TO: RE: GLOBAL VILLAGE ENTERPRISES 225 Robinson Road New Smyrna Beach (P.O. Box 2176) FL 32069 (904) 428-9609 Dr. Peter E. Pflaum July 16, 1994 President William Clinton Vice-President Albert Gore The White House 1700 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, D.C. 20001 Subject: articles on campaign finance reform, Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:13:09 +0000 From: pflaump@worldnet.att.net (Peter Pflaum) To: pflaump@cfl.rr.com Write pflaump@cfl.rr.com DO NOT respond to sender - http://www.wiredbrain.net/ March 19, 1997 RE: Vote Smart http://www.dl21c.org/voting.htm Psitive Ideas for Real Change from Real People http://www.realchange.org/positive.htm Another key word search example GO TO: http://desi.excite.com/home/?uid=0A01E72D325D9752 EXCITE search see Political Reform I have been working to make this key word search WORK ! WATER RUNS DOWN HILL: The issue is how to control (individual) power because where there is POWER there will be money. THE ANSWER is responsible political parties with real control of elections - who can run and how they vote after elections. This makes more powerful leaders but less free enterprise in elections - there need to be a balance of "real" political parties and local representation. The only way to get structrual reform is by creating referendum in Article I by Constitutional admendment in a convention called by the States. Using Private eXtension version 4 (beta) from AltaVista I can now find in my own computer REFORM.TXT which is on http://www.wiredbrain.net/documents/logos/reform.txt Copies of the SYNERGY JOURNAL sent by request: Reforming government requires more than minor changes but a radical rethinking of our governmental arrangements. G.M. took more than a decade to realize that it had to actually decentralize. Only by really distributing power to smaller units can any big organization become quicker and sufficiently responsive to rapidly changing demands. Private business go out of business, fail, go bankrupt when they can no longer meet the demands of the market. Govern ment cannot go out of business. Governments either reform or have one form or another of violent revolutions. Ask Tom Paine. The history of reform is partly driven by the desire to avoid revolutionary change. There is also an inherent desire for good government. Good government promotes civic virtues. Belief in "the System" fosters higher quality citizens and citizenship. The polis of Athens and the U.S. Constitution tried to nourish merit for its own sake. The function of government is the authoritative allocation of value. The legitimacy of government, as a personal reputa tion is lightly lost and hard to gain. Management reforms in business spills over into public administration. From the belief in scientific management to z theory we are believers in one practice or another. The people of this country want the country to work for them. The Perot supporters know the system is not working for them and the future of their children. It would be better to deal with the problem than wait until it boils over. When a people have experienced a long period of growth and increasing prosperity, they come to expect continuous progress. FDR gave the people hope. Perhaps he saved capitalism from the capitalist. When times become hard, many blame the "system." Revolutions have historically arisen from disappoint with economic growth in societies that have known long periods of economic growth and social progress. (Colonial America, France, Latin America, Russia, Cuba, China) We must reform the system to save it. Two genera tions before FDR's New Deal, Otto Von Bismarck created a basic safety net in Imperial Germany to protect the state from radical change. His health plan is surprisingly like that proposed for the USA today. The way to reorganize is the creation of strong regional and state governments. Smaller is better. Quicker and more domestic. Fifty years of efforts to reform public education proves you cannot reform a un-reformable system. Some institutions become expert in ducking and dodging. They give out a rhetorical doublespeak but are incapable of any real change. Fewer and fewer people believe them. Congressional or educational reforms are oxymorons. Iatrogenic problems are the results of false cures. The treatment has made the ailment worse. Political scientist have argued that the actions that are necessary are not possible under the current system. The actions that are possible are often Iatrogenic. Curative actions are not politically possible, while the political possible does little good and maybe harmful. For example. the war on drugs causes crime by raising the price of drugs paid for by robing someone or selling more drugs. Urban renewal destroys the neighborhood. Aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) harms the families and creates more depen dent children. Theses are not rare cases but system prob- lems. The first step in fixing the system is to sort out what is a system's problem rather than mistakes caused by individuals or specific laws, rules, or programs. Fix the system not the blame as Deming argues. The welfare of the republic is a stake and the well being of my children. I teach Political Science. The frustration at the inability of the system to reform itself increases always expediential. This country was founded on the principle of the consent of the governed. Let us work together to really reinvent government before it reinvents us. So what is to be done? Because we understand the problem of international competitiveness one can make up a menu of actions that can help- short run (before 1995) and long run into the middle of the next century. Let's take a fresh look. One important first step can be done by executive order. It is to renew and strengthen the federal regional councils. Men of stature such as former governors or senators should become Regional Commissioners. A way to break the iron triangle between the interest groups, congress and the agencies is by giving power the regional councils. A WAY OF FOCUSING PUBLIC EFFORT ON TARGETS AND ACHIEVING GOALS IS BY DECENTRALIZATION. An important benefit of going regional is greater Presidential influence. The White House rarely influences even the EXECUTIVE BRANCH administration in Washington. The agencies respond first to their support group ( beneficiaries and agents ), then to congressional committees that give them legislation, money and protect them from outsiders, then the media and public in general and only a little to the OMB and White House or Secretary level programs and priorities. They are foxy fellows that never say no but little happens except smoke and mirrors. By executive order the OMB can have the authority to approve regional plans using programs from dozens of agencies with the signature of the Federal Regional Council. This was done in 1971-1975 I belief under Fred Malak at OMB. Decisions, money and power can flow directly from the President to OMB, to ten regional directors, to programs or visa versa. The councils verify that all required regula tions are meet by the combined grant (integrated grant administration) and each contribution from an agency. For example a billion dollars could be assembled in one region from highway and other DOT money, airport funds, and labor and social service money for training, water and conservation, DOD research, economic development, small business, etc., into a general project to create smart roads and business in smart cars. Another region from DOE, DOD, etc for computer and programming projects. Within existing budgets and legislation a revolution can take place in government by executive order. It was done before under Nixon but..that's another story. First we are too big and too small. Its all too difficult at the national level. Let's say we had twenty regions in a community of the Americas (Latin America = 500 million, Ten regions of 50 million each, 290 in U.S. and Canada, 10 regions of 29 million each). Each region would have an assembly and economic development council. (Update on a plan by Rex Tugwell's plan- Center for the Study of Democracy, Santa Barbara) The core of the enterprise would be research centers. The idea is the generation of long term projects and the spin off of small flexible creative enterprise. Its up to them to develop strategies for incomes policy, industrial policy, education and research policy, health, natural resources, and investment banking. First, in the 10 federal regions help organize or expand a research university park complex to develop and spin off small business and convert defense industries. Ask the advanced projects agency (DOD), NSF, NASA, the commerce department, labor, transportation, agriculture, and trade representative to help the Federal Regional Council develop regional development plans. High speed transport, optic fiber networks, interactive communications and direct broadcast, biotechnology, specialized goods and services. There is little or no chance a national program of this kind will be tried or if tried can work. There is a real chance it can work in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, San Fran cisco, Boston, Kansas City, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, or Chicago. Then they would look outward to export markets and projects around the world. The big multinational could become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. The best hope is small and middle size solutions, for business, job training, education, health, and physical and social infrastructure. I wonder how many people are interested in the structural problems in American Government. This is an issue that has been around for years without generating much media inter est. There is, however, no more important issue because other problems can't be solved within the current system of decision (or non-decision) making. PROBLEMS: The founding fathers clearly did not desire democracy. The theme which runs through the culture of the 18th century both in Europe and the colonies was a merit. The men of good character would rule with the consent of the gentlemen to be governed. An aristocracy of leaders of talent and character not only of birth. Cincinnatus was the model and free mason lodges the training ground of civic virtue. Modern political theory has stressed the idea of the dilemma of democracy where the "system" depends on the civic minded elites. (Mills, Dye, Wilson, Lipsets, etc.) The steady deterioration in civic elites that has been the root cause of the decline of American Civilization as we move out of the age of mass production. Since the late 60' s many other nations have been more successful in the realities of international competition. America's average increase in productivity lagged behind most industrial nations. (West Germany, France, Italy and the rest of the EC, Japan and even Britain) American personal well-being, our standard of living is now lower than several other countries, unemployment is higher, life expectancy lower (even thought we spend much more on health care), levels of pollution are higher, crime much worse, education poorer, rate of saving and investment much lowers, and by almost every measure of well-being America's relative position is declining. There is a simple reason for the relative decline in our country. They are organized for economic adaption to changes in the international market while we are not. The history of the modern world has been an interplay between great technological changes and social adjustments. The business and civic culture support the new industries or resist and prevent needed change. (Reich, 1983 p 17) America has a choice: It can adapt to the new economic realties by altering its business and public institutions and human resource base or it can continue to decline. Our cultural heritage, once so successful, must change customs, attitudes, and values. Fundamental change is emotional difficult. (Reich p 21) Meritaracy is the key to post-modern competitiveness, educational reform, and governmental restructuring. (Total Quality Management) No organizational restructuring can replace productive citizens of virtue and vision. The goal is to be to give people of talent and virtue greater social standing. The reforms of the last 30 years as increased fractional interests and the role of money and specialist in procedures and process known as lobbyist. The inside knowledge and contacts must have become more valuable as this industry has grown exponentially. Ruling coalitions are harder and harder to put together. The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent abuse of power not to promote a internationally competitive society. We must make changes in the political system that promote the cultural and physical infrastructure suited to the 21 st century. The Americans assisted in the writing of the German and Japanese constitutions. These governments carefully balanced responsiveness and responsibility. The German Federal structure has many advantages that promote a more positive, problem solving government. We must have an effective governmental structure to compete in the world. Clearly reforms would benefit our country in international trade and well-being at home. GOALS: The central issue is how to reinforce national, central, and long term priorities over sectional, special, short term objectives. The S&L problem was largely a result of the committee system and how power is fractured and controlled by small willful groups. The logic of collective action in single member districts defeat clear national interests. The budget deficit, health care, education are other painful case. These issues have not been solved because of basic structural problems. When any system has a pattern of consistent failure then it must be restructured. The USSR, General Motors, the American School system, are such examples. I would like to help put together a group (Committee for Responsible Government) and raise money by modern targeted appeals. To get change requires the intelligent use of the current methods of political action, a leadership system, coali tions, and grass roots mobilization. The effort at term limitations is something of a model. This is the need for structural changes in the design of American federal government, so that real choices can be made in elections and real policies set by the winners. Some balance of single member districts and proportional representation will better meet our needs now and in the future. For those who really care about our country it is imperative to have real reform. The iron triangle of interest groups, congressional commit tees, and the bureaucracy must be opened up to real competition. The nature of single member districts forces coalitions before elections. There must be a big tent. There fore, to win policy must be vague and favors widely spread. Logrolling and tradeoffs become the only methods of distributing costs and benefits. The powerful win and the national interest doesn't get a fair hearing. The theme of this movement is that forces and groups that represent common "collective" values or "The National Interest" require more structural advantages over the special or provincial interests. This structural improve ment can come from the tradition of American democratic reform and from the European/ Japanese forms of representa tive government. The Executive Branch needs to be stronger and have formal power in the legislature. Divided government augments the cracks in the process. The feudal style of American National Government means that the President does have much control even of the Executive Branch. Agencies look to their support groups and congress for authority and funds. Administrative Alternative: The Nixon administration under the leadership of Winberger in OMB and Fred Malak set up a system with the federal regional councils. The power of authorization of "block' grants and consolidated projects (like the River front development in Nebraska) shifted power to the White House. This along with Impoundment gave real power to the President in the operation of the Executive branch. The use of "Social Service" funds in 4a Social Security Act is a interesting case of targeting money for political support. It helped Reagan balance his budget in California, Thompson in Illinois, etc. Special teams of OMB people used carrots and sticks to enforce Presidential policies in Washington and on the regional councils. Congressional and special interest reaction to the attempt of the White House to actually control the executive branch was outrage and I believe the real cause of Nixon's fall. It could be interesting to try to reactivate the federal regional councils and move towards Rex Tugwell's plan for decentralization. Maybe doing so openly, saying that we need to make the government smaller, closer to the people, having fewer levels of administration, better use of business executive volunteers which all can all be done in the regional offices. The 1% evaluation funds can be used for this purpose. Some kind of regional assembly can set regional goals and policies including targets for the industries of the future. You can use defense funds as well as civilian private investments via banks. This is much more likely to work at the regional level. Health plans and educational alternatives (including the use of the military) can be operational at the regional level in six months and carried out with executive orders. The regional research labs like the triangle group in the Carolinas can promote new technologies and give leadership. California in Computers, Texas in electronics, energy and manufacturing systems, midwest in communications and robotics, New England in Education and finance, the South East in transportation, space, etc. We may require a reforms similar to the French Fifth Republic or the Basic Law in the Federal Republic of Germany. These more highly structured representative governments are more responsible and less "responsive". Democracy like sex has to be confined and directed or it become promiscuous and dangerous. This is long term conservative thesis from Cicero, Burke, to DeGaul. Liberals are equally frustrated by the inability of the government to implement popular actions such as universal health care, gun control, tax reform - in the face of well financed special interests. Only the few who can use the "system" to their benefit are now happy with the current state of affairs. ALTERNATIVES: What kind of structural reform would give national interests, such as a sound currency and responsible spend ing, a better chance? Let's look at the German Federal Republic, the French Fifth Republic and other models. The balance between single member districts (the British system used in the USA and proportional representation used in most of Europe) can offer a federal structure where the states certify members of the lower house based on the vote in that state. They can be members of the legislatures of the states thereby tieing the national and state governments together. A original alternative is to have appointed members of the lower house to create a quasi-proportional system. The parties would appoint members to bring their members into balance with their national vote. The single ballot with national candidates running together is a simple plan that has some support. The critical element is executive cooperation with the lower (popular) house. Why not have the House of Representatives elected each four years with the President and proportioned as the popular vote for president. This can be done by the single ballot, done by the states, or using appointed members to redress the balance. This would not necessarily eliminate the single member districts. The parties, which should have constitutional status, would be responsible for the selection the representative lists presented by each state. There is need for more party discipline. If the President could not rule, the house could call for new elections. The House by 3/5 vote could bring down the government without impeachment. The Senate would have veto power over legislation but could be overridden in the house. The most likely way major structural change can take place is through crisis. If the debt and trade issues cause real economic hardships then the public could be ready to make changes. A organization for more responsible govern ment could mobilize those interest that care about the welfare of the republic. How about something like "Ameri cans for Responsible Government"? What do existing groups do about structural reform? Where does the Heritage Founda tion, the Hover Institute, the Hudson Institute (Brokings, Centers for Policy Research) stand on these issues? Most of the democratic reforms, such as those supported by common cause, have made the problem worse by weakening central leadership. Campaign finance reform may be a useful token but offers no real solutions. A rough idea of the content of change would be to call for a constitution convention to make a new Basic Law without getting into other issues. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would change Article I, Section 2 (1) to make four year terms in the House the same as Article II Section 1 (1) the term of the President. (House members limited to four terms, 16 years, the two year term has representatives running for office all the time.) The numbers of the representatives shall be proportional to the popular vote by party for the President with a minimum of 10% for any party. (Article II Section (2) and (3) the Electoral College is replaced by direct partisan election). Political Parties are defined as part of the process of Government and can control their fran chise, i.e. who can run as a candidate under their ticket and select the list from which the lower house members are selected, as established by law. This is the critical change. The party selects the members of the House based on a national and state laws. Section 3 (1) the terms of the Senate would become eight years with 50% elected each four years, with a limit of two terms. (2) The two classes shall be set by law so no Senator loses time in their current terms. If the senate failed to agree to legislation from the house, the house could override on third reading and 90 days by a 2/3 vote. New (19) in Section 8, Article I ( Powers of Congress ) will give the congress by 3/5 vote in both chambers to right to call new national election once in the four year term and/or Section 4 of Article II (impeachment) gives the President the right to call national elections once in the four year term if he declares he is unable to govern or if Congress thinks the President should be removed. The issue can be simply stated as a conflict between responsive and responsible government. The constitution was designed to create representative government not democratic government. Foremost in the Constitutional design was the prevention of tyranny and the protection of liberty. Popular government was viewed as a threat to freedom. The British system depends on popular elections and does not need the separation of powers, federalism, and all the other checks and balances to protects the rights of Englishmen. Our constitution was designed to limit democracy especially the House of Representatives. Popular government was believed to be dangerous, especially to sound money and credit but also to the civil rights of minorities. Propor tional representation give the one issue groups (right-to- life, prayer in schools, etc. a platform to act and be taken into account without holding up the political process. Limited government was the Federalist (conservative) answer to the evils of factions (special interests). The government that governed least would be most responsible in the management of public affairs. Madison assumed govern ment by civic elites with only limited responsiveness to the general public. The democratization of American Government from Andy Jackson to recent congressional and party "re forms" have made the process more and more responsive and less and less responsible. The skills and money it takes to get elected prevent effective government by those who win. We still could get better or worse people elected and they could control the House. They would not control the Senate or the courts. The President might really gain control of the executive branch. He could break the linkage between Chairmen of the Committees and the interest groups and the bureaucracy. The leadership in the house would appoint new chairmen every four years. The President as head of the party would have great legislative power as in the parliamentary systems. I have read David Stockman's The Triumph of Politics with great interest. I am troubled by the book because the realities of American Politics which seems to have escaped Mr. Stockman's attention. It should not come as a great surprise to him, what is very clear to me and I hope to other observers and participants in government. It appears a surprise to Mr. Stockman that the exorbitant and impru dent Federal Budget is the outcome of structural rather that election problems. Winning an important national election did not make much difference. The process of voting has failed to produce results. Most American have become aware that voting is a very unsubstantial process under current conditions. As budget director, Stockman was trying to be responsi ble, balance the books and protect the soundness of the currency and the good faith and credit of the Republic. Strangely enough the Secretary of the Treasury did not see the point. You tried to remind people that there is no free lunch (the first law of thermodynamics "every action has an equal reaction"). Stockman noticed the dream land of easy popular ideology, where hard choices become simplistic slogans. He became painfully aware of the "iron triangle" of interest groups, committee chairmen, and the bureaucracy. He discovered that the White House does not even control the Executive Branch. The agencies get their goodies from Committees on the Hill through the support of their consti tution groups. OMB tries to take away hard won programs and money. He noticed the realities of popular government. The second law of thermodynamic is that water runs down hill. ( As entropy increases, chaos arises out of order. Energy must be put into the organizational maintenance of discipline. ) The calculus of consent and the logic of collective action makes politics a semi-free emporium where outcomes in the capitalist market place can be adjusted by public action. (Save Chrysler, protect tobacco and peanuts from market forces, subsidize barges and Amtrack, the accountants and tax layers, etc. etc.) The "National Interest" in a responsible fiscal policy has structural disadvantage in this competi tion. Clearly, institutional reform can not completely protect people from themselves and falling for wayward, stupid or corrupt politics. The structure, however, can benefit local and special interest or the broader national interest. The Senate is more responsible than the House, the President (usually) more trustworthy than the Congress. Therefore the argument for the line item veto and putting congress under the increasing disciple of the budget process. Where is the movement for organization reform? Clearly structural or systematic problems require systemic struc tural reform. This is why Stockman's book ends with such a final disappointment. He concludes that the people get the government they deserve therefore the people want free lunches and circuses. Mass publics are capable of holding orderly ideas about institutional structures. The public has ideas of the realities of government. Since there is a mass revolt, (20 million votes for Perot) we can not assume a general level of contentment with the status quo. There is a political ideology supporting system changes in the public as a whole, now focused on term limits. Certainly the 50 million direct beneficiaries of monetary redistribution, (Transfer payment recipients, retired social security and medicare beneni- ficaries, farmers, defense employers and workers, builders and bankers, teachers and social workers, etc. etc. ) need to be convinced to put the national interest above their private concerns. The others who pay more than they get, are becoming aware they are being taken and beginning to want to do something about it. For the sake of argument, it is possible that a majority of active voters give more to the state than they receive. Welfare people are net gainers and low political participants and your average Middle Class professional is a net looser and likely participant. Never- the-less if you look at all the sectors that get assistance ( veterans, oil companies, defence contractors, banks, S & L's, you can see how many of these middle class profession als depend on the positive slope of the playing field.) So you can conclude that the majority of active voters do not have the government they want. Certainly the majority of the 2% who are contributors to political campaigns must want lower taxes, high transfer payments and entitlement to their groups, restrictive subsidies, regulations and privileges, other special favors. But this is an outcome of the political structure. They are in the process for what they can get out of it. The S & L rip off is a classic where private greed is supported by public policy. Where was the public interest? If the structure were different may be the outcome would be different. With the current structure we get the current results and one can't expect anything else. The system produces K Street ( lobbyist ) K street did not produce the system. I remain yours sincerely, REFERENCES 1.) "A Bicentennial Analysis of the American Political Structure" The Committee of the Constitutional System, Washington D.C. 1987 Lloyd Cutler, White House Counsel to President Carter, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, C. Douglas Dillon, Treasury Secretary to Pres. Kennedy. Includes "Elections American Style" in A. James Reichley, Ed. (Washing ton, The Brookings Institution, 1987) New Directions in American Politics (Brookings, 1986) a:) James L Sundquist, The Brookings Institution b:) Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute c:) Thomas Mann, American Political Science Association 2.) American Heritage May-June 1987 articles by Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, et al. 3.) National Election Studies, Center for Political Studies of the University of Michigan 4.) Martin P. Wattenberg "The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952- 1984", (Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1986) 5.) Michael J. Malbin, Ed, Money and Politics in the United States,(Wash- ington, American Enterprise Institute for Pubic Policy Research 1984) 6.) David A. Stockman. The Triumph of Politics, Why the Reagan Revolution Failed (New York, Harper & Row, 1986) ************************************************************ Peter E. Pflaum Ph.D. GLOBAL_VILLAGE_SCHOOLHOUSE 225 Robinson Road, New Smyrna Beach * IN THE WORLD - FL 32169-2176 (904) 428-9609 * BUT NOT OF THE WORLD pflaump@cfl.rr.com * ACTIVE - COOPERATIVE - * SMALL SCHOOLS JOURNALS pflaump@cfl.rr.com, pepflaum@bellsouth.net, ZEN IS THE ART OF GETTING YOURSELF OUT OF YOUR OWN WAY ************************************************************