Poyhonen's Blog

stories and commentary

Posts Tagged ‘candidates

Term Limits

leave a comment »

Limiting the number of elected terms for Federal representatives seems like a good method of removing long kept public servants who longer serve the public or, in some cases, never served the public.   But who picks the candidates who run for elections to replace the existing congressman or senator?  Limiting the number of terms for any elected representative does not guarantee the replacement will be any different than the existing representative.  Yes, committee controls may be affected but the new candidate could be another denizen of the swamp who will grow to accomplish the same results of the ‘old’ creature who now retires to a lucrative ‘post’ service lobbying position.  My thinking is the concept of term limits is to replace  ‘poor’ representation with an individual willing to perform actual service for his/her constituency.  To be more clear, voters need the ability to select the candidates in order to avoid replacing one miscreant with another shill provided and sold by a party seeking power, not service.

Another point argued by those against term limits is the inception of bureaucratic amateurs replacing seasoned professionals.  This argument may seem specious on the surface but there do exist some honest bureaucrats who are not corrupt, (don’t ask me to provide names).  California has state term limits and the resulting chaos is available for the review of interested people.

Term limits sounds good on the surface but our election process; controlled by campaign money, disinformation, negative propaganda, and a corrupt academia supported by an even more corrupt media needs further analysis in order to avoid making the same mistakes over and over while seeking different results.

Advertisements

Why I Can’t be a Republican

with one comment

Democrats have labeled every Republican presidential candidate as being a racist for over half a century. Within the last decade, Democrat pundits have also accused each candidate as being fascist, often comparing any Republican aspirant to Hitler. They insist that republicans hate all women and this indictment has no regard for a candidate’s race, sex, religion, or affiliation with any style of government beyond a planet polluting oligarchy. There are no exceptions; even minority Republican candidates are labeled as being racist. One must also conclude, by Democrat accusations, that anyone voting for a Republican is also a racist, woman hating, fascist loving cretin who enjoys polluting our planet. Republican voters must be busy raising little racists at home who are obviously taught to hate the planet and, if they are male children, they must also learn to hate their mothers. Decades of this vitriol have been accented and supported by Democrat politicians, public school teachers, academia, and media.

My love of truth and honest discourse is antithetical to being a Democrat but neither can I support Republicans who have allowed such an inane discourse to flourish by ignoring or, in some cases, abandoning potential constituents in favor of political expedience. Their acceptance of the Democrat’s successful misleading of the public through false information and advertising has left a large number of our populace drowning in propaganda, misinformation, and a dishonest rewriting of history.

Now is a good time to frequent libraries and hoard old books before they are completely replaced by an internet where honesty is difficult to ascertain amongst the many agenda driven pundits dumping propaganda and polluting the mainstream of information.

Written by poyhonen

May 9, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Why do I Like Trump

with 2 comments

Why do I Like Trump

Better question might be why should anyone like Trump? I am not happy about his thin skinned rhetoric railing against anyone who may disagree with him because the manner of his railing seems whiny and egocentric. The establishment news people and political party pundits obviously don’t like him. News media and ‘savvy’ analysts usually, sometimes subtly, (FOX news might be an example), define him in a negative manner.
However:
Has anyone noticed the news reports put out by our established agencies and news media? Does the everyday citizen know or care about what is happening in America? A clear majority of voters seem to have very little concern about the running of their country. Democrats and Republicans look very much the same to me. They both spend trillions of dollars the country does not have. The country’s debt is rising every day and I find it incredible that some are still blaming the tax cuts of Bush as one leading cause. Tax cuts? Doesn’t everyone realize that excessive government spending creates more government debt? We can complain about ineffectual wars, TSA costs, bailouts, and government contractors, agencies, and handouts spent to buy votes but both parties have supported all of these programs. The divisive culture of our current administration adds to the debt by extolling a punishing regimen of ineptly fashioned ‘social justice’ programs. This administration has doubled the national debt under the watchful eyes and acquiescence of both parties.
Hillary? There are a plethora of books and movies describing, in detail, Clinton ethical abuses, misconducts, and lies. Most have forgotten that her husband was impeached. Yet the DNC elevates such a person to be a qualified candidate. They do this with the support of most news agencies and the quiet acceptance of the RNC.
Enter Trump. Almost everyone in the Washington establishment, (Washington Cartel is a term coined by Cruz), are upset with his candidacy. That alone is a huge reason to consider him as a potential president. So far, it appears that he has not been bought by the controlling political elite. Any other candidate can be, (will be), corrupted at some level by money because our political system is ruled by expensive ad campaigns.
Not all corruption is clearly visible. Ideologue’s scurrying for power and control are just as corrupt as paid shills. Imagine a justice department that follows the rule of law. That alone would put a nervous fear into the hearts of the Washington Cartel. The IRS subject to laws? Subpoenas that must actually be obeyed? Senators and Congressmen subject to the same rules as citizens? It may be possible with Trump. Honest, ethical leadership will not be possible with any DNC candidate. The RNC supports the status quo, regardless of what they promise. (Check out the last few years to validate that statement).
Yes, I am cynical but I believe my cynicism is based upon historical facts. I like Trump because he is not linked to the Washington Cartel, beloved by the progressive news media, enjoyed by socialist panderers, or supported by politically correct educators whose theories and anti-American rhetoric tend to destroy the education and growth of civilization.
My choice seems binary – more of the same, or Trump. In that light, Trump is not a risk.
Everyone else is.

Progressive Liberal or Conservative Libertarian

leave a comment »

Where do I fit into America’s political system? My representatives promised to be problem solvers and I expected them to provide solutions but the only solutions I see are those that are geared for reelection. Politicians very capably say whatever will get them elected but my expectations on seeing them actually do something to improve America have led me to question if our two-party system is actually a one party façade of paper shuffling opportunists seeking self-aggrandizement and an expansion of power. Liberal and conservative ideals appear to oppose each other during elections but the resulting government seems to be the same, regardless of who wins any election.
I see banks and financial institutions that are rife with insider trading and derivative manipulations that diminish the capability of small investors, while the government backs the risks taken by large, too big to fail, corporations using citizen tax dollars. Large business practices actually trap employees into a form of slavery consisting of low wages and poor working environments. Employees find themselves in a helpless situation from which they have few options available to achieve freedom from greedy taskmasters who consider them an expense instead of a resource. Education has become a babysitting exercise that indoctrinate pupils with agenda based histories and absurd political correctness. I like the concept of worker representation, (unions), but am appalled by the general corruption of organizations that require paying into a system that does not support worker’s ideals. Dues are often spent to garner political power and maintain a hierarchy of elite organizers who subdue workers and employers alike.
News networks disseminate ideologue tainted reports that favor their idea of progressive or conservative politics. Occurrences that lie outside of intrinsically held concepts are simply ignored and go unreported. In many cases, false reports are fed to unsuspecting citizens, resulting in politicians who not only remain unscathed by their disingenuous behavior, they actually get reelected.
One may argue that their representative is an honest broker who supports ‘good’ concepts and just laws, but our system of government is founded upon a constitutionally based republic that is not supported by the majority of our representatives, much less our legal system.
Tax reform has been discussed for decades but has not happened. Similar non-results are demonstrated with reforms of immigration, education, environmental protection, welfare, social security, veteran’s benefits, and certainly, perhaps most importantly – campaign and election reforms. Our judicial supreme court is based upon ideologue views that divide our country in terms of constitutionality as ‘interpreted’ by our lifelong appointed justices. How else can ‘truth’ be commonly defined by a margin of five to four?
Government reforms seem to be based upon the power to control and curtail rather than responding to ‘what is good’ for the people. Laws are now being written to manage every aspect of future interpretation in order to avoid the exercise of a perceived ‘loophole’. The legalese writing is meant to limit the options available to citizens in order to achieve the desired goals as defined by an explicit law or regulation. Thousands of pages are written to provide direction and regulation that can be readily interpreted by – no one. There is a reason why our health care laws contain the database defined health entry, “bitten by a duck”. Sound dystopian? Many citizens have cars and most cars must be registered to the state where they are driven. Take a look at your state laws regarding car registration. One would think it should be simple. Tell the state you own a car and pay a fee for using the roads and infrastructure. Review the documents defining local registration and then realize that there are also federal regulations concerning vehicle registration. The Wisconsin registration – just registration – employs over 52,000 words. By comparison, our amended American Constitution has about 7,500 words.
Laws control and manipulate the behavior of citizens and reduce the available options that provide freedom.
“Do not harm fellow citizens,” seems to be an ideal, upon which, we can all agree. But that is only five words and we all understand the meaning. Current federal criminal justice laws have listed over 4,450 federally defined criminal offenses. In actuality, you can be confined in a federal prison for selling orchids without the proper paperwork or threatened with imprisonment for filling in a ditch on your property. No wonder our prisons are full.
My diatribe deserves a representation of some things that could be provided by true representatives in a short list of potential solutions. These offerings are merely suggestions – I’m looking for a place where my values can fit into American politics:
Tax reform: What does it take? What would happen if 80% of the IRS employees were laid off and the president went to congress with a 3×5 card, requesting a new tax law? “Better do something before April 15, because there is no one at the IRS to process the reams of paperwork required to collect taxes. Here, take this card and write a new tax law I can sign. Sure, go ahead and use both sides of the card.”
Immigration: Secure the border first to establish the credibility and sincerity of the government. Raise immigration quotas from some countries. Make it easier to cross the border by creating additional crossing stations. Make it less complicated to become a citizen. Read/write English and obey the laws of your new country for three years. Vote after military service or ten years as a lawful citizen. Allow employers to provide and record work permits. Step on employers who do not pay a fair wage determined by each state. Harm anyone – get exported. Benefits will have to be earned over a time determined by Congress.
Environmental protection – Eliminate the EPA and every regulation they have created. They have demonstrated extreme abusive behavior. Let the states define what pollution entails and what environmental protections are needed. Reduce 80% of federally owned land and give the property to the states. Expand state borders to include federal domains offshore.
Education – Another department that needs deletion. Let the states decide education principles but continue to provide family funding of twelve increments per citizen child for education payments that allow the family to decide on where the funding is implemented. Poorer people will get to choose their schools and methods of education.
Law – There exists a massive and convoluted web of intricate details that are defined by thousands and thousands of pages of federal laws and regulations. Any lawyer surely earns his due when forced to wade through the morass of legal documents in an effort to support justice. Hire a few people – no more than twenty people who understand the importance of legal philosophy and task them to rewrite the laws of our country in one year. Then discard the whole mess of legalese currently employed. Test the laws before implementation, using one hundred well paid ordinary citizens selected by lottery. If this group of selected citizens stumbles over an interpretation – rewrite or discard that edict. Laws control business and offer predictable consequences that allow the safe investment of capital.
Czars – anyone with the title should be laid off as well as anyone directly employed by any czar.
Prisons – We incarcerate too many citizens. People who rape, pillage, and kill should be put away to keep them from harming civilized people but many others are incarcerated for being stupid, uninformed, manipulated by others, or for misdemeanors pertaining to foolish regulations. Often, the ones making the regulations deserve to be incarcerated, not the perpetrators. Prison sentences are far too long for the damage these ‘criminals’ have performed. Reparation instead of punishment should be paramount in such sentencing. No one should ever be harmed, threatened, or abused while in a prison. Prisons should be made into one of the safest places on this planet. Exile should be considered as a sentence for certain crimes against society.
Election reform – The only reason we don’t use the internet for voting is because it would become too difficult to cheat and there exists a fear that too many uninformed voters will vote. Cheating can be investigated based upon one vote per social security number and address. Cheaters should be exiled.
Ill-informed voters, however, are often ill-informed because politicians lie, obfuscate facts, hide behind government organizations, (like the IRS), and manipulate statistics to present a view not held by honest discourse. Some voters may also be lazy, illiterate, or simply apathetic regarding their citizen’s right to vote. They may have no interest in taking an effort to find honest information regarding current or future events. Politicians often garner votes from these citizens by offering redress for various, (frequently phony), victimization or financial rewards if elected. Such has always been the case involving politics.
Perhaps the potential voter should be directed to undergo a series of questions, regarding the platforms of candidates before being presented with their voting options. Candidates supporting the voters viewpoint can be shown in a descending list of characteristics and platform ideals as selected by the voter. They may become enlightened after finding their favorite politician near the bottom of their list of approved stances and attributes.
Every politician could also be provided with a federally funded web page where they must present a written discourse describing their platform and, at their option, opposition to other candidates. Another group of vetted and professional judges will be needed to inspect each candidates statements. What would happen if one politician wrote upon his federally funded site, that his opponent misrepresented certain facts during their last debate? If true, the statement stands for all to read in glowing letters. If false, the site displays him in blinking colors as a candidate sanctioned for unethical conduct. Let the voters decide.

Our Alleged Two Party System of Government

leave a comment »

George Washington feared the new Republic might degenerate into a two-party system. In his farewell presidential speech George said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty”.
Our forefathers were Whigs who opposed the repressive governing of England while Tories opposed the revolutionaries and supported the King of England. After the revolution, Tories were excoriated, often tarred and feathered, and literally disappeared – some to Canada, others to England, while many were absorbed into the Whigs. The Whigs evolved into strong nationalists, (Federalists), and their opposition, (Anti-Federalists), who supported State equanimity. Later elections defeated the Federalists and gave rise to the Democrat – Republicans. It seems our history points out that whenever there is one party or group, it is only a matter of time before another group is born in opposition.
My point in mentioning this history is in trying to determine where I should belong within our current two-party system.
I have a base problem with Democrats initially concerning honest discourse. The Democrat leaders do not limit their speech to ‘Spin’ but have blatantly lied so often that it becomes impossible for me to support anything said by a Democrat without performing lengthy and arduous analysis in order to determine what is actually factual.
Republicans incorporate ‘Spin’ at a level that, although they have more credibility than the party they oppose, still require an arduous analysis in order to determine what is wholly exaggerated out of proportion vs. what is the factually supported synthesis of their argument.
Add to that our News Agencies, who at best, can only be trusted some of the time, but you never really know when that time occurs unless you perform a diligent and broad encompassing review of many news agencies in order to determine veracity.
For arguments sake, let us suppose we have opposing Democrats and Republicans who are both honest. Bear in mind that I only suggest this fiction in order to ally attributes to both parties. Both parties want high employment, clean air, generalized health care and safety net for all citizens, safe living conditions, national prosperity, and international safety. In almost all social areas it would seem as if both parties want the same things for America so perhaps the main differences are in what they choose to do in order to achieve their goals.
Democrats seem to want a strong government that passes laws and taxes meant to regulate citizen behavior. Republicans say they want a smaller government that limits federal regulation and keeps lower taxes but the last Republican President issued 643 new regulations while the new regime has only issued 613 in the same time period. While the lesser number of regulations can be argued as being more costly, there is hardly any supporting evidence that either party will choose to remove or curtail existing regulations. Republicans stand for lower taxes but no real tax reform has been issued by that party. It seems that the primary difference between our two parties is rhetoric. Each accuses the other of not liking Mom or American Apple pie. Both parties support progressive agendas.
Fear mongering is also rampant in both parties and most of it is absolute B.S. Most news agencies support the democrats in distributing what can only be described as propaganda so the heavier proportion of B.S. dissemination can be attributed to the News Party Democrats but Republicans have their own media outlets which ooze contrary opinions that are flushed into the bowl of public review. Of course, there are elements of published information that do contain some truths but the real differences between both parties are hidden and the most prominent feature excluded by all reports is how similar both parties are to each other.
There may be individual politicians who are law-abiding and honest but it is still difficult to determine the long-range differences between parties. Taken as a whole, I think both Republicans and Democrats are dishonest, self-serving, and composed mostly of people who are of the same elitist ilk. I would be hard pressed to smell the difference between party members. I can only be assured of a political stench.
Thomas Jefferson said, “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
I respect Tom but it seems that we shall be burdened by party politics for some time to come. Where do our citizens stand? Do they care? Where are the honest candidates? Is it even possible for an honorable and ethical person to compete against the lies and hypocrisy of our elected officials and their media? Have all the votes been purchased?
I like the idea of health care for everyone and have put forth suggestions that may accomplish that objective at a low-cost that includes all citizens, but my suggestion is dominated by State inception and control. I do like clean air but feel diesel fuel and coal can be more widely utilized. I believe the USA should be energy independent. We should have a tax system that involves everyone so everyone has an interest in taxation. I believe the internet should be used for political reform and candidate platform discussion. I believe voting via internet and the abolishment of all political advertising would allow more, (hopefully honest), candidates to seek political office. I do want fewer regulations, a balanced budget, and a decrease in the number of government agencies. I want no Czars.
Is this too much to ask? Is there anyone out there willing to run for office?

Written by poyhonen

October 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Voting Reform VIA the Internet

with 3 comments

There are two reasons why we do not use the internet for voting:
The first reason is that it would be very, very difficult to cheat and not get caught
The second reason is that many think too many people would actually vote.
If you don’t believe the first reason, then please never, ever, use a credit card for any reason whatsoever. The world’s economy has been running on those little zero’s and one’s electronically transferring information on transactions for quite some time now. You don’t have to agree that we all rely on electronic transfers, just know that your bank does.
As for reason two – There are those who would have said too many uninformed or misinformed people would vote. I can partially agree with that but then many persons who think they are informed are misinformed and others who are arrive at conclusions and only vote after careful study can also be led astray by adept misinformation techniques. For example:
If you were a realtor; would you approach Al Gore to promote a sea side home at about the same elevation as San Francisco after Al has said most of San Francisco would soon be under water? I wouldn’t either, but an ‘informed’ realtor must have supported the sale. Or perhaps the realtor had viewed materials that were quite different than Al’s so the thought of selling such a house was perfectly reasonable given the information he had available for study.
Who or whom are we to believe? We are overcome with a plethora of information and I can guarantee that some of the info available is not true or accurate. How does this relate to voting? Well it defines the fear that many have concerning people voting based on misinformation, or worse yet, an emotional feeling about an issue, that does not concern itself with facts or analysis. Who’s got the truth?
Search online for yourselves and you will find many versions of truth and some are diametrically opposed. Whoever does have the truth seems to also have great difficulty in sharing it with the rest of us. So let me make a recommendation concerning voting using the internet.
Let every issue and every candidate have a web page supported by the Government. (It will still be cheaper than our current system of voting). Let every registered voter have access to the web pages information concerning every issue and candidate and test the voter concerning those issues and candidates before allowing him to cast a vote. Now we will have informed voters who have passed a test confirming they are knowledgeable of the issues and candidates, BUT, we haven’t been assured that the information they would be tested upon is accurate.
We will need a new government organization, (to ostensibly, supplant, enhance, and validate or expose our current news organizations). This group would be tasked to inform voters of the accurate details concerning issues and candidates. Their inputs would make up the information on the appropriate web pages concerning each issue and each candidate. This group of licensed professionals would also be tasked to answer questions from voters and their responses would be reviewed by all sides of an issue for accuracy. Of course all information furnished by candidates would be published but only ‘approved’ information would be in the content area set aside for voter analysis. Any challenge by any voter, candidate, or analyzer would stop the ‘approved content’ publishing of the information until the challenge was resolved. In this system, No candidate would be allowed to publish lies about his opponent and if he tried, it would be exposed in the unapproved content visible to all concerned. The challenges would have to be kept on a time basis to avoid a continuous challenge made to keep information from being published and, yes, there are other difficulties that would have to be overcome but it is not an impossible task to furnish accurate information to voters. This system would expose misleading information – lies would still be available for review, but they would be defined as inaccurate.
Would the TV ads still produce the gut level responses desired? This might best be answered if one of the questions on the candidate voting test was – Did this ad deliberately mislead the voter?
This system would also help any candidate not associated with the two big parties. They would have equality in terms of the candidate and issue information dissemination as defined in the new Voter’s Information Act, (VIA). Oh, that could be a very good thing for America. Yes, I do believe we could elect people VIA the internet.

Written by poyhonen

December 2, 2012 at 8:06 am