Okay, DUers, time to work on party resolutions! Let's see 'em!

Rather than wait for Democratic and progressive organizations to start suggesting resolutions, let's start putting our heads together NOW and drafting resolutions to introduce at our precinct conventions and such.

Here's one I'd like to see: a resolution calling for the Department of Homeland Security to be defunded and dismantled. Wipe it out entirely; DHS has proven that it's useless in keeping our nation "secure."

Next!

We have to change the "more is better" thinking in this country (whether it's immigrants or American babies) ~ and figure out how to take care of the resources we have. We need to think planetary sustainability and national sustainability ~ with much more attention to new technologies, including plenty of money for research and development.

That's what I'm really aiming at - if you introduce a resolution calling for "zero population growth," some fellow Democrats may look at you cockeyed, rent some porno DVDs, and then introduce a few more babies to the world in nine months; but if you can frame sustainability in a small group of resolutions promoting corporate sustainability, renwable fuels, etc., then I think you'll make greater headway.

It would take a visionary leader to sell the idea of zero pop growth. The desire to "sustain" the country and the planet is the reason you'd choose such a policy.

You start with the obvious policy changes:

- A moratorium on all immigration, no matter what the country of origin.

- Do away with per child tax credits.

- Install tax breaks for small families, two or less children.


The next piece involves tax incentives and government funding for new clean technologies - and tax penalties for environmentally destructive ways of doing things.

(I would hope most Dems understand the concept of zero population growth - pretty self-explanatory. This is another area where Europe leads; it's even a popular idea in Italy, where families have traditionally been large.)

Historically, we have striven to provide a safe haven for people fleeing tyrannical governments around the globe, and I don't want that to stop now.

But as far as funding clean technologies, I'm all for it. I'd go beyond tax penalties for eco-hostile activities, however - that's too soft. I'd authorize shutdown of noncompliant facilities by armed Federal agents and revocation of corporate charters. That would definitely hurt.

But we can send aid (techno, money, expertise, etc.) to other countries, so people can reclaim their own homelands. To keep bringing in more and more people is like a husband and wife thinking they must have 10 children because they had the first 2 ~ simply silly. The couple has a responsibility to the children they already have to be able to provide for them. We're like a family completely out of control! Many scientists believe that within thirty years huge sections of the southwest will run out of water ~ and that's just one example.

As far as corporate shutdowns for noncompliance, I'm definitely with you! Unfortunately the Bush admin. has dismantled most of the policies that were in place to police this stuff ~ it'll take a while to put three decades of environmental work back together.

Evolving beyond the continuous growth model, to one of balance and stability, is vital.

I have a whole laundry list of others, in no particular order:


Repeal NCLB
Repeal NAFTA/CAFTA/Patriot Act
Withdraw from WTO
Support Kyoto
Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care
Hand-counted paper ballots
100% public funding of campaigns, ensuring an equal playing field for all
Proportional representation, IRV, and/or any other system that would break the corrupt 2-party stranglehold on elections
Universal pre-school - college or trade school.
Some version of a fairness doctrine
Re-regulation, de-privatization of public services
Privacy as an inalienable right

I could go on, but these are my top issues.

Tariffs must be imposed on nations where labor is cheaper than in the US so that it is no more expensive to do business in the US than overseas.

Medicare for everyone.

Put union protections back in place.

Capital gains taxed at the same rate as earned income. And how 'bout a 91% tax bracket for the Super-Rich, just like when Eisenhower (a Republican) was President, and Republicans held both houses of Congress? The economy did fine then - much better than today.

The whole concept of a "living wage" isn't just for Americans.

Are you saying that, for those who make the most money in America, 91 cents out of every dollar should go to the government? Don't know if that'll sail, but I'd love to see Exxon/Mobil subjected to that.

Under Eisenhower, the wealthiest Americans paid about 50% of their income in federal taxes. Today, it's down to 17% or so.

Economically, we were stronger under Eisenhower than we are now. From my blog: http://blueworksbetter.com/PresidentsGDPGrowth

Of course, if I win the lottery, I'll probably grumble about it, but there's so many people in America who are in desperate need of even the most basic resources.

this includes 4 major proposals:

1. the elimination of DREs that cannot provide verified election results
2. the proposal that no one who holds a post as an election official can be a campaign manager or a member of a candidate's
election campaign.
3. that congress will not accept the votes from a contested election in a state where a recount has been denied
4. the electoral college will be eliminated and the election will be based on the popular vote, this will
eliminate the 11 swing state focus and a 50 state strategy would be harder to rig the results.

The fourth one - abolition of the Electoral College - has one strong argument against it, and here it is:

Let's say you have a nation - let's call it Vespucciland - that only has five states. Of those five states, four of them are rural, agrarian states with sparse populations, while the fifth state is heavily industrialized and has 70% of the total population of this little country.

Vespucciland has the same Constitution that the United States has, minus the Electoral College. Here, election of the President is by direct, popular vote.

It's election season, and the rural-friendly Farmer's Party has a candidate that would be perfect for Vespucciland - he appeals to conservative farmers on fiscal policies and trade, liberal civil rights activists on preserving the rights of the accused in court, etc. All four agrarian states support him wholeheartedly.

But who wins the election, anyway? The bumbling candidate from the Urban Party, who has a nice smile and a few good ideas here and there, but he rubs too many agrarians (conservative and liberal alike) the wrong way - still, he has the full support of the one industrialized state, which has most of the population to begin with. The four agrarian states just don't have the numbers to challenge the industrial bloc. There is talk of secession and even of civil war, as the industrialists are scared of losing their heartland and breadbasket.

The one good thing about an Electoral College is that it gives each state a fairly equal share of represenation at the national level. It might have helped out Vespucciland.

the candidates concentrate on those 11 states, and Florida and Ohio remain prime targets for vote rigging since they make it possible
to swing the whole election. Let's base our recommendation on experience not theory.

We're no longer a hard red state - Democrats swept practically every local election in Dallas County, which has sent the national Republican machine reeling. This was supposed to be George W. Bush's adopted home turf, just a couple of hours away from his pig farm in Crawford.

Our state is in play for 2008 - and don't you let anyone convince you otherwise.

Maryland is 100% Diebold, do you think that I have forgotten how I tried to vote for Kerry 5 times and Bush kept lighting up.

Seriously, that is truly screwed up.

I even have a little magic act that I perform that was inspired by Diebold. It's called the Diebold Chips, and they always choose your chip (your vote) for you. Freaked out a couple of Congressional candidates who saw it.

they will send a "note" along with the cards to "explain" yeah, right, like that ever works, but all of the election judges in Baltimore City have been replaced since 2004 but we still have Diebold.

I would add strict term limits and public funding for elections ~ get back to gov't BY THE PEOPLE instead of career politicians and lobbyists.

we should put it to the American people like this, public funding would protect the American people from the encroachment of
special interests, we either pay up front or we pay every day after they're elected, but I think that right now there is no
money for public campaigns, better to run on fiscal responsibility for now. We can't have wine and cheese when we can't even
afford napkins.

This includes the Safeway/Tom Thumb Reward Card, the Kroger Plus Card, the CVS Extra Care Card, etc.

Have you ever noticed that supermarkets and pharmacies that adopted these cards stopped having sales almost overnight - unless you happen to have the "loyaty card" in your purse or wallet?

There are all sorts of reasons to outlaw the use of these cards, not the least of which is citizen privacy. The CASPIAN website can tell you more:

http://www.nocards.org

we should strive for universal, popular goals

universal health care
voting reform
end the Iraq War
improve education
make taxes more equitahle in the U.S., I think we should avoid "tax the rich" rant that Kerry made, quire frankly,
I think that is was brought the swiftboaters, let's just say more equitable. You notice the Republicans always
run on blue sky, apple pie and end up winning.

Look how much supermarket prices have gone up, and nothing's ever on sale anymore - but if you accept one of those "loyalty cards" and agree to have your purchases tracked by a central computer and your personal spending habits monitored by corporate bean-counters, they'll give you a slight discount. Those cards are a scam.

Resolutions on the precinct level need to do more than focus on "big ticket" issues like universal health care and education. They need to address every single facet of American life in order to provide for greater freedom and opportunity for the individual citizen.

due to George W. Bush and his no lobby left behind style of governing, we have to do middle of the road things, this is too
important to risk another loss, the country has been ravaged by the GOP special interests, please, let's just focus on

improving the environment, everybody wants America to be better for their kids
improving education, we all know what budget cuts have done to our schools
improving the health care system, everybody knows we need a better system
ending our occupation of Iraq
improving our standing in the world community, ie the Kyoto treaty for a start, respecting the ban on nuclear arms proliferation
for starters
and improving our relationship with Mexico to resolve the immigration problem, like helping to fund their offshore oil drilling,
this would provide oil for us which we need and jobs for them which they need.

Don't get me wrong. What you're suggesting has been tried over and over, and it's all very good, and we should not abandon any of it. But we need to think big. Let the lobbies waste their war chests trying to defeat us. So much the better for the Democrats.

we need a direct approach, a lot of positive feel good vibes, a gut campaign where the voter feels good listening to the
candidate who speaks to their issues.

We didn't start making headway in 2006 on sweetness and light alone.

it says that George W. Bush appealed to the reporters, they thought he was genuine, they thought Gore as a liar, throughout the
campaign they saw everything through that lense. I think the real story was that George was the son of a president and Gore
was painted with the anger towards Clinton that people felt. People thought that Clinton had let them down with the sleazy
scandals and they took it out on Gore.

How about a resolution calling for Federal and/or state laws that make it illegal to force potential homeowners to sign a mandatory arbitration clause as a prerequisite to purchasing a home?