Love My Country, Loathe My Government: united states of purple

Showing posts with label united states of purple. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Retro 20: The United States of Purple - Solving Both Our Energy and Global Warming Issues With One Plan

Due to family visits and obligations, for the next couple of days we will be reposting some previous posts. These will include some of the major issue positions we had written about in February. These positions laid out how the United States of Purple Presidency would finally get around to resolving some of the major issues facing the country, issues that the exisitng political class has never had the nerve, the intelligence, the means, or desire to resolve.

You can learn more but our movement and how to get involved, including the intitiative to install term limits on all Federal politicians, at:

www.unitedstatesofpurple.com

February 19, 2012

This is the fourth in our series of posts on how the United States of Purple drive for the Presidency would address and resolve the major issues facing the country, issues that have been around for decades. The political class has occasionally attempted to solve some of these issues but their half-hearted attempts have always failed, either because they did not understand the root causes of the problems or because actually solving a problem might alienate a few voters and endanger their much cherished reelection chances.

Without understanding the root causes of our problems, the odds of resolving these issues are minimal. As a result, when the political class actually tries to address the problem, their solutions fall flat on their face. Recent political class attempts to fix our energy dependence problem is a case in point:

- The current administration has given out Federal taxpayer grants, loans, and loan guarantees to various companies in what appears to be a a random manner. Solyndra, the California solar panel manufacturer is the purest example of failure. Shortly after getting a Federal government loan worth well over half a billion dollars, the company went bankrupt and lost the taxpayer wealth with no discernible benefit.

The shallow reason for the failure is that the company and the political class did not anticipate the changing short term market conditions, driven by the drop in foreign manufactured solar panels. The real reason for losing over half a billion dollars is that the political class did not understand the root causes and underlying dynamics of market conditions which led to the failed company.

- This deeper reason carries over to the many other failed alternative energy companies that the political class has thrown money at in a willy-nilly manner such as Beacon Power, Spectra Watt, and Evergreen Solar, all of which went out of business. They do not understand how to solve the energy problem from a root cause understanding perspective and their inability to think strategically. They have no idea how to use leverage to exponentially grow their opportunity for success.

As a result, we end up with very shallow, tactical thinking that just ends up wasting taxpayer wealth on bad investments.

- Every couple of years or so, the political class puts together a show about how they want to raise the average miles per gallon the cars in the country should achieve. These so-called CAFE standards are used for political debate and at the end of the bluster, the average miles per gallon performance standards are raised for some time in the distant, distant future. Then the politicians congratulate themselves for delaying, but not solving, the problem of energy dependence.

Their charade brings to mind an old saying that I believe is attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Question: If you called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?

Answer: It would still have four legs, just because you called a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Just because you raised the CAFE standards doesn't mean it will happen, especially if you do not have a strategic plan behind it.

- Speaking of shallow tactical thinking vs. long term strategic thinking, let's talk about Obama's Cash For Clunkers program. Recall that the President gave away thousands of dollars of taxpayer wealth to anyone who bought a new car within a specified period of time. The failed rationale for the program was to increase sales of autos in tough economic times in order to help jump start the economy and replace older, lower mileage cars with newer, higher mileage cars.

We now all know that this tactical thinking approach was a failure. We have previously reviewed a Federal government report and analysis that proved there were no incremental auto sales as a result of this program and thus, no incremental spurring of the economy or substantial increase in national gas mileage. The timing of the sales may have changed, people delayed or moved up their purchase of a car to get the free Federal tax money, but in total, no incremental sales occurred. Bad tactical thinking, small minded energy programs that do no good.

We could go on about the failure of the Federal Energy Department and the Federal political class for a long time relative to their inability to create a strategic, coherent, and effective energy policy and strategy for the country, despite having over thirty years to do so. However, the above examples get the message across, allowing the same people to do the same type of short term and tactical thinking and get the same type of bad results is not the way forward

Complicating the matter today is the rift over global warming. Some citizens and scientists say it is an issue, some citizens and scientists say it is not an issue. As usual, we end up with the typical political gridlock, name calling and inaction, that we get on all other issues in today's political climate.

I, myself, am a global warming doubter. I laid out my reasons in the following post from last week:

http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-am-global-warming-doubter-and.html

However, what if I am wrong? What if we really do need to do something about man made emissions? Do we really think that building a massive government bureaucracy called "Cap And Trade" would actually work?

We know now that the massive government bureaucracy known as Obama Care is not working nor will it ever work. With the collapse of MF Global, the 8th largest American bankruptcy ever, and the likely criminal misuse of over a billion dollars of client assets, that the massive government bureaucracy established by the Dodd-Frank financial industry reform legislation is also not working.

Other massive government bureaucracies also are dysfunctional, from Social Security To Medicare to food stamps. There is no reason to believe that a massive government global warming cap and trade program would not be a disaster

But what if you did not need a massive bureaucracy to address both global warming and our energy crisis? What if there was a long term strategic approach to both problems together rather than the failed tactical approaches to either problem? What if you could leverage the force of the market place to solve both problems, real or imagined, and not rely on the limited ability and knowledge of the 600 or so people in the White House and Congress? What if you could solve both problems with a minimal impact on freedom and citizens' wealth?

The following approach would be our best chance to do all of the above, migrating us to energy independence while cleaning up our energy foot print. This approach would involve some very simple principles:

•The approach to co-solving the global warming/energy crisis would be revenue neutral to the Federal political class, i.e. it would not put more of our wealth within the power of the politicians in this country.

•Once the approach was set, it would be hardwired for at least ten years in order to remove market uncertainty and allow businesses and citizens to compute their short term and long term personal energy plans based on a firm belief that the rules would not change midstream. As we have stated earlier this week in this series, the Obama administration has an ugly tendency to inject major uncertainty into all of the major issues of our times (tax codes, tax breaks, health care, energy policy, etc.). Uncertainty breeds fear and we do not need any fear on an endeavor such as this.

•Market forces and the personal choices of Americans would drive/leverage this process, not another massive government bureaucracy. The massive bureaucracy known as the Energy Department has been a bust for over thirty years, there is no reason to believe it or another government bureaucracy will do better going forward the next ten, twenty, or thirty years.

•The plan will be strategic and long term, no more short term failures like Cash For Clunkers, Cash For Appliances, and Cash For Caulkers, all of which not only were non-strategic but also were not successful.

•There will minimal and hopefully no failed government subsides. There should never be another Solyndra, Beacon, or Evergreen. The market, operating under a long term strategy and set of rules, should pick the winners and losers, not politicians and their cronies who have shown a propensity for only rewarding themselves and operating ill fated companies into bankruptcy. For a good review of these failures, track down a New York Times August 18, 2011 article entitled: "Number Of Green Jobs Fails To Live Up To Promises."

So what would this dual solution look like? It would have the following, long term (ten years) components

- A five dollar per barrel of oil tax/fee would be implemented and added onto to previous year's $5 tax every year for ten years, and that cost would be allowed to filter down into the production of heating oil and gasoline. Thus, ten years from now, a barrel of oil would carry an incremental $50 per barrel tax.

If everyone knew that this tax was coming and it was going to increase $5.00 every year, would would happen? People would adapt, the entire market would adapt, creating leverage for less consumption of oil and less creation of emissions that may be causing global warming.

How would they adapt? The next time the bought a car, they would likely give serious consideration to a vehicle that got great gas mileage, considering that in ten years the cost of a gallon of gas might be as much as 50% more expensive. They would likely look to better insulate their homes if the cost of heating oil was likely to be 50% higher within ten years.

They might also consider implementing active or passive solar energy equipment to avoid or minimize the higher cost of electricity and heating. All of these actions would crate more demand for energy efficient products and services, driving the down the costs of such products and services, getting more people and small businesses interested in managing their energy future if costs came down.

Auto manufacturers and heating equipment manufacturers would invest in research and technology that is more energy efficient, knowing that their customers will become more efficient and smarter shoppers in the future. That would further reduce costs and emissions. All of these actions occur because the true costs of energy, loss of freedom due to the dependency on foreign energy sources and environmental impacts, are now fully part of the end price, i.e. the $5 per gallon per year increase represents these environmental and freedom costs.

Innovators would seek out, invent, or refine better energy sources, be it natural gas, wind, solar, tidal, or other energy technologies that do not exist yet. The competitiveness of new energy sources would be enhanced by the $5 tax approach on oil, creating new domestic industries competing on a more equal basis against oil and coal (see below).

But won't that destroy the economy and give our politicians more access to our wealth. Here is the beauty of this plan: the $5 a barrel tax never makes it in the hands of the Treasury or the political class. That money is rebated back to tax payers every year to do with as they see fit. They could use it to go on vacation. They could use it for a new TV.

But many of them would use it for a better gas mileage car, a better heating system, more home insulation, etc. Thus, we have not reduced the amount of wealth in the market, we have not given it to politicians to waste, we have just reallocated it for the good of the country and the environment.

This plan has leverage, it has certainty, and it will affect far more people than anything else the political class has passed off as an energy program. Cash For Clunkers affected about 300,000 people. I would bet Cash For Appliances and Cash For Caulkers affected for fewer. Their results were pitiful. Practically everyone in the country would be affected be this program. The key is not allowing the political class to get their hands on this additional money.

How much money might this get each of the 140,000,000 U.S. personal taxpayers every year? The U.S. uses about 19 million of oil a day. If you go through the math of 19 million, 365 days, $5 a barrel, you would end up sending each of the 140 million taxpayers a check for just under $250 the first year. It doesn't seem like much but the next year that might get twice that much since the tax would be raised another $5, resulting in more money coming in for distribution.

However, if the plan works, there should be less oil consumption the following year. Thus, rather than $250, assume that consumption goes down 10%, resulting in a second year payback/rebate of $250 and $225 (10% less) or $475. If you continue this model for ten years, an additional $5 tax and an additional 10% decrease in consumption, by the tenth year, each American taxpayer is getting over an annual $1,600 credit that they can use for weatherizing their homes, putting in solar equipment, etc.

A simple but elegant solution: less consumption, less emissions, certainty in the market, a leveraging of the entire market structure, no massive and doomed to failure cap and trade bureaucracy, no energy technologies, and our politicians get no more of our money in the process.

However, I cannot take credit for the plan and its elegance. Many of the details and philosophy of such an approach are well laid out in a September 6, 2010 article in Fortune magazine, that was written by Nina Easton and which covered the above plan proposed by two Republican Congressman, Jeff Flake and Bob Inglis.

- But oil is not the only "bad" environmental fuel. What about coal? Different fuel, same approach. All you have to do is come up with a similar tax that is equivalent to the $5 per barrel oil tax discussed in detail above and apply that to every ton of coal that is mined or refined.

By imposing such a tax or fee, utilities and coal companies would be falling all over themselves to improve coal's performance and environmental impacts. One additional facet that could be included in coal is to reduce that fee as the industry meets tighter environmental standards, i.e. clean up your act, reduce your tax. But the coal tax also never makes into the hands of the political class. It is rebated back to utilities and their users in an annual coal tax rebate.

- Two steps from "Love My Country, Loathe My Government," would also go a long way to fixing our energy and environmental problems. Step 24 would establish a national research program to facilitate the cleaning up of coal and its by products. In this country we have a lot of coal. If we could clean it up, it would go a long way to reducing our emissions, reducing our overall energy costs, and make us much more energy independent.

- Step 25 would implement a serious discussion and initiative with China and India, two countries whose use of coal and the dirty after effects it produces is growing very, very quickly. What global warming enthusiasts always fail to appreciate is that even if the U.S. cleans up its act in emissions, it will have no impact on the global environment and global warming if China and India, big and growing coal users and polluters, do not do the same thing.

We would end up knee capping our own economy for no reason if China and India do not clean up their coal act and continue to increase the emissions they throw up into the atmosphere every day. That is why Step 24, cleaning up the bad after effects of coal, needs to be a world community effort, not just a U.S. effort. And the political class needs to start talking to China and India, to name just a few of the emerging economies, to clean up their coal act also and in cooperation with each other.

- But this is a ten year plan, what could be done prior to seeing the benefits of this simple, yet elegant approach to two problems? Two things come to mind. An Associated Press report on January 11, 2012 reported that the EPA had put together its first database of U.S. locations that emit harmful pollutants into the atmosphere.

According to the database, 72% of all U.S. emissions come from U.S. power plants, many of which burn coal to produce the electricity we need everyday to get through life. If one assumes this database is correct, why wouldn't we as a nation look at the top 30 or so plants and work to clean them up, if they are the leading polluters of the 72%.

You probably do not want to shut them down since they are probably also the larger creators of electricity. The local and national and national economies would be hard hit if these facilities were shut down and stopped creating electricity But it does not mean that the best and brightest people we have should not attack these 30 locations and do all they can to fix their emission volumes. This would one short term way of addressing the potential of global warming.

- A second short term way ties into the $5 a barrel tax on oil. If we are really series about weaning ourselves off of foreign energy sources, then one approach is to start taxing those people that insist on buying oversized/low mileage vehicles for no business reason whatsoever. This is a personal prejudice, but I see no reason why anyone needs to own a Hummer. I see no reason why someone needs to buy a large, low mileage pick up truck to go buy milk.

These vehicles serve no personal purpose at all.

Now, I hate to act like a politician here and restrict anyone's right of choice. If the political class is not serious about energy independence and global warming than this should not even be a discussion since it is intrusive into freedom of choice, an act I usually find repulsive.

But if we are serious, than I would start putting a purchase tax on all vehicles, like large Hummers, that do not meet a reasonable gas and emission target. Next year, I would increase that target, the following year I would increase it again. And again and and again.

Americans could still use their freedom of choice to buy a Hummer or a large low mileage pick up truck for personal use (if these vehicles are being used in legitimate business operations, they purchase tax would be waived). This plan would not take that options away from them. They would just have to pay more for this sales choice.

Two things would happen under this plan. First, auto companies would get really serious about improving emissions and gas mileage performance on these types of vehicles. If they did not, their vehicles would become less and less financially attractive over time, given the increase in the purchaser tax.

Second, some customers would start to ask if they really do need a large Hummer to take their kid to the soccer game, a family sedan with better mileage and no purchase tax would be just fine. In both cases, you get leveraged behavior across a large swath of the marketplace that reduces consumption of foreign energy sources and cleaner air.

This would not be a small tax. I would start it at $1000 and increase by $1000 every year for ten years. Within three years you have added $3,000 the cost of the car and should see results. If you do not, increase the amount until you do see positive behavior change.

And the best, most brilliant part of this approach: none of the purchase tax money goes to the political class. It goes into the rebate pot of money we discussed above, back to the 140,000,000 American tax filers each year and back into the economy, not the black hole of waste in Washington.

- While this is a simpler, more leveragable, and more elegant approach than anything our political class could come up with, it is no small task. That is why Step 23 in "Love My Country, Loathe My Government" is so important. Step 23 would put together a panel of smart Americans to operationalize this plan. They would use their vast knowledge and expertise to refine the Hummer purchase tax amount and increase, develop the coal tax we discussed above, determine if $5 dollars a barrel of oil tax increase very year is enough to change behavior, propose ways to fix the emissions on those top 30 emitters of global warming gases, etc.

They would develop and present the plan to Congress and the President, all of whom would vote thumbs up or thumbs down on the plan's entirety. They would not be able to adjust anything since 1) they are politicians, not experts, 2) they would adjust things based on personal political needs and campaign supporters and not the good of the country, and 3) if they start to nit pick the details then nothing would ever get finalized.

Let the expert panel do the hard work, trust their expertise, and let's get on with things. Establish some long term certainty in the market so that businesses, providers, and consumers of power know the ramifications of their own actions and plans, actions and plans that are not held hostage by the whims and uncertainty of the political class.

If the political class votes negative on the overall plan, then it would be pretty obvious that they really do not want to solve the problems of energy independence or global warming. Or they want to solve the problem where they control everything, restricting freedom of choice, building large, ineffective bureaucracies, and collecting and wasting more of our individual wealth.

We know that this approach never works, that is how we got stuck with the Federal Energy Department, Solyndra, and Cash For Clunkers, all of which were clunkers of ill repute and wasters of taxpayer wealth of large disrepute. In the United States of Purple, simple, elegant, long term, leveragable, and strategic is the only efficient and effective way to solve problems.

Political class bureaucracies like their proposed cap and trade lunacy is not the way to go. The political class way leaves us right where we were when we stood in long gas lines in the 1970s, stranded and helpless in the middle of nowhere.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

We invite all readers of this blog to visit our new website, "The United States Of Purple," at:

http://www.unitedstatesofpurple.com/

The United States of Purple is a new grass roots approach to filling the office of President of The United States by focusing on the restoration of freedom in the United States, focusing on problem solving skills and results vs. personal political enrichment, and imposing term limits on all future Federal politicians. No more red states, no more blue states, just one United States Of America under the banner of Purple.

The United States Of Purple's website also provides you the formal opportunity to sign a petition to begin the process of implementing a Constitutional amendment to impose fixed term limits on all Federally elected politicians. Only by turning out the existing political class can we have a chance of addressing and finally resolving the major issues of or times.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at www.loathemygovernment.com. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.cato.org

http://www.robertringer.com/

http://realpolichick.blogspot.com/

http://www.flipcongress2010.com/

http://www.reason.com/

http://www.repealamendment/

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Retro 17 - United States Of Purple Presidency Platform - Oout With The Old, In With The Solutions

Friday, February 24, 2012

Cold In Maine; Smug, Wasteful, and Impotent In Washington - Isn't It A Shame

Fascinating and depressing article in the February 24, 2012 issue of The Week magazine called "When Cold Kills - The frigid Maine winter, says Dan Barry, can turn lethal when the fuel oil runs out." This article originally appeared in the New York Times earlier this year.

The article focuses on Robert and Wilma Hartford who had recently moved into a poorly insulated house outside of Dixfield, Maine. Robert was a former stone mason who had traveled the country applying his trade and skills. However, Robert (age 68) now has a bad shoulder and Wilma (age 71) needs a wheel chair. They survive on $1,200 a month and have received about $360 in heating assistance. Because of their financial situation, like others mentioned in the story, they are not financially able to switch to more efficient, less expensive forms of home heating, locking them into their current financial duress of increasingly expensive oil home heating.

Even though it has been a relatively mild winter across the country, it still gets pretty cold up in Maine. Unfortunately, with rising heating oil prices, a fixed income, and health issues, this has placed a severe financial hardship on the Hartfords. The story revolves about their struggle to heat their poorly insulated home and the compassionate heating oil supplier that wants to help them but has already extended over $700 worth of credit in previous oil deliveries with little hope of ever recovering that money.

The heating oil supplier wants to help, he is a decent and compassionate human being, but he also needs to run a profitable business if he wants to stay in business. The story describes how this supplier is so torn up by the problem that he is under a doctor's care for stress.

The story goes on to describe how some Maine residents are keeping warm. Some sit in their idling cars with the car heater at full blast to warm up and then rush into their bedrooms and get under the bed covers. They buy portable, and more dangerous kerosene heaters, and hope they can afford kerosene. They look to their family and churches for help.

The Hartfords now have to heat their home by turning on the electric stove and burners and hope to spread what little heat they can get from that source throughout the house with a small fan. They ran their clothes dryer hose back into the basement to utilize the heat coming out of the dryer to keep their basement pipes from freezing. This obviously begs the question that if they do not have the money today to pay for home heating oil, will they have the money next month to pay for what is likely to be a very high electric bill from running the stove and clothes dryer to generate heat.

And in the most heartbreaking part of the story, Rober Hartford shows up at the heating oil supplier's business and offers to trade the title to the family car for a delivery of heating oil.

Part of the problem, according to the article, is that the Obama administration and Congress have cut the government subsidy for its energy assistance program. They have made it harder to qualify for Federal energy help and they reduced the amount of help available, on average by about 40%, from $804 to $483. This 40% drop is more impactful when you consider that the average price of heating oil is up $.40 or about 12% over the past year.

Now, I have never been a fan of large government bureaucracies, mostly because they are wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective. They tend to be corrupted from day one and never deliver on their promise. However, that does not mean there is not a place for a program to help Americans in need of a little help. And certainly, keeping people warm is such a program.

It has always been our theory that if government and the political class stopped doing a lot of things very badly and focused on just a few major things, and did those few things well, we as Americans would be way ahead of where we are now. We are the wealthiest country in the world, we should be able to do a much better job of feeding the hungry and warming the cold. Isn't it a shame that we do not?

Isn't it a shame that the Obama administration spent well over a billion dollars on an unnecessary and un-Constitutional military excursion in Libya? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfords might be a little warmer today of Obama had obeyed the Constitutional and our laws and not inserted us into the Libyan conflict.

Isn't it as shame that politicians like Obama continue to host campaign fund raising dinners that cost anywhere from $35,000 to $70,000 per person to attend in these hard economic times? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfords might be a little warmer today if our priorities were changed so that we spent $35,000 on home heating assistance rather than on one lame dinner with one lame politician?

Isn't it a shame that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives and employees received millions of dollars in government salary bonuses for operating two of the most dysfunctional enterprises in the history of America? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfords might be a little warmer today if those unnecessary bonus payouts were put back into the energy assistance program.

Isn't it a shame that the U.S. Navy spent over $300 million to build two ships, the USNS Benjamin Isherwood and the USNS Henry Eckford, that it never used, simply built them and than junked them? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfords might be a little warmer today if the military did not waste hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars on unnecessary armaments?

(http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2011/07/us-navy-ships-for-sale-cheap-never-used.html)

Isn't it a shame that the Obama administration and Washington political class allow anywhere between $60 and $90 billion a year of Medicare resources to be lost to waste and criminal fraud activities? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfords might be a little warmer today if the Federal government knew how to run an efficient, effective, and less expensive Medicare program.

Isn't it a shame that the Obama administration and the Washington political class allow anywhere between $30 and $40 billion a year of Medicaid resources to be lost to waste and criminal fraud activities? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfords might be a little warmer today if the Federal government knew how to run an efficient, effective, and less expensive Medicaid program.

Isn't it a shame that the Obama administration and the Washington class allow about $70 billion a year of Social Security resources to be lost to waste and criminal fraud activities? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfords might be a little warmer today if the Federal government knew how to run an efficient and effective Social Security program.

Isn't a shame that the Obama administration, the IRS, and the Washington political class fail to collect over $300 billion worth of taxes a year from tax evaders? Think about how many Americans like the Hartfordss might be a little warmer today if the IRS actually collected the taxes it is supposed to collect.

Isn't it a shame that the Obama administration and its cronyism pals has wasted at least hundreds of millions of dollars in failed alternative energy investments in companies such as Solyndra, Everygreen, Spectra, Beacon, Tesla, Fisker, and other companies who had strong ties to major Obama election campaign fund raisers? Think about how many Americans might be a little warmer today if the Federal government stopped wasting taxpayer money in markets it has no clue about.

Isn't it a shame that the Federal government wasted well over $400,000 in a NYC fly over three years ago to take a picture of the Statue Of Liberty, a picture that could have more easily and much more cheaply been created using Photoshop? Think about how many Americans might be a little warmer today if that $400,000 could be diverted to heating assistance.

Isn't it a shame that billions of taxpayer dollars will likely never be recovered because of the unnecessary financial bailout of General Motors and Chrysler? Think about how many Americans might be a little warmer today if that unnecessary bailout had not occurred and the auto companies went through the regular bankruptcy proceedings?

Isn't it a shame that Nevada Senator Harry Reid gets Federal funding for the annual Nevada Cowboy Poetry contest? Think about how many Americans might be a little warmer today if that funding went to helping out truly needy Americans rather than a poetry contest?

Isn't it a shame that audits of the Housing and Urban Development Federal organization show that it wastes or mishandles about $4.5 billion a year? Think about how many Americans might be a little warmer today if HUD actually knew how to operate efficiently.

Isn't it shame that Federal politicians divert about $16 billion a year to their campaign fund raisers and political campaign conributors under the guise of "earmarks," that serve no purpose except to help incumbent politicians remain in office? Think about how many Americans might be a little warmer today if those earmarks refreshed government energy assistance programs rather than refreshing another term in office for a politician.

Okay, you get the idea, we could go on and on about similiar situaiotns of waste. We have allowed our politicians to skew and distort our nation's priorities, feeding taxpayer wealth into this cesspool of waste, criminal fraud, personal political gain, and inefficiency while people like the Hartfords try to barter the family car for a little heating oil. Disgraceful.

Again, I have never been a fan of large, ineffective government programs. However, that does not mean I am so uncompassionate that I do not realize there is a need to help those less fortunate within our society. The premise for our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government" was that we needed government and politicians to focus on a much smaller but better set of higher priorities than what they do now: they currently focus on nothing but try to execute a much wider set of low priorities.

This approach to governing has gotten us into the mess we have today. And this is also why no American, rich or poor, should see any increase in their current level of taxation. The political class in this country does not deserve access to any more of our wealth, they already have too much access and waste far too much of it on behavior and programs like those listed above.

A famous line from the movie "Animal House" goes like this: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." For the President and those sitting in Congress, I would revise the line to read: "Smug, wasteful and impotent is no way to run a country." Not when you waste hundreds of billions of dollars a year while some Americans cannot get warm.

Please investigate our campaign for the Presidency at the United States of Purple website listed below including a way to help us impose term limits on the smug, wasteful and impotent political class in Washington. I guarantee you that taxes will not be raised but people will be warmer under our plan for the rewiring of the nation's political mess.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

We invite all readers of this blog to visit our new website, "The United States Of Purple," at:

http://www.unitedstatesofpurple.com/

The United States of Purple is a new grass roots approach to filling the office of President of The United States by focusing on the restoration of freedom in the United States, focusing on problem solving skills and results vs. personal political enrichment, and imposing term limits on all future Federal politicians. No more red states, no more blue states, just one United States Of America under the banner of Purple.

The United States Of Purple's website also provides you the formal opportunity to sign a petition to begin the process of implementing a Constitutional amendment to impose fixed term limits on all Federally elected politicians. Only by turning out the existing political class can we have a chance of addressing and finally resolving the major issues of or times.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at www.loathemygovernment.com. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com/
http://www.flipcongress2010.com/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.repealamendment

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

United States of Purple Presidency - Some Final Words And Observations

We have spent the last week or so presenting the solutions that the United States of Purple Presidency will bring to the nation's major problems. These problems have been plaguing the nation for decades and include the lost war on drugs, failing public schools, leaky borders and the resultant illegal immigration, a counterproductive tax code, and skyrocketing national debt.

During those decades, the political class, Republicans and Democrats, have proven that they are incapable and/or unwilling to put aside their drive for personal enrichment to address the root causes of our problems and launch courageous solutions to them. The United States of Purple solutions will work because we examine the root causes of the problems and do not care what lobbyists or campaign fund raisers are hurt by the implementing real solutions to our real problems. These solutions can be reviewed by reading the posts of this blog over the past week or so.

Today's post cleans up some loose ends and provides some additional details supporting our approach:

- This week, Federal law enforcement authorities arrested a Moroccan citizen in Washington D.C. who planned to carry out a suicide attack in the Capital building. The man thought he was dealing with fellow terrorists when he bought what he thought were suicide vest components and explosives. Fortunately, the man was dealing with FBI undercover agents who had been keeping round the clock observation of the man for about a year. The materials they provided to the suspect were dummy explosives.

How is this related to the issues we discussed this week? The man is in the country illegally and had been illegally in this country for years. How many other potential bombers are likely already in this country or will be able to easily enter the country via our leaky borders, potential bombers who may not end up dealing with undercover agents and fake explosives? The need to secure our borders is made more vivid by this failed attack.

- One of the tenets in our income tax reform proposal was to change the situation where about 45% of Americans pay absolutely no Federal income tax. While our plan would increase the effective tax rate for wealthier Americans, we overlooked a way to get more Americans to have "skin in the game," i.e. pay at least some share of taxes.

Our proposed income tax reform package reduced the number of Americans not paying income taxes by about 50%. However, that meant about 24% of Americans would still pay no income taxes but still get all of the benefits of the Federal government. Thus, one enhancement we need to add to our income tax reformation is a minimum Federal income tax on all Americans of at least 3%, i.e. all Americans will pay at least a 3% income tax regardless of their income.

This minimum tax rule would collect about $16 billion a year in additional Federal income taxes, taxes that would be directed towards paying down our national debt. The political class would never get their hands on this money. The tax percentage of 3% would be reduced to 2% once the national debt was reduced 20%, it would drop to 1% once the national debt was reduced 40%, and would disappear once the national debt was reduced by 50%.

By taxing every single American, the leverage that could asserted on the political class to finally get our out of control spending under control would increase significantly. For the first time in a long time, every America has an incentive to force the political class to cut government spending and waste since they will see the impact in their own wallets when that is done. It all has to do with leverage and taking everyone's money is leverage.

- We proposed a series of both long term and short term solutions to the the Social Security system. This system, in reality a giant Ponzi scheme, is about to collapse as more and more people will soon be receiving Social Security checks (as a result of Baby Boomers retiring) and there will be fewer and fewer working Americans to provide the wealth to fund these checks.

Our short term solutions would shore up the financials of the system so that the neediest elderly Americans would be more likely to get support in their older years. We proposed a long term solution which is to find a way out of the current system altogether. Social Security as a retirement option stinks. It would be far more beneficial to put Social Security funds into individual investment accounts than to give it to the government and the politicians to waste.

We know this is the case because of the studies cited and our own analysis that we did which prove, without a doubt, that the Social Security system is a horrible way to save for retirement. Chile has proven our point since for the past few decades, Chile did exactly what we proposed: they eliminated a centralized, government/political class controlled retirement scheme and replaced it with tax deferred personal savings accounts that enabled Chileans to invest their retirement funds anyway they wanted.

Prior to May 1, 1981, the Chilean government run retirement system required contributions from workers and was clearly in financial trouble. Instead of making minor changes, like reducing benefits or raising the tax rates, which would have fixed the problems for a short time only, José Piñera, Secretary of Labor and Pensions under Augusto Pinochet, decided to do a major overhaul of the system:

"We knew that cosmetic changes — increasing the retirement age, increasing taxes — would not be enough. We understood that the pay-as-you-go system had a fundamental flaw, one rooted in a false conception of how human beings behave. That flaw was lack of a link between what people put into their pension program and what they take out. So we decided to go in the other direction, to link benefits to contributions. The money that a worker pays into the system goes into an account that is owned by the worker."

This is exactly what the United States Of Purple proposes. How did it work out in Chile after 30 years? Consider the findings of John Tierney, a writer for the New York Times, who wrote about his personal findings in 2009.

Tierny apparently went to visit Pablo Serra, a friend of his in Santiago, Chile a few years ago where they compared notes on how well each of their respective retirement programs were doing. It turned out that they both had been contributing about the same amount of money, so the comparison was apt, and startling, said Tierney:

Pablo could retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 Tierney was told by the Social Security Administration that he would be receiving.
Pablo could also choose to retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would almost triple the $25,000 pension promised to Tierney by Social Security who would have had to wait an additional year.
Pablo could also choose to retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and also a one-time cash payment of $223,000, an option not available under Social Security.

Looks like our plan might be viable and certainly a better deal for Americans than the current Social Security set up.

But this is only one case. What has the more global impact been? Tienery continued the positive news in the rest of his article:

According to Investors Business Daily, the average annual rate of return for Chilean workers' retirement accounts over the last 30 years has exceeded 9% annually, after inflation, whereas “U. S. Social Security pays a 1% to 2% (theoretical) rate of return, and even less for new workers.”
As expected, the capital accumulated in these privatized accounts have generated substantial growth in Chile’s economy, making it one of the most stable and prosperous nations in the region.
High domestic savings and investment rates helped drive Chile’s economy to average growth rates of 8% during the 1990s. The privatized national pension plan (AFP) has encouraged domestic investment and contributed to an estimated total domestic savings rate of approximately 21% of GDP.

Unbelievable. Compare this to our 2-3% annual economic growth over the past decade or so, fiscal insolvency fast approaching for our Social Security system, our low savings rate, and the other bad economic news the U.S. has been experiencing. But Pinera anticipated all of this positive economic momentum thirty years ago:

“The Chilean worker is an owner, a capitalist. There is no more powerful way to stabilize a free-market economy and to get the support of the workers than to link them directly to the benefits of the market system. When Chile grows at 7 percent or when the stock market doubles … Chilean workers benefit directly, not only through high wages, not only through more employment, but through additional capital in their individual pension accounts.”

Sounds like a win-win solution to me. However, it is a solution you will never see form the Democrats or the Republicans. Only the United States of Purple will have the courage and the leadership to pull this off, even though the proven benefits and upside are so obvious and enormous.

- Regarding our lost war on drugs, we discussed how the lost war is tearing Mexico and other countries apart as the drug cartels become more and more powerful, rich, and violent. Since we posted that solution a few days ago, we have come across some more examples of the absurdity and the carnage from this lost war on drugs that should have been included in that post to illustrate the need to change our strategies:

According to an article in the January 27, 2012 issue of The Week magazine, five of the top ten deadliest cities in the world, outside of war zones, are now in Mexico, according to a Mexican research group. 40 of the top 50 deadliest cites were in Latin America. One cannot help but conclude that many of these dubious rankings are a result of the violence spawned off of the war on drugs.
A recent Associated Press report reviewed how the bodies of two decapitated people were found inside the burning remains of an SUV at the entrance to one of Mexico's most luxurious malls. The mall was located in an area that was the location of major international corporations, diplomats and some of Mexico's wealthiest individuals. There is little doubt on the part of the police that these were drug cartel related killings.

Imagine living in a country where just going out shopping can be fraught with concerns about violence and killings. Our war on drugs is a big part of the violence and breakdowns in sovereignty that we are witnessing right in front of us.

- Our proposed solution to our illegal immigration problem needs to be fashioned so that we still have a viable, coherent, and effective immigration strategy, not a lock down the borders and let no one into the country strategy. Our plan is to lock down the borders but only allow in the people we want to allow in.

A primary reason for that is the energy, the fresh ideas, and strong work ethic that many immigrants bring to our country, our culture and our economy. This was reinforced in a short article in the January 20, 2012 issue of The Week magazine, an article that was originally from Reuters.

According to the article, immigrants founded almost half of the recent, top start-up companies in the U.S. Of the top 50 venture-backed companies today, 23 have at least one immigrant founder and 37 employ an immigrant in a key management position.

We need an immigration policy that encourages these types of immigrants so to come to our shores and discourages and blocks illegal immigrants with intentions of blowing up themselves and the Capital building from ever getting close to our borders.

- We proposed a solution that would address both the global warming issues and the fact that this country does not have, or ever had, a coherent and strategic national energy policy that would eliminate our dependence on foreign energy sources. Our solution was market driven, leveraged the values, freedom of choice, and needs of every American, did not require a massive new Federal bureaucracy, and greatly minimized the role of government and the political class in attaining our goals.

We pointed out this was in stark contrast to what the Obama administration wants to do. They want to install a massive new Federal government bureaucracy under their Cap and Trade strategy. Under their plan, a new market would be created that involved energy and carbon credits and offsets, all run out of a central government organization. In other words, their plan would credit a new currency in energy credits that would be managed by political type people.

The amount of fraud and mismanagement that could happen in this type of craziness is unimaginable. Given how poorly the political class manages existing bureaucracies, there is no reason to believe they would be able to handle something as widespread and complicated as energy usage.

This point was proven in an article in the March 14, 2011 issue of Business Week, "The Great European Carbon Heist." Apparently, Europe already has a Cap and Trade system in place but according to the article, "The Continent's carbon trading market has become an easy mark for cyber-criminals."

The article starts off reporting on a case involving a company called Blackstone Global Ventures, a small Czech firm that trades emissions permits through the European Union's market. One day, the Blackstone people came to work to find out that a cyber-criminal had stolen 475,000 of Blackstone's permits worth about $9.7 million.

But Blackstone is not alone. In the five months prior to their loss, over $80 million worth of carbon credits had been stolen throughout all of Europe and where they went and who stole them is still unsolved as of the writing of the article. So much for Europe becoming the benchmark of how to run a successful cap and trade program.

Given our politicians' inability to run any efficient government organization and the already crime riddled Cap and Trade experiences in Europe, it is clear that our decentralized, individual approach to solving the global warming and energy independence problems are the better solution, if only because government bureaucracy is minimized.

There you have it, our solutions to all of the nation's problems. It is high time that we try some new approaches and fresh ideas, lord knows that waiting for the Democrats and Republicans to solve anything is long overdue and high unlikely to occur. That is why the United States Of Purple is the only chance of finally solving something, anything.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

We invite all readers of this blog to visit our new website, "The United States Of Purple," at:

http://www.unitedstatesofpurple.com/

The United States of Purple is a new grass roots approach to filling the office of President of The United States by focusing on the restoration of freedom in the United States, focusing on problem solving skills and results vs. personal political enrichment, and imposing term limits on all future Federal politicians. No more red states, no more blue states, just one United States Of America under the banner of Purple.

The United States Of Purple's website also provides you the formal opportunity to sign a petition to begin the process of implementing a Constitutional amendment to impose fixed term limits on all Federally elected politicians. Only by turning out the existing political class can we have a chance of addressing and finally resolving the major issues of or times

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at www.loathemygovernment.com. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com/
http://www.flipcongress2010.com/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.repealamendment/

Sunday, February 12, 2012

United States Of Purple - Solving Our High Health Care Costs Without Obama Care

This post continues our plans for the United States of Purple Presidency drive where we provide solutions to some of the major issues facing the country. Today's post is nothing new, it is basically a review of past posts that addressed the fatally flawed legislation known as Obama Care.

That effort was supposed to address and solve the problem of escalating health care costs in this nation. Instead, it has and it will continue to cause significant financial, economic, and employment strains and crises on the nation:

- Rather than reduce the national debt, it will add significantly to the country's crippling debt problem:

The head actuary of Medicare and Medicaid recently announced the results of his analyses which concluded that Obama Care will add more than $300 billion to the national debt in the first ten years of Obama Care vs. if it had not been implemented.
Obama and the Democrats originally told the nation that Obama Care would reduce the national debt by $125 billion in its first ten years. However, this Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate did not include all of the components and costs of the legislation that ended up being included in the final law, additional costs that were estimated to be about $105 billion by an Associated Press investigative report.
A major component of the law that contributed to the false positive financials was the CLASS long term care program. However, this program was written so poorly and was so out of touch with reality that it resulted in offering long term care for much more money for much less benefits vs. other, private market long term care programs. Thus, the Federal government cancelled this ill fated program, wiping out the false $85 billion positive impact embedded in the Obama Care business case.

- The legislation will force every American to purchase health care insurance, whether they want to or need to. Any government forcing any citizen to purchase something that the political class operating that government entity deems necessary is not conducive to freedom and democracy.

- At the time the law was enacted, there was estimated to be about 30 million Americans who did not have health insurance coverage (and 270 million who did). This legislation was supposed to significantly reduce this number.

However, the law was written so poorly that it created a situation where it will become less expensive for businesses to cancel their employee health insurance plans and pay a small Obama Care fine than to continue their health insurance programs. Thus, rather than reducing the number of Americans without health care insurance, many companies will likely cancel their employee health insurance and leave tens of millions of more Americans without coverage, the exact opposite of what Obama Care was supposed to do.

Companies that have already stated that this is a distinct possibility is AT&T, John Deere, Caterpillar, and McDonald's.

- If a company has over 50 full time employees, it either has to provide health care insurance coverage for its employees or pay a fine. Thus, companies that have less than 50 full time employees are unlikely to hire people and go over 50 and incur a substantial cost of health care insurance or pay the Obama Care fine.

Those companies that are a little over 50 employees are likely to reduce their full time work force and get under 50 full time employees in order to avoid health care costs. Thus, Obama Care will, and is probably already, contribute to our chronic unemployment and underemployment as companies struggle to avoid adding unnecessary costs to their business operations.

- The law was written so poorly that many Americans who could afford to pay for their health care insurance will get a free ride on the back of the Federal government and the American taxpayer because of how the law treats Social Security income. Thus, Americans that could pay for their own insurance will not have to, adding to the negative impact this legislation will have on our national debt.

- The law was written so poorly that it will impact Americans' decisions on marriage, retirement, etc. The details of how these impacts will occur have been discussed in previous posts.

- The law will impose almost 2,000 new rules and regulations on Americans. You cannot help but reduce liberty and freedom of choice when the Federal government and the political class have almost 2,000 more ways to control our lives.

- The law was written so poorly that it never took the time to understand the root causes of our escalating health care costs, causes that are listed below. If you do not know what is causing your problem, you have virtually no chance of resolving that problem. Obama Care is a case study in not understanding what is causing the problem.

- Since the political class and Obama did not understand the importance and contributions of the root causes to this problem, rather than come up with simple, elegant solutions, they took the tried and doomed-to-failure approach of creating a massive, inefficient, and ineffective government bureaucracy.

- Related to this failed understanding of understanding root causes was the simple fact that the Obama administration never did a "follow the money" analysis. In other words, if an American spends a dollar on health care, where does that dollar go and who gets the benefit of that dollar: doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, lawyers, etc.?

Until you can understand where all these dollars are going, ever increasing the nation's health care costs, you will never be able to control those dollars.

As readers of this blog know, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to name a Federal government bureaucracy that actually solves problems with a minimum amount of waste and fraud. These situations never occur.

So how do we solve this critical crisis for the country? Let's hypothesize what some of the root causes of our problem is:

Americans eat too much.
Americans eat too much of the wrong kind of food.
Americans do not exercise enough.
Americans smoke too much.
Americans' average age is getting older as the Baby Boomers age, leading to more old age related diseases like dementia.
The country is in desperate need for reasonable, fair, and compassionate tort reform in the health care field.
Medicare and Medicaid lose between $90 and $130 billion a year to waste and criminal fraud activities.
We have no idea where our health care dollars end up relative to doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.

Nowhere in this list of eight root causes does it say: "Solve with a massive Federal bureaucracy that adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt, inhibits job creation, affects Americans' life decisions, inhibits freedom of choice and liberty, raises taxes, causes tens of millions of Americans to lose their companies' health care insurance, etc." The way to solve the problem is as follows:

- The first four reasons listed above cannot be solved with increased taxation and increased government intervention in the market. These are public health root causes. They should be addressed as a public health crisis, not as a government bureaucracy crisis. Find reasons and methods to continue the reduction in smoking across America. Find ways to encourage America to start eating better and to start exercising more.

Why should we take on these public health issues? Consider some information from a previous post (June 14, 2011) we did on Obama Care:

*********
- In a March 1, 2010 article in Fortune magazine, an interview of Dr. Delose Cosgrove, CEO of the renowned Cleveland Clinic, revealed the following knowledge, from a leading expert in health care:

*Obesity accounts for at least 10% of the health care costs in the United States.
*Smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise accounts for 40% of the premature deaths in this country.
*These same factors account for the 70% of the health care costs associated with chronic diseases such as heart disease in the United States.
* Smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise account for 75% of the nation's total health care costs.

Thus, according to an expert's view, the root causes driving our high health care costs are public health related questions: diet, exercise and smoking. Rather than attack these true causes of high costs with a public health care effort, Obama Care basically constructed a massive taxation process and bureaucracy that adds complexity and taxation without solving the underlying public health causes.

Need more, consider the findings from the National Academy of Sciences, an independent Federal agency:

*The United States spends more on health care per person than any other country in the world.
*Despite the high expenses, life expectancy in the U.S. is less than the life expectancies in many other developed countries.
*Smoking and obesity are the primary factors driving the lower life expectancy, and likely higher health care costs, in this country.

*******

Thus, the experts realize how much incredible progress could be made by solving these public health issues. That is who should be providing answers, subject matter experts, not the political class.

- Americans, on average, are getting older. That is why we need a focused, comprehensive national initiative to solve the challenge of elderly diseases, especially dementia and Alzheimer's. As the Baby Boomers age, failure to solve these types of diseases will crash our health care system and bankrupt our country regardless of what Washington does.

- Many states have successfully and compassionately reformed their legal processes and laws in the health care field. These reforms have already dramatically reduced the cost of practicing medical and the associated health care costs in their states. They are proven remedies to the national problem.

Unfortunately, Obama Care gives minimal lip service to this remedy. It is probably a safe assumption that the legal lobbyists were out in force to prevent such tort reforms from making it into the final Obama Care legislation.

- We have already discussed the critical need we have to make government more efficient, effective, and fraud resistant. The wasting of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid must end if we are to have enough resources available to grow our economy, handle our health care crises, provide tax relief, and increase freedom.

- I recently went for a routine blood test panel. Fortunately, my insurance company will cover the costs because if it did not, I would have had to pay $589 for a simple blood test. Outrageous. As I left, I did some simple math. I saw three technicians in the building while I was there. Let's assume that each technician draws four blood tests an hour for eight hours.

These assumptions lead to this company doing about 100 blood tests a day. This would come out to almost $60,000 in ONE DAY in revenue for this single blood testing facility. The basic question that needs to be answered, not only for blood tests but also surgery, $100 aspirins, etc. is: "Where did that $60,000 go relative to the blood testing company, the doctors, the insurance companies, overhead, taxes, etc.?"

Until you understand the flow of money, you will never know how to gain efficiencies in the health care system. Obama Care never followed the money and as a result, it will never solve the problem of escalating health care costs.

Two final steps would be implemented by the Untied States of Purple Presidency to finally resolve this problem. First, Obama Care would be repealed as soon as possible since it will not work, it is inhibiting job creation, and has divided Americans in so many ways for no reason.

The second step is to implement Step 28 from "Love My Country, Loathe My Government" which would put together a Manhattan Project type of effort to finally focus on real solutions. This effort would be comprised of a panel of experts from various disciplines that interact with the health are industry in this country to come up with a comprehensive and coherent approach to our health care problems. This expert panel would address the details to the solutions listed above.

Most importantly, it would leverage the expertise of smart Americans. Thus, it would minimize the participation of politicians and their lobbyists friends so that we do not re-implement Obama Care II.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

We invite all readers of this blog to visit our new website, "The United States Of Purple," at

http://www.unitedstatesofpurple.com/

The United States of Purple is a new grass roots approach to filling the office of President of The United States by focusing on the restoration of freedom in the United States, focusing on problem solving skills and results vs. personal political enrichment, and imposing term limits on all future Federal politicians. No more red states, no more blue states, just one United States Of America under the banner of Purple.

The United States Of Purple's website also provides you the formal opportunity to sign a petition to begin the process of implementing a Constitutional amendment to impose fixed term limits on all Federally elected politicians. Only by turning out the existing political class can we have a chance of addressing and finally resolving the major issues of or times.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at www.loathemygovernment.com. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com/
http://www.flipcongress2010.com/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.repealamendment/

Friday, February 10, 2012

United States of Purple - Solving Our Illegal Immigration Problem

This week we have been presenting our solutions for the major issues facing the nation and American citizens. We have already talked about taking care of our skyrocketing national debt, our burdensome 70,000 income tax code, global warming, and energy independence. Today we will discuss the divisive issue of illegal immigration.

The issue with this problem is there is not a lot of hard, accurate data. Most estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in this country varies widely, not surprisingly since they are illegal. But most estimates are over 10,000,000 people in the country who should not be from a legal perspective. Some people insist that illegal immigrants play an important part on our economy and our heritage of diversity and should be allowed to stay. Other people insist that illegal immigrants deprive Americans of jobs, increase our crime rates, need to be sent back to their countries, and they absorb taxpayer wealth and resources, resources that would be better spent on citizens.

A very emotional issue and one that seems like it will never get resolved. Integrated into this issue is the lost war on drugs and the role our porous border plays in that debacle. Neither issue can be resolved totally without resolving the other.

However, today we will focus on the illegal immigration component. Let's assume that any solution must involve the following principles:

- These people are here illegally, they broke our laws, and need to have that illegal behavior taken into account.

- Other people that tried to get into this country legally need to be recognized for their integrity of playing by the rules and the laws.

- It is not compassionate or right to break up families, sending some family members back to Mexico or wherever, while their kids who may have been born here and thus, are American citizens, could stay here legally.

- The previous point mentions immediate family, it means immediate family: mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, sons and daughters. It does not involve uncles, cousins, aunts, sisters, brothers, etc.

- There will no mass roundup of illegal immigrants and mass deportations for several reasons. First, it is not congruent with our democracy to have hordes of Federal agents combing the country and breaking down doors looking for over 10 million illegal immigrants. Second, the cost to do so would be astronomical. Third, the effort would probably not be successful anyway, much like government brute force rarely works in any issue. Criminal elements excepted to this principle.

-The issue would not be addressed until the border with Mexico is sealed and substantially less porous than it is today. You cannot have an adult discussion about illegal immigrants if your borders remain this leaky. We have mentioned several times in previous posts that Congress ordered the Defense Department to seal the border within 45 days over two decades ago. That has not happened and as a result, we have the situation we have today: over 10 million people illegally in this country, a divisive issue of citizen against citizen, and an open conduit for illegal drugs to flood into this country. The past approach has obviously not worked.

Let's try this approach. We have unnecessarily deployed about 140,000 U.S. troops in Europe, South Korea, and Japan for no good reason. We should bring them home and put them on the border with Mexico in order to seal it from illegal entrants and illegal drugs, much larger national security risks than stationing troops in Germany, England, et al.

Note: It is also a good idea to seal it so that it is no longer a conduit for terrorism candidates to come into this country. We have seen a recent uptick in reports of how Iran and other terrorist organizations have deployed resources into South and Central America.

If my memory is correct, the U.S./Mexican border runs about 2,000 miles. Thus, if you broke those 140,000 troops into two twelve hour shifts, you could place one highly trained U.S. soldier every fifty yards along that border 24/7/365/ Once the border was sealed, you could then put a plan together and in place to address the current problem without it getting any larger.

These are the principles. No mass deportations, no discompassionate breaking up of immediate family units, a sealed border creating a stable negotiation and implementation environment, and the recognition that some people did it the illegal way and some did it the legal way.

Once principles are in place, the solution looks like the following:

If someone is already here illegally, they can register with the Federal government to become a specially designated citizen in waiting.
The Federal government would not deport the newly registered illegal immigrant unless there was past or future criminal activity.
The illegal immigrant would be treated as if they were a legal immigrant and would be subject to all of the rules, laws, and demands of legal immigrants and citizens: their income would be taxed, they would contribute to unemployment insurance, Social Security and Medicare, they must file Federal and state income tax returns. If pulled over for a legitimate traffic violation or other potential law violation, an illegal but newly registered person would have to produce identification, just like an natural born American citizen has to do.
Failure to file state or Federal income tax returns or to pay income taxes is grounds for immediate deportation of the transgressor and their immediate family.
The registration and identification process includes fingerprint information and any other type of information that is required under the proposed Federal national identification guidelines.
In fact, that Orwellain process will not be implemented on existing American citizens until it was proven to be workable on the illegal immigrant population.
However, an illegal immigrant would not be able to become an official U.S. citizen for a very long time, say twenty years. The illegal immigrant broke our laws, citizenship should not come as easily as for someone who did everything by the book.
To bypass this requirement, an illegal immigrant could go back to their home country and apply for legal entry into the country, which if granted, would lead to U.S. citizenship much sooner than twenty years, say ten years.
Those that have never been here illegally and get in through legal channels, could become citizens much sooner than ten or twenty years to recognize their observance of our laws.
After a predetermined and fair time period for registering, any illegal immigrant who does not register and is apprehended by law enforcement would be returned to their native country immediately along with their immediate family, never to be granted legal entry ever.

Now the left side of the political spectrum would not like this approach since it requires registration of illegal immigrants, physically seals the border, requires illegal immigrant to contribute financially to society, and delays citizenship for a longer time. The right side of the political spectrum would not like this approach since it eventually grants citizenship to people who came here illegally and does not go about rounding up those people who are already here illegally.

But having both sides unhappy might be a thing, a workable compromise because both sides also gain a lot. The left gets recognition of the fact that these folks, while here illegally, are already here and we begin to treat them with a little respect and compassion, criminal elements excepted. The right gets the border sealed and increased tax revenue to offset whatever government resources currently being used to support illegal immigrants. The right also gets satisfaction that there is a penalty, delayed citizenship, for breaking the laws.

Employers get their lives simplified since they can now ask for standardized, official government documentation when hiring, assuming that the national identification process is workable. Citizens will be able to see what happens when major drug supply routes are cut with a sealed border, possibly providing some insights into what a replacement policy for our lost war on drugs might look like.

And best of all, the issue can no longer be used by the various sects within the political class to divide us to the politicians' benefits. Politicians need issues like this to energize their base and collect campaign donations, even if it pits one set of Americans against another. We have seen how many major issues of our times like this one have been solved when we allow the political class to keep an issue a alive for their own personal good along with the divisiveness it spawns: none.

This is why the planning of this solution cannot be left up to the political class in Washington. Step 29 from "Love My Country, Loathe My Govenrment" establishes a process to be used, comprised and driven by smart Americans with expertise in various disciplines, to come up with a detailed execution plan of the above approach, solution, and its related principles.

The political class cannot be trusted to actually formulate such a plan even if they have to eventually approve it. Their failure to do so already is proof of this mistrust, they should not be given any more time, resolution is needed now. It is the fair and compassionate thing to do.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

We invite all readers of this blog to visit our new website, "The United States Of Purple," at

http://www.unitedstatesofpurple.com/

The United States of Purple is a new grass roots approach to filling the office of President of The United States by focusing on the restoration of freedom in the United States, focusing on problem solving skills and results vs. personal political enrichment, and imposing term limits on all future Federal politicians. No more red states, no more blue states, just one United States Of America under the banner of Purple.

The United States Of Purple's website also provides you the formal opportunity to sign a petition to begin the process of implementing a Constitutional amendment to impose fixed term limits on all Federally elected politicians. Only by turning out the existing political class can we have a chance of addressing and finally resolving the major issues of or times.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at www.loathemygovernment.com. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com/
http://www.flipcongress2010.com/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.repealamendment/

Love My Country, Loathe My Government