Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Election 2012: Will either candidate actually step up to the plate?

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

The answer to that question was from Benjamin Franklin as he left a final deliberation regarding our Constitution in 1787. The USA has grown and changed a lot since that time from concepts enforced by law to defending our right to exist by the usage of force. In my opinion, the ruination of the USA began in 1913 when Amendment XVI became the law of the land. It reads as follows:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

A lot of controversy surrounds this amendment from how it originally came to be (Both the GOP and the Democrats are to blame) to how it actually became law (Was this Amendment legally ratified?) Though this was hailed as a good thing at the time it was implemented, it didn't take long before the taxation levels became excessive, especially upon those who had wealth. The inheritance tax originated with the GOP at the time of The Civil War for war funds while the concept of taxing Social Security benefits originated with the Democrats, but I digress. it is now 2012 and yet another Presidential Election will come to be on November.  It is only late April and the mud (and bullshit) is beginning to fly. it is estimated that both the Democrat and GOP candidates will have One Billion dollars to spend. In case you think that is a typo, it isn't. Here is what that looks like in numeric value: $1,000,000,000. Isn't that enough to make most anyone sick? Since 2001, the salary for The President of the United States is $400,000 a year plus a $50,000 expense account. You would have to be in office for 2500 years to earn that much before taxes. This also gives rise to another very important question: If a candidate has one billion dollars to spend, why should they even bother addressing any critical issues when they can buy all the lies and sound bites and ambush ads that they need? Considering the main choices we have for November, it should by now be apparent that government is no longer by the people and for the people; it has become government by obscene amounts of money and it stands against the people in almost every respect of our lives. Lets take a quick look at Barack Hussein Obama and Willard Mitt Romney:

Barack Hussein Obama: That is his real middle name but you notice how it often doesn't get mentioned? Hussein might not go over too well with the voters ( Does Saddam Hussein ring a bell?)
His campaign in 2008 was well run and of course the economy tanking in September of that year helped considerably. One of his slogans was "Change we can believe in" (Despite the improper use of English, it was rather catchy), but once he had our 'change' (our tax monies) it was that couldn't be believed. For example:

A 787 Billion dollar stimulus package that failed to stimulate much of anything except the electorates feeling that they had been scammed by one hell of a showman

Five hundred million dollars went to a company called Solyndra...they soon shuttered their doors and the money disappeared...oops!

Actually supporting the Crock of Shit 'Buffett Rule' whereas anyone making over one million dollars a year would be required to pay a thirty percent tax rate. (News Flash: Most of those making that sort of money are businesses that provide jobs for people. If they get hit with a tax rate like that, there will be even more people without work.)

A refusal to lower the US Corporate Income Tax Rate which is now the highest in the world (That will also cost jobs in the long run)

Interference with the XL Oil Pipeline project. (The same sorts of objections were put forward when the Alaskan pipeline was built...amazing, not only has the pipeline delivered oil, but its environmentally friendly design has had minimal impact. I prefer Canadian shale oil to ME light sweet crude...it ultimately costs us less in the long run when geopolitics are considered.)

Our other choice is Willard Mitt Romney. (Wasn't it a person named Willard in a movie that sent hordes of rats after people he didn't like?)  While Mr. Romney does his best to convince people he is an actual Conservative, there are many who justifiably have their doubts. For Example:

When he was Governor of Massachusetts, he signed a Universal Health Care bill into law in that state. If he was actually against such a thing, why didn't he veto it and force the State Congress to override his veto? If that occurred, he could have placed the blame on the Democrats who would have been behind such an action. The fact that he didn't do so makes people wonder: Would he actually try to defund or end Obama Care if he made it into office or would he support it?

When he was with Bain Capital, their ripsaw negotiating tactics might have gained them a good return for their investors but it left a lot of bad feeling in its wake. One of his more interesting quotes:

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."

Perhaps one day there will be a service that you need Mr. Romney but due to those competently able to provide that service having lost their jobs, you might find yourself in a rather unpleasant situation.

While Mitt Romney tries to also paint himself as an outsider, he is as much a product of the political machines as Barack Obama. if you can look beyond the mud that is already starting to be thrown and the nasty political ads that are already being aired, you would be able to see this for yourselves.

If the United States of America is to survive into the future, there are steps that can be taken to make this so but don't expect either candidate to listen to these solutions let alone implementing any of them (unless doing so would include even more unpleasant consequences or laws).

How to save the USA

Pass The Fair Tax - Herman Cain's concept of 9-9-9 to denote the corporate tax rate, the income tax rate and the capital gains tax rate was suitable for opening needed dialogue on the topic of REAL tax reform, but with the Congress and its spendthrift ways, that would eventually become 35-35-35 or even higher. Taxing Capital and Labor is completely counterproductive while taxing only consumption not only produces a broader tax base but it makes far better sense economically. Passing the Fair Tax and removing the IRS would provide the growth (and jobs) Americans need and in the process, a lot more of them would be able to afford Health Insurance...

Repeal ObamaCare - Whether you call it RomneyCare or ObamaCare, it is socialized medicine on such a vast scale that the taxes needed to support it would be economically ruinous in both the short and long run. All that has to be done is to take a look at the EU to see what their socialized medicine systems have caused. As the high taxes needed to support such an enterprise are emplaced, more companies will either close down or refuse to hire any additional workers and when those workers can't find work (or why should they bother if all of their money will be taxed away?), it will be to their advantage to be on the government dole. The above is a vicious cycle that will become self sustaining after a short time and will detract form the quality of life as a whole. If you want EU style Health Care, then move to the EU. Their system would only bring ruin to this country.

Open/Controlled Immigration with no Quotas - Regardless of how the US economy is performing, the USA is still a land of opportunity for many and they will arrive at our shores regardless of what is done. Both major political parties benefit from the porous border we have with Mexico but that very porousness represents a major danger considering how many parts of the world are. Ellis Island worked very well from 1892 until 1954 and we need to bring back the concept. Open/Controlled Immigration with no quota restrictions would not only solve the problem of illegals being in the USA, we would know who is here whereas under the current system, who in hell knows who is here. Of course that would mean that there would be no more illegal aliens to hire but we still would have the needed immigrants here paying taxes and contributing in a constructive manner to our society. Unless you happen to be a native American, your ancestors were immigrants at one time too.

The Tenth Amendment Litmus Test - Over the decades, the federal government has usurped powers that belong to the states by default. All powers taken in such a illegal fashion should be given to the states. That includes Education, Abortion, Gay Marriage, all appropriated state land except for such land that is needed to fulfill  Constitutional requirements., and who knows whatever else.

A Law Review - Congress loves to pass laws but it takes more effort for them to repeal laws which no longer apply, are antiquated or are one law of many to regulate one single thing. Why have twelve laws to cover one situation when two or three will do.

No Bail Out for the EU -  The EU has the situation they now have because of their insistence upon an excessive amount of government and governmental control. There are various aspects of European society that haven't changed since the Middle Ages and they are now paying the price. When socialized health care results in tax rates of up to eighty percent, the EU has to realize that such a situation is unsustainable and unless there are drastic changes in their governmental ideology, the problem over there will only get worse.

A New ME Policy: Watch & Observe -  While Americans are in the volatile countries of that region, they are too often used as a common enemy to unite the people. Once we are finished in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should make our presence there as minimal as possible but we can park an AC Fleet in the Indian Ocean with some RDF elements. We then let the general area know that if any further trouble develops, we will use no half measures in dealing with it. Along with this new policy should be one of offering no more monetary aid to the region (including Israel), but we would still have the AC Fleet watching and observing...

Term Limits for Congress - I am almost fifty years old but there is a Senator in Washington that has held his seat for longer than I have been alive. Politics was never meant to be a career and when someone has held office for almost fifty years, do you honestly think that they serve the people? If the President can be term limiting, so can Congress. One Six Year term for the Senate and one Two Year term for a House  Member should be the ultimate goal. With the career politicians gone, maybe governance might get back to an even keel.

There are probably many more things that I could mention, but I think the above addresses what should be considered the major concerns of this nation. Once the Federal Government is on the path to true reform, the individual states may follow suit.

So how about it Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? Are you willing to step up to the plate and accomplish what needs to be done?

A Jaded Bard