The 2006 mid-term election is more important than the 2008 presidential election.
As you go to the polls on Tuesday, consider:
Today, we have one political party in control of the executive branch and controlling a majority in both legislative branches. As a direct consequence of that single party control, we have record breaking deficits, runaway spending, a huge wasteful new entitlement program that we cannot afford, erosion of constitutional protection of our liberties, our country and military committed to an unnecessary war, a post-war occupation executed with such incompetence that it may now be unwinnable, complete abrogation of the congressional oversight of the executive branch, crippled ethics oversight of corruption within congress itself, and a breakdown of constitutional checks and balances on power in our government.
The very first step to solve these problems, is to take some power away from the single party on watch, and give that power to the opposition party. This is exactly what the 2006 midterm election is all about and why it is so important. This election is not about your specific congressman/woman. It is about securing better governance by sharing power between the two major parties.
Economists, constitutional lawyers, scholars and historians agree that divided government is better government:
William Niskanen, former acting chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, demonstrates conclusively that divided government has historically restrained the growth of federal spending.
Stephen Slivinski, author, economist, and director of budget studies at the Cato Institue shows that divided government results in better and longer lasting legislation. He finds that major reforms and structural changes (examples: Reagan tax reform, Clinton welfare reform) that have passed under a divided government are more likely to survive being undone by subsequent congressional action than reforms passed by a unified single party government.
Both Slivinski and Niskanen show that major wars are considered much more carefully, and entered into more infrequently under a divided government.
Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute finds that Congressional oversight of both the legislative and executive branch is stronger, and constitutional rights are better protected under divided government.
Daryl Levinson, Harvard professor of law, and Richard Pildes, New York University professor of Constitutional law, document how constitutional checks and balances are undermined by a single party controlled government and strengthed by divided government.
Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.
Just Vote Divided.
Just Vote Divided.