Nov 12 2008
GOP As The Party Of “American Families”
Sorry for the light posting, but there has been little real news and a lot of boring chatter from the Political Industrial Complex recently. Really had nothing to say about the echo chamber echoes. That and an increased work load pretty much stopped the posting briefly.
I have been thinking about what the GOP could be doing to restructure its conservative principles into something more attractive to the American voter. And I thought that the what this country cries out for is a party for The American Family.
We don’t need to ‘share the wealth’, which usually means taking from families who have worked hard to build something to pass along to the next generation. American Families do need tax relief and more affordable health insurance. They need affordable energy and access to good education facilities. They need a government that supports their continuity, not one that provides options for disintegration. And singles without kids to raise and support need to realize they don’t need the same government services and financial breaks as those raising kids. Two working adults with average jobs can lavish upon themselves almost endlessly while two working parents with 3-4 kids will struggle to make ends meet for decades.Â
In addition, many “American Families” are tied to small businesses, run by families or run like families. There needs to be a distinction between the small family business and corporate giants flush with funds, lawyers and lobbyists. We group these different elements of our economic engine together, but we really should distinguish them. We should be supporting small new businesses so they can grow up to refresh the gigantic deadwood that seems to surround us these days. We do not support evolution in our corporate mix, tending more to try and retain the status quo.
Based on this view of America the GOP and conservative movement could be reborn into something better, yet still tied to guiding principles (verses specific version of legislation or policy on specific subjects like immigration).
- Low taxes for families and small companies (up to $1 million for a family with children to raise, up to $15-25M in annual revenues for companies). Families are raising the next generation, small business is creating the economy of tomorrow.
- Affordable health care through pooling of small businesses into the US government plans (or some other commercial plan). Families of small businesses pay the most per head in health care – I know. We should not be subsidizing the large companies and government agencies, it should be the other way around. If you want to share wealth allow small companies or families to opt into health insurance pools offered commercially. And let families own their health insurance so it goes with them, and not there current job.
- Force colleges to fund their whacky experimental and liberal subjects separately from the core courses. We have universities bloated with BS studies on a range of subjects which are a waste of money. I don’t mind paying tuition to support the mainstream courses, but I really bristle over the fact much of my children’s college education money goes to giving a living wage to some lunatic fringe. I don’t have this idea firmed up yet, but we need to find a way to make college education affordable and force schools to fund their fringe elements separately. The universities need take the financial risk and responsibility on these schemes, not the students or families of the general student body. There has to be some way to establish accounting rules that won’t make the money so fungible for education.
- Home schooling and access to private schools helps families and generates an new group of education related business opportunities for small companies.
- Policies for lowering energy costs help families and small businesses – no two ways about it. And as long as the large corporations and large consumers are paying higher taxes or fees than the average low end user we are balancing the load in an optimal manner.
- In general, have Federal Study, Grant or investment money go to a partnership of small and large companies, where the small company can retain any resulting Intellectual Property and the large company will get the opportunity to exploit the Intellectual Property to increase revenues and profits. As a result of each investment by the government a new small business (or two or three) should have the opportunity to try and take off. It will ensure our economic engine is refreshed with new blood and ideas.
- Obviously the Party of American Family will also be the party of the yet to be born. We can educate people on the wonderful gift of life (as opposed to seeing it as ‘punishment’), we can provide support to young mothers who want to bring a new life into the world, and we can provide support for adoption options. We should leave Roe vs Wade alone until we have planted the seeds of respect and honor for life sufficiently in general population that a discussion can be had. The GOP is in no position to mandate morality, no matter how right it is.Â
- Also, as the Party of The American Family we can end the wasteful and greedy efforts on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) by reinstating the long held rule that no human experimentation is done until the processes and risks have been demonstrated on animals. Relegating ESCR to prove itself out on Chimpanzees will not slow the rate of progress (which is zero right now anyway). We then can put massive money into Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) which is right now producing a wealth of therapies for a range of diseases and disabilities.
- Being the party of The American Family national security is a no brainer as well. We protect the economy and safety of our country, which is the environment in which the American Family flourishes and grows, and the small businesses can succeed for the family.
- Being the party of The American Family the GOP would balance border security with a compassionate conservatism that would provide a workable and controllable guest worker program and a process to bring the long term illegal immigrants into our culture. We would rally around comprehensive reform as opposed to destroying any opportunity for progress.
I’m really interested in the medical insurance question.
What I would love is for many insurance companies to offer a list of must have coverage to choose from, and lists of elective add-ons at a higher rate for people to choose from. Surely in a competitive market companies would compete to get business by offering good lists to sell to individuals. I would ask the government to give a tax credit for those who buy their own insurance. Insurance companies could send out a W-2 like form to verify on tax returns that insurance has been purchased. For those who can’t afford insurance there are many programs already financed by the government, they need to be looked at and adjusted as necessary. I’m not sure how to make those who can afford insurance buy it. But an incentive like a tax deduction should help.
I think people should be responsible for their own insurance not employers. The kind of coverage that is negotiated by large companies (through unions) is excessive and surely makes all insurance more expensive for all of us. Employers could raise wages in stead of offering insurance. For people to stay in jobs that they hate so as to not loose insurance is crazy.
Our government should empower it’s people and families to be encharge of their needs and choices.
Years ago when morgtage rates were pegging 19% we lived in Texas. At that time the State offered a first home owner program where they payed down the rate to 6% lower and required only 5% down instead of 10% down for a fixed rate 30yr loan. All contingent on good credit, full disclosure of all debt and proof of ability to pay. The program had a maximum morgatge that enabled us to buy a $2000 square foot 15 year old house. We scrimped and saved, borrowed from parents, sold my insurance to get the down and fees.
I would be glad to support a national program like that, even with the prospect of addintional tax burden, but I do not want to buy out a lot of bad debt for people who didn’t sacrifice anything to “own” a home. Or who feel they should “own” a home with no job, and mountains of credit card debt.
Years ago when morgtage rates were pegging 19% we lived in Texas. At that time the State offered a first home owner program where they payed down the rate to 6% lower and required only 5% down instead of 10% down for a fixed rate 30yr loan. All contingent on good credit, full disclosure of all debt and proof of ability to pay. The program had a maximum morgatge that enabled us to buy a $2000 square foot 15 year old house. We scrimped and saved, borrowed from parents, sold my insurance to get the down and fees.
I would be glad to support a national program like that, even with the prospect of addintional tax burden, but I do not want to buy out a lot of bad debt for people who didn’t sacrifice anything to “own” a home. Or who feel they should “own” a home with no job, and mountains of credit card debt.
interesting, I was thinking of some core values myself.
1. Increase domestic energy production and stop the artificial inflation of energy prices.
2. Divest the Government of all holdings bought during the bailout.
3. Maintain a 10 year edge in weapon technology.
4. Support pro-us governments and factions overseas.
5. Push trade agreements.
6. Maintain low taxes.
7. Prevent the hard pro-choice left from dehumanizing life in the womb. (I was thinking of stem cells and partial birth abortion primarily)
8. Try and curtail the pork spending.
9. Do not play by the standards the media establish.
10. Do not succumb to the David Brooks version of reform.
Its a start, why isn’t there a grassroots internet drive to create a few basic ideas we agree on across the spectrum.
AJ,
After reviewing your principles, I’m confused by your statement that “We don’t need to ’share the wealth’”. Since you seem to equate Obama’s proposal to abandon Bush’s tax cuts and lower taxes for lower/middle income tax payers as a socialist attempt to redistribute the wealth, I’m wondering why your proposals don’t amount to the same thing.
You want lower taxes for families with income up to $1 million and small businesses with revenues up to $15-25M. Doesn’t that mean you are saying that those tax payers or businesses above those income levels should be required to bear a greater tax burden? If so, why – because they can afford to pay higher taxes? When you say that “liberals have their class warfare, the GOP will be fighting for families of all classes” how does that square with your proposal to limit lower taxes to those families making less than $1M? It sounds to me like you are advocating the same tax approach as Obama except you propose higher income levels for those entitled to tax cuts.
On the health care issue, you state “We should not be subsidizing the large companies and government agencies, it should be the other way around. If you want to share wealth allow small companies or families to opt into health insurance pools offered commercially. ” What do you mean by “subsidizing the large companies” and “share wealth”. Sounds like you are advocating redistributing the cost of health care so that larger companies pay a greater amount or percentage than currently.
On the energy issue, you state “as long as the large corporations and large consumers are paying higher taxes or fees than the average low end user we are balancing the load in an optimal manner.” Isn’t advocating higher taxes and fees on larger companies and consumers a form of redistributing the wealth?
When you say that “singles without kids to raise and support need to realize they don’t need the same government services and financial breaks as those raising kids” isn’t that a form of wealth redistribution? Aren’t you simply saying that we should redistribute wealth from people without children to married couples with children because the former can get by on less income? If a single person and a married person with kids work equally hard, why do you think that the single person should be entitled to less government services or financial breaks – I thought the GOP was all about rewarding people for their effort and work, not who needs more financial help?
What do you mean when you say “We need to stop soaking the rich and pandering to them.” Aren’t you advocating redistributing the wealth by ending policies that benefit the rich so that we can give more tax cuts and services to families and small businesses?
I hate to be the first person to point this out to you AJ, but I think you are a closet socialist. You are clearly advocating redistributing the wealth from (1) large companies to small companies, (2) families making more than $1m to those families making less than $1M, and (3) singles or people without children to married couples with children.
As usual Conman, your reading comprehension skills are as bad as your math skills.
I simply said that huge corporations and the very rich would still pay what they pay now, but families leading the middle class and small companies (usually one in the same) should not be treated like Exxon or Bill Gates.
How you get so confused over such simple concepts is truly amazing.
AJ,
Well, let me try and explain why I got so confused over such “simple concepts”.
I didn’t understand that you were distinguishing “huge corporations” and “the very rich” from the rest of the tax payers because you did not use either of those terms once in your post. For future reference, if you want readers to understand that you are talking about particular groups you should actually use those terms in your post. There is a big difference between “large companies” and “huge corporations” and an even bigger difference between those making more than $1m and “the very rich”.
I didn’t understand that you were saying that “huge corporations and the very rich would still pay what they pay now” because you never said that once in your post. To the contrary, you said “We should not be subsidizing the large companies”, stated that we should require that “large corporations and large consumers are paying higher taxes or fees than the average low end user”, and claimed “we need to stop soaking the rich and pandering to them.” I’m not exactly sure how you thought anyone would assume these statements meant you don’t want to increase taxes or other financial burdens for “huge corporations” and “the very rich”.
I didn’t understand that you were advocating tax cuts for the “middle class” because I have never heard anyone refer to the middle class as those making up to $1m annually. The even funny part is that Obama also advocated tax cuts for the middle class – the only difference is that you and he have a different definition of what is middle class.
I didn’t understand that you were not advocating a redistribution of wealth because you made statements like “If you want to share wealth allow small companies or families to opt into health insurance pools offered commercially.” For future reference, the term “sharing the wealth” and “redistributing the wealth” are synonomous for the GOP – just ask Obama.
Regardless of how you attempt to rephrase or parse your own terms, you are clearly advocating policies that benefit particular groups over others – small companies over large companies, families over single people and those making less than $1M over those making more thna $1M – on the grounds that these groups need the assistance more and are more important to our economy. Under the GOP’s definition, that is clearly socialism!
The party of The American Family the GOP would balance border security with a compassionate conservatism that would provide a workable.
========================
brian
washington drug rehab