I note the existence of www.SiezeBP.org. Sweet.
More proof (as if more was really needed) that regulators often don't regulate. I'll grant that on a fundamental level, there is a built-in deficiency. The regulators need expertise in the area they're regulating. That expertise generally comes only from time spent being regulated. Thus the revolving door between those who regulate and those regulated. And so the downward slide begins.
Given that utopia is not an option and that what we have is far far short of even aspiring towards utopia, what about a significantly different approach?
A great deal of crime does not occur because there's a belief that there will be personal unpleasant consequences. Let's say that our guiding principle was that corporations and the individuals who run them are reasonable for the consequences of their actions. Let's further presume that our laws and institutional structures and processes were changed to be consistent with this guiding principle. Now let's look at this BP spill.
Given that there was a spill, BP would be immediately required to release all information it had concerning the spill. No holding back video feeds. No holding back nothing. As soon as it became clear the likely size and costs resulting from this spill, the government could simply seize control of BP and maybe Transocean and maybe even Halliburton. Every available corporate resource (along with whatever government/military resources seemed appropriate) would be used as needed at least until the ultimate tally was reasonably known. Then, if anything was left of BP, it might be returned to it's owners. And any individual, even acting within his corporate authority, who made a decision that was clearly contrary to defined procedure or carried risks that a prudent industry-knowledgeable person would not make, would be held personally responsible for whatever deaths, injuries, or damages occurred as a consequence.
If this BP spill played out as outlined above, the likelihood of another in the future would drop by a factor of 10 or more. Instead, BP may suffer significant losses but will survive and profit in the future, taxpayers will foot a large part of the costs, no one will go to jail, enforcement of regulations will be somewhat improved, and the likelihood of another similar spill in the future wil drop by maybe 10%. Given that the goal here is to prevent catastrophic spills, I have no trouble picking which way I'd like to go.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
some figures on legal immigration
For fiscal year 2009 there were 468,770 immigration visas issued. (There were some ~750,000 temporary visas issued.)
The breakdown by country starts with:
Mexico................74,769...15.95%
Dominican Rep...40,824.....8.71%
Philippines..........36,048.....7.69%
The category breakdown is:
Immediate Relative........227,517
Family Preference..........176,273
Diversity.........................46,761
Employment Preference...13,846
Special..............................4,325
I guess the first thing to note is that this means that for every 700 residents of this country, 1 legal immigrant was admitted. To me, this is additional proof that our legal quotas are too low.
Next, I note that 86% of immigrant visas were based on family relationships. I'd gotten the impression that our legal immigration was heavily skewed towards family unification and that's clearly true. Even before I knew the figures, I had some doubts about the wisdom of this approach; so you get your foot in the door and every scummy relative you have gets to jump to the front of the line? I do understand that potential immigrants have to be sponsored and (I believe) that approval depends on the ability of the sponsor to financially support the immigrant. But isn't that wrong? Shouldn't it be about the potential immigrant's own abilities?
So I am more convinced than ever that our legal immigration level is too low. And I continue to doubt the wisdom of the primacy of family unification.
The breakdown by country starts with:
Mexico................74,769...15.95%
Dominican Rep...40,824.....8.71%
Philippines..........36,048.....7.69%
The category breakdown is:
Immediate Relative........227,517
Family Preference..........176,273
Diversity.........................46,761
Employment Preference...13,846
Special..............................4,325
I guess the first thing to note is that this means that for every 700 residents of this country, 1 legal immigrant was admitted. To me, this is additional proof that our legal quotas are too low.
Next, I note that 86% of immigrant visas were based on family relationships. I'd gotten the impression that our legal immigration was heavily skewed towards family unification and that's clearly true. Even before I knew the figures, I had some doubts about the wisdom of this approach; so you get your foot in the door and every scummy relative you have gets to jump to the front of the line? I do understand that potential immigrants have to be sponsored and (I believe) that approval depends on the ability of the sponsor to financially support the immigrant. But isn't that wrong? Shouldn't it be about the potential immigrant's own abilities?
So I am more convinced than ever that our legal immigration level is too low. And I continue to doubt the wisdom of the primacy of family unification.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
the Gulf leak
As before, mostly a placeholder.
Seems that, among other things, we have some failures to regulate as well as capped liability limits. These two certainly need fixing.
Seems that, among other things, we have some failures to regulate as well as capped liability limits. These two certainly need fixing.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
where we've been
Notes for myself about the history of immigration in this country.
In the beginning, there were citizens, there was everyone else, and there was a path to citizenship (i.e., naturalization). There were federal naturalization laws as early as the 1790s despite the fact that citizenship at that time was more likely to be thought of in terms of being a citizen of Virginia (or whatever) rather than a citizen of the nation. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen has a long history in this country.
In contrast, the distinction between a non-citizen being here legally versus illegally is relatively recent. Prior to 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act), anyone could come to this country and stay. There were no limits as to where you came from or how many of you were allowed in. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
It was during the time when illegal immigration did not even exist that the 14th Amendment with its citizenship clause was proposed and adopted. It's reasonable then to conclude that whatever it says about birthright citizenship, it may only say with respect to legal immigration since that's all that existed at the time.
The USA v Wong Kim Ark case was decided in 1898. By a 6-2 decision that court ruled that birthright citizenship applied where the parents are non-citizens. This decision can only be reached if the 14th Amendment is interpreted to mean that such babies are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA.
In the current circumstances, federal statutes provide for legal means of entry. Complying with those standards could be construed as an act of subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the USA. If so, then it is logical that failing to comply with those standards would be an act of rejecting the jurisdiction of the USA (in effect, "the USA can't tell me what to do"). Perhaps tellingly, it's rejection at the very initiation of the person's residency in this country.
I can see logic in continuing birthright citizenship for children of legal immigrants, but denying it to illegal immigrants.
In the beginning, there were citizens, there was everyone else, and there was a path to citizenship (i.e., naturalization). There were federal naturalization laws as early as the 1790s despite the fact that citizenship at that time was more likely to be thought of in terms of being a citizen of Virginia (or whatever) rather than a citizen of the nation. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen has a long history in this country.
In contrast, the distinction between a non-citizen being here legally versus illegally is relatively recent. Prior to 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act), anyone could come to this country and stay. There were no limits as to where you came from or how many of you were allowed in. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
It was during the time when illegal immigration did not even exist that the 14th Amendment with its citizenship clause was proposed and adopted. It's reasonable then to conclude that whatever it says about birthright citizenship, it may only say with respect to legal immigration since that's all that existed at the time.
The USA v Wong Kim Ark case was decided in 1898. By a 6-2 decision that court ruled that birthright citizenship applied where the parents are non-citizens. This decision can only be reached if the 14th Amendment is interpreted to mean that such babies are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA.
In the current circumstances, federal statutes provide for legal means of entry. Complying with those standards could be construed as an act of subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the USA. If so, then it is logical that failing to comply with those standards would be an act of rejecting the jurisdiction of the USA (in effect, "the USA can't tell me what to do"). Perhaps tellingly, it's rejection at the very initiation of the person's residency in this country.
I can see logic in continuing birthright citizenship for children of legal immigrants, but denying it to illegal immigrants.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
goal
I think that when all is said and done (when typically more will have been said than done....), I would end up with say 10 to 15 issues. For each I'd have:
* a 10 to 15 second "sound bite"
* a 2 to 3 minute "pitch"
* a more or less unlimited "white paper".
The sound bite's use is fairly obvious. (and in fact, the very best 2 or 3 sound bites might make a great foundation/theme for an entire political campaign)
The pitch might be useful as the basis for answering questionnaires or in debate situations or as part of a larger "stump speech".
The white paper's utility is probably to demonstrate the legitimacy of the campaign/candidate and to provide a ready additional reference (largely for the candidate) when discussion of an issue goes beyond the contents of the "pitch". Regrettably, the specificity of such documents could simply end up as targets for opposition sniping. But even that could ultimately prove useful in the sense of helping to perfect the campaign's thinking and solutions.
* a 10 to 15 second "sound bite"
* a 2 to 3 minute "pitch"
* a more or less unlimited "white paper".
The sound bite's use is fairly obvious. (and in fact, the very best 2 or 3 sound bites might make a great foundation/theme for an entire political campaign)
The pitch might be useful as the basis for answering questionnaires or in debate situations or as part of a larger "stump speech".
The white paper's utility is probably to demonstrate the legitimacy of the campaign/candidate and to provide a ready additional reference (largely for the candidate) when discussion of an issue goes beyond the contents of the "pitch". Regrettably, the specificity of such documents could simply end up as targets for opposition sniping. But even that could ultimately prove useful in the sense of helping to perfect the campaign's thinking and solutions.
currently hot
And yet another placeholder.
It seems likely that change to something quite as massive as health care is best done incrementally. I do understand that politics may make that approach difficult (at best).
I think the fundamental "hot spots" are these:
* the uninsured
* exclusions on pre-existing conditions
* affordability
One thing that does seem clear is that the American over-reliance on employer-provided health (a legacy of 1950s tax policy) is a mistake and effort needs to go into moving us away from that model. In fact, if our system involved direct personal/individual coverage that began at an early age and was non-cancellable, it would moot concerns about exempting pre-existing conditions. And this would also eliminate concerns about dependents getting kicked off their parent's coverage at a certain age.
Other obvious improvements: limitations on purchasing health insurance across state lines must be destroyed.
Also, virtually all mandated benefits should be eliminated; people can have catastrophic coverage only if they choose. If I understand insurance correctly (which is likely in my case), the real risk is the catastrophic risk with changes to the "deductible" being more a question of simply collecting enough extra to pay for the administrative and "minor" costs of handling additional slightly larger claims. For instance, dental insurance is pretty much a sham - relatively low annual benefit limits with relatively small deductibles means the coverage basically serves a budgeting function of spreading out the costs evenly throughout the year.
Also to be considered: Is everyone 'entitled' to the best possible medical care; do we all get to go to the Mayo Clinic? If the answer is 'no', then the situation is a lot like the joke (sex for $1 mil? | yes | sex for $10? | think a whore!? | established; setting price); one's 'right' to care is limited and it's only a question of where to set the limits knowing that logically 0% care is as valid as 99.9999% care.
It seems likely that change to something quite as massive as health care is best done incrementally. I do understand that politics may make that approach difficult (at best).
I think the fundamental "hot spots" are these:
* the uninsured
* exclusions on pre-existing conditions
* affordability
One thing that does seem clear is that the American over-reliance on employer-provided health (a legacy of 1950s tax policy) is a mistake and effort needs to go into moving us away from that model. In fact, if our system involved direct personal/individual coverage that began at an early age and was non-cancellable, it would moot concerns about exempting pre-existing conditions. And this would also eliminate concerns about dependents getting kicked off their parent's coverage at a certain age.
Other obvious improvements: limitations on purchasing health insurance across state lines must be destroyed.
Also, virtually all mandated benefits should be eliminated; people can have catastrophic coverage only if they choose. If I understand insurance correctly (which is likely in my case), the real risk is the catastrophic risk with changes to the "deductible" being more a question of simply collecting enough extra to pay for the administrative and "minor" costs of handling additional slightly larger claims. For instance, dental insurance is pretty much a sham - relatively low annual benefit limits with relatively small deductibles means the coverage basically serves a budgeting function of spreading out the costs evenly throughout the year.
Also to be considered: Is everyone 'entitled' to the best possible medical care; do we all get to go to the Mayo Clinic? If the answer is 'no', then the situation is a lot like the joke (sex for $1 mil? | yes | sex for $10? | think a whore!? | established; setting price); one's 'right' to care is limited and it's only a question of where to set the limits knowing that logically 0% care is as valid as 99.9999% care.
one size?
Again, we're mostly looking at a placeholder here. At most, perhaps a very tentative starting point.
It does seem to me that education occurs in the classroom (duh) and decisions about education are best made as close to that classroom as possible. If this is so, it's unclear to me exactly what role is appropriate for the federal government to play.
It does seem to me that education occurs in the classroom (duh) and decisions about education are best made as close to that classroom as possible. If this is so, it's unclear to me exactly what role is appropriate for the federal government to play.
citizenship
Just making myself a note.
Granting US citizenship to any kid born here.... that's just nuts.
The bad news on this score is the text of the 14th Amendment which states:
Granting US citizenship to any kid born here.... that's just nuts.
The bad news on this score is the text of the 14th Amendment which states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."The only "loophole" is the part about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It may be possible to argue that the child of illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. But there does not yet seem to be a definitive SCOTUS decision on this topic.
somebody's got to pay
There's going to be government. It's going to cost money. Somehow that's got to be paid for. There are going to be taxes.
As an aside, I'm reminded of the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". I tend to think he had it backwards. The extent of our taxation reflects the degree to which we are not civilized. In a truly civilized society, we would not have to be forced to pay in order for necessary things to be accomplished. Taxation is a measure of our failures.
Anyway, there are a few starting points. My prejudices, I suppose.
I have nothing against the estate tax. I don't see why it should extend beyond maybe the top 1% of estates, but I think it serves a useful function in terms of reducing "accidental wealth" (as opposed to "earned wealth"). It's sometimes decried as double taxation, but who's being doubly taxed? Certainly not the deceased; death is 100% taxation since you can't take it with you. Certainly not the heirs.
I approve of graduated/progressive taxation. I hear the equality arguments. That's part of why I'm loathe to support steeply graduated rates or particularly high top marginal rates.
And I approve of universal taxation. We all need to have "skin in the game". How that's accomplished in practice remains to be worked out. (Do keep in mind that one need not being paying specifically federal income taxes in order to have 'skin in the game'; everyone employed pays FICA and medicare. On the other hand, one can't really consider sales taxes since they're state revenue and not every state even has these. Real estate taxes are effectively paid by everyone (if only via higher rent) but again that's not federal. One might, however, consider that corporate taxes are paid by everyone through higher prices.)
Also, tax simplification is good. I might consider an approach like this. Initial legislation will provide that next year the income tax bracket rates will be 90% of current, the year after they'll be 80% of current, and so forth until the 5th year from now they'll be half of what they are now. However, this law is 'revenue neutral'. Assuming Congress is ready to make these decisions, the initial legislation provides that lost revenue will be made up by reductions in deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. as specified. Assuming that they're not, the initial legislation provides that if Congress fails to enact any or sufficient offsets, then default offsets will kick in sufficient to make up the revenue shortfall. The default offsets will be determined along the lines of letting the Ds target defense while the Rs target entitlements. Default offsets will be taken 50/50 between these two areas. This is something like NYS school budgets where contingency budgets include just about everything except popular stuff like extra school busing and athletic programs. The idea is to provide lots of motivation.
In order to actually clean up the tax code rather than simply have every/most deductions/exemptions/credits simply reduced by 90%/80% and end up at 50%. Some limitations will be included in the initial legislation along the lines that major revenue expenditures must be cut in atleast 25% intervals and minor revenue expenditures must be cut at least by half.
Let's also give a thought to perpetuities. Generally it's considered bad public policy when someone long dead is still controlling assets through provisions of their will or a trust. (at least I think this is so; will need to confirm.) In some respects, a vast personal fortune passed down through family inheritance is something like a perpetuity. And probably also not especially good public policy (lending support to an estate tax). In even greater respects, corporate wealth is very much like a perpetuity as the 'person' never dies and the assets are never distributed (beyond voluntary dividends which are only a partial distribution). Just observations to keep in mind.
As an aside, I'm reminded of the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". I tend to think he had it backwards. The extent of our taxation reflects the degree to which we are not civilized. In a truly civilized society, we would not have to be forced to pay in order for necessary things to be accomplished. Taxation is a measure of our failures.
Anyway, there are a few starting points. My prejudices, I suppose.
I have nothing against the estate tax. I don't see why it should extend beyond maybe the top 1% of estates, but I think it serves a useful function in terms of reducing "accidental wealth" (as opposed to "earned wealth"). It's sometimes decried as double taxation, but who's being doubly taxed? Certainly not the deceased; death is 100% taxation since you can't take it with you. Certainly not the heirs.
I approve of graduated/progressive taxation. I hear the equality arguments. That's part of why I'm loathe to support steeply graduated rates or particularly high top marginal rates.
And I approve of universal taxation. We all need to have "skin in the game". How that's accomplished in practice remains to be worked out. (Do keep in mind that one need not being paying specifically federal income taxes in order to have 'skin in the game'; everyone employed pays FICA and medicare. On the other hand, one can't really consider sales taxes since they're state revenue and not every state even has these. Real estate taxes are effectively paid by everyone (if only via higher rent) but again that's not federal. One might, however, consider that corporate taxes are paid by everyone through higher prices.)
Also, tax simplification is good. I might consider an approach like this. Initial legislation will provide that next year the income tax bracket rates will be 90% of current, the year after they'll be 80% of current, and so forth until the 5th year from now they'll be half of what they are now. However, this law is 'revenue neutral'. Assuming Congress is ready to make these decisions, the initial legislation provides that lost revenue will be made up by reductions in deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. as specified. Assuming that they're not, the initial legislation provides that if Congress fails to enact any or sufficient offsets, then default offsets will kick in sufficient to make up the revenue shortfall. The default offsets will be determined along the lines of letting the Ds target defense while the Rs target entitlements. Default offsets will be taken 50/50 between these two areas. This is something like NYS school budgets where contingency budgets include just about everything except popular stuff like extra school busing and athletic programs. The idea is to provide lots of motivation.
In order to actually clean up the tax code rather than simply have every/most deductions/exemptions/credits simply reduced by 90%/80% and end up at 50%. Some limitations will be included in the initial legislation along the lines that major revenue expenditures must be cut in atleast 25% intervals and minor revenue expenditures must be cut at least by half.
Let's also give a thought to perpetuities. Generally it's considered bad public policy when someone long dead is still controlling assets through provisions of their will or a trust. (at least I think this is so; will need to confirm.) In some respects, a vast personal fortune passed down through family inheritance is something like a perpetuity. And probably also not especially good public policy (lending support to an estate tax). In even greater respects, corporate wealth is very much like a perpetuity as the 'person' never dies and the assets are never distributed (beyond voluntary dividends which are only a partial distribution). Just observations to keep in mind.
national security
Again, this is mostly a placeholder.
I know we're sure that we Americans have no interest in taking over the world. You and I have no desire to mess with the lives of people in other countries. Heck, the whole idea is just absurd.
Try telling that to people in other countries. Understandably, from their point of view, they're the good guys with pure motives. Now if this were just a case of them being pissed off about the bad morals that Hollywood pumps out in movies, we'd be talking about a annoying small minority in certain countries who would rant and rave to no real effect because most of the rest of their countrymen wouldn't much care. Except that if there are American soldiers in their country or in the country next door, then the rest of their countrymen start wondering if the madmen ranting about the great American Satan don't maybe have some kind of point.
We - you & me, not the government in Washington - would never stand for the soldiers of any other country in our country. Just because sometimes a country's government (e.g., Iraq & Afganistan) are okay with having our soldiers there, what makes us believe that the guy in the street over there feels any differently than we would?
Bring 'em home. From Iraq. From Afganistan. From Germany. From Japan. From everywhere the USA flag doesn't fly.
I know we're sure that we Americans have no interest in taking over the world. You and I have no desire to mess with the lives of people in other countries. Heck, the whole idea is just absurd.
Try telling that to people in other countries. Understandably, from their point of view, they're the good guys with pure motives. Now if this were just a case of them being pissed off about the bad morals that Hollywood pumps out in movies, we'd be talking about a annoying small minority in certain countries who would rant and rave to no real effect because most of the rest of their countrymen wouldn't much care. Except that if there are American soldiers in their country or in the country next door, then the rest of their countrymen start wondering if the madmen ranting about the great American Satan don't maybe have some kind of point.
We - you & me, not the government in Washington - would never stand for the soldiers of any other country in our country. Just because sometimes a country's government (e.g., Iraq & Afganistan) are okay with having our soldiers there, what makes us believe that the guy in the street over there feels any differently than we would?
Bring 'em home. From Iraq. From Afganistan. From Germany. From Japan. From everywhere the USA flag doesn't fly.
yeah for fusion
I suppose this particular post is mostly just a placeholder. Not sure I have all that much to say right now on the topic of energy.
Not that it's on the horizon or worth discussing in a political context, but I continue to hold out hope for fusion as source of practical plentiful non-polluting domestic energy. Until the scientists do their thing, that's already more than needs to be said about that.
I buy into the idea that energy is partly a national security issue. And a very important economic issue. And obviously an environmental issue. Which means it's going to be very complicated and hard to strike the appropriate balance. Sigh.
I also acknowledge that government has not been impartial about energy sources and energy uses. There are often subsidies some of which fall into the very slippery category of externalities. It might be suggested that an improvement would be to get the government entirely out of picking winners (i.e., subsidies). If externalities were accounted for, well, that might work out environmentally and ultimately economically. But I'm not so sure about security-wise. And I'm also not so sure that the transition (current subsidies eliminated producing a period of free & fair competitiveness leading ultimately to one/few "winners" working up their economies of scale) would be sufficiently pain-free and timely to the point where the nation might be better off simply picking/mandating new and more appropriate to the current world situation "winners" and swapping existing subsidies for new ones (which once unneeded would be removed). But how on earth could that be a process unaffected by politics and favoritism?
Yup. Just a placeholder for the energy topic. Unless that fusion thing comes through.
Not that it's on the horizon or worth discussing in a political context, but I continue to hold out hope for fusion as source of practical plentiful non-polluting domestic energy. Until the scientists do their thing, that's already more than needs to be said about that.
I buy into the idea that energy is partly a national security issue. And a very important economic issue. And obviously an environmental issue. Which means it's going to be very complicated and hard to strike the appropriate balance. Sigh.
I also acknowledge that government has not been impartial about energy sources and energy uses. There are often subsidies some of which fall into the very slippery category of externalities. It might be suggested that an improvement would be to get the government entirely out of picking winners (i.e., subsidies). If externalities were accounted for, well, that might work out environmentally and ultimately economically. But I'm not so sure about security-wise. And I'm also not so sure that the transition (current subsidies eliminated producing a period of free & fair competitiveness leading ultimately to one/few "winners" working up their economies of scale) would be sufficiently pain-free and timely to the point where the nation might be better off simply picking/mandating new and more appropriate to the current world situation "winners" and swapping existing subsidies for new ones (which once unneeded would be removed). But how on earth could that be a process unaffected by politics and favoritism?
Yup. Just a placeholder for the energy topic. Unless that fusion thing comes through.
me
There's no real point to writing about myself here.
First, I'm not writing for an audience. More than anything else, this blog is to help organize and store my thoughts on political issues.
Second, if there is an audience reading (highly unlikely), I'm not trying to impress them with me. If I want them impressed at all, it would be about my ideas.
And finally, if I should ever finish this process and arrive at suitable answers, then there'd be the question of who is to carry them forward. Which is to say, who will run for office. And if at that point the answer were to be me, well then I do fully understand that voters would want to know about me as well as my proposals. And at that point, and really only at that point, would it make sense to write in any detail about me.
That said, a brief word about "one sincere voice".
I acknowledge that I am "one". At this exact time, I have no supporters. At this exact time, I don't seem to fit well into any particular political slot. At this exact time, I'm just one guy writing a blog.
I am "sincere". I do actually care about these issues. As much as I have tried through the years to focus elsewhere (and indeed I have sometimes really tried), I keep drifting back to politics. And I am sincere about finding "the truth" if such a thing exists in the political realm. I accept that searching for "the truth" may be hampered by pre-existing prejudices of mine. The problem there is that I'm old enough and have lived enough that maybe many/most of those prejudices are the product of truths I've already learned. Prejudices are not necessarily wrong, bad or counter-productive.
And I am a "voice". Whatever truth I have, it accomplishes nothing for no one if I don't speak it. Just like anyone else.
First, I'm not writing for an audience. More than anything else, this blog is to help organize and store my thoughts on political issues.
Second, if there is an audience reading (highly unlikely), I'm not trying to impress them with me. If I want them impressed at all, it would be about my ideas.
And finally, if I should ever finish this process and arrive at suitable answers, then there'd be the question of who is to carry them forward. Which is to say, who will run for office. And if at that point the answer were to be me, well then I do fully understand that voters would want to know about me as well as my proposals. And at that point, and really only at that point, would it make sense to write in any detail about me.
That said, a brief word about "one sincere voice".
I acknowledge that I am "one". At this exact time, I have no supporters. At this exact time, I don't seem to fit well into any particular political slot. At this exact time, I'm just one guy writing a blog.
I am "sincere". I do actually care about these issues. As much as I have tried through the years to focus elsewhere (and indeed I have sometimes really tried), I keep drifting back to politics. And I am sincere about finding "the truth" if such a thing exists in the political realm. I accept that searching for "the truth" may be hampered by pre-existing prejudices of mine. The problem there is that I'm old enough and have lived enough that maybe many/most of those prejudices are the product of truths I've already learned. Prejudices are not necessarily wrong, bad or counter-productive.
And I am a "voice". Whatever truth I have, it accomplishes nothing for no one if I don't speak it. Just like anyone else.
making it real
For the moment, let's assume that I figure out the answers to all the nation's most pressing problems. Okay, maybe not the 100% perfect all-inclusive nary a stray step answers, but vast improvements in the right direction. And, let us further assume, that these solutions can be explained in a way that's understandable and attractive to a significant subset of the population. So what?
Nothing much will change unless one switches gears from research to politics. How - talking nuts and bolts here - does one win office and enact change?
Rather than risk letting this topic become overly vague, let's assume that the optimum path is to be elected US Senator outside the 2-party system, using that bully pulpit to then recruit and support like-minded persons in other states, forming a working but flexible coalition with the two majors that varies from issue to issue, and thus putting the answers into law. Doesn't matter if the preceding scenario is true or not so long as it's true that politics is where implementation must occur; the rest is just details. Maybe it's intra-party insurgency. Maybe governor is the appropriate office. Maybe president. The nuts and bolts will be much the same, so long as it's a political implementation that's required.
I think the first thing you need is a website that's comprehensive on the issues. That's probably manageable by the candidate (who needs to have a mastery of the issues in any event). It won't be pretty and it won't be polished and it won't have the bells and whistles of video & etc, but it will have the information that needs to reach voters. Not, of course, that it wouldn't be good to find a good webmaster ASAP. One 'feature' should probably be some form of "HOT LIST" -
* Topics that particularly need research (e.g., nailing down provable examples of last minute anonymous amendments),
* Needs that particularly need filled (e.g., we could really use crash space in Pensacola for April 24th),
* Positions that particularly need filled (e.g., we really really need a videographer).
* Expert Advice (e.g., we really need an expert on health care).
The second thing you need is a treasurer to handle the money and disclosures. Again, initially the candidate can probably do that too. And again, it would be good to find a trustworthy treasurer ASAP.
Speaking of treasurer, don't forget what the filing thresholds seem to be. Once you cross $5,000 you must register with the FEC. Once you cross $25,000 then you've got to deal with the IRS. And speaking of money, there's getting on the ballot. The filing fee seems the way to go; that's ~$7,000. And keep in mind that, despite the absence of any primary election, donors can still contribute $2,500 per election including the primary which means the practical donor limit is $5,000 (although the internal accounting must be able to separate such contributions into primary/general and once the 'primary' date is passed, the practical donor limit drops back to $2,500. For me, the most advantageous option for 'primary' date is probably the mid-August date of the major parties' actual primary).
So anyway, very very early on you need to have a plan. For one thing, the cliche is true: failing to plan is planning to fail. For another, a credible (if optimistic) plan is crucial to being a credible candidate and being a credible candidate is crucial to fund raising and fund raising is crucial to political success. So you need a plan.
And I think the plan is fairly simply stated:
If your answers are sufficiently motivating to sway meaningful numbers of voters (assuming they ever hear your answers), then there's going to be a small subset of those voters who are sufficiently motivated that they're going to volunteer and work. From this group you're getting your webmaster, your treasurer, your fundraiser, your local field directors, your media specialists, etc. And with enough people being volunteers (and you will need many in order to spread the work around), your fundraising can be overwhelmingly directed towards reaching the voters through media (radio, cable, web, etc). Hard goods (lawn signs, handouts, etc) can be created by volunteers and simply made freely available for independent local production and distribution. Even additional media could be handled similarly - produce x radio ads, make them available for download by local supporters, the local supporters raise their own money, buy their own airtime on their local media to air whichever ads they like best. The candidate simply needs to keep getting in front of as many people as possible while the volunteer staff: supports the candidate's schedule, handles the money, creates new media (some of which may come up from the local supporters), makes training and direction and resources available to the local groups, and makes media purchases. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The basic premise is, I think, sound. But obviously a lot more work would need to be done. But the first step really is to be comprehensive about the issues. Which is what's being attempted here.
Nothing much will change unless one switches gears from research to politics. How - talking nuts and bolts here - does one win office and enact change?
Rather than risk letting this topic become overly vague, let's assume that the optimum path is to be elected US Senator outside the 2-party system, using that bully pulpit to then recruit and support like-minded persons in other states, forming a working but flexible coalition with the two majors that varies from issue to issue, and thus putting the answers into law. Doesn't matter if the preceding scenario is true or not so long as it's true that politics is where implementation must occur; the rest is just details. Maybe it's intra-party insurgency. Maybe governor is the appropriate office. Maybe president. The nuts and bolts will be much the same, so long as it's a political implementation that's required.
I think the first thing you need is a website that's comprehensive on the issues. That's probably manageable by the candidate (who needs to have a mastery of the issues in any event). It won't be pretty and it won't be polished and it won't have the bells and whistles of video & etc, but it will have the information that needs to reach voters. Not, of course, that it wouldn't be good to find a good webmaster ASAP. One 'feature' should probably be some form of "HOT LIST" -
* Topics that particularly need research (e.g., nailing down provable examples of last minute anonymous amendments),
* Needs that particularly need filled (e.g., we could really use crash space in Pensacola for April 24th),
* Positions that particularly need filled (e.g., we really really need a videographer).
* Expert Advice (e.g., we really need an expert on health care).
The second thing you need is a treasurer to handle the money and disclosures. Again, initially the candidate can probably do that too. And again, it would be good to find a trustworthy treasurer ASAP.
Speaking of treasurer, don't forget what the filing thresholds seem to be. Once you cross $5,000 you must register with the FEC. Once you cross $25,000 then you've got to deal with the IRS. And speaking of money, there's getting on the ballot. The filing fee seems the way to go; that's ~$7,000. And keep in mind that, despite the absence of any primary election, donors can still contribute $2,500 per election including the primary which means the practical donor limit is $5,000 (although the internal accounting must be able to separate such contributions into primary/general and once the 'primary' date is passed, the practical donor limit drops back to $2,500. For me, the most advantageous option for 'primary' date is probably the mid-August date of the major parties' actual primary).
So anyway, very very early on you need to have a plan. For one thing, the cliche is true: failing to plan is planning to fail. For another, a credible (if optimistic) plan is crucial to being a credible candidate and being a credible candidate is crucial to fund raising and fund raising is crucial to political success. So you need a plan.
And I think the plan is fairly simply stated:
If your answers are sufficiently motivating to sway meaningful numbers of voters (assuming they ever hear your answers), then there's going to be a small subset of those voters who are sufficiently motivated that they're going to volunteer and work. From this group you're getting your webmaster, your treasurer, your fundraiser, your local field directors, your media specialists, etc. And with enough people being volunteers (and you will need many in order to spread the work around), your fundraising can be overwhelmingly directed towards reaching the voters through media (radio, cable, web, etc). Hard goods (lawn signs, handouts, etc) can be created by volunteers and simply made freely available for independent local production and distribution. Even additional media could be handled similarly - produce x radio ads, make them available for download by local supporters, the local supporters raise their own money, buy their own airtime on their local media to air whichever ads they like best. The candidate simply needs to keep getting in front of as many people as possible while the volunteer staff: supports the candidate's schedule, handles the money, creates new media (some of which may come up from the local supporters), makes training and direction and resources available to the local groups, and makes media purchases. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The basic premise is, I think, sound. But obviously a lot more work would need to be done. But the first step really is to be comprehensive about the issues. Which is what's being attempted here.
king kong vs godzilla
Reflexively, like many Americans, I'm not prone towards big government. However, the other leviathan in the room is the multinational conglomerate. Can tiny government - government you could easily slip into your wallet - handle these behemoths? Of course, given the way our current government handles them, one can only abandon all hope.
We do seem to be seeing a period of increased "personhood" and rights for the legal fiction that is corporations. This can only be bad. But....
The further & further this is pushed, the more obvious it become that this needs to be reversed. And when it is, they'd best go the whole way - the 14th Amendment does *not* include legal fictions. Period. The corporate mouthpieces spending their wads of "free speech" money will threaten catastrophe, but does anyone consider them unbiased bastions of truth?
We do seem to be seeing a period of increased "personhood" and rights for the legal fiction that is corporations. This can only be bad. But....
The further & further this is pushed, the more obvious it become that this needs to be reversed. And when it is, they'd best go the whole way - the 14th Amendment does *not* include legal fictions. Period. The corporate mouthpieces spending their wads of "free speech" money will threaten catastrophe, but does anyone consider them unbiased bastions of truth?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
further on the same topic
I understand many of the objections to an ID scheme. It'll be used for other purposes (that we won't like). It'll have false positives, causing legit people problems. There will be ways to defeat the system (many of them simply low-tech - cash). It'll be expensive to the nation as well as expensive to small businesses. I tend to believe all the preceding are true. And all of them matter.
It almost makes more sense to have an ID scheme for aliens. Anyone who gets in trouble with the law, one of the first thing that happens is that the alien database is searched. As aliens, I think there's a reasonable argument that we could include whatever information we wanted into the database. And any alien caught in this country who has never applied for entry has consequently never been entered into the database, they don't get deported, they go to prison.
There's a perfectly reasonable argument that illegal immigration is as rampant as it is because legal immigration is so limited. I like the notion that the quotas for legal immigration need to be raised. Plus, it seems various countries (including the USA, at least at some point in the past) have had "guest worker programs". If there are enough legal guest workers to do jobs Americans won't, it has to reduce illegal entrants. Maybe.
Guest worker programs tend to get pulled in two directions. Rights groups want to raise pay & working conditions & rights of guest workers. To the degree they are successful, some employers comply and simply attempt to pass along the increased costs to consumers. However, other employers continue to seek undocumented cash-only illegals reducing the ability of compliant employers to pass on their increased costs. In other words, it seems that US government policy has to either aim for maximum exploitation of guest workers or else it has to be serious about busting non-compliant employers.
The guest worker notion raises another topic - overstaying visas. I'm given to understand that we don't have the ability to know if "John Doe", who is now applying for a temporary visa or guest worker status, has over-stayed a previous entry. If this is so, that needs fixing. And if it is so and/or is unfixable, what does that say about our ability to create a reliable system to track all eligible workers, natives and aliens?
And I think it's entirely reasonable that aliens - legal & especially not - could be denied most welfare/benefit programs. Perhaps legal aliens might become eligible after some minimum period of time, but illegal aliens, never. That said, I can certainly see allowing emergency medical care. And once you make one exception, we'd have to go through the entire list of benefits and make decisions one by one. So be it.
It almost makes more sense to have an ID scheme for aliens. Anyone who gets in trouble with the law, one of the first thing that happens is that the alien database is searched. As aliens, I think there's a reasonable argument that we could include whatever information we wanted into the database. And any alien caught in this country who has never applied for entry has consequently never been entered into the database, they don't get deported, they go to prison.
There's a perfectly reasonable argument that illegal immigration is as rampant as it is because legal immigration is so limited. I like the notion that the quotas for legal immigration need to be raised. Plus, it seems various countries (including the USA, at least at some point in the past) have had "guest worker programs". If there are enough legal guest workers to do jobs Americans won't, it has to reduce illegal entrants. Maybe.
Guest worker programs tend to get pulled in two directions. Rights groups want to raise pay & working conditions & rights of guest workers. To the degree they are successful, some employers comply and simply attempt to pass along the increased costs to consumers. However, other employers continue to seek undocumented cash-only illegals reducing the ability of compliant employers to pass on their increased costs. In other words, it seems that US government policy has to either aim for maximum exploitation of guest workers or else it has to be serious about busting non-compliant employers.
The guest worker notion raises another topic - overstaying visas. I'm given to understand that we don't have the ability to know if "John Doe", who is now applying for a temporary visa or guest worker status, has over-stayed a previous entry. If this is so, that needs fixing. And if it is so and/or is unfixable, what does that say about our ability to create a reliable system to track all eligible workers, natives and aliens?
And I think it's entirely reasonable that aliens - legal & especially not - could be denied most welfare/benefit programs. Perhaps legal aliens might become eligible after some minimum period of time, but illegal aliens, never. That said, I can certainly see allowing emergency medical care. And once you make one exception, we'd have to go through the entire list of benefits and make decisions one by one. So be it.
starting point: immigration
In the news a lot what with the Arizona law. Where exactly does one begin?
This post won't solve anything. Heck, as much as anything it's my first attempt to sort things out using tags/labels. But there are a few starting points for this discussion that I feel pretty certain about.
There ought not to be laws that simply aren't enforced. If you don't actually mean something to happen/change, you ought not put it into law. Now I accept that no law can be 100% enforced and I'm not thinking of such instances. I am thinking of situations that are 99%+ overlooked.
Enforcement of immigration laws does, however, seem to present serious problems so long as we're not willing to adopt some form of national ID and not willing to require everyone to carry their ID. The characterization of such laws as "draconian" and "fascist" is understandable. But that stance does tend to make immigration control unenforceable.
What's more, resolution of this conflict would seem to be essential. Regardless of where one comes down on the continuum of immigration control - from incredibly loose to insanely tight - the possibility will be that some people are here illegally, whether their numbers are millions or merely hundreds. If we mean whatever restrictions we may choose to keep in place, it will be necessary to have a means of separating the sheep from the goats.
This post won't solve anything. Heck, as much as anything it's my first attempt to sort things out using tags/labels. But there are a few starting points for this discussion that I feel pretty certain about.
There ought not to be laws that simply aren't enforced. If you don't actually mean something to happen/change, you ought not put it into law. Now I accept that no law can be 100% enforced and I'm not thinking of such instances. I am thinking of situations that are 99%+ overlooked.
Enforcement of immigration laws does, however, seem to present serious problems so long as we're not willing to adopt some form of national ID and not willing to require everyone to carry their ID. The characterization of such laws as "draconian" and "fascist" is understandable. But that stance does tend to make immigration control unenforceable.
What's more, resolution of this conflict would seem to be essential. Regardless of where one comes down on the continuum of immigration control - from incredibly loose to insanely tight - the possibility will be that some people are here illegally, whether their numbers are millions or merely hundreds. If we mean whatever restrictions we may choose to keep in place, it will be necessary to have a means of separating the sheep from the goats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)