Skip to content

Political Parties

 
Righty: The Republican Party is far from perfect, but who else will defend our nation against Islamic terrorists, atheists, Communists, abortionists, antiwar traitors, militant minorities, gays and Barack Hussein Obama?

Lefty: The Democratic Party is far from perfect, but who else will defend our nation against greedy capitalists, warmongers, gun nuts, pro-lifers, despoilers of the environment, fundamentalist Christian fanatics and Sarah Palin?

The New Moderate:

You might be surprised to learn (or maybe not) that our Constitution made no provision for political parties. George Washington was elected president twice without opposition — not necessarily a good thing, though in his case The New Moderate will make an exception. The two-party system arose only when Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist faction (favoring strong central government and urban middle-class interests) decided to duke it out with Jefferson’s anti-Federalist faction (favoring the rights of the individual states and agrarian interests). The music went ’round and ’round, and it came out here: with two deeply entrenched, staunchly opposed factions that have pretty much forgotten what they disagree about. They just know that disagreement is essential to their existence, comparable to the eternal dispute over whether toilet paper should be installed so you pull it over or under the roll. Sometimes it seems that our two parties exist primarily to create legislative logjams in the halls of Congress.

Their roles, like just about everything in the past, used to be more clear-cut. Republicans were the party of the elite, representing private enterprise and minimal government; Democrats used to protect the rights of labor and the common man. Today your typical Democrat is a well-heeled, well-educated atheist snob from San Francisco, while the representative Republican is a corn-fed lower-middle class Christian who hails from the Bible Belt. Yet Democrats still embrace impoverished people of color, while bank presidents still vote Republican. Go figure.

Does anyone have a clear notion of what our two parties stand for these days? Righty and Lefty have given you some idea. But both parties are timid, mealy-mouthed, and beholden to the lobbyists who grab their ears and ply them with the promise of favors. Both parties still covet the vast, voiceless moderate vote that would propel them to power. Yet neither party represents the middle.

The New Moderate used to wonder if we’d be better off without political parties at all, since they’ve devolved into petty, disputatious factions without any underpinnings of real principle. Why not just vote for the best candidate and shun party politics altogether? But I’ve concluded that parties are a necessary evil: they offer rising political stars the financial and organizational support they need to conduct their campaigns, and they contribute to the ideological tug of war that keeps our political debates lively. Unity is nice when you can get it, but universal assent would be deadening. Even The New Moderate confesses that we need to hear extremist dogma from both sides, if only so we can sift through it, reject the rubbish and formulate our own beautifully reasoned centrist opinions. I just wish the debate were more intelligent and less informed by the expediencies of electoral politics. Oh, and one more thing…

This country is overdue for a new and powerful centrist alternative to dueling Democrats and Republicans. The United States desperately needs a moderate party to represent the vast and sensible middle, whose vote everyone covets but whose interests few have been willing to represent. The new party would operate without favoritism toward the rich or poor, without special-interest agendas, without connections to lobbying groups.

This moderate party (do we call ourselves the Purples?) would erode the Republican base by luring middle-class voters with traditional middle-of-the-road social and economic views… establishment voters who have grown disgusted with obscenely overpaid CEOs and their cronies secretly collaborating with the ruling class on our next national misadventure. It would eat into the Democratic base by grabbing moderate-liberal voters who can’t identify with the sniffish sensibilities and shrill rhetoric of the typical Left Coast liberal. It would be a populist party without rabid demagogues… a middle-of-the-road party without complacency… and above all a party that strives to tell the truth, without euphemisms or political spin, because it has nothing to hide from its potential voter base. It would actually improve the Republican and Democratic parties by forcing them to be true to their roots rather than compromise their principles to win moderate votes. The new party would be winning those votes, of course. I think its success would be as desirable as a happy marriage, as essential as breathing and almost as inevitable as a white Christmas in Lapland. The red and the blue have dominated our politics long enough. It’s time to march for Purple Power! Any volunteers?

Summary: Political parties are a necessary evil. We desperately need a new moderate party in the U.S. to combat the corruption and polarizing influence of the Republicans and Democrats.

47 Comments leave one →
  1. Michelangelo Markus permalink
    September 22, 2009 7:53 pm

    Another nice solution would be completely publicly funded elections. Every candidate gets the same amount of money with which to campaign and outside organizations are required to clearly state exactly who they are when running ads for or against candidates.

    This would make it so everyone starts with a level playing field from communists to fascists and everyone in between. Then they’d have to compete on (gasp) the merits of their ideas rather than how much money they can raise. It would also insure that outside organizations can’t run anonymous attack ads where they make outlandish claims and hide out of sight. Corporations might especially baulk at funding commercials with false claims in them if they knew their names would be on the ads.

    Naturally the Supreme Court in it’s wisdom put a stop to this nonsensical idea long before it got a chance to get it’s pants on. The Supreme Court says that money = speech. Therefore any attempts to curb the influence of money in elections is interpreted as an attempt to curb speech and thus unconstitutional.

    Now I don’t want to say that our court could be susceptible to bribery, but a ruling like that makes you wonder a little. . .

  2. Taliesin Knol permalink
    January 9, 2010 4:25 am

    Both parties are essentially run by the rich. I wonder who is more laudable, the Republicans, obvious in their greed, or the seemingly well wishing but inept Democrats? My solution is no permanent parties. ALL independents, with no fanatical base to rile up, (Republicans) so they actually, brace for this, have to campaign on issues. See my LOBBYING post for funding ideas.

  3. September 26, 2010 9:25 pm

    ” The United States desperately needs a moderate party to represent the vast and sensible middle, whose vote everyone covets but whose interests few have been willing to represent.” The problem is our plurality voting system, which strongly discourages new parties. There is a group that calls themselves the Modern Whig Party, which is, I think, pretty close to what you’re looking for. Will they win any election this year? I strongly doubt it. They are hardly even able to field any CANDIDATES. Unless we adopt a different voting system — proportional representation or Range Voting (a/k/a Score Voting) no new party, centrist or otherwise, has a chance.

    I still like a lot of your idead, however.

  4. September 27, 2010 2:32 pm

    Bruce: I’ve read about the Modern Whigs. They managed to score some prominent press coverage, and I like their platform, but I don’t know about their chances, either. (Their name certainly doesn’t help; the old Whigs didn’t exactly give us our most distinguished presidents, though I think Henry Clay was a Whig.) One good sign is that they’re absorbing other centrist parties; we had too many of them, and none of them had any prospects. I hope they’ll change their name at some point.

    The way for the new party to gain some momentum is to woo established candidates who can no longer win their own primaries because they’re considered RINOs (or DINOs). The problem is that a lot of those rejected candidates (Arlen Specter, Mike Castle, etc.) are so wedded to the establishment that they won’t accomplish the goals of more “radical” centrists (like me): to break the power of special-interest lobbies over our elected representatives, to reform Wall Street and corporate America so that they no longer aid the cause of plutocracy, and to enforce reasonable immigration policies.

    We need some visionaries in our camp… people who are willing to propose radical reforms in pursuit of a more just and balanced government (and society).

  5. September 27, 2010 10:30 pm

    Yes, Henry Clay was a Whig, and so was Daniel Webster. So they couldn’t come up with winning Presidential candidates, and the two times they won, by nominating military heroes, both of their Presidents died before they could do much. (You can’t really blame them for Tyler or Fillmore; they were only VPs that succeeded to the Presidency on the death of Harrison and Taylor.)

    Also, however, the Whig party produced our greatest President. Lincoln had joined the new Republican party by the time of his election, but beforehand he had always considered himseld a Whig in the spirit of Henry Clay. Bt the latter years, however, the Whigs had split over the slavery question, and their “Conscience” wing, which I assume included Lincoln, had joined the new Republican party while the remaining ones, termed the “Cotton Whigs,” kept trying to reconcile with the South, mainly, as the nickname implied, because of commercial reasons.

    But I too think the MWP’s choice of a name was curious — as I’ve said on my blog.

  6. Dianne permalink
    November 30, 2010 1:18 pm

    It is hard for a new party to get started and recognized. Breaking the strangle hold of our two main parties will be extremely difficult, next to impossible. But I, also, would like to see it happen. Also, no party voting could work. And can we get candidates to start talking honestly about the Long Term Solutions…Most of our nation’s problems require long-term solutions, not quick fixes. Politicians like to talk about quick fixes to get elected but never the realistic and necessary long term fix. When will they start planning ahead? Our infrastructure is crumbling because no one planned ahead for routine repairs. We are about to run out of fuel and I don’t hear any of them planning ahead for replacement alternatives. I would vote for someone who was planning ahead even if the necessary plan was a little “unpleasant” or “unpalatable” as pundits would call it. Let’s get our country fixed and then get that deficit down! Our current two parties have no interest in doing this. We desperately need new voices. I am staining to hear them. New party or independent.

  7. May 27, 2011 5:51 pm

    Hi all. I apologize for not finding your site sooner. I hope to draw your attention to the work the National Centrist Party is doing to establish the very party you speak of. We have had a good start, doubling in size each of the first five months to 160, which is both terrific and pathetic at the same time. Our guiding principle is to govern pragmatically according to the will of the informed centrist. Here, we use a concept of “net centrism” which acknowledges truth along the left-right political spectrum. Legislation may contain some very far left and some very far right ideas but most will be common sense moderate ideas, which is why we refer to it as Net Centrism. Our other goal is of course to “reform the political process” so there can be more competition, which leads to innovation, which will keep us out of these constant crisis situations. Please check it out. If you want to see us pursue it, get signed up. It is free, easy, and clearly indicates you are ready to take an evolutionary step forward in out political process.

  8. dm_trap@yahoo.com permalink
    February 8, 2012 2:58 pm

    Atheists tend get crapped on by both parties. Interesting that you put them with the Democrats. Just look at the resolution reaffirming the divisive “In God We Trust” as the national motto, instead of the all-inclusive “E Pluribus Unum” originally put forth by the founders. In late 2011, the measure, “H. Con. Res. 13″ passed in the House 396-9, with 2 abstentions. How in the world do results like this point to the Democrats being Atheists? The real difference between the parties in religious matters is one party wants to turn America in a “Christian” Nation, while the other wishes to maintain the diversity of Religious thought and a somewhat secular government. Neither party tends to concern themselves with Atheists (other than to occasional insult them) even though they represent 16% of the American population (a number that is increasing). Interesting how politicians will claim to represent all Americans and then start speaking about religious faith as if all Americans shared those opinions.

    • brandon permalink
      October 14, 2012 1:33 pm

      You probably don’t even know why you are an aethist

    • Paula White permalink
      June 27, 2014 10:05 am

      Good points

  9. Debra permalink
    November 4, 2012 1:06 pm

    I was hoping for more nuance here. Your idea that women’s rights is a good idea gone berserk is belied by the fact that women are re-fighting the fight you claimed we needed to fight 40 years ago: the right to make our own decisions about contraception even. Please. You are right of moderate here. And your tone “berserk” is not moderate.

    • November 4, 2012 9:24 pm

      Debra: You probably meant to post this on the “Feminism” page, but I’ll respond here. I wrote that page before the recent right-wing crusade to reverse Roe v. Wade. The vendetta against contraception is just plain nutty. (It would help if the Catholic Church finally outgrew its irrational dogma on this issue.) But abortion is another matter. If some people believe that abortion is murder, of course they’re going to want to restrict abortion rights. It doesn’t mean they should be allowed to impose their beliefs on everyone else, but I think their point of view has to be treated with respect (except for the nuts who would refuse abortions in case of rape or incest). It’s not simply a matter of “get your hands off my body.” There’s another body inside. See my three-way debate on abortion for more on this. You might find more nuance there.

      In general, I think the women’s movement was a good idea that was commandeered by fanatics who set its misandrist (there’s a word we don’t hear too often!) tone for decades. I really got tired of listening to all the invective about “phallocentric” institutions (like grammar? Yes, believe it or not), sexist terminology (like “HIStory”?), and the bilious rhetoric from the all-men-are-rapists school of feminism. Try being on the receiving end of all this anger for 40 years and see if it doesn’t affect your position on women’s issues.

  10. Janice fudala permalink
    November 9, 2012 2:06 am

    You asked me about right and left parties…

  11. Alex permalink
    December 18, 2012 10:17 pm

    Alexin

  12. Crawford Schneider permalink
    January 4, 2013 6:19 pm

    The only way to combat the increasing political ideological polarization is for the center (the new silent majority) to speak up. We should all unify around one set of ideas. I recently found this new site http://www.thecentristproject.org and it has a petition that all moderates and centrist should sign and we can start to make some noise.

    http://www.thecentristproject.org/sign-the-centrist-petition/

  13. February 15, 2013 7:53 pm

    I set out to find some moderates and I ended up here. I am beginning to realize that the subversion of our language began so long ago we are probably incapable of even discussing basic issues. What is racism anyway? Is negro really a “bad word?” And how about the word homosexual? Does minority mean non-white? Are American women really oppressed? Is it somehow wrong to prefer the company of others like yourself? How can we work together if we don’t speak the same language? And how can we know where we’re going if we don’t know where we’ve been? I’ve got a bad feeling about this, and I’m not sure it was wise of me to even think about this issue. Ever feel that way?

  14. Patriot & Proud permalink
    June 30, 2013 2:19 pm

    I’m in. Where do I sign up? I agree with every post and I believe anyone watching this circus act in washington play out and the clearly partisan coverage by the media will welcome the idea. I came to the site by searching for a movement from rational informed citizens that encourage effective government actually representing the views of the middle. Less government and more rights for all people. “By the people and for the people”

  15. Robert J. Caruso permalink
    July 30, 2013 7:58 pm

    Brilliant mate, Go Purples!

    But in all seriousness I did quite enjoy your work (gave me a good laugh when you introduced the “Purples” idea) I do truly wish such a party could gain power, but unfortunately like Mr. Gilson said, Americas system of voting discourages new parties. Besides the ignorant voters of our country probably blindly select their candidate without even doing the research.

    It’s a shame but I don’t think anyone in Washington (or anywhere) will try to change anything.

    • Anonymous permalink
      July 31, 2013 7:29 pm

      I feel we need a Workers Party. The country needs to be run by those who are doing the work and paying the taxes not by the swing votersw with their hands out. I think the Working Party demographics would be similar to the centrist group referred to. i think the workers need to take control through the vote.

  16. August 3, 2013 9:00 pm

    I found the generalizations in this post about the two parties a bit over simplified however the notion of a true centrist party has always held a soft spot in my heart. The problem is though that congress made sure that any parties that would compete against them had to jump over some pretty severe hurdles not the least of which is to hold at least 3 percent of the national vote and win majority favor in the electoral college. But since we have a ‘winner-take-all’ system, the majority candidate in any given state gets the lions share of the electoral votes. We would have to have legislation put into effect that would even the odds and chances of a third party candidate even having a hope of getting into congress or the senate (which is why we see so many third party candidates shifting allegiances to one of the two umbrella parties.) It seems almost insurmountable to be able to get a third party candidate into an office beyond the local governments. I would love to see it happen but I have little hope of it ever happening. Good post and here’s to hoping that the American public is fed up enough with our government to start making this a reality. Maybe if we can get the majority of Americans behind it, perhaps the government will start implementing legislation that will allow for greater representation of our society as a whole.

  17. Christopher permalink
    October 11, 2013 8:21 pm

    Let’s set a platform for this party… Anyone in favor of term limits?

    • Porky Rottenham permalink
      October 11, 2013 9:06 pm

      Term limits, for starters, including the Supreme Court. Radical campaign finance reform as well.

  18. October 11, 2013 9:43 pm

    I don’t like term limits at all. The GOP put them in on the Presidency, because of FDR. The first person to be bitten by the ammendment was Eisenhower. I don’t know of any other profession where having experience is felt to be a disqualification! If the people don’t want to continue to have some particular incumbent in office, they can vote him out.

    • October 11, 2013 9:44 pm

      Correction. I know how to spell “amendment”! That was key bounce, not my inability to spell!

    • Porky Rottenham permalink
      October 11, 2013 9:50 pm

      If the voters were informed, and if they took an active part, voting them out would work. As it is, we end up with an aristocracy.

  19. October 11, 2013 10:36 pm

    “If the voters were informed, and if they took an active part, voting them out would work. As it is, we end up with an aristocracy.” So it’s better to have uninformed legislators and executives? I’d rather not have everyone having on-the-job training at the same time. A John McCain, with 30 years of experience in the Senate, would have made, I believe, a better President than did Barack Obama, whose sole experience was a few years in the Illinois State Senate and 2 1/2 years in the U. S. Senate.

  20. Porky Rottenham permalink
    October 12, 2013 5:51 am

    Experience is over-rated. Doing the same thing over and over for 30 years doesn’t necessarily make you any better at it.

    Yes, it is better to have uninformed legislators. Their job is not to use their own judgement. They are clearly poor at that no matter how long they’ve been ripening on the vine. Their job is to faithfully represent their constituents, plain and simple – in short, to do as they are told.

    That isn’t happening now, for more reasons than one. To bring our lawmakers to heel, we must wean them from the corporate teat. We need term limits, among other things, to bring this about.

  21. October 12, 2013 7:11 am

    Obviously, we disagree beyond reconciliation. “Their job is not to use their own judgement”? Hardly. “Their job is to faithfully represent their constituents, plain and simple – in short, to do as they are told”? They are going to get different suggestions from different constituents. They must use judgment to reconcile those suggestions and determine what is practical. Three hundred million Americans are going to have, among them, a vast variety of incompatible ideas of the direction in which this country is to go. It is the job of our representatives to find an acceptable compromise and satisfy the greatest number of them.

    • Porky Rottenham permalink
      October 12, 2013 10:10 am

      Yes. Without the advanced communications technology available today, it could be argued that it was just too difficult for a representative to know what their constituents wanted. It may well have been true in the past.

      Corporations use communications technology to offshore our jobs. Politicians use it to isolate themselves from their constituents. Everyone has heard of what the NSA can do with this technology. The only group that hasn’t learned how to use it yet is us. The citizens.

      The last thing politicians need is for people like us to make excuses for why they must behave like petulant children at a Montessori school. The tools to control them weren’t available to us two hundred years ago, but they are now.

      Term limits are more justifiable today than they have ever been.

      • October 12, 2013 10:29 am

        I don’t really understand your comment that “The last thing politicians need is for people like us to make excuses for why they must behave like petulant children at a Montessori school.” So I don’t intend to argue with it. But I don’t think term limits are ever, or ever have been, justified. If I’m a citizen who is satisfied with my representative (I’m not, right now, but this is a hypothetical!) I should be able to re-elect him, rather than be forced to choose someone new. And, all other things being equal, I’d rather have an experienced representative who understands how government works than one who has never been inside a chamber and is trying to learn what the rules are.

  22. Porky Rottenham permalink
    October 12, 2013 10:41 am

    You could make the same case for the presidency. Why not re-elect the president endlessly? Once, we did exactly that. I imagine you know the particulars, and why we don’t do that anymore. If the arguments for limiting the president’s term in office are valid, then they hold true for Congress as well. And especially the Supremes.

    I’ve not heard anyone suggest repealing term limits on the presidency.

  23. October 12, 2013 8:26 pm

    You haven’t heard any suggestions to repeal term limits on the presidency. I have, and I would go along. I suspect that Ronald Reagan would easily have gotten a third term if he could have. Ditto Dwight Eisenhower. Right now, a president in his second term is extremely weak, because he does not have any way to control his party. They know he can’t run again. Perhaps in your view this is good — in mine it is not.

  24. Porky Rottenham permalink
    October 12, 2013 8:34 pm

    Was it not Republicans who pushed through term limits on the presidency, in response to FDR’s long run?

  25. October 12, 2013 8:41 pm

    If you read my first post, I said as much. “The GOP put them in on the Presidency, because of FDR. The first person to be bitten by the amendment was Eisenhower.”

  26. Porky Rottenham permalink
    October 12, 2013 8:49 pm

    What do you suggest for breaking the Corporate death grip on Congress, if not term limits?

  27. October 13, 2013 7:28 am

    I do not see “the Corporate death grip on Congress” as a problem. I think we need to break the polarization between extremes, and a better voting system might do that — proportional representation in the Congress and range/score voting or Bucklin voting for executives — but corporations are simply groups of people. A corporation simply does what its shareholders want.

  28. Porky Rottenham permalink
    October 13, 2013 8:01 am

    Why did I know you were going to say that. You don’t think there’s anything untoward going on in Congress, you don’t think Congress has been bought and paid for by the Corporation, and you think John McCain would make a good president. I hate to tell you this Bruce, but you’re no moderate. You’re a Republican, and there hasn’t been a moderate Republican since Eisenhower. Why you come here at all is anybody’s guess.

    I’m done with this site.

  29. October 13, 2013 9:25 am

    Assuming that “I’m done with this site” means that “Porky” won’t be reading my response, I am only putting it here so that others who read this exchange will be able to see it. This exchange shows that different people’s idea of “moderation” differs. He says, “[Y]ou’re no moderate. You’re a Republican, and there hasn’t been a moderate Republican since Eisenhower.” Well, I plead guilty to being a Republican, though I wonder how he can look favorably on Eisenhower and not on me, since I consider myself quite close to Eisenhower politically. In fact it is Eisenhower and one other, Nelson Rockefeller, who were responsible for my identifying with the Republican Party.

    But I would hardly call “Porky” a moderate; his railing about corporations marks him as about as moderate as (self-declared socialist) Bernie Sanders, as far as I can see. I consider myself a moderate Republican, like Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins (to name some current and recent members of the Senate). I suspect that I am significantly to the right of the owner of this blog, but far</i to the left of the Michele Bachmann/Rick Perry/Rick Santorum sort of Republican. So what defines a "moderate"?

  30. October 24, 2013 9:00 am

    The two party government has evolved into a finger pointing blame game. It is broken. The diversity of culture in the U.S. seems to be asking for another alternative. It is very complex. Would it help to have a viable third party in the mix? It is time to send a message to our state capitals and Washington. Stop the madness. Get real. Find some common ground and start building on it. If not, then a centrist third party will have to take the reigns and make government responsible to the American people.

  31. October 30, 2013 10:58 am

    Here’s my take on it from The Grand Old Party Abandonment Project (GOPAP):

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/298572930276564/

    and…

    http://gopap.blogspot.com/

  32. October 31, 2013 9:49 am

    “But with each self-inflicted Washington crisis, notions such as an independent presidential bid, the dissolution of one or both major parties, and the rise of new political organizations seem less outrageous. The thinking goes like this: If voters today are more empowered than ever via technology (consider the disruption of retail, entertainment, and media industries), how long will they wait before blowing up the two-party system?”

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-crazies-are-destroying-your-party-20131031

  33. April 5, 2014 8:40 pm

    You’re absolutely right about a new “moderate party”. One topic that the majority of voters have in common is “labor”. Breath some new life into MLK’s Poor Peoples Campaign and there you’ll have it – The Peoples Labor Party. Democrats only make a mediocre at best and do this topic little justice.

    Laugh all you like, or not – because it’s the one area that the middle class and lower come to terms with – if we’re going to feed our kids and send ‘em to school – we’ve got to have jobs and good ones that pay a decent wage.

  34. Anonymous permalink
    June 26, 2014 4:53 am

    Purple is actually on the blue side in the political spectrum, green would be fine, but is their not already a green party, they are very small and almost nonexistent, hmm maybe they are moderates?

  35. raymond halyard permalink
    July 10, 2014 4:55 pm

    Since Ronald Reagan gutted the Progressive Income Tax in the Eighties, the Top One Percent’s share of the US income pie has doubled from 10% to 20%, while the 2nd and 3rd Quintiles’ share (i.e., the middle class’s share) has dropped from about 40% to 30%. As I say in my eBook “I’ve Got Mine – You’re on Your Own”, the only way to even slow the decline on the American Middle Class is to increase taxes on the Rich and reduce taxes on the Middle Class; this can only be accomplished by establishing a Middle American, Moderate Party that can force the existing parties to reform the tax code.

    q

  36. raymond halyard permalink
    August 20, 2014 2:47 pm

    The U.S. currently has many problems associated with globalization, automation,
    immigration, the rise of China and demographics. But the most important problem is increasing economic inequality that is slowly destroying the American Middle Class. When Reagan gutted the Progressive Income Tax in the early 1980s the maximum income tax rate dropped from about 70% to 35%, the dividend tax from being based on ordinary income to about 15% and long term capital gains from about 35% to 20%. Money makes money, and the top one percent used their tax savings to increase their share of the income pie from 10% to 20%, all at the expense the Middle Class which has been loosing about one present of its share each year. Since the Republicans and Democrats don’t seem to mind his pattern, it will continue indefinitely. The only way to save the Middle Class is by re-instating the Progressive Income Tax. This will require the establishment of a centrist party that will coerce the established parties into re-instateing the Progressive Income Tax!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 159 other followers

%d bloggers like this: