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).