I’ve been following the presidential election from afar with a growing sense of frustration. I’m an American expat living in Buenos Aires – I don’t watch the news and we don’t spend much time talking politics, but I do spend a fair amount of time reading about the various candidates. I’m dismayed by the constant, petty arguing, the lack of respect, and the absence of logic, but most of all, I am discouraged by the lack of leadership.
It feels like our country has become increasingly divided over the past ten years. Our politicians – and our citizens – are constantly bickering over a myriad of very sensitive issues. We square off about tax breaks for millionaires (1% vs 99%), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (interventionists vs mind-our-own-businessists), gay marriage (conservatives vs liberals), abortion (pro-life vs pro-choice), and a host of other us-vs-them issues.
The problem with these type of issues is that there is no clear-cut, obvious right answer. No matter which side wins, the country loses – the losing side won’t quietly get in line and move on to the next issue. Surely these issues are important and cannot be ignored – but we are hopelessly distracted by controversy, paralyzed by an endless series of debates that have no definitive answer.
President Obama has failed as a leader because – for one reason or another – he has failed to unify the country. Conservatives are hopelessly galvanized against him and his influence over them is lost. They will rally against his initiatives regardless of their merit.
If Mitt Romney gets elected, I can all but assure you the situation will not change – it will simply become the inverse. Republicans will sing his praises and Democrats will swear that the sky is falling.
Make no mistake – we are on the cusp of a crucial point in our nation’s history. The decisions that we collectively make in the next ten years will decide whether we will remain the preeminent economic powerhouse, whether we will maintain our position as the dominant superpower – a position we’ve enjoyed for the better part of the last century.
Now, more than ever, we need a true leader that can mend our national wounds, bridge the divide between right and left. We need a candidate that sidesteps the controversial issues altogether and focuses on accomplishing real, tangible, and monumental change – changes that the majority will support, changes that draw us together instead of drive us apart. I believe that a great leader would be silent on his or her opinions regarding issues like religion, marriage, abortion – issues that are unanswerable – and leave those issues for Congress and the court system.
I believe that we need a combination of constitutional amendments and policy overhauls to straighten our course and carry us into the next era of prosperity. Below, I’ve outlined some proposals to fix some of the systems that most of us can agree are broken. A leader that made a campaign platform around these five points would have cross-party appeal and, at the very least, would get my mail-in vote.
1. Balance the Budget
We look at the alarming national debt and ask ourselves, “how did it get this bad?”
It’s simple, really: we tend to elect politicians who improve our quality of life – i.e. spend more public money, and we tend not to reelect politicians that raise taxes. As a result, we spend more each year without increasing tax revenue, and the debt grows.
Warren Buffet came up with an elegant solution: “just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”
If we enact this, we’re going to have to balance the budget – that means cutting spending, and the reality is that some beneficial, important programs will be killed off. But that’s life, folks – you can’t have everything. We have to live within our means or we are going to die a slow death. No one said it was going to be easy.
2. End Unnecessary Subsidies
Look – I’m no anti-corporate, tree hugging hippy, but the top five oil companies took home $137 billion in profit in 2011. Why are we still subsidizing them with public funds?
It’s embarrassing that this is still up for debate.
3. Losing Parties Pay Legal Fees
If someone sues me and they lose, I still have to pay my own attorney fees.
If you think this is unreasonable, you’re in good company: every single other Western democracy agrees with you. They all follow the English Rule, which states that “the party who loses in court pays the other party’s attorney’s fees.”
This will eliminate a large percentage of ridiculous and unwarranted lawsuits, freeing up our court system (thus saving public money) and driving down the cost of all types of insurance (thus making health care and a wide range of other services more affordable).
4. Simplify the US Tax Code
There are thousands of deductions and credits that make the tax landscape phenomenally complicated. Savvy corporate accountants will continue to find and exploit loopholes faster than the government can close them.
Our government spends entirely too much time debating tax-related issues. Corporations spend too much time figuring out how to beat the system – instead of creating real, tangible innovations that would put the US in a better global position, they are distracted with trying to reap tax benefits.
I propose a flat corporate tax rate, the elimination of personal income taxes and state sales tax, and the introduction of a national sales tax. I’m sure it isn’t perfect, but we need something simple to allow us to focus on more important issues and actually get something accomplished in this country.
5. Campaign Finance Reform
The presidential election is a circus fueled by bottomless treasure chests.
Let’s fix it:
- Eliminate contributions from private citizens and corporations
- Establish a publicly-funded campaign budget that gives each candidate equal spending power – without strings attached
- Abolish the Electoral College – the popular vote should determine the winner.
—
If we can’t find a candidate to step up to the plate, I’d be happy to do the job – but we’ll need to add another amendment to the list, as the Constitution sets the minimum age at 35 (I’m 26).
—
Until the next time – un abrazo fuerte, my friends.
Zack
BA Expat 
I love your blog! I kept shaking my head in agreement.
zackman, how did you get so smart and how did i get so old? oxox carrie
I would vote for you. Seriously.
I’m so sick of this circus of an election going on right now it’s ridiculous. With the state our country is in the focus needs to be on the budget not who gets to marry who, how many wives someone has had, what religion someone is or any of that other bullshit.
And we tried the whole campaign finance laws and obviously they didn’t work too well. I just think it’s insane that these candidates are spending this much money on elections. I mean shit let’s use their bottomless pits of cash to help out with the budget, not like anyone really cares for your negative, bullshit campaign ads anyways.
There is an argument against the “English Rule” that you didn’t address: though it discourages litigation at the threshold stage, it encourages litigants to ramp up costs once they’re in, since, (1) as long as you’re going to win you’re just spending the other guy’s money in the meantime, so you don’t care what your fees are, and (2) you better win because the other guy is doing the same thing and trying to stick you with the bill, so you spend all that it takes and then some. I don’t believe there’s a clear and uncontroversial answer as to which system ends up being the more expensive on balance. The disincentive to litigation of the “loser pays” model will also be a disproportionate disincentive to people who are relatively poorer, and we might not want to discourage the relatively poorer from exercising their right to have disputes adjudicated in the civil justice system.
Reblogged this on contentconservative.
i would also add that only people who own property or pay taxes (since income tax is not yet eliminated) could vote
amen and amen!
You’ve got my vote.
Zack, thanks for a great post. I completely agree that we need a leader who is concerned with the common good of the country rather than wasting time on insolubile ideological differences. Do you think that person would have to be an independent or could they come out of the major parties?
If you’re not already familiar with them, you should take a look at RootStrikers (http://rootstrikers.org). Their point is that real change can’t happen with special interests manipulating everything, so campaign finance reform has to be the first issue. Likewise, if we don’t want campaign finance rules to be struck down by the supreme court, we also need to amend the constitution to revoke corporate personhood. Until that happens, any other significant initiatives are liable to be subverted by private interests.
The same political weakness can be seen all over the world (here in Europe too). Strong will leaders..? Maybe China? I do not know anything about the middle east, or arab countries, India? New Zealand? Is there a place where politics are not BS, but actual plan for the long time good for the countries people?
I read about some acts of that in Brazil (?), regarding some gas tehy found under the sea..
Thank you for this post. I plan to share it after this comment. I am a firm believer in everything you stated above and wish that our countries leaders would stumble upon this and start rationalizing their positions. I can not tell you how much I wish civil liberties and rights should not be part of national problems. Abortions, gay rights, and etc should be at the rights of the people and not a political debate/problem/constitutional amendment. This country is loosing itself and its power, as you stated, real quick and our leaders are blind to it. I wish you were of legal age, I would vote for someone like you in a heart beat. Thanks again for the post.
Oh, one more thing. I am letting my ignorance show, but what does “ex-pat” mean?
I agree with you. . .you should come home and run for office. You make much more sense than the ones running right now. I, like you are so frustrated by our President and the Republicans running against him. I must be open and say I am a Republican, I did not vote for Barack Obama because I didn’t believe all the things he was offering would be good for this country.
We need to get back to the basics that our Founding Fathers started this country on.
Sandy O
Canada has some pretty strict election finance rules…I am most familiar with the Manitoba rules, since I live there and was the financial officer for a recent provincial campaign. Lookup “Elections Manitoba” and look for the rules under “campaign financing”, or follow this link http://www.electionsmanitoba.ca/en/Political_Financing/index.html.
It ain’t all sunshine and roses, but it does control spending and still allow for some donations from individuals up to a maximum, and none from unions, businesses or PACs (which are almost non-existent in Canada).
The Manitoba law does provide for some public funding based on the numbers of votes received (fixed amount per vote). The funding is voluntary (parties can and have refused the money), but is party-based funding, not candidate based.
These sepcific rules work in our parliamentary system, and though painful to administer. The Canadian system does not lend itself to a paid political worker environment. Very few campaigns (except national ones) can afford permanent staff, and are largely run by volunteers. It leads to a more campy-style of politics, at least in the smaller provinces and campaigns.