sentiment is building for a third party. Last evening Toby Keith was on Glen Beck railing because there is no media coverage for third parties. However, I’m afraid that about a year after the election the duopoly will be able to quieten things down, along with public sentiment. I think it will really help the cause if Paul, Nader, Barr and others make a stronger showing than expected. Now, let me say this about that!!…..We aren’t going to get reform through the election of a president. A president can be a bully pulpit, start or stop a war, or choose to not carry out laws passed by congress (immigration comes to mind) and that’s about it. Reform has to be accomplished through congress and as long as the GOP and Democrat parties retain control of the congress there will be NO reform. Reform has to come from the grassroots. One or two fair haired politicians can’t do it. People are looking for something other than the status quo including a third party that offers something different. That something, I belive, is an agenda focused solely on reform issues and offering a way to put accountability into the political equation. d.a.n. I’ve never been a member of a party and always voted for ‘the best candidate’ but I can understand the feeling of something you’ve strongly supported turning sour. Just in our small circle there is Gary, Joel, and yourself who have give up on the duopoly. Lou Dobbs reads 3 or 4 emails nightly about people going Independent. With 30-35% being Independent voters I think now is the peak time to broach a new third party with extra added attractions. An aside: What do you make of Jerome Corsi’s new book lambasting Obama? I read his ‘The Late Great USA’ and thought it was right on target. His book will certainly have an effect on many voters. I was convinced Obama had it in the bag up until now. And the polls look like a dead heat at this juncture.
Again, d.a.n. I strongly agree with VOID and come Election Day I want to be as close to the polling station as legally allowed with VOID signs. But, I believe that for the long term there has to be a strong focus to the scheme of initiating and accomplishing major reform, operating congress in an efficient and professional manner, and keeping it that way. I think if we just VOID them forever we will end up with a weak congress with no insight or continuity about how congress should function and the best and brightest might not want to put out a lot of effort to be a one term office holder. Also, I have some fear that VOID could backfire somewhat in the sense that most progressive districts might VOID their members while highly ethnic centers might want to retain their rep’s for whatever subsidies they hope to receive, leaving those rep’s to fill the senior positions of congress. Should I give up a Jim Webb and have a Mendez (Fl.)(?) move to chair the House Armed Services Committee, etc?
I suppose now is not the time this but what the heck. Take a look at this Vision for the USA and gimme your best shots.
 Political Reform continues. Government is returned to the people and democratic principles have been restored. Article V Convention is available to the people.
 This Party is helping to KEEP IT THAT WAY through members oversight of elected and appointed government officials.
 Constitutional requirements are being met. Only Congress can declare war. Enforcement of federal law is the law of the land.
 The US Government is withdrawn from supporting Globalization and a North American Union. Government funding and support for corporations to relocate overseas is stopped.
 International trade agreements have been nullified or re-negotiated ensuring there is no loss of American sovereignty, trade is fair and balanced, and human and worker rights are protected.
 Government is more open and transparent to the public. Digitally archieved information retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act is made available within two weeks of the request. Unclassified meeting and conference areas of congress are considered public access through the media.
 Congress is carrying out oversight responsibility for the Federal Reserve. Offshore tax havens are being audited. A usury law is in effect.
 Election Day is a National Holiday.
 Political parties are to hold state primaries on the same day.
 Electoral College is modified to produce a one person, one vote effect in the general election.
 Media exposure for political candidates is mandated through Federal law. This law ensures sufficient media exposure for candidates of the five major parties in the run-up to election.
 Government controls are in effect to prevent budget deficits two years in sequence.
 Only federal and state collected monies are permitted in campaign financing.
 Illegal immigration is stopped with the completion of a border fence and adequate border and internal security enforcement. Laws against hiring and harboring illegal aliens are enforced.
 Corporations are no longer treated under the law as having human rights.
 The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to "money is free speech".
 Law is enacted to prevent the use of Eminent Domain for economic development or increasing tax revenue.
 The Dept. of Energy is reorganized to support a large scientific staff in the quest for alternative sources of energy. This new office will leverage the knowledge and technology of U.S. government agencies, universities, leading scientists and corporations. This program will use U.S manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for one individual supporting a four member family household.
 Our manufacturing base is restored, ensuring our ability to manufacture war materials for our defense.
 A Federal Government sponsored program to build a modern merchant marine shipping fleet has been approved. Research and design is being carried out for the production of lightweight vessels powered by non-fossil fuel systems. This program will use U.S manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for one individual supporting a four member family household.
 The Federal Government, in cooperation with State Government, is planning for infrastructure upgrade in all major U.S. cities. This program will use U.S manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for one individual supporting a four member family household.
 College student positions are increased by 10% across all technical, medical, and scientific fields of study. A corresponding 10% reduction in foreign student positions is effected.
 A pro-longed effort to elevate all public high schools curricula to that of college preparatory is in effect.
 Voting rights are restored to those who have completed incarceration.
 A nation wide training program for semi-skilled and skilled labor is in effect to provide reduced or free training/certification directed at specific fields of employment. The government will facilitate the attendance of low risk inmates and they will be awarded reduced incarceration time on completion of such training. Government and civic organizations are carrying out a nation wide job placement program.
 Work continues to place a permanent manned presence on the moon.
 Work continues on a manned Mars's expedition.
 Restoration of the viability of the Social Security program is in force.
 Health care programs are undergoing a six-month evaluation and will be placed on a national referendum.
 A flat (17%)income tax, based on gross income and no taxation below the poverty level with all deductions, depreciations and taxpayer subsidies removed has been adopted.
 Corporate and farming subsidies are terminated.
 Citizens may purchase pharmaceuticals abroad.

Roy, Great List!
I like it.

Roy wrote: think if we just VOID them forever we will end up with a weak congress with no insight or continuity about how congress should function and the best and brightest might not want to put out a lot of effort to be a one term office holder.

Only VOID bad politicians, always.

Good politicians should be re-elected (until their term-limits are reached).

Do you know any good politicians?

Can anyone name 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable enough to be re-elected?

I can't. And unless the majority of voters can, what is it telling us about Congress as a whole?

Yes, you raise a good point about the back-firing scenario. But it is the majority of the voters that will decide, and if the majority of voters are messed-up (as they clearly are now and have been for too long), then the voters only have themselves to thank for all of it. Besides, voters are likely to eventually learn better when failing to do so finally becomes too painful.

So, worrying about possibly voting out a good politician (if there is such a thing) by accident, should probably be the least of our concerns?

But, yes, there is a very real danger that there will still be too many bad voters. But the way it's going now, it's simply getting worse. Eventually, enough voters must realize that the most of their pain and misery is their own fault. And if they mess around too much for too long, things could get really bad. Perhaps another Great Depression, or civil war, or we possibly become too weak to fend off an invasion. Some of these things are not far fetched. We've already had a civil war. We've already head a Great Depression. And we've already had 7 wars in the last 90 years.

If most (if not all) incumbents in do-nothing Congress are bad, then repeatedly rewarding them with re-election will make them worse. Yet, too many voters still find a way to rationalize the re-election of THEIR incumbent politician. It's self-delusion. Especially when you try to reconcile 9% approval ratings for Congress and 85%-to-90% re-election rates fro Congress.

Why do voters give Congress dismally low approval ratings of 9%, but then repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 85%-to-99% re-election rates, and then behave incredulous as to what went wrong?

Perhaps, when the voters have brought enough pain and misery onto themselves, and when enough of the voters are deep in debt, jobless, homeless, and hungry, and perhaps when enough voters have become sufficieintly less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan, then perhaps enough voters will finally stop blindly pulling the party-lever and stop repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election (as did most voters in year 1933 (3+ years into the Great Depression; not soon enough to avoid much pain and misery), who voted-out a whopping 206 members of Congress.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect.

d.a.n., Thanks for reminding me to VOID only non-performing incumbents. I had known that but had a relapse of memory. I support VOID 100% and believe it will be effective. I watched Pat Choate on Cspan this AM. What a bright light he is. I recommend him and David Walker, ex/GAO Chief, for pres and VP. But is was pitiful to hear his solution to globalization as it relates to the next president. He said we need to contact the nominee’s and tell them we want fair trade and restored manufacturing versus the policies currently being pursued. How lame. This is 2008!! A politician, any politician, would be committing political suicide to even whimper against the corpocracy. If one member of congress does not lock step with the corpocracy/duopoly he will be pretty much ostracized and not supported for re-election. Surely he must understand that. Nope, the only way to effect reform is through a grassroots effort for a new, clean, third party with built-in citizen oversight of elected and appointed officials. That is the only way I know to counter the force of corpocracy. Choate recommended placing the Fed Reserve under the Treasury Dept. I like that idea. What do you (readers) think?

Roy wrote: A politician, any politician, would be committing political suicide to even whimper against the corpocracy.

Roy wrote: If one member of congress does not lock step with the corpocracy/duopoly he will be pretty much ostracized and not supported for re-election.

Who owns most of the wealth in the nation, and most of the corporations?
Who owns the government.
The federal government is FOR-SALE.
99.7% of all 200 Million voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more?
Weatlh is power, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Roy wrote: ... the only way to effect reform is through a grassroots effort for a new, clean, third party with built-in citizen oversight of elected and appointed officials. That is the only way I know to counter the force of corpocracy.

Voters have a way to end that right under their very own noses.
Stop repeatedly rewarding corrupt politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Unfortunately, the voters are the biggest part of the problem.
Government won't become more responsible and accountable until the voters do too.
The voters will hopefully figure it out, when failing to do so finally becomes too painful.
And that may not be that far away, with many voters now starting to feel the painful consequences of these 10 abuses, resulting in numerous deteriorating economic conditions.

When history books are written, this article by James Quinn should be included: The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.

I'm not convinced things will bottom as soon or suddenly as year 2009, because things take longer to unfold than many realize (2012 is more likely, because the government will delay the collapse by creating more money out of thin air, and even give away more money if necessary in the form of more stimulus checks and tax cuts, which will make things worse in the end).

For example, the foreclosures started rising in year 2005. That's why I think it is wildly optimistic when some say the economy will turn around in 2009, when the economy has not even bottomed yet. That is, it will probably be a few more years before we feel the most painful impact of so much debt, inflation, excessive money-printing, illegal immigration, wars, unaffordable and dangerous healthcare, lawlessness and numerous constitutional violations (including Article V), regressive taxation, deteriorating education systems, and government bloating to nightmare proportions; all exacerbated by our energy vulnerabilities.

Roy wrote: ... the only way to effect reform is through a grassroots effort for a new, clean, third party with built-in citizen oversight of elected and appointed officials. That is the only way I know to counter the force of corpocracy.

There are two classes in this country:

• (1) One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth. Wealth is power. Power corrupts. Government is FOR-SALE.


• (2) The other class (middle and lower income groups) has power only in numbers, but that power is largely squandered due to the apathy, complacency, and inability to mobilize through organization (such as organizing to stop repeatedly rewarding bad incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election); at least until failing becomes too painful.

But, giving up is not an option. Thus, more eduacation is needed, before most voters get their education the hard and painful way.

Roy wrote: [Pat] Choate recommended placing the Fed Reserve under the Treasury Dept. I like that idea. What do you (readers) think?

However, the current Federal Reserve is nothing more than a usurious, dishonest upside-down pyramid-scheme.
We just witnessed what happens with rampant usury and greed, in which many banks hiked interest rates on many people, which increased the homeowners' monthly payments beyond their ability to pay (doubling in many cases).
On top of that, Wall Street deceptively packages those loans and sold them (disguised) as investments.
Then when the banks fail, the Federal Reserve and FDIC bails them out, while many depositors lost money above the insured amounts (e.g. $100K per person).
And all the while, Alan Greenspan and George W. Bush (43) are saying "Buy, Buy, BUY" !
These bubbles and the current deteriorating economic conditioins are all manifestations of unchecked greed.

But here's a potential solution, which could also possibly eliminate most (if not all) taxation. It's not likely to ever happen in our lifetime, but it seems like it might work.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect.

Roy wrote: [Pat] Choate recommended placing the Fed Reserve under the Treasury Dept. I like that idea. What do you (readers) think?

Would only serve to make the Fed far more partisan than it already has a tendency to be.

The idea of a Federal Reserve to help minimize the inevitable peaks and valleys of an economic free market activity line over spans of years. The idea is sound, and noble, considering that the valleys can leave people homeless, starving, destitute and desperate, even up to the point of fomenting violent revolution. It has happened here before in the 1860's.

Greenspan was a partisan hack for GW Bush's "a house in every pot" program, keeping interest rates at 1% long, long after the market conditions warranted their being raised. This and the lack of oversight and investigation of the non-bank mortgage industry, created the economic retrenchment we are experiencing today, in large part.

Incorporating the Fed into the Treasury Department would put its evaluations and decisions directly in the hands of the president. I don't think we want to go there. Especially after seeing how much havoc can be created by a president like GW Bush.

What is needed is far better educated and informed Congress Persons willing to put forth due diligence in oversight of the other Executive Branch and capable of exercising its authority to check and balance that White House when necessary. Something we DO NOT have today.