time for a new contract w/America

[Full Quiver]

In 1994 the Repubs and the conservatives offered us the contract with America. It was a great success and Clinton gets alot of the credit he does because of it and what Congress did (he just signed what they passed).

In my opinion it is time for a new contract with America. I am thinking of drawing something up and sending it to my reps and Senators. Do you guys have any suggestions? I'd like to see 10 main themes or points which could include sub points under them.

In a year where we will probably see a liberal president elected (look at our options....McCain, Clinton, Obama, Nader), just how liberal remains to be seen, it is important that Congress gets stacked with true conservatives and notice I didn't say Republicans. A new contract with the people could get some real conservatives in office this year.

Tax reform
immigration
energy independence
social security reform


Let's start...

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

[dolfan]

Pass the Restoration of Liberty Act, including a repeal of the Internal Revenue Code and a "fair tax" that taxes consumption and sales but not income, and makes it unlawful for any political subdivision of the United States to levy or collect any tax based on income of any citizen or any business with its principal location resident within the United States; a repeal of all criminal penalties for the possession, use or sale of any controlled substance and an immediate cessation of all federal funding to the States for the purposes of drug law enforcement; a dollar-for-dollar rebate for all tuition payments made by parents for their childrens' education in any privately funded K-12 or postsecondary school, college or university; the funding and immediate construction of a concrete wall and razor-wire fence no less than 20 feet in height at any point along the entirety of the border between the United States and Mexico, and the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces troops at batallion levels every 100 miles along the border;a five-year moratorium of any and all environmental protection regulations pertaining to the exploration of oil on public lands and a tax credit of up to $10 billion for the exploration and removal of crude oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and any other location within the United States.


That's for starters.

[dawgs10]

Pass the Restoration of Liberty Act, including a repeal of the Internal Revenue Code and a "fair tax" that taxes consumption and sales but not income, and makes it unlawful for any political subdivision of the United States to levy or collect any tax based on income of any citizen or any business with its principal location resident within the United States; a repeal of all criminal penalties for the possession, use or sale of any controlled substance and an immediate cessation of all federal funding to the States for the purposes of drug law enforcement; a dollar-for-dollar rebate for all tuition payments made by parents for their childrens' education in any privately funded K-12 or postsecondary school, college or university; the funding and immediate construction of a concrete wall and razor-wire fence no less than 20 feet in height at any point along the entirety of the border between the United States and Mexico, and the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces troops at batallion levels every 100 miles along the border;a five-year moratorium of any and all environmental protection regulations pertaining to the exploration of oil on public lands and a tax credit of up to $10 billion for the exploration and removal of crude oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and any other location within the United States.


That's for starters.

someone has put some real thought to this

[crispfin]

someone has put some real thought to this

Well you never know when you're gonna need something like this. I've got a thesis on Renaissance costume jewelry stored for such a similar occasion.

[Dr. Ron]

dolfan for president!!!!!!

I buy it all!!!!

[Full Quiver]

1. immigration reform (1st and foremost consisting of sealing the borders, north and south, with fencing and patrol both physical and technical)

2. tax reform (consisting of an elimination of the IRS, an implementation of the Fair Tax, eliminating all income and corporate taxes)

3. energy independence (consisting of weaning America from Middle Eastern and South American crude, fast-tracking development of alternate fuels such as hydrogen, etc.)

4. social security reform (the privatization of retirement accounts and the eventual elimination of the Social Security program)

5. education reform (consisting of school vouchers for home schoolers, private schoolers, and public schools, a revamping of curriculum and the involvement of the federal govt. in the education process)

6. universal health care (we the people do not want universal health care, govt. health care, socialized medicine in any form. Health care is better when private and outside the realm of govt. Health Savings Accounts should be promoted for those without insurance and for those that cannot afford any coverage their are private charities and the public in general that will pick up the slack. If doctors did not fear illegitimate lawsuits and have to pay extremely high malpractice insurance premiums then they could help those without adequate coverage.)

7. budget reform (consisting of a balanced federal budget without any pork barrel spending. All appropriations must come before the entire/full Congress for approval)

8.

9.

10.


I do not think America is ready for abolishing drug laws though I am with you Dolfan. I think such language would seem extreme and would right off such a notion as we are discussing as some libertarian propaganda which will not gain traction with most people and or Congress men/women.

[one love]

i had a thread about legalizing drugs and there was not much response. Dolfan if drugs were made legal, and i understand the concept (put the money into treatment instead f law enforcement and the dangers of drug cartels etc)
who would sell the drugs???????? who would make them ???

[dolfan]

i had a thread about legalizing drugs and there was not much response. Dolfan if drugs were made legal, and i understand the concept (put the money into treatment instead f law enforcement and the dangers of drug cartels etc)
who would sell the drugs???????? who would make them ???

The same companies who make them and sell them now, and then some. ArcherDanielsMidland would be a logical grower and distributor of marijuana, for example; Pfizer could market and sell, I dunno, call it .... "Liftapro" (safely manufactured crystal meth). Wal-Mart and CVS and Walgreens would put up profits like ExxonMobil. Starbucks could even sell happacinos (capps with a trace of cannabis??). Okay, I'm being facetious .... sort of.

The upshot is you lose all of the urban (read: black) drug-related crime, and you save all of that money now being paid to everyone from bureaucrats, police officers, prison builders, prison guards and everyone else who makes their living from producing prisoners. You lower the actual violence and you rid the black community of the ever-present eye that singularly views it as a source of justification for existing (i.e., drug cops, drug lawyers --- defense AND prosecution), and you keep more black men in the ranks of those with full civil rights (meaning, fewer felons and more voting-eligble blacks).

You create a culture of acceptance regarding drug consumption to some degree. However, that is already mitigated by the history of illegality of drugs. Look at the progress in demonizing tobacco. The stigma of smoking is just as buildable, just as maintainable against drug use. Let society keep that much of its need for "feel good" initiatives and demonize drugs. But, you know all that money we're saving on not having to pay for law enforcement and housing and healthcare and the uncounted cost of generating new generations of criminals??? Spend it on treatment, education, and other meaningful ways to reduce drug consumption ----- something that drug law policy has utterly failed to do.

[soulsearcher]

dolfan for president!!!!!!

I buy it all!!!!

I second the motion!!

[rjjunior]

Can you add something about global warming, like start listening to the 19,000 or so scientists who discount man-made global warming and reject the Kyoto Protocol?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[Full Quiver]

1. immigration reform (1st and foremost consisting of sealing the borders, north and south, with fencing and patrol both physical and technical)

2. tax reform (consisting of an elimination of the IRS, an implementation of the Fair Tax, eliminating all income and corporate taxes)

3. energy reform/independence (consisting of weaning America from Middle Eastern and South American crude, fast-tracking development of alternate fuels such as hydrogen, etc.)

4. social security reform (the privatization of retirement accounts and the eventual elimination of the Social Security program)

5. education reform (consisting of school vouchers for home schoolers, private schoolers, and public schools, a revamping of curriculum and the involvement of the federal govt. in the education process)

6. health care reform (we the people do not want universal health care, govt. health care, socialized medicine in any form. Health care is better when private and outside the realm of govt. Health Savings Accounts should be promoted for those without insurance and for those that cannot afford any coverage their are private charities and the public in general that will pick up the slack. If doctors did not fear illegitimate lawsuits and have to pay extremely high malpractice insurance premiums then they could help those without adequate coverage.)

7. budget reform (consisting of a balanced federal budget without any pork barrel spending. All appropriations must come before the entire/full Congress for approval)

8. environmental reform (with all the talk and hype about man-made global warming we the people feel that either this phenomena should be proven or discounted by the scientific community at large with ALL the data available instead of a few scientists and companies that have a product and agenda to promote BEFORE we the people of this country make drastic changes in our everyday lifestyle, spend countless of millions of dollars, and possibly waste our efforts and finances; the earth may be getting warmer but accurate and science as researched by the entire scientific community can prove whether it is man made or a course of nature; environmental laws are handcuffing the growth of our nation's economy while other nations are not held to the same standard yet our nation is importing those products which by and large is hypocritical)

9.

10.

[one love]

i had a thread about legalizing drugs and there was not much response. Dolfan if drugs were made legal, and i understand the concept (put the money into treatment instead f law enforcement and the dangers of drug cartels etc)
who would sell the drugs???????? who would make them ???

The same companies who make them and sell them now, and then some. ArcherDanielsMidland would be a logical grower and distributor of marijuana, for example; Pfizer could market and sell, I dunno, call it .... "Liftapro" (safely manufactured crystal meth). Wal-Mart and CVS and Walgreens would put up profits like ExxonMobil. Starbucks could even sell happacinos (capps with a trace of cannabis??). Okay, I'm being facetious .... sort of.

The upshot is you lose all of the urban (read: black) drug-related crime, and you save all of that money now being paid to everyone from bureaucrats, police officers, prison builders, prison guards and everyone else who makes their living from producing prisoners. You lower the actual violence and you rid the black community of the ever-present eye that singularly views it as a source of justification for existing (i.e., drug cops, drug lawyers --- defense AND prosecution), and you keep more black men in the ranks of those with full civil rights (meaning, fewer felons and more voting-eligble blacks).

You create a culture of acceptance regarding drug consumption to some degree. However, that is already mitigated by the history of illegality of drugs. Look at the progress in demonizing tobacco. The stigma of smoking is just as buildable, just as maintainable against drug use. Let society keep that much of its need for "feel good" initiatives and demonize drugs. But, you know all that money we're saving on not having to pay for law enforcement and housing and healthcare and the uncounted cost of generating new generations of criminals??? Spend it on treatment, education, and other meaningful ways to reduce drug consumption ----- something that drug law policy has utterly failed to do.

I understand the concept fully but I do question a few things, one being would then narcotic pain killers not need a prescription, if they did then people in pain may just turn to heroin.
Next all the crime that is commited by the addicts to get the drugs would still be there would you want to be behind a counter selling heroin and a addcit comes in with no money, i can see them being robbed, killed,etc they would need bullet proof glass in each pharmacy.

I do get the concept and reality is it would help the economy and kill the majr dealers crime but there would be other deaths that were not there before. It would be easier to rob a store then a dealer that has a gang with him. What are you thoughts?

[jdavis]

Dolfan wrote:

a repeal of all criminal penalties for the possession, use or sale of any controlled substance and an immediate cessation of all federal funding to the States for the purposes of drug law enforcement;

I tend to agree Dolfan but I have a question since you seem to have thought this out. How would you deal with the other issues of drug use such as driving or operating machinery at work. ie safety issues. How much THC in you system impairs you from doing surgery or flying a passenger aircraft. We have established legal limits for alcohol. Now will we have to have established limits for all drugs? Will you be able to terminate an employee for having traces of a legal substance in her system?

Having asked these questions, I do know that the drug laws must be changed. We cant build enough jails to house the drug offenders. They clog the system to the point that violent offenders and some time sex offenders get probation when they need to be separated from society.

[Mole_J]

I understand the concept fully but I do question a few things, one being would then narcotic pain killers not need a prescription, if they did then people in pain may just turn to heroin.
Next all the crime that is commited by the addicts to get the drugs would still be there would you want to be behind a counter selling heroin and a addcit comes in with no money, i can see them being robbed, killed,etc they would need bullet proof glass in each pharmacy.

I do get the concept and reality is it would help the economy and kill the majr dealers crime but there would be other deaths that were not there before. It would be easier to rob a store then a dealer that has a gang with him. What are you thoughts?

One reason for the price of drugs being elevated is because they are illegal. Once they are legal, the prices of drugs would drop. Not sure if the price would drop enough to prevent pharmacies being robbed by drug addicts. My guess is it would be a fairly big drop in price.

As a side note, it would be interesting what would happen in many Latin American countries if drugs became legal in the US. Especially countries that have had problems with organizations that have made a lot of money from drugs, for example The Shining Path in Peru and FARC in Columbia.

[dolfan]

I understand the concept fully but I do question a few things, one being would then narcotic pain killers not need a prescription, if they did then people in pain may just turn to heroin.
Next all the crime that is commited by the addicts to get the drugs would still be there would you want to be behind a counter selling heroin and a addcit comes in with no money, i can see them being robbed, killed,etc they would need bullet proof glass in each pharmacy.

I do get the concept and reality is it would help the economy and kill the majr dealers crime but there would be other deaths that were not there before. It would be easier to rob a store then a dealer that has a gang with him. What are you thoughts?

In my opinion, narcotic pain killers and other substances such as cocaine and heroin should (and would be) prescription drugs. I acknowledge that any person addicted to any substance may commit a crime to obtain that substance that he cannot afford to purchase through normal channels, but that market will be small in comparison to what it is now in terms of seeking illegally available pot, cocaine, meth, etc.

Here's why I say that: The USDOJ states that most violent crime is not connected with the sale of drugs, but the use of drugs. Let's accept that statement without giving consideration to the MANY other implications it has (which, in my view, make the observation pointless, such as the impact of law enforcement policy as an aggravator of the "drug culture" and its violence.) Let's just accept the USDOJ statement: Drug use, not drug marketing, is a greater contributor to violent crime.

That point is stated by them to drive home this point --- it matters not where you get the drugs, it matters that they're being used. Use equates to violent crime. Therefore, the reasoning is, use should continue to be criminalized. Makes sense.

But, it doesn't account for the cultural impact of that policy which itself spurs the violent crime. There is no control group or study that isolates mere influence of drugs as a causal factor in violent crime from the other factors that combine to make criminals .... well, criminals. It is a curious omission. And, I think I know why it is so.

The point of those who make statements about legalization is often that drugs have an uncounted impact, intangible tragedies that escape quantification. And, that's true. One such group of intangibles that we all know is really most often found in alcohol abuse situations. Spousal abuse, child abuse/neglect, you name it. But, what do we do to control it? Make it illegal to: 1) consume if you're under 21, 2) drive while under the influence and 3) punch your wife and kids. In other words, alcohol, which is also a contributor to violent crime (according to USDOJ) with illegal drugs, is okay if you're old enough and you're at home, and it's okay even if you punch your wife and kids because all we'll do is follow in behind you and throw at protection order at you for a year or so and encourage you to seek treatment. That is unless you really, really beat 'em up, in which case we'll actually put you in jail sometimes.

Not so with the drug law policy. The system admits that there is nothing to be done to eliminate (note that word) violent alcohol crime, and seeks to mitigate it by legalization, regulation and after-the-fact law enforcement consequences, with a heavy, heavy dose of treatment options in the place of imprisonment. Substitute "drugs" for "alcohol", and although the identical problems of use exist, the policy changes entirely. And, there's simply no reason for it except that there exists a government generated narrative about it and it is aimed at controlling revenue and people and preserving careers.

In short, I admit that the violent crime problem doesn't disappear altogether. Drugs are wicked things, and people are equal to the task when it comes to doing evil. There is no statistical indicator that I have found --- and I realize someone has had to study it somewhere and if it was government funded, it will disagree with me 180 degrees --- that shows that violent crime would increase with a drug policy of decriminalization and redirection of resources to treatment and prevention. Might the scope and contour of violent crime change in that environment? Yeah, it probably would put some people in danger who had not been in danger before, although I doubt it would be a significantly higher risk simply because there's no reason I know of to suspect that it would be. I emphasize the "I" there to admit that someone can probably easily point me to data somewhere to disagree with me, but I'm simply unaware of it.