Checks and Balances...
As I write these blogs, I wonder who my audience is. You see, I'm becoming convinced that it's increasingly a matter of us and them. Or, as Kipling remarked, "East is Left, and Right is Wrong, and never the twain shall eat." Exactly such a divide is splitting America in two. There are those that see it the Republican, and Libertarian way, and those that see it the Democrat, or Liberal way. Wedged in between exists a gray mass of the Undecided. Well, if you're undecided, my feelings are that you should support through your taxes whichever party is in ruling power. However, with decisions on either side often being controversial and unacceptable to the other side I feel that a new and fairer method of Checks and Balances is in order.
I have lived in this country for almost 20 years and I cannot say I have witnessed before the disregard currently reserved for those on the other side of the political aisle. I've seen cases of nose-thumbing where the Republicans felt they could stick it to the Democrats for losing the election. I've read up just a bit on the American Constitution and it strikes me that such animosity wasn't at all what the founding fathers had in mind.
Now, the Constitution has seen many amendments and I believe it's due for another one, this one with respect to how a ruling government's causes are being funded. What I propose is that sympathizers of both political ideologies officially proclaim their allegiance and are thusly identified for tax purposes. I further propose that corporations and businesses do the same, and wear their political affiliation on their sleeve, right next to their company logo. These measures will help citizens with specific leanings put their money where their mouths are, and it will enable the IRS to funnel tax payers' money to those causes that these citizens and their party support. For example, if the GOP decides to invade another country it will have to recruit from its Red base and the Undecided population, while the Blue base, being in opposition can be comfortable in the knowledge that none of their resources are going to be used for a cause to which they don't subscribe, not even if the Draft is reinstated.
This new system of Checks and Balances will also afford political parties ways to keep a closer tab on what the voter feels about the way they're being represented. Ultimately, when a funding stream begins to dwindle because certain causes are no longer supported by the population their representatives will be forced to pay close attention.
People will be allowed to switch parties, but only after a cooling-off period in the Undecided pool, so as not to create a sudden imbalance of power. When the next elections come along they are permitted to re-assign their allegiance.
Companies that make contributions to a specific political party should be allowed to do so, as long as they are identified by allegiance. Thus, a Blue company cannot make contributions to a Red party, whereas an Undecided company can make contributiions to both. Naturally, the Reds may not be in favor of organized labor. Consequently, those that are may align themselves with the Blue base where social concerns are more a way of life.
The scope of this blog prevents me from going into too much detail about my proposal, but it's my vision that in the future we will see a transition to a system where ideology (or the absence thereof) is directly related to its funding stream.
Now, what if a President bungles, ah, let's say, an emergency response to a large scale disaster, such as a breached levee? In such a case, if people strongly disapprove they can withdraw support by giving up their base color and moving into the Undecided pool. While that becomes a measurable indication of people's support or lack thereof, it will not immediately cause an interruption of funding. That may happen if they switch to another party when the elections come around.
Of course, this amendment in the way that taxes are levied, may give rise to new political parties, perhaps with specific environmental agendas, like a Green party. If senators of parties are in agreement about health care measures, or otherwise, fundings from all three parties' members can flow toward such cause, but Green citizens should not have to pay for measures their Green representatives do not vote in favor of.
It's like going Dutch for lunch, but with a political twist.
All in favor for more fairness say "Aye."
©2005 Rudolf Helder
I have lived in this country for almost 20 years and I cannot say I have witnessed before the disregard currently reserved for those on the other side of the political aisle. I've seen cases of nose-thumbing where the Republicans felt they could stick it to the Democrats for losing the election. I've read up just a bit on the American Constitution and it strikes me that such animosity wasn't at all what the founding fathers had in mind.
Now, the Constitution has seen many amendments and I believe it's due for another one, this one with respect to how a ruling government's causes are being funded. What I propose is that sympathizers of both political ideologies officially proclaim their allegiance and are thusly identified for tax purposes. I further propose that corporations and businesses do the same, and wear their political affiliation on their sleeve, right next to their company logo. These measures will help citizens with specific leanings put their money where their mouths are, and it will enable the IRS to funnel tax payers' money to those causes that these citizens and their party support. For example, if the GOP decides to invade another country it will have to recruit from its Red base and the Undecided population, while the Blue base, being in opposition can be comfortable in the knowledge that none of their resources are going to be used for a cause to which they don't subscribe, not even if the Draft is reinstated.
This new system of Checks and Balances will also afford political parties ways to keep a closer tab on what the voter feels about the way they're being represented. Ultimately, when a funding stream begins to dwindle because certain causes are no longer supported by the population their representatives will be forced to pay close attention.
People will be allowed to switch parties, but only after a cooling-off period in the Undecided pool, so as not to create a sudden imbalance of power. When the next elections come along they are permitted to re-assign their allegiance.
Companies that make contributions to a specific political party should be allowed to do so, as long as they are identified by allegiance. Thus, a Blue company cannot make contributions to a Red party, whereas an Undecided company can make contributiions to both. Naturally, the Reds may not be in favor of organized labor. Consequently, those that are may align themselves with the Blue base where social concerns are more a way of life.
The scope of this blog prevents me from going into too much detail about my proposal, but it's my vision that in the future we will see a transition to a system where ideology (or the absence thereof) is directly related to its funding stream.
Now, what if a President bungles, ah, let's say, an emergency response to a large scale disaster, such as a breached levee? In such a case, if people strongly disapprove they can withdraw support by giving up their base color and moving into the Undecided pool. While that becomes a measurable indication of people's support or lack thereof, it will not immediately cause an interruption of funding. That may happen if they switch to another party when the elections come around.
Of course, this amendment in the way that taxes are levied, may give rise to new political parties, perhaps with specific environmental agendas, like a Green party. If senators of parties are in agreement about health care measures, or otherwise, fundings from all three parties' members can flow toward such cause, but Green citizens should not have to pay for measures their Green representatives do not vote in favor of.
It's like going Dutch for lunch, but with a political twist.
All in favor for more fairness say "Aye."
©2005 Rudolf Helder
posted by Rudolf Helder at Sunday, September 11, 2005
<< Home