The Middle

I believe that these three points should be the message of "The MIDDLE”:  Intervention, Reform, and Balance.

Intervention – The problem with our financial institutions is that they are addicts.  The addiction is causing harm to all of us and we care about this nation more than helping them with the addiction.  Since the mid-1990’s, the financial infrastructure (AKA Wall Street) is a casino disguised as market exchange.  The “Free Speculation” market created the Tech bubble and the Housing bubble.  The gambling behavior of financial institutions needs to end and at some point our nation needs representatives (a Parent or Loved-one) who will provide the necessary oversight or instruction so that our nations value is not bet on the “sure thing”.  The result is the end of “Free Speculation” and the rise of a “Free Market” based on evidence and “true” supply and demand methodology.

To ensure the success of the Intervention, there needs to be Reform.

Reform – Our nation should reform pillars of our system that have led to the divide in our nation.  Our nation needs the following reforms: Judicial Reform and Election Reform. Both of these reforms intersect the common discourse of our government. 

The Judicial Branch is summarized by three paragraphs in the United States Constitution.  In recent decades, we have seen a Supreme Court shift to a one sided point-of-view of defending a clause in the First Amendment over all other provisions in the Constitution and the rights of the States.  Most importantly, the Judicial Branch is filled with non-elected, for life serving individuals with no accountability or review of performance.  The Supreme Court’s interference on self-governing and use of the Judicial Branch as a political tool has corrupted the court.

Election Reform is vital to the future of our nation.  Currently, two political parties, dominate our election structure with the major influence being money, not the people they represent. We have an election process, where I as an individual am limited to the amount I can give a candidate, yet a corporation can give limitless amounts to any candidate.  This belief that a campaign contribution is speech is providing the justification of inequity that is our political process.  The Founding Fathers believed that self-governance allows for individual freedom and shared role in the prosperity of this nation.  No longer do we have the accessibility to that shared role in this nation, it has been bastardized by the influence of money, special interest, and gadflies.

The anticipated result of these reforms is a new system of accountability and renewing the essence of self-governance in our nation.

The combination of Intervention and Reform will put in to place core elements of the final point, Balance.

Balance – Our nation is grossly out of balance.  The top 1% of our nation owns 40% of all wealth in our nation.  A 1% that feels they carry the burden of taxation in our nation, yet their portion does not even cover 75% of the cost for the Department of Defense. A single Department, which provides the blanket of security and the environment for the unprecedented prosperity of our nation, represents 75% of all discretionary spending for our Federal government. These examples are just a few of the disproportionate realities that have occurred through one-side policies and beliefs over the last three decades.  These policies have favored a profit driven society over the common vision of our nation.  This profit driven society has made real discussion of the role of government to address the needs of our nation, impossible.  We understand the reality that a 50/50 world will never exist, but the “trickle down” from the 1% can no longer sustain the rest of us.  The biggest impact of the greed of the 1% is on the majority of us who make over the median income of this nation.  The rigging of our system to benefit the 1% is stripping the accessibility and opportunity of the middle class. 

We, the middle class, have passively stood by as the fundamental processes for our opportunity to pursue our path towards happiness is now limited. 

We, the middle class, are the employees that ensure day-to-day operations work. 

We, the middle class, invest in YOUR corporations through our 401Ks, and with zero re-course when your corporations willfully makes poor decisions or chases the path to the “sure thing”. 

We, the middle class, defend the 1% as “risk-takers”, “smart”, and “hard-working”, while YOU gamble our nation’s future on speculation and manipulation. 

We, the middle class, are not lazy or work less than YOU (the 1%) because YOU have more money. 

We, the middle class, are the cogs that make your world rotate without YOU even noticing, you are not Atlas.

We, the middle class, are the people that educate YOU, protect YOU, and care-take YOU when you are sick or dying. 

We, the middle class, are there to fight wars. 

We, the middle class, are not looking for class warfare, just BALANCE.

I feel - the combination of the three points will provide a path for prosperity in which this nation will sustain the mission of our Founders.  The shared responsibility of self-governance is the gift we pass to future generations.  At this critical stage of our nation, we will be passing an oligarchy system and the failed experiment of self-governance in its wake. 

Good Old American Protest

No matter what you think of the “Occupy” protestors, like the “Tea Party” protestors they have the right to assembly.  Both are protesting the intersection of government and special interests.  Both are frustrated with the idea that few in this nation have the accessibility to influence over the many. Both make points, yet neither is fully informed to validate their points without emotion.  The “Occupy” protesters have more critics then their counter-part the “Tea Party”.  Ironically, many of the critics who embrace the “Tea party”, scold “Occupy”.  Yet, as much as each protest is similar, the response from the critics against “Occupy” is to attack the voice of the people. 

I have heard many GOP politicians and “conservative infotainers” criticize the “Occupy” movement as the following: disorganized, no clear message, and anti-freedom.  Of course, they are disorganized; this is not a political party with money being thrown at it.  The “Tea Party” started the same way, until Former Rep. Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe’s FreedomWorks started to filter PAC money to the grassroots groups.  Money has a unique way of helping movements become political parties.  “Occupy” is now getting support from the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, but this moves to the second criticism, messaging.

To me this criticism is the most valid.  In all of the coverage of the “Occupy” protest, I am able to understand the protest is about discourse, but the “for what” is missing.  Is the protest about the Wall Street bonuses?  Is it about the addictive gambling environment that spawned the tech bubble of the late 90’s and Real Estate bubble of the last decade?  Or is it like what many “conservatives” want it to be about, anti-capitalism?  The problem is that all of these basic questions are what the media is shaping the protest to be about, yet because this is not a political party, but a broad movement of people with a message, which is not succinct (I will add my belief of what the message should be on my next blog). The message that the political pundits and parties are missing is that a mass of protestors that have been missing for the last decade on issues to have a voice about are finally willing to make that voice heard, which the Founders protected in the First Amendment (you know the freedom amendment).

The final criticism is that the protestors are anti-freedom.  In my opinion, this criticism is the most egregious.  Besides Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment protects the right of people to assembly.  These protesters are exercising their ability to express a view and assemble in support of that view.  This is the exact exercise of “freedom” that is protected, calling “Occupy” anti-freedom is just a part of the “code speak” that politicians use to stir the emotion of the base.  Stirring the base is fine to win an election, but this venture to court votes from an ADD audience when it comes to the governance of our nation is the real anti-freedom behavior from those who should represent us (politicians) and those who are the stewards of information (media).  

My Money is Speech, Which is More Important Than Your State Rights

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States made their decision on AZ Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, also known as the AZ Clean Elections case.  The basis for the case is that the AZ Clean Elections system restricts “free speech”.  The Supreme Court threw out the Clean Elections law.  This will continue a string of decisions that has expended the scope of “free speech” to include money on political campaigns as "speech".   Beyond the scope of how this will effect the political systems and contribution limits (or removal of limits), there is a few simple legal points that the court missed. There are three main points of law that surround this case: Is the First Amendment applicable to this case? Is this a case of states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment? Finally, does the Supreme Court view the First Amendment as the overarching, “Precious” Amendment over all other elements of the Constitution?

The Supreme Court has increasing been using the “free speech” clause of the First Amendment to decided case, with the likely victor being the interest of a corporations against the state.  In the AZ Clean Elections case, the petitioner, AZ Free Enterprise Club claimed that their “free speech” was restricted because when they gave money to a privately funded candidate, the publicly funded candidate would receive equal funding.  Thus, their “speech” was limited because it “leveled the playing field” for all candidates.  The Court used the precedent from cases that related to Federal election process enacted by Congress, allowing for the “free speech” clause to serve as legal justification.  However, the AZ Clean Elections Act was voted to enactment by the people of Arizona, not the legislature branch of the state.  Since the voters enacted the Clean Elections Act, not the Congress of the United States, the First Amendment is not applicable to this case, nor should the Federal election related cases.  That moves to my next point, this case is more about Tenth Amendment then First Amendment.

Why is this a Tenth Amendment and States’ Rights case? Simple, no place in the United States Constitution or Amendments is a provision on the election of state or local government officials.  In fact, the Tenth Amendment seems to be the appropriate constitutional application of this case.  The Tenth Amendment states the following: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  The election process of the each state is and should be determined by the people of that state.  In this case, the people of Arizona approved, by voter initiative, to adopt this funding structure for their elections.  The candidates running for state office have understood and used this process to get elected since its adoption in 1998, including one of the petitioners in this case, John McComish (for disclosure, is a friend and I have contributed to his campaigns), was a publicly funded candidate in 2002 and 2004.  The fact is that until 2008, when it became a political issue, the majority of Arizona state government elected officials chose the option of being publicly funded over privately funded.  The Supreme Court ignored the will of the people of Arizona to continue the establishment of the “Precious” as the amendment over all other elements of the Constitution.

The “Precious” (excuse my reference to Lord of the Rings), is becoming the best way to successfully win any case or argument brought in front of the Roberts’ Court.  Beside the AZ Clean Elections case, this Court has ruled consistently against the states (see Sorrell v. IMS Health, INC) when the victorious party used restriction of “free speech” as the central argument of law.  The Court has decided that one party’s “speech” overrides the collective right of the people.  The act of judicial activism that the Roberts’ Court is currently engaging separates the foundation of our republic.  By establishing that a single, powerful clause in one amendment overrides all other elements of the constitution, the Court is acting a prejudicial party against the objective nature that, we the people, should expect and demand from our judicial branch.

Where Are You Robert La Follette? Your State Needs YOU!!!

For the last two weeks, the lawmakers in the state of Wisconsin have been at a stand still.  The "budget battle" that has become the frontline of what I expect will be a year that will be my generations’ seminal point in the history of labor relations in this country.  To the general eye/view of my generation, we do not see or understand the big deal of Wisconsin, we only know the talking points.  With one-side, stating this is about a budget crisis and this is the only solution. The other side is being viewed as not doing their job or running away from their responsibilities. To my generation, many do not get that this battle is about our future, and the public employees in Wisconsin are standing up for us, and meeting the historical expectations of their great state.  My generation does not see that Wisconsin about our rights to level the odds (just slightly) with the house.  That we (people whom worker for others) have a right to the option of benefits, or even a voice in our work-life balance.  That is what Wisconsin is standing up for.

The public employees do not work for us, they work for the agencies, departments, districts, and numerous other government entities that we want and need to support our existence.  Yes, we pay taxes, but our voice in the process is with our elected officials and the policies they pursue.  The decision of Governor Scott Walker is policy about bullying and superiority, not about what is best for the state.  The budget part of this battle was settled last week, when the unions agreed to the stipulations in the proposed budget bill, this is now about imposing the will of the powerful influence peddlers on the masses. Maybe, this is just trying to stop a potential new element for collective bargaining, unions for public health employees, like nurses.  If states begin to implement their own health care systems or even the Federal government enables public health employees the same right to collective bargain, then the opponents of collective bargaining will be forced to address the inequity of the fast growing need industry in this country.  Everyday, Nurses serve a vital role in our health care system.  Currently, only 20% of nurses nationwide do collective bargaining with hospitals and other health care facilities.  Part of the things that collective bargaining does for employees allows them to negotiation work conditions, training, definition of expectations, as well as benefits. 

This is just the beginning of the imposing of will we will see this year, the next and most visible labor battle begins at the end of this week with the NFL. Ironically, the current NFL champions reside in Wisconsin and the City of Green Bay owns the team, if Governor Walker gets his way does that mean the Packer players will not be allowed to collectively bargain for their benefits?  Will it be up to the voters of Wisconsin to give them a raise above inflation? I do not think that Clay Mathews and Aaron Rodgers would be Packers too long if they could not collectively bargain.

This may all be the precursor to the larger fight, Social Security.  The rhetorical structure of Social Security has become now "Entitlements".  For my generation, we will not get "Entitlements", even though we paid into them, I call BS on that.  Yet, my generation is not fighting, not coming up with solutions, we are accepting.  Mark my words, the end game for all this is an end run at Social Security elimination for anyone born after 1970.

I would like to leave you with two things, Governor Robert La Follette served as the Governor of Wisconsin from 1901 to 1906, a Republican, then later a Progressive, established many of the workers right structure we take for granted today, including workers compensation and minimum wage.  Governor La Follette viewed Wisconsin as a "laboratory for democracy", that laboratory of democracy is being tested by the influence of big business he and his Republican contemporaries fought against through trust and monopoly busting.  Governor La Follette fought for the every man of Wisconsin, Governor Walker fight for the fancy lad that wants a corporate tax handout.

Collective bargaining is the coming together of individuals, to form a united group of similar occupations and skills, to bring grievances and propose solutions to a powerful organizational body, wait that kind of sounds familiar. 

A Sacrifice, A Real Hard Sacrifice: Tax Refunds

How far are you willing to sacrifice for the financial good of the country?  In the last year we have heard a lot about the national debt and the annual deficit (yes, there is a difference between the two).  The debt was the main driver of the 2010 elections, many new members of Congress won on the issue that the government is too big and are calling for spending cuts.  After the election, The House GOP immediately announced that they would cut $100 billion from the current fiscal year budget, which was never proposed because of legislative holds and other political BS.  There are three bills in the House Budget Committee that will cut spending, but the total cut is only $32 Billion, a little short of the target.  Some would say it is a start, but it is like paying the bookie $32 when you owe him $100, he will not let you slide without a slight injury.  My problem is that we all know it is a problem, but only one party has done actually real things to try to solve, not so quick GOP and do not give yourself a high-five Dems.  If we (the citizens) are going to get serious about solving the national debt, or at the very least making a health dent in it quickly, I have an option: suspend individual and corporate income tax refunds for five years.

Yes, no income tax refund for five years. Okay before you go scream that I am crazy or that is outrageous, or think I am talking tax increase (which it is not); take a deep breath, according to the IRS data in tax year 2008, $324 Billion was paid in individual tax refunds on 111 million individual tax returns.  To give you a quick comparison, the total proposed budget for FY 2009 for non-security discretionary spending (agencies like Labor, HHS, HUD, Education and about 21 others) was $437 Billion,  that is a difference of just over $110 Billion; Medicare is $425 Billion. 

The total number of individual tax returns for tax year 2008 was just over 144 million returns.  77% of individual tax rates led to a refund on average of $2,902.

So, hear me out, I propose that you keep the credit which for many of us are vital to lowering our tax burden and clearly help the economy.  However, once you get to zero, you are at zero no refund.  The refund is not really overage of what you paid in withholding tax through the year, but the fact you get refundable credits or had other deductions, like the mortgage interest deduction, that lower your tax burden; we have been lucky enough to get the remainder as our tax refund.  Can we sacrifice our remainder to pay down the debt?

My proposal is simple, suspend the individual and corporate tax refunds for five years, just five years to take effect for tax year 2012 (so no refund in April 2013).  The credits and deductions still count to lowering individual tax burden.  If you owe after doing your tax return you still owe, if you are at zero, you at zero.  Mandate that the remainder of about $300 Billion (Based on the current projection rates) be used to pay down the national debt.  Total reduction of national debt is $1.5 Trillion over five years.

I know this is a tough choice, I know after doing my first itemized tax return that I really like the refund total, but if we are going to seriously address this crisis then we need to open up all options.

Do we have the stomach for sacrifice?

The Root of Propaganda, The Roots of Violence, and The Root of Change

Saturday’s events in my home state should never have happened, not for the reasons that many will believe.  First, I agree, the rhetoric of our current political environment needs to change. Many do not know the tone and language used in Arizona elections has been turned up to a level where primary elections are not about issues but about who is more extreme. For example, Jesse Kelly, Rep. Giffords 2008 GOP opponent, had no political experience, was relatively new to Arizona, and ran only on I am against everything Obama and government.  Jesse Kelly used propaganda and suggestive, implied rhetoric to try and stir up a base of strict conservatives to beat out his primary opponent, Jonathan Paton; Jonathan Paton served in the state legislature, active member in the military, just completing a tour in Iraq, and a pragmatic public servant.  The voters in the Republican primary voted for the emotional propaganda by Kelly, this was not an exemption but the rule in Arizona; Ben Quayle won his primary by saying that the President was the worst ever, Arizonans voted him to Congress even though he lived in Arizona for the long tenure of 3 years, a “Real Arizonan”.  The battle in Arizona is about being elected; it is not about doing the best for the state, but winning the spoils of election.   I think it needs to change to one of real factual debate, instead of emotional, propaganda talking points.  This last election was not about constructive debate, but about anti-government angst. The speech and language to gain votes for a seat that many of our representatives do not respect is part of the problem that many have with politicians.  For those that serve the people and those that cover our representatives need to have real debates about policy, not debates for the purpose of rates and poll numbers. 

Next, as details come out about the suspected murderer, the picture of mental illness is being framed.  Last year, as part of the state’s budget crisis about 14,000 Arizonans lost mental health care coverage through ACCCHS.  If someone recognized that the suspected murderer was mental ill, where could they go for help.  The Arizona legislature has taken a position to cut health care for Arizona to balance the budget this includes mental health.  For a long time in Arizona the mental health issues have been pushed aside by lawmakers, hopefully this tragedy will push them to address it immediately.

Finally, this tragedy should lead to the discussion again on the accessibility to handguns by individuals will mental illness.  After Virginia Tech, the Commonwealth of Virginia tightened the state gun laws, to prevent mentally unsounded individuals to purchase a gun without first going through a Federal database.  In Arizona, the last decade has been marked by legislation to allow anyone to carry a gun.  The basis for this openness is that if guns were more available, people would be safer.  The reality is that Arizona has some of the looses oversight of gun ownership in the United States.  I understand that it is a right, but the lawmakers of this state want guns to be allowed everywhere.  There is no reason to bring a handgun to a Safeway on a Saturday morning, or to a bar on a Friday night.  The guns in bar issue is prime example of how the state has changed in the last five years.  In 2005, Randy Graf, Rep. Giffords first opponent whom she beat in 2006, was mocked nationally by the Daily Show for the Guns in Bars law he proposed.  The law allows gun owners to carry a gun into a bar, A BAR.  Apparently, the thinking for this law was that guns and alcohol CAN mix in a non-violent way.  This last year, the law to allow guns in bars passed and was signed by the Governor; the next new gun law is not really a law, but an elimination of oversight, allow guns on college and university campuses, like ASU.  Again, party atmosphere with alcohol and guns could make for an interesting theme party.   

The roots of this tragedy is a combination of rhetoric, anti-government zeal, mental illness, and policy decisions by a state that is demonstrating that it could care less about the people that live in it.  Arizona is in a crisis, not a financial one, or a political one, but a crisis of identity to the rest of world and to its citizens.  The path of the state needs to change, or the image that many have been trying to change for the last 20 years (since the Evan Mecham days) will comeback.  The image of the bigoted, out of control, and leader-less state that is out of touch with the rest of the country.  Last thing, I ask my friends who still live in the beautiful state to take a step back before automatically get mad at what I say; this is my constructive criticism for a state that I love and has lost its way.

Health Care – Republican Style

So when the Republicans take the House on November 3^rd, one of their key fiscal leaders will be Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin.  Rep. Ryan and the other Republicans may propose a repeal of the Health Care Reform.  However, nobody is talks about the Republican proposal for Health Care.  Yes, they do have one and it is Representative Ryan’s.  He is proposing a refundable tax credit; $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families each year. 

First, a refundable tax credit means you pay first and then get it when you file your taxes.  In addition, you get the credit even if your tax liability is zero. 

According to the latest census projections, there are just over 310 million Americans.  According to the 2008 estimates of households, this separates families from individuals.

Total Households: about 112.3 million

Total Families: about 74.8 million

Individuals: about 37.5 million

So let us do some math, 74.8 million times $5,700 each year that equals 426,360,000,000.  That is just over $426 BILLION on tax credits for just Families.

37.5 million Times $2,300 each year that equals 86,250,000,000

That is just over $86 BILLION on tax credits for Individuals

For a total of $512 BILLION each year of spending to the Federal budget. 

A reminder to everyone, the CBO cost estimate of the Health Care Reform Act is 938 BILLION over TEN years; In comparison to my basic math using Rep. Ryan’s proposal and Census data, the Republican proposal is $5.12 TRILLION over ten years. 

If you really care about controlling spending, the national debt, and believe that we need to do something about health care in this country; The Democrats and the President’s Health Care Reform is the better solution for the country.  The Republican solution will continue their policy of fantasy governance or do nothing to solve problems.