{"id":30242,"date":"2011-07-01T08:14:08","date_gmt":"2011-07-01T14:14:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=30242"},"modified":"2011-07-05T08:29:55","modified_gmt":"2011-07-05T14:29:55","slug":"a-case-for-a-third-party-candidate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2011\/07\/a-case-for-a-third-party-candidate\/","title":{"rendered":"A case for a third-party candidate"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Millard Fillmore, the 13th president of the United States, was the last member of the Whig Party to be president.<\/p><\/div>\n

Whatever happened to the Whig Party<\/a>, anyway?\u00a0It placed four presidents in the White House during its time: William Henry Harrison (1841), John Tyler (1841-1845), Zachary Taylor (1949-1850) and lastly, Millard Fillmore (1850-1853).<\/p>\n

The Republican Party pretty much rang the death knell for the end of the Whigs.<\/p>\n

Remember Congressman John Anderson\u2019s bid for the presidency in 1980? In the end, he received 7 percent of the vote in the election with a total of 5.7 million votes. He did not carry a single precinct in the country. Anderson’s finish was still the best showing for a third party candidate since George Wallace’s 14 percent in 1968, and the sixth best for any such candidate in the 20th century (trailing Theodore Roosevelt\u2019s 27 percent in 1912, Robert LaFollette’s 17 percent in 1924, Wallace, and Ross Perot’s 19 percent and 8 percent in 1992 and 1996, respectively).<\/p>\n

I would be remiss, of course, if I didn\u2019t give mention Ralph Nader. Nader was a four-time candidate for president of the United States, having run as a Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent candidate in 2004 and 2008.<\/p>\n

Two pillars of reform for a new party proposal<\/h3>\n

I just finished a book, The Conservative Revolution: Why We Must Form a Third Political Party to Win It<\/em>,<\/a> written by Nelson Hultberg.<\/p>\n

Mr. Hultberg believes that there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.<\/p>\n

He believes that Americans have come to realize that their revered \u201ctwo-party system\u201d is not what it claims to be. Democrats and Republicans have become merely two divisions of the same party \u2013 the Demopublican Party<\/em>, as he calls it.<\/p>\n

Hultberg points out that, \u201cthe levers of power that have allowed the enormous expansion of the federal government into a \u2018Gargantuan beast\u2019 were given to it in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve and the progressive income tax.\u201d These two institutions ushered in the two major evils of modern day politics: fiat money and confiscatory taxation. \u201cIn doing so,\u201d he says, \u201cthey destroyed the idea of \u2018limited government\u2019 that the Founders had given us in 1787.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Thomas Molitor<\/p><\/div>\n

He suggests we introduce a new third-party based on at least two pillars of reform: Honest money and the equal-rate income tax.<\/p>\n

Pillar No. 1: An honest money system<\/h3>\n

Mr. Hultberg says the Federal Reserve Bank\u2019s monetary policy under Republican and Democrat administrations alike has always been to pump more credit (i.e., debt) into the economy because, according to John Maynard Keynes<\/a> and his academic progeny, this is the only way to maintain a prosperous economy. This assumes that the creation of money out of thin air will increase people\u2019s wealth without harmful ramifications.<\/p>\n

Naturally, the economy has witnessed the boom and bust cycle of fiat money creation time and time again with much harmful ramifications.<\/p>\n

Mr. Hultberg\u2019s remedy for unsound money policy (Federal Reserve notes not backed by gold or anything else of intrinsic value) is to put strict limitations on the rate of monetary growth by the Fed. The way to do this, according to Mr. Hultberg, is through Milton Friedman\u2019s<\/a> 4 percent monetary expansion proposal cap. His plan would computerize the increase of the money supply at 4 percent annually \u2013 in other words, remove monetary growth from the arbitrary whims of Federal Reserve bureaucrats and make it automatic.<\/p>\n

Pillar No. 2: An equal rate income tax<\/h3>\n

Mr. Hultberg states, \u201cabolishing the income tax from America is our ultimate goal, but few in the freedom movement understand that the only way to do this is to first end progressive rates.”<\/p>\n

According to Mr. Hultberg, most Americans do not understand that the major cause of explosive government spending is our use of progressive income tax rates to redistribute wealth.\u00a0This is because the progressive income tax permits large constituencies of voters to pay zero taxes<\/em> and equally large constituencies to pay next to zero taxes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Statistics support Mr. Hultberg\u2019s hypothesis. According to the IRS, the upper 50 percent of income earners in the U.S. pay 96.03 percent of all taxes, while the lower 50 percent of income earners pay 3.97 percent of the tax load. The bottom 25 percent of income earners pay zero taxes. Thus, a progressive income tax spawns a \u201csomething for nothing\u201d voter mindset that dominates all elections.<\/p>\n

As Mr. Hultberg states, \u201cwhen large groups of voters are allowed the privilege of paying nothing or next to nothing in taxes, an irresponsible electorate will inevitably evolve to demand a steady expansion of government services. Consequently, in every election there\u2019s an automatic 50 percent base of voters who have an insatiable demand for more government services and favor politicians who promise them those services because the funding of those services does not come out of their pockets.”<\/p>\n

Mr. Hultberg suggests we start tax reform with a straight, across-the-board 10 percent federal income tax. All citizens must contribute to the system rather than leeching from the system. Under a 10 percent flat tax, if a taxpayer earns $100,000 annually, he or she would pay $10,000 to fund the government. If he or she earns $8,000 annually, he or she would pay $800. This way everyone (no matter how small their contribution) has a stake in being a responsible citizen and voting for the common good instead of trying to get something for nothing by taking money from his or her neighbor.<\/p>\n

The Conservative American Party<\/h3>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Hultberg calls for a third party, and has a website called Americans for a Free Republic<\/a>, in which he is searching for a\u00a0 candidate to adopt these pillars of reform and has suggested the party be called the Conservative American Party.<\/p>\n

Myself, I am leery of putting a label on a new party which, name alone, might alienate voters who agree with the principles of the party but have misplaced associations with the name of the party.\u00a0I think we can all agree that we are fed up with both parties (hence, the ascendancy of the Tea Party) and would like our elected officials to be more prudent with our tax appropriations.<\/p>\n

Green Party. Independent Party. The Peace and Freedom Party. The Conservative American Party. Let\u2019s not get hung-up on names, let\u2019s maybe agree that this country needs to find a way to break the duopoly of a two-party system and give voice to candidates who may not be bought by the corporate class and may not be motivated by voter appeasement alone.<\/p>\n

Molitor is a regular columnist for this site. You can reach him at\u00a0tgmolitor@comcast.net<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Molitor bio<\/a> \u2502\u00a0Archives<\/a> \u2502\u00a0Feed<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nelson Hultberg suggests we introduce a new third party based on at least two pillars of reform: Honest money and the equal-rate income tax. While he wants to call it the Conservative American Party, I’m leery of such a label. I think we can all agree that we are fed up with both parties and would like our elected officials to be more prudent with our tax appropriations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":84,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1192,182],"tags":[156,118,116],"class_list":["post-30242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-molitor-columns","tag-2012-election","tag-economy","tag-washington"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/84"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}