|
| FAQ (FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS): | ||||||
|
(press Ctrl - F to search this page) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| (01) | QUESTION: | What is an incumbent ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: | An incumbent is a person who currently holds an office (e.g. Senator, President, etc.). | ||||
|
|
||||||
| (02) | QUESTION: | What is anti-incumbent ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
An anti-incumbent vote is
against the current office holder, and for a candidate that currently does
not hold that office. The history of anti-incumbent voting in the United States demonstrates that Americans, periodically, become dissatisfied, and choose to vote out larger-than-usual percentages of incumbents (as in 1950-1952, 1976-1980, and 1992-1994). The reason, perhaps, may be that voters hope that newcomers will do a better job. Unfortunately, it is only temporarily effective (if at all) if voters only do it once, if incumbents (who resist reforms) always outnumber newcomers, and voters fail to provide sufficient incentives to incumbents to pass reforms, and adequately address the nation's most important goals and pressing problems. |
||||
|
|
||||||
| (03) | QUESTION: | Why are incumbents almost always re-elected ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
Because voters keep
re-electing them. Duh ! OK . . . that's not the smartest thing to do; no doubt, about it. Even when voters vote out incumbent politicians, it's usually just one party (mostly), which allows the two main parties to keep taking turns, and never sending a loud-and-clear message to BOTH parties. But, in the United States, it is also very difficult and expensive to replace an incumbent with another challenging candidate, because of several unfair advantages. Unfair Incumbent Advantage: |
||||
| (a) | Perk$ of Office: Incumbents have more party support and resources to draw upon. Each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents. | |||||
| (b) | Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt. | |||||
| (c) | Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials. | |||||
| (d) | Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place. | |||||
| (e) | Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. Unfortunately, government is FOR-SALE. | |||||
|
Hence, incumbents have many
unfair advantages (some funded by the tax-payers). A tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters contributed 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002). What chance does the remaining 99.85% of all eligible U.S. voters have against that. In 2004, total federal campaign donations (of $200 more more) totaled about $2.4 billion. A tiny 0.15% (300,000) of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters contributed 2.0 billion (averaging $6667 per person), while the remaining 99.85% (199,700,000) of all 200 million U.S. voters contributed 400 million (averaging only $2 per person). Government is FOR-SALE. Too many incumbent politicians spend too much of their time campaigning, peddling influence, filling their campaign war-chest$, voting themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises (8 times between 1997 and 2006), and other irresponsible behavior, instead of solving the nation's most pressing problems that are growing in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation. |
||||||
| (f) |
Apathy, Complacency,
Futility, and Despair: Many voters: |
|||||
| = | do not feel voting is worthwhile. Many understand the difficulty of unseating an incumbent, and believe it is futile to even try. | |||||
| = | do not believe the voters can organize to vote similarly to achieve any particular goal, due to partisan loyalties, and partisan warfare that distracts and divides the people from ever forming a majority to vote out irresponsible incumbents. | |||||
| = | do not feel a need to vote. In the 2004 election, 78 million (39%) of the 200 million eligible voters (in the United States) did not vote. | |||||
| = | do not consider candidates individually (regardless of party), and vote strictly based on party affiliation. | |||||
| = | do not have the time or motivation to learn more about their government. Many do not even know who their senators or representatives are. | |||||
| = | do not want their vote to go to waste, so they vote for one of the candidates that has a chance of winning; not the candidate that is most qualified. | |||||
| Whatever the reasons for the apathy, complacency, futility, and despair, they all benefit the incumbents. Also, third-party and independent candidates are at an even greater disadvantage. | ||||||
| (04) | QUESTION: | Why should voters always vote out (or recall) irresponsible incumbents ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
Because, they are
irresponsible ! Most incumbents (if
not all) are
irresponsible. Can you name 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not irresponsible, not bought-and-paid-for, don't vote on pork-barrel and corporate welfare, don't carry the water for their big-money donors, and don't look-the-other-way? No? Then why keep re-electing them, over and over? If there aren't even 268 (half of 535) in Congress, what does that tell you about Congress, in general? Irresponsible Incumbents: |
||||
| = | refuse to pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms (e.g. campaign finance reform, election reform, one-purpose-per-bill amendment, balanced budget-amendment, tax reform, etc.). | |||||
| = | vote irresponsibly (e.g. pork-barrel, graft, waste, corporate welfare, etc.), look the other way because they lack the peer-pressure to police their own ranks, and continue to grow government and the national debt to nightmare proportions, which is threatening the future and security of the nation. The national debt is so large now, it would take 143 years to pay off the debt if the federal government started now to (a) stop borrowing billions per day, and (b) also started paying back enough per day to start reducing the debt (slightly more the daily interest alone; otherwise the debt still grows larger). It is irresponsible and immoral to be heaping that much debt onto future generations. | |||||
| = | are bought-and-paid-for, too beholding to their big-money-donors, and refuse to tackle tough issues for fear of risking re-election, or defying their big-money-donors. | |||||
| = | always outnumber the newcomers to Congress. | |||||
| = | spend too much time and tax-payers money raising more money for their campaign war-chests. | |||||
| = | fuel the partisan warfare, and seduce voters into a circular pattern that distracts the voters from more substantive issues. | |||||
| = | pressure and seduce newcomers into Congress to conform to the status quo, look the other way, or be shunned and isolated. | |||||
| = | somehow still convince many voters to empower the incumbents that use and abuse the voters. | |||||
|
Therefore, the voters can and
should peacefully force government to pass many badly-needed reforms, because government will not do it themselves. Voters are
supposed to vote out (or recall) irresponsible incumbents, repeatedly, until
elected officials are responsible and accountable. That is what voting
is supposed to be all about. That is what the voters are supposed to
do, and should have been doing all along. There are many other benefits and reasons to vote out incumbents. Benefits and Reasons to Vote Out Irresponsible Incumbents: |
||||||
| = | Accountability: The lack of accountability is not only because you failed to accurately judge the character of the candidate. It's not only because voters are consistently bad judges of character. It is also because voters keep voting for irresponsible incumbents. Thus, the system is dysfunctional, and breeds more irresponsibility and unaccountability. The problem is not just a few bad apples. It is a majority of the incumbents that are irresponsible and unaccountable, which is evidenced by the growing corruption, and the worsening of our many pressing problems. | |||||
| = |
Peer Pressure:
If voters continue to
vote out (or recall) irresponsible incumbents, it will peacefully force
government to police their own ranks. Politicians will get the
message eventually, and they will also pressure their peers to behave, for fear that voters
will not be able to discern who among the incumbents is irresponsible.
If politicians want to keep their jobs, they will have to agree to many common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms, or be held accountable. That is exactly what should happen. They do not deserve to stay, and that is the price they should pay, if they continue to look the other way. Also, a severe lack of transparency keeps the voters from seeing all that really happens. Incumbents, together (i.e. as if one entity), corrupted the current system, and cleverly over-complicated the system to reduce transparency. So, until voters have the transparency to see which incumbents are irresponsible, voters should treat them as one entity, and continue to vote out (or recall) all of them until they provide the necessary reforms to allow the voters to see who exactly to hold accountable. If some good politicians are voted out, then that is the unfortunate price they pay for looking the other way, for not policing their own ranks, and not sufficiently pressuring their peers to also be responsible and accountable. |
|||||
| = | Peaceful Force: The voters have the means, by virtue of their right to vote, to peacefully force out irresponsible incumbents. The voters' right to vote is a privilege that many have risked life and limb to secure. It should not be taken lightly. It should be used wisely and responsibly to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. No other proposed solutions have the necessary force to peacefully bring about reform. | |||||
| = | Simplicity: The right thing to do is often also the simple, common-sense thing to do. Voting out irresponsible incumbents is simply do the right thing by wisely using the right to vote. There is no need to over-complicate the goal or the means. Some will loathe it, and some will want to modify and tweak the solution. Modifications are not necessary, and it will risk failure by introducing over-complication, division, distractions, and controversy. Fortunately, the voters still have, at the moment, the most simple, safe, peaceful, non-partisan, inexpensive, ethical, and responsible thing they were supposed to be using all along: vote responsibly to vote out irresponsible incumbents, and continue to do so until government is responsible and accountable too. | |||||
| = | A Wise and Responsible Vote: This is one thing irresponsible incumbents are hoping you, the voter, will never discover. Government has no power except the power that voters grant them, and the voters must stop rewarding, empowering, and enabling government to allow the corruption and government to grow to nightmare proportions. Only the voters can bring about reform, because government will not do it voluntarily. | |||||
| = | Balance Of Power: Politicians don't have any power except for the power voters grant them. Voters must appreciate their power and responsibility, and stop empowering politicians to continue the abuse and corruption. Voting out irresponsible incumbents provides the force required to peacefully balance the power between government and the people (not merely shift it, or strip government of power to accomplish anything). | |||||
| = | Common-Sense, No-Brainer Reforms: If Congress can be peacefully forced to pass much needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms, it would increase transparency, which would yield more accountability and responsibility. For example, some obvious reforms that are badly needed are: | |||||
| (a) | One-Purpose-Per-BILL Amendment: This would reduce pork-barrel, graft, waste, and corporate welfare. It would let the voters know exactly why and who voted for or against a BILL. As it is now, no one can know why any incumbent voted for or against a 10,000 page, pork-laden BILL. | |||||
| (b) | Campaign Finance Reform: Limits must be set on campaign donations. Reform Reform this area is very badly needed. Government should not be FOR SALE. Bought-and-Paid-For incumbent politicians are too beholding to their big-money-donors. 83% of all federal election campaign donations (of $200 or more) come from only 0.15% (i.e. 300,000) of the total of 200 million eligible U.S. voters. That is on average $6667 per person from a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters. The remaining 199.7 million eligible voters only average about $2 dollars per person to federal campaigns. Money in elections makes it rotten. Members of Congress (and their staff and family members) must be prohibited from accepting large donations and gifts of any kind from lobbyists and special interest groups. | |||||
| (c) | Election Reform: Election fraud threatens the democracy. So does main parties trying to block access to ballots for third parties and independents. | |||||
| (d) | Tax Reform: The tax system is extremely complicated, abused, unfair. A simple and fair tax system is badly needed. | |||||
| (e) | Balanced Budget Amendment: The government can not even account for where all the money goes. In 2003, $24.5 billion dollars could not be accounted for. The un-reconciled $24.5 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year. A Balanced Budget Amendment is needed to limit spending except for national emergencies (only). | |||||
| (f) | Lobbying and Influence Peddling: Make it illegal for members of Congress and senior staff from taking jobs as lobbyists until after 5 years of leaving public service. The American people don't elect their representatives to promote their bank accounts and financial status upon leaving office for a lucrative lobbying positions. | |||||
| (g) | Term Limits: It eliminates the need for term-limits. It would immediately eliminate the few truly bad career politicians that remain in office as long as they keep bringing home the pork-barrel, and greasing the way for graft, corruption, and corporate welfare. But, perhaps shorter terms should still be imposed anyway ? | |||||
| (h) | Ethics Commission: Create an independent Ethics Commission to monitor and investigate unethical conduct, and report illegal activity so that violators will be held accountable. | |||||
| (i) | Stop Illegal Immigration: The numerous problems created by the governments’ extreme negligence, poor planning, and inadequate immigration controls reads like a strategic plan for national decline. It burdens our many systems (ripe for abuse), and generates resentment, increased crime, racism, chaos, and societal disorder. | |||||
| Many other subsequent improvements will probably follow, and the nation would flourish and prosper knowing it has a plan, and is upon a better path. Perhaps, taxes could be lower, while still providing for the truly needy, a strong national defense, better law enforcement and protection, and equal opportunity for all citizens. | ||||||
| = | Creates Unpredictability Which Reduces Big-Money Influence: Voting for non-incumbent candidates introduces unpredictability. It will help to reduce the influence of big-money on elections by making it difficult for those that abuse vast wealth and power to know which candidate to fund. Government should not be FOR SALE. | |||||
| = | See list of PROs and CONs. | |||||
| (05) | QUESTION: | What about the good politicians ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
What good politicians ?
OK, there may be a few (maybe). If so, vote for them. But, with such a dysfunctional system and a severe lack of transparency, who can really know ? Who are they ? Have they done anything to distinguish themselves from the typical bought-and-paid-for incumbents ? Can you list 10, 20, 50, or 100 incumbents (much less half of the 535 in Congress) that: |
||||
| = | do not vote irresponsibly for pork-barrel (while our troops risk life and limb, go without body armor, armor for vehicles, and adequate medical and health care) ? | |||||
| = | do not vote themselves cu$hy perks and raises (9 times between 1997 and 2007)? | |||||
| = | do not ignore problems for fear of risking re-election or defying their big-money-donors ? | |||||
| = | do not prevent newcomers from passing badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms ? | |||||
| = | do not tempt, pressure, and threaten newcomers with the loss of party support if the newcomers don't accept the status quo ? | |||||
| = | do not pander ? | |||||
| = | do not peddle influence and accept money from big-money-donors ? | |||||
| = | do not fuel the petty partisan warfare that distracts the nation from our many pressing problems ? | |||||
| = | do not spend a great deal of time and tax-payers' money (via allowances) trolling for money for their campaign war-chests ? | |||||
| = | do not abuse their allowances (provided by tax-payers) to retain their cu$hy, coveted seats of power ? | |||||
| = | do not look the other way ? | |||||
| = | genuinely embrace campaign finance reform, election reform, tax reform, or any reform that will create more transparent, accountable, and responsible government, even if it diminishes their opportunities for personal gain ? | |||||
| = | are fiscally responsible ? | |||||
| = |
deserve to retain their cu$hy, coveted seats of power ? |
|||||
|
Unfortunately, the system has
become so perverted and dysfunctional, it corrupts almost all within it.
Study their voting records to see the pork-barrel they voted for while our troops risk life and limb. Study the things they do and say. Study their attendance records. Study their travel habits and expenses paid for by the tax-payers. Study the use of their time, and how much of it is spent raising big-money for their campaign war-chests. Study the way they vote themselves rai$e$ (8 times between 1997 and 2006), special perk$, and cu$hy retirement plans that are not part of the same mismanaged Social Security and Medicare Systems that the rest of us are relegated to (which has been and is still being plundered). Study all those things, and you will probably be surprised at what you find. If an incumbent really is responsible, then they deserve to stay. However, there are very few (if any) that are really responsible. Incumbents not only refuse to police their own ranks, but are unable to do so. Incumbents are too entrenched in partisan warfare, fueling it, seducing voters into it, too consumed with collecting money, and too beholding to their big-money-donors. Government should not be FOR SALE. Why can Congress vote themselves a raise and cu$hy perks in a heart-beat, but they can not eliminate the marriage penalty tax ? The irresponsibility of incumbents is threatening the future and security of the nation. Therefore, few (if any) of the incumbents deserve to stay in their cu$hy, coveted seats of power, and that is the price that the incumbents should pay for looking the other way. |
||||||
| (06) | QUESTION: | What if some politicians still refuse to pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms (e.g. campaign finance reform, election reform, one-purpose-per-bill amendment, balanced budget-amendment, etc.) to increase transparency, and make government more responsible and accountable ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: | VOTE OUT (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always. If necessary, start a recall. A recall will send a very loud and clear message to their replacement and remaining incumbents, that they must vote to pass the much-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms to make government more transparent and accountable. Otherwise, they too will be voted out (or recalled), and ousted from public service. | ||||
| (07) | QUESTION: | What if there is no challenging candidate ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: | If the incumbent is irresponsible and unaccountable, the voters should start a recall, and find someone to replace the irresponsible incumbent. See: Voting Guidelines | ||||
| (08) | QUESTION: | What if the challenging candidate is not a member of my party ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: | Do not rely solely on party affiliations. Instead, vote for the person that will do the job best. Incumbents, regardless of party affiliation, have already proven that they are irresponsible. If there is a viable alternative, why not give them a chance, since they will undoubtedly understand that their political career will also be short if they follow in the footsteps of their predecessors ? Especially, since it is not as important who you vote for as it is that who you vote for understands that they too will be voted out or recalled if they are irresponsible too. See: Voting Guidelines | ||||
| (09) | QUESTION: | Why won't incumbents initiate reforms ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
Unfortunately, as history
shows us, those in government seldom initiate significant reforms
voluntarily. Because of the
power that accompanies certain offices in
government, that power is frequently abused for personal gain, unless there
is sufficient transparency and law enforcement to discourage corruption, and
encourage members of government to police their own ranks. Not all incumbents succumb to corruption, but many do, and when too many do, the system becomes dysfunctional, and even breeds more corruption. Since it is human nature to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and since power corrupts, the following anti-incumbent voting cycle is one that repeats itself: |
||||
| (a) | Without sufficient transparency and law enforcement to discourage corruption, some within government grow increasingly irresponsible. | |||||
| (b) | The people grow increasingly dissatisfied with the corruption, and frustrated with the lack of transparency to see who exactly to hold responsible. | |||||
| (c) | Thus, voters decide to vote anti-incumbent with the hope that newcomers will make government more responsible and accountable. | |||||
| (d) | Then process starts over again. Return to step (1) above. | |||||
|
Reform isn't possible until the level of corruption becomes more painful than less corruption. We are all responsible (voters and politicians), but it is unlikely government will reform itself until it is forced to do so. Most likely, only the voters can peacefully force government to reform. See: Voting Guidelines |
||||||
| (10) | QUESTION: | What makes it so difficult to decide which party or politician to support ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
Because it does not matter who
we vote for if they succumb to pressures, temptations, and the acceptance of
the status quo. Newcomers that don't conform to the status quo, will
be punished by incumbents, and soon find themselves shunned, isolated, and perhaps lose
their party support. Incumbents will not allow newcomers to pass
badly-needed, common-sense, responsible reforms. Incumbents will not
allow any reforms that may reduce their power and opportunities for
self-gain. Thus, studying, researching, and learning about candidates does not seem worthwhile. Even if it was worthwhile, it is difficult and time consuming for many voters to research and learn all that is required to make an educated and well informed vote. Negative campaigning and incumbents that fuel the petty, partisan warfare make it worse, and it distracts voters from more substantive issues. And, then, some pandering politicians don't always deliver what they promise. It is no wonder many voters do not know what to do. Nothing we're doing seems to be working. Hence, apathy, complacency, futility, and despair lead many voters to give up. But giving up will not ever resolve anything either. All voters need to do is the one simple, safe, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing they were supposed to be doing all along: vote responsibly to vote out irresponsible incumbents, and continue to do so until government is responsible and accountable too. See: Voting Guidelines |
||||
| (11) | QUESTION: | What makes some politicians' brains seem to turn to jelly after they are elected ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: | It seems that way doesn't it ? The real problem is that the system is dysfunctional. Many newcomers into the system soon succumb to the pressures and temptations. Incumbents pressure and tempt newcomers to accept the status quo, look the other way, or be shunned, isolated, and threatened with the loss of their party support. Without sufficient transparency and accountability, opportunity and power almost always leads to growing corruption. | ||||
| (12) | QUESTION: | Does history have to repeat itself over-and-over ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
No. Not unless you
believe in fate or have no faith that humans can ever learn from their
mistakes. But, history does repeat itself. History shows us that governments come and
go. There does seem to be a
cycle.
However, giving up will not solve anything. There are reasons to have hope. We ended slavery. We have taken steps toward respecting human rights, toward condemnation of tyranny and oppression. Still, while no one knows what the future holds, the only logical thing to do is to always strive to make things better, because doing nothing will only guarantee that things become worse. |
||||
| (13) | QUESTION: | If there are no government reforms soon, what will be the short and long term outcome ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
Nobody can know for certain.
However, short term, there may be some economic growth for a while, but that
growth may be fueled by massive spending, borrowing, and debt. Some
economic problems could follow (e.g. recession). If
pressing
problems are ignored for too long, the consequences could be painful
(perhaps as serious as the great depression), and could destabilize the
government. Civil unrest could spread and government may not be able to
provide sufficient law enforcement. It could conceivably lead to
government oppression (to
varying degrees), tyranny, anarchy, revolution, and war. Nobody can know for certain, but there will be consequences someday for the irresponsible actions of today. It is difficult to predict when and how, because there are many factors and the consequences of decisions often take decades (even centuries) before they are realized. But, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that decades of fiscal and moral irresponsibility will someday lead to fiscal and moral bankruptcy. And if that happens, there will be much pain and suffering. |
||||
| (14) | QUESTION: | What is the real fundamental problem with government ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
Government is too
irresponsible and unaccountable, and voters tolerate it. In fact, voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them. It is that simple. Both politicians and voters are culpable, since voters have the power to vote out irresponsible incumbents. Voters have the means to vote responsibly to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. But, who in government is most irresponsible ? Incumbents are the most irresponsible. They always outnumber the newcomers, and prevent the newcomers from passing badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms. Incumbents will not allow newcomers to pass reforms that would make government more transparent, accountable, and responsible. Incumbents have many unfair advantages too (perk$ of office, time to campaign on the job, visibility and access to media, pre-existing campaign organizations and big-money-donors already in place, and the voters that are apathetic, complacent, and have resigned to the despair and futility to change the status quo. But, the real, basic, root problem is laziness, which breeds greed and corruption. It also breeds apathy and complacency. Unfortunately, it is a simple fact of human nature. Many people naturally seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain. People seek the path of least resistance. Sometimes, through unethical or illegal methods. Especially, if there is insufficient transparency and law enforcement to discourage it. While laziness is a natural human trait, it is immoral to surrender to it completely. So, when does the corruption end ? It ends when either: |
||||
| (a) | the level of corruption becomes more painful than less corruption. | |||||
| (b) | or, people learn from experience how to avoid learning the hard way (again). | |||||
|
There is historical precedent for both (a) and (b). We sometimes wait until it is too late to take action, and, sometimes, we take action before it is too late. The later should give us hope that we will someday learn, before it is too late, to do the one simple, safe, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing we were supposed to be doing all along: vote responsibly to vote out irresponsible incumbents, and continue to do so until government is responsible and accountable too. See: The Solution. |
||||||
| (15) | QUESTION: | What can be done to peacefully force a restoration of power between government and the people (not simply shift it or strip government of all power to accomplish anything) ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
The voters really have the
last say, as long as the voters have the right to vote.
The voters are not stripping all power from government to accomplish anything. The voters are merely choosing elected officials that will be more responsible, or be held accountable. The government still has the power to enforce the laws and protect the nation. Voting out irresponsible incumbents does not harm those objectives. See: Voting Guidelines |
||||
| (16) | QUESTION: | Are things getting better, and what does the future hold ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
No one knows for certain what
the future holds. Many have tried to predict and many claim to know.
But, it is
very complex. There are many variables. However, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that extreme fiscal irresponsibility will eventually, someday, have undesirable consequences. At any rate, things may be improving slightly, short term. But, that may be an illusion due to massive spending and borrowing. Long term, things do not seem to be getting better for the U.S. Median incomes have been falling for years. We have many pressing problems. Many economic models show a positive short-term and long-term forecast, but it's difficult to predict 10 to 20 years from now. Economist, Harry S. Dent speaks of an 80 year cycle and predicts a serious financial meltdown (in 2010) that may be as bad as the Great Depression. Some other economists and politicians are also raising some concerns about the rapid growth of the national debt. Since the effects of decisions are not felt until many years or decades later, we have to be careful to not create or ignore too many problems. Otherwise, some may become too unmanageable, and we may be unable to change the course before it is too late. Also, the people need to be less dependent on government. The people should not continually ask government to provide or do things it should not do. Government and the people must reject the "great fiction that we can all endeavor to live at the expense of everyone else" -- Frederic Bastiat 1848. |
||||
| (17) | QUESTION: | What can be done to discourage corruption within government ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
Transparency
à
yields à
Accountability. Transparency can be an effective prior-to-crime deterrent.
Punishment is an after-the-crime deterrent. Transparency can be
achieved through many methods. Common-sense simplifications of
over-complicated processes is often all that is needed. For example,
One-Purpose-Per-Bill would greatly increase transparency, and allow
voters to see exactly who to hold accountable. As it is now, voters
can not know why anyone votred for or against a 10,000 page BILL loaded with
pork-barrel, graft, waste, and corporate welfare. In general, surveillance and law enforcement can be useful deterrents to crime. There are many forms of surveillance, but one obvious type is video/audio surveillance. How many crimes would never be committed if people knew they could not get away with it ? However, video surveillance is probably not a practical method to create government that is more transparent, accountable, and responsible. But, some sort of oversight and auditing is badly needed. Also, there must be equal and unbiased enforcement of the laws. Presidential pardons for those convicted by a jury and judge should not be overturned by one person; not even the president. The presidential pardon has been severely abused, and breeds corruption, in which politicians are allowed to be above the law. Who says political crime doesn't pay ? That is why, perhaps, we need an independent commission to monitor and audit activities, and investigate unethical and illegal activity by members of the Congress and the Executive branch. |
||||
| (18) | QUESTION: | Can a pure democracy exist ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: |
No. A democracy
in the pure sense is not possible. A pure democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It must also be constrained by laws that protect human and civil rights and enforce fiscal responsibility. A pure democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves anything they want from the public treasury, or unscrupulous politicians discover that they can bribe tax-payers with their own money. Laws must also exist to prevent government from borrowing and spending irresponsibly, that enforce transparency, accountability, and responsibility, discourage pork-barrel, corruption, waste, and graft. People must also refrain from selfishness, and reject the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else. Without laws and accountability, the majority will always vote for pandering candidates promising the most, which leads to fiscal irresponsibility, and possibly worse. |
||||
| (19) | QUESTION: | Are political parties the problem ? | ||||
|
|
||||||
| ßback | ANSWER: | Not really. Many people join parties because they believe their party fights for them. They believe there is power in large numbers, which is true. However, if the party does not really fight for you, there is not really power in large numbers. There is now only a larger problem. Still, parties are not the root of the problem. The problem is that the two main parties are more similar than dissimilar. Both work hard to deceive voters to believe the nation's problems are the fault of the other party, but the fact is, both are irresponsible, and their voting records and behavior prove it. | ||||
| (20) | QUESTION: | |||||