Florida Ballot Amendments 2020: As Always, What the People Want (And Sometimes, What They NEED)

 As before, many thanks to Ballotpedia website, which tracks all the state referendums and goes into the details of the debates surrounding each issue facing the electorate. If you're visiting this blog from a state other than Florida, do yourself a favor and check that Ballotpedia link to see what your state is voting on this 2020.

In the meantime, here's what I and 18 million other Floridians have to deal with:

Amendment One: Citizenship Voting Amendment

It's a relatively straight-forward amendment that spells out "only U.S. citizens can vote in the elections." Which is kind of odd because our Florida Constitution already HAS wording to that effect. Seriously, click this link to the Florida Senate's Constitution website, Chapter 97.041 in the Florida Statutes, (1)(a) 2. must be a citizen of the United States.

What this reads like to me is part vanity project by the people backing this referendum, part intimidation tactic to scare minorities. The ones pushing this want to see a positive turnout and majority Yes vote on a no-brainer "Patriotic By God" referendum that really changes nothing. Anybody caught voting No to this bill can thus be labeled UN-PATRIOTIC. Screw that. I'm voting No because there's no reason for this referendum to reinforce something that's already in the law.

Amendment Two: Minimum Wage Amendment

Now here's an amendment that matters: "Raises minimum wage to $10.00 per hour effective September 30th, 2021. Each September 30th thereafter, minimum wage shall increase by $1.00 per hour until the minimum wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30th, 2026. From that point forward, future minimum wage increases shall revert to being adjusted annually for inflation starting September 30th, 2027."

State of Florida is currently one extra dollar above the national minimum wage, which is $7.46 (so Floridians are at $8.46). That's nowhere near a living wage (calculated at $16.07 in 2018) to afford rent, car and gas, and food.

What this will do to full-time employees is minimal, other than making entry-level wages go up to put them near the $15 an hour level. But this will have a profound effect on most part-time and seasonal workers, whose ability to pay the rent and other bills will get easier. This will be a huge wage boost since 2009, the last time the federal government raised the minimum wage.

For all the yelling and screaming from businesses that this will force them to fire workers because they can't afford the salaries, or that they'll leave the country, not of lot of them follow through on that. Businesses hire who they need to in order to keep up with any demands for work that befall that industry, and they'll have to hire - and keep - quality workers. And the businesses most affected by a minimum wage increase - restaurants, hotels, retailers - well, they have nowhere else to go and markets here to fill.

In the places that implemented this kind of wage boost: Costs for some services have gone up (but not enough to trigger inflation fears), businesses had cut back on hiring more employees than they already have, and a number of employees working multiple part-time jobs found it easier to cut back to working just one (or two). But the threatened collapse of the cities and states that have pushed these laws never came to pass.

This is anecdotal but I have relatives on part-time employ who live in a state that just went to a $15-per-hour wage. That relative has reported back that mortgage payments just got easier, which has reduced some of the anxiety they're coping with. I don't have much more to report than that.

By all measures, this is a Yes vote from me. Anything we can do to lift our working class out of poverty is a damn good thing.

Amendment Three: Open State Primaries Amendment

This is an interesting attempt to shake up a broken electoral system. This referendum "Allows all registered voters to vote in primaries for state legislature, governor, and cabinet regardless of political party affiliation. All candidates for an office, including party nominated candidates, appear on the same primary ballot. Two highest vote getters advance to general election. If only two candidates qualify, no primary is held and winner is determined in general election. Candidate’s party affiliation may appear on ballot as provided by law."

This does not look to affect the federal-level elections (President, Congress, Senate, Awesomest Chris, etc). 

What this looks to emulate is the Open Primary system they use in California (although that does include the non-Presidential federal offices). It mixes up the major parties (Republican and Democratic) and forces them to play nice with the smaller parties (Libertarian, Green, is Modern Whig still around...) and/or anybody else able to get on the primary ballot.

The results of this can be a mixed bag by the looks of it. As the WaPo article highlights, it can give one party an advantage in certain districts by dominating the primary and having both finalist spots filled (meaning a party win no matter what), but if too many candidates from the same party fill the ballot, they risk a split between party voters in that district (or state) and the less popular party can fill those two gaps instead (it hasn't happen yet, not noticeably).

The advantage to the Open Primary system as proposed is one that affects me: I am registered a No-Party-Affiliate. Yes, I am voting All-Democratic ticket now and for the foreseeable future thanks to Republican BS, but having been burned as a former registered Republican I feel uncomfortable signing up for another party even if I agree with them on 95 percent of the issues. Anyway, the problem being NPA is that I can't vote in either party's primaries (currently closed to members only): With an Open Primary, I now have a reason to show up in March and August when the primaries usually take place in Florida and I can have a say on which candidate(s) I think should represent in the General Elections that November.

And you'd be amazed at how the two major parties - Republicans and Democrats - are responding to this referendum: They both fear it, which is like having Burger King and McDonald's teaming up to stop a Wendy's from getting added to the other street corner they're on.

There's also arguments that this primary process of filtering down to two choices in November hurts the minor parties like Libertarian and Green. But here's the thing: They're not winning under the Closed Primary system anyway. Seriously, how many third party representatives are sitting in Tallahassee right now? (spoiler: Florida has NEVER had a non-Dem or non-GOP elected official in the state Lege) With an Open Primary, the odds ought to improve for a Libertarian or Green to do well enough to garner second-place in a two-place final round in one or two districts, if they find the right district that can support them.

The likelihood that a lot of No-Party-Affiliate voters like meself - currently around 3.6 million Florida voters - will show up more to vote improves the chances we will get candidates responsive to the voters instead of the major parties. More voters, better outcomes (or at least HONEST outcomes). On this point alone, I am leaning towards Yes on the Open Primary amendment.

Amendment Four: Second Vote On Public-Approved Amendments Amendment

This should be called the "No No, You Gotta MEAN IT When You Vote A Referendum Into Law" Referendum.

Officially, the legal wording is this "Requires all proposed amendments or revisions to the state constitution to be approved by the voters in two elections, instead of one, in order to take effect. The proposal applies the current thresholds for passage to each of the two elections." Unofficially, this amendment says "We don't believe 60 percent of you really wanted this, so screw you."

Instead of relying on 60 percent of voters to agree on a State Amendment the one time they get that many voters to agree on ANYTHING, this Amendment requires a second set of hurdles to get installed and do the vote ALL over again in case someone gets a bad case of buyers' remorse (or more likely, get inundated with ads and media claims opposing that amendment until enough people give in and vote No the second time).

What this Amendment will do is force the Initiative groups - the grassroots organizations, the non-profits, the ones looking to push reforms that the powerful elites controlling Tallahassee don't want passed - to double up on the costs and hassles of getting an Amendment created in the first place. It's not easy to get the petitions signed and confirmed, it's insanely difficult and expensive.

This is a ridiculous extra step getting added to a process that already has a difficult application process, approval process, judicial process, and then voter process. For any Amendment to survive and get 60 percent or more voters to back it should tell you that YES this is it, no do-overs, this becomes Florida law.

This is the big NO vote this year. This dare not become law, because if it does then nothing else the People desire as law will ever be allowed.

Amendment Five: Homestead Transfer Amendment

Also known as the "Save Our Homes Portability Act," it extends out an existing Homestead Exemption benefit getting transferred between a previous owned home to a new home from two years to three. It's one of two Legislature-approved Amendments, and one that both parties approved as a common-sense measure.

There doesn't seem to be any kind of financial impact statement regarding state revenues, not on Ballotpedia anyway, except for an example of how the "Save Our Homes" benefit reduces the tax paid for the homeowner by several thousands of dollars. There is an editorial listed with the Tampa Bay Times arguing in favor of this Amendment, while the League of Women Voters are opposing it on a blanket opposition to any referendum involving tax cuts that would harm public funding.

I am with the League in that this looks like another way to starve the state revenues, especially at a time when other resources for state funding is affected by the COVID pandemic. I would have to vote NO on this. I understand it'll probably pass because most voters are also homeowners who see the need to increase their exemption benefits, so I'm not particularly fighting hard against this one...

Amendment Six: Veterans' Spouse Tax Amendment

Again, for Florida a lot of taxation happens with property tax, and there's a lot of Homestead Exemption add-ons to give homeowners to keep said homeowners appeased. One such benefit was given to military veterans - especially popular due to the number of retirees here in-state - and so what this Amendment does is add a rule to that allowing the spouse of that veteran to continue receiving the veteran benefit even if the veteran dies (the exemption goes away if the spouse remarries or sells that property).

Again, this legislative-approved Amendment is so popular with elected officials that nobody balked at it, and again this looks like a popular Amendment to pass because noone dares put the tax squeeze on veterans or widows/widowers. The League of Women Voters opposes, again as a matter of principal. However, I am stuck on the fact this Amendment affects my parents (Dad's a vet) so I gotta go with what's good for my folks. I know this puts a crimp on revenue building but, you know, family. Voting YES on this one.

And... that's it, these six are the ones that survived the ballot process. Pretty quiet this election cycle, eh.

The key things to remember: Be wary of anything that takes our rights AWAY from us, be wary of anything the legislature throws at us, and be wary of anything that's got more parts to it than a Star Wars Lego set. 

This is why Amendment 4 is a disaster deserving a huge NO vote to reject it: If it passes, we may never see another citizen-approved referendum made again. 

This is why Amendment 3 is a GOOD one to pass: It expands our voting rights, especially for the large plurality of non-party voters who can finally get a say on which candidates they prefer in August well before they're forced to choose party hacks in November.

And anything that gives our workers better wages is always a plus, so YES on Amendment 2.

One last key thing: Every election the ballots we get are big ones, lots of offices to fill, lots of local ordinances up for votes as well. Check EVERY part of the ballot and make sure you've filled out every single choice you can see. Every vote needs to count, every election matters.

Now get the damn vote out, Florida. Early voting starts in October, and registration ends around October 3! Prepare yourselves.

Essential Workers, Essential Pay

As the United States careens through this COVID-19 Pandemic, let us note as many "essential workers" - the ones keeping us alive in some form or another - as we can.

Emergency Medical Technicians (the ambulance crews)
Police Officers (first responders to any crisis situation)
Fire Fighters (also trained for medical responses)
Nurses across the board
Doctors in hospitals, walk-in clinics, ERs, Intensive Care units
Anybody working in the hospital hot zones, from janitors to accountants
City and County Electricians
City and County Water and Sewage crews
Grocery store clerks and managers
Auto repair / Roadside assistance crews
Food delivery people
Food caterers making food for school children and their families
Employees at drive-thru and storefront restaurants still making food for carry-out / delivery
Postal workers / Shipping handlers
Local manufacturers adjusting their assembly lines to create masks, ventilators, and sanitizers
National Guard reservists deployed to crisis areas
The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard personnel working under pandemic conditions (especially those caught onboard ships hit by COVID)

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

You wanna know how many of those people are being asked to work above and beyond the call of duty, especially in conditions that will expose them to potentially sick people? Nearly all of them, in public places or in tight gatherings of co-workers.

You wanna know many of them are going to be able to afford this month's rent, for those whose landlords won't temporarily waive the payments during these uncertain times? You know how many are still swamped with bills, or paying for loved ones forced to stay at home to reduce the risks of spreading the virus (or worse, with loved ones who've lost their jobs and are stuck in a collapsing job market)?

You realize how many of them barely live above the costs of living already? Half of those careers I've listed at the top of this article are made up of Part-Time employees, who have no guaranteed health care benefits, no pension plans, no leave time for personal or sick days.

For all the ESSENTIAL WORK those workers provide, we sure as hell don't pay them like they're essential.

That should change.

Congress, we need better wages for everybody. We need to guarantee health care benefits for Part-Timers. We need to guarantee personal and sick leave days for everybody.

We need to do these things for the ones who are going to make it out alive from this crisis, in honor of those who won't.

Penny For My Thoughts Because I'm Out of Pocket Change

Like I've written earlier, I can't understand why people think our economy's gotten better since the Great Recession. Far too many of us are living paycheck to paycheck and weighed under by too much debt.

Even FORBES Magazine is taking notice (via Peter Georgesceu):

Ostensibly, for the past ten years, our economy has been recovering from the 2008 collapse. During the past few years, our comeback seems to have gained momentum. All the official indicators say we’re back in boom times, with a bull market, low unemployment and steady job growth. But there is an alternative set of data that depicts a different America, where the overlooked majority struggles from month to month.

The Nation recently published a stunning overview of the working poor and underpaid. One of the most powerful data points in the piece described how empty the decline in unemployment actually is: having a job doesn’t exempt anyone from poverty anymore. About 12% of Americans (43 million) are considered poor, and yet they are employed. They earn an individual income below $12,140 per year, and slightly more than that for a family of two. If you include housing and medical expenses in the calculation, it raises the percentage of Americans living in poverty to 14%. That’s 45 million people...

If we link to that Nation article by Rejan Menon, we get more details:

For a fuller picture of American (in)security, however, it’s necessary to delve deeper into the relevant data, starting with hourly wages, which are the way more than 58 percent of adult workers are paid. The good news: Only 1.8 million, or 2.3 percent of them, subsist at or below minimum wage. The not-so-good news: One-third of all workers earn less than $12 an hour and 42 percent earn less than $15. That’s $24,960 and $31,200 a year. Imagine raising a family on such incomes, figuring in the cost of food, rent, childcare, car payments (since a car is often a necessity simply to get to a job in a country with inadequate public transportation), and medical costs.

The problem facing the working poor isn’t just low wages, but the widening gap between wages and rising prices. The government has increased the hourly federal minimum wage more than 20 times since it was set at 25 cents under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Between 2007 and 2009 it rose to $7.25, but over the past decade that sum lost nearly 10 percent of its purchasing power to inflation, which means that, in 2018, someone would have to work 41 additional days to make the equivalent of the 2009 minimum wage...

Take the poverty gap, which the OECD defines as the difference between a country’s official poverty line and the average income of those who fall below it. The United States has the second-largest poverty gap among wealthy countries; only Italy does worse...

No nation can honestly maintain itself under this kind of income inequality. At some point, the financial scams at the top can't find any more suckers, and the debt consumes itself (this is what happened with the housing speculation in 2007-08 causing the Great Recession). At some point, the public frustration at being constantly in debt will erupt.

The United States has been separate from the rest of the world when it comes to this kind of oppressive economic decay. Most other countries would have broken out the pitchforks and Molotov Cocktails by now. But in the U.S., we've been able to hide from the economic despair by leaving most of the class warfare to revolve around Race instead of Poverty (despite all the Progressives thinking our class struggle is economic, all of the violent moments in American history have been over racism SEE Tulsa, Rosewood, Japanese internment, Jim Crow and Slavery eras, etc).

But sooner or later, the corrupt minority rule of Republican oligarchs - who are suppressing voters by ethnicity, gender, and youth - worried more about their goddamned tax cuts than good wages for mos workers cannot contain the anger that's brewing. trump can siphon off that rage to confuse his voting base into blaming Illegals for all their ills, but what happens when the boogeymen are gone and the oligarchs are still raking in our wages? How many Latinos and Blacks and feminists are you gonna blame for your $7.65 an hour paycheck (without health benefits) before you realize it's your $21 million a year CEO ripping you off with wage theft?

If voters were genuinely rising up over "economic anxiety" they'd be in the streets demanding $15 an hour minimum wage, caps on CEO pay, ending the GOP 2017 Tax Cut Disaster that made income inequality worse, and relief for majority of Americans regarding college/health care/homeowner debts.

They sure as hell wouldn't be voting for the Tax-Cheat-in-Chief and his Republican buddies.

Income Inequality

This is something that has been posted a few months back but only now is circulating the blogosphere:

The problem of income inequality in the United States has been with us for a long time: for at least the last ten years (if not the last thirty or more) wages have been frozen for most American workers, while the top one percent of the employment bracket (the CEO level) continued getting raises and bonuses and comp packages and Golden Parachutes (even when those CEOs were screwing up their companies: SEE the Twinkies company going down in flames while the executives paid themselves off).

Just to note: it used to be as recent as 1978 that executive (CEO) pay was only 35 times that of the average employee.  Today it's roughly 380 times, partly because average employee wages haven't grown but mostly because executives have been paying themselves (via friendly boards or manipulated systems) more and more without consequence (politicians are bought, media are bought, unions are crushed).

The argument for high wages for high-level jobs (like CEO, or high-priced attorney, or esteemed doctor) is that it motivates people to work and empower themselves to achieve great things: the carrot rather than the stick as it were.  While that is a valid argument, there's a question of "how much is really enough?"  At what point does GREED become too much of a motivating factor rather than equitable compensation for good effort?  Where's the sense of proportion when it comes to taking a $5 million bonus while 2,000 other employees of your company gets a wooden nickel each for working as hard or even harder than that CEO?

There ought to be a way to fix this in a fair and equitable manner.  I'd argue for a wage cap on CEOs tied to their employees: that CEOs of large companies be paid no more than 35 times (like in 1978) than their average non-administrative employees.  Said cap to be phased into action over a five-year period, dropping from 380 times to 150 times in Year One, to 98 times in Year Two, all the way down to that 35 times by Year Five.  In the meantime, require that the average wage of those non-admin employees to go up, as a way of making that "35 times more" deal for the upper management less painful (so that it would make the CEOs more like 50 times paid more if those employees hadn't gotten raises).

The math might not be there, I know.  But somehow we've got to raise the wages for a majority of working Americans out there.  And we've got to make CEOs less greedy (based on that video's report, that One Percent of the populus has got 40 PERCENT of the nation's money.  THE F-CK?!)

This isn't communism (something for nothing).  It might be socialism: forcing the richest to take less so that the poor can get more.  Except for the fact we're talking about improving the wages of poor WORKING Americans, not some "handouts" to a nebulous "moochers and takers" society.  But what's the alternative?  Doing nothing, sitting back and basking in the "It's all Capitalism baby learn to love it" belief system is not the solution... The current system is broken: there's no judge, no force of accountability against the GREED that's corrupted our financial institutions.

Seriously, what is the alternative to capping CEO wages?

What The Democrats Should Do The Next Two Years

Well, I had gotten caught up in a few other projects, namely a National Novel Writing Contest that naturally I'm not going to finish in time (sigh). I had tried writing up a post just before the Nov. 2006 midterm election about the horrific amount of mudslinging and election-day dirty tricks that had been going on, and any suggestions on how to fix our electoral system so that our elections are honest, fair and smudge-free. It's still on my draft board, and someday I'll get around to it.

Instead, with the election over and with the Democratic Party now in firm control of both houses of Congress, the big topic inside the Beltway has been "How evil and backstabbing" that mean ole Wicked Witch of the West Nancy Pelosi is. Sigh. Some things don't change, do they? Seriously, the big topic has been "What will the Dems do with their control of Congress?"

Some issues are unavoidable. Iraq has become such a mess that 'Civil War' is now the only way to describe the situation there.

Some issues are so easy to highlight. One example: Raising the minimum wage was practically the only nation-wide campaign theme the Dems had going. Considering that at the state level EVERY STATE that had a Minimum Wage Increase referendum passed their referendums (meaning that this is something voters across the board WANT), you know the Dems will be voting a national wage increase first chance they get.

Some issues had been stealthy. No one wanted to talk about how a Democrat-controlled Congress will fare against a Bush Administration that had gotten used to doing things their way under the last 6 years of One-Party-Rule. But now it's here. And now you have to consider the increase in congressional subpoenas that are going to head down Pennsylvania Ave come January...

So, here it is, my laundry list suggestion of things the Democrats should, and could, do now they have control of Congress.

I've divided this up into three sections: Domestic Issues, Foreign Policy Issues, and Reform Issues.

Domestic Issues:

• Obviously, boost the minimum wage. Nearly every newspaper editor, TV pundit, and street-corner prophet knows the Dems will make this a signature opening move on Day One. You may hear screams from the pro-CEO crowd that increasing wages will force companies to raise prices (eek! Inflation!). But things have been increasing in price already without the salary adjustments to average American wages since the last wage increase. Businesses haven't been including Cost-Of-Living increases to people's Annual Evaluation increases (or in some cases the other way around) in the last 25 years, whereas before both COLAs and Evaluation increases used to be the way of things in the 1950s and 1960s, back when wages really meant something. There ought to be ways to ensure that the coming wage increase won't affect inflation. The priority is to improve people's wage earnings: there are far too many families sliding toward or are now under that Poverty Line...
• Another suggestion I have is add a Salary Cap to CEOs. Oooooooh, that's gonna touch a nerve. Back in the 1950s, CEOs were making roughly 20 times more than the average middle class worker. Today: it's over 200 times more. CEOs and upper management get massive salaries not to mention perks that average workers don't get, and along with that they also get better Annual Evaluation boosts to their earnings (I saw an USA Today article, swear I did, that showed CEOs getting 25 percent increases where the average worker got a 2-5 percent increase. I am still looking for that article and will cite ASAP). If companies are serious about holding down costs, why don't they do something about how expensive their top employees really are? Oh, right, we'd be taking away their ability to pay for that 5th executive golf course country club they joined yesterday. And that 5-car garage mansion with 10 extra dining rooms they never use but love to show off. So here's my suggestion: Put a Cap on any CEO/President of a company employing more than 100 people to where said CEO/President's salary (combined with perks such as stock options, performance bonuses, company-owned items like cars planes and vacation homes) is 20 times more than the average non-management level employee. It should do two things: cut down on high-priced CEO salaries, and increase the employees' wages so that their average wage goes up to give said CEO justalittlebitmoremoney. Don't call me a communist: Call me a fan of the NFL. Thank you Pete Rozelle. Woot.
• Do something about Medicare. The 'reform' package passed under Bush's watch has proved too expensive (that they lied about the costs to Congress before the bill passed remains one of my major grievances with the Bushies). The costs of pills, one of the biggest items on any bill for those on Medicare, have not gone down. There are serious flaws in the Medicare program, and while a majority of Americans don't see it as a higher priority (Iraq, Iraq, and oh yeah Britney's impending divorce) they still feel it's a major problem in need of fixing. Personally, I'd suggest doing something to lower prescription costs, again doing it in a way that the costs don't get shifted somewhere else; I'd also do something about the increased bureaucracy and cut back on that. And there's something about how Plan B on Medicare got twisted to where it will collapse on itself by the next decade: That doesn't sound good.
• Alternate Energy Programs: Very simple reasoning. Let's get rid of dependence on foreign fuel. We're in the Middle East because of oil: we want peace in the region to improve our access to it (and there are some who want war in the region to hinder our access and increase the value of the oil we can get). We wouldn't care much about Venezuela being run by an egomanaic if there wasn't oil there. Oh, and a lot of the renewable 'alternate energy' resources don't pollute as much as oil and coal and nuclear power do.

Foreign Policy Issues:

• Obviously. Iraq. Oh, yes, let's talk about cutting and running. Because that's pretty much the only option left to us. There may be a blue-ribbon committee coming out with its recommendations soon, but what options we have aren't healthy ones. We can't stay, that much is obvious, and sooner or later our troops need to exit Iraq (and head back to Afghanistan where we're losing the one real victory Bush had against the Taliban and Al Qaida). Other options include partitioning Iraq, effectively Balkanizing the nation into its three ethnic sections: North Iraq becomes Kurdistan; Central Iraq for the Sunnis; South Iraq for the Shia. Problems with that? Most times a nation gets split up like that, the surviving new nations hate each other with a vengeance (try India and Pakistan) and immediately go to war on each other (hello, what's left of Yugoslavia!), especially when they'll be stoked to anger by their neighbors (wanna trust the Sunni nation to Syria and the Shia nation to Iran?). Plus, Turkey will not be thrilled with a Kurdish state at their border while Kurdish insurgents inside their nation will be pumped with the urge to have their parts of Turkey annexed to the new Kurd nation. Our other options would include getting other nations to take over the rebuilding process (no one will want the job); increase our troop deployment and go back to waging a full-time war against the insurgents and outside agitators (we don't have the manpower anymore: the Two-Front Army planned for years has finally been stretched too thin); a more drastic option would be to spread the war to the nations most likely supporting the failures in Iraq as a way of cutting back the horrors in Iraq (meaning invading Iran and/or Syria, which would inflame more Islamic extremists across Asia and Africa into thinking this is a full-out Christian Crusade against Islam). One option that makes the most sense is getting Iran and Syria into direct negotiations and barter out a deal to end their support of the insurgency. My suggestion would be to bring in all Middle East nations to such a summit: Turkey, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAB, even Egypt and some of the former Russia-stans in the region. I wouldn't bring in Israel or Gaza Palestine into it, either in discussion or by inviting them to said summit: we do that and Syria and Iran will go out of their way to make Israel their bogeyman issue and intentionally fail the talks. I'd bring Lebanon into the mix, but their issues with Syria right now would prove distracting, so that one I'm not sure about. We have got to get all the Middle East nations to recognize that a stable united Iraq is in their mutual best interests. And if it means we have to flat-out bribe some of them into supporting a stable Iraq, well then we'll need to invite China because they've got all our money right now.
• It's not much, but Congress could do something to improve our international image, which isn't much right now thankyouverymuchGeorge. I dunno, maybe send all the other nations a nice whipped-cream-topping cake, or hey cupcakes from magnolias Bakery mmmmm that ought to work...

Reform Issues:
Corruption turned out to be a major voter-turnout issue, not surprising seeing how the GOP-led Congress was filled to the rafters with lobbyist payoffs, nespotic-like incompetence, self-serving greed, blind ignorance to the criminal activities of colleagues, etc. Now with the GOP out of favor, what can the Dems do?

• Go back to the Roberts Rule of Order! The GOP during its tenure of power had been very naughty ignoring committee protocols, hiding meetings, refusing to follow voting procedures, what have you. Enforcing rules of order, even on themselves, will go a long way toward making voters trust Congress more than they do now.
• Strengthen the Ethics Committee. While the Ethics committee for Congress has been notoriously lax in enforcing any kind of ethics on their fellow legislators, under the Gingrinch/DeLay years (forget Hastert, he was following DeLay's lead more often than not) the committee became a flat-out joke. When DeLay got caught committing major infractions no one could ignore, his buddy Hastert simply got rid of the committee members they didn't trust and installed lackeys who would look the other way. There were a handful of other things the Ethics Committee never got around to facing, and Abramoff was at the center of most of it. If there was anything the Ethics Committee did right... it was probably in their selection of what breakfast pastries to have at their morning sessions. If I were the Democrats, even though this might come back to bite their own party on their collective ass, I would grant the Ethics Committee more independence from Congress to prevent tampering the way DeLay/Hastert did; I would grant them greater investigation enforcement powers, and the ability to issue criminal charges where warranted; I would do whatever it took to end all of the blatantly criminal activities going on between congresspersons and lobbyists, and even all the subtle sh-t too.
• Make no-bid contracts illegal. Investigate the existing no-bid contracted companies and make sure they stop ripping us taxpayers off.
• Protect the Constitution from Bush/Cheney's attempt to seize all the power under the Executive branch. Make the White House accountable to the law. That does mean subpoenas and investigations into a lot of the criminal activity, and yes it is criminal what they are trying to do.

There. That's my laundry list. Now, back to figuring out how to end mudslinging without destroying the First Amendment...