(I no longer intend to run for office since I believe I can accomplish more through The Organization for Popular Legislation(oplnow.com), but I kept this page because the content is worthwhile)
All people at all times want to do what they want to do. This self-evident truth establishes liberty as a human constant. To do, requires time, money, and know-how. Since know-how can be gained through time and money, an individual’s liberty is primarily a product of their opportunities to have time and money. Nearly all human problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, directly and indirectly.
Conservatives in this country are conservative either because they are content with the opportunities this country has furnished them to have time and money, or they are contented by the nationalist and religious ideas they’ve been brought up in.
Liberals or progressives believe that changes are necessary to improve opportunities for disadvantaged people. Progressives are people who have been without adequate opportunities for time and money, or they are those content with their own opportunities motivated by moral feelings to achieve progress towards correcting disparities. The problem is they are focused on promoting disadvantages that are not disadvantageous; like race, gender, and sexuality. And when they’re not driving a wedge between the underclasses through inconsequential distinctions, they are promoting legislation that either will not be brought to the floor, will not pass, and won’t benefit the poor in this country if it did pass. When a bill does pass it does not significantly improve the lives of disadvantaged people in this country. It is promoted to the child-like public as something that benefits the public but the only reason it has passed is because it benefits industry.
Industry has always been the true directors of public policy. The United States federal government began as a forum for economic elites to decide law and the allocation of collective resources to serve their interests. The government functions through mechanisms of political investment.
Unlike others who have become wealthy railing against inequality in speeches of empty rhetoric and platitudes I do not promise to change these things. In fact, I don’t believe they can be changed because any laborious effort to reduce or eliminate the influence of money in politics will only be met with a changing of how money will influence politics. Long before the citizens united ruling, Mark Hanna who was Williams Mckinley’s campaign manager said “there are two things that are most important in politics, money, and I forget the second”.
I take a different approach to solving problems. I look for opportunities where seeming unlike interests can be served through solutions. In the interest of realizing ideas to improve opportunities for Americans, and ensuring these ideas are realized without contamination, I’m declaring my intent to run for The United States House of Representatives in 2024. I would prefer to run as an independent but will be seeking the support of the Republican party and compete against other Republicans to secure that support in some Democrat stronghold district.
Despite differences in religion and nationalism, where I’m neither a Christian nor am I subscribed to the nationalist mythology that is a staple for many on the right, my policy positions are much more in line with the right than the left on issues that have been made important to people in this country. Secondly, as the lesser of 2 evils is concerned, the party that serves the interests of industry and does nothing to help the underclasses is less harmful than the party that serves the interest of industry and panders to the issues of the poor, divides the nation in directing attention to superficial differences that do not impact opportunity, promotes wasteful spending under the guise of helping the disadvantaged without improving people’s lives, and generally supports policies that cause Americans to be less prosperous and less free.
With that said, if I am able to win the support of the Republican party it doesn’t mean I tow the line of the party or withhold my criticism of the party. I am always where liberty and truth is greatest. And if I cannot win the support of the Republican party to run for Congress then I will seek the support of the Democrats and my positions and ambition for office will remain unchanged. I seek the support of a party to facilitate my ambition for office since I will need something in the neighborhood of 150,000 plus votes from a population in the neighborhood of 750,000 people.
My motivation is rooted in the morality of liberty, the value of truth based on it’s relationship to liberty, and the positive feelings associated with ideas of justice since I exist in a nation, and in a world, shrouded by deception that has consequences for my own liberty and the liberty of others. I do not intend to make a career out of serving in office if elected. I want to serve to see my ideas through, if I can do it in 1 term I won’t run for a second. If I can’t do it in 3 terms then a different approach is needed.
I’ve written 8 books on political, economic, and behavioral functions. Most are less than 100 pages concisely articulating ideas on specific subjects. The greatest hurdle I face besides money, is the short attention span of the general public, and the misconceptions of the voters. This declaration is intended to state policy positions and introduce ideas. A sentence stating I’m for this or against this or I want to do this, doesn’t provide much useful information. What’s important is why I’m for or against something, why I want to do something, and how it impacts whose interests, and how we will get it done. The average American voter votes not based on an understanding of issues and how it will impact their interests, but how something appears to reinforce an idea they have about something, and/or how they feel about a candidate based on resonating superficial characteristics. The question is whether a candidate who runs on substance can be elected by a substance-less people? Or maybe better said, can a substance-less people develop enough attention to be persuaded by substance over appearance?
1: Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive
My platform begins with the Round Up Service Charge because it is the most feasible way to increase income opportunities among the bottom 50% of income earners and serve the interests of all parties involved.
A: RUSC will increase wages for workers in high volume transaction industries by applying a service charge to the customer in the amount of the the difference between the total and the next dollar, and for that money to be distributed to the employees. This is in the interest of people who work in high volume transaction industries like fast food, gas stations, retail, etc because it will increase their income. Substantially for some workers.
B: It is also in the interest of all low skilled workers, since RUSC will increase the wages of low skilled workers in high volume transaction industries which will draw low skilled workers to those industries. This means other industries that employ low skilled workers will have to pay their employees more to compete with high volume transaction industries who have implemented RUSC.
C: The tax credit incentive serves the interest of companies in high volume transaction industries, not only in the money saved through the tax credit, but in improved performance by their employees. Employees that earn more are more committed, and when there is a financial incentive to work more efficiently people tend to work more effeciently.
D: The public benefits 1st in extending a tax credit to increase public revenue. The money collected in income tax from the additional income gained through RUGO, will exceed the price paid in the tax credit.
E: The public benefits from decreased spending as low skilled workers who previously qualified for government benefits earn more and no longer require them
2: Constitution
I support the US Constitution as the law of the land, in the guarantee of rights conducive to individual liberty, and in the structure of government to create law and appropriate tax dollars to serve the interest of the population.
Explanation: Although the founders of this country were not committed to the ideals of liberty as it relates to all men as evidenced by the many instances where the interests of others were not prioritized, they were committed to ensuring they would be protected from the government they were creating. In safeguarding their own interests through the bill of rights they created a document that does an adequate job of ensuring individual liberty.
The structure of the federal government was designed to prevent popular will and interests from being prioritized and facilitated through government. However, these impediments are not insurmountable and I do not believe adjustments to the structure which are nearly impossible to make and would be worthwhile.
I do have a proposal for an amendment to create a functional definition of the word liberty for the purpose of the constitutional review of law and to be used in criminal defense proceedings.
In morality, the most basic premise is that an act that is right does not impose and an act that is wrong imposes. The reasoning being that in the absence of imposition all people can do as they please which is ideal based on the human constant.
Why do we have laws? We have laws and enforce them because laws that prevent imposition cause us to be free. The just law amendment would allow the supreme court to overturn a law that does not prevent imposition since citizens have the right to liberty, and a law that does not prevent imposition imposes on the liberty of citizens without providing any benefit to the public. In another sense, a law could be ruled unconstitutional or a defendant be found not guilty by a jury on the basis of net liberty, where the law is believed to impose more than it prevents imposition.
This is a somewhat insignificant law in terms of what it imposes but I like to use it as an example because of how well it demonstrates the idea. Most if not all states have laws mandating the use of seatbelts. However, a person who is not wearing a seatbelt is not imposing on anyone. No one is less safe or less free as a result of a person choosing not to wear their seatbelt, therefore the law imposes without preventing imposition.
While seemingly insignificant, government not allowing a citizen to manage their own risk versus comfort such laws exist to allow police to detain citizens, create revenue, and create the opportunity to find other crime.
The citizens of this republic do not have direct input into the laws that they are to be governed by. The Just Law Amendment isn’t only a tool for the supreme court to use in ensuring laws do not impose on a citizen’s right to liberty, but also as something for jury’s to consider in criminal cases. Where instead of a jury only deciding if the facts of an event meet the definition of the law, the jury may also decide whether the law prevents imposition or not.
Some may argue that this would prevent the prosecution of crimes that have consequences to the public. For example, some would say the act of possessing or using cocaine doesn’t impose on the public and therefore the law imposes without preventing imposition. Of course we know that cocaine use creates a propensity for users to engage in imposing behavior while under the influence of the drug, and the addictive properties of the drug increase the likelihood that a user will engage in imposing behavior to get money for the drug. Therefore, the prohibition of cocaine prevents imposition and is just.
Marijuana on the other hand, and the numerous people who have experienced life altering incarceration due to the possession of it in years past neither produces behavior in its users that encourages them to impose on others and isn’t physically addictive so doesn’t create the propensity to impose on others to obtain the drug. Had the just law amendment existed when marijuana possession was a serious crime (some places still is) defendants could have directed their defense to that point or used it as a basis for appeal. Not only would this have had great implications for many people incarcerated for the possession of marijuana, but it would have saved taxpayers untold amounts of money in the enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration of people guilty of possessing it.
With that said you might be surprised to learn that I support states who have continued the prohibition of Marijuana. The main reason being is that when marijuana is illegal it creates a relatively low risk opportunity for disadvantaged people to have time and money through the distribution of marijuana. Where marijuana is legal the market is monopolized by people with money who have the resources to meet the regulatory obligations that poor people do not. The penalty for marijuana possession where marijuana is still illegal is usually light compared to the potential income opportunity for disadvantaged people.
I believe that people should have an avenue to protect themselves from laws that they do not have input in creating. I also believe that we could save a lot of time and money if this protection existed. Imagine a state passed a law and juries find the law to be unjust on the basis of net liberty 75 percent of the time it goes to trial. What happens? 1st district attorney’s stop prosecuting the law. 2nd, law enforcement stops enforcing the law because the district attorney’s are not prosecuting the law. 3rd, legislators repeal the law because the public rejects the law as having no benefit. 4th, citizens are not penalized for acts that do not impose on others, and the public saves money and time on enforcing laws that do not serve their interests.
3: The Second Amendment
I believe that no person should be subjected to imposition due to the inability to resist a threat of force. The right to bear arms ensures that every individual can possess the means to defend their persons and property from those who would impose on them. I do not support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Politicians and activists who are unable and unwilling to address the reasons why people want to kill other people, sometimes indiscriminately, turn their attention to the implements used to kill to create the appearance that they have a solution. In addition to the appearance of competence, in convincing others that weapons are the problem they can create support for other issues through the attack on this right of citizens.
In 1996 Australia had a nearly unprecedented mass killing incident where a firearm was used. This event spurred the creation of strict gun control laws. I looked at the number of people killed in mass killings in the 20 years prior to the incident and the number of people killed in mass killings 20 years after the incident. The gun control measure failed to reduce the number of people killed in mass killings and the number of mass killing incidents. This research demonstrates that gun control fails to reduce mass killings, and reinforces the obvious logic that people who want to kill other people are going to do so regardless of whether some of the means become more difficult to obtain.
Other data from within the United States, comparing states with more restrictive gun laws to states with less restrictive gun laws shows that gun control is ineffective at reducing gun violence, or homicidal violence in general. Something I mention since public safety has been the pretext used to impose on citizens 2nd amendment rights.
4: Illegal Immigration/ Securing the Southern Border
Illegal immigration is promoted by the right as the boogyman intent on running away with American opportunities and intent on subverting the American way of life. The estimated peak of illegal immigration in this country occured between 2008 and and 2010 around nearly 12 million illegal immigrants in the country from the southern border. Under the Obama administration there was a steady decline into a high 10 million figure. Then the number began to increase where estimates today are roughly 11.5 million. Before I addresses how the issue has been politicized by the left, it’s important to understand that the issue isn’t really much of an issue despite the incessant right wing propaganda intent on engaging poor conservatives by giving them an explanation as to why they’re not doing better, and the far more prevalent middle and upper class conservatives as a threat to their way of life and is used as an issue to make them feel civically engaged.
We are a nation of over 330 million people. History has shown that 12 million undoccumented people in this country does not pose a threat to the opportunities of Americans. It’s worth noting that despite having over 11 million undoccumented workers, more jobs go unfilled on a monthly basis than there are people looking for jobs. Of those who are in cities in states that offer illegal immigrants benefits, the amount spent is insignificant compared to the total amount spent on human services. We can draw a very simple conclusion from what has been observed while having 12 million undoccumented immigrants in this country from the southern border: it is an amount that does not impose on the opportunities of Americans or overburden human services.
What this means 1st, is that the men and women who work in Customs and Border Patrol, and Immigration Customs and Enforcement have done a good job protecting American opportunities with the laws in place and the resources at their disposal. 2nd, as long as the number of illegal immigrants from southern border remains below 12 million, no matter how the media covers caravans, shows would be immigrants on the other side of the border, or focuses on isolated incident of crimes committed by illegal immigrants (typically against other illegal immigrants) the issue is not an issue. While the argument can be made that any additional crime committed by an illegal immigrant is a crime that would not have happened if said person wasn’t in this country, it’s worth noting that US citizens are more likely to commit crime than illegal immigrants, obviously excluding the crime committed by entering the country without permission.
For those who question the accuracy of the estimates (the number of illegal immigrants from the southern border) questioning the estimates does not support your position. The reason being, is if the actual numbers are significantly higher than the estimates what does that mean? It means the United States is capable of sustaining even a greater amount of illegal immigrants than 12 million. So while the estimates are not perfect, it doesn’t support the side that illegal immigration is a problem to say they grossly underestimate the number of illegal immigrants in this country, because whatever the number actually is it doesn’t tangibly impose on the opportunities of Americans. Secondly, if the methodology hasn’t changed whatever the actual number is, the estimate tracks it proportionately to the actual number so we have a good idea of increases and decreases, and how the estimate corresponds to American opportunity.
While the number of illegal immigrants in this country has risen, it hasn’t risen beyond what is manageable, or to an unprecedented level. So what is the appropriate action to take to ensure we maintain a number of illegal immigrants in this country that does not impose on American opportunities? Should we build a wall? The only people who want to build a wall are the wall builders who will make billions of dollars to build the wall and the politicians they support. It isn’t an effective deterrent or measure to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the southern border. The solution is very simple. A marginal increase in manpower and resources to CBP and ICE and the creation of incentives to prevent state and local governments from obstructing their efforts. When I’m talking about incentives I’m talking about suspending federal funding to cities and states that sanction such obstruction. Federal funding is so important to many states, counties, and cities, that many maintain problems such as homelessness because solving the problem will cost them money.
That’s a very basic approach to a very basic and unpressing problem. Secondly, we have to ask what are the benefits of illegal immigration? There are benefits. These are people who typically work for money, they are producers of products and services, they purchase goods and services, and these are economic contributions. Anytime there is a job that could be filled that isn’t filled, these are products and services that are not being produced in the volume in which they are demanded. Less sales, less wages paid, less profits, less taxes collected, and overall, less economic activity than there could be. Fewer people to buy goods and services because there are fewer people earning a wage to buy things. Less profit being made means there is less money being reinvested, less jobs, and overall less production and less money circulating, changing hands fueling economic growth and development.
We know we’re not firing on all cylinders because we see the jobs reports. There are jobs that many people do not have the skills to work, but there are also other jobs that many people do not want to work. There are people in this world whose ambition is to perform honest work that is sufficient to meet their basic needs and the basic needs of their families. I had a momentary idea to create a program that would connect detained illegal immigrants directly to employment. It would be created with either the companies in need of the labor or the immigrants paying for the administrative costs so it wouldn’t be a liability to the taxpayer. Companies that have jobs that they either cannot fill or cannot maintain employees can apply for workers through the agency tasked with executing the program. The program will essentially provide work visas, housing, and employment to desirable illegals who want to work that the worker participants will pay for out of their wages. If they maintain their employment and housing for 5 years without interruption they will gain citizenship.
Does this mean I put the interests of illegal immigrants over the interests of Americans? Of course it doesn’t. I just see a place where seemingly unlike interests converge. Return to the paragraph that mentions the benefits of illegal immigrants who perform jobs others do not want to perform. Does it benefit Americans to have less money changing hands, less profit being made for reinvestment and consumption, less wages being paid out for consumption and the purchasing of goods and services? It does not. The more people producing goods and services being paid a wage, the more people we have spending money on goods and services which means more opportunities for everyone to make money. No matter what your line of work is.
While I didn’t see the labor shortage as an actual labor shortage since whenever there are people looking for work, despite there being jobs unfilled it means the right jobs do not exist for the people looking for employment. Those jobs offer too little compensation, too little in opportunities for time, or the work is just undesirable. I did observe shortages of labor. While working with a company that installs furniture, fixtures, and equipment for new hotel constructions we worked a job where we could not hire enough people on certain days when we could have used more people. This was at a Stay Bridge hotel in Auburn, AL. There was a day when we had multiple trucks and two people unloading the truck into a box and there was two of us on the floor where the box would be lifted up to. Usually we’d have at least 3, sometimes 4 people unloading and one person operating the lull and have 5 or more people on the floor distributing the items to the rooms. While returning to a Holiday Inn Asheboro, NC to make some adjustments for the owner, the owner could not maintain housekeeping staff despite offering what was a competitive wage for the area. The owner sometimes worked the front desk and his wife performed housekeeping duties on a hotel they spent 18 million dollars to build. When there are people who want to work, and there are people who have work they want to pay people to perform, why are we wasting these opportunities for people to be freer? Not only the parties involved, but all people by having more people with money to purchase goods and services?
I don’t promote this idea very often because it doesn’t have an elevator pitch and people’s biases will shut them down to the explanation. It isn’t a focal point of my platform but is something that simmers on the back burner because it could be effective at reducing illegal immigrants and stimulating the economy to everyone’s benefit.
Before I address the left I want to address the misconception that illegal immigrants, which bleeds into hispanic culture in general, negatively affects the American way of life. The values of most hispanics in this country, including illegal immigrants, are almost identical to those of conservative Americans in this country. Family, Religion, Country, and Heritage. They do all the same things, usually for the same reasons, but they speak a different language.
The reason we have people who want to enter this country from countries located below the southern border today, is the same reason as it will be tomorrow and the reason we can’t address the cause to eliminate the effect. A century of US foreign policy directed by industry designed to ensure market access and advantage to these countries. Invasions, coups, sanctions, support of despots, loan conditionalities through the IMF and World Bank, limiting the kind of development that creates opportunities within these countries. It cannot be addressed because the directors of policy aim to ensure that these countries can be maintained for the exploitation of labor and resources.
Amnesty for illegal immigrants or open borders is not an option. Some of this at the state, county, and local levels of government is responsible for the increase of illegal immigrants in this country. Not only through the obstruction of ICE efforts but through the creation of the incentive to enter the country illegally. Open borders or amnesty upon entry eliminate the deterrent that a person may travel hundreds or thousands of miles to enter the country only to be arrested and deported to their country of origin. The laws in place serve as a deterrent that prevents people from attempting to enter this country and must be upheld. Otherwise the number of people in this country illegally will swell and begin to encroach upon the opportunities of Americans. That is when illegal immigration becomes a problem.
Whether or not we want to try to improve our own lives through a program that will facilitate the modest dreams of people who come from places that do not have opportunities for a reasonable quality of life is another subject altogether. As far as securing the southern border we maintain a population below 12 million illegal immigrants by increasing the resources of CBP and ICE, and by reducing the funding to states and local governments that obstruct the efforts of ICE. We do not inflate the problem to channel public funds into companies that build walls. We do not use it as a motivational tactic to get people politically engaged to sell advertising or get votes while negatively stereotyping all people of spanish descent in this country.
I would also support legislation that disqualifies a person from being eligible for asylum if they enter the country illegally unless the country they are seeking asylum from borders the United States. The reason being is anyone who enters the country illegally once caught can claim to be an asylum seeker. If you’re seeking asylum from Mexico than there are reasons why you would enter the country illegally since your life or freedom may be in jeopardy if you apply before entering. However, if you’ve already made your way out of the country you’re seeking asylum from there is no immediate need to enter the United States.
The claim for asylum will first need to be addressed in the countries entered illegally prior to reaching the United States. Where those seeking asylum in the US will have their cases heard in countries entered prior to the United States. Those who have legitimate asylum needs will either be permitted visas in this countries while their request is approved or denied by US courts, or those countries can determine if their request is legitimate or desire based.
5: Most Problems are a Product of Unequal Opportunities for Time and Money.
The problems we have in this country are directly, and often indirectly the product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money. 1st, inadequate opportunities for personal development are largely a product of insufficient amounts of time and money within the household that a child grows up in. After personal development each person’s opportunities are typically based on the amount of money and time they have to create or improve their income opportunities.
Often this discontent is channeled into efforts to create the appearance of problems where no significant problem exists. The evidence rejects ideas that race, gender, sexuality, or any other normal inborn variation is a source of disadvantage supported by the systems and institutions in place.
A person’s opportunities for development and their opportunities to make money typically depend on the amount of money they have. The reason’s are obvious, stability, time and money are required for know-how, and money is required to obtain capital to earn through. If you have a group of people who faced past systemic discrimination that prevented the accumulation of income to pass down to succeeding generations, a disproportionate amount of these people are going to be financially disadvantaged.
Financial disadvantage is the cause of many negative results in life. Academics, knowing that a greater proportion of black people in this country are financially disadvantaged, conduct studies where the cause of a negative result is financial disadvantage, and therefore the research will show a racial disparity. Activists, politicians, and those affiliated or profiting from the idea that race is a source of disadvantage desire this content. The academic is looking for it to draw attention to their work, and overall to advance their careers.
For example, and I’m sure I’m not the first to have addressed it since I believe this statistic is no longer being peddled by the left. There was an assertion years ago, (and these statistics and studies are sometimes cyclical) that black people were shot by police at a disproportionate rate, representing 12% of the general population but representing something like 25% of police shootings.
Race isn’t the causation. The causation is the amount of crimes committed by race. And what is the cause of criminality? We know that the median pre incarceration income of incarcerated people is a little more than half the median income of the general population. We also know the lower the household income that a male is born into the greater the likelihood that this male will be in prison in his 30s. If you have a group of people that are disproportionately financially disadvantaged, they will commit a disproportionate amount of crimes, and represent a disproportionate amount of police shootings. The percentage of crime that a race commits, is nearly the same as the percentage of people from that race who were shot by police. Black people represented 25% of police shootings and committed 26.6% of crimes, whereas white people represented 54% of police shooting and committed 55.5% of crimes.
Another example is a study that showed black people were less likely to have charges reduced, and other favorable outcomes in criminal defense proceedings. Of course if this is a racial disadvantage then we have to account for why Asians have the best outcomes. Part of the definition of racism is a belief that one’s race is superior to other races. Courts where a majority of the judges and district attorneys reflect a white majority of the population wouldn’t only be negative towards other races, they would give the best outcomes to their own race. Why do Asians have the best outcomes? Because the decision to reduce charges or to offer probatio or some other lenient sentence essentially comes down to the perceived opportunities and potential of the individual, and those things are better conveyed by those who have money. Asians have the highest median income in the country.
In addition to academics implying and emphasizing racial causation, the media in their insatiable lust for attention and the ad revenue dollars it earns, often misrepresent incidents to reinforce desired racial narratives. What’s interesting is, in the case of the misuse of force by police, where often the officer according to law and indisputable facts is justified, if all of them were blatant examples of the misuse of force, it still doesn’t represent a systemic problem with law enforcement. When there are a dozen examples of something, from a sample of tens of millions of police interactions, such an incident represents an exception, not the norm. Whether it be race, or another issue, people in this country and especially the media promote exceptions as the norm in an effort to legitimize their illegitimate perspectives.
In this country, race, gender, and sexuality are not obstacles to household stability, pursuing an education, getting a job, obtaining housing, how they are recognized and treated by the law, accessing services public or private, or any other tangible measure of opportunity or ability to do as one pleases. Now, if you don’t have money, is this an obstacle to any of the aforementioned? If you don’t have money or an opportunity for a decent income, you don’t have stability, you cannot pursue an education, it is more difficult to get a job, you cannot obtain housing, although you’re not overtly discriminated against in legal processes there are innate disadvantages in defending yourself from the law, and in utilizing the law, and if you don’t have money, you’re obviously without the means to access a great many private services.
Since black people were discriminated against in the past and are proportionately more disadvantaged through a greater proportion of their people being financially disadvantaged, should black people receive special treatment or assistance to remedy that imbalance? The answer to that question is no. Black people in this country, despite having more poor people than white people as a portion of their group, are outnumbered 2 to 1 by poor white people. To put it another way, there are 5 times as many white people in this country than there are black people, and there are still more than twice as many poor white people than there are poor black people.
There are more than twice as many poor white people in this country than there are poor black people. As a group, Native Americans may have the greatest proportion of poor people in this country, but they’re only about 1% of the population. There are non-white hispanic poor people, and even Jewish and Asian poor people in this country. Black people in this country today are no more disadvantaged than white people or any other race or ethnicity in this country. So we don’t divide the poor by group and subgroup, and through these fictitious assertions that any disadvantage in this country is as significant as growing up in a poor family and or being poor. That is the problem I have with assertions of race, gender, and sexuality being significant barriers to opportunity in this country: it prioritizes interests that should not be prioritized because the problem doesn’t meaningfully exist, and it divides the underclass leaving class goals unconsidered, and unobtainable.
A person of color, a person who is LGBT, a person who is a woman, and born into money benefits from all the advantages of a person who is white, straight, or a man and born into money. A person who is white, straight, or a man, and born poor, is as disadvantaged as a person of color, an LGBT person, or a woman born poor. Disadvantage is a product of means and opportunity, the 2nd being largely determined by the first.
6: Balance Stimulus
In idea, capitalism allows for all individuals to decide what they want to contribute to the market. In practice, those who have money decide what they want to contribute to the market and those who do not carry forward the ambition of those who have. The theory is a person begins working for someone else in a field that interests them. They save their money and at some point they can go into business for themself. In practice, the amount of money people are paid versus their expenses is usually around a 0 sum gain for the bottom 40% of income earners. Most people who begin poor will remain confined to those circumstances which produces many social ills that impact not only the poor, but nearly all classes of society.
I would like to see the full utilization of American ingenuity and potential. I would like to see people liberated from trapped circumstances. The best way to accomplish this is for the underclasses to receive a lump sum payment in order to free them from their day to day stress, to have the means to finance their ambition, and improve their income.
We can do this a few different ways but the first one I put on paper is an allocation of $30,000 to the bottom 20% of income earners, $20,000 to the next 10% of income earners, $10,000 dollars to the next 20% of income earners. For roughly the cost of 1 covid stimulus, we could transform the opportunities of every disadvantaged person in this country.
It pays for itself first in the reduction of people who receive government benefits. Second, in the ongoing reduction of people dependent on government benefits. Third in increased tax revenue where people who achieve higher incomes pay more taxes or in some cases, begin paying taxes. Fourth in the reduction of crime, which includes less money spent on court costs, law enforcement, and incarceration. 5th in the overall growth of the economy from mass investment and consumers empowered through higher incomes. It will also have an impact on revenue and budgets of state and municipal governments through processes described in the American Prosperity Proposals.
Think about how much money we spend each year on servicing the condition of being poor? Every year, closing in on about a century since the great depression the government has spent money to maintain contentment among poor people. Government programs aimed at poor and poverty reduction are good for politicians to pander to their base, but they service the condition of being poor, without providing any real opportunity for people to lift themselves out of that condition. For every one who is repeatedly celebrated for all to see that anyone can make it, there are thousands if not millions who will not be able to. The balance stimulus takes away the excuse of people who say they never had a chance.
As inflation is concerned the difference between the Balance Stimulus and the 3 covid stimulus is multifaceted. 1st, a balance stimulus is less than the covid stimuluses. We are injecting less money into the economy. 2nd, is distribution. Everyone from top to bottom one way or another received money from the covid stimulus, meaning we increased the proportion of money to goods and services being produced which creates inflation. The balance stimulus is only providing funds to those who are without them, who will primarily apply those funds to productive ends. Which means the purchasing power of the middle and upper classes does not immediately increase creating greater demand for products and services. Lastly, the covid stimuluses were especially problematic because in addition to injecting 6 trillion dollars into the economy, production was reduced as businesses for a time were forced to shut down or operate in a reduced or inhibited capacity. The value of money is determined by the proportion of money in circulation relative to the amount of goods and services produced. Covid inflation isn’t just increasing the proportion of money to goods and services through the injection of 6 trillion dollars, but the injection of 6 trillion dollars coupled with a decrease in the production of goods and services. A Balance Stimulus is the opposite. It is an increase in production that balances the increase in the supply of money. If you’re increasing the amount of goods and services produced through the balance stimulus investment, you’re not increasing the supply of money relative to the goods and services being produced and money maintains its value.
7: Abortion
Morally, imposition is the measure of whether an act is morally right or morally wrong. Does an act impose on the liberty of another person or being? A fetus has no experience and cannot be considered conscious without experience. There is no harm done, because something that is not conscious cannot be imposed upon. Morally, I do not have a problem with abortion.
A child who is born to parents of limited means or limited abilities will likely have a poor quality of life. I support a woman’s choice not to have a child to save a person from living a poor quality of life, and the decrease in quality of life experienced by unwilling parents, as well as how that person’s discontent may impose on the public, through criminality or otherwise.
Legally a citizen of this country has certain rights protected under the constitution. Under the constitution a person becomes a citizen by being born into this country or going through immigration processes. A fetus does not have rights having not been born in this country. I’m also of the opinion that the rights provided by the constitution do not provide anything concretely pertaining to abortion. The right to privacy in Roe. v. Wade is flimsy, because if the state interest of the potential for life outweighs a woman’s right to privacy in the second and third trimester there is no reason why that same potential doesn’t exist in the 1st trimester. Although in my opinion, the assertion that the public has an interest in the potential for life should be qualified. Qualified in the sense that the anticipated amount of abortions could meaningfully reduce the overall population and how this would impact public interests. I don’t think that can be shown. The states interest of ensuring healthy population growth shouldn’t be valid without showing that legalized abortion impacts that interest.
I personally feel that restrictions on abortion are morally wrong because the act of having an abortion does not impose on anyone. Therefore the prohibition is imposing the personal belief of some onto others. However, there are many people in many places who have laws they choose to live by that I find to be immoral. I don’t approve of such laws but I do support the right of people to choose the laws they will live under. Since the constitution doesn’t unequivocally support the right of a woman to have an abortion, or the supreme court has decided that the aggregate interests of the public to maintain the population is greater than a woman’s right to privacy, I don’t have an issue with abortion being regulated by the states until an amendment is or is not passed recognizing that women have such a right. I would support such an amendment but would not personally prioritize its proposal.
If people want to live in places that force woman to go other states to have an abortion for the time being that is their decision. Yet I ultimately believe that the only way to reduce abortions is to eliminate the circumstances that cause women to want to get abortions. The most important circumstance being limited opportunities for income. This means as income opportunities increase a woman having the right to choose becomes less important as fewer women are living in circumstances that cause them to want to have abortions. I don’t prioritize the right to choose above improving income opportunities. If successful, the realization of my ideas will prevent many more abortions than will the overturning of Roe. v. Wade.
8: FCC Media Disclaimer
The FCC Media Disclaimer is an effort to inform the public that the media’s aim isn’t to tell the truth, but to construct narratives to attract their attention based on true details and often controversial opinions. Experts are selected based on how their opinions reinforce popular narratives. Facts are taken out of context, or details are omitted to change the context and make things seem like things they are not. The FCC Media Disclaimer would require that the statement below be displayed at the bottom of the screen during any news broadcast.
This broadcast has not been independently verified for factual accuracy and will reflect the bias of the broadcaster in their efforts to maximize attention to maximize profit.
It reminds the viewer of the underlying motive of the media and encourages the viewer to research the stories being covered. The disclaimer would not need to be present during noncontroversial reports of public consequence, such as the weather, or information pertaining to imminent public safety where the threat is not in dispute.
9: Low Income Gas Subsidy
Low Income Gas Subsidy is a program that sets a limit on the price paid by the bottom 40 percent of income earners for gas. For example, if the limit is $3 per gallon, a person in the bottom 40% of income earners will be reimbursed for the cost of gas above $3. A qualifying US citizen will send their receipts electronically to an agency within the IRS who will process the reimbursement. Each qualifying person will be subsidized for up to 100 gallons per week. If a qualifying citizen purchases 100 gallons of gas at $4 a gallon the citizen would receive $100 reimbursement.
10: Center for Economic Planning
A Center for Economic Planning is essentially a corporation owned by all the people in the jurisdiction in which it is created, intended to be created in a city, county, or for rural implementation in a group of counties. The general public acts as the shareholders without the buying or selling of shares. They elect the executive management and have direct input into the investment strategy as well as the allocation of profits. A Center for Economic Planning allows all people to participate in decisions of production, creates more opportunities for income, better quality opportunities, and has the potential to put the public in a position to compete against industry in political investment.
Imagine if 10% of everything owned was owned by some city’s CEP? This would provide the public with the means to support candidates who did rely on industry to make them competitive in campaigns. It would allow the public to lobby congress to influence votes for or against items within bills and bills that serve the interests of industry at the exclusion of the public. There has never been a point in this country’s history or probably any other country where those who controlled money did not also control public policy. While a CEP will serve the public’s interest in allowing the public to decide production, and create more and better opportunities for income, the main purpose of a CEP is to create democracy through a system of political investment.
At the federal level a CEP bill would allocate 50 billion dollars in grants to be applied for by cities, counties, or joint county partnerships as may be necessary in rural areas to apply to start their CEP. The maximum grant amount would be 5 billion dollars for any individual CEP based on population qualifications. 10 billion dollars would be reserved for rural joint partnership CEPs to ensure that less developed areas have an opportunity to benefit from a CEP.
11: Healthcare
I believe all people should have access to healthcare, but all people cannot afford to have access to healthcare. Although there are state and federal programs that already provide healthcare to many indigent people, there are others who do not have any insurance and only have access to healthcare for emergency treatment.
The first criticism of providing free healthcare to all indigent people is abuse of the access. If people can access healthcare for free some will use that access frivolously which costs money. We can taylor indigent to dissuade that kind of usage, which doesn’t cause the service to be inferior but creates consequences for abuse. Off the top of my head an indigent person would have a limit on free coverage, where after this limit is exceeded the indigent will not be denied coverage but will be responsible for half of the bill. Obviously, for those who qualify for care but are still above a certain income threshold there will be co-pays for some treatment. This isn’t my plan, just an example of how indigent care can be tailored to prevent abuse.
The second criticism of providing healthcare to the remaining uninsured indigent is the cost. Insurance companies on average make profits of between 15 to 20%. In order to have a medicare for all program to cover the indigent, we need to first have a public option. If the public option is charging premiums comparable to insurance companies and providing service along similar lines the public option version profits can be used to pay for the indigent care. This means if there are roughly 5 people purchasing insurance through the public option it will pay for the costs of the indigent and we don’t have to spend tax dollars to insure the indigent.
I support a public option for healthcare that recent history has shown cannot pass because it doesn’t have the support of industry, and I also support some form of public insurance for the indigent that must be preceded by a public option.
12: Climate Change
We know climate change is occurring based on global average temperatures that have been directly recorded since preindustrial times; where the averages are established from 1000s of direct temperature records from different locations on the planet. We know that carbon dioxide levels have increased due to human activity from direct measurements taken in the last 70 years, and from earlier times through ice cores. We also know the sun is not responsible for climate change because solar output has been relatively consistent over the last century, and we have not experienced significant changes during periods when solar output has temporarily increased (50s) or experienced significant declines in the global average temperature when solar output has declined. We also know that increases in CO2 caused by an increase in the global average temperature take 100s of years to occur. Which is to say CO2 isn’t increasing because the planet is warming, the planet is warming because CO2 is increasing to address the remnants of deniers who today are very rare.
Projecting the previous growth in emissions the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will reach 730ppm by the end of the century. This amount of emissions does not include feedback mechanisms, the most significant of which is methane and carbon frozen in decaying organic material beneath the permafrost. If all the permafrost melts it would release about 550ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere after ocean absorption is taken into consideration. A few years ago it was estimated that about half the permafrost would melt by about 2080. New research found that permafrost that wasn’t supposed to begin melting for 20 years has already begun to thaw.
If no permafrost melts, and if the ice that reflects the heat from the sun back into space doesn’t continue to disappear, and earth’s CO2 concentration just remains on its projected historical course, 730ppm by the end of the century corresponds to a planet that has a global average temperature that is about 3 degrees Celsius higher than the pre industrial average. If we reach 3 degrees we will reach 4, and 5, and it doesn’t really matter how high the temperature rises because a 4 degree world is unlivable, and we will destroy ourselves in a 3 degree warmer world. 3 to 4 degrees warming essentially means that from the equator into southern Canada, from the equator to southern Brazil around the world is mostly uninhabitable due to desertification and extreme weather. Which includes all of the United States. This scenario means that human beings destroy themselves in conflicts over remaining and newly habitable areas of the earth. Or human beings destroy themselves due to the inability to peacefully redistribute populations from places that are no longer inhabitable to habitable places.
Knowing this, it may be assumed that I take extreme positions on reducing emissions. I don’t support cap and trade as was proposed by the Biden Administration. I also do not support other regulatory approaches to climate change. I don’t support harming American fossil fuel companies by limiting their ability to export fossil fuels as I’ve seen proposed in the past. It’s really an all or nothing approach in many ways. The reason being, no matter how much efficiency increases unless we 1st generate our grid energy through renewable sources, and then transition our transportation to renewable sources no amount of regulation is going to significantly change our trajectory in emissions and temperature. Climate change is used to funnel public funds to companies that do enough to take advantage of their political servants incentives, but do not significantly reduce emissions.
I support a plan to transition the entire grid to renewable energy and for the public to own the new infrastructure it is paying for through the power marketing administration. Which isn’t the nationalization of power which could be something negative. PMAs will sell the power generated to the utility companies who will manage and distribute the power to the public at a profit.
The PMAs will sell the power to the utilities at a profit, and that profit will be reinvested to expand infrastructure to meet the growing demand for power and maintenance, and some will be used to subsidize the cost of power to low income people.
If elected, my position on climate change would be a nonfactor because it is exceedingly unlikely that any bill that would accomplish what I mentioned in the previous paragraphs would be introduced. I will not vote for regulations that disadvantage American companies or make life harder on Americans that do not meaningfully address the problem. If through regulation and throwing public funds at private companies saves 50 to 100ppm by century’s end, or .3 degrees C by century’s end, it doesn’t meaningfully change the problem.
The most meaningful impact my candidacy has for climate change is to increase income opportunities for low income people, because doing so allows individuals to make greener behavioral choices. Which again, will have only a minimal impact, but is as significant if not more significant than any regulatory approach or any approach that incentivizes industry through the allocation of public funds to incrementally implement renewable energy.
13: Crime
As a person who has both been a criminal and spent portions of his life operating in criminal circles I understand the causes of crime and deterrents to crime. I also understand the importance of the rule of law. To restate what I’ve stated previously, the law should exist to make us freer. Agreeing to rules that prevent imposition causes us to be freer by not engaging in imposing activity.
Crime is strongly correlated to poverty, a lack of opportunity, and unproductive development that takes place in economically stressed households. As crime is concerned it should be easy to see that I want to eliminate the cause to eliminate the effect.
I understand that most criminal imposition stems from collective imposition that creates the circumstances that cause people to go down criminal paths. However, even though I understand this I do not support measures that have been adopted in some states like no bail offenses, or the decriminalization of criminal acts.
Most people are arrested for state offenses which means running for a federal office doesn’t have much bearing with how criminal justice and incarceration operates on a state by state or even county by county basis. The most a federal representative can do is support programs that decrease crime through creation of opportunity.
If I had the opportunity to support two incarceration reforms they would be giving inmates the opportunity to acquire skills and education, and opportunities to earn an income while incarcerated that would position them to transition to something productive when released. Recidivism is high not because the individual is incorrigible, but because the individual is returning to the same circumstances that led to criminality to begin with. Included in those circumstances is being with the means to sustain themselves and being without the means to finance their own opportunity. Rehabilitation is the ability to leave prison or jail with 5 figures saved and having the skills to make a comfortable living.