| Join our mailing
list!
Enter your email address below, then click the 'Join List' button: |
|
| Powered by ListBot | |
| Subscribe to Synergy net | |
| synergynet archive | Hosted by eGroups.com |
TheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb843898
andhttp://www.coolboard.com/boardshow.cfm/mb=632494864835909 and
http://live.av.com/scripts/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=2117&ck=
|
|
Web
Hosting
The central theme in 21st century politics is the way or how public services are delivered.
The scope of services is important but delivery systems is critical.
The decline of the EURO and slow growth in Europe is due in large measure to the drag on the economy of poorly run public services and excessive drain on saving and investment due to taxes, deficits, and entitlements. As the population ages the issue becomes even more severe as it reaches critical mass. In a generation 85 % of public spending and 20 % of all income will go to support the income and health of the retired if there is no change.
The only way, the third way, the new way is to introduce competition and free markets into the public sector. It is NOT the old conservative, less government more freedom ( mainly for the successful and rich by letting the old starve and die " are there not poor houses enough" said Mr. Scrooge ) but focused on the individual as the producer of all wealth and enterprise - without much concern for the environment, the common organic whole, social justice, racial harmony, liberation, the rights of property over equity and justice ( torts and restitution ) and the winner takes all philosophy - or the tax and spend ( tax the rich and spend on the less rich so there is little return on work and investment and a large dependent welfare class which bankrupts the society so we could end up like the Russians without the spirit of enterprise ) the anti-business beliefs of the old liberal - socialist ideologies without a strategy of growth and prosperity. Wealth can not be created by the state or state enterprises.
The issue is the right, rational, practical public sector - pro business - pro growth - limited and rational - not anti-government or pro-government but the necessary public services well delivered. In this way George W. is closer to Tony Blair than Gore, and Lieberman and the Progressive Policy Institute is closer to Republican than the stated program of the democrats. Of course, what they say and what they do has a very tenuous connection but... If the issues are joined - social security and Medicare, education partly privatized and privately run but publicly supported even if the democrats resist in public - they will change and find a compromise. It is new and somewhat dangerous grounds - entitlement and educational reform - and people are not willing to be pioneers. I remember a paper on intranets, and corporate information systems. Clearly the high cost and limited private networks with dedicated leased lines, was going to be replaced and/or supplemented by internet systems with wider access and linkages to clients, suppliers, et al.
The systems managers with knowledge in Novell and other limited systems were unhappy about learning and applying a new technology.
New systems are a headache and breakdown and cause a systems manager all kinds of grief. One said " pioneers get arrows in their backs ". True - maybe you can wait until the bugs are all worked out. All the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed or maybe you will be left behind ? It is a very difficult question and the most important business issue facing everyfirm from the smallest to the largest. Big firms used to be able to wait - and then buy up what worked without going through the pain of trying many options and finding the solutions for themselves. No new system works painlessly - but no pain no gain !
Public sector services become a blend of private and public - health, education, training and labor , welfare, postal and then military readiness, police, domestic security, fire, national parks and land, agricultural, international relations and NGO, non-profits, private global enterprises and government all and all will change - services will be networks of privatized and subsidized public services, vouchers, contracted agencies, leased facilities, capitalized public goods, each analysis for benefit /costs - rationalized - made above politics into practical modern delivery systems run in a business like manner. Individuals and firms will inspect more closely what they pay and what they get - the question is who will be the pioneer - and who will be dragged in kicking and screaming into the new age of public services.
Gore knows it, Bush knows it, Blair knows it, the discussion at international forms, business schools, think tanks, graduate schools, intellectual journals, all squeeze around the edges of the new thinking - networks - partnerships - post-competition - post nationalism, mergers of public and private - leagues working on common goals - ecological and biological models rather than mechanical clock like or machinery models. But who will step forward in the political arena and tell the truth - old system don’t work and change is not easy, painless where everyone wins and no one loses. But to refuse to change is far worse - a downward spiral of higher costs, lower productivity, higher taxes and worse services.
School vouchers, private saving and retirement ( substituted for low income ) competitive health service with clear cost / benefit calculations ( no free lunch - a disconnect between costs and service where neither doctors or patients are constrained by costs because the bill is paid by St. Elsewhere, a third party ) . Schools spend half their resources on non-classroom activities. While in 1965 85 % went to instruction now it is less than 50 % in the public sector and 85 % in the non-public schools.
The difference is special education which has grown from 5 % to near 25 %, useless paper work and reporting almost as much as in health care ( 20 % of the total cost is spent in getting and keeping hundreds of special grants and programs and accounting inspections. This huge expense is equal to and similar to the enormous cost of billing procedures in medicine ) and is the worse of both the private and public worlds.
The old public accounting systems that try to prevent fraud but can’t explain what you get for your money and private activity without moral purposes.
Normal Healthy Reactions and negations: A new Third or Fourth Way What a dull world it would be if we all agreed, if we were all alike and what a uncreative and unproductive our society would be if there was only one right way of thinking and doing. In the celebration of diversity we should acknowledge the creative force of discussion, disagreement, and conflict. When dealing with conflict, different values, different life experience, different cultures, different interests, different styles the first step is to acknowledge the legitimacy of differences and a desire to look for common humanity and common ground.
The theory of conflict resolution or peace theories is a process of building confidence, listening and repeating the concerns of the other side - " I hear what you saying, I understand what you care about, want, need, and desire - I recognize your rights and desires. " Now these are mine - where do we have room to come together ? For example, Jerusalem - the Palestinians need some sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and some rights over the holy places.
The Israelis need the same thing. If both sides make dogmatic claims and say they can’t compromise it seems an serious dilemma and could cause possible violence. By raising the issue to a higher level joint solutions can be found - different definitions of sovereignty, and creative common institutions progress can be make. If both sides understand they have to live together and give the others enough so they can have reconciliation then they can create cross cultural institutions, linkages, contacts etc. Such a process has worked in Northern Ireland, in the American South, South Africa, Central America, so that the populations know and trust each other so they can live and work together.
The dumb politics is to augment differences, to always attack any proposals made by the opposition and exaggerated the problem. How about a new politics - a third or fourth way - where one side responds positively to the suggestions of the other side. " Well, that is an interesting idea - maybe we can work something out " approach. In issues as complex as Social Security and Medicare serious negations and compromise are required and should be recognized rather than misleading numbers, programs and slogans by both sides. We had a meeting and decided we are right and you are wrong, Do voters and believers have defects because they refuse to believe and act as they should ? Or do organizations have a hubris of great claims on people’s loyalty, credibility, or subservience. Is public policy theology ? Is theology dogma ? If it is an article of faith that tax cuts are good even if it creates deficits, slows growth, destroys wealth and progress ( GOP ) then that limits options; OR you should tax the rich to benefit the poor ( fight for you against them ) therefore discourage enterprise, wealth creation, and the ability to fund public programs. Instead of study and analysis of the real world - others experience, expert studies; But instead we had a meeting and decided we are right and you are wrong :
The bluntly worded declaration by the Vatican office that oversees Catholic doctrine said that followers of non-Christian faiths have "gravely deficient" chances for salvation and that other Christian churches have "defects," partly because they do not recognize the authority of the pope. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates/lat_vatican000906.htm http://msnbc.com/news/455300.asp#BODY
There is growing concern that the Bush Campaign is in deep do-do.
There is movement to replace critical people and strategy. ." And given the gravity of the situation and the relatively short amount of time until November, Bush needs to get on the offensive soon. Updated governor vulnerability ratings. http://www.voter.com/home/news/0,3402,2--,00.html
The creation of a non-partisan Democracy Endowment
It is time for a new approach to achieve the fundamental goal of freeing our democracy from the coils of special-interest cash.
The Democracy Endowment will raise more than $7 billion over seven years, and then, with the interest and the returns on investment, finance Senate and House general election campaigns – with no other contributions allowed to candidates who accept the funding.
http://www.algore2000.com/agenda/agenda_cfr.html
And make no mistake, this cancer on our democracy is growing.
The tide of special-interest money rises relentlessly with each successive election cycle.
The estimate is that – unless we agree to ban soft money in this campaign – half a billion dollars of it will be raised and spent in this election, overwhelming our campaign laws in a cascade of unregulated cash.
http://www.algore2000.com/speeches/speeches_milwaukee_cfr.html
Corruption: and a Global Problem, maybe the most important social political issue world wide.
There was a time when "human rights" was not discussed in public as a political issue. When Carter made it a formal issue many objected that it was unrealistic. Now corruption is the 900 pound Gorilla no one wants to discuss. We may need a State Dept. office of international integrally
Is a global issue - on a scale of 1 = little or none to 10 = terrible and causes a failed society the United States is only 3 or 4 - GB and much of Europe and Japan is 1 or 2 - Russia is 8
China is 4, Mexico and much of Latin America and the Middle East is 5, India is 6 while Pakistan and Indonesia is 7 - central Africa 9 while the Congo is 10
The scale - weak laws and proceedures ( 2 to 3) money buys policy
the legal system - weak real police, prosecutors, courts ( 3 to 6 ) cronies and insiders rule
Public Finance - taxes not paid and expenditures not under control ( 5 to 8 ) money into private pockets and foreign accounts
Bribery as a way of life - in business it is required to pay bribes and deal people in and buy protection ( 7 to 9 )
Free acting gangs and criminal organizations ( private armies as economic organizations
Globalization:
The real issues of our times ( again ) is not being talked about or does the political process clarify the choices about the future. We desperately need to better understand who we are and where we are going.
The mundane and almost evil issues of greed, benefits, character narrowly defined, are out of any context as to the purposes, goals, missions, or tasks of a modern civilized society and changing national global realities.
There are four steps to modern progressive global societies. Self-government - Personal responsibilities and initiative - the idea of self government both as a personal and political system and with economic open markets. Competition produces both prosperity and inequality, the rich get richer but the poor need not get poorer if the second condition is enlivened - limits on personal or family greed - electoral reform is a minor reflection of a much greater issue of freedom, democracy when power and money is widely unequal. Responsibility, because of inequality and the danger of corruption by concentrations of power of money and military, there is a clear need for social dependability of individual and corporations who have developed civic duties and responsibilities beyond themselves - including supporting the rule of law and public goods purchased through government to create and maintain a civilized public culture.
The moral or family issues is a thin reflection of the great issues of duty and responsibility. Social consciousness comes from the third condition - Trust - building confidence over time and space between groups, races, societies, companies requires an open and honest methods of resolving disputes. Trust is required to do business beyond a few friends and family and does not come easily.
The religion, race and class divides are a weak reflection of the great issues of faith and trust in neighborhoods, communities, cities, states, nations, and beyond our borders.
The third condition sums it all up - Humanism - Ecology - Environment - Expanding intellectual, spiritual, and technical capacities of the individuals in a global society including developing institution as linkages between peoples, companies, non-profits, foundations ( NGO s ) governments, associations, panels, conferences, professional groups, media companies, educational institutions, the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, Churches, women’s groups, environmental groups, and the other of thousands of connections. GreenPeace, Doctors without Borders, need to be matched by alliances concerned about the great majority of people who suffer, mainly women and children. A Global Agenda: Expand the institutions of democracy - on a local basis by public finance and regulation of elections, and global support for the civic culture - the media, education, small business, internet access, rather than military intervention which should only be the last resort. Expand international law on corruption, massive civic crime, human rights abuse, and on a local basis getting over the learning gap - black 17 year olds performing as white 13 year olds - by what even means necessary - smaller, better, more competitive schools. Restoring Faith in institutions, public and private by serious reforms -
The model is integration of labor, management, and the public as official members of community.
The various European models of joint committees and structures should be useful. This is what was called industrial democracy. Re thinking welfare and social programs with a focus on women and children using new public private non-profit models.
The issue of structural reform does not appear as an issue any where I can find - even in third parties. As I see the issue is the 18th century electoral structure can not cope with a system of mass marketing and the money required to win in a big country.
The reform that is needed is to change the structure of the elections - a change from independent single member districts (
The Senate can not be changed in the current constitution ) to a system with clear party responsibility.
The parties need to be clearly a national franchise - with duties and responsibilities OVER their candidates and office holders. Being a Republican or Democrat has to mean something. If you run on a ticket there should be some implied contract. Many candidates do not even mention their party at all.
The national parties are now a committee of the states - equal representative by states so 15 % of the population has a majority.
There are many alternatives to achieve a responsible party system - some commitment to the platform and some disciple by members elected as members of a party.
Then there could be some control over money and have shorter and cleaner campaigns as in the rest of the civilized world.
The congress has become 535 independent small business people without much discipline or policy. All this talk about issues is hollow because the talk does not relate to what happens. In England for example the parties have a "manifesto" or platform that will predict how they will govern. We don't. So it's mostly verbiage and marketing. Promises her anything but what will be done after she is seduced ? People know that elections don't connect to policy - that policy is made by the iron triangle - Interest groups - the committees that fund for congress for reelection - and the agencies the congress funds and regulate. If you follow the money trail it goes to congress and then congress funds programs and give benefits - regulation, tax and subsidies - to those who fund their election.
The single ballot ( President and congress on the same check mark ) so there is some connection between executive and congressional authority is one suggestion. An amendment to make clear the federal power to regulate federal elections or just a statue taking control over federal office holders.
The only way to get to structural reform is via a convention called by the states since congress will not reform itself.
The right to control federal elections by federal law should not be in doubt - this does now effect the bill of rights - but only the structure of he process of running elections.
The certification of results, the qualifications of voters and candidates, the times and dates of primaries and elections, the certification of recognized Political parties and their candidates and the conduct of campaigns financed by publicly regulated expenditures shall be prescribed by law to assure
The primaries could be done nationally in early September with a run off in the last week of September with conventions ( not really necessary ) during October (Enough is enough ) Federal campaigns would be publicly financed and limited in their expenditures.
It won’t be easy to break the grip of the special interests and pass McCain-Feingold next year. But here is what I will do:
I will use the full reach of the bully pulpit to press the case for McCain-Feingold.
I will identify by name the special interests blocking the way, the money they are giving, and the officials who are doing their bidding.
The next important steps are tough new lobbying reform, publicly-guaranteed TV time for debates and advocacy by candidates, and a crackdown on issue advocacy ads.
I will propose and fight for a law requiring monthly disclosure of all lobbyists’ activities, posted on the Internet and fully accessible to the public. Every citizen will be able to find out to whom lobbyists have contributed, and the specific meetings they’ve gained to influence specific pieces of legislation.
Full disclosure of lobbying activities can help dry up the supply of special-interest money. Free TV time can help reduce the demand for it.
I said more than ten years ago – and I still believe today – that "broadcasters are given a government license for exclusive use of the public airwaves. In return, they are expected to operate in the public interest."
I will strongly advocate the approach developed by Paul Taylor. Every broadcaster should give every candidate for federal office five minutes of air time a night in the last thirty days before the general election. Cable operators should work with their content providers to establish a similar practice.
And if broadcast stations air independent issue ads, I believe they should be required by the FCC to give – for free -- the same amount of air time to both candidates in the race. If broadcasters wanted to avoid the requirement to give such free time, all they have to do is say no to the special interests who want to influence our campaigns. I will petition the FCC to issue a ruling that recognizes this requirement as a necessary part of broadcasters’ obligation to serve the public. And I will appoint commissioners who – like some already on the FCC – believe the public interest must be protected in new ways, in light of new threats facing it.
Step by step, we can reduce the influence of special-interest money in campaigns. But our ultimate goal must be to eliminate it altogether.
Some believe the answer is a system of public financing for Congressional and Presidential elections, like the one I first supported in the 1970’s.
However, bills to establish public financing of Congressional elections have been introduced in every single session of Congress for a quarter-century -- and not a single comprehensive public financing proposal has passed Congress. Almost none have been approved by even one Congressional Committee.
It is time for a new approach to achieve the fundamental goal of freeing our democracy from the coils of special-interest cash.
So I propose the creation of a non-partisan Democracy Endowment – to follow up on the urgent reform of our campaign finance laws by McCain-Feingold with a revolutionary change to further safeguard our self-government in the 21st Century.
The Democracy Endowment will raise more than $7 billion over seven years, and then, with the interest and the returns on investment, finance Senate and House general election campaigns – with no other contributions allowed to candidates who accept the funding.
Let me be clear: this is a non-partisan endowment for our common democracy. You can’t give to any one party; you can’t give to any one candidate. Every qualified candidate will have access to these funds according to a formula that is based on the district or state in which they are running.
The views of the donor will have absolutely no influence on their views of the recipient. In this way, we will break the connection between the giving of money and the gaining of influence in these election contests.
To raise the funds for the Endowment, there will be a 100 percent tax deduction for any individual or corporation that contributes – on a first-come, first-serve basis – until the Endowment is filled. And as soon as it is filled, the tax deduction will sunset.
As President, I will work aggressively to secure these funds -- and I will seek the help of every corporation, every union, every major foundation, every dot-com millionaire and every other citizen in America.
If the endowment is not filled within seven years, the difference will be made up by free TV time – required of broadcasters as a condition for their licenses.
This will provide a powerful incentive for broadcasters to air public service announcements that will help fill the fund.
From McCain-Feingold to lobbying reform and a crack-down on special interest issue ads, to the Democracy Endowment, our cause is nothing less than the most sweeping campaign finance reform in history. And it will not be easy. For just as the tobacco companies battle every major measure to reduce teen smoking – just as the HMO lobbyists fight against measures to ensure the best health care, not just the cheapest – they and all the other special interests will be joined together in waging a mighty war to preserve their place and their privileges under the current political system.
But let us understand what is at stake here -- our faith in our own self-government, and ultimately, the very future of our democracy.
If we believe in the ideal of one person, one vote, as my father so strongly did – then let us fight for the reforms that make sure every vote counts equally.
If we believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people – then let us have an election process of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Some candidates portray themselves as being above the will of the people.
They forget that, in spite of the system’s degradation, their power still derives from the will of the people. I need you to keep raising your voices in a grassroots movement for reform. I need you to give me your mandate to carry this banner forward.
Together, we can end the money chase, and create a system where we pursue our highest ideals. And if you entrust me with the Presidency, I make you this pledge: I will fight for political reform. I will fight for you. I will fight to give the power in our politics back to the people. Thank you.