I. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE
FOUR BASIC PRINCIPLES:
I. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE
II. SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE
III. PRO-ENVIRONMENT
IV. PRO-CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SEVEN OPERATING PRINCIPLES:
I. ECONOMIC STABILITY.
1. Balanced Budget.
2. Balanced budget
amendment.
3. No tax cut.
A) No cutback on the earned income tax credit (EITC).
4. Entitlement
reform.
A) Social Security reform.
i. 1 and 1/2% of FICA tax into self-directed savings accounts.
ii. Public and private programs melded.
iii. Means testing.
a) $40,000 level
iv. Eligibility restriction.
a) Based on age.
b) More than 40 quarters work.
5. Inflation averse
monetary policy.
6. Phase-out of
farm commodities subsidies.
II. ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS.
1. Managed care.
A) Also to be applied to Medicare and Medicaid.
i. And should emphasize preventive care.
a) Especially prenatal and child care.
2. Federal support
to research teaching hospitals.
3. Revamp veteran
health care.
A) Managed care for everyday medical services.
4. Rethink end-of-life
health care.
5. Growth oriented
government policies.
6. Eliminate unnecessary
industry regulation.
7. Narrow FDA's
role.
8. Educate our
children.
A) Federal dollars for special education.
B) Public school choice.
C) Charter schools.
D) School to work opportunities.
E) Public-private partnerships.
9. Conflict resolution.
A) Tort reform.
B) Move to alternative dispute resolution.
10. IRAs and a
consumption-based income tax.
11. Zero capital
gains tax for securities held for five years.
12. Domestic discretionary
spending emphasizing education and science.
13. Free Trade.
14. Reform Health
care delivery.
15. Reform public
office election.
III. SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE.
1. Civil rights
agenda advocacy.
A) Race, gender, age, reproductive choice and sexual orientation.
B) Restrict smoking in public places.
C) Restrict panhandling on our sidewalks.
D) Sobriety checks on our highways.
E) Impose drug bans in public housing.
IV. SPIRITUALLY ENLIGHTENED.
1. No compulsory
majority religion school prayer.
2. Moment of silence
is acceptable.
3. We need national
discussion on Family, Hard Work, Education, Spirituality, Sacrifice, Community.
V. PRO-ENVIRONMENT.
1. Support the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Preservation
of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge from oil exploration, the protection of wetlands,
and the funding of the EPA.
2. Deal with the
unconstrained growth of world population as official government policy.
A) Fund world population programs.
VI. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES BASED ON
1. Prevention
whenever possible, containment when it is not.
2. Acceptance
of world responsibility.
3. Recognize the
threat of nuclear terrorism.
A) Redirect national security resources to guard against it.
VII. POLITICAL REFORM.
1. Pro-campaign
finance reform.
2. Line item veto.
3. Eliminate all
PACs.
4. Close "soft
money" loop holes.
5. Reduce congressional
staffs.
6. Reduce number
of congressional committees.
7. Significantly
reduce franking privileges.
8. Restructure
campaign expenditure limits.
A) Free access to television for qualified candidates.
First off, let me say that in general I am very impressed with what this group has put together. It has both areas where I personally agree strongly (political reform, social inclusiveness) and sufficent specifics to give them a high grade for political courage.
Now to specifics. To begin with, I agree with all of their four basic principles. They have accurately enumerated all of the crucial areas with which any credible independent presidential candidacy must be prepared to deal, and they have done so succinctly and boldly.
Now let's examine the details of their proposals with regard to their seven operating principles. With regards to I, ECONOMIC STABILITY, I agree with the balanced budget, no tax cut, protection of the EITC, means testing of Social Security, and killing farm subsidies. Without a balanced budget, there will be no meaningful growth for our future and high mortgage interest rates will continue to kill the hopes of our younger generation to ever own their own homes or share in the traditional American dream; a country drowning in debt should not be contemplating tax cut candy for the rich while destroying a tax break that has helped to move people off the poverty rolls; it is outrageous that millionaires get the same Social Security benefits as those less fortunate in our society; and too much of the farm subsidy program goes to benefit huge agribusiness interests who do not need government handouts. I am NOT however supportive of an inflation-averse, as they put it, but really inflation-phobic monetary policy. Alan Greenspan and his banker friends on the Fed are working in the interests of a tiny and greedy corporate elite whose interests are to maintain a sufficient level of unemployment to guarantee a subservient, cowed, and insecure working class. This country needs growth and an increase in the standard of living, and that will never happen as long as the Fed continues to support, through inflated interest rates, an artificially high cost of living to insure an unacceptably high level of consumer debt and high cost of capital.
Now, ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS. First, with regard to health reform, I have always been one of those who believes that without universal health insurance we will never attain control of the spiraling costs from which we suffer here. As long as a large proportion of us are paying for the health care of those who are uninsured, our health care will always be a source of concern and disruption. So the next question is how to accomplish universal coverage. Initially, I was a strong supporter of the single-payer concept. Economically and financially, there is no question it would be the most economical, cost-effective way to go. The Congressional Budget Office conducted a study of the various health reform plans offered in Congress in '93-94, and came to precisely that conclusion. What with the destruction of our parasitic insurance industry, and the elimination of the vast bureaucratic overhead which that structure entailed, realization of savings would be immense. Unfortunately, faith in the government is presently too weak for that approach to be politically viable. Since the most rapidly growing costs in our country are associated with health care, we cannot wait for a change in our political climate. We must push for universalism now. Therefore an alternative must be pushed. Since managed care promises more universal access, albeit through draconian cost controls, it probably is the least evil of all the proffered paths to achieve greater health care availability. Reluctantly, for that reason, I was in general supportive of the Clinton health care program, which used managed care as its theoretical basis. Because of this, I am not necessarily opposed to the Gang of Five's choice of managed care as their health care silver bullet and panacea, though I am very regretful that they did not enunciate a goal of universal health coverage. An emphasis on preventive care, a rethinking of our approach to end- of-life health care, all of those elements will be essential to controlling health costs in this country, and opening up its availability for all of us, and this group is to be commended for having grasped the nettle with regard to such issues. I am disturbed and, in fact, even confused, however, by their call for an end to unnecessary industry regulation and a narrowing of the FDA's role. If you notice, under the environmental section, this group has gone to great lengths to point out the good that government regulation can accomplish, and appears to demur from a kneejerk condemnation of government as the source of all oppression and evil. So exactly what sort of government regulation is this group condemning? This seems to be the one example where the platform suffers from a mouthing of empty platitudes. I am also concerned by their advocacy of a consumption-based tax. Surely, we do not need to discourage purchasing in this country. We have too little of it as it is. The figures from the Christmas just concluded demonstrates that conclusively. With the great majority of people in this country earning the same or less than they have previously in constant dollars, the last thing we need to do is choke the purchasing power of people even further. I also am not happy with this group's unqualified support for any and all free trade. While in general this country is always better off in a world where US exports can travel freely, and socially too this country is always more enlightened and tolerant in an atmosphere where open trade flourishes, nevertheless the fact remains that in recent years too many trade agreements have become the personal playground of the multinationals, entities with little or no concern for the future of the average American. Concerns about labor rights and the environment are too often given short shrift in such a context, and a group such as the Gang of Five, putatively dedicated to the preservation of both, should recognize that free trade is not necessarily an absolute good.
With regards to SOCIAL INCLUSIVITY, this group's forthright inclusion of such controversial rights as reproductive choice and sexual orientation is to be commended, along with the less controversial ones of race, gender, and age. I must confess though I find no less than bizarre their inclusion of such ideas as no smoking, no panhandling, DWI checks, and drug bans in this section. I also disagree with three of them, the panhandling prohibition, and the alcohol and drug checks. To me the first is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and the latter is a clear violation of our constitutional search and seizure provisions. Smoking is for me a diferent matter. The fact is there now exists compelling evidence of the dangers of secondary smoke and, just as I support environmental regulation as a means to protecting the health of the public at large, so I support society's right to protect ourselves from those among us who threaten the health and safety of our lungs.
With regards to SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT, bravo, bravo, bravo. For too long, the values debate has been hijacked and framed by a theocratic cabal, determined to impose a bigoted, narrow world view, grounded on a theoretical basis which would have made the Spanish Inquisition proud. Those of us in the American mainstream must also get out on the field and articulate what spiritual values mean for us as well. I am pleased with this group's opposition to school prayer, and while I admit that I personally find myself uninterested in participating in the national discussion which they urge (on a personal, selfish level, these particular issues just do not interest me), I nevertheless applaud enthusiastically their attempt to widen the range of participants in such a debate.
Operating principle number five, PRO-ENVIRONMENT, is completely acceptable to me. In fact, it is more than that. It deserves high marks for political courage. They support not only the entire range of current environmental law, at the risk of considerable unhappiness on the part of their potential Western constituents, but they also forthrightly call for our country's leadership on the question of overpopulation, despite this issue's easy vulnerability to demagoguery on the part of the rabid religious fundamentalist pro-life faction in this country. Here the group has been short and sweet. Good for them.
On principle VI, NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES, I find myself in complete disagreement with their basic thrust. They call for acceptance of world responsibility on the part of the US. I call for the US to lead the rest of the world towards an acceptance of universally shared responsibility, towards true internationalism. They call for the US to operate to contain whatever they think needs containing, and to hell with the consequences, and devil take the hindmost. I call for the US to help foster and develop an international consensus on what it is that needs containing, as well as an international sense of responsibility with respect to such issues. This group's casual dismissal of the value of multilateralism, indeed its utter rejection of the word or the concept in its platform, speaks of a foreign policy world view still mired in Cold War Manifest Destiny thinking. I am bitterly disappointed in them. About the only area here where I DO agree with them is in the arena of nuclear terrorism. The Cold War is over (much as this group appears not to recognize this fact). The real nuclear threat to us now are rogue weapons, not superpower weapons. Of course, if we continue to flirt with archaic Cold War institutions like NATO, by allowing its peacekeepers to usurp the useful role of the UN, we will have only ourselves to blame if, for example, Russia (as a result of NATO's continued refusal to allow former Warsaw Pact nations or Russia itself under its umbrella) turns toward scary nationalists like Vladimir Zhirinovsky or General Lebed in this summer's Russian presidential election.
And last, but not least, is POLITICAL REFORM. Here is the issue which for me most strongly screams the need for an independent or third-party presidential candidacy. The people have lost faith in our political process and our political leaders. In this poisonous atmosphere, the good ideas of well-intentioned political leaders, like Bill Clinton, Arlen Specter, Jack Kemp, and Jerry Brown, get nowhere because in the public's eye, their proposers have all been branded with the scarlet letter P, for politician. This must stop; this cannot continue. The public must stop treating politician as a dirty word. The only way for this to happen is for the political process to be not only cleaned up BUT CLEARLY PERCEIVED TO HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP!!! Here is where the two major parties have failed utterly, and it is because of the basic framework of trust essential to a democracy, or rather the utter failure on the part of the Republicrats to rescue that basic framework of trust, that I now feel the only solution is an independent or third-party president. This is Issue One; this is fundamental. As Linda Smith says, before a surgeon can operate, he MUST wash his hands. And this is where the public is at this time. It doesn't matter that the surgeon is brilliant or high-minded. If his hands are dirty, the public won't permit him to operate. Simple. My only caveat with respect to the Gang of Five's platform on POLITICAL REFORM is that they have only addressed one half of the equation, the half involving the democratizing of access for those running for office. Yes, equalize the playing field for challengers by eliminating PAC contributions, closing soft money loopholes, reducing franking privileges, and guaranteeing free access to television (the single greatest cause of campaign inflation). But they have left out the other half, involving the democratizing of access for those VOTING for those running for office. In this regard, we need elections held on weekends or holidays, universal registration, a none-of- the-above option, etc. etc. Still, these people have made a praiseworthy stab at a truly independent political platform, and they are to be commended.
The table you see above is one I constructed on the basis of a 17 page document the Gang of Five released last December 18. Click here if you wish to read the entire document, or if you simply have ideas on these or other issues, please e-mail me at