Unity '08

[Texsox]

BTW, NSS72, the government has already taken your advice, The Trices already have an option to accept direct fundign and provide the services themselves, at least in some areas.

The best hope for tribes today seems to be self-governance. Beginning with the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, BIA has been helping tribes win control over their own services and programs. Tribes can enter into contracts with BIA to take over specific functions, such as school administration, or they can operate through compacts, which work essentially like block grants - tribes sign annual funding agreements, under which they receive the funds BIA would have spent providing services or contracting for services. The tribes are then free to use the money to craft programs as they see fit. The first self-governance compact pilot was signed in 1988. Now more than half of BIA's funding is passed directly to tribes through contracts and compacts.

 

Linked Good article. I'm not certain how this reconciles to your 10% reach the tribe's number. Are you counting the police forces in the 10% or the 90%? Schools? Weather forecasting? Lease management fees? Required Weed Control?

Compared to other federal agencies, BIA is critically short of funds needed to maintain its core systems. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, where Nessi worked before coming to BIA, has 8,000 employees, 81 field offices and an information technology budget of $325 million. By contrast, BIA has 9,000 employees, a much more extensive field network - 130 field offices and 185 schools - and a much greater array of services to provide. Yet BIA's information technology budget is $12 million - only 3.7 percent of HUD's.

 

I am amazed at all the BIA is tasked with. Every treaty and agreement going back 150 years must be observed?

It would be hard to find an agency with broader responsibility than BIA. It is the primary administrator of federal Indian policy, and as such, is responsible for fulfilling the government's trust responsibilities for American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. Hundreds of treaties, federal policies and court decisions govern how the federal government protects and administers lands held in trust for Indians.

 

 

The bureau provides the same services on reservations and other lands held in trust for Indians - collectively known as Indian Country - that state and local governments provide. The agency administers schools, social services, law enforcement, court systems, detention facilities, water resources, roads and housing. It performs land management activities, including fish and wildlife management, forestry, and oil and gas exploitation and mining operations. It also processes business loans and maintains land and genealogy records.

 

I thoght it just handed out checks like Public Aid.

[NorthSideSox72]

BTW, NSS72, the government has already taken your advice, The Trices already have an option to accept direct fundign and provide the services themselves, at least in some areas.

Linked Good article. I'm not certain how this reconciles to your 10% reach the tribe's number. Are you counting the police forces in the 10% or the 90%? Schools? Weather forecasting? Lease management fees? Required Weed Control?

I am amazed at all the BIA is tasked with. Every treaty and agreement going back 150 years must be observed?

I thoght it just handed out checks like Public Aid.

BIA is tasked with a lot. Too much, even if they were good at it. But they aren't.

[Texsox]

BIA is tasked with a lot. Too much, even if they were good at it. But they aren't.

 

On one hand I was surprised we have this huge agency for 1.2 million people, but our nation made a lot of promises through the years. Has there been any discussions with dissolving the agency and place the Tribes in the same systems we are duplicating? HUD, etc.? From everything I've just read, we could have the greatest people in the world working for that agency and it wouldn't work.

 

Time to figure out a way to get them off the reservations or make the reservations economically viable.

[NorthSideSox72]

On one hand I was surprised we have this huge agency for 1.2 million people, but our nation made a lot of promises through the years. Has there been any discussions with dissolving the agency and place the Tribes in the same systems we are duplicating? HUD, etc.? From everything I've just read, we could have the greatest people in the world working for that agency and it wouldn't work.

 

Time to figure out a way to get them off the reservations or make the reservations economically viable.

Its been time for that for a long time, but since the American Indian community is not considered the slightest bit important politically, no one wants to step up and make any changes. Its kind of a shame.

 

Circling back to the topic of government waste, the BIA is but one example. they are an extreme case, but there are plenty of other agencies that are just piss poor at doing their jobs. They just eat money.

[Texsox]

Its been time for that for a long time, but since the American Indian community is not considered the slightest bit important politically, no one wants to step up and make any changes. Its kind of a shame.

 

Circling back to the topic of government waste, the BIA is but one example. they are an extreme case, but there are plenty of other agencies that are just piss poor at doing their jobs. They just eat money.

 

How do you think a private company would do to fulfill all these treaties, provide services from school to police to monitoring leases? And if a treaty is not followed who gets sued?

[NorthSideSox72]

How do you think a private company would do to fulfill all these treaties, provide services from school to police to monitoring leases? And if a treaty is not followed who gets sued?

No one at BIA is fulfilling any treaties. For that matter, I'm pretty sure most of those treaties have been ground into dirt by now. And any treaty should have the effect of law, so I don't see how they change. The representation might change - the individuals or tribes would be complainants, instead of being represented by BIA (which was a joke anyway, so again, better off without). And those treaties and laws pertaining to reservations would, for the most part, go away. I am sure there are some vestigal protections that may have to be grandfathered in to individuals currently on reservations, but those are the exceptions.

 

Public services like schools and police would become like everyone else's - state, local or private. Like I said, you may need a descending payout of some kind to those communities to phase that into existence, but it can be done. Another method to use here is something akin to block funding from fed to state - the money the FBI spends on law enforcement on Indian grounds each year, that cash can instead be routed to the local and state authorities to handle the influx. Then at some point, they can take over revenue generation for it as well, and have full control.

[Texsox]

I've been reading a number of suits from the government not fulfilling treaties. One big payout and let's end this system. No way it will last another 150 years, or at least no way it should.

[southsider2k5]

Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled thread... Michael Bloomberg might be the Unity candidate

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117798143050287618.html

 

Could Bloomberg Shake Up Race?

Voter Frustration Could Open Door

To Independent Presidential Run

By JUNE KRONHOLZ

May 1, 2007; Page A6

 

In 1992, Ross Perot's quixotic run for the presidency tapped into voters' deep worries about the state of the country and unhappiness with the major-party candidates. The Texas businessman shook up the race, capturing one of every five votes cast.

 

Fifteen years later, the political winds that fanned the Perot candidacy might be blowing once again -- this time stirring talk of an independent run by another billionaire, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "More people are willing to consider an independent today than in 1992," says Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who worked for Mr. Perot, and then for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001. He predicts the mayor could get as much as 25% of the popular vote.

 

Mr. Bloomberg, who is 65 years old, denies he is running, although the New York gossip columns regularly quote "friends" claiming otherwise. "As Mayor Bloomberg has said repeatedly, all of this speculation is flattering, but he is not running for President," his press secretary, Stu Loeser, wrote in an email. Mr. Bloomberg also has said his personal profile -- a divorced, Jewish New Yorker -- makes him an unlikely candidate. But as in 1992, voter disaffection with Washington -- plus an estimated $5.3 billion personal fortune -- has kept Mr. Bloomberg's name alive as a candidate.

 

In the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, only 22% of voters said the U.S. is "headed in the right direction," the lowest since July 1992, when Mr. Perot's poll numbers were at their highest.

 

President Bush's handling of Iraq accounts for much of that dissatisfaction. But so does warring partisanship on Capitol Hill, a string of corruption scandals and Congress's perceived inability to improve people's lives.

 

That is leading to talk among even establishment activists that voters might be especially willing next year to look beyond the major parties. Former aides to Presidents Carter and Ford are helping to promote an effort called Unity08 that seeks to put a bipartisan ticket on the presidential ballot, after an online primary. That could be a natural vehicle for Mr. Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican.

 

Mr. Bloomberg's opening would come if voters were to grow so disenchanted with the big-party nominees that they begin looking for an alternative, says Ed Rollins, Mr. Perot's campaign manager. He attributes Mr. Perot's 1992 popularity to Republican disaffection with the first President Bush, who had reneged on a pledge not to raise taxes, and Democratic uncertainty about Bill Clinton, whose campaign was rocked by charges of womanizing, draft avoidance and excessive political calculation.

 

Discontent is a bigger problem now for Republicans than Democrats. In the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, only 53% of Republicans said they are satisfied with their field of candidates.

 

Democrats say they are generally satisfied with their choices but have doubts they can win the general election. The party's front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in particular rattles Democrats because of her reputation as one of the most polarizing figures in politics. In a March 2007 Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 43% of respondents said they had a negative impression of her -- seven points more than those who saw her positively.

 

The early primary calendar could also help Mr. Bloomberg. Thirty states may choose their convention delegates by Feb. 5, 2008. That means neither party would be able to rethink its candidate during the spring or summer if he or she stumbled or lost steam. In that vacuum, Mr. Bloomberg could "go from zero to 60 overnight," says Carol Darr, director of George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.

 

 

A two-term mayor who will leave office at the end of 2009, Mr. Bloomberg is known for a get-it-done management style that helped stoke New York's turnaround. He has riled some voters with his nanny-state initiatives such as banning smoking and trans-fats in restaurants, but he also has won admirers for taking tough stands. While national Democrats hemmed and hawed about gun control after last month's shootings at Virginia Tech, for example, Mr. Bloomberg stepped up his campaign against illegal gun sales.

 

Should he run, Mr. Bloomberg's fiscal-conservative, social-moderate credentials could undermine the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, the current front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Both play up moderate stands on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Mr. Bloomberg also could draw votes from a Democrat seen as too left of the mainstream on taxes and budget control, such as former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. He might leach support from Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whose appeal relies partly on talk of ending partisan squabbling.

 

An independent candidacy faces huge roadblocks, though. Each state has its own set of complex rules on who can be on a ballot. Theresa Amato, who managed Ralph Nader's 2000 and 2004 bids, says he eventually got on 34 state ballots in 2004 but had to go to court in a dozen of those. And the two major parties have grown increasingly aggressive about keeping third-party and independent candidates off the ballot.

 

Campaign professionals say Mr. Bloomberg could get into the race as late as next spring or summer -- about the time voters typically begin paying attention. Mr. Bloomberg's wealth and communications savvy -- he earned his fortune providing news and analytic technology to business subscribers -- would enable him to skirt many of the problems that might doom another late entrant. He could afford to finance a campaign himself rather than spend energy courting donors.

 

Whether he could actually win the presidency is another question. No independent has done so before, and the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College means Mr. Bloomberg would have to win states, not just individual votes. Even with 19% of the popular vote, Mr. Perot won no electoral votes.

 

Mr. Bloomberg's role could be that of a spoiler, though. Mr. Perot drew his support from Republican deficit hawks and helped Mr. Clinton prevail. Mr. Nader in 2000 helped Mr. Bush.

 

"I don't think [Mr. Bloomberg] stands a chance in hell," says L. Brent Bozell, a conservative activist and president of Media Research Center. "I also think anything could happen."

 

Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com

[kapkomet]

:puke

[Texsox]

Should they nominate a politician or a celebrity/captain of industry/reality tv winner?

[southsider2k5]

Bloomberg is supposedly ready to spend $1,000,000,000 to try to run for President

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...23142-3314r.htm

 

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times.

 

"He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it."

 

Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run.

 

The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion. Earlier, he told friends he would make a run only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race and would spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personal fortune.

 

A $1 billion campaign budget would wipe out many of the common obstacles faced by third-party candidates seeking the White House.

 

"Bloomberg is H. Ross Perot on steroids," said former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner. "He could turn the political landscape of this election upside down, spend as much money as he wanted and proceed directly to the general election. He would have resources to hire an army of petition-gatherers in those states where thousands of petitions are required to qualify a third-party presidential candidate to be on the ballot."

 

Senior Republican officials -- including those supporting declared Republican presidential nomination contenders -- and several top Democrats told The Times they take the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy as a serious threat in November 2008.

 

The Bloomberg team is studying the strategies of Mr. Perot, the Texas billionaire whose 1992 presidential campaign helped President Clinton to win the White House with 43 percent of the popular vote.

 

"Mike has been meeting with Ross Perot's most senior people about how they did an independent run in 1992," the Bloomberg business adviser said on condition of anonymity so as to avoid appearing to speak for Mr. Bloomberg.

 

Talk of Mr. Bloomberg as a third-party candidate comes as Republican voters are deeply divided over their top-three declared candidates -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- and are casting longing glances at former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

 

"Some of the people on McCain's [presidential campaign] staff have been calling me to see if Mike is running because they are ready to leave the McCain campaign, which is a biplane on fire and spiraling down," the Bloomberg adviser said.

 

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, another independent-minded Republican, dined recently with Mr. Bloomberg and suggested on CBS' "Face the Nation" over the weekend that he and Mr. Bloomberg might make an independent run for the presidency.

[Rex Kickass]

He's said repeatedly that he isn't interested in running for President. At least not next year. He is, however, apparently considering running for governor in 2010.

[southsider2k5]

He's said repeatedly that he isn't interested in running for President.

 

Close your eyes and think back to the sametime in 2005. Do you hear Barrack Obama?

[Balta1701]

Close your eyes and think back to the sametime in 2005. Do you hear Barrack Obama?

I think the best argument for this article being wrong is that it is from the Washington Times. But well, we'll see. It would certainly be interesting to see if someone actually could buy the Presidency.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Balta1701

[southsider2k5]

I think the best argument for this article being wrong is that it is from the Washington Times. But well, we'll see. It would certainly be interesting to see if someone actually could buy the Presidency.

 

Are you serious? Who was the last person President who won the office on a shoestring budget? The Presidency has been bought every four years for a long time now.

[Texsox]

Are you serious? Who was the last person President who won the office on a shoestring budget? The Presidency has been bought every four years for a long time now.

 

I tend to agree with SS, but it is all part of a bigger picture, I think a great candidate can overcome some spending differences. I'm not certain where the balance is, but I don't think that money alone can win office for a poor candidate.

 

I'm struggling for the correct words here, as usual. Take two candidates A is 20% "better" with 20% less money. I believe A is still the winner.

[Gregory Pratt]

Bloomberg couldn't win.

I'd love to see him run though and draw attention to serious issues like energy independence. then and only then would he be successful.

[Balta1701]

Bloomberg couldn't win.

I'd love to see him run though and draw attention to serious issues like energy independence. then and only then would he be successful.

Is Mr. Bloomberg actually big on that issue? Heck, which issues is Bloomberg actually even big on? He's been in public service for less time than Obama, he has no national record whatsoever, and I don't even have a clue what he thinks about Iraq, just for starters.

[Rex Kickass]

Big controversy in NYC this past month as Bloomberg proposed Congestion Pricing tolls.

 

I legitimately don't think Bloomberg is running for President next year. Like I said, the local rumors are about governor - not President.

[Texsox]

Big controversy in NYC this past month as Bloomberg proposed Congestion Pricing tolls.

 

I legitimately don't think Bloomberg is running for President next year. Like I said, the local rumors are about governor - not President.

 

Congestion pricing tolls? Sounds interesting.

[Rex Kickass]

According to Bloomberg's proposal, driving your car south of 86th Street, and you'll pay $8. $27 if you are a truck.

[Texsox]

According to Bloomberg's proposal, driving your car south of 86th Street, and you'll pay $8. $27 if you are a truck.

 

IIRC it worked in London, I didn't realize that any US city was looking at it.

[Balta1701]

IIRC it worked in London, I didn't realize that any US city was looking at it.

D.C. was talking about it this week also.

[southsider2k5]

So Michael Bloomberg took step one towards running under the Unity banner yesterday and announced he is leaving the Republician party, after leaving the Democrats only a few years early... I think someone has been shopping at the John Kerry House of Flip-Flops...

[Balta1701]

NYT: Bloomberg says he's not running.

Only after everyone knew all they needed to know about the 311 system would the mayor allow the conversation to turn to the question on everybody’s lips, though it probably won’t stop them from asking it again and again.

 

“My intention is to be mayor for the next 925 days and probably about 10 hours,” he said. “I’ve got the greatest job in the world and I’m going to keep doing it.”

...

Even after Mr. Bloomberg seemed to definitely say he would not seek the office, the questions kept coming. One reporter asked him if there were any circumstance in which he might run for president.

 

He at first said he didn’t like hypothetical questions, but then couldn’t help answering: “If everyone in the world was dead and I was the only one alive? Sure.”

 

He insisted he had other plans.

 

“I’ve got the best job in government,” he said, “and I’m looking forward to doing that and afterward, as you know, I’ve bought a building to set up a foundation in, I’ve started making some grants.”

 

Even this news conference, with his answers, probably won’t quell the chatter about him possibly running for president. Several polling companies trotted out numbers from polls conducted overnight of polls conducted over night on his support if he were to run.

 

“I think they’re wasting their time,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “I’m not a candidate.”