New Political Party - GOOOH! - Lawyers and Politicians Need Not Apply

1. Will you vote for term limits of four years (two terms) or less for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives?

No, while I don't think Representatives should be professional life-long politicians, I don't think that 4 years allows for the development of appropriate leadership. I'd be okay with 10 year limits.

2. Will you vote for a presidential line item veto?

Who needs that when you have signing statements? Actually, the president has sufficient powers under the constitution with the regular veto. The President sends the bill back with his objections noted, and Congress can override it or send it back with corrections. If the Congress and the President work together, it shouldn't have to come to that.

A good way to keep appropriations bill lean is to require accountability when it's being crafted and amended and earmarked. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has a pretty good method: He has used parliamentary procedure to require a roll-call vote on each earmark, which exposes all of the Representatives that want pork.

3. Will you vote to set congressional pay to four times the median income, index the rate, and replace the congressional pension with a standard 401k retirement plan?

I would absolutely vote for something like this. The exact details would have to be worked out, but we should tie Congressional compensation the success of the people.

4. Will you vote to allow each state to continue drawing its congressional districts, in a partisan manner, as is done today?

The way it is done today is not right. Something has got to change. I have some ideas, but it would require an entire book to explain.

5. Will you vote to amend the Constitution to exclude people with a law degree from serving in the House of Representatives?

No. Lawyers are not the problem. Corporate money is the problem. Lawyers run for office because they can afford it. Public financing of elections would level the playing field. Smart candidates can come from any field.

6. Will you vote to exclude a plaintiff’s legal representative from receiving any portion of a punitive award and split the payment between the plaintiff and charity?

No. Without the ability to earn a large judgment, there will be no incentive for attorneys to take on important cases against well-funded corporations who have a vested interest in maintaining an unfair advantage against consumers. We have to trust in our courts that judges and juries who have examined the facts in each case will determine an appropriate judgment. Although some well-publicized cases sometimes give us reason to doubt, we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

7. Will you vote to limit the legal fees a plaintiff’s legal representative can receive to one hundred times the amount a plaintiff in the case receives? As an example, if a plaintiff receives $10,000, the combined legal fees could not exceed one million dollars.

In the case of class-action lawsuits where a huge company rips off literally thousands of people, it's common for the attorneys to recover much more than any of the individual plaintiffs.

Truthfully, I'd have to have someone explain to me why we would need to set a statutory limit here. How big of a problem is this?

8. Will you support the right of lawyers to use whatever means necessary to defend a client, including concealing information and using "technicalities," as long as they do not violate a written law?

Under current laws and ethics rules, lawyers do not "use whatever means necessary". Those "technicalities" that occasionally cause a guilty person to be let free preserve the freedom of the rest of us and prevent the punishment of the innocent.

What we need is careful law enforcement, not reckless knee-jerk reactions to high-profile cases.

9. Do you support the ACLU, and will you support the organization with government funding?

The ACLU fills the role that our elected Representatives should be filling: oversight. In general, I agree with most of what the ACLU stands for, though I may disagree with their choice of cases to defend. As a political advocacy organization, it would be improper to use government funding to support them, and I do not believe that is currently the case.

10. Will you vote to amend the Constitution to re-establish and re-clarify equal rights for all over special rights for a few (e.g. prisoners, seniors, students, gays, minorities, and women)?

Human rights are human rights. Our rights are granted by our Creator, who gave us all free will. Our Constitution doesn't establish those rights. Rather, it stands to help protect them. I believe that one purpose of Government is to protect human rights, especially for those who cannot protect themselves due to circumstances beyond their control.

Someone would have to tell me what these "special" rights of minorities and women are.

------------------------------
OK, so I'm not sure that I'll bother to answer *all* 114 questions on this. It certainly is interesting though, to see from the questions what sorts of things other folks think of.

11. Will you vote to amend the Constitution to state that guiding principles should always override technicalities and extremist groups?

No. The Constitution is a "technicality" and is absolute. If there is a problem with a specific "technicality" then we should address that.

12. Will you vote to amend the Constitution with a “law of predominant majority”, which says the “rights” of groups can be denied if they have consistently demonstrated behavior that 95 percent of the population considers unacceptable? For example, 95 percent of the population would likely vote that a public KKK rally should NOT be allowed, overriding the “right” of free speech for that particular group.

No. The right to dissent is sacrosanct, even if the vast majority of citizens disagree. Freedom is not free, and dealing with groups like the KKK is part of the cost of preserving the rights we all take for granted.

13. Will you vote to amend the Constitution to specifically affirm that we are a nation under God, that God is welcome in all that we do, but no man can be forced to participate in worship at any time or in any way?

No, that is not necessary. The first amendment to the constitution already has this covered.

14. Will you vote to permit religious activities on local, state, and federal property (such as schools, libraries, and municipal buildings), at the discretion of the members of each site?

I would support that, as long as each facility is made available to all groups - religious or not - on the same basis and cost. I would not support allowing the government to set subjective criteria regarding what religious groups were allowed and what religious groups were not.

15. Will you vote against the teaching of religion in public schools, as an elective?

Yes, I would. Our public funding should not be spent on that - especially at a time when America's students are not keeping up in the fields of mathematics and science. The Church and the home are the proper places for religious instruction.

16. Will you vote to allow established churches to manage federal welfare distribution for recipients who agree to use them instead of a government agency?

No. Giving this sort of power and responsibility to churches would have the potential of corrupting their message.

17. Will you vote to impose a penalty of life in prison, or death, for anyone convicted of selling drugs to a minor, excepting only to reduce the sentence to twenty years if information is provided that leads to the conviction of their supplier?

No. That punishment would be excessive in most cases, and we don't have enough prisons and money to house all of these offenders. Making current prison sentences more rehabilitative would be a better idea.

18. Will you vote to multiply by ten the prison sentence of those convicted of possessing drugs that are not willing to provide information that leads to the conviction of their supplier?

No. That would result in innocent people being accused, and the punishment is excessive. There are better ways to fight drugs.

19. Will you vote to legalize marijuana?

I would look at allowing a medical exception. I also believe we need to lower federal penalties for marijuana possession and reduce the priority of marijuana enforcement. Our prisons are too full of people who could otherwise be productive members of society, but have made the mistake of getting mixed up with this relatively harmless drug.

20. Will you vow to support a completely free press at all times?

Absolutely.

You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental concept of GOOOH. There is no "right" answer on any of these questions. Each pool of ten will determine what the most appropriate answers are.

More answers to the GOOOH Questionnaire. Why? Why not. Some folks do crossword puzzles or sudoku. I like to think about policy.

21. Will you vote to define marriage as the union between any two people?

No, not just *any* two people. They'd have to be adults. Actually I'm supportive of extending the rights and responsibilities granted with marriage to any two people willing to take it on.

22. Will you vote for laws that attempt to define amoral behavior?

No, there is no point in government defining morality. The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. We only need to define things that interfere with the rights of others or cause great and measurable societal harm. That being said, I think we can safely and non judgmentally say that certain things are inherently good for society and should be encouraged.

23. Will you vote to allow parents to have a vote for each of their children under the age of eighteen, fathers for their sons and mothers for their daughters?

No. I can't see any point in it.

24. Will you vote to elect our president with a popular vote, replacing the Electoral College?

Yes, It would require a constitutional amendment, but I would support it. I don't think you'll find many Americans who support a system that will occasionally elect someone with less than 50% of the popular vote.

Remember that originally Americans didn't elect their own Senators. It took an amendment (17th, 1913) to give us that right. We can do it again to give the people the right to elect their own president.

25. Will you vote to support states' rights over federal rights at least 90 percent of the time?

No, I couldn't guarantee that. While I'm generally supportive of the rights of states to determine what works best, we still face problems of individual states passing laws that interfere with individual freedoms that we think should be standard across America. For instance, the Voting Rights Act. Also, in any given session of Congress, one never knows the nature of bills that might come up for a vote. Even if I supported states rights on 90% of topics, we could have a session where most of the bills that come through deal with that last 10%.

26. Will you vote to reduce total expenditures on government programs by at least 5 percent each year you are in office?

No, doing that would royally screw things up. If you look at the current problems with Medicare, these problems all stem from an arbitrary cost reduction goal just like that.

As our economy grows and our population grows, total spending will grow. Although there is probably an ideal level of per-capita spending, even that amount can and should fluctuate with the business cycle.

Further, I believe in the principles of Fiscal Progressivism - that there are instances where increased government spending on certain things can actually keep more money in your pocket.

27. Will you vote to reduce the total number of federal employees by at least 5 percent each year you are in office?

No. All I could do would be to promise that I would push for government to seek the same efficiencies that the free market does, in terms of working smarter and utilizing information technology.

28. Will you vote to require that all government programs have a clearly established objective and an end date of no more than ten years from the date of creation?

Yes, that sounds fair to me. Sunset provisions make a lot of sense.

29. Will you vote to permit the sale of all goods over the internet?

No, I'm sure there are some types of goods where it would not be in the public interest to allow it. The first thing that comes to mind is prescription drugs that are for controlled substances. That being said, I'm generally supportive of Internet commerce, having made my living building e-commerce solutions. I do think that we should work towards national standards for Internet commerce rather than the patchwork of state and local regulations that can hinder small online businesses.

30. skip

No, I can walk, walk fast, or run. But I don't like to skip.

31. Will you vote to reduce farm subsidy allocations by at least 25 percent each year you are in office?

No, not across the board. I do think we have way too much subsidy going to huge corporate interests though. I would love to see agriculture return to a free-market system, but the fact is that the United States does not operate in a vacuum. When other countries subsidize, we must impose tariffs or subsidize our own to compete. Another thing to consider is that as a matter of national security, we need to have sufficient agriculture here, even if it's more cost effective to do it in other countries. I don't think there are easy answers to the problems facing agriculture today, but I can tell you that I have an open mind and would like to hear ideas.

32. Will you vote to privatize government initiatives, including at least one of the following: national parks, highways, mail, licensing or the airwaves?

No, we've had entirely too much piratization of public goods. It has resulted in no-bid contracts, and poor execution while ultimately costing the tax-payers more. What we need is to provide stable conservative funding to government agencies and work for continual streamlining and improvement so that we all get our money's worth.

33. Will you vote to limit the amount of foreign aid provided to any one country, in any year, to a maximum of 10,000 times the median income ($460 million), and to only allow a country to receive funds for a maximum of two years in any five year period, excepting those nations in a declared war with a foreign enemy or a genocidal situation?

No, I think this ties our hands too much. I might favor some types of limits though. We need to remember that foreign aid can be a much, much cheaper "carrot" than the "stick" of war. As an example, I think we give an average of about $2 billion a year to Egypt. Although I'd rather have that money to spend at home, it's a lot cheaper way to pacify the Egypt/Israeli relations than sending troops. For comparison, we spend as much per week in Iraq.

34. Will you vote to limit foreign aid to ten or less countries in any year?

No, I'd rather vote on specific amounts for specific countries. Any limits like this would be arbitrary and would tie our hands.

35. Will you vote to eliminate all government price and production controls, including abolishment of the minimum wage?

No, although I think the free market has generally served us well, I do think that certain controls such as minimum wage, safety and environmental regulations are a welcomed intervention to level the playing field when implemented fairly. With regards to pricing, that is generally a function of the market with the exception of natural and artificial monopolies. I would not support government price controls on commodity goods. With regard to production controls, I assume that you're talking about the artificial limiting of supply. In general, it would be wrong for the government to limit supply - so depending on the case, I might vote for that.

36. Will you vote for a balanced budget amendment, with exceptions only for periods of declared war or a declining annual GDP?

Yes, I would - provided that an exception were also added for recovery from natural disasters. I would also like to see the Federal government able to ask the citizens to vote on a referendum to float bonds for large investments. So perhaps adding another exception which would allow the Congress to let the voters decide would be good.

37. Will you vote against a federal budget that includes any item whose benefit is primarily for a single state (e.g., a bridge in Alaska, or a levee in Louisiana)?

Yes and No. What you're getting at here is earmarks. An earmark - in my definition - is something that has very limited beneficiaries and is typically slipped in during the appropriations process (after the budget is passed) and bypassing the federal agencies that normally determine where to allocate money based on need.

There are many cases where government spending is needed for the primary benefit of one state. Katrina recovery is one example, but the allocation there was based on need. I would use the same parliamentary techniques as Rep Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to force a recorded vote on each item in an appropriation that I could identify as pork. If the appropriation bill was heavily laden with pork, I just might vote against it on principle.

38. Will you vote to replace the current tax system with the FairTax as proposed by Linder and Boortz?

No, not without a LOT more study on the implementation. I've read The Fair Tax book and can appreciate the relative simplicity, but worry about the assumptions being correct and the possibility for major disruptions during the transition. More comments on the Fair Tax here...

39. If we do not change to a consumption tax, will you vote to establish an indexed Corporate Minimum Tax (CMT) of 15 percent, similar to the personal Alternative Minimum Tax, requiring profitable corporations to pay at least that amount (as a percent of revenue), independent of expenses, deductions, and overseas activities?

No, there's not enough detail here, and you're talking about 15% of *revenue*, which is quite different than income or even gross profits. You may be onto something about creating some type of minimum though - as long as it is indexed to inflation. I think we've all gotten sick of companies using foreign tax shelters to avoid paying their fair share while small business carries the load.

40. Will you vow to not increase income taxes, excepting only during a period of declared war?

No, I think that tax rates need to fluctuate a bit with the business cycle, and based on the needs of the country. I would favor creating some very scientific guidelines that could be used to limit tax rates though. We all feel it when taxes are too high, but the effect of taxes too low has long-term effects that may take decades to show up. We have to think long term in this country, and not just on the next election.

41. Will you vote to limit the total amount of money that any person can inherit in their lifetime, including through trusts and other “loopholes”, to 250 times the median income ($11.5 million)?
No. Although I'm opposed to having multiple generations of aristocracy in this country, I don't think hard limits are the answer. The estate tax was meant to keep wealth from concentrating so much in the hands of a few. Now and then, you hear Republicans trying desperately to cram so-called "death tax relief" down our throats, but they always fail to mention that estate taxes don't EVEN BEGIN to kick in until a person's estate is worth 2 million (going up to 3.5 million in 2009). If you want to die rich, you need to die in 2010, when the tax is repealed. Unless Congress acts, it kicks in again in 2011 with an "exemption" amount of only $1 million. The tax burden for estates is about 45% of the excess value.

What concerns me a bit is that the exemption is not high enough to exclude the upper middle class / lower upper class. If someone had a decent sized life insurance policy and failed to use all of the loopholes and tricks that the ultra-wealthy use, then the impact of this falls too much on the folks like your doctor, and not enough on the Waltons, Mars, Buffets, and Gates.

42. Will you vote for a government controlled National Health Care System that offers "free" health care to all?

Maybe. I really want to answer yes on this, but the details are very important. I've written in detail my thoughts on Universal Healthcare in "Universal Health Care - You're soaking in it!" What makes me equivocate here is that it's not truly "free" - nothing is. Universal is different than free. First, we'll all pay for it through our taxes or "contributions" or "premiums" or whatever we call them. Secondly, any sort of managed care system has got to have deductibles and/or co-pays in order to limit abuse. We're already paying for universal health care in this country. It's time to get it.

Another thought here - covered in my article reference above is that although government would be the payer, it would not have complete control. The free market would still compete to provide that care on the basis of quality and efficiency.

43. Will you vote for complete government funded Health Care for all Americans under the age of twenty-five?

Yes, subject to the same concerns as question #42 above. Choosing age groups could be a good way to ease into a system of universal government funded coverage.

44. Will you vote for the government to provide Health Care vouchers to every American citizen that can be used to purchase health insurance from either the government or a private provider, thus ensuring that every American has some coverage?

Yes, this is another good idea for getting us on the road to Universal coverage. I'm okay with the idea of the government's coverage competing with private coverage - IF - and this is a BIG IF: If government and private providers all have to play by the same rules for accepting pre-existing conditions. Either you force government AND providers who take vouchers to accept anyone who applies - with no medical exam, or you classify each applicant according to health and issue a voucher for some fair actuarial amount of what that coverage should cost.

My problem with this is that I just don't see how private insurers could possibly compete with government, which doesn't have a profit motive. The only possible way to make a profit would be to squeeze the consumer on what's "medically necessary" - a tactic they already use today.

45. Will you vote to allow citizens who are mentally sound, older than their “life expectancy” and terminally ill, to opt for euthanasia?

Yes. I believe that any terminally ill patient should deserve to die on their own terms.

46. Will you vote to allow a panel of doctors to overrule the health care decision of a parent for a critically ill minor? For example, if three doctors recommend chemotherapy as the only viable treatment, but the child or parents oppose, should the doctor’s decision prevail?

No. I think it has too much potential to be abused for profit. As much as I dislike judicial intervention, I think we have to trust the system for this. We just have to keep politicians out of it to avoid future sensational grandstanding like what happened with the Terri Shiavo case.

47. Will you vote to cap medical expenditures, paid by the government in any five year period for any one person, to 25 times the median income (approximately $1.1 million dollars)?

No. What do you do when you hit the limit? Let the person die? I would hate to be so callous as to legislate a cap like that. I understand that there may be a problem with some "heroics" being used to pad medical bills for patients that are already near the end of their lives, but I can imagine situations where there could be exceptions.

48. Will you vote to terminate all medical litigation by creating a separate account, funded by a 2 percent take of all medical procedures, that will be used to compensate patients or their families when the medical system fails?

Maybe. If we could devise a system whereby we all share the risk and patients who have been harmed through negligence can recover damages, I might go for it. It would have to have some mechanism for penalizing and eventually driving out incompetent providers though. I don't think a no-fault system like mentioned would adequately deal with the OB-GYN who carved his initials on a woman's abdomen.

49. Will you vote to eliminate the federal Department of Education and vote for a plan to return all authority to the states over a period of four years or less?

I have to give this proposal more thought. I think one of the biggest problems we have in education today is inequity in funding. Shifting funding from the state to federal level would get more equity in the process. But I don't want us to equalize on the lowest common denominator. I think we do need to have state and local input in our schools. I think this is one of those topics where there is just a systemic problem on multiple levels that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have feedback from readers on this.

50. Would you support a law that requires the removal of the bottom 3 percent of teachers in each school district each year?

No, not at this time. Though I'd love to see the teaching profession become competitive. At a time when teachers are bailing out and schools have difficulty retaining them, I would hate to put more regulation in that would tie a district's hands. That being said, I don't see any problem with districts that want to do this on a voluntary basis if they think it helps.

Glad to see this thread is still alive and well. It contains lots of great input and some wonderful suggestions.

GOOOH is not only alive, but thriving. The GOOOH summer tour begins this weekend in Cincinnati, OH and includes presentations in Washington DC, Memphis, Raleigh, Richmond, Houston, LA, San Francisco and more. Over 150,000 visitors have not been to the Web site and more than 10,000 have completed the questionnaire.

Send us your address and we'll send you a free copy of the book.

Best regards,
Tim C
tim@goooh.com
Founder, GOOOH