Austin Centrist

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

-W.B Yeats

I thought of this today
as folks discussed
if Iraq is in a civil war,
and wondered if it could ignite
the entire middle east?

Today three prominent articles on Centrism.

Can the GOP Find Its Center? By E. J. Dionne Jr.

"Pro-market libertarians and pro-family social conservatives are more aware than ever that their respective values and interests do not coincide."

GOP must return to its centrist roots By Governor Christine Todd Whitman

"President Bush has to lead the Republican Party back toward its traditional, philosophical roots of respect for and belief in the individual, fiscal responsibility, pragmatic and realistic foreign policy, and real environmental stewardship."

The Center of What? by David Sirota

"That’s really the problem with the term - and with Washington’s definition of it. “Centrism” as defined in the political dialogue today means “being at in the middle of elite opinion in Washington, D.C.” But if you plot this “center” on the continuum that is American public opinion, you will find that it is nowhere near the actual center of the country at large. The center of elite Washington opinion is ardently free trade, against national health care, opposed to market regulation, for continuing the Iraq War, and supportive of the flattest tax structure we’ve had in contemporary American history. That center is on the extreme fringe of the center of American public opinion, which is ardently skeptical of free trade, for universal health care, supportive of strong market regulations, insistent that the war end soon, and in favor of making the tax system more progressive."

What I mean by "Centrist" is using market forces as much as possible to promote opportunity and fairness. If market forces are ineffective then I support regulation. For instance:

Fair trade that liberates globalization while providing a sufficient safety net for American workers: Health Care, Education, Retirement security...

Barney Franks ideas of a grand bargain to reduce regulation in exchange for increased wages and benfits.

Expanding health care by reducing obstacles to competition and efficiency, and some government involvement to adjust risks. For instance I like the proposal for the government to indeminify the insurance companies for catastrophic costs in exchange for making basic care universally available.

An economic emphasis to foreign affairs that maximizes dialogue, market forces, rules of law and, inevitablity, civil liberties.

A simplifed tax system that eliminates most of the favors to specific industries.

I am not married to any of these specific remedies. But I do believe that the solutions in the Center are characterized by a reconciliation of the Democratic aims of nurturing society with the Conservative methods of nurturing market forces.

One of the more frustrating aspects of blogging are the cynical comments. Not those that correct facts or question assumptions. These I embrace. But rather those folks for whom hope is futile, and the glass is always less than half full. I often wonder why cynics bother to blog or comment. They seem to need to convince others to validate their bleak vision. To me it is pitiful.

Recently I started blogging at The Moderate Voice because I have a better chance of encountering optimism, hope, open mindedness, and constructive criticism...

And so I share excerpts from the transcript of Meet The Press with Governor Schwarzenegger. I am inspired by his sense of possibilities, self discipline, adaptability and vision. I can hear him in meetings: "Tell me what it takes to make a deal..." As an executive it is hard to image a better role model for a future President.


RUSSERT: (Reading a quote) “Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 17-point victory alone commands some attention, since it is easily the most impressive score by any Republican in a Democratic-leaning state this year - and it suggests a future for pro-environment, pro-business, fiscally conservative and socially moderate politics. ...“The key to Mr. Schwarzenegger’s victory lay not in seducing the left, but through his mastery of the state’s rising independent center.”

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: "...But what was wrong was the approach. To go and to say to the legislators, “I give you two months, and if you don’t agree with all of those things that I put on the table here in my State of the State address, then I will go to the people.” Well, the people really, you know, rejected that. They basically have said to us, “Don’t come to us with every initiative and with every idea. You fix it in the capital. That’s why we elect you, to go to the capital, and Democrats and Republicans work together.” And that’s exactly—we all got the message.

Last November, the Democrats and the Republicans got the message that the people want us to work together at the capital. And this is what we did. We sat down and we looked at each other and said, “Let us do this year the work of the people that the people really want us to do,” and that’s exactly what we have done. And both of the parties worked together, and I think we have accomplished so much because of that. And I think it just—I think if there’s any lesson in there is that we have to look—nationwide, we have to look at it much more like what is it that the people need, rather than what is good for our party. You know, that is, I think, the key thing here.

MR. RUSSERT: As you chart this independent course, a lot of conservative Republicans get upset with you. The National Review wrote this about Arnold Schwarzenegger: “Behold the new Arnold, a man bearing little resemblance to the revolutionary who toppled Governor Gray Davis just three years ago. He’s politically compliant, eager to please, and anxious to avoid a fight. One might say ... a girlie man.” That’s the National Review. How do you deal with those kinds of words?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: They’re absolutely correct that I’m eager to please the people. I’m eager to please the voters because I’m a public servant. I don’t see myself as a politician. I see myself as a public servant. I serve the people of California. I serve Democrats and Republicans, and if someone says that, that I’m eager to please, yes, I am. I’m there to please the people. That’s what this is all about. People send us to our capital to represent them and to work for them. That’s what we are going to do.

"I hold out my hand in peace to our Palestinian neighbors in the hope that it won't be returned empty," Olmert said.

"We cannot change the past and we will not be able to bring back the victims on both sides of the borders," he said. "All that we can do today is stop additional tragedies."

Al Jazeera on Israeli offer

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has said Israel is ready to "withdraw from considerable territory", free Palestinian prisoners and release funds to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for the return of a soldier seized in June.

He also said a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was possibile if peace talks were begun.

It is the first time Olmert has offered to exchange prisoners for Gilad Shalit, whose capture in a cross-border raid by Palestinian militants triggered an Israeli offensive into the Gaza Strip.

Jackie Rowland, Al Jazeera's Jerusalem correspondent, said Olmert's speech followed pressure from the US to change its policy towards the Palestinians.

She said: "The Americans have recently been making it clear to the Israelis that they really want to see progress. That there needs to be a restart of the peace process."

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera that the Palestinians were ready to negotiate a final peace deal.

He said: "We hope to also take the ceasefire to the West Bank in the next few days and we stand ready, if Mr Olmert wishes, to resume negotiations."

Olmert was speaking a day after a truce, brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was observed in Gaza, designed to halt the Israeli offensive and end rocket fire into Israel by Palestinian fighters.

So far I have avoided watching Michael Richard's racial rant because I like watching Seinfeld and didn't want to contaminate my memories and joy. I find the situation ironic because the Kramer character was a symbol of open mindedness, with friends who were small, Cuban, oriental, fat, rich, and poor.

I am a racist in recovery and have been one most of my life.

I have black friends and business associates. I owned a bar and had many black customers. I believe most of them are smarter and more sophisticated than I am. I am always respectful. I was raised by socially liberal middle class New York Jewish family who prided themselves on their embrace of all people. 99.9% of the time no one would suspect the viciousness hiding under the surface of my personality.

But once in a while, in moments of anger or fear, I lose control and revert to my inner 13 year old getting shaken down for lunch money by a gang of black guys. This formative event was an emotional experience seared into my memory. Blacks were the first and most dramatic experience I ever had of danger and threat. I lose it. I think ugly thoughts and if I am alone I say ugly things under my breath. And for a short time I loath myself about it. No one would ever know I have this affliction.

I can empathize and sympathize with Michael Richards. He lost it and his darkest most evil demon was instantly revealed to the entire world and negated a life time of bringing joy to others. I can also sympathize with the target of his wrath. It had little to do with them or their behavior.

It seems to me that most people are friendly, fair and generous when they are feeling safe, secure and prosperous. But take any of those away and they can become mean, petty, and xenophobic.

It is amazing to me that the world works as well as it does.

Politicians and spectators are on the edge of our seats to see how the Democrats manage their new and surprising influence. Will they wisely steer as close to the center as possible or will they veer left and risk alienating the moderates who voted merely to give them a chance, not a mandate.

While it appears that the Democrats have wisely moved towards the center vacated by the GOP they can still blow it if they lose control of their wingers.

So is the GOP preparing to leap into the breach? Apparently not.

All I have read is that the GOP appears to be hunkering down on the far right. The GOP leaders have made statements that seem to focus their intention on scuttling any Dem legislation, but I have read nothing about how they will prepare to attract moderate/independents in '08. With the decimation of the ranks of GOP moderates in the last election there doesn't seem to be any serious high level intention to try to replace them. The Republican Main Street Partnership and It's My Party Too are the two moderate GOP organizations but seem to be silent on the topic.

As a Centrist I am somewhat ambivalent about whether the cause is moved forward by moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans. But if the GOP is going to abdicate the center then I need to focus my attention and resources where it is likely to do the most good.

Thomas Barnett is an international strategist with a growing fan base.

He recently commented on an article by Henry Kissinger about negotiating with Iran. He agrees that to a great extent, "all the talks need to do is buy us time and a forum for starting what will inevitably be a long-term forum for regional security discussion, much like the OSCE forum was in Europe. ...No, this forum won't magically make our rapid departure from Iraq possible, and no, it won't stop Iran from getting the bomb. The regional forum concept is not designed for magical outcomes, but slowly building the collective will for permanent security regimes to arise in the region that settle the endemic conflicts and allow enough political stability for economic connectivity to ensue, which in turn will fuel social change already underway and political change that seethes just below the surface (the great fears of the despots)."

"Realism is just idealism stretched over time. It is a belief in inevitabilities that prefers inaction to action and cynicism to morality. But such delays do not constitute diversions much less defeats.

...To me, the outcome will never be in doubt, just the timing."

Triggered by the recent hiring by Lieberman of former McCain staffer Marshall Whittman both the Washington Note and Tapped have extensive commentary about a possible McCain/Lieberman independent run for President.

If it happened they would probably position themselves as Centrists running independent of the extremes of their parties. This might be appealing. But some may question these credentials.

I admit that in theory I am excited about elevating Independence, Centrism and Moderation to this kind of prominence. But I want to see the beef. I would like to see their compromise remedies for 15 or 20 of the most controversial issues. Can they demonstrate that they have a philosophy and approach that deserves to be supported at the expensive of moderates in the existing parties?

From the Boston Globe

"...the chiefs of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler went to Washington to meet with the president and supported a suggestion John Kerry proposed during his presidential campaign: a reinsurance arrangement to pay for chronic or catastrophic healthcare costs, thereby effectively taking those cases out of private health-insurance plans.

...The Plan called for having the federal government pay three-quarters of the additional expenses for patients whose healthcare costs exceed $50,000 a year, provided savings from that cost relief helped reduce health-insurance premiums.

Removing those costs from private plans could have big effects. Although they constitute less than 1 percent of all cases, catastrophic care accounts for 20 to 30 percent of healthcare expenses.

If the government were to pick up most of the bill for catastrophic care, health-insurance premiums wouldn't be under such constant pressure. According to some estimates, premiums would be 10 percent lower than if private plans continued to pay for such care.

Health-coverage costs are a recognized drag on US firms competing with companies from nations where health coverage is a government responsibility. It is a particularly pronounced burden in the auto industry, adding as much as $1,500 to the price of a new vehicle.

...a plan like this could cost at least $40 billion a year and couldbe paid for by repealing the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000."

In Florida’s 13th Congressional District Vern Buchanan, the G.O.P. candidate, narrowly defeating Christine Jennings, the Democrat.

The problem is that the official vote count isn’t credible. In much of the 13th District, the voting pattern looks normal. But in Sarasota County, which used touch-screen voting machines made by Election Systems and Software, almost 18,000 voters — nearly 15 percent of those who cast ballots using the machines — supposedly failed to vote for either candidate in the hotly contested Congressional race. That compares with undervote rates ranging from 2.2 to 5.3 percent in neighboring counties.

The most important right American citizens have is the right to vote. It is the right from which all other rights derive, and it is the right we are risking blood and treasure overseas to promote. We should not allow this right to be taken for granted. I sent Christine Jennings $50 to help her fight for a fair election.

Christine Jennings

I regularly visit the websites for the Republican Main Street Partnership and It's My Party Too. The two leading Centrist Republican political groups. I keep hoping for some indication that they are as devoted to achieving progress as they are towards regaining power. But so far - no cigar.

The new Democratic class in Congress is the most centrist it has been in recent memory. There is reasonable chance for agreement on fiscal restrain, tax reform, control of entitlements, and dozens of other relatively non controversial issues. But I am seeing or hearing nothing from the GOP about excitement over the opportunity to find common ground with the Dems. Rather the GOP leadership has been public about looking for ways to scuttle any Democratic initiatives, and position the GOP to take back the Congress in 2008.

I realize partisan groups need to promote their party, but at some point you have to do more than just try to keep your job - you have to do your job.

Democrats To Watch

Outstanding article identifying the most influential Democratic players in the new Congress. A must read to learn about who is likely to make things happen - Who are the deal makers, who are the experts...

Today is the 43th anniversary of his assassination.

I miss being overwhelmed by his talent, skill and promise.

"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
- President Lincoln

Jason Steck at Tutakai is an eloquent writer who posted these Thoughts on Pragmatism

Moderate Principles: Pragmatism

"...I first wish to focus on pragmatism, as this gets to the heart of the anti-moderate critique. Those hostile to moderates argue that pragmatism is the antithesis of principle, a wishy-washy acquiescence to the status quo that declines to find ways to move forward. The truth, however, is that pragmatism has a long history as a moral philosophy grounded in a basic humanism that it holds as morally greater than adherence to a transcendent ideal.

...Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks the simple question, "what works?" Rather than setting aside reality in the name of principles, they focus upon the messy work of reconciling the impossible with the possible. Pragmatists do not eschew idealistic principles, rather, these are the motivational force that defines whether something "works". That which "works" and is thus in accord with pragmatic principles is whatever actually (as opposed to just ideally) improves human lives.

Of course, this inevitably calls for compromises and acknowledges tradeoffs -- it is not possible to improve human lives on all dimensions simultaneously. But these compromises and acknowlegdements are principled, not opportunistic or "wishy-washy".

The charges against pragmatism as unprincipled are thus revealed as not only untrue and unfair, but also hypocritical. Where pseduo-principled ideologues stand high atop their constructed moral perch condemning everything as insufficient in the face of their higher Truth, principled pragmatics accept the drity work of applying principles to the real world."

Social Security Up for Discussion - Treasury Chief Says 'No Preconditions'

The Social Security fund may become insolvent in the future because baby boomers are starting to retire putting a demand on claims.

Meanwhile the number of employees contributing to the fund has been declining for many years.

The Dems control Congress and are aligned against diverting money from SS for private accounts. The SS fund is afterall suppose to be a safety net in case all of your investment choices tank.

The President does not want to alienate his base even more by raising taxes.

So what's left?

Look for lifting the cap that limits Social Security payroll taxes to the first $90,000 of income, thereby raising total taxes, but not tax rates, for high-income workers.

Look for a gradual rise in the age when SS benefits start, now at 62. Life expectancy has risen substantially since SS began in the 1930s.

Look for means testing, in which benefits may be limited, or eliminated, to those for whom SS benefits are pocket change.

Collectively these remedies allow significant improvement in the fiscal health of SS while allowing the GOP to claim that taxes were not raised.

Meanwhile we should be aware that the baby boom will pass in 20-30 years while a surge of industrious tax paying immigrants flood into the labor pool.

While I don't expect this to appeal to the GOP base, it might resonate with Moderates, Centrists and Independents.

Excerpt from A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives by Michael Moore, the film maker:

•We will always respect you. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

•We will let you marry whomever you want (even though some among us consider your Republican behavior to be "different" or "immoral"). Whom you marry is none of our business. Love, and be in love — it's a wonderful gift.

•We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook too, and we will balance it for you.

•When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on some amateur Power Point presentation cooked up by men who have never been to war.

•When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that afflict you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

•When we clean up our air and water, you too will be able to breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. When we put an end to global warming, you will no longer have to think about buying oceanfront property in Yuma.

•Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

•We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

•We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, take up another sport.

•When we raise the minimum wage, we will raise it for your employees, too. They will use that money to buy more things, which means you will get the money back! And when women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

•We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't practice those beliefs. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me"). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism, starting here at home.

•We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and break the law. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side first. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one."

From an Article at Bloomberg

...Young voters, ... are more likely than others to call themselves independents, and who overwhelmingly backed Democrats.

...With Democrats and Republicans voting largely along party lines, the election hinged on independents, who split 57 percent to 39 percent for Democrats, according to an exit poll conducted for U.S. television networks.

..."The danger for Republicans is that more and more people, particularly younger people, are really independent,"

..."(Independent) Voters are seeking to support candidates who are for reform and who put first the kitchen-table agenda,"

...The percentage of people who say they are independents has grown from 23 percent of the electorate just after World War II to more than one-third today.

...Two key subgroups are becoming crucial within the independent vote: the young and the non-religious

...Among those 30 and younger, Democratic House candidates got 60 percent of the vote, while 38 percent backed Republicans. At the same time, exit polls suggest this group is still up for grabs, with nearly a third of young voters saying they made up their minds about how to vote in the final days of the campaign.

...They tend to be either pro-gay marriage or more indifferent to the issue compared with older voters,"

...Fitzpatrick said he saw more interest from young and independent voters on issues such as the environment and the federal budget deficit this year.

...In the end, the non-religious were probably more influential, according to the Pew analysis. While voters who regularly attend church services voted solidly Republican, as they did four years ago, those who never go to church shifted, with 67 percent of them voting Democratic, compared to 55 percent four years ago.

..."All year, people talked about the Democrats' God problem," said Keeter. "In this election you might reframe that and say the Republicans had trouble appealing beyond the traditionally religious."

...Republican hope: waiting for the Democrats to alienate independents."


I look forward to how the messages to attract independents evolve. It seems that the pieces are coming together to craft compelling campaigns: the words, the issues, the frames, the context...

Jonathan Weisman writes in the Washington Post about "Democrats Plan Series of Votes on Ethics Reforms"

"...But they will do it with a twist: Instead of forwarding one big bill, Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues and lengthening the time spent on the debate. The approach will ensure that each proposal -- including banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists as well as imposing new controls on the budget deficit -- is debated on its own and receives its own vote. That should garner far more media attention for the bill's components before a final vote on the entire package.

...Because House rules changes are, by tradition, party-line votes, breaking the package into its components would also allow Republicans to support individual amendments...

...The unorthodox approach, more reminiscent of the drawn-out legislating done in the Senate than the slam-dunks of the House, would also give Democratic leaders a chance to show that they plan to change the way the House does business, Democrats said.

...The procedure would be as much about solidifying Democratic power as it would be about changing the rules of the House. Freshmen Democrats, many of them representing Republican-leaning districts, would take ownership of components that would resonate most with their voters, Democratic leaders said. For example, a conservative "Blue Dog" would get to present the budget-balancing rule."

Whether or not this works and the collaborative approach prevails is yet to be seen. But the intention stands in stark contrast to conduct of the recent Republican leadership, and to be fair, to the historical Democratic leadership.

Senator Lieberman just hired Marshall Whittman, one of the most articulate and passionate Centrists that I am aware of. Yipee. I can't wait to see how his influence unfolds.

Press Release

Whittman previously worked for McCain. Perhaps a speculation that Lieberman might run as McCain's VP is not such a remote possibility.

Perhaps this is what some insiders mean when they talk about a possible third party run in '08.

I rarely agree with David Sirota's intensely liberal point of view. But he is articulate, does his research and I learn from him.

In this article about Senator Max Baucus of Montana he begins by saying "As we prepare to welcome in the new Congress, we must look at where the major pressure points are going to be so that we can all prepare for battle, both during the Congress and during the 2008 congressional elections'

Baucus is up for reelection in 2008 and he will be Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee with influence over many pocket book issues including Social Security, Medicare Drugs, Free Trade, and Energy.

He is someone to keep an eye on to see if he encourages balanced policy that benefits the middle class.

Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act

E. J. Dionne writes today in the Washington Post about "An Opening on Abortion?"

"In September, a group of 23 pro-choice and pro-life Democratic House members introduced what they called the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act...includes a remarkably broad set of programs aimed at reducing teen pregnancy, promoting contraception and encouraging parental responsibility. But it also includes strong measures to offer new mothers full access to health coverage, child care and nutrition assistance.

...Why shouldn't both sides embrace broader steps that, without coercion, could cut the abortion rate by much larger numbers? We know this is possible because it has already happened: Between 1994 and 2000, the abortion rate fell by 11 percent. An ambitious national effort could do more.

There is also the politics of the issue. In her study, Laser points to a group she calls the "abortion grays," i.e., the six voters in 10 who do not see the issue in black-and-white terms. This group tilts pro-choice but does not believe abortion should always be either legal or illegal.

Taking substantial steps to reduce the abortion rate will not settle the larger ethical argument over the practice. But it could show that politicians are capable of living up to their highest calling, which is to seek practical forms of moral seriousness."

Sebastian Mallaby writes in the Washington Post about how to reconcile opinions about trade between the Parties in Breaking The Trade Deadlock - Opposing Parties Can Join Forces in Congress

Some highlights are:

Tax simplification would increase the amount of income that is taxable so that the overall tax rates can be lowered.

Republicans cannot expect support for trade unless they do more to compensate workers who get hit by globalization

About 70 percent of Farm Subsidies go to the richest 10 percent of farmers.

Making money selling solar power

"...Sun Edison LLC, gets stores, warehouses and factories to let him buy, install and maintain solar panels on their roofs and he gives them 10- to 20-year contracts for energy with set prices. That way companies don't need to make the initial investment for the panels, whose payback periods can be long.

...When the panels were installed in January 2004, Whole Foods was paying about 1 percent less than utility rates for electricity. But rates have since soared and now the store's power costs about 20 percent less than the electricity sold by the local utility, a bonus for its effort to promote an environmentalist image.

If utilities start charging customers more for electricity during peak-usage periods -- around midday and early afternoon, when solar power is most available, the solar business could get another boost."

The more the government removes the tax advantages to non-renewable energy systems, the faster we can lower the cost of providing energy and lower the impact on the environment.

Schwarzenegger searches for a role in '08

How about Arnuld partnering with Mayor Bloomberg to promote Centrists running for Congress. Growing the core of centrist dealmakers in Congress is a prescription for inspiring the growing ranks of independent/Centrist/moderate voters.

What an exciting merger of talent, skill, celebrity, resources and hope.

A Shutdown at the Favor Factory

"While House Republicans reacted to stinging rejection from America's voters by refusing to change leadership, their Senate counterparts have tried to use their closing weeks in power to enact a last burst of pork-barrel spending. But that effort was stalled last week by independent-minded Republican senators, spearheaded by two abrasive freshmen and one longtime hair shirt. Before Congress recessed Friday for Thanksgiving, the GOP leadership appeared to capitulate."

Bravo to Rs Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, John Sununu and John McCain for resisting the culture of Pork.

The article implies that there is resistance to frugality from: Robert C. Byrd, a legendary king of pork returning as Appropriations Committee chairman, Current Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, Current House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, and Democrat Kent Conrad, who will be Budget Committee chairman in the new Congress.

Whether something is Pork is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps a compromise is to allocate to each congressman a budget based on population that they can allocate to projects in their districts. That way they can still service the needs of their constituents without too much abuse to the national budget.

Rep. Charlie Rangel proposed reinstatement of the Military Draft. If we can't assemble a sufficient volunteer force then a draft seems reasonable.

But I favor a larger context: National Service. Imagine if we offered college scholarships to those who volunteer for national service to assist in troubled schools, election monitors, border patrol, immigration processing, Peace corp, Americorp and enlist in the military.

The Scholarship could be increased on a sliding scale in proportion to the amount of risk.

Time for Tax Reform

From LA Times Editorial:

"...it's time for Congress to take another stab at a major rewrite of the tax code that eliminates most of the preferences and loopholes. By broadening the tax base — in other words, requiring more corporate and personal income to be taxed — lawmakers can lower rates without reducing the total amount collected by the IRS.

...In the coming year, the new Democratic majority will have an unusually strong incentive to work with Republicans on fundamental tax reform... If Democrats don't act, they risk being pilloried for raising taxes. A revenue-neutral measure that dramatically simplified the tax code would effectively change the subject."

At the height of abuse earmarks account for $47 Billion as compared to $2 trillion raised by the IRS with a system convoluted with thousands of favors.

Rep. Frank offers business a 'grand bargain'
Reduced regulations for more job benefits

"Representative Barney Frank has proposed in a series of meetings with business groups a "grand bargain" with corporate America: Democrats would agree to reduce regulations and support free-trade deals in exchange for businesses agreeing to greater wage increases and job benefits for workers."

Bravo!

I wrote a post a few days ago about the how blocking legislation is often one of the essential tools of promoting an agenda. The recent passing of Milton Friedman reminds me that reducing government interference with markest forces is an essential tool for optimizing the efficiency of society. This may be one of the areas of agreement among the conservative members of Congress. How can they reduce the obstacles imposed by government?

Can a simpler tax system liberate all the costs of compliance and make it easier to collect taxes?
Can removing regulations increase competition in the health care field and reduce costs?
Can simplifying and reducing the cost of health care allow the US to be more competitive internationally?
Can eliminating tax advantages to the non-renewable energy industry promote energy efficiency.
Can allowing vouchers in underperforming school districts inspire better results?
Can decriminalizing personal drug use liberate prison space for real predators and money for treatment?

I recognize that there areas such as rising inequality and global climate change that require that the free market be tempered. But there is so much opportunity just waiting for courageous legislators to liberate.

George Will writes about why Bloomberg won't run for President and highlights the accomplishments on his watch as Mayor:

"The unemployment rate (4.1 percent) is the lowest on record, and the city's credit rating is at the highest level ever. With crime down 20 percent since Bloomberg took office -- after a 57 percent reduction during the Giuliani years -- the FBI rates this as the nation's safest large city, which is one reason for the sharp increase in applications to Columbia University and New York University. Welfare caseloads, which totaled 1.1 million a decade ago, are under 400,000. In 2005 the percentage of high school students graduating on time was the highest since the city began keeping that statistic in 1986. Bloomberg credits his crusade against smoking with the decline in heart attacks that has helped make the life expectancy of city residents higher than that of the rest of the nation."

Both in philosophy and practice it seems to me that NY Mayor Bloomberg is the number one Centrist in the country. He is one of the most successful Mayors, and richest self made men, in the Country. While I understand his reasons for declining to run for President he can still leverage his insight and resources to expanding the number of Centrists in Congress.

He lent his political organization and fundraising mojo to Joe Lieberman. Imaging if he did likewise to the 20 most promising Centrist candidates in 2008?


A Mayor With Too Much Candor To Be President

"A Montana state senator has officially changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, breaking a tie to give his new party a 26-24 advantage."

I have to wonder if many moderate Republicans Candidates are thinking the same thing.

Republican moderates were the big losers Nov 7, which tilts the GOP team in Congress towards the right. Which increases the likelihood that right wing candidates will be recruited by the leadership for upcoming elections. Meanwhile Dems are poised to increase their majorities in 08.

A moderate Republican may see the writing on the wall that the place to be if you want to pass legislation is with the Conservative Dems.

On the other hand, there could be a GOP epiphany that to stay relevant they need to bulk up their Moderate ranks.

"Soon-to-be Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) explained in a conference call today that “To the frustration of any majority, the minority in the Senate has and has always had enormous sway over the outcome. When we are majority obviously we are frustrated by that, but when you are in the minority you find it somewhat liberating.”

He explained, “And as odd as it sounds, some of the high points of my Senate career have been killing things” and recalled his memories of the “genuine, all night, round-the-clock filibuster” that he had organized to kill a bill to create taxpayer funding of elections and spending limits.

“We stayed up all night, killed it with a filibuster and proudly proclaimed its demise amidst all these observations by the Washington Post and the New York Times that it would mean disaster for Republicans.”
He said it was his strategy for the coming year to hold 41 senators together to “shape legislation that we think is fixable or stop altogether legislation we think should not make it out of the Senate at all."

(From Killer Instinct by Amanda B. Carpenter Capital Brief Blog at Human Events, a conservative gathering place, 11-16-2006)

It's true that sometimes stopping something bad from happening is as important as causing something good to happen. The world is a better place because we stopped Hitler, Japan, Communism.

I don't happen to agree with many of the items blocked by either party, but I have to respect that it is a necessary skill to advance a point of view.

House Republicans stuck with John Boehner of Ohio to head their caucus, with Roy Blunt of Missouri remaining his deputy as party whip.

Blunt distributed this material to his colleagues:

"24 Months to a New Republican Majority — A Plan for Victory," Blunt outlined 60 Democratic seats carried by President Bush in 2004 where Republican leaders will apply pressure either to flip Democrats on the floor or punish them in campaign materials for voting with party leaders.
"We must hold our Conference together to deny [presumptive House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) victory and force vulnerable Democrats to take tough votes," Blunt wrote. "This won’t be as simple as going to the floor every day and simply voting ‘no.’ We will have to offer well-crafted alternatives that allow some of our Members to vote ‘yes’ on a better plan before voting on the Pelosi plan."
Blunt outlines amendments he would offer to projected votes implementing pay-go rules in the budget process, raising the minimum wage and allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, each of which is expected to be part of package offered by Democrats in the first 100 hours of their majority."

It would be nice to assume that this signals an inspiring competition to establish which party is more responsive to the voters and will rush to reform ethics, health care, Iraq, Energy, etc. But I fear that the intention of the Republicans is sophisticated sabotage to try to amend each proposal with poison pills.

For example: They may say they are for raising the minimum wage as long as the Democrats agree to end the Estate Tax which lowers government income when the debt is climbing. Perhaps the Blue Dogs can broker a compromise in which the Estate Tax threshold is adjusted rather than completely eliminated.

These are interesting times.

The essense of this article is that the extreme redistricting promoted by Republican Leaders has damaged Texas by ousting Congressman who could be assuming committee chairmanships. 10 Congressman with 138 years of seniority in Congress were the ranking Democrats on several important committees (Agriculture, Homeland Security, Rules.

This is a good arguement against the arrogance of power and for the wisdom of a redistricting process that aims for balanced political representation.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/11/17/17bickerstaff_edit.html

May the best bulldog win: GOP rivals

From The Hill, By Patrick O’Connor

"House Republicans have already begun mapping their attack strategy for the next two years. Leadership candidates have highlighted their plans to hammer the incoming Democratic majority for ethical lapses, fiscal irresponsibility and legislative mismanagement, borrowing from a playbook those same Democrats used with great success to unseat the Republican majority. Leadership hopefuls have made regaining the majority the central thrust of their campaigns..."

...(Rep, Bill) Thomas, who has never shied from partisan sparring, told his soon-to-be-former colleagues to hammer Pelosi immediately for her attempts to elevate Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) to the majority leader post despite his role as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the FBI’s Abscam investigation..."


Quoted in Bloomberg:

``We certainly have to convince the American people that we are the party of ethics; we are the party of change; we are the party of balanced budgets,'' said Representative Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record), a Texas Republican who backs Boehner. ``It was stunning to see that two-thirds of independents thought that the Democrats would be better at controlling spending.''


As an independent this kind of two faced doubletalk is not what I want to hear.

Yesterday General Abizaid updated the Senate on Iraq. He believes that the Iraqi government is close to taking responsibility for their own security. To leave too early would undermine all that has been invested so far.

So it appears that the contribution the Democrats intend to make to the equation is to push for withdrawl as a way to provide pressure on the Iraqis to accelorate their progress - assuming the role of "Bad Cop."; as compared to the President's open ended support, essentially the "Good Cop".

Rep. Ike Skelton, backs a plan that would set a formula to send home troops. For every three Iraqi units deemed proficient, one U.S. unit should come home, he said.

It seems to me that this validates the wisdom of the checks and balances of our government which, in this case, allows the Congress to play a role in helping to motivate our allies.

The 44 Blue Dog House Democrats have a 12-point reform plan for restoring fiscal sanity. It is worth posting this wish list because circumstances make it likely that some or all of these will be seriously considered by a relatively conservative Congress. All of these sound reasonable but the devil is in the details and unintended consequences are likely.

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/docuploads/BlueDogPlan.pdf

1. Require a balanced budget.
2. Don’t let Congress buy on credit.
3. Put a lid on spending.
4. Require agencies to put their fiscal houses in order.
5. Make Congress tell taxpayers how much they’re spending.
6. Set aside a rainy-day fund.
7. Don’t hide votes to raise the debt limit.
8. Justify spending for pet projects.
9. Ensure that Congress reads the bills it’s voting on.
10. Require honest cost estimates for every bill that Congress votes on.
11. Make sure new bills fit the budget.
12. Make Congress do a better job of keeping tabs on government programs.

Having teased Newt in the previous post I want to strike a balance by declaring my admiration for him.

He is perhaps the most qualified person to talk about the realities of the hand to hand combat of bi-partisanship. He should be invited to every meeting that requires reconciling ideologies and methods. He partnered with Hilary Clinton to propose legislation to lower the cost of health care by standardizing paperwork.

In this article he describes the different forms bi-partisanship can take in the near future:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009251

"From a House Republican standpoint, the center of gravity should be the 54 Blue Dog Democrats. If we and the Blue Dogs can find a handful of key things to work on together, we can almost certainly create a majority on the floor just as the Reagan Republicans and conservative Democrats did in 1981. Bipartisanship can be conservative and back bench rather than liberal and establishment leadership defined. What did the Blue Dogs promise to get elected? What was the nature of their coalition back home? They give us the best opportunity to create grassroots efforts to pass solid legislation...
-- From Newt Gingrich's Winning the Future Newsletter November 15

I use my blog as a personal process for learning about what I believe and how the political world works. This quote from Newt gives me a little insight into how Masters play the game and where I should watch for the leading edge of congressional action.

Which are the most charismatic Centrist teams for President/Vice President?

Clinton/Obama

McCain/Giuliani

Today the health insurance industry proposed an expansion of Medicaid and new tax breaks with the goal of guaranteeing coverage for all children in three years and for virtually all adults within 10 years.

- The federal government and the states should expand Medicaid to cover all adults with annual incomes under the poverty level

- The Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover all children in families with incomes less than twice the poverty level.

- Congress should create tax incentives for people to establish “universal health accounts.” People could take tax deductions for amounts contributed to such accounts. They could use the accounts to pay premiums for any type of health insurance. The federal government would help pay premiums for people with incomes below certain levels.

- Congress should establish a tax credit for individuals and families who buy health insurance for their children.

Many economists say the tax code is biased against individual insurance. The industry said it was proposing “full tax deductibilty for health insurance premiums” to correct the bias.

This is MAJOR progress subject mainly to how much subsidy the Government will provide to folks in the lower income levels.

It is my hope that over time all insurance policies will be owned by each individual to emphasize the responsibilities of ownership.

"Never underestimate the ability of a small, dedicated group of people to change the world. Indeed, nothing else ever has." Margaret Mead

This is such a relevant quote when referring to Congressman Rahm Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer who moved the balance of American politics to the vital center.

As the House and Senate Campaign directors they personally converted the thoughts and feelings of millions of people around the globe into action.
They recruited Centrist candidates.
They raised enough money to offset the GOP resources.
They tenaciously managed the candidates, campaigns and messages.
They are the Democrat's Rove.

The change would not have happened without them.

Now we know whom to keep our eyes on for insights into how the Congress will perform and how to help in 2008 when all the House Seat, one third of the Senators, and the President are up for election.

Which candidates will they recruit, which messages will they craft, how will they court the independent moderate voters?

I came across these reasonable comments from Paul Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., and the new president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

...by using labels like “pro-gun Democrats” to describe candidates like Jim Webb, falls back into one of the good-bad traps of political discourse...Concerns for gun violence prevention and public safety should not be categorized as pro-gun versus anti-gun.

What’s “anti-gun” about wanting background checks to make sure that those with criminal records aren’t buying guns legally?

What’s “anti-gun” about restricting bulk sales of handguns, a sure sign that someone wants to sell those guns illegally on the secondary market?

Why isn’t it “pro-gun” to want to crack down on the 1 percent of gun dealers who sell 57 percent of the guns that end up being used illegally; or to support more financing for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

When a candidate says he wants to enforce “the gun laws on the books,” why don’t we see that as being opposed to the gun lobby’s efforts to weaken “the laws on the books”?...

I sent off this modest request to the Leading Centrist Political Organizations:

Dear DLC, RMSP and IMP,

May I request that you consider a Centrist policy-oriented Blog and PAC as a collaboration of the DLC, Republican Main Street Partnership and Its My Party too.

The general theme would be "What are reasonable compromises and why?"

Your supporters have more in common with each other than they do with the extreme wings of their parties. We are enthusiastic about pragmatic compromises that move our society forward.

Most political Blogs are venues for rants, gossip and quibbling. Perhaps you can help provide a civil information exchange that brings readers together rather than pushing them apart. You would help bring "facts" and informed insight into the discussions. It would allow for civil discuss about the differences in the Republican and Democrat approach to issues. In many ways it might be an alternative to the inflammatory talk radio community. It would help educate a small motivated army of activists who would influence others.

Such a Blog may come to emulate the online traffic at Daily Kos, Huffington Post. And become a leading contact point for the press.

Thanks,

Ignoring for a moment any disagreement with Rove's values, his logistics are state of the art and deserve to be studied and emulated. His team learns as much as possible about each voter who could possibly be sympathetic with his client/candidate. He communicates with each voter in as personal a way as possible to persuade them that Rove's client is the best choice for advancing the voters values and needs.

Who is working on figuring out who all of the Independent, Moderate, and Centrists voters are and getting them into a database?

Who is working on how to stay in touch with them and crafting messages that inspire their Centrist spirits?

The only lead I have is Mayor Bloomberg of NY who may have aspirations for his Centrist politics.

Iowa Gov. Vilsack announced that he is running for president...or maybe for Vice President.

Vilsack is chairman of the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council and a former chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.

During his eight years as governor, Vilsack has sought to chart a moderate course. He balanced the state's budget during the recession of 2001 and 2002 by making deep cuts in spending, including furloughing 10 percent of the state's workforce. He resisted pressure to push for tax increases, and signed into law a measure phasing out the sales tax on utility bills.

Chafee unsure of staying with GOP after losing election

"Two days after losing a bid for a second term in an election seen as a referendum on President Bush and the Republican Party, Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he was unsure whether he'd remain a Republican.

"I haven't made any decisions. I just haven't even thought about where my place is," Chafee said at a news conference Thursday when asked whether he would stick with the Republican Party or switch to be an independent or Democrat.

When asked if his comments meant he thought he might not belong in the Republican Party, he replied: "That's fair."

Chafee, 53, is the most liberal Republican in the Senate and was the sole Senate Republican to vote against the war in Iraq. That was not enough to save his seat against the winner, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who shared many of Chafee's views but was a member of the dominant party in a state where Democrats far outnumber Republicans.

When asked whether he felt that his loss may have helped the country by switching control of power in Congress, he replied: "To be honest, yes."

"The people have spoken all across America. They want the Democrats and Republicans to work together," Chafee added. "I think the president now is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that's going to be good for America."

A lifelong Republican who succeeded his father, the late John Chafee, in the U.S. Senate, Chafee said he waged a lonely campaign to try to bring the party to the middle. He described attending weekly Thursday lunches with fellow Republican senators and standing up to argue his point of view, often alone.

"There were times walking into my caucus room where it wasn't fun," he said.

Chafee said he stuck with the party in large part because it allowed him to bring federal dollars home to Rhode Island. He said he did not regret not switching parties before the election because he felt it kept him in the best position to help Rhode Island to remain with what was then the majority party.

He also described himself as a loyal Rhode Island Republican, and said he didn't want to communicate that he was suddenly "flying the coop." He said he worked to build the party since he was a child, when his father first won elected office when he was 3 years old.

Chafee, who built his reputation on a willingness to vote independently and speak more openly than many other senators about controversial issues, said he was surprised at the "pack mentality" that dominates among politicians in Washington.

"People don't like to step out," Chafee said. "They need a pack to go anywhere. That's not good for the country."

Chafee said he has not decided on his next step, but said he hoped to stay involved in public life.

By Michelle R. Smith, Associated Press, November 9, 2006, PROVIDENCE, R.I.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/11/09/chafee_unsure_of_staying_with_gop_after_losing_election/

Low hanging fruit are those policies in which the party leaders are closer together than further apart.

- Raise the minimum wage
- Give middle class families a tax deduction for tuition offset by increasing the tax on the rich.
- Allow Medicare to negotiate bulk purchase of drugs
- Senate Immigration plan.
- Redirect Energy industry tax breaks towards renewable energy methods.
- Restore Iraq contract oversight
- Reduce corporate subsidies not in the national interest.
- Ethics reform. More transparency.
- Limit earmarks.
- Redistricting reform and more open primaries, move election day to Saturday.
- Remove barriers to competition in the Health Insurance industry.
- Remove ideological restrictions on sex education and access to day after pills.
- Concede that the country is not yet ready for Gay Marriage but is for civil unions.
- Set a threshold for Estate Taxes and move on.
- Simplify Taxes - combine a flatter tax with a higher consumption tax.
- State Children’s Health Insurance Program
- No Child Left Behind
- Social Security adjustments: raise retirement age, remove tax cap, Means testing.
- Set up bipartisan teams to work out the more controversial issues.
- Implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.

It would be reassuring to hear of a steady stream of policy reconciliations over the next few years while we get to the really important stuff like a flag burning amendment ;-)

Americans demonstrated why our form of democracy is about as good as it gets.

In a triumph for moderation, the constitution, and civil society the House AND Senate changed leadership. In only a few hours after 78,000,000 citizens turned out for a midterm election, and the spending of $2.6 Billion on campaigns, voters peacefully and efficiently changed the direction of the richest, most complex, and most powerful nation on the planet. A majority of Americans seem to agree that the country is going in the wrong direction and the president needs more checks and balances.

The feedback from this election is almost too much to digest at one sitting:

- The Dems didn't win as much as the GOP lost the trust of independents.
- The politics of playing only to a party's base hopefully has become obsolete.
- The value of courting the independent voters may have been enhanced.
- Negative campaigning does work.
- Dems had the sense to recruit moderate candidates.
- Conservatives sometimes go too far: South Dakotans rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.
- Lieberman may inspire an increasing role and opportunity for independents.
- The Country is socially modest: Most gay marriage bans passed.
- Most Smoking Bans passed. The Public sees this more of a health issue than a freedom of choice issue.
- The Democrat team in Congress is now more Centrist and the Republican team is now relatively more extreme.

I hope both parties get the message to move to the center, compromise and make incremental progress and address its own organizational weaknesses by reforming: Lobbying, Redistricting, Elections, Earmarks, and the transparency of its own operations.

Cleaning (the) House: Obey, Frank, Price and Allen Unveil Reform Package

Washington, Dec 5 2005

Today, with public confidence in Congress shaken by recent scandals and after years of watching House good governance rules bent and broken, four leading House Democrats unveiled a reform package.

The new package would put Congressional travel off limits to lobbyists, strengthen fiscal responsibility, curb abuses of power, prevent the use of earmarks to buy votes, end the 2 day Congressional work week, prohibit legislation from being voted on without members having time to familiarize themselves with it, and prevent legislative items from being slipped into conference reports between the House and Senate without a full public vote by the conference committee.

David Obey (D-WI), Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, Barney Frank (D-MA), Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, David Price (D-NC), Member of the Appropriations Committee, and Tom Allen (D-ME), Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the proposal at a panel discussion at the Center for American Progress. They were joined in the panel discussion by Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the forthcoming book “Broken Branch”, and Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

“These reforms are meant to restore checks and balances to the legislative process and to make it harder for lobbyists to put their fingers on the legislative scales,” said Obey.

"This is not simply about parliamentary procedures in the House. Representative democracy is being thwarted by current Republican practice. In particular, they are using their control to allow Republican members to mislead constituents by concealing or misrepresenting their position on important issues," said Frank.

“There has been a deterioration of both process and performance in Congress over the last several years – changes that have made Congress less accountable to the American people and the American people less confident in Congress,” said Price. “We must restore the integrity of the House by curbing abuses of power and ensuring that policies are enacted in the light of day, with time for full and open debate.”

"As with the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the centralization of authority in the House of Representatives has come at a disastrous cost for democracy, decency and the public interest,” said Allen. “The public has awoken to the folly of current leaders’ practice of passing bills only with a majority of the majority. The result is votes held open for hours to allow for vote buying; huge bills, with nefarious special interest riders attached, rushed to the floor after midnight so Members and the public can't read them; budget rules routinely waived to permit deficit-adding tax cuts. It's time to put the people's voice back into the People's House."

Below is an explanation of the bill.


AMENDING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE INSTITUTION


LIMITING INFLUENCE BY LOBBYISTS

1. No member or staff of the House of Representatives may accept travel or lodging or reimbursement for such expenses if he or she has not obtained from the sponsor, and filed with the Clerk of the House, the following declarations:

a. that no lobbyists have been invited to travel, lodge or attend meetings with the Member or staff,

b. that the sponsor does not conduct lobbying activities as defined in section
501 of the Internal Revenue Code,

c. that the sponsor neither employs a registered lobbyist nor contracts for such services nor is it affiliated with such an entity, and

d. that the trip was not financed by a corporation unless through contributions deductible under the Internal Revenue Code and the source of all such contributions are disclosed in the declaration.

2. Any former Member of the House who wishes to exercise the right to be present on the Floor of the House when the House is in session must sign a declaration stating that the House is not debating or voting on an issue on which the former member has a financial interest and that the former member will not advocate in any way in behalf of or in opposition to any matter before the House while present on the floor.


FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

3. A reconciliation measure shall not be in order if it would increase the size of the budget deficit compared to the CBO baseline for the coming or subsequent fiscal years. This rule may be waived only with the consent of the majority and minority leaders and if the House agrees to consider the rule by a 2/3 vote of the House.

4. Close the loophole in current rules under which Budget Act points of order do not apply to unreported legislation. Under present rules, amendments to an unreported measure are subject to Budget Act restrictions but the underlying bill is not.


CURBING ABUSES OF POWER

5. No recorded vote in the House of Representatives or the committee of the Whole House can last longer than 20 minutes without the consent of either both Floor managers or of both Leaders.

6. Amend the House Ethics Code to make it an offense for a Member to condition funding for earmarks requested by another Member on how the requesting Member votes on legislation.

7. Amend the House Ethics Code to make it an offense for any Member to advocate an earmark unless that Member discloses whether he or she either has a financial interest in the entity or exercises any control over it, such as appointing members of the organization’s board.

8. If a rule makes in order text that is different from what the committee of jurisdiction has reported, the rule must provide the chairman or ranking minority member, if requested, a preferential amendment – neither divisible nor amendable unless adopted and all necessary points of order waived - to restore the bill (in whole or in part) to its original form.

9. A rule may waive points of order against a measure but only if the rule also waives the same points of order for an amendment if requested by the minority leader or designee.


ENDING TWO-DAY WORK WEEKS

10. Before the House can adjourn at the end of a session, the House must have conducted 20 or more weeks with at least one recorded vote or quorum call on at least four of the five calendar work days.


KNOWING WHAT THE HOUSE IS VOTING ON

11. Except for measures on the suspension calendar, the House cannot consider legislation unless printed copies of such legislation have been available to all members of the House for a period of 24 hours. This rule can be waived only if two-thirds of the House votes to consider such a waiver.


FULL AND OPEN DEBATE IN CONFERENCE

12. It shall not be in order for the House to agree to go to conference on a general appropriation bill unless the Senate expresses its differences with the House in the form of numbered amendments.

13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference report unless there has been a formal open meeting of the conference at which all provisions on which the two bodies disagree are open to discussion and the resolution of the differences between the two bodies is approved by a recorded vote of a majority of House appointed conferees. The requirement that the discussion and votes stipulated in this rule must be held in open session may be waived for purposes of national security, but such votes and discussions are required in the executive session of the conference. This rule cannot be waived by majority vote but can be waived by unanimous consent.

14. It shall not be in order to consider any conference report that is materially different from what was agreed to by a majority of House conferees in an open session of the conference and was not part of the final package on which a favorable vote was cast by a majority of House Conferees. This rule cannot be waived by majority vote but can be waived by unanimous consent..

What if the FEC offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of anyone responsible for election tampering, including but not limited to RoboCalls,
scaring voters away from the polls, making voting more difficult.

Perhaps the reward is increased in proportion to the amount of impact.

If the tampering is significant enough the outcome can be changed.

With enough incentive someone will break the veil of secrecy..and get a book deal ;-)

If you believe that the Country has been led in the wrong direction and that the President needs checks and balances then please consider sending $20-$50 to these Senate Candidates in close races.

McCaskill
Tester
Menendez
Ford
Webb
Cardin

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

I sent Republican Congressman Jeff Flake a contribution to thank him for his public campaign against pork. I also sent along a suggestion.

Instead of fighting earmarks why not consider giving each Representative a budget based on population so they can bring home the bacon without being covert about it. Then they become responsible for how they want to allocate it to their district, within some reasonable limits.

A further calculation could be based on how much federal money their district is already getting. If it is below, or above, average perhaps there is an adjustment to the pork budget for that Representative.

All of us get a little crazy when someone wants to take power away from us. And this approach allows us to gently reduce the corrupting influence on how our representatives vote on our behalf.

FactCheck.org analyzes political ads for accuracy:

"This year, as in the 2004 campaign, a number of persons have asked us how candidates and other groups can get away with such deceitful advertising. The truth is that the law of libel is not a practical deterrent. There also is no federal "truth in political advertising" law on the books, nor is there likely to be such a law so long as the First Amendment stands. For a full discussion see "False Ads: There Oughtta Be A Law! Or – Maybe Not," our Special Report from June 3, 2004. Our system of government leaves it to voters to sort out the truth from what they see and hear, with whatever help they can get from a free press"

Perhaps the solution lies in changing the geometry of the question. Instead of trying to regulate the content of ads, we use public funds (or funds from the Parties) to run a frequent public service message that corrects the inaccuracies of any recent ads - perhaps produced by the Factcheck.org folks. Since a candidate would not want to have the airwaves filled with objective criticism they would be inclined to stay as reasonable as possible.

It seems to me that the majority of the Country thinks of itself as fiscally conservative and may be resistent to a centralized government solution to health care. Consequently a market based approach may provoke the least resistance.

David Gratzer is the author of "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." Here is my spin on his remedies:

- Everyone owns their own insurance policy.
- Allow interstate policies and competition. Remove state mandates that fragment the industry and thwart competition.
- Promote transparent comparative data so consumers can make informed choices.
- Congress should fund Medicaid with block grants to the states, and let them innovate instead of trying to control Medicare at the Federal Level.
- Remove price controls from Medicare, using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan as a model. Elderly Americans would have a choice among competing private plans.
- Reduce FDA bureaucratic obstacles, and thus the cost, of developing new remedies.

Controlling Health care cost may also be a central element to optimizing USA competitivness in an increasingly global marketplace.

By JAMES GLANZ NYTimes Nov 3,06

"Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

...Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who followed the bill closely as chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, says that she still does not know how the provision made its way into what is called the conference report, which reconciles differences between House and Senate versions of a bill. Neither the House nor the Senate version contained such a termination clause before the conference, all involved agree...

...The termination language was inserted into the bill by Congressional staff members working for Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and who declared on Monday that he plans to run for president in 2008."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03reconstruct.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=590b5ef31979d828&hp&ex=1162616400&partner=homepage

Christopher Hitchens proposes a shrewd resolution to the unintended disparagment of our troops by Senator Kerry:

"I propose a compromise. Sen. Kerry and his party should publicly demand that the U.S. military be allowed to recruit openly on elite campuses. And the supposed reason for the ban on ROTC--the continuing refusal of the armed services to admit known homosexuals--should be dispelled at a stroke by a presidential order rescinding the Clintonian nonsense of "don't ask/don't tell." It is already outrageous that the CIA, for example, has been firing Arabic and Persian translators because of their supposed private sexual lives. That policy certainly could have come from bin Laden himself.

This is going to be a long war, and not just in Iraq, and we have learned something this week about the perceived inequality with which it is shared and experienced. It would be good if a sideshow spat in a rather mediocre election season could have the effect of making two self-evident wrongs into a right."

Wall Street Journal, The Patrician and the Grunts - What we can learn from John Kerry's latest flub.

"Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor London Times

Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

“If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush [in the Arab world],” he said.

The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons."


Looks like we need a diplomatic solution to contain a situation that would likely bring an end to mankind. It would need China and Russia to participate in a sweeping treaty to contain nuclear weapons. Perhaps all atomic fuel would be produced in Russia and China. Perhaps Israel agrees to abandon its weapons with international guarantees of its safety. Jerusalem is made an neutral international protectorate.

This could get very bad OR sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Maybe this is an international wake-up call.

I wish we had a team with more talent and diplomatic maturity than the crew we now have in the White House.

Why I am voting for Strayhorn for Governor

I believe that there are many inspired ways to improve how our government operates. But most legislators are not inclined to participate in the process of crafting balanced compromises.To get re-elected they need to maintain the alligence of the passionately extreme donors of their party. Party Leadership rewards loyalty with positions of influence.

But what if a sufficient number of legislators were more interested in identifying themselves with legislative progress rather than ideological purity? Can we improve education and experiment with Vouchers? Can we make health care more available by improving competition and access to comparative information? Can we improve the environment by reducing financial advantages for destructive practices?

I think Strayhorn has the best chance of adjusting the political system to facilitate electing candidates who want to engage in these kinds of negotiation?

Qutoed in the Statesman: "Instead of Democratic and Republican voters choosing candidates in separate primaries, Strayhorn said, all candidates should appear on the November ballot, with the top two advancing to a runoff if nobody claims a majority of the vote.

"It puts everyone on a level playing field," Strayhorn said.

Some of Strayhorn's governmental reform ideas:
•End political primaries.
•Institute four-year waiting period before lawmakers become lobbyists.
•Ban lobbyists' gifts to lawmakers.
•End state contracts with lobbyists in Washington.
•Institute voter initiative and referendum.

I would add the creation of a relatively non-partisan redistricting commisson to try to increase the amount of competition in campaigns.

If we can fix the process we can improve the chances for better quality policy.

"Republicans Outnumber Democrats Online, According to Nielsen//NetRatings

"NEW YORK, NY -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 11/01/2006 -- Nielsen//NetRatings (NASDAQ: NTRT), a global leader in Internet media and market research, announced today that 36.6 percent of U.S. adults online are Republicans, 30.8 percent are Democrats and 17.3 percent are Independents. With campaign Web sites becoming increasingly important to reaching the electorate, candidates need to keep their fingers on the political pulse of the Internet.

"When respondents were asked about their political leaning, the largest segment, 36.1 percent, identified themselves as "Moderate." The second largest segment, 32.5 percent, identified themselves as "Conservative/Very Conservative," while 19.8 percent of respondents identified themselves as "Liberal/Very Liberal."


It seems to me that most people see themselves as first a Republican or Democrat before they parse themselves into liberal, conservative or moderate.