“How will you [if elected US President in 2012] determine the gathering of financial resources to have the government carry out its obligations?”
This was one of the questions asked by Anon, in a post to my Sept. 19, 2010 blog. Anon’s question was inspired by this item on my electoral contract* listed on that blog:
“I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress which has any provision for tax increase or for increased government spending.”
However, my reply to Anon will be complicated by something he(?) didn’t consider. Elsewhere on this site, I have other essays further defining my positions on government spending. For instance, I have stated that I won’t sign any bill into law that provides any kind of financial aid to Israel or to Egypt. But that’s nothing compared to this:
QUOTE:
I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes:
- A Single Payer health care reform package, which will provide medical coverage to all US citizens free of charge – that is, without co-payments, deductibles, or any requirement to pay insurance premiums. This will also establish reasonable medical billing practices and rates.
- A nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.
:UNQUOTE.
My Reply to Anonymous or
My Position on the Power of the Presidency
My aim is to dismantle the power of the Imperial Presidency – that’s my goal, in 25 words or less.
My case against the presidency:
The United States has three branches of government, one of which is a One-Man Branch. This one man is so powerful, he can overrule the will of the people as expressed by their duly-elected Congressmen.
Consider the House of Reps, though I’ll get to the Senate in the next paragraph. If a simple-majority (218) passes a bill, that means the entire House passes that bill. However, if the President (again, one man) vetoes it, two-thirds of the House (290) would have to pass it in order to override that veto. In this case, the president would have the same voting power as 72 Reps – and the millions of people they represent.
Now, consider the Senate, that mighty and venerable bastion of elitism and anti-democracy. Due to the long-established institution of the filibuster, it takes 60 senators to pass a bill. In order to override a presidential veto, it would take 7 more. That would mean the president has an influence greater than three states, since each state has two senators.
Side note: I think it’s bad enough that there is a Senate – a body in which one senator could represent as few as 214 thousand voters (as in the mighty state of Wyoming) or as many as 14 million voters (as in the vastly underrepresented state of California). So right off the bat, the principle of “equal representation” doesn’t apply to the Senate. However, each senator is supposed to be equal to any other senator, in terms of his standing in the Senate. But that is not so, due to the filibuster; the will of 41 senators is sufficient to override the will of 59 – worst case scenario. If Barack Obama had accomplished nothing else but had managed to challenge the filibuster – thereby making each senator the equal of his colleagues – he could have gone down in history as a great president who bestowed a great advantage to future generations.
If I am elected President in 2012:
This is a good time to get back to Anon’s question, which is:
“How [will] you [if elected US President in 2012] determine the gathering of financial resources to have the government carry out its obligations?”
It is not I who would have to “determine the gathering of financial resources.” That task would fall upon Congress, which would have to pass bills into law by two-thirds majorities until it:
· Repeals Obamacare and replaces it with the Single Payer program mandated by my contract*. I shall also insist that the insurance industry lose its exemption from federal regulation.
- Passes a nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.
In addition, Congress would have to pass bills, by two-thirds majorities, containing tax increases or increased government spending since I would veto those.
In a worst-case scenario, I might end up vetoing every single bill passed by Congress. This would invite the question: Wouldn’t our legislative process grind to a halt since it would be “impossible” to get the necessary votes to override my vetoes?
There are three possible answers to that question:
ONE: If indeed Congress found itself unable to pass any laws, they might use that as grounds to impeach me. Oh, to be sure, they’d call it something else. But impeachment would be a tempting move since, once I’d be removed, business as usual could once against reign in DC.
TWO: Congress could find itself subject to enormous pressure from the Elite to find a way to come together, at least “together” enough to form a two-thirds coalition. You have to realize that there’s too much at stake for the Elite to allow government to grind to a halt. They would find a way to move things along.
THREE: The Elite could decide to assassinate me. And in fact they might even give me a friendly warning. However, I would simply tell them this: “If you make one move against me, your entire house of cards will come tumbling down. If you read the Buddhist text called the Lotus Sutra, you will come to see the disaster predicted for anyone who moves against a votary of that teaching. And, just to spell it out for you, I am such a votary.”
Back to that “One-Man Branch”
Earlier in this essay, I railed against the power of the One-Man Branch of government. It would seem that I am embracing that imperial power rather than moving against it. However, I offer a proposal:
If, as a result of the 2014 elections, we reach a point where less than one-third (each) of the Senate and the House consist of incumbents, I will change my tune. I will pass (“rubberstamp,” in other words) every bill passed (only) by simple-majorities. BUT…and this is a big BUT indeed: I still would not pass any bill which my contract* states I’d veto. For instance, I still wouldn’t pass any bill with a “provision for tax increase or for increased government spending.”
My view would be then (as it is now): Congress has to find a way to cut expenses, working instead with the money flowing in from currently-authorized revenue sources. And in case you’re wondering: I would not approve any increase in our ability to borrow.
One of the easiest budget items to cut would be from our bloated military. We don’t need hundreds of bases scattered all over the world nor do we need to spend trillions to weaponize outer space or build that next generation of nuclear warheads.
Another area of concern: Congress needs to stop coddling the financial services industry by refusing to regulate. And I’m not talking about more government “interference” – I’m talking about more efficient government regulation which isn’t hamstrung by the dictates of political parties.
Closing statement:
As I’ve written before, if anyone has questions concerning the content of any of my blogs, I’ll be more than glad to answer them. But…first you’ve got to ask the questions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“I guess a lot of bad things could be said about me. But one of them wouldn’t be that I’m unresponsive to questioning” – Steve.
* “my contract” – I am the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a binding written contract to the voters, as explained here:
No comments:
Post a Comment