Meanwhile, Ralph Nader, the Green Party nominee, has become a factor in the presidential contest. While he clearly lost some support after the Democratic convention, he seemed to gain steam during October, increasing his vote in key states, such as Oregon and Washington. The presidential race appears to heading toward a showdown in about a dozen states, with the outcome in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and the Northwest most important. It's very clear that there is a lot at stake in the 2000 elections. But the voters don't seem passionate about one party or the other.
Our government is unable to achieve anything in an efficient manner; aligning the elections will begin a process of... ... middle of paper ... ... easily met, laws will be more rationally inputed, and the achievement of the government will mean the achievement of the majority. For the current state of our government, this is not only the best course of action for change, but it is most realistic. It does not the alter the form of government to the point that Americans cannot recognize it, however it is a drastic enough alteration, that it will yield results that may not be seen in our current state. A significant change in our electoral process will be a journey on its own, and it will take adapting and compromise. However, as this country evolves, is foundations need replacing, and its traditions need tweaking in order to maintain the staggering growth and power it has maintained since the beginning of its existence.
Something is missing from both plans, but first the plans should be discussed before criticism can begin. It is time for the government to return to a Laissez-faire “Hands Off!” economy. On one side you have President Obama who declares that higher taxes on the wealthy and large corporations will solve the problem. On the other side you have the republicans of congress shouting that a lower tax on corporations is what is needed to right the economy. Both plans seem to be correct on the surface.
Bob Dole: A Race to the Top People understand they can't get all these tax cuts, protect their favorite programs, and balance the budget," says Susan Tanaka speaking on the promises made by presidential candidate Bob Dole to the American public (Gibbs 1996). Bob Dole proposed his tax cut package on Aug. 5, 1996 hoping to entice the public into voting for him in the 1996 presidential elections. Dole focuses his proposal towards social conservatives and supply siders believing he will give them their link to growth-oriented tax cuts which will amount to 551 billion dollars over the next six years (Rubin 1996). So how does Bob Dole plan to make all these things happen without remaining in office for at least 12 years? He does not, it is merely an impossible act in a desperate attempt to get himself elected.
Though Kennedy and Nixon both tried to use fiscal policy to further their own position and ensure re-election, the administrations of late have understood that the economy is not a re-election tool and that what-ever need to be done to bring us out of a recession is necessary, even if it means they may risk not getting reelected. Reelection be Damned One might wonder how politics plays into fiscal policy. Does the possibility of not getting reelected affect the choices a president makes? No, in fact, the administrations of the last seven business cycles usually make fiscal policy decisions that prove to be political suicide, yet are best for the economy. Started with the farthest back, John F. Kennedy is an exception to this rule.
The popular vote was so close that it required a recount, effectively taking the electoral votes, the election and the Presidency away from Bush. The 2000 Presidential Election has done nothing if not raise serious questions about our election process. Lack of standardization in the voting process, methods of vote tabulation and the media’s role in determining the outcome of an election have all come under scrutiny. The question raised most often, however, seems to be about the Electoral College, and it’s validity as part of the election process in the 21st Century. Originally, in our nation’s infancy, the plan was to have Congress elect the President.
Bush's victory was also a victory for the Republican Party, but the Democrats received a similar victory in that they retained control of both the House and the Senate. The presidential election as a whole was a negative race, with an abundance of personal attacks (mainly instigated by Bush). The election of Bush in 1988 confirmed the Republican domination of presidential politics for another four years. The Republican Primary was a race between Vice President George Bush and Senator Bob Dole because President Reagan had reached his term limit and could not run again. Bush was Reagan's Vice President, so he started the race as the Republican front-runner.
The Republican Primaries of 2000 brought about a larger than usual number of candidates in the running. One potential candidate, Newt Gingrich declined to run and the two-time candidate Pat Buchanan decided to run on the Reform Party ticket. Several other candidates withdrew even before the Iowa caucus which lest Bush, McCain and Keyes as te only candidates left in the race. Bush, the governor of the second largest state in the Union, the son of a former president, and the favoured candidate of the Christian Right, was portrayed in the media as the establishment candidate, while McCain, a maverick senator with the support of many moderate Republicans and Independents, was portrayed as an insurgent.
We need to begin today, by making spending cuts ACROSS THE BOARD. These cuts must be enacted sensitively, however, in order to keep the economy stable as we move toward a balanced budget. The need for spending cuts across the board cannot be understated. For just one example of how imbalanced our policies are, notice how 63% of all entitlements go to retirees. 93% of these are NON-MEANS-TESTED.
I expected to be able to cut quite a bit from the budget, but feared that I would fund too many social programs and therefore not save enough money. The most significant choice I made regarding the U.S. budget was which of the Bush-era tax cuts to renew. Due to my liberal nature, I chose the tax cuts for incomes under $70,000. This is because the majority of America would be unaffected by the tax increases, while those who are can better afford the extra costs. Although I tarried between renewing the tax cuts for all incomes below $250,000 and the policy I chose, I decid... ... middle of paper ... ...evenue while being beneficial to the environment.