geeze, just finished reading this hyperbolic long winded yet very simplistic dialectic diatribe about "conservatives"
vs "liberals" or "good" vs "evil"....
Being "liberal" on some issues, "conservative" on
others, "moderate" on most, "radical" on a couple,
plus "unconventional" on a few.....
I find this labeling and pontificating silly...
but as long as this is a "manifesto" thread....I'll add
an old one of mine below, because whether a Democrat or Republican resides in the White House, all we're really left
with is a Plutocrat, who in reality is beholden to special
interests and lobbyists to write in tax breaks
for race horses, tobacco growers, et cetera while
providing subsidies for large corporations,
creating ill-advised sociallistic programs that don't work,
and allocating jobs for defense systems per Congressional
seniority for defense systems that even the Pentagon
doesn't want....
Vote, however, you wish in 2000...the problem is a
structural one ...not one as simple as a label
or party affiliation.
Unfortunately whether you choose George Gush
or Al Bore (the only "viable" choices), all you're
going to be left with are two people whose
opinions (and lack of leadership) are the
results of the polls of the constituents who
both pander to, and the positions of the
organizations both receive excessive amounts
of money from......that's why we live in a
plutocracy.....Democracy is a fantasy, and that's
why over 50% of the people don't vote in this
country.
(Plus FWIW- we were not the first "democracy"-
the Iroquois Federation and Poland (for a very brief time)
had representative democracies before the United
States was formed).
=======================================
Old Manifesto on Campaign Finance Reform from
three or four years back
=========================================
Contrary to what many may think and feel, a plutocracy
is not a government ran and operated by Mickey Mouse's dog.
A plutocracy is a country ran by and for the
interests of the wealthy. Millionaire Congressman
receiving financing from large corporations doling
out corporate welfare give the very strong perception
that government isn't working for "average" people and
their concerns. Many "average" Americans feel as if only
the wealthy can partake in the political process because
of the amounts of money needed to run a political campaign.
Many average Americans feel that the large amounts of
money given to campaigns effect the objectivity of the
politicians receiving these large contributions.
Though much has been written about the apparent
improprieties associated with campaign financing,
solutions to these apparent indiscretions so far have
dealt exclusively with constraining how much and who
can give to politicians and their respective parties.
Constraints discussed regarding "soft money", PAC's,
and individual contributions, not only confront
constitutional issues related to inherent freedoms,
but also beget new and creative ways to circumvent any
new rules imposed. Previous attempts at campaign finance
reform clearly illustrate the basic truism that any
legislation left to interpretation will provide loop
holes ripe for expansion and exploitation.
So rather than just focus on how money is given to
candidates, the focus should be expanded to alter any
perceivable correlation between what contributors receive
from (in either the form of favorable legislation, tax
favoritism, and allocation of federal contracts) and how
much these contributors give to specific politicians.
To alter this correlation between what is given and what
appears to be received, I make the following suggestions
related to legislation, taxes, and allocations.
On legislation, disqualify any representative to vote on
any pending legislation related to the specific interests
of an contributor, because of any perceivable and
possible conflict of interest with other constituents,
if aggregate contributions exceed a thousand dollars
for individuals, and ten thousand dollars for PAC's.
On taxes, no tax breaks or deductions for any individual,
group, or corporation will be given unless at least an
absolute minimum of five percent of the population can
benefit from any specific tax break. Plus any existing
deduction that doesn't comply with this criteria will be eliminated.
On allocation, fifty percent of tax revenues generated
for discretional and defense spending will be distributed
to Congressional Districts in a lump sum per constituent
basis determined by voter participation for 18 years old
and above, and by school enrollment for 17 year olds and below.
Though these proposals are targeted specifically at
campaign finance reform, the ramifications of their
implementation on the way government operates are enormous
especially regarding taxes and allocation.
On taxes, a five percent criteria for a tax break or
deduction may seem very low, but have you read the tax code?
There are numerous tax breaks given to very specific
groups and even individuals. How many people in America
can depreciate their race horses? Applying this five
percent criteria simplifies the tax code, increases
revenues (also allowing for middle class income and payroll
tax cuts) without adversely effecting the vast majority
of constituents, and basically makes the system fairer
and more democratic by not providing tax advantages
to plutocratic contributors.
On allocation, imagine what would happen to voter
participation if politicians realized that money coming
to their states and districts was contingent upon their
constituents partaking in the democratic process. Would
there be negative campaigns to turn off voters? Probably
not. Will polls be open on Saturdays, and voting, in
general, made easier to do? Most likely yes. Allocation
changes also effect incumbency by reducing the importance
of seniority and the ability of senior members of Congress
to steer specific programs to their states and districts,
especially when the programs seem to benefit primarily
the very limited interests of a Congress person's state
or district and not the country as an whole.
In all fairness to large land states not densely populated
and for very specific concerns, targeted taxes with
specific distributions will have to be utilized and kept
separate from the general funds. For example, higher gas
taxes for highways and rapid transit. Higher sin taxes
(cigarette and alcohol) for healthcare and healthcare
research, and some higher land user fees for agriculture
and the environment. Social security i.e. payroll
taxes at lower rates should also again be separated from
the general funds and applied to all income not just
the first fifty-six or so thousand dollars of income
especially if there is no means testing. These changes
in allocation give real motivation for voter
participation, and the creation of specific taxes
applied to specific programs allows for participants
to better understand where and how their tax dollars
are being spent. These changes are fairer as well as
drastically alter real and imagined correlation's
between campaign contributors and federal largess receivers.
Changing voters perceptions that politics and politicians
are not representing their needs, by enacting changes that
diminish the real and imagined influence of specific
interests by dissociating contributions from programs and
benefits received, doesn't directly and adversely effect
the ability of special interests to voice their concerns
by supporting candidates who share their views and goals.
For special interests, in spite of the double speak, are
the old, young, black, female, white male, angry white male,
females angry at white males, soccer moms, Hispanics,
Hispanic soccer moms, gays, labor interests, corporate
interests, environmentalists, gun enthusiasts, gun
un-enthusiasts, pet owners, pet rock owners,
"conservatives", "liberals" or, in other words, all the
different people who are the citizens of these United States.
Sincerely,
ztect |
