Why the Budget Won’t be Cut

On a message board an experiment was tried. A very precisely worded question was posed to the members of this board.

Imagine you are in congress. Public pressure to cut the budget has grown so strong that the leadership of both parties has decided to actually at on it. Not with reductions of planned future increases, but with actual cuts. A special bi-partisan committee has been assembled, with the membership equally divided between the two parties. In order to keep argument to a minimum, the co-chairs have established one rule.

You can only suggest cuts to programs you support.

The theory is each party would support cutting the other party’s programs, and all it takes is one person to break ranks to get a majority in favor of cutting a program.

So, what program will you offer up to the chopping block?

It is a very difficult question for many people. The test was to see if Republicans would be willing to sacrifice any aspect of their many and multitudinous wars, or if Democrats would be willing to sacrifice any entitlement giveaway program. After all, the question was designed to eliminate any partisan cuts, cutting the programs of "the other guy."

The results were not encouraging. There was only one program that achieved any sort of consensus for cutting, and that was NASA. Strangely enough, both sides claimed it as one of the programs favored by "their side," and both sides were willing to put it on the chopping block.

There was no touching of the real budget eaters, the wars or Social Security and Medicare. Yes, every little bit helps, but the cuts that would help the most were left out.

When faced with a hypothetical scenario, partisans who aren’t elected to any office, with comments that would have no impact on the real world, were unwilling to admit that the real consumers of the budget should be cut. How much worse can it be for those in congress who will be voting on actual budgets and are locked in to special interests who forbid any cuts to their particular programs? If thinking people cannot even make hypothetical cuts, politicians cannot make any cuts.

Marginalizing Third Parties

The two parties, in collusion, have ever sought greater ways to limit outside competition. Ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, and safe districts have done much in this area, but even then third parties are still on the ballot. Occasionally a third party even garners more votes than the winning margin between the two approved candidates. Occasionally a third party even wins some office.

That situation is considered, by those who feel it is their right to rule others, intolerable. They really have no complaint, because in the few instances in which the rules could have applied to the major parties, the rules were waived. In 2004, the Republican Party held its convention rather late in the year to put it as close to September 11th as possible. As such, Bush was named the candidate after the filing deadline had passed in two states that Bush eventually carried. Had the law been enforced, Kerry would have won in 2004. In 2008, both the Republicans and the Democrats failed to file on time in Texas. Had the law been enforced, the Texas electoral votes would have gone to Bob Barr. Theoretically Democrats should have supported enforcing the law as written, since it would have enabled them to sail to an easy victory. In reality the Democratic Party leadership recognized a higher principle, that of maintaining the duopoly, and was willing to sacrifice victory in 2004 and risk sacrificing victory in 2008 to maintain their top positions.

It goes without saying that had a third party filed late, no such exception would be made.

But a way to truly disenfranchise third parties has reared its ugly head and is spreading, one state at a time, through the United States. Currently it is festering in California under the guise of California Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act of 2010.

It purports to fight partisanship by putting all candidates in one primary, without regard for party. Anyone can vote for any parties candidates. The top two vote getters will proceed to the general election.

The minor argument against this proposition is that it will result in two Republicans running against each other in Republican Safe Districts, and two Democrats running against each other in Democrat Safe Districts. This will leave those in the out party having little choice.

The middle argument is that this will entrench incumbents even more. As has been shown in Louisiana, the only incumbent to lose after an approach like this was passed did so because redistricting had that incumbent lose to another incumbent.

The greatest argument is that this will destroy all third party electoral chances. As has been shown in Washington (the state), no third party candidates have been on the general election ballot since that state adopted this measure. California Proposition 14 would even eliminate the protest of a write in candidate, so any third party voter who continues to vote for a third party candidate will not have the vote counted and will have the ballot disqualified.

This measure is exactly what one would want to further entrench the duopoly. It is corruption manifest and must be defeated.