I forgot my password!
Political Ideology - No Label Party
Originally created by
6 years ago
on 2 Roots
: Undefined index: FID in
5 years ago
I aplogize for the length of the message, and I did want to split them, but I didn't want to chunk the topic for 12 different posts. Go ahead and reply with whatever disagreements you have on my view, as I'm sure there will be quite a bit of it.
I actually support a great deal of the platform for this No Label Party. However, the major problems with it would be the amount of short-sighted thinking and fluff involved in the platform. It is based on 12 points, cumulated
∞ here ∞
#1: \"No Budget, No Pay\" said:
If Congress can't make spending and budget decisions on time, they shouldn't get paid on time either. Every government fiscal year begins October 1. If the congressional appropriations (spending) process is not completed by that date, congressional pay ceases as of October 1, and isn't restored until appropriations are completed.
While seemingly helpful in an "eye for an eye" type outlook, I believe this gives wealthy congressmen even more power in the chips they have on the table by keeping their fellow legislators' chips off the table. Not actually a good thing in my opinion.
#5: \"Make Members Come to Work\" said:
A Five-Day Workweek, Three Weeks in DC, One Week in the Home State or District
Once again, sounds good on paper, but I figure a large chunk of the work is left back in the home state where surely a 2-3 day week (much planned off...) will cripple any campaign run. I still believe fervently that our legislators representing our state should LIVE in our state; We shouldn't only get them for the weekends. However, I do agree that more mandatory time on the clock should be in place, but more than three days full time is way overkill when other duties come with the job. If the other ideas are implemented, I doubt there'd be a need for a 2 day full-time week in the capitol. I do, however, support the notion of working schedules between the House and Senate.
#6: \"Question Time for the President\" said:
We should take a cue from the British Parliament's regular questioning of the prime minister to create question time for the president and Congress. These meetings occasionally may be contentious, but at least they force leaders to actually debate one another and defend their ideas. Here's how it would work: on a rotating basis the House and Senate would issue monthly invitations to the president to appear in the respective chamber for questions and discussion. Each question period would last for 90 minutes and would be televised. The majority and minority would alternate questions. The president could, at his discretion, bring one or more cabinet members to the question period and refer specific questions to them.
I'm on the fence on this one. I do somewhat like the notion that our leaders would be relaying their ideas between each other, but I see this purely being a presidential inquizition solely on how his job is going. It puts the president in a rough spot, since in essence he's not even a legislator. He's that branch of government that is supposed to be allowed spur of the moment decisions (with the possibility of impeachment for illegal actions), and so I want him to be left to do what's left of his job. Anymore he seems like a jester for Congress. If Congress is required to chime in, I'd be more for it, but still edgy about the "3 branches working together" aspect. They're supposed to balance each other, not do each other's jobs.
#7: \"Fiscal Report to Congress: Hear it. Read it. Sign it.\" said:
The American people deserve to know what's really happening with our nation's finances, and we believe Congress should at least be able to work off the same set of numbers. That's why every year, a nonpartisan leader, such as the comptroller general, should deliver a televised fiscal update in-person to a joint session of Congress. The president, vice president, all cabinet members, senators and congressmen must attend this fiscal update session and take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the comptroller general's report by signing the report, just as CEOs are required to affirm the accuracy of their company's financial reporting.
We already have accurate United States reports given by our federal departments. The inaccuracy falls on the spur-of-the-moment statistics created by government officials and the omission of data conflicting with one's story purposefully, neither of which is solved by this. A presidential waste of time.
#8: \"No Pledge but the Oath of Office\" said:
It's time to cut the puppet strings that allow narrow interest groups to control members of Congress. Members should make no pledge but the pledge of allegiance and their formal oath of office.
Once again, taking the chips from those that can't hide under-the-table secrets as well as wealthier politicians. Good on paper, but I'm willing to bet bad in practice.
#9: \"Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings\" said:
Like any workplace, Congress depends on good human relationships to function. When there are no relationships, there's dysfunction. To get members talking to one another, both the House and Senate should institute monthly bipartisan gatherings. The gatherings would be off the record and not be televised.
Only reason I don't like this is because it's fluff. Friends will hang with friends. My guess is that the Democrats will conspire death scenarios while the Republicans step outside and shoot skeet.
#10: \"Bipartisan Seating\" said:
It's time to curb the cliques in Congress. At all joint meetings or sessions of Congress, each member should be seated next to at least one member of the other party. On committees and subcommittees, seating also would be arranged in an alternating bipartisan way (one member would be seated next to at least one member of the other party) by agreement between the chair and ranking member.
More fluff. You aren't going to discuss something meaningful with members of the other party. In fact, I think this will more effectively make agendas more scattered with a complete lack of interaction when an important point hits the stage.
As mentioned, it does look like a good step in the right direction, I just think it should be short, sweet, and to the point rather than grabbing every little thought that crosses someone's mind. The Congress isn't going to implement any views at this point that have 12 different areas, so I would consolidate greatly. Otherwise, a it's a step in the right direction.
: Undefined index: FID in
5 years ago
Thank you for posting this. I realized many of these problems, and though I say that I am No Label, this is more for the guiding principle I mentioned rather than the 12 points you did. I do agree with some of the ideas, most of which rely largely on execution of the idea, and disagree with others.
: Undefined index: FID in
5 years ago
I originally discovered this party when a representative appeared on The Colbert Report. The No Label Party is made up of both democrats and republicans with a guiding principle of only using political parties during elections; they would not matter once one is elected. Here is a link to the site:
∞ LINK ∞