Rhetoric of the campaign season

It does appear now that Gov. Romney will secure the Republican nominee for President of the United States and President Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Before the media starts spinning things and before Super PAC's start running their ads for or against a candidate let's get some definition's out there that we can all agree on. Here is a short list:

Democrat - A member of the Democratic Party.

Republican - A member of the Republican Party.

Socialism - A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Capitalism - An economic system based on predominately private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth.

Fascism - An authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities.

Communism - A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Republic - A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them.

Democracy - Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is reatined by the people, but is indirectly execercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Liberalism - An economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard.

Progressive - Disposed toward adopting a new methods in government or education, holding tolerant and liberal ideas, and generally favoring improvement in the civic life.

Conservative - One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in politics.

All these definitions are taken from www.webster-dictionary.org. It is interesting to see the root definitions of these words. I think for an accurate debate and character to develop we need this common ground. Now, if others feel Webster has it wrong then let's redefine them so we are all on the same page going forward.

Occupy Wall Street - So what's the real deal?

For the past week a group of people have come together to "Occupy Wall Street" and several other similar groups have sprung up around the United States. Interesting enough when a group of people, not to many years ago, started a ground swell of protests to the overspending and raising debt by our Government they were tagged as racists. The current group is not touted in a similar method. So, what is it that these "occupiers" want? A list of demands has materialized on the website for "Occupy Wall Street" so let's take a look(http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/):

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

How does "re-imposing trade tariffs" level the playing field while raising the minimum wage to $20? Ironically this demand sort of contradicts a demand made later in the list.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

How does the private insurer prevent health care operatives from doing their business? Isn't Medicare and Medicaid that are dictating to these same health care operatives how much they will be reimbursed?

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Is the guaranteed living wage $20 hr? What happens when the cost of goods go up with the increase in the minimum wage?

Demand four: Free college education.

If we are guaranteeing a living wage why do we need college education? Not to mention we have lost our manufacturing base and skilled jobs. How will a liberal arts degree help us reclaim those jobs?

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

I agree that we need to bring alternative energy to the forefront but we cannot ignore the short term solution to job creation is through fossil fuel. Right now alternative energy does not produce enough for the cost required - plus it is a net job loss notion - See the Spanish report that came out three years back.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Now this is the role of government. To ensure our means of transporting of goods and services are capable to met demand. The question comes as to how do we pay for it? We have already mortgage the futures of our grandchildren to fund entitlement programs and current spending in the United States.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Does this gentleman believe that companies that rely on timber for their livelihood are not replanting trees for those being harvested? Also, we need a certain amount of harvesting otherwise the undergrowth from dead trees and plant life created a tinder box waiting for Mother Nature to strike. I find it interesting that he'd want to decommission all Nuclear Power plants since much of the rest of the world rely more on this type of energy then fossil fuels.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

We already have this in place. It is through continued legislation that we have blurred this line and created second class citizens.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Okay, here is one that goes against Demand One. If we have free flowing borders how do we ensure all goods and services coming into the United States are having the correct amount of tariffs levied against them? Also, will these migrant workers file IRS tax forms, will they contribute to our tax base so we can spend one trillion dollars on infrastructure since they will be using our roads, rails and waterways.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Now I agree that we election reform - but this doesn't do it. We need to eliminate all campaign donations and reduce the amount of time in our campaign season. I am reading a book on the election of Lincoln and one thing that strikes me odd is that candidate Lincoln did no campaigning and didn't even talk to his Vice Presidential running mate until after the election.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

If we forgive all debt then how will we pay for entitlements? What happens to all those retirement plans?

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Really? So we go back to buyer beware then? When one invests or goes for a loan, how will the person lending the money out have a standard of comparison?

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Okay, I trust that this process will work in the opposite direction as well. If a group of people do not want to have a union they can simply sign a ballot and be done with it?

Blue Print to Sustained Growth and Job Creation

At the Federal and State level we are hearing the phrases "job creation" and "job growth" being tossed around. Thus far the bills tied to either phrase are increasing the debt load of the Federal or State government to only create temporary work. My son was working on Social Studies the other night. The topics were the Soviet Union, Lenin, Stalin, Communism and the Cold War. The book noted how class warfare led to the fall of the Czar and the rise of Lenin. People of Russia embraced Communism because it took control of the farms and factories and gave the people (lower and upper class) an equal share of the output. In theory the ideals of Communism work in so far as people will be no better or worse than any other member of society. The trouble, as the Russians soon discovered, is that the focus is placed to heavily on durable goods while consumer goods are ignored. Plus, with output being evenly distributed the need for excessive output (growth) was not required.

A lot of discussion is taking place on how to get America back to work. President Obama is using the old adage of Big Government, increase spending, and the expansion of entitlement programs to accomplish this. The result has been an unemployment rate that rose above 10%. Even though the unemployment rate has trended down in recent months, do not be fooled by the trend as it is merely an illusion of facts. While the unemployment rate has dropped below 10% the number of part-time and/or disenfranchised (those no longer counted as unemployed) workers has increased to heights not seen before. A friend of mine reminded me that consumerism is the key to a robust economy and sustained recovery. To counter the lack of new job creation, President Obama wants to give small business tax-credits for hiring new workers.

On the surface that is great news for the small business owner but when we dive deeper bigger questions are raised for the small business owner. What will these new workers do? How do I pay their salary in the future if business doesn't pick up? How will additional workers increase traffic for my wares? All valid questions, ones those Ivy League educated politicians seem to not address. Many have touted Obama the most intelligent of all Presidents even if he cannot read from a teleprompter all the time. Remember the last Bush we had was from an Ivy League school too. Now I was not as highly educated, true I do have my MBA but it is not from Harvard or Yale, as the recent men to hold the office of President but I do have a solid education in business, economics, history, philosophy and ethics.

Now, if the catalyst to a robust economy is consumerism then who is it that should be spending money? You and I is who. How do we get more money to spend, legally? We need to have more of our money we earn available to use on discretionary spending. Outside of a raise or lowering our debt, how can we increase our discretionary spending? Rather, how can government help us increase our discretionary funds? Simple, they can lower our taxes.

The trouble is that in a few years when the economy gets going again, the government will want to collect more because they believe it will not harm the economy. That is where the logic falls short. To sustain our robust economy the consumer still has to be able to consume. To ensure we can consume we need to alter our view on taxation. Taxation is a necessary evil to run our government, to keep us safe, and to protect our freedoms. That being said, does it make sense to tax someone more because they have bettered themselves financially through whatever legal means they have, no! A person seeking the American dream ought not to be punished for being successful; rather they should be rewarded for their efforts. At the same time should someone be punished by a rough start to life or a raw deal along the way, no!

So how do we allow both parties pursue their dreams without hindering them or taking away from their efforts? Simple actually, we trash the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax and consumption tax. The consumption tax is simple. We tax every purchase of non-essential items 2%. Now to help with a little social engineering I am open to additional "sin" tax on non-essential items of 3%. That takes care of the consumption tax. The flat tax works like this.

On your first $60,000 you get taxed nothing. For every dollar you make past $60,000, Uncle Sam gets $0.12. So if you made $70,000 this year that would mean that Uncle Sam would get $1200. To make it even easier to monitor, track and control all tax credits would be eliminated. Meaning, that no more credits for mortgage interest, child care, child, education, etc… It would also eliminate a large portion of the IRS as tax returns would be a thing of the past. With no tax credits allowed and a flat tax in place, no one would have to file a tax return. The concept can be applied to Corporations as well. By allowing people to keep all of their first $60,000 we open up the consumer market for health care expense, investment activity, luxury consumption and other desires of consumerism too.

States then can do the same as well. The State, such as Minnesota, can follow suit by establishing a flat tax of 5%. To expand upon the example above, the person making $70,000 would now see their total tax liability to both Federal and State rise to $1700. With the elimination of tax credits so would we phase out Medicare and Medicaid. Those turning 55 or already older than 55 this year (or the year the tax change takes place) will continue along the Medicare and Medicaid process. The rest of us will see our contributions to these programs shift to a Medical Savings account (MSA) that will be tied to our Social Security Number. The amount currently taken out would not need to be changed. It simply will go into a private account that the individual taxpayer can use to offset any expense related to medical needs.

The taxpayer could use the funds for co-pays, medicines, clinic visits, hospital visits, etc. By moving toward a MSA it will allow for greater portability of health care "insurance" and allow the taxpayer to dictate when, where and to whom their medical dollars go to. Imagine the competition it would breed among clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, and other medical facilities if ever they knew every taxpayer determined where their dollars were spent. All of these locations would need to post their fee schedules and will allow doctors and nurses to get back to providing medical care and away from administrative work. Insurance companies will be able to offer tiered plans.

Granted many of those in their late 30's to earlier 50's will not see the greatest benefit but we will set up future generations with a better system for medical as well as taxation. The next phase of this plan is to apply the MSA model to Social Security. When Social Security was crafted the funds collected went into a separate account that Congress was unable to touch. At some point in our glorious history our Congress saw the war chest of dollars being amassed. The temptation was too great for them and a change was approved. The change brought the Social Security funds from a separate untouchable account to the general slush fund. To eliminate or mitigate future destruction and temptation of Social Security funds by our politicians it is time to move it back into a separate account. Just as with the MSA, our own Social Security contributions will be designated by an account with our SSN.

No longer will Congress or any government agency have access to those funds. Taxpayers will have access to those funds just as they have access to them now. All that will change will be the account in which the funds sit. I understand there will be growing pains with this notion but that is what the original intent of Social Security was to be anyway. All I am suggesting is to undo the harm that we have allowed Congress to do over the years. Some of you may be asking yourself, "How will this create jobs?" That is an excellent question to ponder.

The best part is the answer is short and simple. By allowing you, as a taxpayer, to keep more of your first $60,000 earned you will have more money to improve your home, go to the local restaurant, purchase new consumer items, take an trip, etc…Plus if you know that taxes will no longer change one can plan their money better. By fixing the taxation it will allow our members of Congress and State Legislatures to focus on items that a critical to keeping their oaths to the United Sates Constitution and State Constitution they serve under. The switch from Medicare and Medicaid to a MSA will bring down costs through increased competition thus making health coverage affordable to all taxpayers. Combine these: the flat tax, consumption tax, and the MSA with an accounting switch on Social Security and we have a financial core that will be the envy of the World while ensuring the safety, prosperity and advancement of those living in the United States now and in the future.