Platforms continues, Energy and Economic Development

ENERGY

I am going to straight to the point. We need new energy development for a variety of reasons and we need to get off gasoline.

Gasoline is poison to the human body. Look up the chemical compound of gasoline; nothing is compatible with the human body. Yes I know we have lived with gasoline for over a century now. It is time to move on. This is common sense. We need to quit breathing the exhaust from it and it is seeping into the water supply every time it rains.

Unfortunately gasoline is not going away over night. Even with a concerted effort it will probably take up to two generations for us to move onto something more clean in our daily lives. And we will probably never get rid of fuels completely. I don’t see air travel (commercial and military) with out it for now, NASCAR will continue to be a popular sport, and there are a few other industries that rely on it I cannot think of right now. The goal is to move on to cleaner energy where we can. And this is possible.

And if we move on, we also benefit our economy. One of the biggest concerns for the middle class is the lack of new jobs. Diversifying our energy creates new opportunities for our country to become an economic leader again. If we take the time to develop new energies, expand on products to be used, and help other countries move forward we will create new jobs and create a better balance of trade.

And there may not be one source of energy in the future for transportation. We already have electric cars and natural gas powered cars. We need to develop further the affordability of new energy. It will not happen overnight either. And this is one reason gasoline can not be eliminated immediately. And it does not matter who moves us forward, if big oil makes the change and continues to be the dominant player in energy, so be it. If new people come along and are the innovators, more power to them. There will be opportunity for people to make money in energy and that is good. We live in a free market society and in most cases that should be the driving force in the market, however, society has a right to determine if one product is causing more harm than good or if there are other products that can accomplish the same goal without creating secondary issues. We are not hurting the market place or the economy to protect ourselves.

Energy policy going forward is based on three goals. A healthy transition away from gasoline, and as said before it will probably take two generations so jobs will not be lost, but moved. We let the market decide which clean energy(ies) work the best for employment and trade. And to help us make the transition tax breaks to current companies or new companies both in the short and long run so industry is encouraged to follow through on the transition. The tax breaks can benefit the producers of the new energy, the industries that turn to new energies to help them with their production, and of course the daily consumer.

The benefits will include cleaner environment, new jobs including manufacturing jobs and if we plan well, our new products can be exported to countries we help to make the same transition. An example of where we can expand our trade is India. Since they are not overly reliant on the oil industry as some other countries we can help them develop solar power and then export electric cars. Encouraging and helping their transition will help our transition faster as we have faster returns on the investments made into this new development.


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Reading through the energy policy you see some problems left on the table. How does government policy play into the free market without becoming the driver of the market or worse creating socialist policy? The end goal of government in developing some economic policy is to benefit the public at large in a few areas that affects the whole. The government should do no more than determine if there is a need for certain industries or development and then only establish the guidelines for the development to encourage what will benefit the whole country or if a locality then that locality.

Or government can have a hand in the development of projects that benefit the whole. The best modern example is the interstate highway system. The government’s goal was to create a system of transportation that the defense department could use in case we were attacked, but this system was also available to the public in normal times for their use. Finally it created a whole new industry that competes and compliments the railroad industry and that is trucking. An older example is the St Lawrence Seaway where the government created the system to benefit exports and the shipping industry.

These projects were paid for by taxpayers and even though taxpayers did benefit, they did not benefit as much as the industries that used these projects. Going forward we should shift some of the burden away from tax payers and spread the cost back to the industries that benefit the most. Yes there are some taxes the companies pay that use the development, but in a less proportionate manner to their benefit vs. the cost to the government and the general taxpayer. What is the balance we would like to achieve?

To try and find this balance I am going to propose one project that with the ongoing explanation hopefully exhibits this balance. There are other ideas I have to help move our country forward, but this example also touches on some other problems we are facing so it becomes an idea to try and alleviate a few issues our country faces. Also this proposal benefits the whole of society from individuals to the largest corporations.

Water management is probably even more important than the highway system of the 1950’s. Since water is essential to life, it is the responsibility of our government under the need to protect the people. The government should not own the water supply. The government needs to create policy that industry, municipalities, and the consumer can all abide by to the benefit of the whole country.

Our goal would be to create a large canal system maybe parallel with the interstate highways to move water around as needed.

The players are the federal government, local governments, industry (including agriculture), investment banking, social security administration (based on an independent agency), and of course the public. The federal government is involved by helping to map out the project, supplying some of the funding through tax dollars, and making sure there are no abuses in the system. Local governments are involved through their water supply whether they are responsible or if there is another local entity involved. Industry is involved because they would help build the project be an end user, and along with investment banking and the social security administration would help fund it. The public is involved as the tax payer and consumer making their costs two fold.

The project is multi-layered. First the federal government manages the big picture, sets the guidelines, and monitors the movement of water from one area to another. Local municipalities and local water boards are responsible for developing the coordination between their current water supply with receiving or sharing water with other local entities. Industry helps to build the system and is also a consumer along with the general public. Investment banking and the SSA are possible investors(bonds). If you read the earlier sections of this platform, I talked about SSA becoming a stand alone agency, but would also need to find alternate sources of income beyond payroll taxes. I am not a fan of wall street controlling the investments for SSA money, too much conflict of interest, but we could use projects like this since monitored by the federal government to let the SSA invest. The public being an investor by tax dollar has a say through their elected officials and their elected officials need to protect the interests of the consumer by making sure the water supply is clean, safe, and available. And finally the public helps fund it at the consumer end.

An example of why we need this large of a project other than the obvious need that we need water to maintain life. Throughout history with a country as geographically diverse and large as the United States there are different water needs in different locales at different times. We experience droughts in one are and floods in another. Some towns are destroyed by floods and some areas have economic catastrophes when agricultural or other industries are devoid of water. Finding a way to move transport water effectively allows us to protect where needed and supply where needed.

So lets say most weather models suggest an area is about to get a higher amount of rainfall than would normally be able to absorb. With these series of canals you could start draining local rivers etc in advance of the rain event by dispersing the current river levels to a variety of other locales or holding areas maybe even hundreds of miles away. By the time the rain hits the current levels are lower than normal so the run off into the rivers is lessened so downstream there would be less property damage. The water moved from an area with excess then can be routed to areas where it is needed.

The management of this would take much time to develop, but just starting would have a positive impact on the whole country. How many times in the past five years alone were there headlines either about flooding or drought impacts? Would we completely eradicate these types of problems, probably not, Mother Nature still has a say in everything, but with careful thought out planning we can use Mother Nature to our advantage. We can’t try to control it, but rather manage. Will every year be the same, no, so we learn as we go.

There are many logistic endeavors for this project, yet something we should begin immediately. One is cost, cost of the project, cost of the water. Water is already a commodity, but the actual price of the water should be less market driven, but more reasonably priced by the need to recoup the investment and day to day expenses. This would be one product that the government probably does need to regulate the price without taking away the ability of the players to make a reasonable profit so they can continue to build and improve on the project as needed. Investors should not expect to make outsize billions, rather a reasonable return on water itself, and higher expectations on secondary industries developed because of the project. Another words the government would need to step in when exploitation of the price of water becomes a problem.

The benefits are enormous. Water management and water cleanliness are the first major benefit. Controlling run off allows us to move flood water from cities to certain holding areas to be cleaned up before using elsewhere. Lowering damage from floods saves on insurance costs to the insurance industry so hopefully to the insurance consumer. We will create new technologies just to better manage and create the project itself. The amount of jobs created at all levels is a huge plus. We could use more of our country for agriculture as we move and store water from areas with excess rain etc. More agriculture products allows us to export more. We can export our advances in technology to other countries. The consumer is protected by having cleaner and regular sources of water. Social Security has a positive secondary source of income to help its solvency. I read an article a few years ago where there was a conflict between two industries (fracking and agriculture) in Kansas because of a drought. The impact of these types of conflicts are diminished. The ideas of benefits could go on. And overall we let Mother Nature have its way because in the end most water will end up in our oceans as it should. We just better manage the flow of it as it makes this route.

This is just one example and probably a pressing one to show how the federal government should not be the major player, but the coordinator of the whole picture and let everyone that has a stake both build and benefit. And the government has no business being in all projects. An example of an idea I had that maybe goes to far.

As I mentioned I think we need to get off gasoline, so I thought wouldn’t it be great if we got the city council of three tourist cities such as Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Orlando to vote in an ordinance that says all rental car companies must use electric cars. Definitely helps to move electric car development forward, but is this an example of too much government interference? It may or may not be. This is something we as the public need to study to help determine what works best by our government and what works best in the marketplace by itself which is just as important.

Economic development by government is something we need to have. It is up to us as the public to help curb it so our government is only in the business of protecting the people and helping the people decide what works best in the market place. It is not the government’s responsibility to tell us how the market place should work.

Not part of the platform, but...

I am not a big fan of term limits for a couple of reasons. One there is the off chance we might elect someone good enough to keep. Nowadays that seems a bit of a longshot though.

More importantly term limits are a band aid to a much deeper problem facing our country. And a band aid that offers no cure. There is no guarantee that once one person hit their limit that another person would come along and do any better. The real way to solve the problem of why some people want term limits is a better educated electorate. And this is one of the many reasons education is going to be such an important part of the overall platform.

Next addition coming soon. Have a great day

And the platform continues again

IMMIGRATION:

Immigration is not a problem the United States faces alone. Every country on the planet has immigration issues. Some countries manage them well and for other countries it exacerbates other issues. Many countries bring immigrants to fill jobs that no one wants which creates a tiered society and creates unrest among the immigrants and even human rights violation accusations. Whenever inequality or lack of opportunity exists in one place then people will move on looking to improve their situation. And frankly, you cannot blame them.

And in the United States it seems many people forget we are a country of immigrants. Everyone in this country immigrated from somewhere else. Even the Native Americans, according to many sources, immigrated to the Americas via the Bering Sea and then migrated southward. And once one group has become established in this country they deride the next group of immigrants as being inferior or wanting them to go home.

We forced immigration of Africans through slavery. We encouraged immigration in the 1800’s. Everyone knows the story of Ellis Island and the Statute of Liberty.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

So where is that attitude today?

Immigration policy began in earnest at the end of World War I. Some of this was based on National security interests, yet some was based on controlling immigration and who could immigrate in general. The idea of quota restrictions began and was firmly instituted with the Immigration Act of 1924. These quotas by design and circumstances helped to preserve homogeneity in our country. Again the people who already immigrated were not too fond of changes in our make up. The idea of being the melting pot of the world was not on everyone’s agenda.

Our immigration policy has evolved since then, well changed, it really has not evolved in a sense of we have a better attitude towards immigrants. And that is why we have political struggles for new immigration policy today.

And where should we go from here? Do we allow unfettered opportunity in our country, do we continue with quotas, (which requires updates regularly), do we completely halt immigration, or is there a compromise solution?

And unfortunately there is not a good answer. We have our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that strives to help us achieve the idea that all men are created equal and have certain rights. If we say we are conservative; that means we need to conserve the ideals of our nation. Yet in today’s world we do need to protect our country from terrorists, criminals, and people who come here to take advantage of what we offer. These are not undo concerns.

Where do we create perspective? What policy separates true undesirables and keeps our ideals intact? And of course who defines “undesirables” can play an intricate part in this policy. We need caution in making this definition. And that is the major challenge for us in creating immigration reform. It is not new quotas, or how many people can enter at all, but finding a way to encourage the world to continue to view us as an opportunity without fearing repercussions once they arrive. And for us to know who is coming to our land and not fear what may happen when they arrive. No policy will truly protect us from all people that have intent to harm. We can create checks and balances for people to come. We can limit the number of visas, not to limit people, but to limit how many people our country can absorb. We have a right to protect ourselves, but once an immigrant is here they should be treated with the same respect we treat ourselves and accorded all rights as any person.

And that leaves us with our current dilemma about illegal immigration. Do we start giving blanket citizenship to everyone here? Do we make them go through a less rigorous process than new immigrants? At this point I think we can ask them to verify what they have done since they have been here. Prove to immigration officials they have been a contributing member of society, and how they are going to continue to contribute. If they are unable or have not contributed we can make arrangements to return them to their country of origin. And along with this we can tighten immigration to give us an idea of who is asking to come here. It would be foolish to deny people an opportunity to come here that can benefit our society. This does not have to be in a largess fashion. They can be here to work and no matter what the work they should be treated with the same respect we give ourselves. If they are unable to prove their intent then we have the right to protect our nation and ourselves to make sure those that come to us want to be with us.

And on a final note most of the immigration dilemma is around our border with Mexico. If continued immigration from this country produces a hostile environment along our border, even though not popular with everyone, we have a right to secure it. This is not to deny Mexicans from immigrating or visiting, but to identity who is here and why. In reality though our best immigration policy with Mexico is continuing to help them grow their economy and educating their people. We need to help them develop a better export mix than just oil and drugs. Like I mentioned before people migrate to find better circumstances, if we allow a neighbor to fall behind or continue to be a third world country we are failing ourselves. We share a border and there is much shared culture around the border, we should cherish this and help to encourage Mexico’s growth and help those who come here so they can contribute here or take what they have learned and go back to Mexico to help with Mexico’s growth.


FOREIGN POLICY:

I have seen many foreign policy platforms from the major parties or from independent sources that breaks it down by region and how we should treat each country. I have never liked this approach. Foreign policy can be made simple in philosophy and then base decisions on what relationship we have with an individual country based on how they fit into this philosophy.

Who are our friends and who are our enemies? And sometimes we need to make sure our friends are our friends. And sometimes we need to realize as a people that our government needs to determine who are friends are, not special interests or big business. Some of our current headaches derive from bad decisions in the past in whom we supported in a country. Overall though we need to look at how each country treats us. We should always maintain a healthy attitude of respect to others to begin in evaluating our relationships with different countries. This does not mean we are required to give any ground in our relationships with different countries.

As much as we say we want to encourage the growth of democracy, not every country is ready for democracy. Our goal is to help the people of countries realize their rights and let them usher in their choice of rule. As long as the rights of individuals are respected in a country we cannot be so jingoistic that we know what is best for everyone else. We do not have to tolerate the abuse of a country’s citizenry and must help to facilitate world support to isolate these countries. It does not mean we are the world’s policeman.

We do want to encourage free trade and free enterprise. We do need to support policies that protect our rights to free trade and trade that does not harm our country’s economy. We can write treaties that are mutually beneficial between two countries. We cannot, nor should we tolerate any abuse of trade with us or among/between other countries. The right to develop is every country’s right and if we work to keep our economy strong and open, their development will not interfere with us. We need to place ourselves first without restricting others.

We have a right to defend ourselves and our true interests. ( this means what benefits are people or could place harm to our people) We do not have a right to overrun another country.

We need to re-evaluate our relationships with many countries. There are countries that are our friends and we need to strengthen those, lately we have been remiss in what we have done to maintain strong ties. There are some countries that some say are our friends, but what are they doing to create a strong two way agenda. And some countries just aren’t our friends, nor are they contributing members to the world body at large. We should be involved with change, yet I say again we are not the world’s policeman. It is the responsibility of all countries to isolate dictators and repressive regimes to work to help the people overcome tyranny.

We can and must champion human rights and the right to human dignity for all. That is who we are as a nation.

( I will say this, we should build better relations with our American neighbors)




I had said in a bad humorous post I was going to write on immigration, foreign policy, and energy next. I am going to include energy in the next group with economic development and my project ideas. I think it will fit better. After that I will finish up with education and some final thoughts. Thanks for reading, I hope this platform and platform essay is encouraging some of your own thoughts and ideas. We need new hope, the current political parties just are not working for the best interest of you and I.

Humans are forcing a quick break

I have been out and about much this weekend. Some observations. I will keep posting on the platform and probable topics are immigration, foreign policy, and energy.but first:

90% of women who were yoga pants shouldn't. Just......don't.

100% of women who wear yoga pants should just wear them to yoga.

And on that line don't wear pajamas anywhere. Not taking your child to school, not to the grocery store, nor the mall, just not anywhere. They're pajamas, you sleep in them.

And from the lets wear our pants below our butt club I saw a young man walking across a store proudly displaying the color of his underwear. Except there was one small problem. He was attempting this feat while carrying a young child. After he struggled along for awhile he put down the child looked around and pulled up his pants. The rest of his walk seemed much easier.

And for those who like to be the "fun saver" (20 pts. if you guess where that reference comes from) just take the picture and move on. You do not need 30 more just one more pictures. Or don't take a picture every ten feet. It is the same group at the same place. A few at most will do.

Where is Andy Rooney when you need him?


And on a different note and this is based on empirical evidence, but whenever there seems to be a landslide victory in an election the abuse of power scandals tend to rear their ugly head. Seems close elections are better for everyone most of the time.

And I apologize, I keep saying I will try to keep this blog positive, but temptation got the better of me. Too many outings this weekend.

I will end on a positive note. Monday I hope you get to spend at least a few moments reflecting on a truly great and positive man: Martin Luther Kung, Jr. Enjoy the day and appreciate his memory.


Okay, okay one more. The sports press in Dallas is insane. They keep trying to talk about what the Cowboys need to do to get to the "big game". The Mavericks had a better chance of winning the NBA title LAST YEAR than the Cowboys ever having a chance to win anything as long as Jerry Jones is GM.

The Platform continuing

As mentioned in Part I you can read just the last paragraph for any section to get a summary or a bit of bullet points for my ideas.

SOCIAL PROGRAMS:

Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime.

One of the most overworked phrases or quotes, yet very applicable to how we administer our welfare programs.

As mentioned in the Debt and Deficit section government programs should be effective. They should solve the problem. If it doesn’t it should be changed. We must have improvement to justify the use of tax dollars. The tax payer has the right to expect elected officials use their money wisely and effectively.

Unfortunately the welfare program or what was originally called war on poverty or the Great Society has failed its original intent. True it had a noble purpose to eliminate poverty, but the actual results we see two generations later is dismal. Some think not, for example one person recently wrote that even though there are more people in poverty it is less of a percentage. How accurate that fact is, I don’t know, but numbers are not the only justification for saying we are eradicating poverty. And so many factors are different from the sixties that I am not sure we are comparing apples to apples with the numbers. The main key should be though are we removing people from poverty not because we have fed them, but because they are becoming more self-reliant. What we created is multi-generational reliance on government help that does not move the individual forward. The blame though falls on us, not the people in poverty as some political groups want their constituents or you to believe.
We must do something. We want to have a free market system that believes in self-reliance and that people should have the opportunity to be successful then we cannot ignore poverty. Our founding Fathers gave us the freedoms and rights to all of us. And we should cherish these rights. This means we cannot let people of our society be held back due to circumstances beyond their control. We celebrate success, but that does not mean only the winners can perpetually hold their place in society. (And I am going to discuss more about what this means when I discuss lobbying) Our constitution gives us the right to grow and when the current people in power cut off opportunity they are denying to others their basic rights. This has been done by both the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats are hurting the people they say they are trying to help by not improving their programs, by letting the continued reliance of government handouts go on. The Republicans by not offering anything better and by saying since we aren’t helping them we shouldn’t support any programs or cut what we have to save taxpayers’ dollars, are also failing our country. It plays well to their constituents, but does not solve the problem. Yes actually attacking poverty, not by trying to artificially support people and saying that eliminates poverty, is our responsibility.

We need new programs to replace what we are doing now. First of all to actually help people grow, and second to help reduce the deficit and debt. If we can move people forward they get off assistance and cost us less in the long run. Thirdly there is a cost to society with poverty that is not included in the assistance programs. You have blighted neighborhoods, loss of business opportunities and markets, loss of potential tax revenue at the federal and local level, and there is a human cost. People that have respect for themselves treat others with respect. It is harder for people downtrodden to find this self-respect. Part of the new programs need to include more than just a simple job. It needs to include education at two levels. Of course there is job training and traditional math, science, history etc., but since we have let this government assistance go on for generations we need to help them with family education, community development, and involvement in a positive way with society. Many people in our government do not see the growth of secondary power structures in the neighborhoods overrun by poverty. This is going to cost us greatly in the future if we do not curtail this and give the young people real opportunity to strive for. This is definitely a situation that if we want to save money in the long run we need to spend money now. It does not mean we need to increase what we are spending just change its direction.

First we need to make employment training a major priority in our programs. And it is okay that this training be based on what is needed in the current job market place. Over the last few years we have spent a fortune on unemployment benefits and we are stuck in a political argument about continuing these benefits. Yes people need help, but there are many industries struggling to find qualified people to hire. It should have been mandatory that all recipients go through training to match employers’ needs. A person can still look for a job or career in the industries they desire, but until they find a job they need to be prepared to make sacrifices and be ready to take jobs where they are available. And unemployment benefits will include help in finding jobs in the industries where they are being trained. Once trained, they would need to acquire work in their new field. Are we taking away anyone’s rights with this requirement? No. Are we inhibiting their growth with this requirement? No. Are we hurting employers with this? No, because they still interview and hire who they want from these newly trained individuals. And the trainees do get some choices. There are many different fields that need people. They can look at what they want to do and match up closely to their field in hope of finding something new as they transition. They do not get to receive benefits without some responsibility to society to move forward. This training and job requirement can be applicable to unemployment benefits, welfare, and food stamps. Some people will say you can’t force people to do something they don’t want to do. There is the opposite and that is many people that have a desire to be on their own and understand what is needed will be glad for these opportunities. There are others who say that some people won’t care, that they won’t try, and we shouldn’t make the effort. And unfortunately there is some validity to this thought. This is where the second part of training is needed.

Many people have received government assistance for so long or grew up with it they do not know anything different. Is it their fault they know no other way of life? Not necessarily, all of society has a hand in this situation. We need to rectify it with better programs. This means how we treat lifelong assistance recipients needs to take a 180 degree turn. This will not be easy either, yet it must be done. Attitudes will need to be changed in the community and with the people who work in social welfare. There is going to be new training for the receivers and the givers. As previously mentioned it will need to include family education, parent education, health education, participation in redeveloping the neighborhoods they live in, and requirements for meeting goals to become self sufficient.
As an example of the new requirements and training let’s look at food stamps. Currently people receive food stamps with no nutritional training to go along with it. This should be required. Many people will complain they see obese people receiving food stamps so they think these people aren’t hungry and shouldn’t be receiving them. The real problem is food stamp recipients buy what is cheap which is processed foods which have no nutritional value so they are overweight not because of overeating, but eating too much of the wrong food. Also there should be a limit to what can be bought with food stamps. If we, as a society, give them help there is nothing wrong with it being effective help. And that means food stamps should benefit them, not by giving them food, but food that nourishes them. Yes it is fun to eat frozen pizzas and candy, but society doesn’t have to supply these items, nor should it. This is one example of the mindset change we need to make. We can help, it just has to be the right help. Better nutrition helps all. And with this type of change the secondary benefits reduce the cost to society. Children who eat nutritionally are generally healthier. This means less cost to the welfare programs such as Medicaid.

Social programs are a great idea, but only if they achieve the goal stated in the program. Our current welfare and unemployment benefits are a cost to us that does not help the recipients. Our society needs to rethink our programs, invest in productive programs such as job retraining as a requirement to receiving benefits, invest in new forms of education to help long term recipients make the transition to self-reliance, by making effective change in one area it can also create savings in other areas, and society as a whole has to take responsibility for the mistakes of the past. Our current political processes actually prevent recipients from moving forward and have cost society and the recipients more in the long run than the little good done in the short run for an individual. Once we move people off welfare, we see multiple benefits to society from reduction in government spending to more positive contributors to our communities and our society. This won’t be easy, but to prevent more problems in the future we need to make the effort now. And with better public education (which will be discussed in greater detail later) the children affected by the current system will have a greater chance to succeed and be less reliant on help going forward.

LOBBYING:

One man, one vote.

Oh and one woman, one vote.

All in all our Republic allows us to guide our government and its policies by electing people to represent us. This is one of the greatest aspects of our government, if only it actually applied in practice.

We, the citizenry, have failed our constitution, not by what we do, but what we do not do.

And greatness still exists if we make the effort. This means we need to vote with our mind, make the effort to learn about our potential elected officials, and understand the issues that face our country. Otherwise others will do this for us, or better said for themselves.

And that is the norm nowadays. Special interests do more for themselves daily than most of us can imagine. Sure some people will rant and rail we should outlaw lobbying so special interests cannot get their way. This will not work.

Special interests will win any court battle that has any inkling of their right to free speech being taken away. And they probably should win.

The goal is twofold. One, the electorate needs to be more involved. It is our responsibility to elect our officials, if we elect representatives that know their job is dependent on how we judge them, then their votes on many issues will reflect that attitude. If we hold them accountable to what they say on the campaign trail once they get to office, then we will have a government responsive to the general public’s need and overall health of the country. The entire constitutional way of government is dependent on an electorate that is educated and involved.

Second, we can address how the special interests do business on Capitol Hill. We cannot take away anyone’s fundamental right to petition our government for a redress of grievances etc and yes this includes special interests. We can write rules and legislation that controls their unfettered access to our Congressmen and women. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees anyone more rights than what is accorded any other person. The practical answer then is to make all business from special interests only allowable in open Congressional session or more specifically committee hearings.

Allowing access to Congress through public hearings gives them the right to make their presentations and appeals, but does not give them undue influence on legislation or legislators. We, the public, can hear their views and respond to our Representatives accordingly. They would not be allowed to entertain privately at all. Visits in Congressional offices need transcriptions. This gives the public and even other special interests full knowledge of what is discussed. This allows people to rebut or support positions. This is a start and reasonable to maintain the integrity of our constitution and our government.

We cannot let our constitution be overrun by people who want to hold onto power. If we truly believe we all have equal opportunity then we cannot let special interests and the elite dictate policy. I believe in the free market system, however, the winners of the game cannot make the rules or they will make the rules to keep themselves the winners. Legislation can be enacted to equal the playing field by giving no one or group more access to our representatives than others. If we do not we will end up with the people with the most money overriding all others to completely eliminate competition to their wants or power wishes.

Or as I like to say, long live the constitution, the constitution is dying. Let's get her off life support folks.



To be continued

Platform Part I Debt and Deficit, Social Security

Introduction:

This is turning out to be a bit more than I originally planned. My thoughts keep evolving and contracting each time I think about it. If you think this may be a bit much and you are the give me the bullet points type of person, read the last paragraph for each topic. This I guess will give you a quick read and then you can decide if you want to read more details. I am not promising each topic will be all inclusive in the last paragraph, but I hope I sum up the general theme or ideas in the last paragraph. I am not writing a professional essay, but it is in essay form so pick and choose how you read through it for your own benefit

I am always envious of people who can write and communicate well. And I think this is something that can be developed in many people and is one of the reasons I will have a large section devoted to education that will have some specific ideas of how we should change our education system. This will be the last section. I think it is sad that with all the resources we have at our disposal our public education system is so weak. Way too dependent on memorization and meeting test goals then truly educating our children. I don’t know if it was me not being inspired in school or I just missed the boat, but I regret not learning to write well when I was young. And if you read this blog regularly you know I believe strong education is important for the survival of our constitution and country.

This platform has some influences and I will acknowledge some of them at the end, but I am trying to keep the themes and philosophies of the original progressive conservative party. I am just trying to apply them to today’s world. Whether or not it follows consistently I will let you decide. Basically you can be conservative, support free enterprise and market capitalism without giving away the farm to big business and wall street. And as I said this is evolving so don’t hesitate to comment, write me an email etc,,, let me know if I am on target, but if you have a completely different philosophy, well then write your own blog.

I Deficit and Debt

The Deficit:

You cannot cure our deficit problems overnight. I think that is obvious. The current situation though will not solve the problem either. First though I do like the sequester, not in its current state, but as an idea to get started. I think we all know that our federal government has much potential for reduction in spending. And this is where you start, not as a long term plan, but one ( and yes it will buy a few political points) to buy time until you can put in a real long term plan.

Long term there are many factors to consider. Not every department can be cut equally so the first cuts are more general than substantive, yet you make them to get started while you put together a group of people to study all aspects of the government. There is much overlay, duplication, and general redundancy in the many programs of our government. For example did we really need to create a whole new bureaucracy when the Homeland security dept. started?. Could this not have been woven into current defense department programs and just added to their responsibilities? The creation of a whole new department only added to the overall blight of our government and to me is the perfect example of points I want to make here.

With effort, you can find many examples of the government creating new departments just to satisfy or “solve” a problem our country is facing. Over the decades this has built up what many of us have come to fear. A government so far out of control, not just by the size, but intruding into our lives ways no one comprehended. And all this growth only feeds upon itself as each department has to justify its existence come budget time each year. No one wants to admit that they are not needed or could reduce their efforts to save money.

The legislature needs to develop or appoint a group of people to study what each department’s mission actually is and then look for ways to combine efforts, reduce to eliminate redundancy, and make effective what we do need. This would have to be various groups of people and would include some partisan groups, some of the bureaucracy, people from non partisan think tanks, education, and business. The point being an assembled group to work for a year or more to truly study what is our government, what is truly needed based on legislative action. And the goal being to find a federal government that can serve the people without overburdening us with too many regulations, unrealistic taxes, laws that only complicate our lives, but do not add benefit. And yes there are some things we need from a government. Obvious answers are military to defend us, departments to manage needs of transportation, communication, education,safety (remember one of the stated roles of the government is to defend its people so having some departments survive to allow for protection of us from ourselves is not to untowards) and guide our future based on the political will of the people. Having said all that, it is not the responsibility of the government to run everything. For what it does, it should be a clearing house of managing what happens in our country, not the driving force to solve all problems. No government can, nor should try to do that, however, over the last few decades we are using ours too much. Later in this platform I am going to make suggestions on some public works projects, but with an idea that the government shouldn’t run them, but develop the guidelines to help a public private partnership develop to allow innovation to be the drive of success of these programs. Many depression era programs were great ideas, but we put them into the government instead of trying to help them develop as industries with guidance and oversight by the government. Not for government control, but to protect and benefit the people of this country. And also some of the guidance and oversight needs to be handed off to the local governments so it best benefits the people directly involved. And this is another way to reduce our federal government. The federal government should hand off projects or help local governments work together on projects, not be the major player in regional issues. This also creates too much redundancy.

The appointed commission I mentioned before is not to legislate, but to find ways to reduce current duplication, make suggestions on how to incorporate new legislation into existing departments, broaden the oversight of fewer departments, let attrition help to reduce the number of employees and redefine roles of various upper level cabinet positions to give them much greater flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of our country. What was good for us twenty years ago, will probably not be needed twenty years from now and our government needs to know how to make these transitions. Or if something doesn’t solve the problem, the legislators learn to recognize and create new solutions while removing what isn’t working. Our current state is we just add and add and never review effectiveness. This oversized government is now strangling our country.

The Debt:

Working on reducing to eliminate the deficit will start to work on the debt. This by no means will solve it. There are some economic theorists who believe some debt for a country is good. I think most theorists to general citizenry will agree the debt we have is something entirely different than “some debt”. There is much political chatter about our debt yet we don’t have a concrete plan to make it more manageable.

Of course one of the ways to reduce debt and deficit is to raise revenues. This is not something palatable to many people. The upper crust are fighting taxes at every turn, looking for loopholes and electing anyone that says we need to lower taxes, the middle class is overburdened by a whole range of taxes, many of which are imbedded into fees charged to so many services we need to survive. And the middle class is also over burdened with fees built into services corporations provide beyond just buying their products so there is no room to increase expenses on this group, and the lower middle class just doesn’t make enough, what is popularly known now as “living wage issues”.

So to help reduce the debt and deficit where do you find new revenue. And that is a challenge, our best bet till the economy picks up more steam is to reduce spending and unneeded costs. Some revenue will be increased by an improving economy. Simple example is if people make more they are stuck paying more taxes, maybe not a higher rate, but ten percent on 50,000 is greater than ten percent on 40,000. This is nice, but nowhere near enough to effectively solve our problems.

To be effective we need to totally revamp the tax code, look at what fees are actually providing effective and beneficial services to the people who pay for them, and once the government is overhauled review who needs to pay which revenues. An example is the highway system now. Obviously charging fees to large corporations that use highways to move their goods is a reasonable fee, but how much should the gasoline tax be to the average consumer. Or should local governments get some of the revenue from gasoline taxes to help lower their tax burden on the citizenry to maintain and build local roads. Also there is increased reliance on toll roads. People are basically double taxed in this situation, you pay for gasoline tax and you pay the toll, both revenues are suppose to be used to maintain the highway you are on. Some major decisions need to be made to determine who is responsible for use of revenue in this situation. And this example is found in many of our services we use in our lives. And this example also shows the difficulty of finding new revenue. This shows reduction of size of our government and scope of what it does is going to be the primary driver of reducing the debt and deficit.

Long term we have to rely on three competing philosophies to reduce our debt. They are managing the size and scope of our government, determining which provider of services receives the available fees for the service, and finding new sources of revenue without creating an excessive reliance on that source of income. If the fee is for one project, the fee ends at the completion of the project. This way new projects can be funded without adding any new expenses to the public. This means federal and local governments have to work together to define who has the specific responsibility for what service. And if it is continuous make only one entity responsible. By reducing overlap on fees you can squeeze in new projects or use the extra revenue to lower long term expenses. Either way you have created new revenue without people actually having to pay more. Or simply put the same money we spend now is used on more expenses to get more done to reduce the deficit or used to pay more towards the debt directly.

II Social Security:

I think this can be beneficial and useful. The way it is being run is an absolute disaster. Social Security needs to be completely separated from the overall government budget. This may take some doing and over a few years since from what I understand there is so much wrapped up into the budget that just pulling it out will cause major budget fiascos. Social Security needs to be treated like a pension plan and run better than any other.

This requires some changes and new revenue. I am against handing it over to Wall Street or any other private entity. There would be too much conflict of interest for that. You need to create its’ own oversight and management. You can use people from the private sector to be involved, but with heavy congressional and executive branch oversight. This is for our people and needs to be run with the most diligent management possible. And yes it will take additional revenue beyond payroll taxes to make it solvent for years to come. We need to create the additional revenue. 401ks, IRAs, and other private retirement vehicles are good, but we have invested so much into social security we need to make it work.

Where does the additional revenue come from? Well like most pensions there will need to be some investments. Yet they need to be of high quality and potentially beneficial to the larger community and not invested for private enterprise alone. Corporate and private investment still must come from the private sector. Some ideas are seed money for public/private partnerships that are created, then the money is paid back with earnings or interest once the project becomes self sufficient. This creates a short term investment to receive some return, but keeps social security away from the mutual fund concept. The money could be mainly invested in long term projects that benefit communities like municipal bonds, utility projects, and I have some ideas that I am going to present in a public/private project section later in this platform.

Overall the social security administration needs to become a truly stand alone entity with public oversight. The additional revenue needed for long term solvency needs to be reviewed to be of the highest quality. It does not need to offer the highest return on the dollar, but stability and consistency. Individuals now get a statement of potential earnings at retirement. This must continue. People need to know how it is being run since it will remain a public entity. Oversight must include the government and independent review, but not private enterprise influence.

Quick comment on Christie scandal

I don't know if the press is making a mountain out of a molehill or not with this bridge scandal. It seems to be a bit much, there were probably some people inconvenienced or negatively impacted. What do you do though? Do people sue to get something back? What if you lost a job because you were late? And that could depend on even more circumstances such as first tardy or 20th.

Anyway pretty crazy situation. Its not like the airlines where you can offer something for compensation for delays or cancellations. They know who their ticket holders were. How do you proof you were delayed on the bridge?

On a secondary note, why is it we let corporations give us credit for future business. So we are forced to spend more money at a company we are mad at to be "compensated".

Finally if this bridge scandal had happened on an election day then they should all have go
ne to federal prison.

Basically I guess someone has to figure out if there is any cost to people on this, but since this was based on politics we also need to make sure no abuse of power is involved or this type of action is another threat to democracy.

Preamble to platform

First of all I wish you a very Happy and prosperous new year.

And this goes especially to those in the middle class. Things have not gone well for many of us for four years now and hopefully things will continue to improve. My belief is though there is much to be done to stabilize the future of the middle class both in the near and long term.

And this one of the reasons I am going to write a platform. There is not an immediate fix to make things better for the middle class. There will be work to be done and this work should include building a better future for our children.

To start though we determine what we can do and what we aren't ready to do.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" And you also have to love the constitutional idea of separation of church and state. Two separate sources of inspiration for my purposes that somewhat come together as we move forward politically.

Too many issues nowadays dominate the political landscape that interfere with trying to put some practical solutions together to help us as a nation. Many of these issues are too polarizing to be dealt with effectively in our current political landscape. And even more important I do not think we are ready as a society to resolve some of these issues. And this is one reason Education is going to be an integral part of the platform. I am talking about Math and Science, but also humanities, social sciences, art, civics, and yes even physical education. There will be more discussed in the platform.

For today I want to identify some of what we cannot achieve with legislative action at this point in time to set the stage for what we can do. And the why we shouldn't be trying at this time. Again education, education and more education is going to be very important.

One example of what we cannot legislate is Greed. Seems out of the blue to pick this topic. It sets the stage for answering some of the question of why I began with the point of God vs Government. Even if you don't believe in God or other religious morality most people will agree greed is not good. ( okay you also have to set aside a phrase from a popular movie). We cannot create laws or rules that actually outlaw greed. We have been outlawing some of the symptoms of greed, such as theft, bureaucratic rules for Wall Street, rules for behavior in organizations or politics etc.. but the actual concept of greed is hard to define in a legislative context. To overcome greed we need to evolve as a society. And this is where education plays an important role in helping us to overcome greed and become a better society. We are going to have to develop new ways to address problems of this type beyond just crime and punishment. This means a whole new way to look at some problems. My point then is that we need to learn more as a society and culture to actually find solutions to the concept of greed and how it affects us negatively.

Next level then is what do we really know about some of our social issues from pro life\abortion to gay marriage to legalization of marijuana and others. If you have feelings on one side or other on these issues you are immediately disagreeing with me that we don't know enough to decide these issues. The fact that people jump onto these issues with such emotion is one example that we should not be trying to legislate answers to these issues. So what do we do for now? And that is a hard question to answer because as part of what Christianity has taught us and our Constitution has tried to put into practice is that we should do what we can to treat others with respect and protect the rights of others. The dignity of all life is paramount, but if you look at many of the social issues there is a conflict of which side expresses the higher level of protecting life. And again more and greater education is needed to help us as a society.

My example on why I feel this way will hopefully show you why I think we need to work on what we can politically and work towards becoming a more educated society before we try to legislate, if ever, to some of our hot button social issues. We may never have to if we reach a point in our culture where have a better understanding of what we truly value.

When I was a teenager I was pretty much an agnostic. I used to make prank calls to late night tele-evangelists. From the little I knew about Christ and Christianity some of what they represented didn't mesh up. I had been to summer bible school and camps and my family had made some half hearted attempts to go to church on occasion. Yet their message seemed to contradict the concept of a loving God and to truly show respect to others. It was always about what they wanted you to do to believe. I moved on though and really didn't pay that much attention to them. It wasn't until I was in college that my thoughts, not because of any religious influence or epiphany, but because of my education changed. It was after taking a few science classes over time that I began to think about life and creation. Slowly I began to realize that everything it took to create life even in the primordial soup that something was behind it. Science became to me what we did to measure and label what was created and once that thought set in, then the idea that there was intentional creation to our universe took shape in my mind. From that series of thoughts I began to understand the idea of the respect of and dignity of life. This began a transformation in the way I looked at life and along with some other events I eventually became what is known in the political world as a pro lifer. Yet I struggle with labeling myself with that term, not because I am afraid to say I believe in the sanctity of life, but because many pro lifers seem to be this for political expediency. If you are going to be a pro lifer you need to believe in the complete concept of dignity of life from conception to grave and that means doing more than railing about how bad are abortions. And yes you can see many people on the pro choice side being that way for political expediency. No one wants to admit their side has faults, but the truth of the matter is both sides make mistakes and aren't always in the fight for the true betterment of us as a society. So education at many levels is needed for us to move forward and yes I am a pro lifer that believes the more we are educated as a society the more my point will be seen and that we will come to respect all life and make the right decisions. Again I stress the importance of better education in our society to help us with many issues that really don't belong in a legislative context.

Another example we need more education to make better decisions is whether marijuana should be legal. We have already been through two constitutional amendments just to get nowhere with deciding how to handle alcohol as a society and we still don't know anymore than we did a hundred years ago. Yes getting drop down drunk is not healthy for you, but is there harm to having friends over for dinner and drinking some wine. On the surface we can say that makes sense or that is okay, but are we sure. Where is the line or is there a line we should mark on accepting mind altering substances? One drink, five, one joint, five, do we know, and yes we can say you are too drunk to drive or you have too much THC in your blood stream to drive, but is one drink okay to drive or function? We are, as a society, trying to make these definitions, however, do we know enough not to put on hold certain decisions. Is this really a personal choice or does getting bent affect others to the point that we shouldn't allow it in society? I have not been an angel throughout my life so does that effect me being able to make a logical or rational decision on this topic.

The above is points of discussion to help understand that whenever we create a political platform or agenda there is a danger to choosing certain topics if we truly want to move us forward or solve our problems. You can say lets prioritize our issues, but more than that we need to determine what we can do practically and work forward from there. So even though I am lumping social issues into an example of separating church and state it is something we need to do to at this time. I am conservative politically, fiscally, and on social issues, yet I understand we need to address problems that benefit the whole as best we can now to set up better solutions for our future and for better decision making capabilities on our current polarizing issues.

So the proposed platform will focus on practical issues that affect most everyone's daily life. Education, taxes, budget, deficit, social security, social services, a bit on the philosophy of what or how much government should be in play, and on the philosophy that our government is here to protect and serve us and not vice versa Some aspects of the idea of respect for the dignity of life will be in the platform, yet will be seen as how I describe practical solutions to certain problems. I will also add some ideas to plan ahead projects that give us a chance to survive as a nation. Oh yeah and a bit more for education.

The strength of a democracy or republic is reflected in the strength of the middle class. Right now we are weak and it is time to start creating solutions that keep us great as a country.


Again I hope you have a great and prosperous New Year and as we move forward into this tumultuous political year hopefully we can elect the people that will put the country first and not their ambitions. Spouting phrases to make one self sound conservative or liberal just to please an audience is doing way too much damage to our country. One must be open to what we need to accomplish and what are the best ideas in deciding who we elect, not voting for those phrases or straight tickets because "by golly" I have always voted that way. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And on some side notes:

Jerry Jones still needs to fire his GM. Also how can it take you half a year to figure out you can run the ball then ignore it in the second half of the most important game of the year.

The Rangers have blown it in the last of the season the last two years and the Cowboys for the last three so for now GO MAVS.

And my jury is still out if I am excited about the changes for the Rangers, I have to wait for October, I can't be emotionally involved in another season ending dive again for any team.

Stay warm