Strengths and Weaknesses

For those of you who know, I'm a gamer, but it is often hard to find a game in real life, so I do some Play-by-Post games online, at a great site called Roleplay Online. Now, one of the best things about the site is that there is an open forum in one section, where the community can chat about anything and everything (subject to certain guidelines, of course, since the site is open to all ages).

Over the past week, there's been an interesting discussion going on about some of the differences between the two major political parties, and I thought I'd share my thoughts on the issue. Yes, gamers can talk about serious issues. Try not to let it throw you. We'll be back to arguing about which edition of D&D is better in a sec.

I'd like to think of myself as a neutral observer, since I'm not a part of either party, but that would be a half-truth. While I see myself as a stubborn independent, I will freely admit that I tend to vote one way more than others. I'll explain that more later.

To paraphrase a poster in the forum I mentioned, Democrats and Republicans act the way they do because they act more like a Democracy and a Republic than the other. Let me explain.

In a true democracy, everyone has a say, and it can be something akin to mob rule. While this certainly hurts when it comes to actually getting things done, it does act as a very effective limiter on some of the more radical elements of the group, as they have to first sway the more moderate types.

In a republic, people choose leaders, and then those leaders run the show until their term of office is over, with everyone else toeing the line, unless something major happens. This makes things much easier in terms of getting things done, but there isn't much to stop the crazies from running things how they like it if they get the leadership.

Yes, I know this is a very broad-based analogy, but in broad strokes, it does fit. Look at how things have been going. Democrats act like a herd of cats, going this way and that, which makes them ineffective at governing, but does keep the far left from doing anything too crazy. Republicans walk lock-step with one another, repeating the same crappy sound bites, like some kind of Borg collective.

I've said before that I'm an independent mainly because both parties piss me off about different things. Frankly, I believe government does have a role to play in helping people. And don't give me that crap about private companies or charities filling that role. The reason we have things like Social Security is because private companies and charities WERE NOT filling that role, and the federal government was the only one with the resources to step in and fill it.

But I also believe that we should balance the budget (allowing for emergencies, of course), and that the balancing act shouldn't come from tax increases alone. Yes, I know that sounds like crazy-talk, considering my last paragraph, but it is true. I think that the government should find a way to get into the black, and start paying down the debt.

Unfortunately, the only way you're going to do that is to do a series of things that are political suicide.

First, you have to stop giving tax cuts at the drop of a hat. In fact, you need to take some of them away, and close a lot of loopholes. Yes, that means effectively raising taxes on most everyone, especially the rich. This will especially rankle Republicans, who seem to answer every question with "tax cuts", but that's the simple truth. We need to take in more than we pay out in order to reduce our debt, and eventually pay it off. For all the talk of fiscal responsibility that we heard in the 90s, most Republicans seem to have forgotten this simple fact.

Second, we have to reduce spending. In some cases, this means cuts. In others, it means restructuring programs so that we can eliminate red tape, and make things actually work like they are supposed to. This will piss off Democrats, who answer every question with "I've got an app for that". But it is an undeniable fact that there are many programs which do not work, and have not worked for years.

So what would I do to balance the budget? Well first off I would close all tax loopholes and remove all tax credits for ten years. Yes, it will SUCK to pay more taxes, but there is not going to be any painless way out of this. The only thing we can do is spread the pain as evenly as possible.

Second, I would decriminalize many illegal drugs. Anyone who thinks our drug policy is working is either certifiably insane, or they've been living under a rock for the last thirty years. People are already using drugs. They have been for years, and they are going to keep using drugs. Best way to deal with it is to make it legal so we can tax it and regulate it. Not only would we save a ton of money that we currently spend prosecuting and jailing users, but it would also cut the legs out from under organized crime outfits who have been getting rich for years off the drug trade.

Third, I would go line by line through every department of every federal agency, and eliminate as much of the bureaucracy as possible. Streamline agencies, and remove red tape, so that people can actually do their jobs without filling out eight different forms in triplicate, which then need to be filed with however many different departments... Lot of waste there.

Fourth, I would cut the pay of Congress and the President to no more than $100K a year, including leadership positions. Not only would it save a great deal of money, but it would also help to discourage people from becoming career politicians. Afterall, $100K is a lot of money, more than some people make in five years, much less one.

Of course, this drastic course of action would never happen, because it would require politicians to actually do what is best for the country as a whole, rather than what is best for them, or even what their constituents want. Because this would be political suicide, requiring actual courage and fortitude, it is easy to see why this won't happen while the career politicians are in power.