Thread: What do you think about the Reform Party USA?

Sign me up. I agree with everything but the balanced budget. There are times when you have to have debt, and debt isn't always bad. If we got fair trade agreements, which would help to protect our own folks, we could once again use deficet spending to get us out of recessions led by the business cycle faster as we did in the past.

But this platform would threaten the way things are done by politicians today. They and business, the off shorers, the bansters, the media, would not allow this reform platform to win elections. Their power is just too great today. But I would vote for anyone running on this intelligent manner of conducting gov't.

I am fed up with both parties, and want real change. I think that is impossible.

It's a mixed bag. Some looks attractive. On the other hand the balanced budget amendment is childish and silly. Line item veto is unconstitutional and destroys the balance of power. Closing the border is impossible in a free country. Post employment prohibitions on former fed employees or officials is mostly unconstitutional. Subjecting tax increases to national referendum defeats the purpose of the republican form of government. Not sure what invoking direct tax protections means.

A couple of unconstitutional items, like prohibiting publishing of exit polls. That's censorship, however well intentioned, and in any case the media doesn't reveal who won in their exit polls most of the time, they just look at interesting results from subgroups.

I strongly support free trade, but that's not a dealbreaker for me, just so long as we don't start a trade war that would lead to a worldwide depression.

The Reform party has always been a worthy effort, but it got captured by nativists the last time around and ceased to be a force because of that. Is it trying to get on its feet again?

Sounds like a group of people who are pissed off with the current state of affairs, understandably. But they are so pissed, they don't care about our most basic freedoms. Times like these are dangerous because they usually lead to radical, undemocratic measures, and that's what we are seeing here.

Line Item Vetoes are interesting.
Is the President actually going to study the 30 or 40 thousand earmarks attached to each bill?
If so, citizens have no legislative representation on the Federal level.

Other than some restrictions on speech, it seems pretty common sense. It doesnt deal with many significant issues, however. Libertarians generally would incorporate all of these things and also deal with big govt.

The government's policies are the result of two inputs, votes and campaign contributions.
As campaign contributions (and I count any money directed to influence the outcome of an election here) become more important to winning, then the people become less important and the government serves money, if money is made less important, then the government would serve the people.

Money comes to both parties, (but not so much to whatever would become a third party), and the parties cater to the sources of their funds.
New high tech industries favor the Democrats, old extractive industries favor the GOP. The money has turned the GOP into an extremist party, that has purged most of it's moderates, in favor of hard line party loyalists, who are expected to put the party above all else.
The Democrats have not yet become as hard line, but that will eventually be the only path open to them, as the GOP blocks all other options.

This is the effect of money.

Remove money, and the process has to rely on votes and that process favors people.
Public funding of campaigns reduces the reliance on contributions and increases the reliance on people.
A public financing scheme would alleviate the worst excesses of the government, but it will be vehemently opposed by those who seek to make money the most important input to the process, and that currently includes a large number of Democrats and nearly every Republican, so it won't happen until we get into some really serious shit.

Originally Posted by goober

The government's policies are the result of two inputs, votes and campaign contributions.
As campaign contributions (and I count any money directed to influence the outcome of an election here) become more important to winning, then the people become less important and the government serves money, if money is made less important, then the government would serve the people.

There's two problems with that theory. The first is that the alternative to listening to money is listening to the people. That has proven false everywhere. When money is not a concern, the politicians just don't listen to anyone. And since money cannot be mobilized to oppose them, they use the media and the ability of government to broadcast its own point of view to manipulate the public without being challenged. Take the adoption of the Euro, where the publics of Europe were completely ignored where there were no referendums so that the elites could have their experiment. Where there were referendums, opponents were limited by campaign finance law, while the governments shamelessly promoted the Euro in an unlimited fashion. We saw the same thing happen with the EU treaty. The publics of Europe have simply been ignored.

The other problem is that money enters the system in ways other than elections. Money spent to influence an election is not a big problem, because people are free to ignore arguments or reject them. Money spent in the course of lobbying is much more problematic. The 1st amendment protects lobbying, of course, but it does not guarantee all kinds of gifts to Congressmen that get through the loopholes.

And then there's the ultimate corruption, money being spent by politicians to buy the support of interest groups. That's the part that the Constitution actually deals with, and strangely, it's also the part liberals are least interested in reforming. They'd rather attack the 1st amendment than enforce the general welfare clause.

Originally Posted by adaher

There's two problems with that theory. The first is that the alternative to listening to money is listening to the people. That has proven false everywhere. When money is not a concern, the politicians just don't listen to anyone. And since money cannot be mobilized to oppose them, they use the media and the ability of government to broadcast its own point of view to manipulate the public without being challenged. Take the adoption of the Euro, where the publics of Europe were completely ignored where there were no referendums so that the elites could have their experiment. Where there were referendums, opponents were limited by campaign finance law, while the governments shamelessly promoted the Euro in an unlimited fashion. We saw the same thing happen with the EU treaty. The publics of Europe have simply been ignored.

The other problem is that money enters the system in ways other than elections. Money spent to influence an election is not a big problem, because people are free to ignore arguments or reject them. Money spent in the course of lobbying is much more problematic. The 1st amendment protects lobbying, of course, but it does not guarantee all kinds of gifts to Congressmen that get through the loopholes.

And then there's the ultimate corruption, money being spent by politicians to buy the support of interest groups. That's the part that the Constitution actually deals with, and strangely, it's also the part liberals are least interested in reforming. They'd rather attack the 1st amendment than enforce the general welfare clause.

The fact remains, he current system is malfunctioning, and is not doing what it should be doing, which is dealing with the situation we are in. Instead the government is paralyzed.
This is the direct result of money being more important that people.
Make people more important, and the situation will change.
Leave it the way it is, and we'll have a crisis so severe that it creates the political majority necessary to govern effectively, like in Venezuela....

WEll, it's true that if the government didn't have to listen to money interests or the people, it wouldn't be paralyzed. If you take the money out, things will move pretty quickly, but it won't be because of the people, it will be because all the incumbents will be perfectly safe and unaccountable.

They dont have to. They choose to. And youll never get rid of it. A better solution is to reduce the power of govt, and for the voters not to be dumb masses.

Originally Posted by adaher

WEll, it's true that if the government didn't have to listen to money interests or the people, it wouldn't be paralyzed. If you take the money out, things will move pretty quickly, but it won't be because of the people, it will be because all the incumbents will be perfectly safe and unaccountable.

How would taking money out make the incumbents safe? Money is their greatest advantage. In today's political reality, money is the biggest advantage a person can have.
Incumbents would be accountable to the people, they would face elections where their opponents would have equal access to public funding, they couldn't turn the fund raising advantage of incumbency into an electoral advantage. True, they would have name recognition, but that recognition would be attached to their performance in office.

Incumbents get to spend unlimited money on their reelection, plus they have name recognition and relationships with power brokers in their communities.

Equal public funding is insufficient. Where are the equal funds for the administrations' requirement that refunds sent to people by insurance companies contain a notice that "this is made possible by the health care bill?" That's free campaign advertising the kind of thing only an incumbent can do. Congressmen can win allegiances by steering pork to their districts. A $1 million earmark should count as $1 million in campaign spending. Otherwise, it's unfair to the challenger.

Or, rather than worrying about it, we should just let challengers outraise incumbents, which levels the playing field in ways that public financing fails.