Many people believe America’s dissatisfaction with the government and lack of political participation could be changed by instituting direct democracy. Under the Democracy Act, donations to campaigns for initiatives would be limited to “persons”. This would help negate the power special interest groups currently wield over elections and politics as a whole. As John Dewey famously declared, “the cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy”.

The heyday of direct democracy was during the Progressive movement. Out of the twenty four states that have initiative and referendum, most received it between 1895 and 1943. With the coming of World War I and then World War II, the flurry of political reform began to die down. The supporters of the initiative and referendum envisioned a regeneration of American society that would be brought about by destroying the monopolies and trusts of large corporations.

While supporters were successful in legalizing initiatives in approximately half of all states, they have not managed to create a national initiative. Between 1895 and 1944, there were one hundred and eight proposals at the Congressional level to amend the Constitution to establish an initiative and referendum process. After World War II, it was not until 1977 that the concept of a national ballot measure was again raised in Congress. Since Congress, as a whole, has never been receptive to the legalization of direct legislation, the National Initiative for Direct Democracy has decided to institute a national initiative without Congressional consent.

Philadelphia II, a nonprofit organization, has been gathering signatures since 1992 for the National Initiative for Democracy, which is composed of the Democracy Amendment and Democracy Act. The National Initiative for Democracy would amend the Constitution and institute direct democracy throughout the United States. In the event this amendment gathers enough signatures to be enacted, the nature, composition and character of American federal and state government would be drastically altered. The National Initiative for Democracy is important since it will determine whether American democracy remains solely representative, or whether it will move closer to Rousseau’s ideal democracy of direct citizen participation. The Democracy Amendment declares and affirms the sovereign power of the American people to create their own laws, while the Democracy Act details the establishment of the “legislative procedures” which will allow citizens to create legislation.

Member in Congress are not eager to support The Democracy Amendment since it would weaken their power. Likewise, powerful special interest groups do not lend support to the National Initiative for Democracy because it would upset the status quo. Special interest groups are able to lobby Congressman and pass legislation that benefits a distinct portion of the population. Under initiatives, legislation would come to reflect the median voters political preference. This would cause a shift away from the current status quo and thus it would negatively impact the established special interest groups. The National Initiative of Democracy has, for the most part, not been attacked or critiqued because it is not viewed as a legitimate threat.

Thus far, the National Initiative has flown relatively low on the nation’s political radar. It has predominantly been an Internet movement supported by the Democracy Foundation and the Vote.org. In order to be most effective the National Initiative needs to be brought to the the attention of the general public. As individuals we may be unable to personally contact enough people to pass the amendment, but by raising awareness and encouraging deliberation we can educate people about the current movement for direct democracy.

The process through which New Brunswick approves a tax abatement is governed by state law. In order to grant a tax exemption or abatement a community must first be declared in need of redevelopment. The planning board then comes up with a redevelopment plan, which is in essence a roadmap for how the city will grow. A redeveloper is appointed for a construction site and if his planning board application is approved, then building at the site moves ahead.

Short term tax abatements are generally five years in length and are designed to encourage redevelopment and revitalization in the city. In New Jersey, property taxes are determined through an assessment that determines a home’s fair market value – or what it would sell for on the open market the date the assessment was made. If an area has been declared in need of redevelopment, then five year tax abatements can be offered to encourage revitalization by making home improvements more affordable.

If a homeowner decided to spend $700,000 to renovate his house, it could increase its value by over $400,000. With a five-year tax abatement, however, this increased value is not immediately added onto the property, but is gradually phased in over the course of the abatement. This insures that the homeowner who invests in his property is not immediately hit with higher taxes. The five-year tax abatement is available for both commercial and residential property.

Long term tax abatements usually last thirty years and are generally approved for large construction projects or condominiums. This form of tax abatement was granted for the Gateway site, on the corner of Somerset and Easton, and the Highland Luxury Condominiums at Plaza Square. Instead of paying traditional property taxes, the developers and owners make payments in lieu of taxes to the city. Five percent of this payment goes to the county and the remaining 95% goes to New Brunswick.

City officials believe tax abatements are necessary in order to make urban construction and development more attractive to companies. Tax abatements can be used as incentives to offset the disadvantages of building in an urban area – such as higher property values than if you were building in the suburbs, the cost of environmental clean ups for previous contaminants and the necessity to but many plots of land rather than a large tract.

While tax abatements may be necessary in order to keep businesses competitive and increase employment, city governments must be careful in granting long term abatements because they have the potential to limit the accountability of companies. Manipulation of taxes and licensing are the primary way a city government insures businesses are abiding by safety and environmental regulations and thirty-year abatements eliminate these valuable tools.

Many New Brunswick residents believe that tax abatements unfairly impact them because they are left to pick up the expensive tab for the services the city provides to these tax abated or exempt site. A strong source of resentment among the fifth district is the thirty-year tax abatement for the Highland luxury condominiums at Plaza Square. Bhavin Patel, who canvassed during the primary, explains that the cost of city services used by these apartments must be shifted to other residents, “Not only are taxes reduced for investors, but they receive the full benefit of city services … essentially the people of New Brunswick are subsidizing everything for downtown, and also for the Rutgers Village” This critique is generally focused against long-term tax abatements and the large development companies or housing units that receive them.

Tax abatements work best for small, family businesses since their locations are generally determined by property costs and work availability – hence small businesses don’t have the luxury of shopping around for the best tax break. If small businesses manage receive abatements, however, it allows them to grow before taxing them, therefore providing both increased stability and greater freedom for to produce and expand. Many larger companies play different cities against one another in order to receive the largest tax abatement.

Currently, the approval of New Brunswick tax abatements is not tied to a formalized cost-benefit analysis in any way. Therefore no one knows the extent to which the city is actually losing or gaining revenue on them. New Brunswick should partner with Rutgers University and the Bloustein School of Public Policy in order to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the abatements it has already granted and on any it plans to approve. Such a project would insure that the city’s residents and elected officials both understand the impacts PILOTS have on the community as a whole.

In the end, Meghan McCain, while perhaps well-intentioned, is way over her head. At only 24 years old, and having lead a more than privileged life, her fame is similar to Sarah Palin’s (who at least held an office) – completely undeserved. Meghan’s stardom is only due to her father and she is simply milking the fame as long as possible.

Can you blame her? Not really, most would do the same thing if put in such a position – but that doesn’t mean we have to go along with it either. Meghan is a mostly self-involved individual whose opinions are fairly common for young Republicans (liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal/security matters). Knowing nothing about politics or “bridging the gap”, she serves only as entertainment of vague and naive talking points.

Rather than pulling punches due to misplaced endearment, the likes of Bill Marr and Jon Stewart should either pummel her on air or not bother inviting her in the first place. If Ms. McCain thinks she’s ready for the big leagues, she doesn’t deserve any quarter or leniency by the other team. 

Why? The reasons are obvious. Perceptions are all that counts in politics. In a country where the moderates and independents tip one side to victory, the side perceived as most reasonable will generally win. Regardless of whether the GOP does or does not moderate, they must be perceived by the general public as reactionary and ancient. However, this strategy is bound to fail when Democrats actively promote moderate Republican’s and their ideals. In fact, Democrats should target moderate Republican’s on election day more than any others!

While some readers may be dismayed by my Machiavellian approach, the conclusions don’t lie. Does the end always justify the means? No. But sometimes they do, and sometimes its necessary to work for the greater good.

The Democratic party for the last few decades has lacked a clear national strategy, waiting only on the Republicans to screw up. If Democrats want to continue winning and actually pass through progressive legislation, they’ll have to leave behind their naivete and start playing hard-ball politics. This means having a strategy that wins. Period.

Winston Churchill famously wrote that “history is written by the victors”. Isn’t it time the Democrats develop a victorious strategy? Reform the healthcare system? Evolve the energy sector? The Republican party has been writing history for too long!

While some readers may believe Obama’s rise will issue a new Democratic era, history denies such claims. President Obama is a blip in an otherwise stable pattern. As transformative leaders like him are rare, 2016 and 2020 will be difficult battles if we just depend on Obama’s success. 

If Republican moderates never get elected to office, this will change the publics perception of the GOP to what it already is, a mostly extremist party of Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s, Ann Coulter’s, Michelle Bachmann’s, etc. If done correctly, the GOP will become a national joke, and the Democrats will continue to win election after election in every district outside of the most conservative areas. Finally, if  the Republican party must eventually choose between their moderate and extreme sides, their voters will split and the GOP will never recover.

For the good of the American people (who line up by a wide margin with progressive values), the Democratic party must build a spine and begin working towards the greater good. To do otherwise would only work towards their detriment and give the majority back to the GOP. 

Having stated that she will not run for gubernatorial re-election, Palin proceeded to drop a bombshell in the form of her resignation – citing reasons of family obligation and a desire to stop media inquiry.

While many believe this is just a political strategy to run for the Senate, or even President, common sense would say otherwise…

A few interesting points to make:

1) Announcements made on a late Friday during a holiday weekend are meant to be forgotten – this is a widely known ploy by politicians if they have something to hide. While Palin will of course get media attention nonetheless due to her inexplicable stardom, she wanted this event to receive as little media attention as possible.

In other words: Either Palin is hiding something or she just happened to make this decision right before the perfect time to make her announcement.

2) Her press conference was so prematurely put together that the local press barely made it on time! Furthermore, her speech was hastily written, and the Lieutenant Governor was just as shocked as anyone to hear the news.

In other words: Palin’s press conference was put together at the spur of the moment, thus begging the question of whether her actual decision was just as hasty. If so, than her resignation was a reaction to something we do not yet know.

3) While Palin may continue to have high approval ratings in Alaska, and possibly even have a chance at the Alaska Senate race if she so chooses, this move (just like McCain’s move to “suspend” his campaign) is guaranteed to lower her approval nationally (to a large margin), and at least somewhat in her home-state. American’s don’t like quitters. While Palin may have a good reason to quit, so-far unbeknownst to the public, she still quit. Period. And her reasons thus far have been less than satisfactory, let alone understandable.

In other words: Palin will have a much more difficult time winning a Senate seat as a quitter than after having finished her term. Furthermore, her national approval ratings will plummet, giving much fodder to Republican primary candidates (like Mitt Romney) who want to win just as bad and won’t pull any punches if she even thought about running for President.

4) If you really pay attention, even Republican’s/Fox News are having difficulty justifying Palin’s move. While they all “wish her well”, very few to none are claiming this as a wise political move. Even Karl Rove criticized her strategy!

In other words: Nobody, not even the Republican’s, know what is going on. Nor do any strategists see this as a smart move for seeking a new office. Consequently, while playing nice, Palin’s “maverick” image is beginning to wear on the GOP’s patience and they’re showing their cards – if this is a move to run for President, be prepared to be skewered by your own party.

While many are offering their own ideas regarding Palin’s actual motivation (one of the more interesting and logical involves a career at Fox News), very few of them make much sense. In my opinion, this either involves a currently unknown scandal, or she actually is serious about staying out of politics.

Talking to some close supporters, Palin said:

“she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital. And she really does not want to run for higher office, that this is not a case where she is stepping down in order to clear the way for a presidential run.”

In the end though, Palin will NOT run for President. And if she does, she’ll lose.

However, the real question is not whether she will run for President, but why she really resigned. Nonetheless, I am more than happy to wish Mrs. Palin good riddance and never see her in the media spotlight again.