Tag: campaign promises

Strong National Defense for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 15, 2010
2 Comments on Strong National Defense for the American Dream

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Regarding strong national defense in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz reminds us:

The men and women serving in our armed forces are the best in the world. They can accomplish anything they are asked to do, if they are given the proper resources and clear rules of engagement.

He believes that we should be working towards:

Imagine the best equipped strategic strike forces rapidly deployed at a moment's notice to respond to the national security interests of the United States of America. Also, imagine a well compensated military that cares for the military families, now, in the future, and especially when wounded.

He thinks this will take us there:

Dedicate at least 4% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for national defense spending.

Secure our borders, enforce our current immigration laws, and reject amnesty for those who are here illegally.

Adopt a “Go Big or Go Home” approach to our overseas military presence. We must have the best foreign intelligence, human and electronic.

Support an “all of the above” national energy policy that advocates rapid development of renewable energy, clean/green energy, and the use of our various natural resources and nuclear capabilities. Recognize that energy independence is vital to our national security.

Keep Guantanamo Bay open and continue with military tribunals.

Sustain the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Support Veterans by honoring all commitments made to them.

My reactions:

Having a flat rate dedicated to defense might be better than our current what-can-we-get-away-with approach. Whether 4% is the right rate is up for debate.
We need to secure our borders, but that will probably require a long discussion about what we believe about immigration and then a complete overhaul of our immigration laws. Then we would need to strictly enforce those immigration laws once they are in line with our immigration beliefs.
“Go Big or Go Home” might help us be more careful about when and where we “go.”
“All of the above” is definitely the right energy policy.
Keeping Guantanamo Bay open is not helping our national security in any measurable way.
We should sustain basic rights – obviously including the Second Amendment.
We should honor all our commitments and our veterans have done the most to warrant making those commitments to them than any other group – certainly they have done more than most of our members of Congress.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, Jason Chaffetz, military

National

Accountability for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 15, 2010
4 Comments on Accountability for the American Dream

As far as Accountability in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz lists our sitation as:

Americans have lost confidence in their elected leaders and the direction of the country as a whole. We are being governed by a “nanny state” mentality that is blanketing the country with the misconception that the government can and should solve all problems.

He envisions the goal as:

Imagine an atmosphere of personal responsibility where individuals took control of their future and worked hard to improve their lives. Restoration of confidence in the government is possible through true openness and transparency in all facets of government operations.

To achieve that goal he proposes:

Fire the Czars and adhere to the procedures under the Constitution requiring Senate confirmation for such leadership positions.

Apply all laws equally to Congress.

Require Committees to post all proceedings on the Internet within 24 hours. Allow 72 hours for Bills and Conference Reports to be publicly online prior to a vote on the House Floor.

Prohibit Members of Congress serving on Appropriations and Ways & Means from seeking earmarks.

Require that 100% of all campaign donations be filed with the Federal Election Commission for public review.

Attack the rampant waste, fraud, and abuses in Medicare and Medicaid.

Deny the passage of “card check” and participate in labor law reform.

Ensure that E-Verify is fully deployed and mandatory for hiring an employee.

My thoughts on his steps toward the goal:

Sounds more like a sound bite than an real effective step in the right direction.
What does this mean?
This couldn’t hurt.
This would make those committee assignments much less desirable but if the rest of our Representatives can still seek earmarks little will have been accomplished.
I like it.
Vague.
Vague.
I’m not sure that E-Verify is all that it is cracked up to be. I fear that it will be more expense than value.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, government, Jason Chaffetz

National

Limited Government for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 14, 2010
1 Comment on Limited Government for the American Dream

On Limited Government in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz lists our situation as:

The government is omnipresent in our lives, restricting our basic liberties. The proper role of government is a strictly limited one. We recognize that the States created the federal government. The federal government did not create the States. Further, it is not the government that will create jobs, wealth, or propel the United States of America to reach its fullest potential. It is the American people who will drive America forward.

He suggests that our goal should be:

Imagine a federal government that recognized it could not solve every problem. Imagine a government focused instead on the most important federal roles, such as national defense. Individuals should have the freedom to succeed or fail in this country. It is not the government’s role to stand in the way of either outcome or to choose winners and losers.

To achieve this goal he recommends:

Repeal TARP and commit to no more “stimulus” bills that are merely a ruse to grow government.

Appoint a bi-partisan “Sunset Commission” to identify at least 100 federal departments or programs recommended for elimination by December 31, 2011.

Reduce the corporate income tax to a flat 10%. This will eliminate the wide array of corporate loopholes, incentivize business in the U.S.A., and simplify the tax code.

Reject the “Cap & Trade” scheme and repeal all EPA funding related to carbon policy.

Sell back to private ownership the three million acres of federal land identified under the Clinton Administration as having no federal purpose.

My thoughts on those steps is as follows:

No more stimulus is a great idea.
A bipartisan commission would only identify 100 departments by having half the commission identify at least 49 departments or programs and then trade those with the 49 other “crucial” departments or programs identified by the other half of the commission as recommended for elimination. Added to the two departments or programs that the majority could honestly agree on they would scrape together the recommended 100 – none of which will actually get eliminated. Mmmm, sausage.
As I said before, a flat tax rate without loopholes allows the private portion of the economy to act with more confidence.
All of our government “green” legislation and policies are more political than scientific. It’s too bad that our government can’t stick to facts and let opinions sort themselves out instead of the other way around.
The government should sell off any federal land that has no federal purpose.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, government, Jason Chaffetz

National

Fiscal Discipline for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 14, 2010
4 Comments on Fiscal Discipline for the American Dream

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) has proposed a Congressional Action Plan (CAP) called the Contract for the American Dream which he is inviting members of Congress and candidates for Congress to sign. While I agree with his CAP generally I thought I would take the time to break out the four sections of the plan and evaluating what I agree or disagree with more specifically. This post focuses on Fiscal Discipline. Later posts will focus on Limited Government, Accountability, and Strong National Defense.

Congressman Chaffetz describes our current fiscal discipline situation as:

Our national debt exceeds $12 trillion, with our annual deficit in excess of $1.4 trillion. Federal spending as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is roughly 25%, when historically it has been roughly 19-20%. We pay approximately $600 million per day in interest payments. In short, the current government spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much of the people's money. It is unacceptable and unsustainable. No longer can we run this government on a credit card. We are not going to borrow and spend our way out of these challenges.

He suggests a goal to work for as:

Imagine a federal government that treats the national treasure with respect and responsibility by living within its means-where every American pays a fair share.

Here are the steps he proposes to achieve that goal:

Reduce total federal payroll and workforce by 10%, except for military. This action will force all federal departments to identify and eliminate waste.

Support a balanced budget amendment.

Require 2/3 majority vote for any tax increase.

Cut non-defense discretionary spending by inflation minus 3% across the board.

Impose a moratorium on all appropriations earmarks until the process is reformed legislatively. Work to maximize openness and transparency with filters, to ensure only expenditures with a federal nexus, and prohibit allocations to for-profit companies.

Reduce the capital gains rate to 10%. This will lead to increased receipts to the federal treasury and will also increase investment in the USA.

Engage in entitlement reform.

Here are my thoughts in a point-by-point format:

The idea to reduce government spending and bureaucracy is right but he seems to be using a very blunt instrument to perform this surgical operation.
Sounds good to me but show me the proposed amendment.
I’m not sure what drawbacks this might have.
Why 3%? (Plus, show me the math so that I’m clear on the meaning here.)
Sounds like politician-speak for “earmarks are bad but we can’t really get rid of them – let me show you that I want to fix the system.”
I favor flat tax rates without loopholes – that provides predictability so that people know what to expect on tax day. That certainty allows businesses to more confidently make decisions.
Vague but promising.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, Jason Chaffetz, money

General

Legislator as Negotiator

Politics is the art of the possible.

So said Otto Von Bismarck in 1867 and he was surely right. One of the challenges for an idealist is that compromise is a necessary and appropriate component of the political process. It happens within parties and it happens within legislative bodies. In both cases compromise is necessary because all decisions in those settings affect a number of people who are in a variety of life situations and hold varying goals for themselves and their communities and good decisions cannot be made without addressing the concerns and perspectives of those various parties. Some dislike this reality – and certainly some use it as an excuse to abandon all principle, but the ability to recognize when and how compromise is appropriate is an important skill for any good legislator.

Obviously the ability to analyze and communicate with colleagues and constituents is a critical prerequisite for a legislator to be an effective negotiator. The real challenge once the analysis and communication abilities are in place is knowing how to balance the ability to negotiate with the understanding of what values or positions are non-negotiable. A legislator should be a good negotiator, but they should not be a chameleon or even a contortionist.

Part of their negotiation must be that there is a core which is immutable – one that they have communicated to constituents. The constituents should be able to depend upon this core of principle to predict how their legislator will represent them and the legislator should be able to articulate how their actions during negotiations conform to those core principles. Once the core of principles has evaporated in the face of their legislative record constituents should be quick to replace their legislator – and a legislator should expect no less from their constituents.

Tags campaign promises, civic participation, communication, ideal, legislature

culture National State

Senator Jim DeMint on Term Limits

Post author By David
Post date October 23, 2009
7 Comments on Senator Jim DeMint on Term Limits

I started a discussion on term limits a couple of years ago on this site and between what I said then and what I have said on other sites I think my position on term limits is fairly clear – I believe that term limits generally produce benefits that far outweigh the drawbacks that opponents will cite. I think solid evidence of that is that not one state (out of 15) that has enacted a term limit law and had it start limiting terms has ever repealed their term limit law. (Six states did enact laws and then repeal them before they took effect – including Utah.) Coming from that position, I was happy to hear the announcement from Senator Jim DeMint that he plans to introduce a term limits amendment soon.

While I have some questions about some of the specifics of what he plans to propose like how he decided that three terms would be the appropriate limit for members of the House or how flexible he would be on the particular limits he is proposing, I found one statement that he made very insightful about the last time that term limits were seriously pursued by the political class.

Fifteen years ago, Republicans – who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.

The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.

The fact is, party doesn’t matter when it comes to reform. If you want to change the policies, you have to change the process.

He’s absolutely right that no significant reform will come in how Washington operates until we make structural changes that force it to operate differently. His comment that many of those who wanted to enact term limits voluntarily term-limited themselves – thus crippling the attempt by leaving it in the hands of those who had no interested in being term limited was insightful. I realized that anyone who wants to make such a change would have to take the attitude and make a pledge to stay in Washington as long as possible until they either got term limits enacted or else until they no longer believed that term limits were worth pursuing. Those who will impose their own limits independent of everybody else will limit their own comparative effectiveness by granting more power to those who do not believe in their ideals (specifically the ideal of having term limits).

Tags amendments, campaign promises, change congress, Constitution, ideals, issues, Jim DeMint, term limits, Utah

General

Legislator as Fundraiser

When it comes to raising money to run a campaign an ideal legislator needs to understand the real value of money in politics. They need to accept that a serious campaign will require more money than they can personally supply (unless they have significant personal wealth). They need to be comfortable asking people to support them financially – that requires not only being comfortable making the request, but also confident in the message they are promoting in their campaign. On the other hand, an ideal legislator should never fall into the trap of thinking that money can overcome the absolute necessity for them to be putting in hard work on the ground making their case among the people who will be casting their votes.

Here is where I know some people will disagree with me. I contend that a campaign even for federal offices can be financed entirely through personal donations by people residing within the jurisdiction of the office being sought. Contributions from businesses should be refused. Businesses and industries that are part of the district for the office being sought should make any desired contributions through the individuals within those companies. Money from Political Action Committees should not be given to specific candidates. Committees that wish to help a candidate should spend their own money in whatever way they feel will best help the candidate without the candidate ever receiving any money from them. “Abc PAC” can endorse a candidate, can buy booths saying they support that candidate, can make and distribute literature and other advertising materials for the candidate, but should not write a check to the candidate. Anything they produce should never have the candidate saying that they approved the message – in other words, the PAC and the candidate should be independent of each other with full right to voice their support of the efforts of the other.

Personally I would prefer that a candidate never run a campaign on debt although I am not ready to say that I could never support a candidate that uses debt to help finance their campaign. I would say that no good candidate should ever carry debt from one campaign to another. If they have not paid off their expenses from a previous campaign (for the same office or another office) they should not be running a new campaign.

I know that there are people who would argue that this ideal is not feasible in our current political environment and I am open to thoughts on what can and should be done, but please don’t just shoot down my ideal without explaining why we should not desire it.

Tags campaign promises, campaigns, change congress, ideal, money

National

Holding Out Hope

Our President-elect ran a primary campaign on themes of hope and change – I liked the tone he set at that time. Once he had secured the Democratic party nomination he insisted that the Democratic party cease accepting money from political action committees – I liked that action towards change. Once the general election campaign got underway the tone of his campaign changed to a more traditional type of politicking and I set aside my hope that he might be a different kind of politician.

After he had won the election I entertained the hope that he would prove to be the best version of himself that he had shown during the campaign rather than a lesser version that could also be seen during the campaign. I did this not because politicians have a good track record (and certainly not because Obama had any track record) but because I believe it is our duty as citizens to give our leaders the benefit of doubt until they prove themselves unworthy of that benefit (which is sometimes very quickly). As I have watched his actions since the election my hope has been strengthened by observing the concrete steps he is taking to promote transparency within his administration so far. I hope the pattern of seeking input and sharing directly with the public continues and proves to be a valuable pursuit. I am intrigued by the "team of rivals" that he appears to be building for his cabinet and hope to see positive results form that as well.

I guess I’m just happy to see that after four weeks I actually have more hope that he will be his better self in office than I had the day after the election.

Tags campaign promises, Obama, transparency

National

Hillary Clinton: Babysitter in Chief

Post author By David
Post date May 5, 2008
6 Comments on Hillary Clinton: Babysitter in Chief

Here is another gem from Laura. She came in to my office this afternoon and told me that she had just seen a bit of a speech by Senator Clinton. She thought it very important that I be aware that Hillary Clinton had just told her audience that they wanted a President who would solve their problems, take care of their families and watch out for their children. (I don’t claim that to be verbatim.)

Of course my first thought is that I would prefer a president who would enforce the laws of the land, defend the Constitution, and tell the truth to the American people. I don’t need someone to keep pushing the lies that there are painless, if complex, solutions to the problems we have been busy creating for ourselves.

Upon reflection I realized that maybe Senator Clinton is really making a good offer – free babysitting of my kids. I’ll bet she’s a lot more dependable than many a teenage babysitter. Of course by the time I finished writing this I realized that she never said she would babysit for free – or even for cheap.

Tags campaign promises, Clinton, kids, Laura, national candidates