No Risk, No Reward: Part I

i like! remember, the idea is to come up with new ideas, and you have to start somewhere. well done :)

1- all drugs? highly unlikely. baby steps...small amounts of marijuana legal, lose the distinction between crack/cocaine

2- exactly right...this is what a limited government would do...equal rights for everybody and staying out of the church's business. why would a church have a problem with 2 people going to city hall, getting a license and sharing benefits? no logical reason. (but people have been saying this for years and the far right refuses to listen)

3- maybe more state delegation? federal money only goes to schools and unemployment benefits...maybe make it (gasp!) competitive, and the states that are the most efficient are first in line for funds.

4-i believe republicans have been talking about this for centuries, except as soon as they are in power nothing happens, and they expand the deficit as well. i (and i imagine other voters) will believe it when i see it. if a republican runs on a platform suggesting material spending cuts to popular programs, he/she has my vote.

5- sounds fine. im not a global warming alarmist, although i do think we can do more to protect the environment. i really don't pay much attention to this debate, although i think republicans need to engage in the discussion. as newt said, they making it so that voters choose between "bad ideas and new ideas".

1) If you can get the socons on board, that is.

2) Same deal here.

3) If you can get the age demographic that makes up the majority of the Republican vote (funny how people seem to only be conservative when it comes to spending money on OTHER people's programs).

4) Agree with Maleficient - like the concept, but we do need an emergency out clause.

5) Love the prize concept especially.

Great work! 

How should we tax the "windfall profits" earned from some new geo-engineering breakthrough?  How are such profits any different than the "windfall profits" earned by BIG OIL on the backs of poor Americans when the price of carbon fuels goes through the roof?

And perhaps OUR ADMINISTRATION could limit the compensation of executives of any geo-engineering company that develops such technology.

3. Means-test Everything – If it is to exist, every federal social program should be designed to help the very poor. The middle class only a little. The rich none. Government welfare programs for the rich, such as Medicare, are insane. Let's say so. (That includes a louder call for bringing Medicare back from the precipice.) Shame rich, old people: “You cannot continue to rob the next generation and get away with it. You have more resources and your healthcare costs more. Pay for it. You owe it to ‘the children.’” Thus: No welfare for the rich. No corporate welfare.

4. Taxpayer Bill of Rights & Balanced Budget – After this monstrous growth of the federal government by the Obama Administration, people are very likely going have an appetite for some kind of limits on government bloat. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights – which would lock government revenues in at population plus inflation as measured by acceptable cost of living indices. Couple this with limits on national debt that would force cuts. Plus, say we’re not going to charge up the national credit card and the bill to Generation Y. This is grossly unfair. We need to have a limit on deficits and balanced budgets within a certain timeframe, or consequences will follow.

These are the two good ideas.

I call it the "15% SOLUTION" - we should limit the Federal Govt to 15% of GDP. At the same time we should limit the amount of transfer payments to the 15% who are most in need, and let self-reliance, choice, freedom and quality via market solutions be the answer for 85% of folks. This is a system that is the best of freedom, but still has a safety net. A safety net does not require destroying good solutions for those who take care of themselves.

The Democrats have a worse answer - they will destroy private health insurance for 85% in the name over getting from 95% coverage to 100% coverage. That's nuts. Keep and imrpove the private health insurance system for those who dont need or want govt run healthcare. That's choice, that's freedom.

#5 is based on the flawed assumption that global warming is an issue, when in fact it is overhyped. We are better to debunk it entirely and move on to a plan of energy independence instead. 

And #1 and #2 are whacky and wrong. young voters are increasingly prolife so we would win them with a focus on that.

These are fine ideas, and I'm sympathetic to all of them.  I just can't help but notice, however, that these ideas are cribbed almost directly from the Libertarian Party playbook.  (Well, except for #3 maybe, as your doctrinaire Libertarian would want to end welfare, not means-test it.)  This is an explicit call for the Republican Party to become more libertarian.  I do think it has to become at least a little bit more libertarian, but I don't think the solution is to outright confiscate the LP's platform.  The bottom line, is that if Libertarian Party ideas were so popular, then their candidate would have been the one to receive 48% of the vote last election, instead of the paltry <1% that LP candidates usually receive.  (And this is coming from a guy who was actually in that 1% in 2000!)

Case in point: Drugs.  Can you point to me any survey or poll, anywhere, that suggests Americans are in favor of legalizing all drugs?  Sure there is considerable debate over marijuana, but for meth, crack, heroin - I doubt you could find more than 5-10% who would favor legalizing these.  So how is this a winning issue politically?  We Republicans are constantly told that we have to change our platform to more accurately reflect America's modern values.  How would proposing that all drugs are legalized help in this regard?  I think, instead, the reaction would be that we Republicans are on drugs ourselves to have proposed such a crazy scheme.  Now, personally, deep down in my libertarian soul, I would want to see drugs legalized.  I know the logical arguments in favor of prohibition are flimsy at best.  But this is where America is, so much so that both Democrats and Republicans have achieved a consensus on this issue.

While I definitely agree that the Republicans could stand to become more libertarian, I don't think the Republican Party should give up on the central difference between the GOP and the LP.  This difference, as I perceive it, is that Libertarians believe public policy should be designed with the individual in mind, while Republicans believe public policy should be designed with the family in mind.  I think this is ultimately why the Republicans have been more successful than Libertarians over the years.

1. This seems like a progressive idea and seems out of place, but I mostly agree with it. I don't think you fully "legalize" hard drugs, but instead regulate them. Just like "hard" prescription drugs (Oxycontin, etc.), unlimited quantities should not be legal.

2. While I agree with the concept, this strikes me as just name calling. Basically you want to pout and say the gays can play the marriage game 'cause teacher is making you play fair, but you aren't going to let them use the "marriage" word. Deal with it. Everyone should be allowed to get married under the law, and also under their church if they'd like to do that too. It's no different than being an adult in a church by going through rights of passage versus becoming an adult under the law by turning 18. People can differentiate between the two quite easily, no need for different names for the same concept.

3. While the means testing idea sounds good in theory, I'm not sure it's so easy in execution. There are always loopholes and places where exceptions must be made, so it's a matter of how well you can really define this concept.

4. First of all, the monstrous growth has been going on for a lot more than 4 months. The "party of accountability" needs to start acting accountable if they want to have any credibility on this. Secondly, balanced budget amendments are proving to be a really bad idea in some states, worsening the recession by causing cuts at the worst time. While the concept sounds good, I've yet to see it executed well. Limited rainy-day funds and political practicality being most of the problem. What works for your household budget voted on by yourself and your spouse does not work when if you start allowing your neighbors to have a say.  Again, this needs a lot more detail before I'd get behind it.

5. Geo-engineering is like flying cars - while possible, I'll believe it's practical when I see it, and like flying cars, I'm not going to be surprised if another 50 or 100 years passes with no progress on that front, so I'd say forget about it. Kicking the can down the road and/or sticking your head in the sand does no good. If Republicans want to be relevant on the environment, then they must start listening to the consensus of scientists on these matters - which means admitting that human caused global warming is a pretty well established theory, kinda like the theory of gravity. It's an unfair tax on citizens to allow polluting industries to take natural resources and damage citizen's livelihoods at little or no cost. If the citizens of the U.S. own the coal, oil and other resources under the federal land that much of it is extracted from, why are we practically giving it away so the industry can turn around and charge us for it's use, increase our healthcare costs through pollution, damage fishing resources, beaches, etc.? You can call the increased cost a "tax," but what we have right now is a "tax" on clean energy sources by allowing these external costs to be ignored and passed on to citizens in indirect ways, thus subsidizing polluting industry. I think this issue is being looked at totally backwards. Conservatives should be concerned with conserving resources for future use and future generations, conserving the current climate and conserving clean air and waterways. This point definitely needs to be rethought.

None is these proposals is perfect, and even if they were, politics would render them imperfect in execution.

As has been stated here . . . don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is about taking risks and with risk comes dissention, but I agree with just about everything here . . . mostly. But mostly is good enough for me.

Thanks for taking a rhetorical, polemical and ideological step forward!

On taxes and global warming, there are two issues.

1.  Is global warming real?  If your proposed party is going to take the position that global warming is not real, as much of the present party does, then there are many things down that road, including of course not having taxes to address it.  If it is real then there is the question of whether the gov't should do anything.

2. Assuming that global warming is real, what techniques should the gov't use to address it.  If part of the position should be that markets are good at allocating resourses efficiently, then it seems like market solutions should be preferred.  If global warming is real then it is a textbook externality -- one where what you pay for energy does not reflect the overall cost of the good. A market based solution should then include making the price reflect the cost.   The way to do that is with a tax on energy.

The gov't job isn't to pick the winners, it is to monitor the playing field.  The game is skewed in the presence of externalities.  The dogma on lowering taxes is blinding the party to the appropriate solution.

-Steve

How does giving the governement billions of dollars ever solve any problem?

Already we are hearing that the coal producing states will fight for exceptions, that there will be tax credits for the poor that would be unable to pay their energy bills, that the administration will not support building more nukes . . .so what is the point? At the end of the day, the trillion or so dollars in what is effectively a new tax on consumers to get them (us) to change our behaivior is simply another redistribution of wealth. I don't really have a choice when it comes to how my energy is generated, so the only action I , as a consumer, can take is to cut back on energy consumption. Which equals a decrease in my standard of living.

A new Nuke plant costs about $10 Billion, creates permanent high paying jobs, and greatly reduces  CO2 emmissions.  The stimulous bill was $700 Billion dollars. No nukes mentioned though.

Congress is setting itself up as the dealer to redistribute the billions of dollars generated to favored constituancies (and contributors). If they were serious about global warming, they would be funding existing technology, like nukes, to help meet out energy needs.

In general, I think this is a good start a party I could support.  I cannot in any way support the current Republican party because of:

• Cultural issues.  For all the talk of "liberty" the Republican party is filled with the most self-righteous bigots and busibodies to be found anywhere.  I want no part of that.
• Tax issues.  Lower taxes is good.  Paying our bills is better.  Anybody can live large on a credit card they don't have to repay.  Low taxes are not a panacea.  The current dogmatic no-tax position is deadly stupid.
• Executive power.  If the people are to have a government that serves them then every part of the government must have checks and balances, and no part of it can be above the law.  No exceptions, including "national defense".  The constitution was written in a time when everyone had experience with war far more dangeous than what we face and they knew that the executive cannot be above the law.

There are other things, but that will do for now.

-Steve

tiffany jewellery is the best online links of london charms stores where you can buy the cheapest tiffany jewelry and Links of London. Our huge selection of Tiffany Jewelry.