Thursday, November 22, 2012

Peaceful Separation Must Define Specific Alternatives

Americans continue to search for answers.

The November 6th surprise served as a reminder that an organized opponent aided by a partisan media can net surprising results. Perhaps the Republican Establishment was so certain that they would win that they forgot how the game is played!

A split in the party was predictable. Mitt Romney should not have been the nominee. It was foolish to even consider a candidate opposed by 70% of the party. But the GOP Establishment did! They will pay for it!

With four years of Barack Obama looming ahead and no guarantee that his likely successor, Hillary Clinton will be beatable in 2016. a decision must be made. The Establishment position would be to "recalibrate our message, attempt to broaden our tent and hope that the economy worsens to the point that they will finally be forced to blame Obama and not Bush."

Sound familiar? My next guess is they would return to the old practice of "attempting to out Democrat the Democrats." In short, nominate another moderate. As if, 1996, 2008 and 2012 didn't happen!

What if a new alternative was presented? Such as "real health care reform, real banking reform, a real energy policy, real immigration reform, college tuition cost relief and offshore outsourcing curtailment?

In a "peaceful separation" of the states, the departing states are concluding that the federal government in Washington, D.C. is broken beyond repair. In short, "if something is unfixable, you destroy it or divorce it." To some, this sounds reprehensible!

Civil War historians generally agree that the real reason for conflict was economic related. The Northeast wanted to industrialize. The South wanted to continue to freely buy consumer goods from France and England. Protective Tariffs came into play during the Jackson Administration. The "nullification crisis" ended with a compromise.

This was in 1832. The question of slavery continued. 99% of Southerners did not own slaves. The system was becoming obsolete due to sheer expense. Historians concur that it would have likely vanished by 1880.

Congress quietly passed the Corwin Amendment March 2, 1861. For those who believe that the South's fear of"forced Emancipation" caused the war, read the Corwin Amendment! The South wanted liberation from the Northeast. Southerners today believe that the Northeast started the war, illegally invading peaceful states. From a legal point of view, their accusation is valid, thus making reparation claims legitimate.

Midwesterners knew about the Corwin Amendment. After all, it's author, Thomas Corwin was an Ohio Congressman. Throughout the entire conflict, there were mixed emotions held throughout the Midwest.

On one hand, Midwesterners resented the South's readiness to break the union. At the same time they were sympathetic. Like the South, the Midwest was largely agrarian. They felt that they were at the mercy of those same Eastern banking and railroad interests. Many wanted to stay out of the war. There were large numbers of Midwesterners who thought that the Northeast had "dragged them into the war." Their proclamation became a nationwide echo. "It's a rich mans' war and a poor mans' fight."

1913 brought more exploitation. When a cartel of Northeastern and European bankers met at Jekyll Island, Georgia the country was experiencing a boom in community bank growth. The large banks had watched their share of market dip below 40%. This was unacceptable. A corrective measure was conceived. The end result was the Federal Reserve.

Throughout the 20th century Americans from coast-to-coast watched their dollar buy less. They were asked to pay for World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Great Depression. Amazingly these Northeastern U.S. and European Banking cartels used every manipulative tactic to steal from the American people. Their tool was "inflation." A read of G. Edward Griffin's, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" reveals in detail the actual progression of our banking system. It provides additional evidence as to why a "peaceful separation" is not only a good idea, but an imperative one!
Obviously, the motivation for a "peaceful separation" is there! But for the movement to move beyond "coffee talk" and into the next phase, clear distinctions from both Republicans and Democrats must be made! It cannot be an assembling of "right wing Tea Party interests." Nor, can it be composed of "ingenious and slightly unethical corporate interests who want to destroy the labor movement."

For "peaceful separation" to succeed, a completely different vision, unlike anything that has come from Republican or Democrat camps must emerge. And it must be specific. This was Mitt Romney's problem! Anything vague will never gain legs!

Most Americans are "middle right." They want the Government to be there when they need it. But, they don't want it to be overbearing to the point of dominating their lives. Americans favor a more simplified federal income tax plan. This equates to something with lower rates and less loop holes. We are not talking about "gimmicky." We're talking "straight forward and uncomplicated."

This is why I strongly favored Governor Rick Perry's proposed plan. It's easy to understand and administer! Let's face it! Not everyone can afford a "big eight' C.P.A. firm!

Everyone is in agreement that we have a health care problem in America. Or rather, a "health insurance problem!" Obamacare certainly isn't the answer. In fact, this piece of partisan legislation alone is grounds for "peaceful separation."

An thoughtful alternative would begin with an attempt to make it a "bi-partisan" alternative. In a nutshell, we would instigate a "one-percent payroll tax" that would be used exclusively to establish a catastrophic pool. This "CAT POOL" would not be accessible until the claim surpassed $10,000. At that point, it would pay 80%. When the claim reached $50,000, the co-pay would be reduced to 15%. At $100,000 it would cap at a 10% co-pay.

The plan would be available to everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions. There would be no restriction on where people could buy their health insurance. If John Doe in Lima, Ohio wanted to purchase his families health insurance from "Sun Valley Health Solutions" in Pocatello, Idaho, he would have that option. As the final piece of the compromise, "loser pays tort reform" would be included in the proposal.

With the vast coal, oil and natural gas reserves that would be developed, it is possible to assist states on programs currently in place in Texas and Louisiana. Louisiana's "T.O.P.S. program grants free, four-year public college and university tuition to all students holding a 3.0 grade point average or better." Texas has recently instigated a "S10,000 four-year tuition plan" for all students.

There are some good ideas that could be gleaned from the old system. Namely Social Security and Medicare. Both are "pay as you go." Obamacare greatly threatens the latter! The former can be stabilized if money that is paid into it, actually stays in the account.

Housing and Urban Development has contributed greatly to expanded home ownership. Most Americans want this and expect this. It should be maintained and improved upon. There is also the question of homes that are currently "underwater." The 2008 banking bailout was mismanaged. Money that was targeted at distressed homeowners never got past their mortgage holders. In fact, some banks used this interest free money to buy other banks. Did anyone recall what J.P. Morgan Chase paid for Washington Mutual?

What if, a new republic mandated that Chase's good fortune be "passed on to their mortgagors?"

Three specific proposals could completely change the face of America. The first is a "National Right to Work Law."

Right to work, in accordance to the 10th amendment should be left up to the states.
But should all union members be required to participate in funding political campaigns? What if they don't agree with the union's choice of candidates? As far as the public sector is concerned, we must remember that these employees are meant to serve the public, not hold it hostage! A ban on collective bargaining privileges for public sector employees would eventually bring public sector wages,salaries and benefits in line with the private sectors. 

The "American English Unification Amendment," the topic of "E" is for English, would make English the official language in the nation. It would strive for 100% English literacy, eliminate voter fraud, and curtail identity theft. The immigration plan introduced would create a path for citizenship for all who could demonstrate proficiency in English. It would likewise lay out a specific criteria for new applicants.

The anti-identity theft measures would start with an offshore, outsourcing ban on all jobs that utilized all or part of an Americans social security number. The "100% English literacy goal," would mandate bi-lingual education in American public schools. In addition, an intense Vocational Education option would become a focal point.

The third "proposal" would be "Perfect Society." This is a measure that has proven to eliminate class warfare. It is the polar opposite to Marxism which has gradually taken over the Democrat party. It's objective is simple: Create a society that is based on "where you are on the ladder and encourage you to move to the next rung." The Marxists emphasize, "how much your neighbor has." Whereas Marxism stresses "social justice,"  the "Perfect Society" theory emphasizes "individual accomplishment."

"Perfect Society" would implement a new suffrage standard: "To vote, you would need to (a) receive social security, (b) disability, (c) a pension. (d) show proof of not receiving any entitlement over the previous two years, (e) own two acres of land, (f) show proof of compensated employment at anytime over the past three years."

Sounds like just about everyone, right? Actually those missing are the "career entitlees." The idea is not to harm anyone who has made a career on receiving government relief! The question is, "why" generations of families continue receiving entitlements? The answer is simple: They have learned that it's often a "better deal" than finding a job with nominal compensation!

We're not talking about throwing these people on the streets! But we are proposing that they be removed  from the voting rolls! Upon doing this, we effectively place them at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Thus a minimum wage worker holds a loftier spot on the ladder than the entitlee. Because, unlike the entitlee, the worker can participate in the electoral process.  This is "perfect society" in modern form. 

 There would be other ideas and proposals. But disgruntled Republican and Democrat voters could jointly embrace such a beginning.

It is probable that neither the Republican or Democrat Establishment would support any of these proposals. They go too much against the status quot. Yet, this isn't about the preferences of career politicians! This is about a "reset" in America. When people begin asking the question of "would this be better than what we have now." the stakes would escalate.

No comments:

Post a Comment