The minority party should focus on the effectiveness of existing programs

Today, our Congressman spoke at a local business alliance luncheon. Being from the minority party, he had the usual comments about what the majority is doing wrong. I suggested that the SBIR grant program for small business was flawed - the focus should be on growing businesses, not perpetually small operations whose main expertise is applying for and winning government grants. (This was not my opinion, but the GAO's.) He replied that rather than give out the grants at all, he'd like to give every business that creates a new job a 25% tax credit.

This is where the minority party gets it wrong. Both parties focus on strategy and power, regardless of their majority or minority status. But the minority party, especially when a minority in all 3 branches, is not going to drive policy. Better to present their alternate proposals, then focus on the government's execution of its existing programs. Uncover waste, fraud, unintended consequences; expose these to the public, and push the majority party to govern effectively.

Going back to the SBIR example, when the minority says "We shouldn't spend that money at all, we should give it back to the people"; well, no matter how valid that position is the majority will respond, "We won the most votes last time, so more people clearly agree with us that it should be spent."

On the other hand, if the minority party points out that the SBIR program has stated goals of creating jobs, yet half of all small business grants go to "small businesses" that have been small for decades, receive the bulk of their money from a never-ending stream of small business grants, and have few productive skills outside of winning those grants - what will the majority party say? "True, but we won the election so the American people clearly want us to waste that money."

The President should resign from their party after election

Previously, I advocated that the Vice President should perform party duties so the President can focus on American issues, not party concerns. Recent news from the White House, defending their attempts to divert Joe Sestak from the Senate primary race against Arlen Specter as "politics as usual", now makes me think that the President should resign their party in their Inauguration address.

While I don't think that anything illegal was done, the whole system stinks. All candidates for political office are American citizens, and they each should be able to count on neutrality from their President. Were the President to become an Independent on day 1, then they could establish a standard that they won't participate in political activities. As a bonus, the President could avoid the poor appearance of speaking at a fund-raiser for a Democratic Senator while oil continues to pour into the Gulf of Mexico.

Mayor Bloomberg should have let voters give away $100 million for his campaign

Congratulations to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who won his third term as mayor, after spending close to $100 million on the campaign.

This was his money; he earned it, and in America you choose how to spend your money. As a practical matter, however, I think that Mayor Bloomberg could have accomplished his reelection goal while donating most of that money to improving the lives of New York's least fortunate citizens.

Here's how: First, set aside maybe $10 million for traditional campaign expenses - an office, staff, public appearances, press interviews, and a solid Web site infrastructure. Then, put $90 million into a pool that will be donated to New York City charities over the 10 weeks leading up to the election. Each week, voters go to Mayor Bloomberg's campaign web site, register in his database (with appropriate precautions to confirm the person is an individual voter), and then select from a list of local charities who they would like to receive a $1 donation from the Bloomberg campaign. Each Saturday night, the selections are tallied and checks are presented to the charities in a nice public appearance (covered in the Sunday papers, of course). The next week, the donation amount may grow (or shrink) depending on how many voters directed contributions.

Instead of political activitists calling you during dinner to support their candidate, the PTA and local Boys & Girls Club would be hanging out at the grocery store, asking you to visit the Bloomberg campaign site and help them raise money for a new computer or trip to the Capitol. By the end of the campaign New York City schools and charities would be $90 million richer, Mayor Bloomberg might have a nice tax deduction, and the publicity and goodwill from this campaign would far outstretch anything his mailers, robo-calls, radio and TV ads could have done.

The Vice President should perform Party duties for the President

The President should serve the entire nation from a position above normal party politics; so, he or she should refrain from performing Party duties, such as fund-raising, campaign rallies, and party-only speeches and meetings. The party in power will of course resist this, as the Presidency is too big a pulpit to resist using for partisan advantage. The Vice President, however, could perform these duties as the President’s representative, while keeping the President away from the partisanship inherent in party functions. Of course, this would take tremendous personal integrity from the President to resist party calls for favoritism.

To this American, something does not seem right watching any President raise money for other members of their party.