can't delegate your vote, can't delegate your volunteer work, can't delegate where your contribution money goes. (this could be part of state rep in '16). This is consistent with the theme of compromise by giving (some) of everything to each side: you can't have PACs bundle money (see some rationale/benefits following) but in return, all contribution limits come off, you simply have to do so in public.
Consistent with the idea that chamber rules tend to emasculate the individual legislator, further diminishing the individual legislator and his personal cohort of supporters/donors is the PAC (be it the common interest PAC or the leadership PAC). Your industry group or your political leader is free to advocate for individual voters to financially support specific candidates, but they can't actually do it for you.
stump speech start:
Thank you for inviting me here to speak with you this evening. My name is Xxxx Xxxxxxx and I intend to be your US Senator.
Already I'm sure many of you are thinking some variation of either "Who the hell is he?" or "Why would he want to do a darn fool thing like that?". I'm going to try to answer those two questions.
To start off, I have to give credit to my high school sophomore year World Cultures teacher, Miss Couvert. I was in her class during the late 60s, very much during the Cold War. Even so, Miss Couvert got me thinking about Russians. Not the communist leadership. I'm talking about the everyday man-on-the-street Russian. The one who had to stand in line for groceries and when she got to the front of the line she just wanted bread. It didn't matter to her if it was wheat or rye, she was just glad if after he long wait in line they had any bread at all. In contrast, I knew I could go to the store with my mom and there'd be 6 or 8 choices of different breads from different bakers. Thinking this over, I was pretty sure the average Russian was mostly concerned about the quality of his own life. He didn't think about me any more than I thought about him. I recall feeling sorry for the average Ivan who had a grim life and an overbearing government that wasn't delivering for him. Which just made me that much angrier about the damn communists in charge.
Now I'm a lot older and Miss Couvert is probably retired. American and Russian grocery shelves have a lot more choices than many of us can afford. Instead of 3 or 4 TV channels to choose from there are hundreds available in both countries. And I doubt I could count how many different sources we can go to for our news.
(pretty happy w/ above; below still needs lots of work)
I want to work towards how much better lots of choices works to provide us what we want. Yet despite that, when we have limited choices we sometimes cling to them fanatically (see sports). These two combine in politics - limited choices are sub-optimal yet we're fanatical about our "side". Maybe get in a dig about "our crook" and "cute hoors"? Working then round to how our limited choices are reinforced by out policial rules, not so much the ones that directly impact us, the ones that emasculate the elected. Heard towards proposals.
I also need to work towards the point expressed here.
(End of notes; poorly worded draft continues below)
It's interesting how we react to the number of choices presented to us. If I'm interested in the music of Bach and I look online, among the millions of sites there are many places to buy his music, places to discuss his music, places to listen to this music. If I look on TV, my choices are counted in hundreds and I doubt I could find a Bach channel but certainly there are classical music channels that sometimes play Bach.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
guns & 'compromise'
We tend to think of compromise in terms like these:
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise at 60%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise at $12 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise at 5 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that everything happens half-ass.
What about compromise in terms like these:
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise and I get this one at 70%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise and you get this one at $10 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise and I get my 4 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that a full fair try is accorded to at least some remedies.
With the above in mind, I think about guns.
1) The NRA can list who they think shouldn't get guns. That's our list; everyone else gets an unquestioned right to carry.
2) Whatever circumstances the NRA thinks gunowners should have - concealed carry, open carry, churches, gov't buildings, whatever - they get (of course, private property is governed by the property owner).
3) The gun lobby gets to close all the loopholes on the registration of gun purchases; that gun show loophole is gone. Every gun that's purchase/gifted/traded is recorded as to who gave what gun to who.
4) Everyone who receives a gun (if the gun lobby wants this) must also receive mandatory firearm training beforehand or shortly afterwards. This can be such that a small percentage (cannot be >5%?) fail and will become ineligible to own a gun until they do pass the mandatory training.
5) The gun lobby gets to set whatever rules it wants on traceable ammunition, serial numbering of guns (with penalities - including loss of gun rights - for having non-compliant weapons), whatever might assist law enforcement after a crime.
6) And perhaps a traditional halfway compromise is appropriate that would ban assult weapons and armor piercing bullets; no grandfathering of what's already out there - a mandatory gun purchase program for newly illegal munitions.
7) Of course stiff penalties for violations of any of the above.
Of course this leaves untouched the whole mental health aspect. At this point, I don't know enough about that topic to offer anything useful.
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise at 60%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise at $12 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise at 5 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that everything happens half-ass.
What about compromise in terms like these:
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise and I get this one at 70%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise and you get this one at $10 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise and I get my 4 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that a full fair try is accorded to at least some remedies.
With the above in mind, I think about guns.
1) The NRA can list who they think shouldn't get guns. That's our list; everyone else gets an unquestioned right to carry.
2) Whatever circumstances the NRA thinks gunowners should have - concealed carry, open carry, churches, gov't buildings, whatever - they get (of course, private property is governed by the property owner).
3) The gun lobby gets to close all the loopholes on the registration of gun purchases; that gun show loophole is gone. Every gun that's purchase/gifted/traded is recorded as to who gave what gun to who.
4) Everyone who receives a gun (if the gun lobby wants this) must also receive mandatory firearm training beforehand or shortly afterwards. This can be such that a small percentage (cannot be >5%?) fail and will become ineligible to own a gun until they do pass the mandatory training.
5) The gun lobby gets to set whatever rules it wants on traceable ammunition, serial numbering of guns (with penalities - including loss of gun rights - for having non-compliant weapons), whatever might assist law enforcement after a crime.
6) And perhaps a traditional halfway compromise is appropriate that would ban assult weapons and armor piercing bullets; no grandfathering of what's already out there - a mandatory gun purchase program for newly illegal munitions.
7) Of course stiff penalties for violations of any of the above.
Of course this leaves untouched the whole mental health aspect. At this point, I don't know enough about that topic to offer anything useful.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
youtube
If a 2018 campaign is going to be even marginally successful, I won't be doing web videos on my own. Someone with more time and expertise will need to take over at some point. That said, initially it's probably going to be me. And 90% certain it'll be just me if there's a 2016 campaign (and web video is just one more element to "test drive" with a brief, limited-involvement 2016 run).
So.... probably ought to look into some sort of video cam (Flip cam?), maybe a decent microphone, perhaps even some lighting?? Certainly ought to set up an account on youtube, probably keeping everything uploaded there private.
So.... probably ought to look into some sort of video cam (Flip cam?), maybe a decent microphone, perhaps even some lighting?? Certainly ought to set up an account on youtube, probably keeping everything uploaded there private.
you can't really expect to win, right?
Since my campaign isn't about my ability to predict election outcomes, what I expect doesn't matter. What matters is that voters expect that the candidate with the most votes will win and I intend to be that candidate.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
shouldn't've gone there in the first place
I actually think this is conceptually simple. Making all the changes to actually accomplish it....
Essentially, the government marries no one. Everyone gets civil unions.And the legal consequences of civil unions are identical to the current legal consequences of marriage. This includes all those interstate reciprocity features that civil unions don't currently have. Really the only thing that same-sex couples don't get is the word "marriage", or at least they don't get it from the government. The thing is, no one gets it any more.
If you want to be "married", you do what our forebears did generations earlier - you go to your church. And it's entirely up to your church whether they do or don't marry you. And if you do go get "married", don't forget that to the government that means nothing at all. If you want those legal entanglements, you must separately go through the hoops for a "civil union".
This is really nothing more than re-separating church and state in an area where they became entangled.
Essentially, the government marries no one. Everyone gets civil unions.And the legal consequences of civil unions are identical to the current legal consequences of marriage. This includes all those interstate reciprocity features that civil unions don't currently have. Really the only thing that same-sex couples don't get is the word "marriage", or at least they don't get it from the government. The thing is, no one gets it any more.
If you want to be "married", you do what our forebears did generations earlier - you go to your church. And it's entirely up to your church whether they do or don't marry you. And if you do go get "married", don't forget that to the government that means nothing at all. If you want those legal entanglements, you must separately go through the hoops for a "civil union".
This is really nothing more than re-separating church and state in an area where they became entangled.
jumping the gun?
Been thinking on & off (mostly off). Why not jump the gun, so to speak?
Let's say I retire early March '16. That would give me about 70 days to obtain ~550 (valid) signatures to get onto the Nov'16 ballot for state rep. (actual deadline is May 23rd) The idea would be to get those 10+ sigs per day by going one-on-one with the voters either door-to-door or at events. This would be a lot cheaper than paying the filing fee and it combines petitioning with campaigning. Assuming you have your candidate website ready and some handout card ready, this is an efficient use of time. So you've got a on-ballot candidacy at a cut-rate cost but since it's all rush rush last minute stuff, what do you really expect to get out of it?
Well, a tiny headstart on the 2018 statewide effort for one thing. If your short local campaign puts extra focus on local groups affiliated with larger statewide (or national) organizations, that can be particularly useful. Also, there's no reason why a well thought out and organized ( a relative concept based on what I've observed as some pitiful efforts of recent statewide NPA on-ballot candidates) campaign for state legislature can't be pitched to potential "big fish" donors throughout Florida just as readily as a federal legislative campaign. Again, it's at least a tiny introduction to these players. It also could mean the senate campaign starts off with a small pool of volunteers rather than zero. And it's a limited investment shakedown which could prove whether I'm actually up to all this 2018 business or not.
Update:
I don't know... the current thinking is to lead in with a federal issues website morphing into candidate campaign(s). If there's going to be a 2016 campaign, it probably(?) needs to be Congress. But for that, petitioning is much much higher - ~4,500 (valid) which is going to require a very early start against the May 23, 2016 deadline. The other option (fee) is expensive. >$4,000, which pretty much guarantees FEC filing due to the $5,000 threshold for reporting.
Let's say I retire early March '16. That would give me about 70 days to obtain ~550 (valid) signatures to get onto the Nov'16 ballot for state rep. (actual deadline is May 23rd) The idea would be to get those 10+ sigs per day by going one-on-one with the voters either door-to-door or at events. This would be a lot cheaper than paying the filing fee and it combines petitioning with campaigning. Assuming you have your candidate website ready and some handout card ready, this is an efficient use of time. So you've got a on-ballot candidacy at a cut-rate cost but since it's all rush rush last minute stuff, what do you really expect to get out of it?
Well, a tiny headstart on the 2018 statewide effort for one thing. If your short local campaign puts extra focus on local groups affiliated with larger statewide (or national) organizations, that can be particularly useful. Also, there's no reason why a well thought out and organized ( a relative concept based on what I've observed as some pitiful efforts of recent statewide NPA on-ballot candidates) campaign for state legislature can't be pitched to potential "big fish" donors throughout Florida just as readily as a federal legislative campaign. Again, it's at least a tiny introduction to these players. It also could mean the senate campaign starts off with a small pool of volunteers rather than zero. And it's a limited investment shakedown which could prove whether I'm actually up to all this 2018 business or not.
Update:
I don't know... the current thinking is to lead in with a federal issues website morphing into candidate campaign(s). If there's going to be a 2016 campaign, it probably(?) needs to be Congress. But for that, petitioning is much much higher - ~4,500 (valid) which is going to require a very early start against the May 23, 2016 deadline. The other option (fee) is expensive. >$4,000, which pretty much guarantees FEC filing due to the $5,000 threshold for reporting.
Friday, October 21, 2011
corporate taxation
Just brief thoughts here, at least for now.
Taxes are generally collected to achieve a societal purpose. To the extent that there are deductions, exemptions, credits, they serve to direct activity towards advancing some desired outcomes. To the extent that it's merely revenue, that revenue is subsequently spent towards achieving some desired outcomes. It's ultimately all social engineering.
And of course the original concept of corporations was an entity to perform some socially desirable outcome. (of course now, merely being profitable for investors is considered a sufficient socially desirable outcome.)
So why not a mammoth trade - we'll skip the corporate taxes so long as corporations perform/comply with socially desirable outcomes. In other words, go back to being what they were originally intended to be. (I'm reminded of Harry Browne's 'Great Libertarian Offer': Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you'd never have to pay income tax again?)
Of course in order to be certain of success, we're back to issue #1: strip corporations of the constitutional rights of persons.
Taxes are generally collected to achieve a societal purpose. To the extent that there are deductions, exemptions, credits, they serve to direct activity towards advancing some desired outcomes. To the extent that it's merely revenue, that revenue is subsequently spent towards achieving some desired outcomes. It's ultimately all social engineering.
And of course the original concept of corporations was an entity to perform some socially desirable outcome. (of course now, merely being profitable for investors is considered a sufficient socially desirable outcome.)
So why not a mammoth trade - we'll skip the corporate taxes so long as corporations perform/comply with socially desirable outcomes. In other words, go back to being what they were originally intended to be. (I'm reminded of Harry Browne's 'Great Libertarian Offer': Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you'd never have to pay income tax again?)
Of course in order to be certain of success, we're back to issue #1: strip corporations of the constitutional rights of persons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)