How will we pay for the war?
The July 29 Speakout column “Don’t get optimistic about ending the war” paints an accurate picture of the quagmire that is Iraq.
Our soldiers and their families are bearing the whole burden of suffering, while the American public complains about the expense of gasoline and houses here at home.
The next president needs to propose a plan to pay for this war, rather than simply defer its cost to future generations, as this president does. Perhaps a war tax is in order. Since the usual Republican line is “no new taxes,” will a Republican candidate offer another solution? Will any Democratic candidate come up with a workable plan?
They need to tell us how they propose to pay for all the debt we have built up and the future expenses that will surely be incurred as conflict spreads in the Middle East.
George Brazill, Colorado Springs
How about we pay for it by cutting off al benefits to illegal aliens including free K-12 education by deporting them? Change the law to end anchor babies and actually enforce welfare regulations and go after medicaid and medicare fraud. Bet we could pay a lot of things then.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 12:57 AMSorry. 12:57 was mine Wish this machine would keep some things straight.
Posted by momma y on August 2, 2007 01:06 AMOh yes, I'm sure shipping people out of the country would save us the hundreds of billions spent on the war. Don't we already pay for it in our federal taxes? Part of the money we send the government is funneled into "defense" spending, after all.
Posted by Cynomys on August 2, 2007 03:34 AMSorry Cynomys - the federal budget does include base defense spending; however, the invasion of Iraq & the subsequent occupation is over $400 BILLION to date & could well go over $1 TRILLION based on the CBO's best estimates (watch the cost scroll by at http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html). This cost is not part of the annual budget - which is why some members of Congress have threatened to stop the funding. By the way, this cost does NOT include the cost of health care for those who come home minus limbs or sight, the death benefits for those who were killed, etc. Hell - we'd be better off if we just gave each Iraqi a lump sum & left - but then Halliburton would lose out on overcharging for their support (when else has the US 'subcontracted' support for a war to a company, formerly run by its VP - and which has been proven to overcharge to the tune of almost $1 billion already for those services) & couldn't get their hands on Iraqi oil money!
To fund the war for fiscal year 2007, there was an extra funding bill for $120 billion - while the rest of the defense budget was $532.8 billion. I recommend we reinstate the draft, and this time around include the ladies (after all, if this war is as important as Bush claims it is, every US family - including the wealthy - should run the risk of losing a loved one, as was the case in WWII) and get rid of Halliburton. At the very least, we should rescind the tax cuts to the wealthy (let's say those making over $200k per year) - and direct those proceeds to paying for the war.
Posted by Mary on August 2, 2007 04:14 AMwell mary once again we can pay for a lot of this if we get rid of the social programs to pay for everyones life style that they want and cant afford.
you can bet none of your dem buddies have any plan only talk. no wait obama wants to go in to Pakistan, I guess that is getting us out of iraq isnt it.
The obvious solution is to wrap this war of choice up and use the money to fix OUR national infrastructure like oh say bridges. Why spend our hard earned tax dollars to continue to repaint schools in Iraq to cover up the blood? There are multiple analysis out there that show we have actually increased hatred for America and increased the terrorist networks with our occupation.
Dim witted 12:57 claims we can save money by deporting illegals is such a joke that it deserves a double snark. Not only will we not save the 12 billion a month we are spending on our occupation trying to deport illegal immigrants but by the time you factor in the cost of financing another behemoth government agency (Department of Deportation) and the cost of the roundups for 12-20 million people you are talking about trillions of dollars to make 12:57's fantasies come true. What a silly and unrealistic way to pay for this quagmire. Take a reality pill 12:57 because you are out in La-La land with that fantasy proposal.
Posted by Wes on August 2, 2007 06:28 AMThe War which the republicans love will be for by raiing taxes, which republicans hate. Quite a paradox. And what will ahppen is that the new Democrat President will have to raise taxes to pay for this abomination of a war and its continuing atrocities and then the REBUILDING of Iraq, and somehow that will be the Dems fault.
Id rather see my taxes going to AMERICANS, to help them with health costs, child care, housing, whatever...instead of Iraq.
Funny that idiot who is so against illegal aliens getting any help sees nothing wrong with spending Billions on Iraq and Iragis? Hello, 12:57, io case you didnt realize it, Iraqis are no more deserving than the illegals you hate so much.
The WAR ON POVERTY has been fought for 40 years. Thus far we have flushed nearly $6 trillion down the toilet, have the very same old problems we had 4 decades ago and we still remain bogged down in a quagmire with no exit strategy.
For starters, that $6 trillion looks awfully tempting to me.
Posted by Hank on August 2, 2007 07:19 AMI understand there's about 245 billion spent
so far in Iraq.
25 thousand is the average cost for a
state-of-the-art photovoltaic solar system that would have the average home selling power back to the utility company.
With the money spent in Iraq, the government could have put a solar system on the roofs of 12 MILLION homes in OUR country, free of charge to the homeowner.
I wonder how much energy we'd be saving right now?
This doesn't even begin to talk about the human toll in
Iraq.
The following are some funding suggestions. America's 1st family is America's worst family, however the are closely followed by the families of Chao/MCConnell and our own Salazar clan. If we can can of these families we will be in great shape. It blew my mind that Sen/Rep Salazar, took more than $484K in federal farm subsidies. They also finanically raped and fleeced Americans, because they also hire criminal illegal Mexicans to work on their farms. This act illegally displaced qualified American workers.
US Sen. Benedict Arnold Salazar said, "Im not the Hipanics senator". A bigger lie was never told. He is also the senator for the Vatican, Mexican gov't, etc. He definitiely isn't the senator for African American disabled Vietnam veterans, who served in 3 deployments in Vietnam, while Salazar (beeve) sought NAM sanctuary in the "priesthood". Since Salazar has taken office, for his own racist reasons, he has refused to get me my "7" years arrears social security disability, where I incurred NAM injuries. He is worst than Tancredo. Tancredo won't do anything for me either, however, he will at least call and tell me so. Salazar spends far too much of his time getting his criminal illegal Mexican employees INS documents, voting privileges, etc.
USDOL/ Office of Federal Contracts Compliance Programs-OFCCP Secy. Chao is the wife of (R-KY8) US Sen. McConnell (US Senate Minority Leader). This single family controls disbursemetns for ALL federal contracts, in both the public and private sectors.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on August 2, 2007 08:41 AMWe've had rather ridiculous suggestions for using the illegal immigrants to pay for the war and for using the beneficiaries of our social programs to pay for it. The first thing that occurs to some is, how can we shift the burden to someone else? What do you think about each of us having to pay something by raising taxes, the way we have done in every other war?
Posted by Truth on August 2, 2007 09:40 AMWon't even come close to paying for it 12:57. What we spend on illegals is a drop in the bucket towards the expense of this war. Nice try though, changing the subject is always what cons go for when asked to explain or justify the war
Posted by It's True on August 2, 2007 10:19 AMWes:
You don't need a Department of Deportation. Simply enforce the laws already on the books. You know, the laws Kennedy pushed for and promised us would take care of the illegal immigration problem once and for all back in 1986.
Take the job opportunities away from the illegals, they'll go home on their own. That will free up jobs for the lower rung of the working class allowing them income earning opportunity. Earned income is both taxable and spent. Increasing consumer spending of non-entitlement (recycled money) income expands the economy providing a larger tax base. A larger tax base provides larger tax revenues that can be spent on social programs
Additionally, tax revenues which currently support the infrastructure (among that would be such things as emergency medical care -- routine visits to ERs by illegals -- and educating a large illegal immigrant school population) would be reduced. We would no longer be forced to add more money to such programs if a large chunk of the recipients were removed.
Oh great liberal, while it's admirable to help others the resources are finite. How about helping the legal residents of this country before crying for those who aren't here legally.
Posted by Trinity on August 2, 2007 11:00 AMI'm 12:57 and I should mark things when I'm being sarcastic. The removal of any social program was not mentioned just going after the fraudulent uses of them. We CAN save a lot of money if we get rid of the illegal burdens on health care and education.
Seems to me that neither side wants to talk about how we pay for things but only how they can pay for votes.
We have expenses from the way this war has been fought as well as the war itself. I agree with those who say we fight or we leave.
Frankly I like the silly suggestion a friend and I came up with where we divide the entire budget into two halves (he'd include social security I'd exempt it from this) and give each member of the Senate 1% of it's half and each member of Congress an equal share of the other half. They can spend it on anything they want and whatever is left over they can keep. Wonder which ones would spend what. See what happens when you mix Jim Beam with weak grape Kool-aid. Have fun thinking about that system and guess what your representatives would want to pay for.
When we get serious we have to consider the price of freedom and safety. I want to believe that the war in Iraq will keep the enemy from our shores. I DO believe that it is necessary to have internal security, perhaps a bit better than Homeland Security, and we need a strategy to decide what we are going to do.
Sniping about the costs is not reasonable unless we do that for every government expense. I think we need a lot less government. We could try to win this war instead of playing by PC rules but that is also a different subject.
As we are talking about financial matters please explain why enforcing laws, especially the fraud statutes for Medicaid and Medicare, would be wrong. The estimates of fraud costs for those alone is a minimum of 25% of their costs. By eliminating the illegals (again I favor punishing the employers with high fines and other penalties) and getting rid of the anchor baby provisions we can cut costs and diminsh incentives for more to come. That is financially sound planning. BTW I again apologize for the lack of a name on my first post my computer must get really sick every time I visit Denver Post.com.
"Oh great liberal, while it's admirable to help others the resources are finite. How about helping the legal residents of this country before crying for those who aren't here legally."
Where Trinity gets the idea that conservatives oppose all health and educational benefits for illegal immigrants is beyond me. Perhaps Trinity should sign himself as a libertarian and direct his comments to "Oh great liberals and conservatives".
The difference between liberals and conservatives is not about whether we should provide any aid but about how much aid we should provide.
We provided something like 22 billion dollars in foreign aid last year under a conservative government. We have tried to aid Iraq to the tune of nearly a half trillion dollars to date under a conservative government. We have always provided a substantial amount of foreign aid regardless of what party has been in control. Does Trinity also argue that the aid we provide to people outside the country should also be used instead for our citizens? The answer to that would provide a good idea of whether Trinity is a conservative or a libertarian. I don't know of any politicians or statesmen besides Representative Tancredo who oppose all foreign aid or all aid for illegal immigrants. And even Tancredo does not favor mass deportation, although he apparently does favor starving the illegal immigrants out as does Trinity. For some strange reason, that approach does not strike me as the American way.
There are those who always resist helping somebody else. Why build a road or bridge there rather than here? Why help the people in that state or area rather than the people here? Certainly, there are times when that kind of argument has some validity. But for many, it is simply the way the knee jerks.
Posted by Truth on August 2, 2007 01:05 PMNo, no, no. You guys are thinking all wrong on this.
We have Hillary on video saying that, as president, she will cap salaries and seize corporate profits. We pay for the war with the profits she seizes and the money she takes from workers whose salaries exceed her mandated maximum.
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 2, 2007 01:12 PMFor those of you that would like to know "how we are paying for the war" look up the GAO site, an observe that corporate income taxes collected is almost dollar for dollar the military budget. Almost dollar for dollar.
Realize how our tax system works. Personal income tax is used, almost exclusively, to pay the interest to the World Bank. You want to save money and lower taxes. CUT DOMESTIC SPENDING on the federal level. Problem solved.
Posted by Dan2 on August 2, 2007 01:16 PMWe will continue to pay for it the way they have been paying for it, borrowing from the Chinese and Japanese, and printing money out of thin air...
Posted by Roy on August 2, 2007 01:32 PMTruth -- you're still trying to lead the world in a continuing chorus of kumbaya. I think it utterly fascinating that you take the racist stand against the poor undereducated blacks who were born in this country in favor the illegals who have stolen most of their job opportunities and depressed the wage levels of the rest. And you'd rather ship money to other countries than help establish jobs for the underprivileged inhabitants of the inner cities.
Favoring one race over another of course isn't racism in the mind of the liberal; it's enforced fairness. Yeah right. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Truth, you're a closet racist who is continually exposing yourself through the ever widening crack in the door through your bleeding heart for the illegals over the blacks.
Kumbaya yourself.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 01:46 PM"Truth"
from your crying of 1:05PM "although he apparently does favor starving the illegal immigrants out "
Hey, Truth; you treat illegal aliens the same you you treat any other infestation of unwanted vermin. You can humanely "starve them", taking away their earning capacity so they will pack up their SUV's and F-150s (they bought them with the savings from such mundane things as paying taxes or their own medical expenses) and go home. Or, you hunt, shoot and poison them.
Which is more "humane".
Posted by on August 2, 2007 03:18 PMNotice how none of the chicken-hawk Republicans dare say we need to raise taxes to pay for this bungled government operation or we need to redeploy. Not a single one wants to admit that they are financially responsible as a patriotic American taxpayer for paying for the 250,000 bullets it takes to kill one insurgent. Not a one. They all want to blame the dirty low-life illegals for all their problems. "If we could only get rid of the illegals we would have plenty of money to continue our endless wars". Such delusion! Such arrogance! Such naivety.
Own up to this war people. You wanted it. You got it so now pay for it or are you going to be like George Bush and pass it onto future generations? I suspect it is the latter because you don't have the guts to advocate raising your taxes to pay for this government boondoggle. "Let someone else pay for the war. We're too busy hating illegals but gosh we would rather be buying soccer balls for Iraqi kids than fixing our broken down bridges."
Posted by Wes on August 2, 2007 03:52 PMWe can pay for the Iraq war by postponing replacing aging infrastrure in our nation's highway system. And along the way, likely we'll lose at least a couple of those folks supported by social programs, saving money twice.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 04:25 PMThe war is entirely George senior's fault
for not finishing the job in 1991.
Wes...you really need to open your eyes brother. The Dems voted for the war too, and that was a good thing. This war has been coming since they refused to comply with UN sanctions. You have such a narrow...media fueled view of things, I wonder if you have an independent thought in your moronic little head.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 05:18 PMIt's quite obvious that the positions I have stated are so obviously valid that those who respond have been forced to use the gutter rather than whatever brains they might have. It's a good feeling. Thanks.
Posted by Truth on August 2, 2007 06:52 PM"Truth"
I'm glad that you have "a good feeling" about your racist position concerning the blacks in this country. Not all of us are still stuck in the ghetto and listening to the overwhelming spoken compassion of limousine liberals such as yourself, and ignoring the fact that you are actively working against us.
I'm glad that you have that superior and condescending outlook in life which permits you to have "a good feeling" about your racist position. I'm sure that you sleep well at night knowing that you have true humanitarian compassion for the illegal workers -- that fact of "a few displaced blacks" is merely an inconvenient truth that can be ignored for the greater good of mankind and outward display of feel good universal humanity.
It must be comforting to know that since the black men can't get jobs due of the dearth of illegal workers, they have to live apart from their families in order to draw public assistance to feed their kids after their unemployment runs out. But it's better that way, isn't it truth. The kids won't be unduly influenced by that no good unemployed father -- nor, will they have a working father figure encouraging them to do better then they themselves did (that's a white man construct that blacks aren't allowed to use). Can't keep the black subservient class subjugated if they all learn to be self sufficient and to take charge of their own futures, can you. So it's better, and easier, to keep them uneducated and unemployed.
You can't keep the black man as de facto slaves anymore. But, the brown man, the illegal immigrant is fulfilling that empty hole in your societal heart.
I'm glad you have "a good feeling" about that, truth.
You're welcome.
kumbaya
Posted by Thor on August 2, 2007 07:26 PMhey, truth. Do you sell guns in the ghetto so they can shoot each other; or, do you just give the guns away free? After all, keeping them out of work will only be so effective and the supply of illegal workers is actually dwindling with our new state laws (until the special interest groups get the politicians to see things the "right' way).
Thor -- good letter which went straight to the point concerning a subject that most people try to skirt around for PC reasons, and "compassionate" liberals avoid; nobody wants to talk about that 800 lb. gorilla on the elevator (to steal a metaphor from an insurance company).
Posted by on August 2, 2007 07:41 PMThor: "I'm glad that you have "a good feeling" about your racist position concerning the blacks in this country."
Boy, Thor, you really can get silly. Thanks for the laugh. But you need to start watching your blood pressure more closely. Perhaps I should apologize for frustrating you so badly with my powerful arguments.
Posted by Truth on August 2, 2007 08:19 PMGeez, 07:41, "do you sell guns in the ghetto". And I thought Thor was in bad shape. Try to get some sleep.
Posted by Truth on August 2, 2007 08:25 PM"Truth"
I haven't seen a powerful argument from you as of yet. It's just been feel good self aggrandizement showing what a great humanitarian you claim to be. The fact that you choose to ignore the ramifications to black society while rushing to embrace your new pet class of people is beyond the pale of liberal ignorance.
Between libs like you, and the GOP overtly selling us out to the highest bidder, the fight for the integrity of the black man keeps getting more complex.
Good night; and, kumbaya
Keep putting that pseudo intellectual spin on the real world, truth. We all need a good laugh during infrequent breaks while dealing with the real world.
And you aren't being a frustration to me . You're just a continuation of the same old pablum that people of your ilk have been trying to force feed us for many years. With you on their side I almost feel sorry for the illegal immigrants.
Posted by Thor on August 2, 2007 08:43 PMThor makes some very valid, albeit impassioned, points regarding the real fallout effecting some members of our society suffer due to the influx and acceptance of cheap illegal labor. Many of the jobs, such as in the service, janitorial and construction industries, which have traditionally provided family supporting income for families of the lower working class are now staffed by illegals.
Since the illegals are willing to work for lower wages (oftentimes under the table cash payments) even jobs still obtainable by the working class are paying artificially suppressed wages. Legal resident employees are faced with the choice of accepting the suppressed wages or losing their jobs to illegal workers.
While many people in our society may look down on such jobs, those jobs do provide the means to hold a family together and provide at least a minimum level of support. With Federal Tax Earned Income Credits and other established assistance programs a family can provide the love and support to encourage their children to get an education and better their lot in life. Take away those jobs (or decent income levels) arbitrarily by giving them to illegal workers, we are cheating a portion of our society out of a fair opportunity at a better life.
As a side note to "truth", I believe you either read into my previous post things that are not there; or, made faulty interpretations of what was said in order to make your points. If it really matters to you, I am a conservative leaning libertarian who also realizes that there is such a thing as a social responsibility to assist others via providing either a safety net or opportunity to improve.
I just happen to believe that we should take care of our own at home first, followed by judicious foreign aid (not politically or trade based). Our antiquated and broken immigration system should be fixed to allow for a realistic and controlled legal immigration (including a valid migrant guest worker program) into our country.
We should phase in the enforcement of existing laws regarding the employment of illegal aliens. The current illegals would slowly migrate back to their home countries where they could apply for legal reentry. Those awaiting legal immigration would now be back in the front of the line where they were before others cut in front of them.
Now, "truth", if you want to take shots, at least you have the target outlined for you.
Posted by Trinity on August 2, 2007 10:51 PM3:18
You aren't acting any better to truth..your bitterness and anomosity really shows.
Jeepers. How come so many of you people are so cranky to each other?
On the Gunny Bob Show, we deal primarily in happiness, pleasantries and polite debate.
And some of you have potty mouths.
Tsk, tsk.
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 3, 2007 09:57 AM09:57AM
Yeah right, you really sound like Gunny Bob from the radio. I hope your effort in using someone else's name is just a weak attempt at humor and not a serious attempt to draw attention to yourself.
Posted by on August 3, 2007 10:41 AMHmmm. Then what does Gunny Bob sound like to you?
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 3, 2007 01:12 PMMy thanks to Thor and Trinity for a clear explanation of how the illegals are hurting the "lower" end of the working class. What they suffer with the illegals seems to be forgotten in all of the debate about illegals.
bonnie c.
Posted by on August 3, 2007 08:20 PMThen there's this:
GUNNY BOB SELECTED AS "WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD"
MSNBC's Olbermann Declares; Too Bad Almost No One Saw It
Ratings disaster host Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, whose program is thrashed by FOX News Channel and even CNN programs, declared Gunny Bob the "Worst Person in the World" on 3 August, beating out Olbermann's arch-nemesis, Bill O'Reilly.
Olbermann, after hearing his colleague Chris Matthews be destroyed and humiliated by the Gunny, refused to have the Gunny on his low-ratings train wreck. Olbermann refuses to appear on the Gunny Bob Show, of course.
Gunny noted that Olbermann selected the Gunny for this honor one day after the Gunny noted on his website that Olbermann's show was the least trusted, according to ratings, in reporting on the Minnesota bridge collapse. You don't suppose that had anything to do with it?
Quote from disgraced "General" Wesley Clark (fired by Bill Clinton for "integrity and character issues") on "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann:
"If there's even a hint that there was something like a homicide or a murder in this case, it should've been fully investigated and proved or disproved, and we don't really know how far up- Was it the Secretary of Defense's office? Was it the White House?"
From Prison Planet:
"According to Daily Kos, Wesley Clark appeared on Keith Olbermann's Countdown last night and stated that "the orders came from the very top" to murder Tillman as he was a political symbol and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have rallied the population around supporting immediate withdrawal."
From Daily Kos:
"Just saw on countdown that the AP reported that the Army stopped doctors from investigating if Tillman had been murdered. Shots were fired at close range and in his head.
"Wesley Clark was on and believes that the orders came from the very top as Tillman was a political symbol. It was well known he was against the war in Iraq."
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 3, 2007 08:44 PM"Ratings disaster host Keith Olbermann of MSNBC"
What a laugh you are Gunny. You're a hack. Let's compare your influence vs. Olbermann shall we?
Getting on Countdown is the best thing that ever happened to you you talentless shill.
I remember you cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq. You were wrong then and continue to be wrong about nearly everything you say or predict.
You're invaluable in prognosticating what won't happen- it's whatever you say will.
And your silly name to boot.
Funny like a clown you are.
Posted by Charles B on August 5, 2007 08:42 PMAnd by the way Gunny Bob- disgraced soldier- explain to me why the people in the White-house are citing "executive priviledge" in order to not have to testify about the Tillman cover-up?
Something to hide?
Did I mention house stupid your nick is?
Posted by Charles B on August 5, 2007 08:48 PMCharles B: Sometimes you can act like a real smuck. Most adults don't have to throw personal insults at their adversaries to make a point. Why don't you grow up and use your intelligence rather than childish taunts?
Posted by on August 5, 2007 09:43 PM0:943 PM
Don't you understand by now that Charles B is just the mirror image of another poster on this board -- a guy who goes by the name An American? Being opposite of each other, An American leans hard right, Charles B leans hard left. They both taunt and brand others: An American likes things like "Dumocrates", "Coward", "hate wing of.".. Charles B uses "hack", "disgraced soldier", "silly name..."
Two peas in a pod, complementing each other with their inane drivel --- one on the right, one on the left.
Posted by on August 5, 2007 10:01 PMToday's game of Spot the Hypocrisy brought to you by: Posted by on August 5, 2007 09:43 PM:
"Charles B: Sometimes you can act like a real smuck. Most adults don't have to throw personal insults at their adversaries to make a point."
I love it when the most hypocritical fool (actually tied with his mirror image, An AMerican) on the blogs, our own Charles B points out others. He call you a smuck, you putz, he said you can sometimes act like one.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 08:24 PMPosted by on August 6, 2007 08:24 PM:
I should care what you say because...
Posted by Charles B on August 6, 2007 08:32 PM You guys are missing the whole point of this "war" in Iraq. This is not about giving the people of Iraq democracy. We can no more shove democracy down their throats, than they could make us embrace Islam.
The real point of this deal in Iraq is make money for big corporations, ie Haliburton et al. Bush is nothing more than a shill for corporate America. The real generals in this war are the same one's that were in Nam, Generals, Motors, Dynamics and Electric, to name a few.
We ain't going to get out of Iraq as long as there's a profit to be made. Why is America involved in a war every ten years or so? The answer is simple because it's good for business.
Wake up Americans! The big corporations run the show and all the politicians are controlled by them.
Running Hot: You are emphasizing the obvious. Whether it be Republicans or Democrats in power, the power elite will do anything, including waging war somewhere to appease their Masters -- special interests and big business. It's from those groups that they draw their financing (both public campaign, and private long-term), their influence and, hopefully, longevity in office.
Until Americans start crossing party lines, encompassing some independents while electing a MIX of Repubs and Dems, we're just going to keep having business as usual in Washington.
By voting for individuals instead of parties we'll send a broad mix to Washington who will realize two things:
1) people expect results, not partisan politics designed to keep a party in power; and,
2) their hold on office is only as good as their track record while in office as there are many candidates -- Repubs, Dems, Indep -- waiting to step into their shoes and "prove" they can to a better, nonpartisan job.
Don't give absolute power, or even minimal majority power to any party. Give it to the American people by finally getting the concept of "by the people and for the people" across to the politicos.