My laundry list is basically the same as yours. One thing that should be added to the sign is 'We need to have set of core values,' if beliefs are to be eliminated. If one is to take '0' as a mid point and took the first 20% to the left and 20% to the right, I would bet that one would find that those people will most all have the same values and goals. And that sounds to me like a likely new party. But how do we communicate this into existence?
I do think we could create something like this. I originally thought about creating a set of core values for a middle party because there are definitely a lot of things that are bi-partisan, but then I wondered if it would be better to create that kind of thing locally in our local communities rather than nationally?
There's a famous business phrase: "the only way to make money is bundling and unbundling."
We need an unbundling process in politics. I'm not sure how to solve this system wide, but on an individual level, I think that it starts with unbundling political parties from our identity.
Someone recently asked me "how are you friends with Trump voters?" (I live outside DC). My answer: "simple, I don't have a strong political identity and neither do my friends."
Very thought-provoking. Just want to set the record straight that the research of Bob Howarth on methane emissions—both in fracking fields and in “natural gas” infrastructure—puts the lie to this assumption: “But fracking, which produces natural gas, is so much better for our health and the environment than oil and gas.” Methane is up to 100x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. His research and data show that fracking, all told, is actually worse than coal. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel “bridge to the future.”
Ahhhhh thank you for pointing me to this, I hadn't looked at methane specifically. So you are right, any kind of drilling/fracking seems to have higher methane leaks than the other options, at least when not managed well. (Though not as high as livestock, sheesh! https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/methane-emissions-by-sector) Looks like our best bet for stable energy then is still to replace it with nuclear!
How do we break out of this? By a focus on local politics and a less big US Federal Government? Would healthcare be run at the state level not the federal?
I think so. If Trump really starts slashing federal departments like education and healthcare, then this is an opportunity for states to run those programs themselves. The only hurdle here is taxes—the federal government gets most of them, not the states. That would have to change.
I think the tribal partisanship that has emerged over the last two centuries has shifted the emphasis away from issues and more towards conflict for fundraising's sake.
Toward that end ranked choice voting seems to mitigate that problem. What do you think about ranked choice voting?
In Europe, do individual states in each country - say Germany and Italy - decide on the various programs you suggest moving from federal level to state level, or do the individual countries as a whole decide as opposed to the EU?
If programs are moved from the Federal to the state responsibility level in the US, would the wealthy states continue to subsidize the poorer states? Or would the transfer of funds end as federal taxes were reduced and replaced with individual state taxation? The effect of this latter would make the poor states poorer. On the other hand, if my state does not provide certain benefits or services which a poorer states decides to provide, I would not want my taxes paying for those. The old no taxation without representation thing.
Finally, I think you are overlooking the methane issues with fracking.
In the EU, individual countries have their own control over taxation and social programs, but the EU earns a cut from each country (a percent of their gross national income) and then uses that to provide layers of federal governance that supersedes country law. Like: "open borders between countries" and "you can move to Italy and then switch to Italy's healthcare program if you are a full-time resident."
US states could work like that too if we fixed taxation.
As for wealthy states subsidizing poorer states, that's actually not what is happening with our tax dollars. It's more like all of the states are subsidizing the federal government, which earns the vast majority of our tax dollars. As I point out in the linked article, even the smallest US states are richer than many EU countries. Wyoming, for example, is our least populous state, but it has a higher GDP per capita than Denmark or Germany. It should theoretically be rich enough to provide the same social services that those countries provide their citizens without needing to be subsidized by larger, wealthier states.
The reason they don't? Germany and Denmark earn ALL of their country's tax revenue. Whereas US states give nearly all of their tax revenue to the federal government, which then redistributes only a small sliver of that back to the states. Utah’s economy, for example, was worth $186.9 billion in 2021, but earned only $14 billion in tax revenue—that’s only 7.4% of the state’s economy in tax revenue. If Utah was able to keep it's earnings the same way Denmark does, it would have earned $87.6 billion—enough to provide a lot more services for our citizens!
My laundry list is basically the same as yours. One thing that should be added to the sign is 'We need to have set of core values,' if beliefs are to be eliminated. If one is to take '0' as a mid point and took the first 20% to the left and 20% to the right, I would bet that one would find that those people will most all have the same values and goals. And that sounds to me like a likely new party. But how do we communicate this into existence?
I do think we could create something like this. I originally thought about creating a set of core values for a middle party because there are definitely a lot of things that are bi-partisan, but then I wondered if it would be better to create that kind of thing locally in our local communities rather than nationally?
There's a famous business phrase: "the only way to make money is bundling and unbundling."
We need an unbundling process in politics. I'm not sure how to solve this system wide, but on an individual level, I think that it starts with unbundling political parties from our identity.
Someone recently asked me "how are you friends with Trump voters?" (I live outside DC). My answer: "simple, I don't have a strong political identity and neither do my friends."
I so agree. My neighborhood is entirely mixed and none of us see this as a problem. We have many more things we agree with outside of politics!
Very thought-provoking. Just want to set the record straight that the research of Bob Howarth on methane emissions—both in fracking fields and in “natural gas” infrastructure—puts the lie to this assumption: “But fracking, which produces natural gas, is so much better for our health and the environment than oil and gas.” Methane is up to 100x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. His research and data show that fracking, all told, is actually worse than coal. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel “bridge to the future.”
Ahhhhh thank you for pointing me to this, I hadn't looked at methane specifically. So you are right, any kind of drilling/fracking seems to have higher methane leaks than the other options, at least when not managed well. (Though not as high as livestock, sheesh! https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/methane-emissions-by-sector) Looks like our best bet for stable energy then is still to replace it with nuclear!
How do we break out of this? By a focus on local politics and a less big US Federal Government? Would healthcare be run at the state level not the federal?
I think so. If Trump really starts slashing federal departments like education and healthcare, then this is an opportunity for states to run those programs themselves. The only hurdle here is taxes—the federal government gets most of them, not the states. That would have to change.
I think the tribal partisanship that has emerged over the last two centuries has shifted the emphasis away from issues and more towards conflict for fundraising's sake.
Toward that end ranked choice voting seems to mitigate that problem. What do you think about ranked choice voting?
I'm an advocate! Especially at the state and primary level where we might have five options all the same party.
A few questions.
In Europe, do individual states in each country - say Germany and Italy - decide on the various programs you suggest moving from federal level to state level, or do the individual countries as a whole decide as opposed to the EU?
If programs are moved from the Federal to the state responsibility level in the US, would the wealthy states continue to subsidize the poorer states? Or would the transfer of funds end as federal taxes were reduced and replaced with individual state taxation? The effect of this latter would make the poor states poorer. On the other hand, if my state does not provide certain benefits or services which a poorer states decides to provide, I would not want my taxes paying for those. The old no taxation without representation thing.
Finally, I think you are overlooking the methane issues with fracking.
In the EU, individual countries have their own control over taxation and social programs, but the EU earns a cut from each country (a percent of their gross national income) and then uses that to provide layers of federal governance that supersedes country law. Like: "open borders between countries" and "you can move to Italy and then switch to Italy's healthcare program if you are a full-time resident."
US states could work like that too if we fixed taxation.
As for wealthy states subsidizing poorer states, that's actually not what is happening with our tax dollars. It's more like all of the states are subsidizing the federal government, which earns the vast majority of our tax dollars. As I point out in the linked article, even the smallest US states are richer than many EU countries. Wyoming, for example, is our least populous state, but it has a higher GDP per capita than Denmark or Germany. It should theoretically be rich enough to provide the same social services that those countries provide their citizens without needing to be subsidized by larger, wealthier states.
The reason they don't? Germany and Denmark earn ALL of their country's tax revenue. Whereas US states give nearly all of their tax revenue to the federal government, which then redistributes only a small sliver of that back to the states. Utah’s economy, for example, was worth $186.9 billion in 2021, but earned only $14 billion in tax revenue—that’s only 7.4% of the state’s economy in tax revenue. If Utah was able to keep it's earnings the same way Denmark does, it would have earned $87.6 billion—enough to provide a lot more services for our citizens!
https://www.elysian.press/p/us-state-become-a-utopian-country
As for fracking, can you point me to some stats on methane in fracking compared to other energy sources? Very open to learning more!