America was born before the Revolutionary war. It was born when thoughtful people here started reading political philosophers and theorists of the early 1700’s like John Locke. At our very inception it was clear that we would stand for two things: Free Enterprise and Equality of all citizens before the Law. Yes, the two all-important ideals seem at odds with each other from time to time, but that is all part of the evolving saga of the U.S. of A.
My political party, the Reform Party, stands for two things: Fiscal Conservatism and a Moderate stance on Social Issues.
I believe that American government should be for the people and by the people. All of the Rights groups, from the Gun Rights group to the Gay Rights group and everything between, must be heard in the public forum. They must be allowed to peacefully agitate for beneficial legislation, and when they couch their concerns in a manner with which a majority of Americans can agree, those concerns should become new laws. Equality before the law must be equally applied.
I also believe in the ideal of Fiscal Conservatism. America’s budget and budgeting procedures are totally out of whack. The deficit is in run away mode. People who are not interested in belt-tightening have trotted out a string of economists who don’t mind saying that the deficit really doesn’t matter, and they are right as long as there is no economic crisis either here or abroad. When the bottom drops out, we will get trampled. Remember two-thousand-eight?
A chess player whose screen name is Ziryab typed, “Fiscal Conservatism is a myth propagated by the party that produces the largest deficits. What they mean by ‘fiscal conservatism’ is cutting taxes and cutting off programs that fail to divert money from the poor to the rich.” and I can see why Ziryab might feel like that. But Ziryab, everybody who has a lot of money is not also a sinister, plotting demon who must be stopped. Some of my neighbors have better toys than me, and I’m fine with that. Fiscal Conservatism, for me, does not mean that government should be tipping the scales or picking winners and losers. Fiscal Conservatism, for me, means getting our economic house in order. I don’t run my personal budget on the “spend now and don’t worry” philosophy, I don’t think America should either.
Lately some Americans, like Ziryab, have begun to rebel against what they perceive as an elitist superstructure tone deaf to the concerns of the citizenry. True enough, the country is not supposed to be run solely for the benefit of the wealthy and the powerful. It is supposed to be run for the benefit of us all, but that does not mean that we should make the unforgivable mistake of attacking the sacred Free Enterprise system that is such a huge part of who we are. Let’s just make sure that the Free Enterprise system is equitably applied.
Proposed: Let’s start by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Proposed: Let’s eliminate Washington DC influence pedaling and actually drain the swamp (not just use the phrase as a campaign slogan).
If you fund it they will come. The 535 members of Congress are supposed to control federal spending. This year the federal government spends $4.746 trillion per year which, divided by 127.59 million households in the USA averages $37,200 per household per year. This is an irresistible attraction for lobbying influence pedaling. According to thebalance.com, “Almost two-thirds of federal spending goes toward paying the benefits required by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are part of mandatory spending. Those are programs established by prior Acts of Congress.”
Social Security and Medicare are direct transfers from current workers to the elderly. Median net worth increases with age. Abolish these programs. “But I put into the system for decades, I just want my money back.” Sorry that the federal government has lied to us for all of this time. It is not your money, it was spent immediately on others. Try this thought experiment: A worker dies before receiving Social Security and Medicare. Does the dead worker’s heirs get his tens of thousands of dollars of Social Security and Medicare Taxes that he paid in? No, only a death benefit of $255.
Abolish mandatory spending and sunset all programs.
Tax consumption, not production. Abolish subsidies, emancipate taxpayers. But no, instead we have demagogues who pledge to subsidize health insurance for all, subsidize college for all and subsidize “basic income” for all.
How can the Reform Party win elections?
Abe:
Let’s jump to your last two paragraphs.
Para 4:
We should definitely be taxing consumption instead of production. That move would end the insanity about which you have spoken.
WinLoseorDraw is philosophically and ideologically in agreement on the issue of subsidies. The government has never been good at picking winners and losers, and the best way to stop the government from exercising their wheeler/dealer spending of our money is to take that power away completely.
When you say, “emancipate taxpayers”, WinLoseorDraw hears a distant bugle call, a call to action!
The time for massively ineffective government spending is over. One would have to be fiscally blind not to realize it!
Para 5: Thank you for bringing up the Reform Party (Moderate on social issues and fiscally conservative). The way for the Reform Party to win elections is for more people to get on the correct side of these issues. Pass the word!