Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

Open records is a piece of the desire for "transparency" - we want to see what's going on in government. Turning on a light always makes roaches run and hide!

I feel:
All proposed legislation should be posted on a public website, and frozen until voted on. If amended, it gets re-posted, re-frozen and re-voted on. The names of all who voted for and against or abstained or were absent, gets posted.
If passed, the legislation stays posted. (different categories - "proposed", "enacted"; sortable by date, subject, sponsor(s))

At least maybe SOMEONE would read the stuff being enacted. Hillary (among others) has admitted not reading stuff she voted on!

It would also make pork visible.

Can't help you with Pennsy - but suggest the same.

US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69

Yes, Transparency was the word I missed, but I also like Open Records in the name of the supermajority item --- "Transparency through Open Records" is my suggestion.

Regarding Pennsylvania, we are on our way to a much better open records law here. But it may take some more encouragement, and that is planned.

The encouragement we offered so far is a 25% ouster of sitting state legislators in the last election cycle and the defeat for retention of a sitting supreme court judge. Its been 200 years since a supreme court justice was sent home and the previous inscumbent return rate was like 99%.

The secret is to simply apply pressure on the job security of politicians. We have and will continue to apply that pressure here in Pa.

By the way, once it starts it makes great news and the media jumps on it like it was a train leading parched people to a water hole.

Which indeed it is.

See www.pacleansweep.com for more info and the links are some of the other organizations involved. It truely has been a non-partisan effort here at cleaning this state up.

I totally agree with you GEA and Quick. Full Immediate Real-Time disclosure on all dealings with elected and federal officials is a must plank in a Political Reform. That and having a JunkYard Dog set of IGs in Governemnt and Congress watching the roaches and checking them constantly is another basic. Obama actually has a good plan for that as well that we can build on. One thing these PACs/Lobbyist/K St Associations rue more than anything is bad publicity and the light of day. I sometimes think they squeel on the Political Finance Reform stuff as a diversionary way to avert the attention away from their greatest fear - Full Immediate Dsiclosure!!

http://milligansstew.blogspot.com

I think this is one of the best threads here, and want to help, but here are the problems...
- Where to get the poll info.
- Just the way the question is asked can skew results.
- The population the poll is made available to (how representative).

I think we may have to go with "gut" & "no-brainers" like your list, and avoid "wedge" issues like Gay marriage.

US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69

I was waiting Quick, performing my own little test. I watched this topic slowly sink down the list and the contentious topics rise with all the posting. I must say I was disheartened to see that I seemed alone in what I thought we should do.

Anyhow, unless we all stop the back and forth rehashing about the current situation, we will get nowhere.

Step one is to start collecting links to polling data.

I believe it is important to "rehash" the current situation to analyze how it got so bad, what is the worst about it, and how to go about correcting it. Once you do that, collect areas of agreement on what needs to be done - as you've started.
Where do you look for polls????????????

US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69

When I see a poll on a news page it generally has a link to it. Following that link gets you to the recent poll summary.

On that page sometimes there is a link to archives where you can get the poll data over time. Sometimes you have to just cut the end off the URL address until you get back to a master page.

Its pretty obvious that the complete new polls are restricted to the people who paid for it but often the old polls are completely available.

Since I am looking at data over time, the polls without the very most recent one are still very useful.

Anyhow, that is what I have been doing.

While low, the approval rating for congress is UP from when it was republican-dominated. It's a positive trend. You can't undue 6 years of incompetence and corruption in a matter of months.
Give the dems time - if they retain control, in time they too will exhibit corruption and incompetence. ;-)
I have to agree with GEA - overall, both parties care about their party first, issues second. Having said that, I see more current democrat candidates aligning with my positions than republicans. (and absolutely NOT Hillary!)

US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69

The November election was a mandate for a withdrawal for Iraq. The Democratic Party, which is for redeployment, won the elections, and the Republican Party, which is for the surge, lost the elections. Remember November?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/26/169089.aspx

What's more, a generic Democratic candidate bests the generic GOP one, 49%-31%. And more than three-quarters of Democrats say they are satisfied with their presidential candidates, while just more than half of Republicans say this about their field.

The exit polls from Novenmber said most voters where upset with the way the governemnt is being run.

The latest poll shows the Democrats have done nothing to address that problem.

http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/

Take it elsewhere boys. Its pretty clear neighter the republicans or democrats have an agenda consistent with the super majority.

Their big agenda is their own self-interest.

That happens alot here.

http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/

My topic I posted Colin Powell has also disappeared.

Here'sthe direct link http://unity08.com/node/74

As it is set up now it is a pretty chaotic/convoluted web blog - no search feature. But you need to go to 'Shoutbox' and then click on the proper issue and then subissue - real Rube Goldberg stuff that needs a good over haul.

For your post yesterday at the above link you would go from the 'Blog' to the 'Shoutbox' section, then click on 'Issues For Discussion' at the top, and then click on the issue you posted to 'What do you want from your politicians'. Best up luck navigating the maze!! And be sure to remember what issue you posted to. Hopefully they will have a name/date search feature soon!

http://milligansstew.blogspot.com

Betty, what do you think that >66% of americans want the government to do regarding healthcare??

Yes, its a very important issue, but normal average common sense stuff is obviously needed?

Actually, The Concords Coalition had an an interesting take on this Health care question in it’s recent Facing facts on the PAYGO proposals going thru the wringer on Cap Hill now. It informs the whole health care and entitlements ends-means debate well! Check it out esp some of the graphs on the last page (gaping ends-means disconnects there!):

http://www.concordcoalition.org/facing-facts/2007/ff-0424-paygo-health.pdf

Brief Excerpt:
“In its FY 2024 budget, the administration proposes to repeal the current open-ended tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits and to replace it with a new capped standard deduction that would be available to all individuals and families who purchase a qualifying health plan, whether on their own or through their employer.

This is an eminently sensible reform. Health-care experts have long recognized that the current open-ended employer exclusion is needlessly costly, encourages Americans to overconsume health care, and heaps the biggest subsidies on those who need them least while doing nothing to help the 46 million Americans who lack any insurance at all. According to the CBO, the reform would generate large budget savings, reduce the number of uninsured, and, over the long run, could help moderate the growth in health-care costs.”

“Many critics are faulting the administration’s plan for not doing more to extend health coverage. The critics are right that the reform does not alone add up to comprehensive to affordable health insurance will require a lot more than this—probably some combination of new government mandates, subsides, and insurance market reforms. But the critics are wrong that this is an argument against the reform.”

“The bottom line is whether America would be better off with the reform than without it—and here the answer is unambiguous. Reforming the tax exclusion is the single most important step that Congress can take to improve the efficiency and equity of our dysfunctional health system. Moreover, it is a step that it will need to take whatever shape comprehensive reform ultimately assumes.”

These are a few of the Flaming Moderate suggestions Unity should be building on!! Check out the whole article as it shows a pox on BOTH the Dems and Repubs house as our house is smoldering!! Might be tough to decipher a Super majority on this one GEA but it's worth a try I guess!

http://milligansstew.blogspot.com

I have not seen proof that the fair tax is supported by a supermajority -- yet I believe that reducing taxation, or at least not increasing taxation, is possibly a suprtmajority issue.

Much education needs to be done for the public to understand the various alternatives for tax reduction or at least holding the line on taxation.

So if we were to have a supermajority position it would be "Hold the Line or Reduce Taxation"

I think eliminating a lot of deductions - for a second home, for example - would tax those that can afford it. I look at deductions as government aid- if you can afford a second house, do you need aid?
The tax code is ridiculous.

US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69

Regarding your note about deductions, I think of two things when I think of deductions, one is special treatment for a select few and one is burden on the tax payer for record keeping.

Regarding super majority issues, I have seen polls that indicate Americans are pretty tired and mistrusting of the complexity of the tax code.

Now the flat tax is the ultimate simplification, but again, I have no opinion data on that to see.

You forget mortgage deductions, one of the great tax-system configurations that has led to significantly higher incidence of home ownership (and subsequent savings in a savings-less country).

You also forget child deductions for those of lower incomes, a great equalizer in terms of reducing (albeit not very much) the tax burden of the less wealthy.

You also forget the tax deduction for continuing education; something anyone can have access to and something (education) that this country is in dire need of supporting.

Finally, GEA, I would like to see the polls you refer to, so please post a link to them somewhere.

John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com

And I didn't say deductions are bad at all and I don't think the fair tax is a super majority desire. I do believe that many feel that deductions benefit the rich. We have seen that sentiment here above, so I think that is real, albeit I don't know about it's numerical support in polls.

I believe it is well established that Americans think the current tax code is too complex, and I do think that the super majority wants less or at least not increased taxes.

What do you think?

You mention that you "believe" there are polls and super majority sentiments toward simplified tax codes and now that the majority wants less and not more taxes, yet first of all, I haven't seen any data to support that belief. Secondly, let's assume that individual polls support the following assumptions (all of which you've supported here in the discussion forum):

If you believe that it is well established that Americans want a simpler tax code (one that presumably has fewer deductions)...

AND

...you believe that most Americans want lower taxes

AND

...you believe that most people want to balance the budget

AND

...it can be established that deductions lower taxes

Then, fewer deductions would raise taxes, however you could lower the resulting (simplified) tax burder, but then you could NOT balance the budget, fund Medicare and Medicaid, fund Social Security, fund Education, fund a greener / cleaner environment.

You see, while any single issue could be considered a "Super Majority" winner, taken as a whole, they defeat all the good you thought you might do.

I don't bring these things up to be a pain in your a**; really I like much of your general thought process. I bring these things up because I believe that opinion treated as fact is a very dangerous thing. I think it is time to face fact and forget opinion or preference.

John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com

Kacz, that is simply nuts.

I suggest you consider setting up your own party and running on raising taxes using a more complex tax code to generate more revenue to throw down the same endless holes that exist today!!

Of course a platform must be viable while following the will of the people.

I am not advocating any position here. The purpose was to demonstrate that complex issues result in competing priorities and these have to be sorted out in something better than a discussion that ends up with "that is simply nuts" from one of the conversants.

BTW, the start of the great 1990s expansion came from Bush I's raising of taxes. Clinton essentially continued originally "Republican" ideas of tighter government spending and balanced budgets.

John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com