| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2003/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:10562 Activity:nil |
10/9 Texas Republican Party Platform for 2000:
http://csua.org/u/4o6
How can Democrats be "left wing loonies" and yet Republicans that
propose platforms like this are moderate and reasonable? Check out
especially the bits about abolishing the income tax, taking away the
Supreme Court's ability to determine the Constitionality of a law
under the bill of rights, and the bit about re-annexing Panama.
Look here for a good summary:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002393.html
And here for a California Democratic Platform for comparison:
http://12.158.174.200/Platform.pdf
\_ Sounds like the AIP platform. Wow.
\_ What's wrong with abolishing the income tax? It's an abomination,
at least in its current form. -John
\_ Why is it an abomination? It needs to more progressive,
especially the SS payroll tax, but other than that I don't see it
being worthy of that particular adjective. Besides, John,
aren't you in Europe, home of the VAT and the 45% marginal rate?
\_ The 2002 platform (a pdf), contains a ringing endorsement of the
Pres.'s "War on Terrorism," concluded with an exuberant Texan
"LET'S ROLL!" Yeah, they're all level-headed.
\_ " we urge our legislators to fully investigate and prosecute,
where appropriate, any breeches in national security"
I hate it when pants end up in the national security, too.
Sheesh, can't these guys afford a proof reader? |
| 11/23 |
|
| csua.org/u/4o6 -> www.rlctx.org/RLCTX/Texas%20Republican%20Party%20Platform%202000.htm We believe that good government is based on the individual and that each persons ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized. We believe that while equal opportunity is a right and privilege, equal outcome is not. We insist that no ones rights are negotiable and that individual freedom demands personal responsibility. We believe that taxes and government spending are out of control, and therefore we support fundamental, immediate tax reform that is simple, fair and visible. We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between a man and a woman. We recognize that the family is the foundational unit of a healthy society and consists of those related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct and property. We believe that a well educated population is fundamental to the continued success of our Republic and that parents have the right to direct their childrens education and to have the choice among public, private and religious schools. We believe that the future of our country depends upon a strong and vibrant private sector unencumbered by excessive government regulation. While we recognize that American is an active participant in the global community, we must vigilantly protect the sovereignty of the United States. Freedom is never free, and we honor all those who have served our nation to protect our liberty. Because all Americans have the right to be safe in their homes, on their streets, and in their communities, we believe in tough law enforcement with stiff penalties, no loopholes and judges who respect the rights of law abiding Americans. We believe that personal and public integrity is the cornerstone of a stable and lasting society and it is the key to preserving the freedoms for which our founders pledged their Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor. Limited Federal Powers The Party urges the reaffirmation of states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We further support the abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not originally intended to be delegated to the federal government under a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Constitutional Citations on Legislation The Party urges that all bills presented in Congress include citations to the constitutional provision that authorizes Congress to act on the matter under consideration, the cost to implement and the impact on the family. Equality Under the Law The Party believes all federal laws shall apply equally to members of Congress as well as all other residents of the United States. Exemptions of members of Congress from current laws shall be repealed. Conduct of Public Officials The Party believes the president of the United States and all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal and state governments shall be held to the same standards of conduct as other law-abiding citizens. We call for the investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution of any and all members of the Clinton administration that have committed crimes, up to and including possible treason against the United States of America, without respect to the office served. Federal Judiciary Reform The Party calls on the House of Representatives and the Senate to exercise their authority to impeach and remove federal judges who abuse their constitutional authority. Judicial Restraint The Party supports the principle of judicial restraint, which requires that judges interpret and apply rather than make the law. We encourage the support of judges who strictly interpret the law based on the laws original intent. Judicial Activism The Party stands strongly against activist judges, who use their power to usurp the clear will of the people. We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election, and activist judges like them, and support non-activist judges as their opponents. Law Enforcement According to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, federal law enforcement powers have criminal jurisdiction limited to the high seas, federal installations, and counterfeiting operations. The Party believes that most crime is local and that the states, according to the Tenth Amendment, reserve law enforcement authority. Implementing this policy would effectively eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which we would applaud. Many citizens have become concerned about the expansion of federal law enforcement authority and the use of military personnel and equipment against its citizens. Preserving National Security The Party strongly urges the implementation of more stringent requirements for the issuance of National security clearances to individuals. Furthermore, in light of recent security fiascos, we urge our legislators to fully investigate and prosecute, where appropriate, any breeches in national security. District of Columbia The Party strongly opposes all efforts to make the District of Columbia the fiftyfirst state in the United States of America. Census The Party opposes any attempt by the United States Census Bureau to obtain any information beyond the number of people residing in the dwelling at the time of the census and in accordance with Article I, section 2 of the United State Constitution. We strongly support counting each citizen and urge elected officials to resist taking a census by any other method. Elimination of Executive Orders The Party demands the elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders, presidential decision directives and other administrative mandates that do not have congressional approval. Further, we demand a repeal of all previous executive orders and administrative mandates. Preservation of Republican Form of Government The Party reaffirms our support for the provisions for a Republican Representative form of government as set forth in the Texas Constitution and Texas Bill of Rights Art. We hereby reaffirm the principles espoused in the United States Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution. Constitutional Convention NO CONCON The Party opposes a Constitutional Convention or Conference of the States to rewrite the United States Constitution. Furthermore we urge the Texas Legislature to immediately rescind the States 1977 vote sent to the United States Congress calling for a Constitutional Convention. We also call upon other states to rescind their votes for a Constitutional Convention. Personal Confidentiality The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and that this right shall not be violated. Such legislation shall provide remedy and redress to any individual denied service for refusing to provide the above-mentioned information. Medical Record Confidentiality The Party opposes any and all unauthorized access, accumulation and distribution of an individuals private medical records by a government agency or any agent working on behalf of a government agency. Repeal of Federal War Powers Act A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government. The Party charges the president to cancel the state of national emergency and charges Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and to declare an end to the previously declared states of emergency. Monetary System The Party calls for the United States monetary system to be returned to the gold standard. Since the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation, has no reserves, and is not subject to taxation or audit, we call on Congress to abolish this institution and reassume its authority, enumerated by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, for the coinage of money. Federal Reserve Audit The Party supports a congressional audit of the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board minutes of meetings should be made public. Anne... |
| www.calpundit.com/archives/002393.html But thats the absolute maximum, and even if you work full time that only comes to $37,000 a year. Its not exactly high living if youre trying to support a family, and most supermarket workers make much less. Too bad federal law makes it virtually impossible to unionize a company that doesnt want to be unionized, isnt it? And one more thing, even though youre probably tired of hearing me say it. Management apparently wants to freeze wages and cut healthcare benefits because of the tough economy theyre facing. One question: is management planning to treat itself the same way? Posted by Kevin Drum at October 10, 2003 07:08 PM TrackBack Comments As Nathan Newman has been known to point out, the problem is that so few self-identified modern progressives can imagine themselves actually reduced to having to be, oh ick, supermarket workers. Posted by: Patrick Nielsen Hayden at October 10, 2003 07:57 PM PERMALINK Grocery workers for Local 655 began a strike here in St. Small raise, you pay more of your health care costs, and oh, if your spouses employer can cover you, then we wont cover him or her. Louis, there are plenty of unionized grocery stores to shop at that arent the big three. Straubs, Johnnys and several other grocers that use union workers have benefited from an aggressive campaign by Local 655 to send shoppers to their stores. Union pickets have been handing out bright yellow cards with the names, addresses and phone numbers of union-staffed grocery stores. Posted by: Edge at October 10, 2003 07:58 PM PERMALINK Grocery is a relatively low-margin business, so management is probably right that theyre being squeezed by health care costs. Posted by: mike at October 10, 2003 08:06 PM PERMALINK How would all of you feel if Management WAS willing to take similar cuts - a same proportional cut in benefits and wage freezes as the workers? Posted by: TAD at October 10, 2003 08:45 PM PERMALINK Patrick Nielsen Hayden: I am not sure I understand your post. In pointing out a thought of Nathan Newmans, you write, the problem is that so few self-identified modern progressives can imagine themselves actually reduced to having to be supermarket workers. It seems to me that the problem is supermarkets owners are under pressure to improve their profits, supermarket workers are under pressure to make enough income to live, and those two pressures oppose each-other. What does what modern progressives think have to do with this problem? I like to think of myself as a progressive thinker, but I dont feel reduced. As it stands, I used to be an engineer, now Im a guy in a truck that makes food-stuff deliveries to pizza shops. Posted by: s at October 10, 2003 08:46 PM PERMALINK Actually, I have a part time job at the local Wal-Mart and have had it for about 2 1/2 years now. I took it to earn some extra money to pay some bills, but I continue to work there because I work in the garden center and I like working with the plants,I pretty much choose my hours, and everyone leaves me alone. Wal-Mart has no problem with union customers, but no one dares mention the word around management! Posted by: fred at October 10, 2003 08:48 PM PERMALINK At least there are more food banks around these days for all the non-union workers making $6 an hour. If we took the average wage of executives and reduced it so that it reflected the ratio of management to worker pay that existed 30 years ago, how much would we be able to raise workers wages? Posted by: obe at October 10, 2003 09:00 PM PERMALINK I saw a spokesman - woman, actually - from the US Chamber of Commerce on the NewsHour a while back. What surprised me was her willingness to say that employment-based health insurance just cant do the job. My impression was that single payer is really not off the table at all for them. Posted by: SqueakyRat at October 10, 2003 09:36 PM PERMALINK How would all of you feel if Management WAS willing to take similar cuts - a same proportional cut in benefits and wage freezes as the workers? How come wages for them are a huge burden that must be reduced, but perqs and money for us are just the cost of doing business? If that communist JP Morgan felt that management shouldnt earn more than 25 times the average workers wage, then whats up with these fat pigs making 500 times as much? The key point is that about 71 of the market share is by the three companies yet they claim Walmart is the problem. That would be fine, but they wont open up the books to Bob Kelly since the three chains claim that it isnt that they are losing money, but that they wont be as competitive. Even more important, only Shop-N-Save employees are on strike, both Schnucks and Dierbergs employees are locked out. Posted by: ArchPundit at October 10, 2003 10:18 PM PERMALINK Many noted that they worked only part time Why is that? I assumed it was to avoid paying benefits, but the rest of the quote makes it sound like they still get them. The Safeway in my home town where I worked for two years through high school has gone to ALL part time workers. There is the store manager and one or two others full time and 80 some people part time. I believe that Safeway doesnt give benefits to part time workers our union always sucked, but it still seems like it would be harder for management. No one wants to work two or three jobs, even if the hours are the same. Posted by: Nathan at October 10, 2003 10:26 PM PERMALINK TAD: I would be shocked into insensibility. S: I think all Patrick means is that progrssives these days dont support unions enough because they cant imagine it will ever affect them personally. Im not so sure thats the reason, but its true that union support is not especially strong among liberals these days. As employers start to get out of the healthcare biz, other employers will be forced to do the same in order to stay competitive. When the number of uncovered people finally gets to 50 or so, the political pressure will become unbearable and there will be no other choice. It wont happen because liberals want it, it will happen because businesses will end up forcing it to happen. Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 10, 2003 10:30 PM PERMALINK Where the hell are these supermarket employees making $18 an hour? We all cant be CEOs, professionals, and successful entrepreneurs with the six-figure salary it takes to be fully self-sufficient in this society. Funny thing is if 37k/yr were the minimum wage apartment rents would just go up to meet what the market would bear. Theres many things sick about this society, and man-on-dog is very low on the list. Posted by: Troy at October 11, 2003 01:49 AM PERMALINK Im of two minds on the pending grocery strike. On the one hand, Im very much in favor of people being able to live off the job they perform. On the other hand, California grocery stores are light years behind those in North Carolina, where self-checkout is available, and few stores require you to unload your own cart. All three of the affordable grocery stores in town are being picketed. Posted by: Craig Moe at October 11, 2003 02:39 AM PERMALINK These jobs, of course, are not under pressure from overseas. If you did youd notice that in an ever increasing number of them customer scanning checkouts replace 4 cashiers with one human attendant for every 4 or more self-scan stations. Thats some pretty serious pressure and its not coming from Wal-Mart, which by the way has the worst cashier customer service ie the longest, slowest lines of any store I know. They dont unionize Wal-Mart, in which case they have nice fat paychecks but fewer jobs as Wal-Mart takes more market share, or 2. They unionize Wal-Mart as well, prices go up for everyone, and cashiers are better off at the expense of everyone else, including other working poor. Mind telling me why cashiers are specially deserving so that they should get more money out of my pocket and that of people like gas station attendants? Seems to me that its better and fairer to let competition push down prices for everyone, whether or not they are buying from unionized companies. Posted by: Mike at October 11, 2003 03:35 AM PERMALINK 37k a year isnt that extreme for California. In an... |