American politics has become increasingly polarized, and legislators face tremendous pressure to maintain strict party unity and blame "the other side" for failure. Scoring political points all too often eclipses the objective of creating sound policy. Not only is the political debate often shrill, poorly informed, and unproductive, it fails to represent the largest portion of the public, which belongs to neither party.
Meanwhile, important problems go unsolved. Deficits have reemerged with no plan for how to reduce them. Roughly 40-45 million Americans have no health coverage. Almost half of the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers have insufficient savings, yet the costs of entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are poised to squeeze the federal budget and future taxpayers. Washington's economic policies sometimes seem as though they were designed for a bygone era, out of synch with modern economic problems, or are just motivated by pure politics. Relations between the federal government and the states are strained at a time when cooperation is essential to both homeland security and economic and social progress. Worst of all, Americans have lost faith in two pillars of modern society -- corporations and government -- because they doubt corporate executives' integrity and distrust government programs' ability to continually modernize and perform efficiently.
The country needs bipartisan cooperation and new centrist policy ideas. Workable, long-range solutions to the most important national problems cannot be rammed through legislatures on party-line votes. Instead, centrist policymakers need bold, practical new proposals that can bridge the divide between the two parties and gain broad public support.
Values. A primary value is fiscal responsibility. In today's split political system, conservatives almost uniformly push tax cuts, especially for high-earning or wealthy Americans, regardless of the nation's long-term fiscal position or needs. Liberals' absolute fealty to outdated and expensive entitlement programs is just as shortsighted. As both sides compete to buy votes, they ignore the larger national interest.
By contrast, centrists are more likely to be focused on long-run budgetary responsibility, carefully evaluating future budgetary needs and continuously modernizing spending programs so that future generations won't face untenable tax burdens. Centrists must focus relentlessly on ensuring that government is effective and efficient -- providing the best possible value for the taxpayer's dollar.
A related value for centrists is generational responsibility. We believe the baby boom generation should leave a legacy of safety, prosperity and opportunity to its children and grandchildren, much as the generations that fought the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War made sacrifices to benefit their successors.
Centrists believe high-value government uses market forces to achieve its goals, including cooperative arrangements between the federal, state, and local governments, and the private sector.
Government's best role is to empower citizens with the information and tools they need to take care of themselves. At the same time, centrists are also progressive, and believe the national interest is best served when all Americans are free of poverty, and have sufficient opportunities for advancement.
Finally, centrists are almost always characterized by open-mindedness and a sense of fair play. Centrists have one overarching goal: accomplishment. We will not be bound by ideological preconceptions or rigidities of either the left or right.
From Centrists.org
Last updated 12/20/2004
Thanks Flint.
Good post. This would be wonderful if this was a perfect world ... but it isn't. Too much corruption in our political and voting systems. It would take a new breed of politician to achieve bipartisan cooperation and new centrist policy ideas. I sometimes think we need two types of Congress, one for these United States ONLY and another seperate Congress for foreign policies. But that isn't going to happen either.
Frankly, I think the whole thing needs to be re-worked. The gov't is really out of touch with the American people.
"We the people" already have the opportunity to re-work the government... every 4 years. Actually, more often than that when you consider the House and Senate seats, too.
In my opinion, the part of the government that should be re-worked is the election process. That's where all the mud-slinging and name-calling and party lines are drawn hard and fast. Give all the canidates the same amount of money to spend on ads and make them give any additional funds raised to charity. Make them pay fines for saying false accusations of their opponent. Do not make people only vote within their "party" during primaries. Who cares if the final 2 candidates are from the same "party"? As we all know, just because a person represents a "party" doesn't mean everyone within that party agrees with them.
Sounds like a good plan to me,Tobina. The "party" status has been long gone anyway -- just a lot of lip movement that does not require a brain that is functioning. Of all the things that are so UP THERE - political party rules and guidelines are totally absent.
There definitely should be a set of rules and boundaries that require all to adhere to.
Some of "we the people" TRIED to this last election. ;D
We failed miserably............ :'(
I actually think that Ted Nugent should be president and Sarah Palin should be VP...
Then we would be cookin' with gas.. Yesssireeee...
Quote from: Teresa on June 05, 2009, 12:53:56 PM
I actually think that Ted Nugent should be president and Sarah Palin should be VP...
Then we would be cookin' with gas.. Yesssireeee...[/b][/color]
Now thats a ticket worth voting for!!!
When in doubt
I'll whip it out.
I got me an Oval Office band.
It's a free for all
Quote from: Tobina+1 on June 05, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
"We the people" already have the opportunity to re-work the government... every 4 years. Actually, more often than that when you consider the House and Senate seats, too.
In my opinion, the part of the government that should be re-worked is the election process. That's where all the mud-slinging and name-calling and party lines are drawn hard and fast. Give all the canidates the same amount of money to spend on ads and make them give any additional funds raised to charity. Make them pay fines for saying false accusations of their opponent. Do not make people only vote within their "party" during primaries. Who cares if the final 2 candidates are from the same "party"? As we all know, just because a person represents a "party" doesn't mean everyone within that party agrees with them.
I agree, comprehensive campaign finance reform is the place to start. No more $25,000 dinners with the candidate. No more free transportation. No more supposedly independent ad campaigns that are so blatantly for or against a specific candidate that a three year old could see it.
And no carry over of funds from one election cycle to the next.
And one that really sticks in my craw:
If you're in the middle of your term as one thing, you can't run for something else unless you resign. Why should you be able to run for President and still be able to keep your Senate seat or governorship in reserve in case you lose. This would really open up who would be viable candidates for higher state and federal offices and create some much needed turnover.
Quote from: Tobina+1 on June 05, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
"We the people" already have the opportunity to re-work the government... every 4 years. Actually, more often than that when you consider the House and Senate seats, too.
In my opinion, the part of the government that should be re-worked is the election process. That's where all the mud-slinging and name-calling and party lines are drawn hard and fast. Give all the canidates the same amount of money to spend on ads and make them give any additional funds raised to charity. Make them pay fines for saying false accusations of their opponent. Do not make people only vote within their "party" during primaries. Who cares if the final 2 candidates are from the same "party"? As we all know, just because a person represents a "party" doesn't mean everyone within that party agrees with them.
Feeling as I do about Barack Obama, it's only natural that I would look for people to blame for putting him in the Oval Office. I mean, aside from the 63 million oafs who actually voted for the guy. The first villains who come to mind are members of the media who are still, in the words of Bernard Goldberg, slobbering over him. But I have come up with another group of troublemakers. They're the folks who came up with the cockamamie primary system.
When you realize how much emphasis is placed on early results, both in terms of momentum and fund-raising, you can readily see how goofy it is that a tiny New England state and a handful of Midwesterners wield so much influence. I have nothing against the voters of New Hampshire or the folks who vote in the Iowa caucus, but it's absurd that they should have so much power. The solution is quite simple. On the very same day, the Republicans and the Democrats would hold their primaries in all 50 states. The two winners would then square off in November. What money is let over can go to charity. Not only would my plan streamline the entire process, but there would be far fewer interruptions of regularly scheduled TV programs. So, what's not to like?
Frankly, I don't think my system would result in better candidates but, on the other hand, after 2008, it's hard to imagine either party doing much worse. Issues aside, one of the things I like better about Republicans than Democrats is that we aren't so partisan that we automatically give our guys a free pass. When McCain joined with Ted Kennedy to pass their amnesty bill, he got worked over pretty good by conservatives. When Bush ran up the national debt, he got clobbered by Republicans and Democrats, alike. But when, in just four short months, Obama tripled the deficit, nary a discouraging word have we hear from a single liberal. Massive inflation looms over all of us and thousands of people have lost their jobs but Democrats just keep smiling and giving each other high-fives while Obama cranks out funny money like a counterfeiter on speed.
Of all the terrible things Democrats are responsible for, perhaps the worst is the way they foster and promote class and race wars in America for their own political advantage. They tell black people that nothing is ever their fault -- not early pregnancies, not an embarrassing school dropout rate, not an overemphasis on athletics, not selling or using drugs -- that everything, instead, is the fault of white Republicans. To poor people, they say they'd be rich if only white Republicans didn't steal all their money, just as they say to the 41% of Americans who pay no income taxes, "HERE'S A REBATE!" And who is feeding them all this tripe? Why none other than Charles Schumer, Keith OlberClown, John Kerry, David Letterman, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Maher, Norman Lear, the Clintons, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, Jon Stewart, Patrick Leahy, Arianna Huffington, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros.... hell, I could go on and on... all of whom are white, very, very rich, liberal millionaires.
Clearly, P.T. Barnum was right about the birthrate of suckers and the Baltimore sage, H.L. Mencken, wasn't being overly cynical when he observed that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
I love your idea on holding the primaries on the same day, but then we would have to think for ourselves instead of voting for the most popular one with the media. ;) ;)
Warph, you forgot the Kennedys. They were the first to endorse Obama.
Quote from: Wilma on June 06, 2009, 08:45:55 PM
Warph, you forgot the Kennedys. They were the first to endorse Obama.
Your right.... Teddy should have been at the head of "the pack." The pack.... hmmmm.... sounds like I'm talking about a pack of rabid dogs. LOL... I guess I am.