1776? More like 1812 & you were the British

Love to modern Great Britain, Happy Jubilee (awkward), but in the 19th century back when the Sun Never Set they had landed in the newly founded Capitol and burned many of the works including the building defiled a year ago by insane, confused and seditious persons, to the ground.

With all due respect let's review 1776:

1.  No Representation no taxation may be an argument for regressive VAT, but it's No Taxation without Representation reminding us we were a subject colony with subservient order.

2.  Powers of the many States.  The many divergent interests couldn't agree on the definition of a human at the dawn of Science, yet they coalesced against greater tyranny.  Thus began a bold experiment transcendental of past singular State Independent Republics, such as 16th century Holland, because as declared was aligned with a greater cause, where many States we're considering outright independence, they chose instead, to attempt something never tried in human recorded history.

3.  United we stand divided we fall.  Since ancient China good leaders have known that great power of Unity, and we are often only as strong as the weakest link.  Although we have been given dominion over the planet, we are simultaneously a fragile biological creature, like any other that can also go extinct. 

International Interdependence is the key Technology of Government and philosophy that appears to have been discovered from the Seven Years War, a virtual World War of colonial powers- it also presented the opening for a century and a half of colonial rebellion, and independence of former colonies organizing as singular in the Age of Stateism.

4.  We are in perpetual formation, and so to be inclusive of what through reason, dignity and jurisprudence has since become the transitive right of all humankind in philosophy to reasonably unite in Congress to not just be nominally represented, to have these rights defended in common, but also in order to pursue Life, Liberty, and reasonable happiness that doesn't infringe upon any others same bundle of rights as citizens.  E pluribus unum.

5.  Division of powers.  King John may have signed and sealed the Magna Carta, but it acted as more of a promissory note in exchange for the tens of thousands more people whom the Dukes would be needing to regularly supply the King's endless Feudal warfare, back in those dismal days when it was much harder to raise a human, and we were much fewer.  

There were scores of repromises, compromises, and variations over the century following, but ultimately The Magna Carta writ bold was coveted as proof of some notion of independence from despots.  The articulation of all aspects of modern society post dark Age Europe could be said to have emerged from this fourteenth century experiment.

Once Washington reasonably agreed to lead, the idea of King of America was doomed, and in their best wisdom they divided the labors of State: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary to replace the King, Parliament, and Courts.

6.  No King's, Queens or Imperators!  The Agricultural realists that made this land knew life was an endurance of seasons.  A central figure is inefficient as an organizing principal in matters of progress, science and ethical administration.  Every two, four and six years the boldest, best and brightest should go to trade on behalf of their constituenties in good faith and conscience, regardless of political career (and leave eventually).

7.  Please, add to the list of rights responsibly, it's a work in progress.  The rights and responsibilities in our Bill of Rights are for everyone everywhere on US soil all the time, and when all of the above are disfunctioning, then please change... Including revise or remove, if needed.  

Conclusions: All human beings may be born of different station, place, rank, class, or situation, yet we are equally entitled to all rights such as the freedom of Religion, but also the freedom from any imposition of Religion, for example.  

The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights are of course imperfect documents written by human beings.  Washington stepped down from ostensible Kingship (contemporaneously other than maybe France, our allies, trading partners and opponents could only imagine him as Regent) he warned against imitating Sister Britain with the formation of parties, implying that although each Representative, Executive and Judge, also human, may be imperfect, All must make their choices and answer for them accountably to that constituency of voters, and their Maker.

The method to Washington's leadership was accompanied by humility, self awareness and the dignity and nobility of humanity like Cincinnatus two millenea before him to prefer freedom over power.

Our Civil War four score and seven after was further, unfortunately violent, correction of this power dynamic, but it can be linked to a nexus of biblical levels of iniquitous human chattelry, massive unjust territorial expansions causing disproportionate representation from an inconvenient distance and historical onerous circumstances, and international competition from foreign interests.

We have deescalated such power misalignments through negotiations, dialogue and compromise for a century and a half of something we call bipartisanship, and there is no reason for The United States of America to regress to past misalignments, unneeded partisanship, or violence.

People sacrificed in 1776 in order to plant the tree of Liberty for the future to enjoy- a considered answer to the long-term problems of humanity.

One year ago was an internal invasion of people, domestic terrorism, by mostly citizens, who by operation of law are now having lawful abridgement of those same rights granted to thus be responsible to pay penalty, fines and serve time for their crimes, as the largest, freest, most watched, most monitored lawful election in human history was certified.

We have but one Republic, and as Franklin said "if you can keep it!"

(Original post, 1.28.08) Our Nation was founded during the Golden Age of Reason. We need a return to those core values.

Ben Franklin lobbied to have our National Symbol be the rattlesnake. We Agree. As much as we love our country and her Eagle, we have lost our way, and need Ben's Rattlesnake of Vigilance!

The Rattlesnake Party has five core values:

(1) Scientific Reason. A return to the primacy of Science as the basis for much of our decision making (including the Dismal Science of economics); Better Educational programs emphasizing Math, Science, Health, Logic, etc. to create a new generation of scientists, engineers and astronauts; and a Renaissance of Scientific Discovery which we are clearly on the verge of regardless of government funding-- however, we need to have ten to twenty "Apollo-style" projects to improve the climate, environment, science, space exploration, health, etc. (see more info.)

(2) Rule of Constitution. Reinstatement of habeas corpus; an end to unconstitutional practices by government; honoring the Bill of Rights; and expansion of those rights where applicable, when necessary. (see more info.)

(3) Plain English. All laws need to be written in plain English, if we expect to hold people and our Representatives accountable. The indecipherable nuances which the legal and governmental community create has driven us to the current state of affairs. This has led to corruption, cronyism, and quasi-legal corporate practices which leave the average American holding the can. (see more info.)

(4) Rule of Law. Once all laws are reorganized to say what they mean and mean what they say with plain English, a fair and consistent enforcement of such laws. Drug laws against addicts, Biased enforcement of laws as relates to race, ethnicity, or class, and unchecked Corporate crimes would come to a sudden halt. (see more info.)

(5) True Simple Flat Tax. A flat tax of 10% to all persons, entities (including corporations, and the like), and churches (which demonstrate a commercial surplus or profit) would generate ample treasure to the Government, reduce or eliminate the need for an IRS, save millions of man-hours and billions of dollars to improve productivity, reduce the tax burden on most people (rich and poor alike), and eliminate the corporate shenanigans which created such complex and labyrinthine tax codes in the first place. Although this would eliminate some Tax Preparation and Government jobs, we believe this would be made up for with the tremendous windfall to the Treasury due to a universal closure of loopholes. (see more info and more andmore.)

We are firm believers that there needs to be multi-party system and universal factions in Washington, DC. Our group is a Universal Faction designed to house any US Citizen of any affiliation, who agrees with part or, preferably, all of our ideals.

American Fallacy: Health Care

Fact Check.org released "clarification" to all the false argumentation in the media (bloggosphere inclusive).

Now lets examine the tactics of rhetoric used by such false claimants:

PRO-INSURANCE LOBBY;

Government Will Decide What Care I Get; Appeal to Emotion (Fear)

Private Insurance Will Be Illegal; Appeal to Emotion (Fear)

The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling; Straw Man with a dash of Appeal to Fear (for those who are religiously against suicide)

Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed; Appeal to Fear (in sales we call this Fear of Loss)

Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered; This is tricky... I am going to say in short order this is probably a Masked man fallacy, whereby substituting the word legal with illegal a whole barrage of fear and loathing can be unsheathed by jingoistic elements.

PRO-REFORM LOBBY;

The Bill Is Paid For; I would put this as a non-sequitur, but it could be more sinisterly interpreted as Irrelevant Conclusion, an argument that diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.

Families Will Save $2,500; Bare assertion fallacy. Even though there may be some savings, the nature of that savings is internal not pocketbook according to the estimates.

------

So, we can see the Pro-Insurance Lobby is using pretty much a fear (argumentum ad baculum) to countervail the very factual fear invoked by (just one example of the argument) that "Medicare as-is will become bankrupt in less than a decade."

That raises legitimate fear for someone who is 58 ~ 64 who expects to have a life expectancy of 75 ~ 80 years where the last five to ten years require the most medical assistance!

The translation to Baby Boomers (all of you) = "Right when you need it the very most you wont have any guarantee for medical assistance or coverage!"

That pretty much should raise some fears for a generation which hasn't collectively been as kind to their bodies as they could have been (paging Doctor Leary).

***

The Pro-reform group seems, like many Democratic coalitions to have a broad range of messages, but in this instance not very many fallacies. I would not defend misstatements, misleading, misdirection, or, worst, false argumentation, but in this case there seems to be such an abundance of argumentum ad nauseam from the Pro-Insurance groups-- wherein a false thing is repeated over and over without nuance to the discussion, such that fatigue is the result (and by association the false assertion becomes true).

This morning a former British Minister for Health all but ridiculed the red herring arguments coming from the Pro-Insurance Lobby.

We in USA (ranked 37th in the World) are painfully misled by poor arguments by those who would interfere with the Hippocratic Principle in our democratic republics hope to become more respectable, lead a more decent lifestyle, and improve the health, welfare and happiness of our citizenry.

Time for the California Oranjebüm?

ATTENTION: What if I could show you a way to fundamentally repair the credit markets, fiat currency, trade deficits and inter-state deficit precipitated by the Wall-Street Bailout?

Assumptions:

CA Received Federal Tax Dollars per Dollar Collected by the Federal Government as a Factor of 0.78 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf)

All Taxpayers as a class are owed interest, back fees, and other endured hardships by and from (and in some cases continue to receive) those selfsame Corporations received of that Expenditure.

CA has low bond-ratings by agencies with suspect objectives and motives that limit our ability to represent the true greatness of our burgeoning sciences in CA.


Answer:

In my open letter, disguised as a book, there is the principle of the "Second Level Market," where a State in the Union, without disrespect for any other State or the Federal Powers that be, can issue a Fiat based on some principled value or ordinary credit.

What if we estimated the value of some percentage of the next five years of Orange Crop; Issued a spend-able state run currency, which could be honored and legal tender within the borders of CA, and peggable to a state trust held Option in one of the Mid-West AG markets; and retire the Bond in fifteen years.

A modest proposal, but when The Governator was holding the gun to the State employees and the IOUs were issued! That was when I had this expanded thought upon my "book."

I conclude by suggesting that this simple device be retired at the Federal Bank in Manhattan—it could be in exchange for any deficit between the two states. Or we could use it to buy the Seed Crops from Holland once Hemp becomes Legal (in 2012)!

How's that for 'easier said than done?'

I will leave it to someone who understands these things to figure if I am right, wrong, or just a misguided semi-autodidact.

Modern American I-Ching

In these days of trouble and confusion, where can we turn for guidance and wisdom?

How about the ancient oracle called the I-Ching, more accurately YiJing, best translated as Classic of Changes? For those unfamiliar with this work from ancient China, there are 64 readings that, like Tarot cards, can offer general symbolic representations for the seeker to fill in the blanks and personalize to discover individual resolution and sense of peace.

I have developed this 80-page manual, entitled Mudita: Modern American I-Ching, from my recently copyrighted materials based on years of rigorous study in Yoga, Tai Chi, Martial Arts, Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism. Mudita is Sanskrit for “Joy,” and is unique in that it also presumes we can discover joy in the experience of the peace, joy, and happiness of others.

Each reading gives an image, a noun, a verb, and some hard-won wisdom based on Thomas Cleary’s eminent translations of Confucius’ Commentaries on the Classic informed by this larger concept of abounding, compassionate, and vicarious joy.

Ultimately, I hope the grand effort to accommodate the ancient guide for a new century, at a bare minimum may offer some comfort during these trying times.

I am a Zen Buddhist, and, as such, also hope, like any reading from the I-Ching, once the Seeker gains a sense of insight after opening the manual— the text itself might become transcended by the seeker.

It’s been an amazing adventure, filled by a lifetime of mistakes and confusion, in order to presume the honor of writing this book, which is No Book!

BUY MY E-BOOK

From the peanut gallery to the rafters... a crib sheet with commentary on the SOTU

Here in Bold are my take-aways, and in italics the words from the speech that best summarized the speech logic points.

Howard Fineman called it 'the most pro-business speech a Democrat has given.'

1. Implied acknowledgement of Keynesian Major Project Theory."The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation."

2. Direct acknowledgement of the broken educational mechanisms. "...we also have to win the race to educate our kids."

3. Acknowledgment that one of the most efficacious stimulus actions of money from government would be best spent on Infrastructure. "Our infrastructure used to be the best - but our lead has slipped."

4. Acknowledgement of over-burdened small business part 1: regulatory. "All these investments - in innovation, education, and infrastructure - will make America a better place to do business and create jobs. But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success."

5. Acknowledgment of over-burdened small and medium businesses part 2: tax code. "So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years - without adding to our deficit."

6. Fiscal Prudence. "Now, the final step - a critical step - in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt."

7. Government streamlining and modernization. "We should give them a government that's more competent and efficient." (Streamlining is a proven savings.)

(The rest focused on foreign policy, summarization and concluding remarks.)

***

Overall, if even some of this gets implemented in a reasonable (dare we suggest bi-partisan) manner, then we stand to be improved economically.

The Golden Fleece-down

Comcast won approval. Okay, but (and I haven't read the resrictions) should we not limit this transaction from a perspective of the possession or easement of telecommunicative ("two-way") devices in places of private residence or commerce in conjunction with the Potential of an implied warrant* the real issue: data mining, data collection, financial data sharing; etc.

*The former issue was similar to the subsidized railways of the 19th century, and now that much of the hard infrastructure is "owned," this implied or real monopoly on a market-by-market basis, in conjunction with certain content monopoly issues (channel restrictions, access limitations, and slower speeds for content not preferred) all imply that this will be bad for consumers.

This is a merger of Producer and Distributor to attempt to break this deal down into the simplest terms, and they have the customers "clicks" right in their hand.

I have Comcast Service, and it isn't as good as all that. Technical issues quite frequently, and local outages. That said, ATT U-Verse had major outages right over the holidays (as many are well aware) nation wide.

I would like to see better consumer protections... my bill has only gone up, and not just as a direct function of inflation.

How does this benefit consumers directly?

Learning from 19

Well, I am disappointed that Prop 19 didn't pass, but my eyes are opened up to where things stand.

I am also disappointed that the opposition created no effort at a cogent rhetorical argument against -- everything I heard, saw, or read was an appeal to emotion (mostly Fear) at the end of the day. No real debate of logic or reason.


What then would it take to be so reasonable as to shut out the opposition entirely:


Firstly, the measure failed in all the major growing areas! Also it failed in LA and SD, where I sense that had the Proposition somehow not stepped on fewer toes, then this may have passed without the support of the growers.

In his article, John Walker points out that exit polling found 30% of "NO" voters supported legalization-- just not 19!

That would suggest that a simple ballot proposal which only focused on the idea of making legal cannabis (in all its forms, including industrial) will pass.

Next, the simple folk wisdom that at the end of the day Prop 19 was a proposal to tax people, and I feel old when I think back to all the very good ideas I have seen, or helped put onto ballots, and even voted on, that dont pass for one basic fact-- the idea to raise taxes is a bad starting position.

Dont get me wrong, Prop 19 was well past deficit neutral, but it certainly appears that the 60-40 rule (when if you propose a tax it has the default position, regardless of issue, of being down 20%-- so to vote in a tax you need a virtual super-majority of enthusiasm, just to get to 51%!) was in full effect here.

So, then that suggests we need to legalize cannabis without creating taxes through referendum.

Finally, at the end of the day, it is certain that those people who operate directly or indirectly with the less than legal aspects of the current #1 Cash Crop, were overwhelmingly against the proposition for a wide range of hallucinations: market prices would drop (making this less profitable); medical marijuana laws would be hampered (which it wouldn't, but for certain operators the same issue of profitability would have potentially come into play); and claims of being poorly crafted (which would not have been as much of an issue because Ammiano would have reintroduced Bill to Legalize, Tax Marijuana, and thus harmonized and cleaned up any outstanding or unclear issues) seems to have been code for "let's not kill the goose laying golden eggs."

To summarize, the initiative that will pass sooner than later, must (a) be simple, clear, and complete; (b) should not prohibit, nor prescribe any taxes or fees; and (c) must be supported by the over ~60% of eligible voters who actually support an end of prohibition-- growers, suppliers, medical marijuana-ists, law enforcement, unions, churches, civic organizations, and maybe even another party (besides the Libertarians) that fully backs the initiative.


To whit the simplest proposal available for every state in every election year until prohibition is ended:

Shall Cannabis, its cultivation, harvest, products, by-products, use, sale, and distribution remain illegal?


Full text of the initiative;

A yes vote shall change nothing.

A no vote shall render all state and local laws against Cannabis void. If so voided, then the people will by force of this vote recommend the matter to state and local governments to establish regulation, tax, and control.


That simple, really.

I think the strategists, movers and shakers are well to get something as simple as this proposal onto a couple of 2011 ballots (maybe CA?).

If this issue can get onto the 2012 ballot in say a dozen or two of the major states where the movement is strong (WA, OR, CA, NV, CO, NM, MT, NE, MN, MS, OH, NC, NY, ME, HI, et. al.), then I imagine there will be an end of prohibition-- doesn't matter if it's 2 months, two years or two decades later-- we are very close to the beginning of the end of prohibition.

This strategy is a simple existentialist dilemma, which is designed only to jeopordize the continuation of Prohibition.


Finally, as I may not write another pro-Hemp article for fifteen days, months, or maybe another 15 years (hopefully not), I would like to re-iterate and respond to the question of why I support legalization:

Our founders had declared that the innate disposition of the character of the American Citizen is a free person who reserves and is granted by the Almighty an inherent right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Further, the right to privacy is implied within the bounds of social order and safety of the state.

To have something, a plant, literally something that can grow as a weed, a volunteer, that has been misrepresented as in the same category as Heroine, when in fact it is less harmful than Alcohol, and has outstanding benefit to the industry and health of humanity, then as stewards of this little blue marble, we earthlings, must make free that plant, animal, or being. This is the ethical implication.

To arrest people for an activity that human beings have engaged in since the dawn of history itself is madness. This the moral implication.

The definition of Liberty may be argued in massive volumes, but put simply: "the right of the individual to live and pursue happiness within lawful means without infringing upon an other's liberties, nor antagonism towards the state."

As such, so long as we perpetuate false myths, rumors, and stories about reality itself and facts as such, we create a society of suspicious minds (to quote Elvis) that is in genuine conflict with the ideals of Freedom and a right to Pursue happiness.

So long as another American's reasonable expectations of ordinary individual Liberties are being infringed upon, then this implicates us each and all as fellow citizens to understand that some element from our own choices in life may be also similarly put asunder arbitrarily and capriciously by the government. This is the philosophical argument.

And finally, like any good red-blooded capitalist from America, the most important issue is that of making dark markets bright, fair, and regulated places, and spreading the benefits of what is basically a TRILLION DOLLAR industry back unto the populace from whence its also is gainful of those basic services taxpayers provided for these outlaws (yes, as in "when freedom is Outlawed, then only Outlaws will be free!") to be benefitted from the roads, services, and infrastructure whereby the goose may so continue to lay golden eggs, and all of us are granted a right to have geese! Revenues gained by the States and Municipalities from all the new profits would have probably exceeded estimates over time.

***

California just missed a multi-billion dollar chance at a major fifteen to twenty year first-mover advantage!

A New FHA for Consumer Credit: Deficit Neutral and No New Taxes Required

QUALIFIED FEDERAL CONSUMER LOAN PROGRAM PROPOSAL
(CLP) 1-50K

Premiss. In today’s economic reality debt is an admissable “sin,” that is not only permitted, rather it is encouraged on the whole by church and state, so simply we are told to spend, buy, and consume... and this we do.

Debt is a modern reality for every individual, family, and even local government!

As such, we must see that an eighteen year old today looking to become a “college educated,” independent person must then be admittting to entree of no less than $50,000.00 of debt ceiling in a very humble estimate of “standard,” education.

If we are expected to have an “average” college level of training, and earn a “reasonable” salary, then we should pretty much be planning with debt as a reality, not an “escape, or emergency.”

By dealing with debtor’s thinking only in crisis type situation we create and engage in unrealistic, non-methodological, and, often, rash decisions and decision making processes.

This applies to the emblematic purchases, such as mementos, and translates all the way through to extraordinary purchases (home, auto, business, etc.).

So, even college educated, especially the most recently graduated, speaking as the last ‘wave’ (or two) of persons graduated in a similarly desperate Employment Situation, I was similarly disappointed for many reasons (1995, not being the best day to enter into the “economy,” laden with debt loads that at this vantage seem simple and easy) after graduating college. See Affordability.



Imagining a Consumer Loan Program. The image of a pup-tent... Four tent-pegs and a tent post (or two):


Peg One. Using “Sallie Mae-style Rules,” herein referred to as the 1-50K (that’s one dash fifty kay), would require the first fifty thousand in debt of any individual American Consumer to be treated with the forbearance, interest rate restrictions, and fair regulation and rules treatment, similar to if it was a student loan.

The proposal here may potentially include minor Consumer Loan Protection adjustments and improvements to the Sallie Mae Rules, but it does not and should not affect the actual Sallie Mae Program.

A new entity, or possibly branch or division of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is proposed to be sponsored by the government for these purposes, as it relates to individual debt;

(A) Government Guarantee to it’s citizens (for that first $50,000)

(B) Regulate the micro-loan ($1 to $50,000 dollars US) markets, and to a lesser extent simplify the small business lending process ($50,001 to $250,000 dollars US) for micro (under $250,000) business loans

(C) Work with existing regulatory and oversight bodies to ensure consumer protections

(D) Independent oversight to expand recommendations for counsel with various regulatory and economic agencies


Government backing will create a secondary market to resell pools of bonds like Sallie, Freddy and Fannie. In this recommendation, we strongly urge the oversight of regulations and the simplicity and transparency of rules, and suggest this could become a means for clarifying, and making positive change in the bond and securities markets, extant.

Micro-loans, those under fifty-thousand dollars, to individuals, as secured by real property, tangible property, or without security are all considered equivalent in this regard, and refer to those US citizens to whom there is such indebtedness, often above and beyond just this loan amount.

I imagine that if this program and set of reforms were so implemented, by having no required loan minimums, we may expect this provision would create a swarm of micro credit availability and lending programs.

Working in concert with existing laws agencies and institutions, new modified and streamlined rules would allow for a massive wave of refinancing of consumer debt.

In some cases, individual credit may be extended.

This proposal amounts to a non-bankruptcy proposal to the American citizen, and an admission by it’s leaders’ that the economic policies for the last decades have not (i) improved affordability, (ii) fully redressed income or prosperity gaps, nor (iii) have fully redressed income discrimination or dispairities.

Debt is unfortunately inevitable, and we (apparently continue to) follow the example of our leaders.


Peg Two. Consumer Rights, Responsibilities, and Limitations

(A) Interest. Your interest rate may not be usurious. Rates are here proposed to have a regulated minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 7.5%.

(B) Credit. Your “credit rating” can be calculated by a monkey. Five percentage points between 2.5 and 7.5 percent, create five categories of credit-worthiness:

a. Real Estate Attached and Full Documentation (Only)
b. Tangible Property Attached and Full Documentation
c. Tangible Property Attached and Low Documentation
d. Signature Only and Full Documentation
e. Signature Only and Low Documentation

(C) Limits. Your Loan Limit will be one factor where affordability and litmus tests can come into play. (It’s a government-backed loan, not a guarantee that someone will lend.)

(D) Tax Deduction. Any Interest paid on these loans is a write-off, so long as the item purchased isn’t also being depreciated in the tax year interest is written off.

(E) Business. Aside from a shot in the arm with refreshed credit sources, and credit availability, (S, SE, Sole Proprietorship, and 1099) small businesses and contractors will get an additional allowance of benefit in their own category, and these three elements of credit availability and liquidity combined should act as a serious stimulus for Main Street.

(F) Families. Any individual who claims any (one or more) dependant will automatically qualify for an additional $5000.00 credit limit.

(G) Responsibility. Although any Individual or business may refinance the first amount of debt ant any time, without pre-payment penalties, the debt may only be paid-off, and cannot be discharged through Bankruptcy.


Central Tent Pole. Insurance.

In a counter-balance to the risk of “no BK,” or ‘bankruptcies,’ to the consumer there is, aside from the potential for a secondary market in the government backed securities, another mitigating factor to the macro investors, as well as the creditors themselves.

There needs to be a tent pole in place that assures there is a sound investment proposal, otherwise this becomes a government-propped scheme, as opposed to a government operated trust on behalf of the Consumer.

Although no “insurance requirement” is here recommended to be used as a factor for making any one loan, an “insurance component,” that would be available to be opted in to any loan at any time, and in accordance with Federal and State rules, that allows for the expense of servicing to cover the costs of an insurance premium that benefits the Debt-Holder.

These policies do not have to be that simple, but they should follow some rules of the road, and is here recommended can not add to the expense of having taken the loan.

First off, according to this recommendation, like the loans have no pre-payment penalties, these insurance policies can be bought back by the consumer. After a debt is satisfied, the Debt Holder, must offer the consumer a fair right to redeem the Policy being held on his or her life.

Further, that right (1. to satisfy the debt, and 2. to retain the benefit of policy) is best if it also transfers to one’s legatees, heirs, and/or estate tax free, and no undue delay may be created by the Debt Holder.

Finally, a Debt Holder will be required to follow certain time periods that describe normal and requisite response times from Consumer to retrieve such a benefit.

However, in the event of a default, or the death of any consumer, after following procedure in concert with appropriate notification, waiting and response times, the Debt Holder may be considered in first position to discharge all costs against the benefits of any policy so entrusted, before transferring any fully accounted and audited remainder to the Consumer’s legatees, heirs, and/or estate tax free.

By including this insurance component with the government backed facility, (A) we have a secondary guarantee to have any consumer debt satisfied, (B) we have mitigated risk, so justifying the limits on interest rates and fees.

As Mortgage Insurance does for FHA Loans, so for the Debentures and Debts this private Life insurance market will act to mitigate risks posed by individual Consumers acting as borrowers, and secondarily will have the collective benefit of mitigating risks of recoupment of principle. Overall, this should be very attractive to investors, particularly if these debentures remain dollar denominated.


Peg Three. Resultant Savings.

If any of this remains unclear, for whatever reason, just do some basic research and consumer financial education and find out the difference between a typical credit card loan = a negatively amortized revolving loan with fees and rates between 6.99 and 29.99%, and the proposal here to make a flat rate of forbearable interest, fee restrictions, and a rate range from 2.50 and 7.50%-- this will save the average American family $1152 per year!
-
Just three ideas and a comment, from what would certainly be an eventual plethora as a result of these recommendations, of ways to improve the Consumer outcome in dealing with Affordability and Debenture, as a net benefit from these rule ideas, for this peg of the tent that may all be simultaneously executed:

(A) In Loan Work-outs, refinances, and/or other incentivized restructuring programs, a tax-free savings account (under rules similar to the HSAs [see Health Savings Account]) may be set up on behalf of the Consumer as a “Learning to Save,” qualification for any business that would so seek to be qualified. That tax free account would eventually revert to the Consumer, after all debts have been satisfied. Lawyers, insurance Agents, Brokers, as well as Credit Counselors, Not for Profit Debt Agencies, et. al. would be ideal candidates to assist in this program by becoming tested, qualified and bonded as a credentialed, licensed and recognized Trustee.

(B) In consumer credit devices, a similar tax-free savings account (under rules similar to the HSAs) may be set up as an incentive to qualify for lower interest rates (still have to be between 2.5 and 7.5% however), and may also with certain restrictions be set up as an overdraft protection mechanism.

(C) After a debt has been satisfied, any remainder due the consumer, with or without any insurance component(s), may be set into a new or existing tax-free savings account.

(D) Comment: Creditors are here recommended to be fully compliant as Trustees and meet additional requirements to participate in housing the principle sums for individual Consumers' Savings Trusteeship accounts that qualify for the FDIC sponsored savings program(s), preferable to local banks, Credit Unions, and Bonded Agents already insured by FDIC.


Peg Four. Business.

Loan Limits here proposed: for individual are $1 ~ $45,000 and then an additional $5,000 if you claim any dependant.

If you file Jointly, then as a couple your combined maximum limit for tax-deductable interest payments on qualified consumer loans is $90,000 and then an additional $5,000 for your first, and second $5,000 if you claim any dependants numbering 2 or above.

If you file as a Sole Proprietor, SE, S-Corp, or 1099, then under additional rules you may apply for “SBA Rules,” or 51-250K (that’s fifty-one dash two-hundred fifty kay [as in loan limits from $51 ~ 250 thousands]), which only should have in common with SBA Loans (1) they’re for Business Purposes, and (2) the government acts as backer of last resort.


Otherwise, only a Board of Advisors role is recommended by this proposal to be held something like at an annual meeting between this Consumer Loan Program (CLP) and the Small Business Administration to coordinate and harmonize lending rules would seem to be potentially necessary.

Same Interest Rate Limits as the first tent peg.

Same 5 credit categories as the first tent peg.

Same tax deduction, same everything, except (i.) loan limits go higher (up to $250,000), but may be slightly more restrictive, and (ii.) may potentially have pre-payment penalties, or other restrictions.

Cash flow of the business, credit worthiness, and net worth should all come into play, but ideally not be so inflexible as to stifle our nations Entrepreneurs from getting a second, third, or even fourth chance at success, the pursuit of happiness, and creation of Jobs!


Conclusion to this proposal. Imaging Purpose; The Second Tent Pole.

The government must act as debtor of last resort in order to encourage the Lending Institutions, and the Financial Industry in general, to effectuate a new game plan, which better enables and ennobles our American Citizenry—A Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—all three things that Lending can do when capital is properly employed.

This proposal is intended to be tax neutral, and highly stimulative to the economy.

Finally, I suggest a slogan to this Agency, Consumer Loan Program, or what-have you, and it reads simply:

Indifference and Forbearance


To whit a philosophy:

This agency in its oversight shall be indifferent to the “whom,” and focus only on the ‘what and how’ in order to protect the consumer, detect fraud and abuse, and foster equal lending practices at the micro-Business and individual Consumer levels.

The objective of this agency is to promote the free flow of capital investment to the farthest reaches of our economy.

Policy and procedure are the foundation, Rule of Law the building, and the marketplace of American Citizens shall be the people whom would so enjoin to make Consumer Loans.

This agency shall preserve the mission to forbear, for the Government must lead by example, and that purpose is: (i) a tolerant and quiet strength with efficiency in motion, (ii) an unyielding belief in Americans as a group and as individuals, (iii) and straightforwardness of purpose.

To bring to bear the proper practices available to the Consumer on the economy.

And, to create opportunities for the American Citizenry in their pursuits of Life, Liberty and happiness.

Status Update

I just wanted to be open and accountable to the public about where I am in my various writing projects:

Metaeconomics; took it off market for some re-diting, simplifications, expanded and comparative definitions, and reindexing with glossary. No set deadline.

Eventology Study; about 3/5ths done, but need to create more space for myself to complete the more poetical aspects. Hope to finish by next year's end.

Semi-autobiographical fiction about childhood; thought I was about 1/3 done, but still searching for the structural edits-- I think I may chop off a bunch of this second and first draft... feels years away still.

Crime novel; stuck in research is the simplest way to say that. Beyond which am amazed at our morally gray world, where truth is stranger than fiction. Always said this was gonna take four to six years at least... make it eight!

New historical fiction idea was crystallized for a vehicle and I have developed a very promising first draft outline. Wont be talking too much about this one for quite a while, but am excited to have finally found a vehicle for something I have been pondering... forever?

New economics book regarding "micro-economics," from about a 177 degree viewpoint of the meta-economics text. Should be eminently more readable and relevant... I hope!!

Anyways, just wanted to say thank you to those of my friends (dare I call them fans?) who have not only been reading my work, but been giving me feedback... and seriously amazed at the overall positive scope. That said, if anyone has indeed read my work, and was holding back comments for me that weren't entirely positive-- seriously, please (a) let me know you even have read the work, and (b) your true thoughts and responses. It's the only way I will get better as a writer and communicator!!!

THANK YOU.

Truth in Politicking

So here is a suggestion for Elections Reform in line with Food Labeling, Credit Card Disclosure Reform, and Truth in Lending type of consumer information:

Each Candidate for any elective office must fill out the following Disclosure Form;

JOB SOUGHT

NAME OF CANDIDATE

(200 characters or less, in his or her own words, answer "why I want the job.")


BUDGET AND LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

existing Federal Budget......... Reform? .........% Change Proposed
29% goes to Military.............. (Y/N) ..............(+%, None, or -%)
21% goes to Health
8% goes to Interest on Military Debt
12% goes to Interest on Non-Military Debt
7% goes to Income Security and Labor
4% goes to Housing and Community
4% goes to Veterans' Benefits
4% goes to Food
3% goes to Government
3% goes to Education
3% goes to Environment Energy and Science
1% goes to International Affairs
1% goes to Transportation

STATEMENT

(200 characters or less, in his or her own words any comment on Priorities above)


CANDIDATE BACKGROUND

(200 characters or less, in his or her own words background and experience statement)


CANDIDATE INFORMATION

(Legally Registered information including contact information and party affiliation)


TRANSPARENCY INFORMATION

(Public website and resources to conduct due diligence by any citizen including full and current list of contributors)

****

Now the example above is for any federal lawmaker.

That said, City Dog Catcher would have the same form, but with fewer budget categories.


Some other notes:

(a) A Candidate could maintain exact funding levels, yet favor reform
(b) A Candidate could propose changes in funding levels, yet be against reforms (so to say not correct the status quo, just increase or decrease program funding)
(c) A Candidate could favor no reform, no changes, but claim to be a strong advocate (for example in Education) in the STATEMENT
(d) A Candidate could zero out every category (unrealistically) except one (or two) to demonstrate their commitment to one (or several) issues, but ought to indicate "reform"
(e) Unless this becomes some sort of mandated law, this would be voluntary and it is conceivable candidates would choose not to disclose or follow this format (or similarly agreed format)-- this could become dicey because if candidates begin to make their own forms this idea dies from the same clutter and confusion currently in the system


FInally;

A second scorecard could be more easily created by Transparency/Watchdog organizations by comparing voting record (in category) with opening Disclosure Form to determine veracity of such original statement, and the subsequent mathematical deviations from that original intent (or stated intent).

Call that the power of Plain English, combined with unified data points for more clear universal measure.

Ethics 505: Health Care Solution-Koan

For all who would have an impact on treatment, care, practice, regulation, profit, expense, or any other involvement between the ancient and sacred connexion between physician and patient, they too must forswear all else for the primacy of the Hippocratic Oath, "Above all, Do No Harm."

(That includes Insurance companies, HMOs, Hospitals, Hospices, State and Fedral run Health programs... et. al.)

Why the Republicans are "Communists"

Lets start off by defining communism via copying from Wikipedia;

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."

That very good sentence is not what I mean by referring to the "W" administration as Communist.

Lets shade things in a little:

When I was growing up you were a Pinko, Commie, or as Wally George would say, "Looney Liberal" if you disagreed with trickle down economics.



Aside from Appeal to the Masses approach of name calling, why would I conclude that the label of Communist, as the many Republicanistas I have known over the many decades, would call someone, group, or argument which believed in any hint of the socialist concept of nationalization of wealth, be an appropriate adjective for the Republicans?

Lets construct the argument from the Republicans and their Administration.

(1) Paulson hands in a three page proposal to solicit $750BB by using an Appeal to Fear.

(2) The congress, after some questioning, submits to this request without examining the construct of mechanisms of oversight, re-regulation, or sufficient scientific or public input by certifying the Appeal to Fear and also using an Appeal to Consequences.

(3) Paulson in turn has "bailed out" only the richest and most influential corporations without any calculation towards restoring the credit markets. In doing this he acting as proxy for the "W" Administration has nationalized more dollar for dollar (adjusted) private wealth than did Lenin in the 1917 Russian Revolution.

The main difference between the almost 90 years and two continents? Lenin nationalized means of production, and Paulson/Bush have nationalized private failures.

As sickening as that statement is alone, it in my opinion gets worse.

(4) Now it also turns out that the execs and other elite do not have to take any pay cut for their failures.

The primary argument from all the trickle downers was that through facilitating the elites, you create more jobs, and thus have a social hierarchy which is a form of meritocracy. Often the arguments from those same trickle downers was that to have a state mechanism which takes care of less fortunate, say war veterans or people with disabilities, would reward failure, incompetence, or lacksadaisy. Can you see where I am going on this one?

The beneficiaries of the decades of pro-corporation, deregulatory, and trickle down thinking has been turned on its head by those very same people who would have argued (in the face of say a $700BB package to allow individuals who earn less than $50K per annum to write down their losses [not pay taxes], be reimbursed for incompetence, and be availed of debts incurred from their poor decisions by the US government) against such a blatant avoidance of capitalist consequences.

Those who would argue that somehow the Clinton years were not in this bag of hammers are dead wrong. Clinton worked with the Knut Gingrich congress to get those lazy welfare mothers back to work, for instance. Only Jimmy Carter tried to oppose the Nixonian economic dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal-- and he was absolutely punished (for not doing a very good job of trying to swim against the current).

So, was Paulson's appeal true or false? Probably a little of both. Yes, the sky was falling, but not in the way anyone could comprehend-- or at least anyone who truly comprehended this did not say. (On a separate note, how convenient is it of the anti-government Republicans to not only have built the largest American bureaucracy in history, but to have also spared us poor innocent citizens from the awful and complex truth involved in the facts {thus a defacto Nanny State mentality, to boot}?)

So, was Congress reasonable or irrational to take such drastic action? Probably a bit of both. On the one hand to it was fairly unpopular (especially at first blush), but to have gone into lame duck session without action could have been political poison for reelection.

So will the companies chosen to be bailed out be a good or poor move by the collective US Government? Probably a bit of both, again: On the one hand if we are truly getting preferred stock interest, corporate bonds, and other repayment guarantees, then there is a real probability (say 30 ~ 55% chance) that the US government (and hence the taxpayer) will come out ahead in dollar for dollar inflation adjusted numbers at the end of two or three decades. On the other hand it is in my estimation also a fair probability that dollar for dollar we could come out behind.

Effectively the US Government will have to now manage a portfolio. On the other hand, it will control certain of these groups (like Fannie-Freddie). All the while being the regulator for these corporations! This is a Corporatist Socialism model which in large part has been the fantasy of many of the Pro-Business "Libertarians" I have read.

They showed Soylent Green on TV yesterday, and that is taking the overreach and complicit conspiracy between corporation and government to a natural and far reaching (if not simplistic) conclusion.



My recommendations for the new administration:

(a) Re-enforce various merit based pay systems/anti-golden parachute provisions for these loans, or they will become due. The Republicans (and many Dems) are fond these days of talking about mortgages and other legal devices as if these are mutable documents. The basis of law is the immutable nature of such binding agreements in writing and witnessed. If there is going to be any flexibility in interpreting legal agreements lets start with the fact that the intention of the parties was NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES!

(b) Envigorate and expand regulatory mechanisms. Further this by making public oversight commissions to review this triangle between the US Government as Stock/Bond holder, US Government as regulator and enforcer of laws, and as shepherd of tax dollars thus invested. (Think Customer, Regulator, and Broker-- of which US Govt is now all three.)

(c) Create new rules for this new use of tax dollars to further discourage cronyism, quid pro quo, and other unsavory action which could clearly emerge over time from this unholy trinity by creating trust fund and anti-collusion rules for the US Government as Broker.

(d) Create timelines (not in terms of time, rather in terms of event mile markers) which delineate the divestment of these holdings (as Customer).

(e) Enforce the bloody rules that are on the books! And simplify them so that even the company Receptionist could theoretically blow the whistle upon detecting malfeasance or felonious behaviour!!

So now I am going back in time, to 1987, Reagan is President, and I am going to visit Wally George and be on the lame-ass Hot Seat show to say, "We need to infuse business with $700BB in order to allow them to avoid losses, keep their jobs, and 'stimulate the economy.' I believe the government should become three times bigger than it is today. I think it will be good for us to avoid confusing our consumers, I mean citizens, with any real information or data germane to the decision making processes, because politicians know best. And then I believe as regulator, primary stock holder, and investor the US Government shouldn't be burdened by little details like accounting for how those funds are used by the corporations we deign to be worthy of state investments!"

Commie!

Memo from the Peanut Gallery to President Elect Obama's Economic Team

There are a multitude of complex issues to grapple with which separate and as a whole are unprecedented.

Great minds and scholars have been hard pressed for solid answers amidst the crisis.

So the few relevant words from a man who has barely cobbled a career from giving advice on real estate, mortgages, and finance is probably pretty low on any priority list, let alone item on the agenda.

Yet here in my own fantasy world known as my blog, I first have to point out this item from June 26th, which clearly defines some of the precipitous issues as it relates to market speculation and its forthcoming consequences as warned in other articles.

Next I would like to point out this article/commentary from 2007 which illustrates clearly the point of view of a humble and honest broker well before the Fannie-Freddy debacle.

And as this is my first commentary on economics and policy since the events of September 15th (a day which will live in infamy), please let me first make plain my assessment of the outgoing W administration, and secondarily the up shot of the Republican's as leadership:

1. The Soviet Union was founded upon less of a Nationalization of private wealth than as what has occurred in the "bailout" package.

2. Unlike the Soviets overtaking means for Production, this is similar to the mulligan that Enron took (Bankruptcy protection) after siphoning off billions of dollars from consumers and state purchasers (notably California).

3. If I was to make the argument that the solution(s) posited by the W administration's Paulson to Republican/Conservative people any time in my life starting in 1970 through to the "Bail out package," I would be considered a 'Commie,' 'Pinko,' or at best 'Looney Liberal.' Luckily I dont believe this is the best solution, although a necessary minimum of confidence was restored to the capital markets.

4. Although anti-free marketers are quick to assert this is proof that its a failure of free market concepts, unfortunately its not quite that simple. True free market principles would then suggest that we allow Wall Street to shatter into a million pieces, and allow the Phoenix of the Invisible Hand to rise from those ashes. The risk of Anarchy, Revolution, and War should not be a hinderance to those stoutest in defense of these principlea.

Rather what has happened is that the curtain has been unveiled upon the Wizard of Oz. Or more accurately Wizards: Power Elite; Ultra Rich; Super Rich; and their operatives... and as Gomer Pyle would say, "Sooprize sooprize," the W administration fits neatly into that last category (if not others).



The doctrine known as "free market," and, often as not, ascribed to as "trickle down," has been a fallacy waiting to happen since I took Economics in 1986 from my perspective. The fallacy is that the pitch (or soccer field to define the metaphor more readily) is absolutely not level (a lack of transparency of markets, trades, and companies-- let alone parity amongst status of trading parties), everyone knows this, but the referees (power elite) assure us that indeed the market is trading at a free clip, and they are doing their best to weed out the inept and destructive government (singular as in government is bad) in order to get back to those players to whom that unfair pitch advantage works against.

It is, like many convincing fallacies, a perfect ecosystem of utter nonsense.

What was revealed when the Wizard came out from behind the curtain?

The rules of the road were designed to insulate power elites from those market forces that every small business owner (not suckling directly from the teat of one or more of the power elite) faces yearly, monthly, daily, hourly, and even at a moment by moment level, wherein one bad decision can have the whole house of cards tumble down on them, their employees, and their families.

Perfect capitalism for 96% of the business owners in America, and pure communism for the ~4% that retain ~92% of the wealth and direction of capital.

The main difference here? That fallacy of "perfect" and "free" markets has been unmasked. For me it doenst make me less of a Keynesian or Miltonian (of which I am only some part in either case), rather confirms the sound logic of truth found within the mathematical models.

For all practical reasons, it wasnt the theories that were flawed, rather the implementation of those theories. You dont go golfing with Tiger Woods, and on holes 3, 7, and 12 receive a "0" on your score (an impossibility), then go on to say you bested Tiger Woods at Augusta for the Championship!

For lack of a simpler explanation that is what Corporate America has been doing for decades!

My Miltonian Tax suggestion of reducing tax paperwork to the size of a postcard, is premised on the fact that massive corporations with armies of lawyers can end up getting paid by the government, whereas the business owner will typically pay between 12 and 44% of GROSS EARNINGS in a profitable year to the Government!

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, PLEASE!!!

So, what are my suggestions?

A. Simple, Fair, and Flat Tax for individuals, businesses, and everyone and everything in between. I think if you make annually inflation adjusted exemption provisions for the first $22K individually, $38K jointly, $6K per child, and $40K for business plus $6K per employee, then a 13% flat across the board on first moneys and profits tax should suffice to amply maintain the Federal treasury. Double tax only counts in certain specific cases, but honestly the concept of a "double tax" is in itself a product of the Labyrinthine tax laws themselves. Simple, plain, and honest: You earn money, invest it and make more... you are taxed on the money you earn. So called "death" tax is a myth, and any exemption should be put onto a matrix which allows for inflation and number of legatees, but otherwise massive fortunes do need to have the same 13% (a lowering of current complex statues) flat tax after expemptions upon transfer of estate.

B. All regulation needs to be put into Plain English. There needs to be a rule book for all people that everyone who speaks a 7th grade level of English can understand, but moreover, each field of employ and oversight needs a smaller and comprehensive annual rule book for the relevant profession(s). If you are a Stock Broker, for instance, the SEC needs to publish a Plain English Guide to all relevant laws (including definitions of crime and punishment) which is the basis for testing and licensure. How do we expect companies to follow laws their people couldnt understand without a law degree? This will facilitate whistleblowing, self governance, and enforcement. (On that note free markets if given clear straight, and bright lines do have the ability to self govern.)

C. International Harmonization. Its well time to beat our swords into plowshares. NATO can also be an economic body which assists in (a la Bretton-Woods) harmonizing economic functions. Why limit it to NATO? Trade Areas can work, and do work. However, just as we need to (for lack of a better word) admit that NATO is also an economic force, we also need to create Fair Standards in order to proceed honestly with our Trading Partners-- applying that standard basket of goods (environment, civil rights, and labor standards) as a preset disposition for negotiations. If any free trading regions partners can all agree to certain basic workers rights, then there is no price advantage to using slave or child labor in order to queer the productivity quotients and balances. This esoteric set of ideas (which I have simply called Fair Standards) is the nutshell of why we have lost so many jobs over seas-- not just "tax advantages" as certain groups would have you believe.

D. Mortgage Relief. I will be writing a more defined explanation of this soon, but here it is in the nutshell version. There are many of the steps necessary to implement a comprehensive relief in place under the current "bailout" plans passed, but my addition would be EVERYONE NEEDS TO FEEL SOME OF THE PAIN. Borrowers should still be on the hook for the full amount of the mortgage when enjoying payment reduction, Lenders should be on the hook to not get their money back in time, and all the middlemen, servicing agencies, and investors need to accept such bi-lateral intervention (as negotiated in mathematical formulation by the FFT [Fannie-Freddy-Treasury] guidelines and agents) regardless of how much money they stand to lose-- BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST MIDDLEMEN! Investors, sorry, but tough turkeys, you put money on those bets, were told the money was at risk, otherwise the SEC and FBI can arrest the brokers for non-disclosure... that said I think most licensees put investment disclosures on their business cards (a financial industry joke). The Government should tread very lightly in using its power to "renegotiate" existing agreements, and that said it is the Lenders right to refuse a renegotiation and foreclose... otherwise we strip Rule of Law (and contracts).

E. Stimulus. See my article on what we can do with the money we save by ending the War. more... more....

Just my two cents.... you can pay me later.

Plain English

Okay, so I will now write this in plain English, more or less.

We believe that our government should only write laws in Plain English, or at least translate all laws into plain English.

We believe that in order for laws to be understood by all people there needs to be a reliable point of understanding.

In contract law, there are typically definitions at the start of the contract which identify all important terms. We believe every congress should publish two dictionaries. One would contain the Non-plain English words (such as legal terms, or phrases) defined in plain English. The other would contain all Plain English Words which can be used in writing the laws, and their dictionary definitions.

In Plain English, we choose the more commonly understood word if there are two words for the same meaning. Sometimes, "in law it is important to be specific."

A non plain English way of saying the last sentence would be, for example, "Specificity is relevant to constructing relevant laws." Yet both phrases are almost identical in meaning-- both sentences mean the same thing.

This is not talking down to people, rather it is making simple all points which are part of any citizens duty to obey. Otherwise how does the government expect the majority of people to be law abiding?

Plain English is not a mandate to make "English" the official language. Rather it is only to make it the official rule for writing all laws. Deviation from plain English is on a need only basis, and would then be explained (in the body of the law and) in the Dictionary.

We believe all current law needs to be translated into plain English.

We believe that once this happens, there will be fewer lawsuits, faster justice, better enforcement, and fewer crimes. If we think of Mao's little red book, from China, then we see this concept of a standard set of laws that all people can read, refer to, understand, and even remember can remove a large part of the natural ignorance of the law-- for which "their is no excuse," as the saying goes.

One final note on this subject is that when all laws are put out in plain English, and provided as an open publication on the internet (call it a little red, white and blue book), then certain ridiculous items such as crack possession laws will be also made plain.

Is it common sense to slap the person on the wrist carrying cocaine (the potent source from which crack is derived) while putting in jail the crack user for possession of only a fraction of the same substance?

Ideally with Plain English some common sense will also take hold, but just in case that isn't the case-- for whatever reasons-- we also believe laws should make sense.