Viable Centrist Third Option in 2008

[Wyatt Chesney]

Howdy Dave, some good questions.

1) I would work with congress to pass legislation replacing the current "Borrow and Spend" policy with a more benefitial "PAYGO" system. In 2000, the Federal government had a budget surplus of $236 billion, because this common-sense approach to managing federal spending was in place.

2) For medicare we need to take some worth while initiatives to simplify the system. I think that the plans need to be thouroughly explained to the American people. Also, before we rush a plan into action we need to test and make sure that it is going to work as expected. Finally, we need to keep these programs flexible so that they can be reformed as our knowledge of the problems increse.

The upcoming benefit cash in will be hard to deal with on a fiscal level but I suggest we cut certain pork barrel programs in order to compensate.

I do not feel that we necessarily spend too much on the military more so than I feel that we spend quite inefficently. While we are busy funding "Star Wars" programs to greater flash our global ego - we are sending our guys into battle with supply shortages and sub par equipment. I would retool the spending bracket to raise pay for active duty personel, troop readiness, and train programs.

3) Yes, I feel that between 90-95% of revenue should go to reducing the national debt. Leaving the additional 5% for programs of the upmost importance.

4) To very honest, I'm still doing the research on the gas tax. While the benefits of raising it are evident and very convincing, so are the issues regarding the American pocket book with the state, local, and federal gas taxes now representing up to 65 cents a gallon in certain places. I am definitely for reducing the demand for oil, but when looking at the big picture we need to first  have to reduce the cost of being energy efficent. i believe that we need to lower business taxes on businesses that produce cars that run on alternative energy as well as alternative energy it's self. As it stands, there just isn't a plentiful source for us to work with. Before we lower demand, we would have to give them an alternative. Not everyone has a hydrogen station around the corner...they should, but sadly enough don't.

As I said, I am still talking to people...researching this issue and trying to formulate a posistion with the people in mind. I'd like to know exactly what I am dealing with before I go off and throwing out these platform planks just for the sake of having a platform.

5) Don't get wrong, I understand that Space Exploration is benefitial. But the debt/deficit situation we deal with now requires us to keep the most important programs while putting smaller things on the backburner.

6) #1 - Immigration reform. We need to crack down on illegal immigration and install assisted assimilation that teaches immigrants to speak english and live in American culture.

#2 - Environmental Protection and Alternative Energies. I would propose to strengthen the clean air/water acts and increase funding to protect the environment in a more efficent manor. I would also fund programs designed to research renewable enrgy sources to assist America in becoming energy independent.

#3 - Regaining Control of our Runaway Economy. - Since Bush took office in 2001, spending has increased by nearly 60%...in coordination with lopsided tax breaks that shift the budget to the average Americans in the middle classes. Fighting the debt via economci responsiblity should be a very high priority for our government.

You're a Democrat. You're not right-wing enough to be what is called a "centrist" in America.

My campaign focus is dived three ways with two of those being a limited immigration platform plank and fiscal responsibility - both traditional conservative ideas. I use to be a Democrat, but as my intrest in social issues dimenished in coordination with the worsening of the illegal immigration situation I decided to leave the party after one election season.

I would say my platform is very "Reform" and thus very "centrist".

[zorkpolitics]

Perot was a serious challenger because he could put in a few $100 million.  This remains true for any serious third party, they need a way to raise at least $250 million to run a credible campaign.

Bill Gates could do it.

Otherwise all a third party candiate can do is become a spoiler (ie Nader in FL in 2000).

None of the candiates listed in this poll will get more than 1% hence they can aspire to be spoilers only.

[adam]

Perot was a serious challenger because he could put in a few $100 million.  This remains true for any serious third party, they need a way to raise at least $250 million to run a credible campaign.

Bill Gates could do it.

Otherwise all a third party candiate can do is become a spoiler (ie Nader in FL in 2000).

None of the candiates listed in this poll will get more than 1% hence they can aspire to be spoilers only.

I agree with you to an extent. It is doubtful that anyone without an over-whelming cash flow can wage a serious campaign for president. But in this day and age, people are getting more and more fed up with the two party dominance. A lot of people want change...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Election%202008.htm
(there was one that showed a similar result, but with Universal HEalth Care being the twist - Rasmussen messed the link up)

I think a third party threat could be on the horizon if the major parties don't do something special here soon.