government

by

A New American Polical Party: The Moderate Party


 

This country has been a two party nation since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.   He called himself a Democratic Republican in opposition to the Federalists and John Adams in particular who he ran against. Since then we have always had two major political parties. Since 1858 it has been Democrats and Republicans. Prior to the present day Republicans there was the Whig party.

I am personally tired of the self-serving rhetoric coming out of both parties. Each party has its own fringe although the Republicans seem a bit splintered. The Tea Party of today is just a reincarnation of the Moral Majority of 20 years ago. The wrapping is different but the message is the same; they will settle for nothing less than a Christian nation.

I am hereby inaugurating the Moderate Party. It is my belief that such a party will actually represent the general views of well over 50% of the people of this nation at any given moment. We will take what we believe to be the best of both parties and embrace them. We will as political aspirants sign a pledge to never take a single penny from any PAC. We will listen to those PACs but we will never compromise ourselves by taking money from them to support our election.

Today’s Moderate Party will neither embrace the socialist views of Sen. Bernie Sanders nor the Xenophobic racist views of Donald Trump.   We will not make campaign promises of going to war in any part of this world as a solution to regional or world problems. We will look for ways to reduce the tax burden on the middle class. We will end federal subsidies to otherwise profitable corporation. We will tighten the tax laws to close all loopholes available only to the rich or to large corporations.   We will impose a minimum tax rate on all persons and corporations that realize a certain level of income after reasonable expenses have been accounted for. We will vigorously support the second amendment while putting into place gun laws which afford the general public a reasonable feeling that all guns are being sold only to those who have photo IDs showing themselves as legitimate buyers and they will not be kept from buying any gun they desire to include assault weapons. We will also require all gun dealers to be federally licensed and be required to complete a simple background check on all customers. They will be required to keep extremely accurate records of all gun sales.

At the start we will neither support nor withhold support for abortion or the death penalty. The position of each will be decided by a caucus of representatives of all 50 states and 4 territories.

We will look for ways to reduce the size of our government without eliminating existing services. For example, all parts of the Department of Homeland Security can be folded into the Department of Defense. And where it is necessary for such jobs as airport security come into play, those jobs will be held by the military police of the Army, Navy, and Air Force however their will wear a non-traditional military uniform. These men and women will be entirely made up of reservists and national guardsmen. The Veterans Administration will be transferred to the Department of Defense and all veterans with an honorable military discharge will be able to avail themselves of the medical services on any military installation. Veterans educational programs will become an extension of civilian oriented military training.

We will re-write the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) so that access to it and what it offers will be close to what Americans who are part of group plans can expect. We will also require all insurance companies offer health benefits under this act or be sanctioned.

normal67

What you see above is what is referred to as a standard bell curve. The way to read it is simple. Look at the straight line at the bottom. The -3 to +3 represents an entire population, of anything, but in this case I am using it for American citizens. The points between -0.5 and +0.5 are where you will find the position most Americans on any given subject. I believe that we can actually extend this between -1 and +1. The slope of the curve represents how strongly people feel in one direction or another about any particular subject. It is my belief that the 68% represented by these two points is where you can find most Americans and their willingness to work together. The remaining 16% on each side are those so deeply entrenched in an idea that you would be hard pressed to get them to change.

This bell curve is extremely important right now because it is my belief that the beleaguered Republican Party is being ruled by the 16% on their side of the curve. To be certain, many of Bernie Sanders’ ideas lie well within the 16% of the Democrat side and are simply not palatable to the other 84% of Americans, regardless of how hard he pushes.

I believe 68% of Americans are not interested in any particular groups religious beliefs, gun beliefs, money making beliefs or philosophical beliefs. They hold and want recognized their reasonable and moderate view of the world, the United States, and the town the live in to be respected. This is something that is not now happening.

I only wish I had the resources available to start such a party because I would. As a registered Democrat I embrace certain Republican views and find that among my Republican friends, we generally agree on most things. This, to me, epitomizes what the Moderate Party represents.

by

Taxing America — Killing the Sacred Cow


This year’s presidential campaign has had the candidates, and their respective party, sparring over taxes.  The thing is, each side is being disingenuous in dealing with the public.  Each side knows that the majority of Americans have no idea of how our tax system works.  They count on that so they can pressure Americans into thinking that their particular brand of taxing, or not taxing as you will, is absolutely the correct way to do business.

There is a New Hampshire PAC this year that is running an attack ad against a woman who is running for office.  They detail how she, when she held office, was responsible for raises taxes, fees, on New Hampshire’s citizens.  I am certain she did what they said she did but this group would like the public to believe that she was horribly wrong in doing so.  New Hampshire prides itself in having no personal income tax.  But New Hampshire, like all the other 49 states, needs a revenue stream to fund governmental activities that its citizens demand of it.

In this year’s presidential race, the Democrats are trying to make hay out of raising the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans.  Republican Ryan has countered that such a tax increase will fund America for about a day.  That is probably close to the truth but is it the point?  Obama asked why is it fair that Romney’s 14% overall tax burden just as fair as his secretary’s 20% percent tax rate, and that is the point, fairness.

As much as I like the idea a fairness, an idea, by the way, formulated by Ronald Reagan, it cannot be a prime motivation for any tax increase, or tax decrease for that matter.  Romney has claimed he will reduce taxes on middle-income America by 20%.  The question that has to be asked of that is, at what price?  That is, if you decrease you revenue, which a 20% decrease is obviously doing, what are you going to eliminate to fund it?  Romney is strangely quiet on that point.  The Democrats would be better served by promoting a complete tax code overhaul, rather than offering a single fix.  The tax code is so complex, so difficult, that probably few, if any, members of Congress can claim much of any expertise in it.  To wit, there are high-priced attorney’s whose only function is to be expert in the tax code.  No politician, regardless of how committed, can give such time to the tax code.

Government, at all levels, needs a source of revenue.  It cannot operate in such an absence.  There are two ways, and two ways only, to get such revenue, taxes and fees.  All Americans must understand that as a basic principle of government.  Republicans are fond of offering up the idea of running the government like a business.  But that in an impossibility.  But if the must, they need at least describe such a business as being a “not for profit” business which in essence is the only kind of business model any government is allowed to employ.  Those sort of businesses require benefactors, contributors, and maybe even gate receipts to survive.

In a recent debate between Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and his challenger, Elizabeth Warren, the controversy over subsides being allow oil corporations was brought up by Warren, who, of course, wants them eliminated pointing out the hundreds of billions in profits the oil companies make.  In response, Brown pointed out, also correctly, that the loss of the subsidy would be passed on to the American public.  What neither of the chose to address is what that increase at the gas pumps would look like.  Why?  They do not know.  For a short while, to be sure, there would be a public outrage but that would die down quickly enough and another industry would be showing the public the actual cost of a gallon of gas, not the subsidised price.  Americans would be forced, God forbid, to recognize the real cost of motoring.

Neither party, Democrat nor Republican, has had the courage to tell Americans that government is an expensive thing.  They seem incapable to telling Americans that if they want to continue the level of governmental services they receive now, then they are going to have to pay for them.  That means there is no chance for a tax reduction but more likely, at least for a short while, a tax increase for everyone.

The only reasonable way to control taxes is to control expenditures.  Americans need to look long and hard at each and every government service out there.  They have to decide which to cut back on, which to eliminate.  They need to become more knowledgeable about how the government goes about its daily business, contracts, government employees, the relative necessity of the service provided.  It Americans truly want to get the cost of government under control, there can be no sacred cows.

by

A Few Things I Do Not Understand and Need Explained


Health Care Reform a.k.a. Obamacare — Under the new health care reform, millions of Americans will be sending many more millions of dollars to private insurance carriers to cover their health care costs.  How does a new revenue source for private companies hurt America?  How will it ruin our health care system, as claimed?

Reducing the Size of the Military — Democrats think we spend too much money at the Department of Defense and say a smaller military is the answer.  Why is it I do not feel equally as safe under that plan as I do now?  How does that improve our national defense posture?  Republicans claim it is just a leaner more efficient fighting force.  How?

Reducing Taxes — Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes on the middle class by 20%.  How is that going to work considering our increasing national debt?  He has not proposed reducing the size of government which is where all that money goes.  This is like saying, “I can afford the monthly payments on my Rolls Royce even though I only earn $20,ooo a year.  Believe me!”

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life — Why are we still trying to legislate morality?

Death Penalty vs. None — In this case, why are “pro-lifers” in favor of killing people?  Isn’t that just a bit inconsistent?

Ending Federal Funding for Public Television — Is Sesame Street really just a liberal thing or do all children benefit from it?  What left-wing ideas are Antiques Road Show, Nova, American Experience, etc. promoting?

Subsidizing Oil Companies — Really?  How do you justify that?  I really don’t get it.

Subsidizing Corporate Owned Farms — Same as above, really?  I mean, really?

Government Ethics — Every non-politically appointed government employee must adhere to a strict code of ethics.  Why are politicians exempt?  In reality, should we not expect the Secretary of Defense to adhere more tightly to ethical behavior than his office manager, or his office manager’s secretary?

Public Education — Why do we expect our students in public schools to get the same level of education when the per student cost of education is four times higher in the private sector than the public?  How will vouchers fix that? (The average cost per student in the public schools is a little over $5000 while at a private school it is over $20,000)  How are our public schools repairable when we are not willing to pay for the level of education we want?

Regulating Wall Street — If Wall Streeters are a bunch of foxes, and we are the chickens, who is supposed to protect us from the foxes if there are no regulations and therefore no regulation enforcers?  Don’t foxes love to eat chickens?

Too Big to Fail — Republicans constantly avow free market ideals.  But is not one of those ideals allowing for corporate failure when the corporate entity becomes inefficient and/or corrupt?

The Liberal Press — If the liberal press is so powerful, so persuasive, how did Bush become President?  How does any Republican ever win in those states dominated by the liberal press?  Is it possible the “liberal press” is largely a myth?

Patriotism — Are Republicans and conservatives naturally more patriotic than Democrats and liberals, or is that just another myth?

Who Can Come to America — Imigration quotas, by nationality, were set in 1922 based on 1900 data.  Why are we still using that data to decide who can emigrate?

Feel free to add to this list.

by

Why Taxes Must Go Up


I am the last one who needs to have his taxes raised.  I am retired and on a fixed income.  Although my income keeps me comfortable there is not much room for extra or emergencies.  I can get extra income by working but I am limited in doing that because it affects my retirement pay after I earn a certain amount.

Paul Ryan, Republican Wisconsin representative, says that he would reduce the size of the national deficit by reducing the size of the government.  But he would also reduce taxes.  If he does both then the deficit likely stays the same and our other national problems just get worse.  Ryan is on the short-list of possibilities for Mitt Romney’s running mate this fall.

I am four square in favor of reducing the size of our government but I have yet to hear a single politico say what that would look like, what goes and what stays.  My guess is Ryan and his cohort will go after the social programs first.  And that means they will go after welfare, those who wield the least power lose.  Is there even a PAC for welfare?

I think congress would be better served by first fixing the law that govern the economics of the various government agencies.  Fully funded oversight from the GAO is also a must.  I worked within the federal government for over 30 years, and I can tell you that one of the biggest problems is how the government contracts out its work.  For decades agencies have been begging for fully funded initiatives but congress almost always declines and requires annual begging from the agencies to keep its contracts funded.  This is extremely wasteful.  Having to justify project funding, let’s say there was a project to buy all new computers for the FAA’s air traffic control facilities, would be stretched out over 2, 3, or more budgets.   Even though the need to replace the computers does not change, congress’ priorities do, and on a whim congress can decide to not fund that particular initiative at all or at a very low-level.  That can cause contractors to raise their prices or remove themselves from the contract all together.  Now what was a bad problem just became worse.  The message here is, fully funded initiatives costs the government less in the long run.

But making government work better simply is not going to be enough.  We as Americans expect a lot from our government at all levels.  But as Americans we have become horribly spoiled.  We are always looking for a bargain.  We want a lot but we do not want to pay a lot for it.  In meeting those needs of the public, however, America has incurred a debt that goes far beyond money.  We have lost contact with the idea of “you get what you pay for.”  Somewhere along the way Americans have lost sight of that very simple but very real concept.  For many decades we have been paying for an efficiency apartment and now we are wondering why we do not live in a penthouse.  When we were single the efficiency apartment was fine but now that we are a family of five we have to accept that we need more space and that space costs more, much more.  There is also a debt to be paid beyond rent for living in that space and we have paid nothing towards that.

Our roads and bridges are crumbling before our eyes.  Our public transportation is woefully inadequate.  Our airspace control is in desperate need of modernizing.  Our police and fire forces are underfunded and hence undermanned.  Our military is too small.  Agencies like NOAA, NASA, NIH, VA, and many others are underfunded in their research capabilities.

Right now the average American pays less than 15% to the federal government in taxes.  We can afford more.  We have one of the lowest tax rates of any nation in the world.  We could almost double our tax rate and still be low relative to the rest of the world.  I am not saying we should double our personal taxes.  But in the interest of fixing our infrastructure and other governmental problems, I would personally be willing to have my taxes go up by 25%.  I would prefer to keep that money for myself, of course, but I cannot be so selfish that I am not willing to pay for what I use.

Americans, next time your car hits a pot hole that you think should have been fixed a long time ago, or, you come upon a closed bridge that you think should have been repaired or replaced long ago, or next time you wonder why you next door neighbor is going to the middle east for the national guard for a third or fourth time, remember it is because you are not willing to pay enough to make things different.  You get what you pay for and we are faced with that right now.

 

by

Reduce the Size of the Federal Government


This may sound like a strange thing coming from someone who has voted for Democrats his entire life but it is something we really do need.  The most recent increase came with the establishment of Homeland Security as its own cabinet post.  I was particularly incensed at its formation, not because we did not need such focus, but because it disregarded an existing agency entirely.  That agency is the Department of Defense. I will explain.

By definition, homeland security has always been the domain of our armed forces.  But there have been certain restrictions with regard of how those forces could be used.  This restrictions are a part of our federal laws.  That meant we can use our armed forces as a police force only in times of martial law.  But the solution to that was not to create an entirely new agency, but to change the laws to make it possible.  There is not a single thing the DHS does today that our military could not have accomplished.  The most visible of all DHS is at our airports.  The idea of people in military uniforms was at the airports was undesirable.  The solution was to simply create a special uniform for those who were put into such situation so they did not look like other members of the military.  These people would specialize in just these sorts of duties.  But the duties would be easily transferable to the more traditional military duties.

That would have eliminated an entire agency as it exists today.  But I certainly would not stop there.  I think certain agencies can be folded into other existing agencies.  The Department of Energy can be fairly easily split between Commerce and Transportation.  The Department of Justice can absorb duties now assigned to the Treasury and Homeland Security.   Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services can be combined.  The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture can be combined.  And the list goes on.

I was a federal employee for 30 years, 11 active duty in the U.S. Army and 19 at the U.S. Department of Transportation.  I worked at one of the more lean portions of the government.  Even there, however, there was an overabundance of senior civil service employees which could have been easily reduced, even more than it had been.  Because of that, I certainly believe that this is true of every other agency.  That means there needs to be a definition of how many people at a minimum senior manager must have in order to retain their pay grade.  It would also give definition to how many of any particular pay grade can exist within the entire government.  It would not surprise me that people of the pay grades GS-15, SES-1 and higher have as few as 5 people working under them when a minimum of 25 or more should be observed SES grades and 10 or more for GS-15.  People in these grades typically jealously protect their fiefdoms.  They are wonderful at rationalizing the status quo but are poor when pragmatism is called for.  Additionally, minimum education requirements need to be observed for these pay grades, another thing that frequently does not exist today.  I knew of one SES person who had nothing more than a high school education.  He ruled over people holding master degrees and PhD.

I want to caution people about one thing.  A small  government is not a guarantee to a reduced level of funding.  At the federal level, payroll is a relatively small portion of the entire budget.  But to be sure, a smaller government will make it much more manageable.