1) No elected or appointed official who receives a pension for his/her government work can then go on to work with or for a lobbying group without forfeiting his/her pension.
Reason: It makes no sense to have an elected official use his/her job to further a career at voters' expense, and then work against the voters' interest.
2) All candidates shall have a cap put on the amount of money spent on their campaigns, beginning with the smallest political jurisdiction. The candidate running against an incumbent shall be allowed to have an additional 50% to spend.
Reason: An incumbent has the advantage of name recognition and office and record. This levels the playing field a bit.
3) The campaign shall not be allowed to spend the money alloted to it until a specified date which should not be six months before the election.
Reason: This will help do away with the incumbents' needs to start fundraising while they are supposed to be working on legislation. This will also help because it eliminates the need for the outrageous sums of money spent on elections by parties and candidates.
Realistically I do not expect these points to be taken seriously by incumbents, political parties, TV networks, newspapers, radio stations or anyone else who makes money on elections.
But one can hope.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Beware of Bi-Partisan Compromises
While bi-partisanship occasionally works to improve legislation, it often leaves both sides unhappy. Compromise is only possible when both sides have a common goal and a common desire to succeed. When one side only wants to make the other side look bad, compromise is nearly impossible.
There's no satisfactory compromise on Gay Marriage or Universal Health Care, there are only compromises on ways to achieve those goals. Either you want everyone to have the right to marry or you don't. Either you believe everyone should have access to affordable medical care or you don't. Now, compromises are possible in determining how you achieve affordable medical care but not as to whether or not you should have it.
Here are two examples of the problem with compromise:
A group: All people should have the right to marry.
B group: No.
A group: Let's compromise- Only those over 35 years of age.
B group: OK, but only if they were previously married to a person of the opposite sex - and had the marriage annulled.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.
A group: We should increase taxes on all those who make over $1,000,000 dollars a year.
B group: No.
A group: How about if we make it $1,000,000 dollars and they must have
$10,000,000 in the bank.
B group: How about $10,000,000 and $5,000,000,000 in the bank.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.
Someone always ends up with the short end of the stick. Add in campaign finances, lobbyists and the need to get re-elected and the all of the public ends up with the short end of the stick.
There's no satisfactory compromise on Gay Marriage or Universal Health Care, there are only compromises on ways to achieve those goals. Either you want everyone to have the right to marry or you don't. Either you believe everyone should have access to affordable medical care or you don't. Now, compromises are possible in determining how you achieve affordable medical care but not as to whether or not you should have it.
Here are two examples of the problem with compromise:
A group: All people should have the right to marry.
B group: No.
A group: Let's compromise- Only those over 35 years of age.
B group: OK, but only if they were previously married to a person of the opposite sex - and had the marriage annulled.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.
A group: We should increase taxes on all those who make over $1,000,000 dollars a year.
B group: No.
A group: How about if we make it $1,000,000 dollars and they must have
$10,000,000 in the bank.
B group: How about $10,000,000 and $5,000,000,000 in the bank.
A group: In the interest of bi-partisanship and compromise we can go along with that.
Someone always ends up with the short end of the stick. Add in campaign finances, lobbyists and the need to get re-elected and the all of the public ends up with the short end of the stick.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama not fighting the good fight on health care
Our president seems to be slipping in the polls and he deserves to be.
The candidate I voted for was a man of principles and intelligence. The one who has taken on the fight for health care reform is neither.
It does not make any sense to keep fighting for what he cannot get. The Republicans are out to have him fail on the health care initiative. He is also losing the moderates, and liberals who he promised to protect.
In his knuckling down to the Republicans and the Mad Dog Democrats he has done a disservice to the people who voted for him. The cooperative idea has absolutely no chance of working and may be an even bigger disaster than our present system.
Here is why. The cooperative idea will cost a lot of money with no strings attached or plans to ensure it will work. Some cooperatives will have different rules than others and someone moving will have to join with different rules. In order to achieve maximum benefit, it is likely that some cooperatives will not take in people with pre-existing conditions. Some cooperatives will be taken over by the very people who are against making the health care system better. I can see the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and those that will gain from weak rules and entry conditions doing so.
The only system that will work to reform health care is one that takes the good of Medicare and and expands on it.
So in order for our president to do what he promised, he has to fight for a public option and explain why to the American people and those who are fighting him on it. They will back him and vote out the naysayers. But to do so the president will have to regain his principles and intelligence.
The candidate I voted for was a man of principles and intelligence. The one who has taken on the fight for health care reform is neither.
It does not make any sense to keep fighting for what he cannot get. The Republicans are out to have him fail on the health care initiative. He is also losing the moderates, and liberals who he promised to protect.
In his knuckling down to the Republicans and the Mad Dog Democrats he has done a disservice to the people who voted for him. The cooperative idea has absolutely no chance of working and may be an even bigger disaster than our present system.
Here is why. The cooperative idea will cost a lot of money with no strings attached or plans to ensure it will work. Some cooperatives will have different rules than others and someone moving will have to join with different rules. In order to achieve maximum benefit, it is likely that some cooperatives will not take in people with pre-existing conditions. Some cooperatives will be taken over by the very people who are against making the health care system better. I can see the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and those that will gain from weak rules and entry conditions doing so.
The only system that will work to reform health care is one that takes the good of Medicare and and expands on it.
So in order for our president to do what he promised, he has to fight for a public option and explain why to the American people and those who are fighting him on it. They will back him and vote out the naysayers. But to do so the president will have to regain his principles and intelligence.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Term limits: Good or bad?
Let's look at the political system.
The average elected official starts out at the local level. After being elected more than once he/she gets to be on committees and perhaps chair them. This brings more money to their campaigns (and perhaps pockets) and more pork to their districts. They use the fact that they have brought this pork home to their districts as a reason to re-elect them.
When the next position up the ladder opens up, they run for that position. If they are elected to a state position and get on committees and chair them then they make more money and have more power. This encourages them to run for Congress. Possibly even for the Presidency. That is the normal progression.
If you have lots of money or name recognition, you can skip some of the steps. You can run for Mayor, Governor, or President without doing the grunt work at the lower-level positions.
The problem with continuous incumbency, however, is that after a while the politicians forget who elected them and why. They believe they were elected simply to make more money, get bigger pensions and gain more power.
But who benefits from this power? They do. The lobbyists who've supported them do. Like barnacles, lobbyists seek out the most ambitious or most needy politicians and attach themselves for the ride. It is much easier to have influence over people who see you as a means of helping them keep their jobs, or have greater ambitions. You can offer to help finance their run or offer them people who would work for them.
The politicians with power have power to vote a lobbyist's position or keep an opponent from voting against it.
Others who gain from that power are the non-profit organizations that need their funding to exist. On rare occasions these non-profit organizations are even threatened with lack of funding if they do not help in the candidate's campaign.
Who loses from this increasing power?
The average voter who just wants a fair shake in the legislative process. The consumer who wants to see the banks, the credit card companies, the utilities and the cable companies treat them fairly and honestly, and the agencies that exist to protect the consumer, do just that.
If you take a look at the politicians who have committed malfeasance in office you will invariably find that they were career politicians.
So the process that makes incumbency desirable - the ability to gain more power for your constituents - is the very process that makes term limits the smart thing - because the amassed power rarely comes back to help the constituents.
Many politicians go into politics with altruistic purposes, but the system - with their own compliance - beats and corrupts them.
The average elected official starts out at the local level. After being elected more than once he/she gets to be on committees and perhaps chair them. This brings more money to their campaigns (and perhaps pockets) and more pork to their districts. They use the fact that they have brought this pork home to their districts as a reason to re-elect them.
When the next position up the ladder opens up, they run for that position. If they are elected to a state position and get on committees and chair them then they make more money and have more power. This encourages them to run for Congress. Possibly even for the Presidency. That is the normal progression.
If you have lots of money or name recognition, you can skip some of the steps. You can run for Mayor, Governor, or President without doing the grunt work at the lower-level positions.
The problem with continuous incumbency, however, is that after a while the politicians forget who elected them and why. They believe they were elected simply to make more money, get bigger pensions and gain more power.
But who benefits from this power? They do. The lobbyists who've supported them do. Like barnacles, lobbyists seek out the most ambitious or most needy politicians and attach themselves for the ride. It is much easier to have influence over people who see you as a means of helping them keep their jobs, or have greater ambitions. You can offer to help finance their run or offer them people who would work for them.
The politicians with power have power to vote a lobbyist's position or keep an opponent from voting against it.
Others who gain from that power are the non-profit organizations that need their funding to exist. On rare occasions these non-profit organizations are even threatened with lack of funding if they do not help in the candidate's campaign.
Who loses from this increasing power?
The average voter who just wants a fair shake in the legislative process. The consumer who wants to see the banks, the credit card companies, the utilities and the cable companies treat them fairly and honestly, and the agencies that exist to protect the consumer, do just that.
If you take a look at the politicians who have committed malfeasance in office you will invariably find that they were career politicians.
So the process that makes incumbency desirable - the ability to gain more power for your constituents - is the very process that makes term limits the smart thing - because the amassed power rarely comes back to help the constituents.
Many politicians go into politics with altruistic purposes, but the system - with their own compliance - beats and corrupts them.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Spoiling the party
Our politicians think we are all fools and if we let them get away with their shenanigans we are.
Our election boards spend lots of time and tons of taxpayer money to have primaries so Democrats and Republicans can vote for who they want from that party to represent them in general elections. It is almost like a contract. For elected officials to then change their mind about their party affiliations during their term in office is tantamount to breaking a contract. If the elected official is not happy to represent that party, and the voters, the official should resign. While still in office the official should vote his or her conscience - if he or she has one.
The time to change parties is if and when they run again
We have just had Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate make a mockery of the voting process in N.Y. State. They have played games with their party affiliations and the voters, for financial and personal gain.
They have made the whole election process a joke, and stalled the legislation process. If Albany cannot do anything about this fiasco, then the voters should. They should call for a referendum limiting the State elected officials to two terms. One that cannot be overruled.
Our election boards spend lots of time and tons of taxpayer money to have primaries so Democrats and Republicans can vote for who they want from that party to represent them in general elections. It is almost like a contract. For elected officials to then change their mind about their party affiliations during their term in office is tantamount to breaking a contract. If the elected official is not happy to represent that party, and the voters, the official should resign. While still in office the official should vote his or her conscience - if he or she has one.
The time to change parties is if and when they run again
We have just had Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate make a mockery of the voting process in N.Y. State. They have played games with their party affiliations and the voters, for financial and personal gain.
They have made the whole election process a joke, and stalled the legislation process. If Albany cannot do anything about this fiasco, then the voters should. They should call for a referendum limiting the State elected officials to two terms. One that cannot be overruled.
Friday, June 5, 2009
When Pro-Life Means Death
An open letter to those who celebrated the death of Dr. Tiller.
To preach violence is the sheer height of hypocrisy for anyone who claims they are "Pro Life." Scott Roeder killed another person, but I will not call it murder. Only a jury in a court of law can do so, under the American justice system.
If you are a woman and believe that abortion is wrong you have the right not to have one. You, other women, and men also have the right to tell others that you believe abortion is wrong. You all have the right to advocate to make abortion illegal. What you do not have the right to do is call for violence because of your belief.
Abortion is not murder unless a court says it is. If you think the doctor who performs it is committing a crime you have the right in our justice system to make that claim. You also have the right to vote for anyone who believes the way you do.
Today you go after the doctor, soon you will go over the individuals who were responsible for the fetus in the first place.
What has always seemed strange is that some "Pro Life" advocates also approve of war, gun owners rights, and the death penalty. As for gun ownership, no Pro-Life advocate has ever needed a gun to protect himself from a Pro-Choice doctor. But unfortunately, too many Pro-Choice doctors seem to need guns to protect themselves from those who call themselves Pro-Life.
Pro-Life advocates should try to create a climate in which the children of natural disasters, like floods, fires, earthquakes, poverty. etc. can look forward to a brighter future. They should also provide comfort and support for women forced to make decisions that may forever scar them and acknowledge that some fetuses allowed to come to term would live extremely short, terribly painful lives. Sometimes abortion is the most humane course of action.
Humanity. Sympathy. Empathy. That's what I consider Pro-Life.
To preach violence is the sheer height of hypocrisy for anyone who claims they are "Pro Life." Scott Roeder killed another person, but I will not call it murder. Only a jury in a court of law can do so, under the American justice system.
If you are a woman and believe that abortion is wrong you have the right not to have one. You, other women, and men also have the right to tell others that you believe abortion is wrong. You all have the right to advocate to make abortion illegal. What you do not have the right to do is call for violence because of your belief.
Abortion is not murder unless a court says it is. If you think the doctor who performs it is committing a crime you have the right in our justice system to make that claim. You also have the right to vote for anyone who believes the way you do.
Today you go after the doctor, soon you will go over the individuals who were responsible for the fetus in the first place.
What has always seemed strange is that some "Pro Life" advocates also approve of war, gun owners rights, and the death penalty. As for gun ownership, no Pro-Life advocate has ever needed a gun to protect himself from a Pro-Choice doctor. But unfortunately, too many Pro-Choice doctors seem to need guns to protect themselves from those who call themselves Pro-Life.
Pro-Life advocates should try to create a climate in which the children of natural disasters, like floods, fires, earthquakes, poverty. etc. can look forward to a brighter future. They should also provide comfort and support for women forced to make decisions that may forever scar them and acknowledge that some fetuses allowed to come to term would live extremely short, terribly painful lives. Sometimes abortion is the most humane course of action.
Humanity. Sympathy. Empathy. That's what I consider Pro-Life.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Transparency and campaign reform
Most voters are familiar with the pork and earmark money that comes into their districts. They are made aware of these funds by their representatives through newsletters and campaign literature.
But those funds come at a price and representatives, while they tout their successes, don't publicize that price.
Here is a simple method of campaign reform.
It should be made mandatory that representative's newsletters, which, after all, are paid for (whether they want them or not) by the constituents, must contain the voting record of the representative on all issues. It should also be mandatory that all campaign donors and their donated amounts be listed. Candidates running against an incumbent must also list all their donors and campaign contributions. In the event that the opposing candidate has a previous voting record it should also be listed.
These transparencies will give voters the information needed to make an informed voting decision.
If the representative doesn't want to list his/her voting record or their campaign contributions in his/her newsletter he/she must at the very least list them in a local newspaper.
If nothing else, we may find that our mailboxes will be stuffed with less useless political material.
But those funds come at a price and representatives, while they tout their successes, don't publicize that price.
Here is a simple method of campaign reform.
It should be made mandatory that representative's newsletters, which, after all, are paid for (whether they want them or not) by the constituents, must contain the voting record of the representative on all issues. It should also be mandatory that all campaign donors and their donated amounts be listed. Candidates running against an incumbent must also list all their donors and campaign contributions. In the event that the opposing candidate has a previous voting record it should also be listed.
These transparencies will give voters the information needed to make an informed voting decision.
If the representative doesn't want to list his/her voting record or their campaign contributions in his/her newsletter he/she must at the very least list them in a local newspaper.
If nothing else, we may find that our mailboxes will be stuffed with less useless political material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
