for an ideological community, it's great.
But for a real life political platform, it needs to be cut considerably.
Much briefer and in layman's language.
Your ordinary voter will read about LETS, minority unionism, and go "say what?". Even Kevin's commentators did that.
A useable platform should be more direct and not refer to arcana.
Something like:
1)End corporate welfare, including all tax incentives and subsidies. To make this revenue neutral, lower payroll and income taxes with special benefit to those in the lower income brackets.
2) Turn over all federal government lands and roads to the states or local governments. These entities can use the resources in a manner that conforms to the free market (unlike present usage) and use the proceeds to lower income, sales, and property tax rates.
3) deregulate banking so that start up ventures can enter the field and small banks operate without the burdens of regulation, which favor the big banks.
4) deregulate food and drugs, and reduce the role of the government to that of watchdog and information clearing house, so that consumers can make fully informed and free choices for their own health.
5) rework zoning laws so that they allow multi-use areas, which are necessary for the prosperity of urban neighborhoods.
Jeffrey,
I don't think it was intended to be a "platform" so much as a statement of things for several groups to agree to pursue. Presumably the "Contract With America" on those points would be more simply phrased.
Also, you don't seem to understand the tax cut proposal. It doesn't provide a "special benefit to the lower income brackets." It provides an equal benefit to EVERY income bracket. It's a simple way to cut taxes that eliminates any class warfare aspect, because you're just raising the amount of income that is exempt from income tax at all. If the exemption is $20,000, then the janitor's first $20K is tax free, and so is the owner of the company's first $20K. Raise that to $25K, and they both get the same break. Every time we want to cut taxes, just raise that exemption some more.
Tom Knapp
Sounds like a good idea. BTW, I'm looking forward to your next "First Look 2008." When are you going to talk about Lance Brown?
Al,
Lance is next on my list -- but he's been pretty scarce. Probably still neck-deep in business stuff.
If Lance emits a peep or two, I'll give him a full article; at this time, the rest of the declared candidates will probably go in an "also ran" piece unless I see some evidence of real activity from them; then I'll move on to a couple of the more active/interesting prospective candidates.
Once I feel like I've covered everyone who's in, or likely to get in, the race, then I'll probably do an issues comparison ("who's the purist? Who's the pragmatist?" That kind of thing).
I want to get as much of this kind of writing done as I can before things heat up -- as soon as I start working for a candidate (and I assume I will be doing so), then I don't get to be quite as candid any more.
Regards,
Tom
Sorry Tom - ain't gonna' work ... when pigs get wings and all that sort of thing.
To be Green means that you have to accept at the very least, the better parts of socialism. Your purity people, and maybe even yourself, would rather stick burning bamboo shoots under their fingernails than go that route.
The Libs and the Greens is a dream in your sleep only. Maybe the Libs of the 70's, but not now.
For the demodawgs to adopt any of the Lib platforms is to quarantee the disasters of the past two elections .. .we got the DLC to do that, and we are going to throw all the Holy Joes out of office.
Go your own route and try to convince people that it is the best way to go .... I think you have about as much chance as the transgender running against Blunt in the primary ... but it's a great discussion.
Incidentally, since I usually vote in the repugly primary ... you can bet your sweet ass that I will vote for her/him ....
Overall this seems sensable.
I am especally intergued by point 10's apperent commitment to new urbanism. I like the idea, but the actual implementation tends to be uber-restrictive "design standards".
I would also eliminate TIF financing for local goverments. This usually just results in developers being able to borrow against future taxes paid by tenets or customers.
John,
Actually, not only CAN it work, but it HAS worked, albeit not on an all-party scale.
Not all Greens are socialists, nor does one need to be a socialist to oppose corporatism. When Percy Schmeisser spoke at the annual Green Pesto Feast in St. Louis a few years ago, if I'd closed my eyes I'd have sworn I was at a Cato Institute forum on property rights.
In 2002, the editor of the Green Party's newsletter endorsed a candidate (Tamara) in the LP's US Senate primary and encouraged Greens (who weren't on the primary ballot) to go vote for her. We also held several events with the Green Senate candidate (nominated by petition) -- including a radio debate to which the "majors" were invited but declined, and a "victory party" after the television debate which had about 20 times as many attendees as poor Jean Carnahan's party in the next room over.
In 2004, LP presidential candidate Michael Badnarik and Green presidential candidate David Cobb did numerous debates, public appearances, etc., together. They got arrested together. They filed a lawsuit versus Ohio's vote fraud together.
Partisan Greens are not partisan Libertarians or vice versa, but some libertarians are greens and vice versa, and to the extent that that the two parties and movements have issues on which they agree, it helps them both to work together.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
neteller online casino neteller online casino neteller online casino. texas teacher home loan texas teacher home loan texas teacher home loan.
Commenting by HaloScan
