With the primary elections over and Romney the Republican (defacto) nominee, perhaps now we the people, can stop talking people and personalities and start to deal in issues that are important to the country. Many people tend to think that the candidates are proxies for their parties. They are not.
If elected the candidate does have considerable executive power and influence, but the largest part of power belongs to the parties and Congress.
It is party belief and ideology that determines what our country will become. Nothing wrong with that if voters can visualize and understand the kind of model country they will get when they vote. But that requires a level of truth and transparency that a lot of politicians are afraid of.
A party”s intentions are usually presented as platforms and not by accident. They are seldom released until just before the election itself. I feel they should be formulated, specifically-written and released at least six months prior to the election. To give voters a chance to think and analyze the several issues and positions and vote for the country they most like, not figureheads. When a candidate says “I will” rather than “I”ll try” he/she is simply lying as the power to accomplish is elsewhere.
Thankfully the vast majority of voters agree on many subjects: Eliminating deficits and reducing the national debt; health care and food and shelter for all (probably because they don”t want to watch people die) who do not qualify for medicare and social security; limiting undesirable immigration for example. They also need to understand that substantive changes take time and there is no thing as right now and that it takes far less time to create a crisis than correct it.
As a start the country does have two versions of a 2013 budget, both of which need a lot of work. Business modelers and improvement businesses pay a lot of attention to what has worked and not worked.
Since 1980 this country has had three two-term administrations to draw from: Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II and there is much to draw from. Reagan showed the ineffectiveness of the Laffer curve and had to restore the economic conditions he had originally to get out of trouble. His last year was pretty good. Clinton inherited reasonable conditions from Bush II”s father, was able to reduce taxes and his last year actually had a budget surplus even though he did not veto the repeal of Glass-Steagle.
Bush II showed the disastrous effects of reducing national revenue while spending vast sums the country didn”t have, increasing government size, and not paying attention to the effects of the Glass-Steagle repeal. Some good, some bad, but all important input in figuring what is good for the nation from an economic, objective perspective, not emotional or ideological.
The good of the nation has to be the first priority. Actions that are needed, not necessarily just wanted. As with business the country needs to determine what levels of expenses are necessary to maintain a functioning U.S.A. Expense levels that will prevent the current degrading of the country”s lifestyle.
Maybe even improve it. A lot of expenses will need alterations, many will need to eliminate luxuries.
The problem is not in the basics, it is in the mechanics to accomplish.
The advantage our country has over private business is the fact that it has a huge potential revenue source to draw on in the same way it did during WWII.
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
