TheAgitator.com
Yes, Let’s Give Them a Supermajority
Monday, April 5th, 2004Bob Novak writes on the highway bill that just passed the GOP-led Congress:
The 1982 highway bill contained only 10 earmarks. The 1991 bill, the last highway bill passed under Democratic leadership, contained 538 such projects. But the addiction for pork has grown so large that the current bill contains at least 3,193 earmarks.The addiction is bipartisan, thanks to the policy of the House’s reigning king of pork. While House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young has packed the bill with money for his state of Alaska, he makes sure Democrats are allocated their share of money for roads and other goodies in order to build a bipartisan majority on the floor…
…– Construction of “Renaissance Square” in Rochester, N.Y., including a performing arts center. $7 million. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a highly partisan liberal Democrat.
– Renovation of a historic depot and bus station in Jessup, Ga. $1 million. Rep. Jack Kingston, a leading Republican conservative.
– Improvement of the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich. $1.5 million. Rep. John Dingell, the senior member of the House and a fierce Democratic battler.
– A new parking building in Oak Lawn, Ill. $4 million. Rep. William Lipinski, an 11-term Democrat.
– A series of improvements for the Blue Ridge Music Center in Galax, Va. $2.5 million. Rep. Rick Boucher, an 11-term Democrat.
So after ten years of GOP leadership, the number of earmarks in the highway bill has increased sixfold.
First question. Can anyone tell me why the gazillion-dollar endowment Ford Foundation needs $1.5 million in taxpayer dollars to fix up the museum named for its founder?
Second question. Can anyone tell me how spending $4 million of taxpayer dollars on a parking garage in your home district so you can keep your job as Congressman is any different than Dennis Kozlowski spending ten grand of shareholder dollars on a shower curtain?
If anything, the parking garage is worse. Tyco Shareholders can invest in another company. Taxes are taken from us at the point of a gun. And there’s no other government we can pay them to to keep the current one honest.
(Aside to John T. Kennedy: Yes, I know. Save your breath.)
That is the key feature of money expropriated from citizens via taxation: it is not taken at gunpoint, but eventually, if you keep resisting payment, someone from the government will show up at your door with a gun.
Love my country; fear my government.
“Second question. Can anyone tell me how spending $4 million of taxpayer dollars on a parking garage in your home district so you can keep your job as Congressman is any different than Dennis Kozlowski spending ten grand of shareholder dollars on a shower curtain?”
First, $4 million is probably in the ballpark for the cost of a typical parking garage. $6000 is about 3 orders of magnitude higher than the typical shower curtain.
Second, there’s at least the possibility that a taxpayer could make use of the garage. Only two TYCO shareholders were likely to use that shower curtain - Kozlowski and his wife.
If $4 million were being spent for a personal garage, or, worse, $4 billion for a gilded personal parking garage, for use only by someone in government, then THAT would be equivalent to the shower curtain.
That said, it still rather stinks.
A better analogue of the shower curtain might be the Pentagon’s new athletic center, which cost something like $16 million to $25 million.
OK, you know where I stand … so tell me, how do you propose we put an END to the Mutually-Assured Dumbness?
Gridlock might slow it down, but it will certainly not stop it (it didn’t in 1996-2000) — even as it also mires the little bit of important business our goverment does in the political molasses.
And, it sure isn’t going to open up the doors of Congress to those who would put an end to it — because each set of political Cold Warriors can use the threat of the other to stay in power.
Do we continue to live with this — or really do something to solve the problem?
Let’s think past the very next move on the chessboard.
I agree with Rich — gridlock slows things down somewhat, but doesn’t provide a long-term solution.
My two keys would be:
1) congressional term limits and
2) change the way Americans think about government — blog, write letters to the editor, write columns, donate money to the Cato Institute or TheAgitator.com, spread libertarian ideas in discussions with family and friends and coworkers regarding what the proper scope of government is.
If someone wants $1 million to restore a historic bus station, they should raise funds from community members, business groups, and philanthropists –not lobby their elected officials. If the community isn’t willing to spend the $1 million, then the project wasn’t worth doing.
I like MattG’s idea plus a constitutional amendment to disqualify any recipients of a government check other than a tax refund check, from voting.
I work at a university in Illinois (the same state as the parking deck).
Interestingly, it is against state law to use state funds to build parking for the university, so parking operations have to be self-sufficient, which is why I pay a large amount to park where I work.
I wonder who gets to park in the federally funded deck.
MattG, I’m not convinced term limits would improve things. After all, did limiting the presidency to two terms curb the Executive Branch’s abuse of constitutional power? The problem isn’t a lack of term term limits, but a lack of competitive congressional races. There’s no magic solution to that problem, but for a start I would repeal all campaign finance laws and taxpayer funding of candidates. Expanding the size of the House might also help by creating smaller congressional districts.
Well Skip, I’d rather have presidents limited to two terms than not!
I’ve read where members of congress who know they’re serving their last term are more likely to take moral stands and vote against pork. We’d also be rid of the bought-and-sold congressional whore who win a seat and sit in it for four decades, doling pork like it’s a country barbecue.
It’s not a cureall, but I believe term limits are part of the solution — but my idea 2) above is certainly the more important part.
The simplest way to change the government?
Change the way we vote. Instead of a popularity contest (you vote for one candidate), you rank the candidates in order of preference.
The candidate with the highest score wins. Google ‘voting theory’ and start reading the various articles.
Interestingly enough the Constitution leaves the method of voting up to the states. So it should be relatively easy.
A lot of good ideas here — I particularly like the Congress expansion proposed by Skip — something I’ve considered, as well. Rocketman’s “no representation without real taxation” proposal is also of particular note — though I’d really rather see the Fair Tax implemented, which would achieve a similar effect while getting the Infernal Revenue Service out of our lives.
Problem is, all of them except MattG’s “voter education” ideas require that the Gordian knot of major-party dominance be be cut (at least temporarily) before they will be considered, much less implemented.
What we need is a way to cut that knot — a tall order in terms of election laws, since the major parties have “gerrymandered” those laws right along with the districts, to repel an assualt from the rabble (us).
Ballot initiatives to change election laws so they include some or all of the above ideas?
Or, as I’ve incessantly proposed, pushing one party or the other off the cliff? (BTW, this would significantly empower MattG’s educated voters.)
Or, something else entirely?
This is on a slightly different tack, and it may be obvious, but it seems to me that the real issue is not so much voter education as making voters care.
As far as I can tell, the big problem with a stable and basically secure society is that people don’t pay much attention to the minor details. The first question has to be ‘Do enough people really care about loose Government expenditure to put their weight behind a move to curtail it?’
I don’t think enough people do, not yet, and I think only a deficit sufficient to cause nasty economic consequences will change that.
As in business, it’s only when the margins get tight that people really pay attention to the cost base.
Part of me wants to credit Bush with cutting taxes expressly to create a deficit which would then force this debate, but if that was his motive i’m really disappointed that he hasn’t had the strength to follow it up by encouraging that kind of thought process.
OK, I gots some silly questions…
Why is the day our taxes are due and the day we vote almost 6 months apart?
Why do people get excited about a tax refund but upset if they overpaid their taxes?
Eliminate withholding and require us all to mail in a check monthly / quarterly for our taxes due. Right now, tax money is out of sight, out of mind since it is withheld from your paycheck. Go ask 10 random people how much they earned last month. I guarantee 8 of the 10 will quote you their net pay, not gross pay. If people had to physically write a check to the govt every month or qurater, they would care a lot more about what Congress is doing with the money.
Chris … we may disagree about Iraq, but you have the right idea here. Most of our population, thanks to withholding and our highly “progressive” tax levels, are effectively disconnected from the cost of all those services they like so much.
I’ve been pushing another way to accomplish the same thing, and more … I encourage you to check out the Fair Tax for yourself.
Your going to see a veto on this, and then your going to see a possible override by Congress.
From http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/politics/8314610.htm :
“Applications for more than $500 billion in earmarks filled four boxes in the House committee suites. Young and his staff sifted through the Republican requests while top committee Democrat Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota reviewed the Democrats’ wish lists.
They pared the list to 3,201 special projects totaling $9.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Forty-nine states plus Guam have special earmark projects.”
$9.7 Billion dollars is only 3.6% of the bill’s total $269 billion value. The pork is not the issue! If you get rid of the pork the bill is still larger than Bush’s ceiling. My question is then, are we spending too much on roads? Without the pork, the bill is still larger than the 1991 bill ($218 billion).
The pork issue, I feel, is a very hollow issue. It is only 3.6% of the bill’s value and it directs attention away from the real problem, that being the lack of efficiency in our management of transportation and our narrow-minded view of public transportation.
I’m leaning rather towards the purely Jeffersonian approach.
We haven’t had much of a good thing lately.
I like the Happy Fun Radical Approach: Repeal the 16th Amendment.
Take away their primary source of revenue.
Rich,
I have seen your super-majority proposal numerous times, but never an explanation as to how it will be easier to change the current situation with a smaller diversity of opinion in power. Do you mind explaining it?
The only outcome I can imagine is Tom DeLay becoming even more powerful, a higher percentage of congress fearing to cross his path, and a smaller likelyhood of him ever being removed from office. Meanwhile, he will continue to change the rules, making it even harder for his soldiers to be removed from office as well.
I’m not so sure anymore that the “Vote for Gridlock” strategy makes a lot of sense–it may very well end up meaning more pork than less.
Radley -
The Ford Foundation has nothing to do with the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn MI. Which, by the way, I work less than 1/4 mile from.
They just went through a major Remaking of its image - now called “The Henry Ford” So I have no Idea what the hell John Dingellberry has in mind. The Museum has already been completely renewed.
F*cking Spenders
What Does Radley Balko Know?
Radley Balko ends his latest post with a parenthetical aside to yours truly.(Aside to John T. Kennedy: Yes, I know. Save your breath.)What does Radley know? He knows what I’ll
Rich Casebolt–
You’re spot-on on the Fair Tax.
If President Bush would adopt supporting the FT as part of his reelection platform, I would seriously consider voting for him. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of the other libertarians and fiscal conservatives that are currently not supporting him on the basis of his fiscal policies (a small group, no doubt, but maybe enough to swing a state or two) would as well.
I read last week (two weeks ago?) that Rep. DeLay wanted to push the FT in the next legislative session; however, aside from that piece in the Wash. Times, I’ve heard nothing further. Anyone heard more about this?
Bush-hog, I hope you’re correct, but given Bush’s record on using the veto, I think you’re overly confident. Threatening to veto a bill is not the same as vetoing it.
The problem isn’t an extra ten billion being spent on pork in this bill. The problem is the attitude most politicians in DC have towards spending bills: “What unrelated spending can I attach that will help me get reelected?” This bill is just another example.
You could, I dunno, end the state monopoly so you could pay another government to keep it honest.
- Josh
Following up on congressional expansion, the original goal of some Framers to limit the House to one member for every 30,000 representatives. Under today’s population, that would give us a House with 9,765 members. This might actually work, but we’d probably have to move the sessions from the Capitol to RFK Stadium (they’d still outdraw women’s soccer!) To put the 9,765 figure in perspective, there are only 4,322 delegates to this year’s Democratic National Convention.
Under the fixed 435-member apportionment, there is one member for every 673,000 people, give or take a few hundred. If you reduce the ratio to 100,000, that leaves you with 2,929 members, or roughly the size of the *Republican* National Convention (2,509 delegates.)
In addition to expanding the number of members, it’s equally important to decrease the amount of congressional staff and committees. The expansion of staff leads to a lot of unnecessary legislating, as members need to justify maintaining their staffs.
Scared Stiff:
Diversity of opinion? Right now, there are effectively only two opinions that count when it comes to legislation ,,, the opinions of the two biggest special-interest groups out there — the DNC and RNC. Worse, these two (let’s call them what they are) lobbying groups have the support of a political-consultant complex that has been more corrosive to our governmental processes as the military-industrial complex Eisenhower described.
These three entities have taken the easy way out to stay employed (for whatever reasons they have, good or bad) by focusing on the mere accumulation of votes, rather than on the results of their implemented actions. To use a stock-market analogy, the DNC and RNC have been successful, not by decision-making based on the “fundamentals” of government, but by the “technical analysis” of perceptions and their manipulation, powered by the political-consultant complex.
To describe it as we do here in Texas, they’re selling sizzle instead of steak … or put another way, they’re all hat and no cattle.
We all gripe about the idiotic spending and government intrusion — it was Gingrich’s and Lott’s misplaced spending priorities in 1998 that drove me out of the GOP and made me a “support the man … not the party” voter.
Howver, my vote still ends up going to a GOP candidate in nearly all cases. Others who detest much of what the DNC pushes still end up with lots of “D’s” checked on their ballot. Why?
The biggest reason that these two parties — both detestable in many of their actions — stay in power is that they can keep voters like you and me in their line, by reminding us that we only have two real choices — them, or “the greater of two evils.” They have ALREADY rigged the election laws and taken other actions to effectively render only two candidates — one D, one R — viable in nearly all contests. Other voices do not have a significant chance to enter office and influence policy. Even the Libertarian Party, after all these years, has sent only one man in recent history to Congress.
Now, if the voters had a little more backbone, maybe this situation would be different — but you cannot discount the (often prudent) fear of the greater of two evils as a powerful force.
My proposal takes away the power of the “greater of two evils” — by elimininating one “evil” from political significance.
Yes, Tom Delay et. al. would have more power — but not for long. First, the internal philosophical conflicts between GOP members would no longer be muted by the need to oppose the Dems; the conservative and moderate wings would contend with each other for control, producing another type of gridlock. Second, if the GOP does not meet the needs of the voters, the next election gives them an opportunity to vote the bums out — but this time, without the certain fear of the Democratic presence as the “greater of two evils” to keep our vote with the Elephant.
For the first time in a century, other voices will get a fair hearing at election time, and even bypass the political-consultant complex to do so … and the GOP can do nothing to stop it, for any attempt to strengthen the present “gerrymandered” election laws to prevent it will, if publicized, increase the resolve of the voters to throw them out.
I think our institutional checks-and-balances are up to the task of preventing significant abuses of power during the supermajority — and, if the effort to do this is successful and I had the opportunity, I would present the GOP with an ultimatum:
>>> Either make your decisions based on what you know is right … not simply what the party dictates, or what your consultants say will look good … or you will be outta’ here.
Rich, your position is well thought out.
The problem that I see with it, though, is that the threat of the greater of two evils (as you outlined it )would still exist in a 1 party system, but it would be even more frightening because the “other evil” would now have no effective position from which to argue. Think of any other 1 party system that existed in recent memory. Any resonable “other party” candidate, even any Republican that dared question the party line, would suddenly become Trotsky, and would be crushed by a more focused attack.
Furthermore, no candidate outside the Republican establishment would have a prayer of raising any money, as the (R) lobbying machine would only grow more powerful.
Don’t get me wrong, I like your idea. With failure, though, comes a system which can’t possibly be repaired without cataclysm. I’m hoping, but am not convinced, that we have not yet reached that point of desperation.
Bush Hog,
If someone pays $ 10,000 in taxes,
$ 360 is being spent on wasteful speical projects.
Since that is a small amount to you, can I send you my address so you can mail me my check?
Hawkins,
Michael McCaul (Houston, TX) is running for Congress and one of his biggest talking points is doing away with the progressive tax and instead using a fair/flat or sales tax.
http://www.mccaulforcongress.com
Oddly enough, he and Bush are acquainted.
It will be most interesting to see if/when he is elected whether or not he’ll be swallowed up by the gargoyles who currently reside and loom over DC.
“Taxes are taken from us at the point of a gun. And there’s no other government we can pay them to to keep the current one honest.”
Yes, there is. They are called tax-havens. Vote with your feet (or your finances).
Nice to see you, Ms. Dani.
Not to get off-topic, but do you consider the 20 U.S. troops that have been killed in Iraq over the past three days — and the many more likely to be killed today in heavy fighting in Fallujah — not to be signs of the failure of our mission in Iraq?
22,720 soliders were killed in one day in Antietam.
http://www.nps.gov/anti/casualty.htm
Thanks, Ms. Dani…
Here’s wishing Mr. McCaul the best of luck. And more importantly, a bit of influence on his acquaitence at 1600 Penn. Ave.
I see why you’re anonymous, Anonymous.
The chart you link to shows that 22,700 were “Killed, Wounded, or Missing/Captured” on that day. It also says that 3,650 were actually killed.
Your point is as bad as your ability to read the charts you link to.
How is a flat tax fair? I agree it’s more fair than our progressive income tax; however, a fair tax system is one where everyone pays the same. That means the same amount, not the same percent of income. If you just tell every single person they have to pay in $5,000 or some other amount, then you have a fair system.
Just to clarify, the Fair Tax (not to be confused with “a fair tax”…whatever that is) is a sales tax, not a flat tax.
Personally, I don’t think any tax on income is good, be it progressive, regressive, or flat.
I’m not sure that “fair” is a particularly useful way to describe a tax policy anyway, because that means so many different things to different people. But nobody asked my opinion when they named the bill.
Brian’s right — to coin a phrase, any income tax “punishes achievement”, by taking away what you have earned indiscriminately … regardless of how you earned it, and before you have the opportunity to benefit (or harm) society through the direction your spending takes.
You’d think the Left would love the Fair Tax — its rebate provision eliminates ALL federal taxes on the poor, while its constant percentage means that the rich guy pays more tax for his Mercedes, than does Joe Sixpack for his Chevy.
And, if the rich guy buys a Chevy and invests the difference in price-plus-tax, we all benefit from the opporunities that investment creates … so why should he be penalized for his wise choice, as he is with an income tax where he pays the same amount of tax on the same money, regardless of how he uses it?
MattG … when we see more than just a couple of militia groups (in addition to the jihadist visitors and Baathist dead-enders) turn against us, you “might” change my mind. 3000 out of how many million people — and all subscribing to the same extremist ideology? I don’t think they are representative of the Iraqi people as a whole.
The only way we will fail here is if we do not apply a full measure of precision-guided ruthlessness — i.e. kill any who shoot at us while protecting the rest — in response to this.
OK, Rich. Remember it was five months ago that Donald Rumsfeld said it was just a few Baathist “bitter-enders” left in Iraq. A month later he said the resistance would die because Saddam was captured. Now you’re saying this is just a few scattered militia. You seem like an honest guy, Rich — we’ll see how long you can spin Operation Iraqi Freedom as anything but a complete and utter fiasco.
MattG wrote; “do you consider the 20 U.S. troops that have been killed in Iraq over the past three days — and the many more likely to be killed today in heavy fighting in Fallujah — not to be signs of the failure of our mission in Iraq?
I’m curious if you think the two(so far) terrorist attacks in Spain immediately following their capitulation; is a sign of the failure of their new policy.
Also, please cite a number of casualties low enough to stop you from asking the Fallujah question. Thanks.
MattG, I will concede that Rummy et. al. have not gotten everything right — but I don’t think you or I would have gotten it all right either, were we in their position. Still, this is not the popular uprising/quagmire Ted Kennedy and other Bush opponents make it out to be. (It’s not even Bush’s Chappaquidick!)
I hate to sound callous, but the total number of soldiers we’ve lost since the start of hostilities a year ago is about equal to an average month in Vietnam — and this against enemies that are even more inclined to suicide than the VC ever were.
The mistake we made that has resulted in both the Fallujah and the Shi’ite uprising, is when we decided to leave elements with a history of inciting and executing violence in place, in order to avoid “escalating” the violence.
That’s what we get for borrowing a page from the Leftist “let’s get along” playbook, instead of engaging in the precision-guided ruthlessness I described above.
Through our resolute action against ONLY those who take up arms against us, the Iraqis should get the message that America fits the description of “No Better Friend … No Worse Enemy”.
The question is … in the face of the political sniping that is going on, will this Administration have the resolve to implement the above policy?
I’d hate to think that the opposition to this President is engaging in this sniping, not because they seek to correct him, but because they seek to replace him … with that desire producing a false coloration of the information and opinions they present about the conduct of the war.
Scared Stiff — your points are well taken. And, I welcome further scrutiny of my proposal, because I am certainly not omniescent.
However, Trotsky didn’t have the checks-and-balances in our system to protect him, either. I think they are up to the task of handling the “brief” existence of a supermajority.
The thing is, a supermajority puts the GOP into a no-win situation. They must either practice what they preach — and end the pork and growth of government, the awarding and direction of which is the fuel of party politics — or they will enrage the voters, who will then look for alternatives with vigor.
Given today’s information technology, I don’t think one necessarily needs the millions for TV time to get their message out … especially when they won’t be under the shadow cast by two parties, which is what really blanks out the alternative messages already out there. This is especially true in congressional races.
There is a risk in a supermajority — that we will end up with a government like Mexico. I believe that risk to be small, because of the structural protections of our voice and freedoms within this government.
More later …
Fair Tax? Rich, it’s well thought out but I’d rather call it a ‘Tax on Consumeristic Behavior’….
MattG, no, I do not measure success or failure in war by number of deaths, sitll. I measure it by number of deaths vs. the end result. For example, if 10,000 of our troops die in order to save millions of lives in the future, then I consider that success. And remember, the troops are there voluntarily.
Back on topic, I now understand the difference between fair and flat tax, neither of them are really fair. Thanks.
What about a national sales tax? Why would that be a good or bad idea?
To clarify, I do not wish for ANY more of our troops to die. I was merely using that number for example purposes. Sorry if it read a little insensitive.
Rich, you are making progress in convincing me on this one. It’s gone from “dumbest idea I have ever heard” status to “requires more info.” Please keep it coming.
Frank N — well, we have to get the money from somewhere — and the way I see it, a sales tax is not that much different from the excise taxes we originally used to fund the gov.
Since consumption is such a driving force in our economy, tying taxation to it applies instant, intense, and widespread feedback of just how much the government is taking from us to fund what we think we want from it. This is a beneficial feedback that is orders of magnitude stronger than filling out Form 1040 once a year.
“Widespread” is significant — for right now, a majority of the nation pays only 4% to 5% of the income taxes collected. Since they don’t significantly feel the pinch of increased government spending, they are not informed voters.
OTOH, even though the rebate provisions of the Fair Tax significantly reduce the net tax paid by lower-income households, they — along with everyone else — will still be reminded of the cost of government, every time they make a purchase. They will be informed
And, since a lot of consumption is built on the rickety scaffold of easy credit, a little — not a lot — of negative feedback (in the form of the taxes making you think twice before buying what everyone else is buying on QVC) would be beneficial as well.
Now, many will panic at the economically depressive possibilities of imposing a 23% tax on today’s prices — but we have to remember that there is even more tax than that already embedded in those prices. When that goes away, competition will lower those prices, so we should end up with the same, or even greater, purchasing power as a result.
Scared Stiff — thanks for the kind words.
Now, one possible pothole on “my” road is, if wealthism is already too rampant in our society, a single-party government could stay in power by divide-and-conquer through the use of precision-guided pork. The Roman use of “bread and circuses” to placiate the masses is an example of this.
That, of course, would leave the GOP wide open to effective attack from conservatives and liberals alike … that they do not practice what they preach. And, the GOP could not hide behind the cover of “well, the Dems would be even worse.”
The question is: are there enough people looking to “get theirs” from the government to override principled opposition?
I don’t think that wealthism is so entrenched yet, that a single party gov. could capitialize on it this way — but that’s why MattG’s voter education ideas are essential, even after pushing one party off the cliff.
Consumerism drives our economy. If you tax everything, you will have a negative impact on spending habits. Not to mention the bootleg market that will develop….
I’d prefer a flat tax on income, no deductions, no exemptions and no grace salary.
specifically, earned income
a negative impact on spending habits could be a good thing considering the amount of “bad” debt the citizens of this country have cumulatively.
Also, people would truly vote with their money and their vote really would count. Cool! I get it!
Rich, I think you overestimate the number of voters who are truly enraged by government spending. Too many people pay it lip service, but happily accept the check themselves. That’s why supporting pork gets politicians reelected.
Also, as we’ve seen again these past two years, the rules that help keep government in line change when the populace is afraid. If the GOP uses fear to become a supermajority (and that seems to be the reason put forward by many here as to why we should support them), why would they then start governing by the rules?
Nimon — I think that there are enough conservatives left within the GOP, with enough scruples remaining even after their tenure in public office, to challenge the kind of politics-as-usual you describe, were the GOP to achieve a supermajority.
These are the ones who have been told by Hastert and Frist to sit down/shut up because the GOP needs to present a united front against the Dems.
Reduce the Dems to insignificance, and that threat no longer works against them. You would see the conservatives and RINOs battle for control — itself producing gridlock.
Add to that voter opposition on other issues besides taxation/spending, and you have several serious challenges against continued dominance of the RNC in determining public policy.
The difference is, then we will not be limtied to only one, or two, choices to address these problems, simply because those one/two choices have major-party backing.
The DNC and RNC need each other “as is” to stay in power. Render one politically impotent, and our checks, balances, and voters will render the other either impotent or truly compliant, IMO.
As for the “number” of voters issue you initially brought up — how many of those who accept the check do so because they think they can’t change the system to curb the spending … so they go along for the ride?
Give ‘em a real way out — and explain to ‘em why they need to go there — and their tune might change.
“Give ‘em a real way out — and explain to ‘em why they need to go there — and their tune might change.”
The downside of cynicism: I no longer have that kind of faith in people. Individuals and small groups can do amazing things over the long haul, and large groups can do amazing things in a short burst, but a hundred million people pulling off a sustained revolution when their lives or livelihoods are not immediately threatened…I just don’t see it.
As for people taking the check because that’s the system, I’ve seen too many conservatives passionately defend their entitlements to believe that a majority of people would be happy to see everyone’s check go.
Nimon — maybe they won’t be “happy”, but they might be content, when they see the upsides of what I propose.
What I am challenging them to do is “put up or shut up” — either come up with ways to solve the problem of government dysfunction, or stop complaining.
You can also check the sites on win … Thanks!!!
buy xenical Xen-770009122-345566
viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22