The Centrist Front platform is broken into five areas of interest:
- a National Economic Re-Development Plan
- Reorganization of the the Federal Government
- Downsizing of Our Military and Our Strategic Presence for the Post-Cold War World
- More Proactive and Streamlined Regulatory Atmosphere
- Domestic Policy
- Personal Rights
What is probably foremost in the minds of American citizens today is the economy. The Centrist Front takes this preoccupation seriously.
Provide Loan Guarantees for New Factories Built in the United States
[particulars to be posted soon]
Special Industrial Development Zones
Bringing heavy industry back to the United States will not happen overnight, and it will not happen without government intervention.
[particulars to be posted soon]
Infrastructure Spending
[particulars to be posted soon]
Reorganization and Reform of the Federal Government
Suggesting that simply firing a certain, large, number of federal employees will somehow solve everything wrong about the federal government is both wrong and naive. The overall plan, structure, and aims of the federal government are sound. Yet some reorganization and reform could go a long way towards short- and long-term cost savings and greater efficiency.
Balanced Budget
The Republicans are not the only ones who believe that the budget should be balanced. Maybe it could even turn a surplus from time to time and pay down some of the national debt. Fiscal austerity during a recession is a recipe for disaster. When the economy rebounds, however, the government should structurally reduce federal spending. Other aspects of the Centrist Front platform are designed to help create this structural reduction in federal spending.
Reform of Federal Budget Allocation and Accomplishment
The federal budget allocation process and the measure by which budget accomplishments are measured contribute to a huge amount of waste in the federal government. Currently, budgets are allocated to a certain amount, and it is considered a failure for the entire allocation not to be spent. In addition, if a government unit does not spend allocated money by the end of the fiscal year, the money goes back into the treasury. What this means is that federal employees have an imperative to spend the money allocated to them, and are punished for not spending it, even if they might have a reason not to spend the money.
Transforming the federal budget allocation and accomplishment process to allow the federal government to function more like a business, but still be beholden to Congressional guidance and oversight, could save huge sums of money. This change would also cause long-term, rather than a one-time, savings. Instead, we should endeavor to change the nature of the currently-wasteful system that more closely approximates the adaptability of a business, but retains the institutional character important to government.
Term Limits for Congressional Representatives
It is reasonable want those representing you in Congress to be experienced. It is equally reasonable to be disgusted with the "eternal campaign" that has Congress-persons fundraising and campaigning as often as they carry on with Congressional business. The only way this issue will be solved is by ratification of a constitutional amendment that limits Congressional representatives, from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, to only two terms.
The twenty-second amendment to the constitution limited the President of the United States to two terms in office. This amendment is considered appropriate, and conducive to the maintenance of democracy.
Some fight term limits by trying to tell people that term limits restrict your ability to choose who you want to represent you. Yet we already accept this for the ultimate public office: the Presidency. What most of us would agree, however, is that the "eternal campaign" is not conducive to democracy, nor to making realistic decisions about the future of this country. Term limits for Congressional representatives would help create a situation where we can make better decisions for our country.
All Federal Elections at a 4-Year Interval
Having federal elections of some sort every two years creates a constantly-polarized political environment. To solve this nation's problems will require compromise. This is unavailable when party primaries are constantly driving candidates to extreme positions.
It is crucial to rachet-down political tensions, or at least confine them to a narrower period of time. This would help to create a much quieter political climate, where important decisions could be made outside of the confines created by election-year political posturing.
Changing the period during which our representatives and senators are elected will require amending the constitution. The effort involved, however, would be worth it.
Consolidation of Federal Agencies
The federal bureaucracy is composed of a veritable zoo of agencies, bureaus, departments, and offices. While rarely do they overlap, many agencies deal with similar issues, and should be combined. Combining certain federal agencies should help cut costs by instituting economies of scale and avoiding duplication, and simplify the federal regulatory environment. Two good examples, but by no means the only ones, are the federal land management agencies (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service), and defense agencies (of which there are too many to name).
Federally-managed public lands are a patchwork of National Parks, BLM-managed lands, National Forests and Grasslands, and Wildlife Refuges. Each of the land management agencies has their own hierarchical structure and national offices. None of their datacenters, email systems, or databases can talk to each other. There is huge duplication of effort. Without the ability to utilize the same computer systems, when one agency develops a successful application it is difficult or impossible to port it to another agency without significant effort.
The military has long been the poster-child for federal agency consolidation. Each of the service arms (Army, Navy/Marines, Air Force) has its own department, a holdover from the days of the War Department and the Navy Department. In addition to that there are a large number of defense agencies outside the uniformed services, including the CIA, DIA, NRO, and NSA that carry out intelligence gathering and clandestine operations. In addition to the huge issues of duplication of effort and excessive overhead, the inability of these agencies to talk to each other has resulted in some of the spectacular national security failures of last decade.
With consolidation the number of higher-ranking--and hence higher-paid--officials and officers can be reduced, as can the overall institutional imprint. While most of these savings would go back to the Treasury, some of the savings could be folded back into the new consolidated agencies to fund low- and mid-level positions, the positions that accomplish a large amount of the footwork in the federal government.
There is little more than institutional inertia and Congressional intransigence standing in the way of consolidation of government agencies. Firing a certain abstract number of government employees will harm, not hinder, the provision of government services and maintenance of our national defense. This more nuanced approach will achieve the same goals of cost-savings and reduction of the overall size of the federal government, without the pitfalls of blind, across-the-board cuts.
Reform of Federal Entitlement Programs
The main federal entitlement programs (Social Security retirement, Social Security disability, Medicare) are driving the United States into insolvency. Reform is absolutely required. What needs to be clear is that Centrist Front does not think that any of these entitlements should be gotten rid of, or substantially reduced. Moreover, retirees, and those who are already financially planning for their retirement (about age 30 and older) should not see a reduction in their benefits. These have expected Social Security to be part of their retirement, and should continue to be able to expect the same benefits they have been promised. Those younger than 30 years old should not expect significant changes in the benefits they should expect from Social Security retirement; but they should expect changes. These changes should include a small rise in the retirement age (3 years or less), as well as a reduction in benefits for those who have made other successful retirement plans (the details of which would need to be worked out).
Neither Medicare or Social Security disability benefits should see outright cuts as a way to limit the cost of the entitlements to the taxpayer. Instead, these entitlements should see slow and incremental reforms aimed at reducing their costs. These should be reforms of the systems these entitlements use to distribute their benefits.
No Changes to Military Entitlements
Servicemembers and their families make great sacrifices. Some servicemembers make the ultimate sacrifice. The entitlements earned by servicemembers and their families should continue as they are today. They are well-earned.
Rainy Day Fund
The next time that the federal budget has a surplus rather than a deficit, there needs to be an already existing plan for how that money is to be allocated. Obviously, about 90% of any federal budget surplus for the next couple decades should go immediately into paying off the National Debt. Options for the remaining 10% include paying off more of the National Debt, deferred maintenance on critical infrastructure such as existing bridges and dams, or putting some money into a Rainy Day Fund.
A Rainy Day Fund is essentially a way of saying that the federal government will bank the money, with the intent to spend it on a narrow range of future situations for which the fund is a contingency. These future situations include catastrophic wildfire, regional disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes, and limited economic stimulus spending in times of economic recession. Having a Rainy Day Fund means that when something comes up that needs immediate action and requires a relatively narrow window of spending, the money is available, and does not otherwise affect the federal budget. The Rainy Day Fund should have a gross cap of $20 billion, which could be replenished up to that cap after any spending.
Having a plan, with legal obligations, for expenditure of any federal budget surplus, will allow us to avoid such horrendous mistakes as the 2001 Tax Rebate, when every United States citizen received and $600 check. Those checks were paid out of a $1.5 trillion federal budget surplus, rather than that money being used to help pay off the National Debt, or even paid into the Social Security account, to help keep it solvent. Without legislation on the books about exactly how federal budget surpluses are to be spent, even a Tea Party-dominated Congress would probably spend it poorly.
Downsizing of Our Military and Our Strategic Presence for the Post-Cold War World
Downsizing the military and its role does not in any way diminish the military's accomplishments. A significant reduction in military and other defense spending, after combat operations in Afgahanistan are complete and further force reductions have been completed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, would lead to significant savings in the federal budget. The Cold War is over, and we should recognize that in our military spending. Our Congressional representatives must stop using the military as pork-barrel spending to satisfy their constituents.
Reduce the Overall Size of the United States Military
To retain high-quality forces, and continue to procure the most up-to-date equipment, while either keeping defense spending even or, hopefully, decreasing it, will require some reduction in the overall size of the United States military. Far be it for the Centrist Front to serve as armchair general and suggest what particular forces should be reduced. The military establishment knows what it can cut, and how it should cut it. We cannot afford the military we currently have. This doesn't mean, however, that we should have a second rate military. Even if we cut our baseline military spending (excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) by 50%, we could still field one of the best militaries in the world. Making some small reductions, to cut out the fat and optimize the military to meet future contingencies, the United States can have a military that it can afford and that meets the needs of today's world.
Any force reductions in the United States military should start with the civilian government establishing security objectives that it wants to meet. The military should determine how to meet those objectives while simultaneously figuring out what parts of the military can be reduced while still reducing their objectives. The initial security objects may need to be revised to meet budgetary expectations.
Consolidate Overseas Bases, especially in Europe Japan, and Reduce Overall Overseas Presence
The United States can no longer afford the cost of supporting a large number of overseas bases. The Cold War has been over for two decades, yet we have retained a very large Navy and Air Force, and an Army much larger than we need. Much of these resources are deployed overseas, in places such as Germany, England, Italy, Korea, and Japan. We no longer need to maintain such a large overseas presence. Some overseas commitments, however, will remain important for the foreseeable future, such as those in Korea.
Base closures, overseas force reductions, and joint basing can be used to reduce our overseas presence. Some of the troops redeployed back to the United States should be placed into existing bases or reassigned into units already stationed in the United States. Others should be demobilized and discharged, per typical procedures for force reduction in the different service arms.
The United States should not orient itself towards China as a strategic competitor. Another arms race will bankrupt this nation. We should accept a regional role for China, and accept their strategic interests in the East China Sea, South China Sea, and Philippine Sea. The United States should do its best to remain engaged with the Chinese military, while at the same time retaining our obligations to Taiwan.
Reduce the Amount of Contractors Providing Defense Department Services and Replace With Civilian Federal Employees and Active Duty Servicemembers
This country should not use mercenaries. This country should also not put people in harm's way who are not afforded all the same protections (under the Geneva Convention) and benefits (as in injury or death) as are afforded to the servicemembers they are fighting next to. The abuse of the use of contractors by the Defense Department (among other agencies) must end.
For those contractors in war zones we are doing a disservice. We are also filling critical positions in the defense establishment in the United States with contractors, whether in intelligence-gathering, planning, or interrogation. Contractors have their place in government and business. Yet they are significantly overused. Moreover, having a contractor in a given position is in fact more expensive than having a government employee.
This abuse of contracting needs to end. It is fancy accounting, plain and simple, used by the former (Bush) administration to pretend to its supporters that it was reducing the size of government. In fact, all that was being done was changing who sent an employee a paycheck, all the while increasing the amount of overhead.
More Proactive and Streamlined Regulatory Atmosphere
Government, not business, protects the people. Again and again, business has proved it is not capable of regulating itself. What's more, business should not be in the business of doing good things for the public, business should seek one thing: making money. A positive regulatory atmosphere helps business, and protects citizens. It is especially important for the federal government to take the lead in regulation when multiple state statutes can inhibit business growth. Businesses have plenty of money to hire people to speak for them. The government speaks for its citizens through the regulatory process.
The Centrist Front, among others, are ardent supporters of environmental causes and of its protection. The regulatory structure that protects the environment, however, has hindered business, especially--but not limited to--timber and mining on federal lands. We should not do away with the protections on the environment, far from it. In fact, the United States should implement stronger protections on water and air quality. These changes, however, must ensure that the regulatory process is more streamlined. Having environmental protection regulations at all protects us, our children, and the future.
Streamlining, but not removing, regulations will have a positive effect on business. Regulation does remove money from the economy. There are a great many private companies doing work for government agencies and other businesses to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. These provides jobs, and has helped foster an entire industry for environmental compliance.
This said, the federal regulatory process needs some streamlining. A great many good laws have been implemented since the introduction of NEPA in 1969. Federal regulatory processes need some repackaging. The government employees and contractors who do most of this work, in addition to the public, may have some good ideas on how to accomplish this. Getting rid of regulation is not the preferred alternative. Most regulations are here for a reason. If we remove them, we will remember why they were there, perhaps at a cost.
Increased Protections for Air and Water Quality
[particulars to be posted soon]
Reform of the Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act is rightly criticized for standing in the way of development. The Act can also be cited as an important guarantor of biodiversity. Biodiversity, or retaining a vibrant community of non-human life provides the Earth with an environment conducive to human life.
Streamlining of the NEPA Review Process and Associated Environmental Reviews
As anyone who works in the environmental compliance field can tell you, the environmental review process is a hodgepodge of laws and regulations.
[particulars to be posted soon]
Domestic Policy
Last, but not least, is Domestic Policy.
Energy Security as National Security
The single greatest domestic policy issue is also a National Security issue. Whether you choose to like it or not, our economy and the economy of every other nation is currently dependent on oil and natural gas. We import a significant amount of our oil and natural gas from areas in conflict and which have views on religion, women's rights, business, and the rule of law which are significantly different from our own. The single most important thing that the United States can do to ensure that our nation and our economy is secure, and ensure that our troops do not have to fight another war in the Middle East, is to eliminate our dependence on energy from outside North America.
Solving this issue will require four major changes: embrace of oil from Alberta's tar sands, expansion of oil and natural gas exploration and production, significant reductions in purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, and large increases in production of renewable energy (from hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, and solar.
Clear Separation of Church and State
There is a clear and unequivocal separation between Religion and Government in the first sentence of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Innocuous traditions, such as the mention of God in the pledge of allegiance or swearing on a Bible or other religious text in court, do not detract from this separation. But any suggestion being made by the Tea Party or others that the United States is a "Christian Nation," or a nation founded on Christian values is dangerous revisionism that seeks to wipe away all mention of the demographic changes that have occurred in this country since its founding.
The United States is not a "Christian Nation," as much as it might have been one in 1787, when the Constitution was signed. Today there are many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and adherents of many other religions, in addition to many who do not believe in any god. Instead of looking to a homogeneous past, we must look to the heterogeneous future. One way to protect this future is a clear separation between Religion and Government.
End the "War on Drugs"
The so-called "War on Drugs" has had little effect on either drug production or use. As long as there is demand for drugs in the United States, drug producers in Latin America and the United States will be able to finance large criminal organizations. Current drug laws are filling our prisons up with huge numbers of drug offenders, for no benefit. Drug policy must go to the source, by removing the demand. Radical thinking is needed.
[particulars to be posted soon]
Reform Immigration Policy and Regulations
[particulars to be posted soon]
Personal Rights
Right to Own Firearms
Perhaps the phrase "the right to bear arms" was clearer to the framers of the constitution that it is to us in the twenty-first century. Whatever the case, the point is moot. The Supreme Court, the court which deals with constitutional matters in this country, has clearly found that American citizens have a right to purchase, own, and sell firearms, and to use them for defense of life and property. The Centrist Front, however, recognizes that there are certain rules that can and should be applied to the ownership of firearms.
An armed populace does indeed ensure the continued existence of American democracy, whether or not we choose to test this maxim. Yet there is no reason that production, sales, and ownership of these weapons should be without any regulation. Any such regulation shall not infringe upon the rights of American citizens to own or use firearms.
Abortion
[particulars to be posted soon]
