How to Serve the Interest of the Poor Through National Elections

The distinction of interest among the general population is made through class, and there are essentially 4 general features of distinction.  

The bottom 40 to 50% of income earners, which are those people individually earning 37k per year or less have very similar lifestyles, with only marginally different and often intertwined degrees of comfort.  They earn money that barely provides for their needs which is evident in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution having negative wealth and the bottom 60% has a very small portion of the wealth distribution, much of which is expressed through the difference between the value of their home and what they owe on their mortgage and other debt; not the steady accumulation of income after expenses for the few who do hold wealth at those income levels.  Servicing the poor is the perpetuation of the condition. What poor people need is not services but money.  

Excerpted from “Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True”

Before I get into the economic implications and the funding, the benefits of a lump sum verses installments begins with relief of stress from economic obligations. For people who are in the bottom 50% of the income distribution, financial stress is nearly ever present. People are constantly concerned about having the funds to meet obligations, current, future, and possible. The amount of money being provided is enough to relieve the concern of having money to meet expenses for a person who has been living on a qualifying income. In the absence of that stress people are in a position to think about their interests, and are also possessed of the means to create their own opportunity; reflective of an Adam Smith quote I read years ago “Money, says the proverb, makes money. When you have a little, it is often easier to get more. The great difficulty is to get that little.”(10) Some will start businesses, some will pay off creditors, some will take a vacation, purchase transportation, pay off fines to get their license, make some purchase they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to make, and some will save it for the peace of mind it provides. Whatever is done with the money, it improves the quality of life of disadvantaged people, and provides them an opportunity to improve their circumstances.

The funding justification is based on the role of the US dollar as the world’s trade and reserve currency. As the global economy grows there is an ever-increasing demand for dollars.  Nations and private entities need dollars to make international purchases. The increasing demand for dollars sustains US debt. It isn’t outside the ability of the US to provide an installment of balance to create opportunity for those most trapped by disadvantaged circumstances once every 5 to 10 years. The act of balance will also lead to economic growth including promote social mobility which has the potential to increase tax revenue.  

In regard to the budget, this underclass economic stimulus will reduce reliance on government programs, meaning some of the funding will be gained back as programs require less funding. In general, it is much better for poor people to be given money which provides them the choice to decide what they want, as opposed to seeking out what help is available and on what terms. It has the potential to reduce the size of government and money wasted on bureaucracy.  A balance stimulus would trigger a bump in state and local government revenue as increased consumption will lead to greater sales tax collected. 

End Excerpt

This should be the number one interest of the bottom 50% of the wealth distribution and income earners.  Yes, I understand that I am conflating the wealth distribution with income distribution, but an individual’s ability to accumulate wealth is the difference between their expenses and their income.  So while I’m sure there are thrifty people out there who have saved $20,000 on a $20,000 per year income, generally, as income increases so does the individual’s ability to accumulate wealth. Not exact indicators of one another, but reflective measures of one another.  

The next group is the comfort class representing roughly 60 to 90 percentiles of income earners.  These are your liberal and conservatives who tend to be the most concerned with the political charade, where to varying degrees they have the means to live comfortably and many have the ability to create their own opportunity.  They have the means to take quality vacations, typically have adequate time away from work or at least adequate means to have quality time away from work, and are also more likely to do work that they like. This isn’t to say many in this broad grouping aren’t living paycheck to paycheck, but their paychecks allow for the accumulation of assets, greater access to the consumer market, and many are able to fund their own venture to do what they want to do.  There is a mix in this group where this group is interested in services in the lower and middle portions of the group, or lower taxes the further you move up. This is the medicare for all and probably the bulk of the student debt relief, gun control, gun rights, anti abortion, and defenders of all other frivilous causes they take up because their lives are generally good, and they have no interests other than small modifications that could increase their liberty, or the morality they derive pleasure from in imposing it on others.  

Most people identify with this group despite not actually being in it.  This is the middle class and tend to be those who have found contentment in the reality that is presented to them.  This is evident in that this group and the groups above them are the most inclined to vote, because the system has validity to them because they benefit from it.  Whereas the poor tend not to vote because no matter who is in office, their situation doesn’t change and no one has any solutions that are going to improve their access to liberty.  The Balance Stimulus will give the poor an opportunity to flex their muscles in the upcoming election, and I will explain how after I brief the final two categories.  

The next 9+ percent are the affluent who don’t need anything from the government and their personal interests are exclusively tax related even if some of their expressed interests are social justice, related to responsibility for their advantage.  

The final fraction of a percent are the super wealthy and industry.  These are the deciding interests. On the local level it tends to be developers as well as large corporations who fund campaigns to be in the running for government contracts, permits, and other advantages through state and local governments. On the federal level it is the same thing.  These are the deciding interests who craft policy by being the near exclusive selectors of candidates based on the requirement of money to compete in politics. Their interests are tax policy, subsidies, government contracts, and other policy and legislation that creates an advantage in domestic markets as well as markets abroad.  The business world is for the appearance of compassion and charity which is why they engage in philanthropy to improve the value of their brand in the eyes to the population, who values such charitable behavior. Yet while they engage in philanthropy they are largely responsible for the very problems they like to be seen making contributions to.   

Before I address other issues and how they relate to these interests, let me explain to you how the poor and struggling can flex their muscles in the 2020 primaries and the 2020 presidential election.  The difference between Bernie Sanders who represents the most left end of the spectrum all the way to Donald Trump on the extreme right of the spectrum, absent the ability of my material to shock the nation into reality, is somewhere between non-existent and subtle.  Bernie is promising 10s of trillions of dollars in spending, everything from medicare for all to modular homes for 20 million American’s who live in mobile home trailers. These are promises from a person who has made a career on the same rhetoric resulting from the same conditions that he hasn’t contributed to changing in the last 30 years.  

Want to trigger or confuse a Bernie Sanders supporter?  Ask them to name a piece of legislation he has passed that has significantly improved the lives of the people whose causes he claims to champion.  Sanders has created 7 bills that became law that accomplished the following, changed the name of 2 post offices, changed two words in the veterans of foreign wars charter, authorized interstate water relations between New Hampshire and Vermont, reintroduced a bill that increases veterans benefits, extended the area of protection for a forest, and officially recognized March 5th 1991 as Bicentennial Day in Vermont. (  Now he claims if you make him president he is giving away Bugattis, which is just an easy way of saying he is not going to deliver in the current climate and he knows this.  Campaigning is easy. It is easy to give everyone what they want when you have an unlimited budget and you don’t have to create the political will to accomplish any of it at the podium.  

In addition to the general leftist overemphasis pandering to issues of race, sexuality, and gender, Sanders has also focused a great deal of attention on student debt, which seeks to use public funds (or maybe more accurately stated public income in what is lost through student debt forgiveness) to buy votes from people who are already advantaged in terms of education compared to those who are poor without a college degree.  This doesn’t help most poor people and those with college debt who need the help would be helped through a Balance Stimulus.  

I reviewed the most relevant portions of Sanders Green New Deal, relevancy determined by the greatest expenditures and elements of it that most relate to climate change. There were claims made that are not even feasible based on technology and production constraints like achieving sustainable emissions from transportation by 2030. His GND fails to recognize the role private interests would contribute to school bus transitioning, or allocating substantially more money than was needed for an item. The grossest waste was a 2 trillion dollar grant to primarily increase energy efficiency through regulation, by mandating energy standards and purchasing 20 million modular homes to replace trailers.  The price to replace 20 million trailers with modular homes is 4 trillion dollars in itself, of course the shopping list Sanders team probably threw together to capitalize on the popularity of the term Green New Deal, didn’t specify how that 2 trillion would be allocated between those designated purposes, only that there would be sliding grant to help lower and middle income American’s cover the cost of efficiency upgrades, and he would be replacing 20 million trailers with modular homes.  

The purpose of this spending as a part of his Green New Deal is to increase energy efficiency.  However, the one item of his plan that I support and that I think is exactly the right first step in combating climate change, is to build the infrastructure including storage systems and transmission lines to power the grid from 100% carbon free sources.  The purpose of increasing efficiency is to reduce emissions, but if our grid derives all of its power from renewable sources there is no benefit, and in fact there are detriments to poor people through this regulation, in addition to wasting 2 trillion dollars for an item that you will never find the political will to pass.  The detriment is that those who are least likely to receive grants to make unnecessary upgrades are property investors. Rather than have the upgrades burden or possibly reverse their profit, they will likely pass that cost down to the renters who tend to be the most disadvantaged people in the country. To reiterate, there is no benefit to energy efficiency if all energy is derived from renewable sources, 2nd, if all grid power is not derived from renewable sources, no amount of regulation or efficiency is going to avert climate catastrophe, and 3rd, the cost of increasing energy efficiency is the same cost as transitioning the grid to renewable energy.

Sanders plan to transition the grid to renewable energy is sound if properly implemented, and could be achieved even in the absence of complete funding, although probably most of the funding would be necessary to achieve 100% renewable energy in a reasonable period of time.  Sanders intends to build the infrastructure outright and place it under the management of the power marketing administrations which currently sell the power generated from federally owned sources of energy, primarily hydroelectric sources. The price of power to utility companies becomes fixed to the cost of maintenance, expansion, and in a just world a subsidy through profit to the bottom however many percent of the population who are deemed in need of relief.  

Had Obama allocated spending to this purpose as opposed to providing subsidies to private companies we would be continuing the transition to renewable energy even under the Trump administration, although I’m sure Obama would contend that such an idea probably wasn’t politically feasible.  Although I cannot forgive his foreign policy, Obama was the best president at least in my lifetime at making deals with industry to procure some gain for the public. Yet had he been able to spend the same roughly 200 billion dollars he spent on renewable energy subsidies during his administration, to purchase infrastructure outright, the profits generated from the public sale of energy could have been used to reinvest in infrastructure perpetually. I also don’t think the profits generated from a 200 billion dollar investment which would have represented about 10% of the grid being powered by renewable sources, would have been able to finance significant expansion.  I don’t know how much profit there would be from the supply of roughly 10% of nations grid energy, but it costs 20 billion dollars per 1% of renewable energy infrastructure not including increased demand.  

Under Sanders plan the cost of energy should become cheaper to the consumer since there is no cost for fuel which is a fluctuating cost in the current market, based on a variety of factors I don’t pretend to be an expert on.  The cost of renewable energy is maintenance, expansion to meet rising demand, and some profit for contingencies and to subsidize the cost of energy to lower income people without having to allocate tax dollars to those purposes.  

For example, and these numbers don’t reflect cost but illustrate functioning, if it costs 1 dollar in maintenance for unit of energy produced, and .50 cents to meet expansion needs, the PWAs would charge 2 dollars per unit of energy to the utility company, and the utility company would charge it’s mark up for its role in maintenance and managing distribution.  Of that additional .50 cents charged, every 45 cents from each unit sold provides energy assistance to the bottom 30 to 40% of income earners or as needed, and the nickel is put in a contingency fund.  

It’s important to recognize the interests of the utility company in this plan.  I haven’t researched the extent to which utility companies are involved in power generation, but whether they are generating the power through fossil fuels or they are purchasing power from other companies, the price to produce electricity through fossil fuels is volatile because the price of fuel fluxuates.  If power generation is owned nearly exclusively by the public probably 80% of the market or more under the plan, and fossil fuel grid power generation is supplied and regulated out of existence, it stabilizes the cost to the utility company to purchase power which will make profits more predictable and more sustained.  The utility companies may have an interest in supporting this plan where their claim to their natural monopoly changes from owning the grid to managing and maintaining the supply of energy to the public and in a more predictable environment.  

It is in the interest of the public to maintain the utility companies in this capacity to ensure the government doesn’t begin raising the cost of power to finance other portions of the government as has been done with social security surpluses.  The utility companies have an interest in keeping the prices low, and since the cash flow of a publically owned enterprise is public, the utility companies will have an interest in alerting the public to unwarranted increases in price that would be siphoned from the PWAs into other areas of spending.  The utility company still has an interest in maintaining low costs since even passing the cost down to the public for higher prices will reduce the amount of energy sold, as consumers become more conscious of energy consumption when prices increase. This would affect the utility company’s overall profits through volume of sales, as profit is determined less by the margin of profit and more by the volume of sales.  Publicly owned renewable power generation infrastructure prices would be regulated by utility companies because they have profit interest in ensuring the cost of power doesn’t reflect much more than the cost of maintenance, expansion, and low income subsidy. The public obviously has an interest in maintaining low costs because they are the consumers of energy.     

Sanders approach is one of us versus them, good versus bad, whereas I prefer to acknowledge the interests affected by an action and to figure out where seemingly unlike interests converge.  Which isn’t to say utility companies are the only affected interest or that my assessment speaks to their perceived best interest, only that this is the required approach in a political landscape where interests are promoted and protected through political investment.  

There was another part of Sanders plan that imposed an unnecessary burden and it may have been part of the aforementioned spending allocation on efficiency, where all gas and oil powered heating systems and appliances would have to be upgraded to electric.  Even this regulation and grant expense is unnecessary and would be corrected through market forces if the grid was supplied exclusively through renewable energy. The reason being is renewable energy should cost much less to supply since there is no recurring cost for fuel.  The lower cost for electricity over gas and oil will cause homeowners to upgrade their appliances and heating systems to electric to save on energy costs. Property investors will make these upgrades because offering units and property with lower utility bills allows these property owners to charge more for rent. The reduced demand for oil and gas powered heating and appliances may initially lead to a price reduction, but this price reduction will probably reverse as the lack of demand will increase the cost to provide the services. Meaning gas and oil heating systems and appliance will still cost more to use after initial transitioning reduces demand.

Addressing climate change is in the interest of nearly all people with the exception of a small percentage of the population who profit through the sale of fossil fuels.  As far as the grid is concerned, the main interest affected is going to be the producers of natural gas. At the moment this is an interest that we have to go through, which requires the identification of industrial interests who stand to benefit from the transition, off the top of my head I would imagine insurance companies would stand to benefit not only from spending to reduce emissions, and maintain lower temperatures in the interest of not exacerbating the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, but perhaps in grants to make structures more durable in the disasters that are to come.  If I applied myself to this identification I’m sure there are others, and they need to be identified for their influence over congress, because in order to accomplish anything through government we have to acknowledge how government functions. It doesn’t matter if an interest represents only a fractional percentage of the population when that interest is represented in congress through billions of dollars. We do not live in a nation where representation is determined by 1 person 1 vote, we live in a nation where interests are represented based on dollars, versus the dollars the represented interest is averse to.  This is because value is manipulated through impression and it costs money to create impressions to persuade the public.  

On the subject of representation money always has been and maybe always will be the measure of representation in large republics.  There are two ways to address this problem, with the second being preferable to the first because it provides other benefits to the public and guarantees popular representation.  The first way is to increase the number of representatives and senators, triple the size of the house and the senate, which would saturate elections with candidates and reduce the ability of industry to influence elections through mediums of mass impression like television, radio, and the internet.  If every area that has 1 representative is split into 4, it becomes much harder to manipulate the popular perception through money and get a return on your political investment. Mass media becomes a much less effective instrument in determining elections because there isn’t enough time available to easily market so many candidates.  Candidates would be forced to rely on more traditional localized campaign techniques where money is much less required to be competitive. The extent to which it will be effective is questionable because money can still facilitate an advantage, and more intimate exposure to candidates could leave the voting population more charmed and clueless than they are under the present organization.  It isn’t guaranteed to solve the problem and it poses many challenges to the mode of operation to legislate. Challenges that could be overcome with a little thought, but are challenges that may produce little to no benefit.  

The second way we address representation is through Centers for Economic Planning, which allow me to be clear is not a public bank, a coop, a government or a government agency.  The idea is thoroughly explained in the general outline in my book Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True. I’ll excerpt the general description

A Center for Economic Planning is an institution created through legislation and initially funded through federal, state, or local government, but is a private company owned and directed by the people who live in the jurisdiction where it is created.  A Center for Economic Planning will create and acquire businesses at the direction of the public on a local level as small as a city, county, or group of cities or counties as is required for financial viability or geographical effectiveness. The institution is intent on empowering the mass of people without the resources to participate in decisions of production, to enable them to participate in major production related decisions.  A CEP will increase the number of opportunities available, the quality of opportunities available, and provide people with the resources to participate in politics in the pay to play system that exists in the United States.

(End of excerpt)

The structure guarantees public input and oversight with the best parallel being a corporation where the initial investment is publically funded, and ownership is determined through residency as opposed to owned sellable shares.  The CEP has elected management and features of direct input from the public through the charter, where an investment plan is prepared through this private entity, and the profits from the businesses it owns are invested to grow the Center for Economic Planning and be allocated to any purpose the public chooses, which as I mentioned includes political investment.  By empowering people to participate in decisions of production, where they are otherwise excluded by their limited means, the act of creating or acquiring businesses can contain elements of popular interest like sustainability, transitioning to renewable energy, or any for profit business idea that addresses a public desire. It also allows for the interest of the public to benefit from and draw nearer to industry, since the public through these private institutions will own a share of the market across all sectors, where legislation and policy that benefits some sector of the economy will benefit the CEP owned businesses in the same sector.  The benefits and mechanisms are much more comprehensive than I am able to articulate concisely here, but a CEP will position people to compete against industry for representation in government, and could potentially change the direction of or supplant one or both of the business parties.  

Originally the idea was to use a small sales tax at the local level to fund the creation of the CEP because I presumed on it being easier to create the political will at a local level instead of the federal level.  Each CEP will also be owned and directed by the residents of a jurisdiction not exceeding a metropolitan area which is why my original approach consisted of creating the understanding, will, and funding at this level. Then the nation would benefit through the contagion of a good example.  Yet the idea has significantly greater impact if it is created through federal legislation, where the funding for multiple CEPS in perhaps the 40 most populated metropolitan areas are created simultaneously, and financed to the tune of at least 100 billion dollars to be distributed based on the population density to these jurisdictions.

Poor people as things are today do not have much of an interest in voting for any lesser of evils.  If Sanders is elected who is the most progressive candidate represents primarily middle class interests in what he may be able to accomplish does not represent the interests of the poor.  The poor need money. We have no reason to vote for anyone who is not serious about the discussion and prioritization of a balance stimulus. Not in the interest of climate change or any service intent on alleviating some symptoms of being poor, and definitely not any middle class interests like student debt forgiveness.  Which means our vote will be intent on harming middle class interests until our interests are attended to. The extent to which we harm those interests depends on the willingness of a candidate to prioritize our demands.  

The interest of the poor are first and foremost the Balance Stimulus which doesn’t require the exact break down of what is listed above but does require at least that total dollar amount.  Sanders is the preferred candidate to adopt the cause of the Balance Stimulus into his platform, first because his campaign is popularly funded or at least it was in 2016.  He also has a good idea to transition the grid to renewable energy if the price is based on the idea I proposed here. He should make the Balance Stimulus the number 1 priority of his campaign because priority should be based on the greatest need, and we are the most in need. Not black people, not latinos, not LGBT people, not women, but poor people.  And addressing the needs of poor people will impact members of all those groups who are disadvantaged and produce improvements in many other areas, as most of our issues are rooted in a lack of liberty. Imposition is the root of all discontent, and being circumstantially trapped is constant imposition, and it is responsible for many symptoms we try to treat while the causes of these symptoms remain.  

The solution to economic inequality is providing money to those who are economically disadvantaged, not making poor people jump through hoops to access minimally beneficial services with inflated price tags.  No one knows what poor people need on an individual basis better than the poor person, and he or she needs money to apply to their needs.

The other aspect of choosing a candidate to prioritize a balance stimulus is the probability of passing it.  What if Biden prioritized the balance stimulus? He’s under the influence of money and money doesn’t have a direct interest in balance stimulus legislation, meaning it seems a lot less likely that he would pass it than Sanders who is not influenced by money or at least not corporate money.  However, what if Biden’s donors pledged their support to prioritize a balance stimulus in preference of Biden over Sanders? As I mentioned there are presumably many interests which are helped through a balance stimulus in the anticipation of spending. Biden would be the clear choice in that scenario because the interests that support his candidacy also exercise influence in congress.  We see a place where unlike interests converge, the interests of the poor and the interests of the corporations and the billionaires.  

Whether it be Biden or another candidate, the poor should vote for the candidate who prioritizes the balance stimulus and whose sponsors will express public support for the idea, and naturally we will vote for the candidate whose sponsors are the most substantial.  If a union that supports Bernie Sanders expresses their support for a Balance Stimulus on his behalf, and Amazon expresses support for a Balance Stimulus on Biden’s behalf, Biden has the edge in being able to serve the interests of the poor because Amazon exercises significantly more influence in congress than does the union. (This was written before the primary voting began when Biden was leading in most national polls. Insert name of corporate candidate in place of Biden, the point is to explain how a corporate canidate could represent poor interests)  

Poor people can determine the outcome of elections, the bottom 50% who usually have lower voter turnout than the top 50% whose interests are fragmented.  The reverend William Barber II has been leading the poor people’s campaign to register poor voters, which I initially criticized because there isn’t a candidate whose election will significantly improve the lives of the poor.  However, if we make a decision that we are going to show up at the polls and vote in our class interest, we will decide every election and we will have a balance stimulus in the next 1 to 6 years.

If no candidate will prioritize a balance stimulus in the democratic primaries, we vote for the candidate who is least likely to provide any benefit to the middle class, which oddly enough could be Sanders since he is the least capable of creating the political will to accomplish anything, but he is the most detrimental of the candidates to the interests of the poor. His words are comforting to the middle and underclasses even if he’s ineffective in serving their interests; the same as many people were more indifferent to class struggle under Obama.  Our cause loses priority when Bernie radio is playing. If Bernie won’t prioritize a balance stimulus we should punish his supporters and prevent whatever compromised gains he would achieve for them. Again his ideas will not substantially improve the opportunity and quality of life of poor people absent a balance stimulus.  

If we cannot get a democrat to support a balance stimulus, then we can go one further and punish everybody.  We vote for Trump in the general, because those of us who are poor won’t be better off under the leadership of a candidate who has not made a balance stimulus his top priority, and everyone except for a very small percentage of the population will be worse off under the leadership of Trump.  

In congressional elections we should follow the same punishing strategy supporting candidates who support a balance stimulus, or supporting the least popular candidate when there is no candidate who supports the balance stimulus until our interest is prioritized.  

I speak for the interests of the poor but not currently the will of the poor who has not been informed of this idea to serve their interest.  However, I believe once the poor understand their interest the will of the poor will follow. We vote exclusively for the balance stimulus, then centers for economic planning and then transitioning the grid to renewable energy.  We can have one right after the other or possibly all of them at once, as we can begin the transition of the grid according to Bernie’s plan incrementally. 

For more information on the ideas contained in this article you can procure a copy of Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True at                

2/5/2020 Update.

Last week I sent an article explaining the distinction between class interests and offered a demand and strategy for serving poor interests.  I presume if the emails of the different chapters are monitored by local people, this article was probably read by some and not by others, despite the article being about poor interests and this being a group that claims to represent poor interests.  Of those who may have read it, I presume there is a portion who was bothered by it because it wasn’t their idea, others who are invested in and have been promoting service oriented programs proposed by democrats who are averse to it, and given a large enough sample size there are those who probably think it is a good idea.  A large enough sample is required because I believe most probably fall into the first two categories.  

Those who are offended by the quality of the analysis and suggestion, will either be indifferent to it, or they will claim the article is intent on disrupting unity and creating division.  It isn’t intent on creating division so much as it is intent on identifying class distinction and reversing the train of support. The middle class (60 to 90%) of income earners do not have the same interests as the bottom 50%.  Many organizations with similar stated goals are really attempting to encourage poor people to vote for candidates that represent middle class interests. In most cases these candidates don’t represent middle class interests, but because the middle class makes up the bulk of the voting population their political performances are aimed at that group.  

I am soliciting support for the advancement and prioritization of poor interests.  Where instead of the poor being persuaded to support middle class interests, the middle class is forced to prioritize poor interests, after that interest has been stated.  The bottom line is poor people are circumstantially trapped due to a lack of money, and money should be the stated demand. Everything else being promised from these candidates, some with plans calling for 10s of trillions of dollars in new spending, and none of the promises improve the lives of poor people.  For people who have spent their lives believing they are champions of poor causes, it is difficult to acknowledge that most of what you’ve done, is motivated poor people to take time out of their lives to vote for candidates that overtly do not serve their interests. This creates Bias Induced Denial.  

Bias Induced Denial occurs when there is a threat to a valued object.  An object derives value from the feelings associated with it, or the value it has in fulfilling some purpose associated with good feelings.  When a person is confronted by information that challenges their beliefs there is typically a negative feeling since discovering something you thought was good is bad or something you thought was true is false, takes away the good feelings you get from the object.  People typically consume information that reinforces their beliefs and avoid information that challenges their beliefs because we pursue that which makes us feel good, and avoid that which causes us to feel bad. This is fundamentally what is wrong with our species. Communication is impossible because they prefer their chosen understanding of the world to a true understanding of the world.                 

Those who have a service bias are going to attempt to create arguments against money by saying the services are worth more than the balance stimulus money, but the balance stimulus money is worth more than the services in the opportunity it creates for individuals to be freer and more prosperous, whereas services like health care merely maintain health within trapped or difficult circumstances, and are only of value if an individual requires health services.  The same can be said of other services, where services only improve the quality of life of poor people if they have a use for them. As I mentioned in the original article a service oriented approach services the condition without creating much in the way of opportunity for an individual to improve his or her condition.  

I think a second way the significance of money could be undermined is by using people who are making 35k per year and saying this balance stimulus would miss these people.  Of course while one person in the household is making 35k per year the other is making 20k per year or less. Meaning we’re not talking about only 50% of the population benefiting from the balance stimulus since different individual incomes exist in the same household.  Which means any adult in the household with annual individual income of below 31k per year will be getting a check. We recognize the individual opportunity created through the balance stimulus, but we also recognize how it affects the lives of many more people by way of household belonging.  

This is the most opportune time to bring this idea before the public, during the primary, where if it was the focus of attention, poor people could demonstrate the power they have in the elections.  Again, candidates would have to take a position on it. If no candidate commits there is an opportunity to flex the muscles of the poor people’s campaign in front of the public and make a demand in the general election.  

First, as I mentioned previously, poor people typically don’t vote because they know no matter who is elected their lives are going to remain relatively unchanged.  There were poor people before, during, and after Obama’s presidency, hope and change, yes we can, did not change much about the distribution of income and balance of wealth, or the opportunities for poor people.  Poor people will show up to the polls if there is money at stake. The strategy requires the idea of a balance stimulus is brought to the attention of the public and the attention of democratic nominee hopefuls.    

In addition to supporting the candidate who will support the balance stimulus, the campaign chooses a candidate to flex through, where the campaign encourages people to vote for a particular candidate in a state, ideally some candidate with not much support who is hanging on a little too long to show what the class vote means.  A situation where a candidate is receiving a single digit percentage of the vote, and the campaign puts out a message that the class vote will vote for this candidate. After the results are in we compare the candidates totals average in the most recent states to the amount they received in that state. If the candidate averaged 4% and suddenly they win a state by 20 to 30% of the vote then poor people show they can swing elections by voting along class interests, which will become even more powerful in the general election where the poor will consist of democrats, republicans, and others, who will show up to the polls if there is the promise and possibility of money.  It only works with the balance stimulus, because money is far more effective at encouraging people to show up to vote than is the same progressive platitudes, rhetoric, and promises of services that are often a hassle to get, maintain, and provide little in the way of opportunity.

There are angles that create support for the middle and upper class and even industry.  People and even corporate entities do not want to be disliked by the public. If your wages are relatively proportionate to your expenses, and for many people they go without what most people consider to be necessities, you still cannot create your own opportunity and you have little to nothing to pass down to your progeny for them to be able to create their own opportunity.  For people of color there are connections to past racism being responsible for this, but it is also true of poor white people because money is indicative of opportunity and accumulation. Meaning generation after generation doesn’t benefit from accumulating anything to pass down because wages are generally equal to living expenses. The balance stimulus is a racially inclusive reparations package where those whose advantage relies on a system that leaves other people trapped will have the opportunity to support something that draws us nearer to balance.  

The balance stimulus is an opportunity to improve class perceptions, and for corporate entities, it is an opportunity to improve their image and assert their brand.  In the case of retailers, a Balance Stimulus can ensure increased profitability through an enabled consumer. For financials there is the prospect of increased profitability through debtors who gain the means to repay their debt.  For the states and cities there is the anticipation of increased sales tax revenue, and other revenue as disadvantaged people pay fines, driver’s licensing fees, auto registration and purchase other state products associated with assets that improve opportunity.   The greatest asset would be overt support for it where companies could boast that they support the Balance Stimulus to give poor people opportunity, and naturally, poor people will be more inclined to their brand over the brand of others. I mention these things because a Balance Stimulus does have features that serve the interests of the industrial deciders as well as the upper classes.   

For the middle class they know moving forward, that the Balance Stimulus brings the interests of the poor nearer to or inline with their own through the opportunity for income it creates.  Where poor people who have opportunities to prosper have mobility into the middle class, and in having priority, are inclined to support the next prioritized interest. 

I also wanted to disclose my interests and intentions for sharing this information with this organization.   

First a Balance Stimulus is in my interests because I currently qualify for it.  Second, I recognize a Balance Stimulus will create opportunities for people, and there are many general problems in society, criminal, prejudice, and otherwise imposing, which stem from a lack of opportunity, and a lack of liberty, in lacking the means to do what you want to do.  Everyone benefits from a better environment including myself through a balance stimulus. A Balance Stimulus is an object of domestic liberation, and liberation is a broader sought after purpose as a member of this species which includes liberation from circumstances, as well as liberation from inherited and manufactured perception.  

I’m sharing these thoughts and this idea with an organization that claims to represent poor people’s interests, and if it does, what I’m sharing should be important and considered in attending to the interests of poor people.  Otherwise, maybe my first impressions were accurate where I thought the Poor People’s Campaign was a PR and voter registration wing of the democratic party, which is not the assertion of poor interests in platform or execution.  

The Balance Stimulus is one component of a broader agenda for human liberation.  I am an unpaid author whose material relates to political, economic, and social function, and is suppressed by bias. (one more time) Despite not having a market, the material has a great deal of value to Americans in understanding the political, economic, and social systems we live within, as well as improving human intelligence, and comprehensive solutions to solving our problems.  My material offends all biases, and the biases of the Poor People’s Campaign will be no exception, but there are probably also significant points of congruence, which will contribute to a more thorough understanding of existing positions. I’ve been sending copies of my book Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True to different activist organizations, about 2000 solicitations in the last week, but these solicitations were very generic, which may be a contributing cause of a lack of a response, or it could also be the size and scope of the book.   

The first phase of executing ideas requires the creation of a market for my material which is being denied attention because it doesn’t reinforce any brand of biases.  Once I’m able to do that I have plans to create presentations, a lesson plan for Sequencing and Comparison, and eventually establish an organization to coordinate the advancement of my ideas with other groups who profess interests that my ideas advance.  

If you would read my book as time permits and share it I would appreciate that, and I’m always eager to respond to questions and comments.                  


Orion Simerl

720 448 2846