A few other miscellaneous platform points

• Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - replace with vow of chastity for all unmarried Armed Services personnel
• Allow consenting adults to from whatever kinds of families they want, with full spousal rights
• Legalize marijuana - regulate & tax similarly to alcohol & tobacco (e.g., set minimum age for use); increase penalties for offenses incurred while intoxicated (no driving while stoned, e.g.)

Regarding earmarks

"Earmarks" is the political buzzword du jour. Seems to me that the problem has to do with the way taxes are collected & then redistributed by the Federal government. Representatives and Senators are rewarded for maneuvering to channel tax money from other areas of the country into their own - "bringing home the bacon," as it's called. (All together now: "Mmm - bacon...")

But what if the bacon doesn't leave home in the first place?

I would suggest a radical restructuring of how revenues are collected. I think all taxes should be paid at the municipal level. Municipalities would then pay their counties for services rendered. Counties would similarly pay the states, and the states the Federal government. Governmental entities that wanted extra money for special projects, or that needed funds in an emergency, could then negotiate with their peers to obtain grants or loans.

I am sure that this system would present challenges of its own, but I think it would keep more money in local economies, lessen the control of central governments, and empower local communities to do more for themselves.

(Please dissect away in the comments!)

VOTE OTHER!

Hey, check this out:

VOTE OTHER!

Legislation

Y'know, if I were in a legislature, state or Federal, I would do everything I could to stop the practice of padding bills with irrelevant amendments. I understand that it might be part of the political give-and-take, but it just muddies the waters. Vote for one thing at a time.

Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale

I oppose it.

But if it's going to happen, for the love of Pete it's completely illogical to not be charging severance taxes.

Rethinking taxation

(The following is based on some comments that were published in the Wayne Independent a few weeks ago...)

During the 2004 campaign, I penned a bit of Seussian doggerel that included this verse:

The question should be, "Are our taxes assessed
In a way that is fair, and that spreads the load best?
So that no one is overly fiscally stressed
And no one rides high on the backs of the rest?”

The definition of “fair,” of course, depends on who’s being asked. Some rich folks, most notably Warren Buffett, support progressive taxation – making richer folks take on larger shares of the tax burden. “I see nothing wrong with those who have been blessed by this society giving a larger portion of their income back to the society than somebody that's working very hard to make ends meet,” Buffett has said. Other rich folks – well, you know.

Some folks (Mike Huckabee for example) push a simplified national sales tax – the so-called “Fair Tax” – to replace the national income tax. “Georgists” want to only tax land value. Some like taxation being targeted to shape social behavior (as in, for example, the so-called “sin taxes” or the hotly-debated “carbon tax”), while others find that reprehensible.

As opposed to the "fair taxers," who would put all their eggs into the VAT basket, I think it makes sense to have multiple revenue streams.

But let me also suggest a completely different way to think about the question. In keeping with Green principles of decentralization, community-based economics, and grassroots democracy, let’s have all taxes be local.

Let municipalities collect all taxes within their borders – and then let the municipalities pay counties, counties pay states, and states the Federal government, for services as respectively rendered. If a governmental entity at whatever level has needs that outstrip its resources, let them consult with their wealthier peers to arrange loans or grants as needed (rather than having such redistributions be the result of the unsavory "sausage-making" in the next higher level of legislation).

Then the answer to the question “What is the fairest way to tax?” becomes simple: whatever way the members of a given community democratically agree works best for them.

A few modest proposals

• If a company wants a bulk mail permit to send out "junk mail," it should have to certify that it's using 100% post-consumer recycled paper. This should increase the amount of recycled paper being used, and/or reduce the amount of junk mail.
  
  
• If you loan the government money during the year via Payroll Withholding, and then get a refund when you file your taxes, the government should then pay you some interest on that loan.
  
  

Work Week Reductions

Whatever the office I occupied, I would want to work towards reductions in the standard "work week" - at first, I'd aim for a 5% percent reduction, to 38 hours, and then another 5% percent, down to 36. I seem to recall that as I was growing up in the early 60s, the talk was all about the huge amounts of extra leisure time that developing technology would provide for everyone. Indeed, there was concern that we might find ourselves bored! But instead, it seems that we have been steadily increasing our workloads, at the expense of our families and our health. Take it easier, say I.

The Role of the President

Constitutionally, one of the President's main jobs is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." He is also expected to "recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"-- but it seems to me that this latter duty has taken such precedent over the other, that we now elect Presidents based in large part on what measures we think he/she will recommend. If I were a Presidential candidate, I would emphasize that executive role, carrying out the wishes of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, rather than trotting out a long list of potential programs that may or may not pass Congressional muster.

You get to watch

Were I elected to some post or other, I would have a staffer with me at all times with a video camera, recording all my interactions with other people. The people who elect politicians to positions of power and responsibility, it seems to me, would have a right to keep an eye on me, and know exactly what I was doing on their behalf.

Repurpose the Military

Certain folks are fond of saying that the purpose of an army is "to kill people and break things." If I were C-in-C, I would push for the elimination of that definition - and the outmoded, obsolete thinking behind it - and repurpose the military explicitly towards countering injustice, protecting innocent lives, and serving the people. In fulfilling these goals, the military may indeed have to "kill people and break things" occasionally - and they would need the capability to do so - but that would not be their purpose. I think that this is not a trivial shift, psychologically speaking.

Makeup of the Supreme Court

Oh, and re the Supreme Court... I think the Court should have the following composition:

• 3 solid, experienced, nonpartisan and thoughtful centrists
• 2 generally conservative justices
• 2 generally liberal justices
• 1 hardcore right-wing maniac
• 1 hardcore left-wing maniac

Of course, we now have at least 3 hardcore right-wing maniacs, so it's going to take a while to get to that ideal state...

Jerusalem

Following Obama's AIPAC speech and discussion re his position about Jerusalem, I thought I should mention mine:

Jerusalem, being a critical part of the heritage of so much of humanity, should not be the possession of any one country. I would call for the entire city to be placed under a separate UN mandate. Countries that wished to locate any executive offices there would be allowed to do so.

Re "No Child Left Behind"

It seems to me that there is a very easy way to obviate some of the problems with No Child Left Behind - which is to simply redefine the notion of "grade level" itself. Why shouldn't we determine "grade level" (which is an arbitrary and artificial construct anyway) not in terms of chronological age but in terms of a student's actual level of achievement?

Clearly a student could be at different "grade levels" from subject to subject - but if curricula were constructed in such a way that a student could move through them at relatively independent paces, achieving "certifications" as they master given bodies of knowledge, I don't see that as being a problem. It is exactly what we do within certain realms of the corporate world, such as IT or HR. We need to decouple the notion of academic progress from its present lockstep relationship to chronological age.

If we can do this, I believe we can strip the people who are presently trying to cripple public education by means of NCLB of their most potent tool, while still allowing educators to be evaluated in terms of effectiveness and establishing realistic standards for student progress.

Electoral College Reform

I've not decided whether the Electoral College needs to be thrown out completely - but I do support the idea of having the votes allocated by individual Congressional district, rather than the present system of winner-take-all on the state level. (The two votes that correspond to the Senators would be granted to the winner of the popular vote statewide.) I think this reform - which states can make all by themselves, without any kind of Federal statutory changes or Constitutional amendments - would make the results move closer to reflecting the popular vote, and make it necessary for campaigns to be more visible in areas that they presently feel they can neglect. I say this even though in my particular state, Pennsylvania, the results might skew more to the Republicans' benefit -

Full statehood for the District of Columbia

I'm for it.

Death Penalty

I'm against it. Next?

Back to basics, government-wise: reorganize the Executive Branch according to Constitutional purposes

In the Preamble to the Constitution, the basic purposes of the United States of America are enumerated:

1. Form a more perfect Union
2. Establish Justice
3. Insure domestic Tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general Welfare
6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

So if I were President, I'd reorganize the Executive Branch to fit. Six Departments, or Ministries, or whatever you want to call them, with the appropriate agencies and bureaus rearranged accordingly. Functions that couldn't fit within this scheme would be kicked back to the states, unless we decided by Constitutional amendment that we wanted to add other purposes.

Of course, there would be some very interesting conversations that would have to go into this redesign - what do we mean by things like "more perfect Union" or "domestic Tranquility" or "general Welfare," anyway? But once we were done, we would know that whatever the Federal government was doing was indeed something that it is intended to be doing.

Decentralized power

If I were to be elected to any kind of Federal post (President, House, Senate) I would work for increasingly regionalized governance - a/k/a the devolution of power, or decentralization. By breaking up the concentration of power in Washington DC, I think we could make the system more responsive to local needs.

There's a flip side to this, though - such decentralization could only succeed if it were accompanied by a parallel and proportionate increase in awareness and responsibility on the part of the more local units of governance. Without this, devolution leads us back to the time of squabbling fiefdoms.

For more on this idea, check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opinion/10alperovitz.html

My general economic stance

I'm not a centralized-command socialist, but I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist either. As a Green, I'm distrustful of large government and big business alike, and for similar reasons.

If I had to sum it up in a soundbite or two, I'd say this:

• "The basics are free - and you can work for the extras." The fundamental needs of life - food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. - should be available to everyone. (This follows directly from the Golden Rule on the one hand, and the "inalienable rights" language in the Declaration on the other.)
  
• At the same time, one should be able to work for as many extra goodies as one might want - though we have to evaluate carefully the effects of our "wants" on other people and on the larger environment, and be responsible about the choices we make when it comes to those "extra goodies."
• Neglecting that responsibility eventually - and inevitably - brings negative consequences.

For me, that all follows directly from the Golden Rule. Your mileage, of course, may vary.