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.
Showing posts with label Rattlesnake Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rattlesnake Party. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Lost in the forest of arguments... The REAL big Business Argument for Health Care Reform
Okay lets start with some data:
As per http://bit.ly/MwulQ
HEALTH CARE SPENDING PER PERSON
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 4,271
# 2 Switzerland: 3,857
# 3 Norway: 3,182
# 4 Denmark: 2,785
# 5 Luxembourg: 2,731
# 6 Iceland: 2,701
# 7 Germany: 2,697
# 8 France: 2,288
# 9 Japan: 2,243
# 10 Netherlands: 2,173
# 11 Sweden: 2,145
# 12 Belgium: 2,137
# 13 Austria: 2,121
# 14 Canada: 1,939
# 15 Australia: 1,714
# 16 Finland: 1,704
# 17 Italy: 1,676
# 18 United Kingdom: 1,675
# 19 Israel: 1,607
# 20 Ireland: 1,569
# 21 United Arab Emirates: 1,428
# 22 New Zealand: 1,163
# 23 Spain: 1,043
# 24 Greece: 965
# 25 Portugal: 859
# 26 Slovenia: 746
# 27 Singapore: 678
# 28 Argentina: 654
# 29 Uruguay: 621
# 30 Bahamas, The: 612
# 31 Barbados: 601
# 32 Korea, South: 470
# 33 Lebanon: 469
# 34 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 408
# 35 Czech Republic: 380
# 36 Bahrain: 358
# 37 Hungary: 318
# 38 Brazil: 308
# 39 Chile: 289
# 40 Slovakia: 285
# 41 Costa Rica: 257
# 42 Poland: 248
# 43 Panama: 246
# 44 Estonia: 243
# 45 Mexico: 236
# 46 South Africa: 230
# 47 Colombia: 227
# 48 Dominica: 208
# 49 Trinidad and Tobago: 204
# 50 Grenada: 193
# 51 Lithuania: 183
# 52 Antigua and Barbuda: 179
# 53 Venezuela: 171
# 54 Latvia: 166
# 55 Jamaica: 157
# 56 Turkey: 153
# 57 Saint Lucia: 151
# 58 Maldives: 150
# 59 El Salvador: 143
# 60 Namibia: 142
# 61 Peru: 141
# 62 Jordan: 139
# 63 Iran: 128
# 64 Botswana: 127
# 65 Gabon: 122
# 66 Mauritius: 120
# 67 Syria: 116
# 68 Thailand: 112
# 69 Tunisia: 108
# 70 Burma: 97
# 71 Dominican Republic: 95
= 72 Fiji: 86
= 72 Paraguay: 86
= 72 Romania: 86
# 75 Belarus: 85
# 76 Belize: 82
# 77 Malaysia: 81
# 78 Guatemala: 78
# 79 Honduras: 74
# 80 Bolivia: 69
= 81 Kazakhstan: 62
= 81 Bulgaria: 62
# 83 Ecuador: 59
# 84 Nicaragua: 54
# 85 Guyana: 51
# 86 Swaziland: 46
= 87 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 40
= 87 China: 40
= 89 Cape Verde: 37
= 89 Philippines: 37
= 91 Albania: 36
= 91 Zimbabwe: 36
= 91 Bhutan: 36
# 94 Kenya: 31
= 95 Nigeria: 30
= 95 Turkmenistan: 30
# 97 Sri Lanka: 29
= 98 Cote d'Ivoire: 28
= 98 Ukraine: 28
= 100 Uzbekistan: 25
= 100 Papua New Guinea: 25
= 102 Senegal: 23
= 102 Zambia: 23
# 104 Haiti: 21
= 105 Ghana: 19
= 105 Mauritania: 19
= 105 Guinea: 19
= 108 Pakistan: 18
= 108 Uganda: 18
= 110 Vietnam: 17
= 110 Cambodia: 17
# 112 Georgia: 16
= 113 Gambia, The: 13
= 113 Tajikistan: 13
= 115 Benin: 12
= 115 Bangladesh: 12
= 117 Nepal: 11
= 117 Malawi: 11
= 117 Mali: 11
= 117 Kyrgyzstan: 11
# 121 Rwanda: 10
= 122 Burkina Faso: 9
= 122 Central African Republic: 9
= 122 Togo: 9
= 125 Indonesia: 8
= 125 Mozambique: 8
= 125 Sierra Leone: 8
# 128 Chad: 7
# 129 Laos: 6
= 130 Niger: 5
= 130 Madagascar: 5
= 130 Burundi: 5
# 133 Ethiopia: 4
Compare (as per http://lauraschneider.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/where-does-america-rank-in-healthcare-quality-and-efficiency/);
Table 1. Overall efficiency in all WHO member states
[Country names shortened by blogger]
1 France 96 Fiji
2 Italy 97 Benin
3 San Marino 98 Nauru
4 Andorra 99 Romania
5 Malta 100 St. Kitts & Nevis
6 Singapore 101 Moldova
7 Spain 102 Bulgaria
8 Oman 103 Iraq
9 Austria 104 Armenia
10 Japan 105 Latvia
11 Norway 106 Yugoslavia
12 Portugal 107 Cook Islands
13 Monaco 108 Syria
14 Greece 109 Azerbaijan
15 Iceland 110 Suriname
16 Luxembourg 111 Ecuador
17 Netherlands 112 India
18 U.K. 113 Cape Verde
19 Ireland 114 Georgia
20 Switzerland 115 El Salvador
21 Belgium 116 Tonga
22 Colombia 117 Uzbekistan
23 Sweden 118 Comoros
24 Cyprus 119 Samoa
25 Germany 120 Yemen
26 Saudi Arabia 121 Niue
27 U.A.E. 122 Pakistan
28 Israel 123 Micronesia
29 Morocco 124 Bhutan
30 Canada 125 Brazil
31 Finland 126 Bolivia
32 Australia 127 Vanuatu
33 Chile 128 Guyana
34 Denmark 129 Peru
35 Dominica 130 Russia
36 Costa Rica 131 Honduras
37 U.S.A. 132 Burkina Faso
38 Slovenia 133 Sao Tome & Principe
39 Cuba 134 Sudan
40 Brunei Darussalam 135 Ghana
41 New Zealand 136 Tuvalu
42 Bahrain 137 Côte d’Ivoire
43 Croatia 138 Haiti
44 Qatar 139 Gabon
45 Kuwait 140 Kenya
46 Barbados 141 Marshall Islands
47 Thailand 142 Kiribati
48 Czech Republic 143 Burundi
49 Malaysia 144 China
50 Poland 145 Mongolia
51 Dominican Republic 146 Gambia
52 Tunisia 147 Maldives
53 Jamaica 148 Papua New Guinea
54 Venezuela 149 Uganda
55 Albania 150 Nepal
56 Seychelles 151 Kyrgyzstan
57 Paraguay 152 Togo
58 South Korea 153 Turkmenistan
59 Senegal 154 Tajikistan
60 Philippines 155 Zimbabwe
61 Mexico 156 Tanzania
62 Slovakia 157 Djibouti
63 Egypt 158 Eritrea
64 Kazakhstan 159 Madagascar
65 Uruguay 160 Viet Nam
66 Hungary 161 Guinea
67 Trinidad & Tobago 162 Mauritania
68 St. Lucia 163 Mali
69 Belize 164 Cameroon
70 Turkey 165 Laos
71 Nicaragua 166 Congo
72 Belarus 167 North Korea
73 Lithuania 168 Namibia
74 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 169 Botswana
75 Argentina 170 Niger
76 Sri Lanka 171 Equatorial Guinea
77 Estonia 172 Rwanda
78 Guatemala 173 Afghanistan
79 Ukraine 174 Cambodia
80 Solomon Islands 175 South Africa
81 Algeria 176 Guinea-Bissau
82 Palau 177 Swaziland
83 Jordan 178 Chad
84 Mauritius 179 Somalia
85 Grenada 180 Ethiopia
86 Antigua & Barbuda 181 Angola
87 Libya 182 Zambia
88 Bangladesh 183 Lesotho
89 Macedonia 184 Mozambique
90 Bosnia & Herzegovina 185 Malawi
91 Lebanon 186 Liberia
92 Indonesia 187 Nigeria
93 Iran 188 Congo
94 Bahamas 189 Central African Republic
95 Panama 190 Myanmar
191 Sierra Leone
And finally this from the OECD:
Country Life expectancy Infant mortality rate % of health costs paid by government
Australia 81.4 4.2 67.7
Canada 80.7 5.0 69.8
France 81.0 4.0 79.0
Germany 79.8 3.8 76.9
Japan 82.6 2.6 81.3
Norway 80.0 3.0 83.6
Sweden 81.0 2.5 81.7
UK 79.1 4.8 81.7
USA 78.1 6.7 45.4
*-*
So, really the argument comes in this last part.
Lets take the #1, France, and see that they have a competitive advantage of about 33% on base costs 54 cents on the dollar-- in other words my American Company has to pay about 15 extra cents for every dollar a French company pay in Health Care costs for care that ranks 36 places worse!
Lets take the silver medalists, Italy: In 2005, Italy spent 8.9% of GDP on health care, or US$2,714 per capita. Of that, approximately 76% was government expenditure. My American Company has to pay a premium of (~44% @ 64 cents per) ~ 28 cents extra for every dollar my Italian competitors pay for health care that ranks 35 places better.
Finally, the bronze, Singapore (I couldn't find adequate stats for the other four ahead of this one). Overall spending on health care amounts to only 3% of annual GDP. Of that, 66% comes from private sources, according to the WHO. So my American company will be paying an adjustment of 101% against their costs, but their cost are about $678 per person! pretty much straight forward math then ($4271-678)*.99= $3557 per person more for health care that is about 30 places less efficient!
---
Do you get the picture?!
We subsidize corn, oil, and all sorts of other industries, yet somehow we let our workers and the companies who want to care about them compete against other countries who have government advantages!
This is equivalent to allowing every country to dump subsidized products from every sector onto our market!
Think about it....
As per http://bit.ly/MwulQ
HEALTH CARE SPENDING PER PERSON
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 4,271
# 2 Switzerland: 3,857
# 3 Norway: 3,182
# 4 Denmark: 2,785
# 5 Luxembourg: 2,731
# 6 Iceland: 2,701
# 7 Germany: 2,697
# 8 France: 2,288
# 9 Japan: 2,243
# 10 Netherlands: 2,173
# 11 Sweden: 2,145
# 12 Belgium: 2,137
# 13 Austria: 2,121
# 14 Canada: 1,939
# 15 Australia: 1,714
# 16 Finland: 1,704
# 17 Italy: 1,676
# 18 United Kingdom: 1,675
# 19 Israel: 1,607
# 20 Ireland: 1,569
# 21 United Arab Emirates: 1,428
# 22 New Zealand: 1,163
# 23 Spain: 1,043
# 24 Greece: 965
# 25 Portugal: 859
# 26 Slovenia: 746
# 27 Singapore: 678
# 28 Argentina: 654
# 29 Uruguay: 621
# 30 Bahamas, The: 612
# 31 Barbados: 601
# 32 Korea, South: 470
# 33 Lebanon: 469
# 34 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 408
# 35 Czech Republic: 380
# 36 Bahrain: 358
# 37 Hungary: 318
# 38 Brazil: 308
# 39 Chile: 289
# 40 Slovakia: 285
# 41 Costa Rica: 257
# 42 Poland: 248
# 43 Panama: 246
# 44 Estonia: 243
# 45 Mexico: 236
# 46 South Africa: 230
# 47 Colombia: 227
# 48 Dominica: 208
# 49 Trinidad and Tobago: 204
# 50 Grenada: 193
# 51 Lithuania: 183
# 52 Antigua and Barbuda: 179
# 53 Venezuela: 171
# 54 Latvia: 166
# 55 Jamaica: 157
# 56 Turkey: 153
# 57 Saint Lucia: 151
# 58 Maldives: 150
# 59 El Salvador: 143
# 60 Namibia: 142
# 61 Peru: 141
# 62 Jordan: 139
# 63 Iran: 128
# 64 Botswana: 127
# 65 Gabon: 122
# 66 Mauritius: 120
# 67 Syria: 116
# 68 Thailand: 112
# 69 Tunisia: 108
# 70 Burma: 97
# 71 Dominican Republic: 95
= 72 Fiji: 86
= 72 Paraguay: 86
= 72 Romania: 86
# 75 Belarus: 85
# 76 Belize: 82
# 77 Malaysia: 81
# 78 Guatemala: 78
# 79 Honduras: 74
# 80 Bolivia: 69
= 81 Kazakhstan: 62
= 81 Bulgaria: 62
# 83 Ecuador: 59
# 84 Nicaragua: 54
# 85 Guyana: 51
# 86 Swaziland: 46
= 87 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 40
= 87 China: 40
= 89 Cape Verde: 37
= 89 Philippines: 37
= 91 Albania: 36
= 91 Zimbabwe: 36
= 91 Bhutan: 36
# 94 Kenya: 31
= 95 Nigeria: 30
= 95 Turkmenistan: 30
# 97 Sri Lanka: 29
= 98 Cote d'Ivoire: 28
= 98 Ukraine: 28
= 100 Uzbekistan: 25
= 100 Papua New Guinea: 25
= 102 Senegal: 23
= 102 Zambia: 23
# 104 Haiti: 21
= 105 Ghana: 19
= 105 Mauritania: 19
= 105 Guinea: 19
= 108 Pakistan: 18
= 108 Uganda: 18
= 110 Vietnam: 17
= 110 Cambodia: 17
# 112 Georgia: 16
= 113 Gambia, The: 13
= 113 Tajikistan: 13
= 115 Benin: 12
= 115 Bangladesh: 12
= 117 Nepal: 11
= 117 Malawi: 11
= 117 Mali: 11
= 117 Kyrgyzstan: 11
# 121 Rwanda: 10
= 122 Burkina Faso: 9
= 122 Central African Republic: 9
= 122 Togo: 9
= 125 Indonesia: 8
= 125 Mozambique: 8
= 125 Sierra Leone: 8
# 128 Chad: 7
# 129 Laos: 6
= 130 Niger: 5
= 130 Madagascar: 5
= 130 Burundi: 5
# 133 Ethiopia: 4
Compare (as per http://lauraschneider.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/where-does-america-rank-in-healthcare-quality-and-efficiency/);
Table 1. Overall efficiency in all WHO member states
[Country names shortened by blogger]
1 France 96 Fiji
2 Italy 97 Benin
3 San Marino 98 Nauru
4 Andorra 99 Romania
5 Malta 100 St. Kitts & Nevis
6 Singapore 101 Moldova
7 Spain 102 Bulgaria
8 Oman 103 Iraq
9 Austria 104 Armenia
10 Japan 105 Latvia
11 Norway 106 Yugoslavia
12 Portugal 107 Cook Islands
13 Monaco 108 Syria
14 Greece 109 Azerbaijan
15 Iceland 110 Suriname
16 Luxembourg 111 Ecuador
17 Netherlands 112 India
18 U.K. 113 Cape Verde
19 Ireland 114 Georgia
20 Switzerland 115 El Salvador
21 Belgium 116 Tonga
22 Colombia 117 Uzbekistan
23 Sweden 118 Comoros
24 Cyprus 119 Samoa
25 Germany 120 Yemen
26 Saudi Arabia 121 Niue
27 U.A.E. 122 Pakistan
28 Israel 123 Micronesia
29 Morocco 124 Bhutan
30 Canada 125 Brazil
31 Finland 126 Bolivia
32 Australia 127 Vanuatu
33 Chile 128 Guyana
34 Denmark 129 Peru
35 Dominica 130 Russia
36 Costa Rica 131 Honduras
37 U.S.A. 132 Burkina Faso
38 Slovenia 133 Sao Tome & Principe
39 Cuba 134 Sudan
40 Brunei Darussalam 135 Ghana
41 New Zealand 136 Tuvalu
42 Bahrain 137 Côte d’Ivoire
43 Croatia 138 Haiti
44 Qatar 139 Gabon
45 Kuwait 140 Kenya
46 Barbados 141 Marshall Islands
47 Thailand 142 Kiribati
48 Czech Republic 143 Burundi
49 Malaysia 144 China
50 Poland 145 Mongolia
51 Dominican Republic 146 Gambia
52 Tunisia 147 Maldives
53 Jamaica 148 Papua New Guinea
54 Venezuela 149 Uganda
55 Albania 150 Nepal
56 Seychelles 151 Kyrgyzstan
57 Paraguay 152 Togo
58 South Korea 153 Turkmenistan
59 Senegal 154 Tajikistan
60 Philippines 155 Zimbabwe
61 Mexico 156 Tanzania
62 Slovakia 157 Djibouti
63 Egypt 158 Eritrea
64 Kazakhstan 159 Madagascar
65 Uruguay 160 Viet Nam
66 Hungary 161 Guinea
67 Trinidad & Tobago 162 Mauritania
68 St. Lucia 163 Mali
69 Belize 164 Cameroon
70 Turkey 165 Laos
71 Nicaragua 166 Congo
72 Belarus 167 North Korea
73 Lithuania 168 Namibia
74 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 169 Botswana
75 Argentina 170 Niger
76 Sri Lanka 171 Equatorial Guinea
77 Estonia 172 Rwanda
78 Guatemala 173 Afghanistan
79 Ukraine 174 Cambodia
80 Solomon Islands 175 South Africa
81 Algeria 176 Guinea-Bissau
82 Palau 177 Swaziland
83 Jordan 178 Chad
84 Mauritius 179 Somalia
85 Grenada 180 Ethiopia
86 Antigua & Barbuda 181 Angola
87 Libya 182 Zambia
88 Bangladesh 183 Lesotho
89 Macedonia 184 Mozambique
90 Bosnia & Herzegovina 185 Malawi
91 Lebanon 186 Liberia
92 Indonesia 187 Nigeria
93 Iran 188 Congo
94 Bahamas 189 Central African Republic
95 Panama 190 Myanmar
191 Sierra Leone
And finally this from the OECD:
Country Life expectancy Infant mortality rate % of health costs paid by government
Australia 81.4 4.2 67.7
Canada 80.7 5.0 69.8
France 81.0 4.0 79.0
Germany 79.8 3.8 76.9
Japan 82.6 2.6 81.3
Norway 80.0 3.0 83.6
Sweden 81.0 2.5 81.7
UK 79.1 4.8 81.7
USA 78.1 6.7 45.4
*-*
So, really the argument comes in this last part.
Lets take the #1, France, and see that they have a competitive advantage of about 33% on base costs 54 cents on the dollar-- in other words my American Company has to pay about 15 extra cents for every dollar a French company pay in Health Care costs for care that ranks 36 places worse!
Lets take the silver medalists, Italy: In 2005, Italy spent 8.9% of GDP on health care, or US$2,714 per capita. Of that, approximately 76% was government expenditure. My American Company has to pay a premium of (~44% @ 64 cents per) ~ 28 cents extra for every dollar my Italian competitors pay for health care that ranks 35 places better.
Finally, the bronze, Singapore (I couldn't find adequate stats for the other four ahead of this one). Overall spending on health care amounts to only 3% of annual GDP. Of that, 66% comes from private sources, according to the WHO. So my American company will be paying an adjustment of 101% against their costs, but their cost are about $678 per person! pretty much straight forward math then ($4271-678)*.99= $3557 per person more for health care that is about 30 places less efficient!
---
Do you get the picture?!
We subsidize corn, oil, and all sorts of other industries, yet somehow we let our workers and the companies who want to care about them compete against other countries who have government advantages!
This is equivalent to allowing every country to dump subsidized products from every sector onto our market!
Think about it....
Monday, August 10, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
How does The Rattlesnake Party expect to pay for so many Major Projects at the same time?
First, by ending our failed Imperialist experiment in Iraq. Here’s the math:
Manhattan Project Cost in 2008 dollars = $30BB over 5 years or $6BB per year
Apollo Program Cost in 2008 dollars = $150BB over 13 years or $12BB per year
Average Cost of Major Program is estimated at roughly $9BB per year
Cost of the Iraq War in 2008 dollars = $125BB per year or
The capacity for 10 Major Programs, Infrastructure Improvements, Health Care, and an additional $10 ~ 15BB into the General Fund—or reduction in net tax revenues!
Next, by streamlining tax codes (see Fair and Simple Tax) to close all loopholes, taxes would be effectively lowered for most businesses and citizens, yet some of the largest corporations would be required to pay their fair share and/or repatriate their dollars. In conjunction with reduction of waste and corruption in Federal Government, this would most probably result in a net gain in revenues. Let us assume, however, no change, in tax revenues collected, and no boost to the economy at large by freeing up millions of man-hours currently burdened by tax calculations every year.
Part of the streamlining efforts would also be to better organize and coordinate CURRENT AGENCIES to improve government functions. Parallel to that complex process, the Federal Government could work with CURRENT BENEFICIARIES of government grants, funds, and assistance to coordinate their efforts.
An example of this would be Food (number 6 on our top ten list). The relevant agencies would be reorganizing their budgets according to the list of National Priorities, which the Major Projects represent. So technically Food Security needs to be a relatively High Priority for Homeland Security; Nutrition and Content moreso the FDA; Production means and methods even moreso the Dept. of Agriculture; and so on.
We don’t want to continue the current deficit spending, so even with the War Savings, Budget Reprioritization and Optimization, and the Intra-Departmental task efficiencies lets assume that for each Major Project and it’s priorities only 85% of the budget is actually already there.
We would suggest under current ostensible Department configurations the budget is actually already there albeit currently balkanized and politicized with no harmonious or unifying vision throughout the agencies and their spending habits extant.
Any short falls could be made up by venturing with private companies currently spending private moneys in Research and Development, but more importantly removing some of the redundancies by efficient coordination and sharing of data within a secure study group setting.
Further efficiencies could be found in cross-mission coordination and “pollination” for Major Projects. For instance, Project #2 Pollution Abatement would rely on coordination with and information from Projects #’s 9, 5, and 1 (Vehicles, Energy Independence, and Global Warming). By allowing non-classified, and restricted information to securely pass between the Projects, redundancies are reduced offering greater purchase power for the Government and Joint Venture Partners. This suggests a controlled system, or a massive Government-seeded Intellectual Incubator System.
One could argue this could slip into a communist or socialist state model, except there is no compulsory component for any companies or citizens to participate, as such. However, it would be up to the Project Coordinators in conjunction with OBM to carefully budget to incentivize Private Partnerships.
For example, in Curing Cancer (number 3), lets assume Big Pharma Company #1 continues current practices of hording research data and drug planning, and Big Pharma Company #2, a direct competitor, elects to join the Major Project Group searching for Cancer cures and interacts in a transparent manner to coordinate all its results with that of other companies participating in the larger goal(s).
Both companies will be subject to the same market forces. We believe that FDA testing must be reorganized towards a scientific, rather than political, polarity; We believe that the government, medical organizations, and individual citizens should be allowed to purchase drugs made in a regulated, verifiable, and safe manner from anywhere that has the lowest price (fair and free market values); and we can see a precipitous momentum towards some version of state sponsored (so-called Single Payer) health care (sooner or later… and although quasi-socialist at best, it would create competitive equity between the current advantage over 75% of the Industrialized world holds over America in terms of their corporate subsidy, a virtual reverse tariff, from some version of Single Payer extant in those same states). Therefore, both companies will have to really spend a lot of money over time to develop the next phase of Cancer treatment, while continuing to earn fewer and fewer dollars on current drugs they created, as market forces intervene to reduce profits.
Company #2, participating in this continued example with the Major Project in some well defined and standard Joint Venture Process, may simultaneously accelerate its results by obtaining confidential data sets from others in its study and data groups, expect some additional assistance financially, cost reductions through efficiencies of scale, and discover joint cause products (an improvement on current processes or products) with other JV companies participating within the Major Project Group.
That distinct advantage costs them no less of their R&D budget than Company #1, but it stretches their dollar and purchase power out in such a way that even at a minimum the benefits to their company is a reasonable trade off when looking at the BCA. Moreover, it would probably allow them tax credit opportunities in certain cases, and open up the possibility to additional joint venture partnerships and product cross-pollination.
The downside to this private-public model for Major Projects is that any and every company, which is expending capital into any Venture, must relinquish the scarcity mentality.
Like the “Manhattan Project” and “Apollo Project” before, it is possible to imagine a reasonable level of internal confidentiality and National Security via compartmentalization, management, and coordination. That said, by making open in a controlled and restricted environment their data sets, some propriety is lost in exchange for more chances at additional propriety, product innovation, and most importantly SERVICE TO THE HIGHER GOOD.
Manhattan Project Cost in 2008 dollars = $30BB over 5 years or $6BB per year
Apollo Program Cost in 2008 dollars = $150BB over 13 years or $12BB per year
Average Cost of Major Program is estimated at roughly $9BB per year
Cost of the Iraq War in 2008 dollars = $125BB per year or
The capacity for 10 Major Programs, Infrastructure Improvements, Health Care, and an additional $10 ~ 15BB into the General Fund—or reduction in net tax revenues!
Next, by streamlining tax codes (see Fair and Simple Tax) to close all loopholes, taxes would be effectively lowered for most businesses and citizens, yet some of the largest corporations would be required to pay their fair share and/or repatriate their dollars. In conjunction with reduction of waste and corruption in Federal Government, this would most probably result in a net gain in revenues. Let us assume, however, no change, in tax revenues collected, and no boost to the economy at large by freeing up millions of man-hours currently burdened by tax calculations every year.
Part of the streamlining efforts would also be to better organize and coordinate CURRENT AGENCIES to improve government functions. Parallel to that complex process, the Federal Government could work with CURRENT BENEFICIARIES of government grants, funds, and assistance to coordinate their efforts.
An example of this would be Food (number 6 on our top ten list). The relevant agencies would be reorganizing their budgets according to the list of National Priorities, which the Major Projects represent. So technically Food Security needs to be a relatively High Priority for Homeland Security; Nutrition and Content moreso the FDA; Production means and methods even moreso the Dept. of Agriculture; and so on.
We don’t want to continue the current deficit spending, so even with the War Savings, Budget Reprioritization and Optimization, and the Intra-Departmental task efficiencies lets assume that for each Major Project and it’s priorities only 85% of the budget is actually already there.
We would suggest under current ostensible Department configurations the budget is actually already there albeit currently balkanized and politicized with no harmonious or unifying vision throughout the agencies and their spending habits extant.
Any short falls could be made up by venturing with private companies currently spending private moneys in Research and Development, but more importantly removing some of the redundancies by efficient coordination and sharing of data within a secure study group setting.
Further efficiencies could be found in cross-mission coordination and “pollination” for Major Projects. For instance, Project #2 Pollution Abatement would rely on coordination with and information from Projects #’s 9, 5, and 1 (Vehicles, Energy Independence, and Global Warming). By allowing non-classified, and restricted information to securely pass between the Projects, redundancies are reduced offering greater purchase power for the Government and Joint Venture Partners. This suggests a controlled system, or a massive Government-seeded Intellectual Incubator System.
One could argue this could slip into a communist or socialist state model, except there is no compulsory component for any companies or citizens to participate, as such. However, it would be up to the Project Coordinators in conjunction with OBM to carefully budget to incentivize Private Partnerships.
For example, in Curing Cancer (number 3), lets assume Big Pharma Company #1 continues current practices of hording research data and drug planning, and Big Pharma Company #2, a direct competitor, elects to join the Major Project Group searching for Cancer cures and interacts in a transparent manner to coordinate all its results with that of other companies participating in the larger goal(s).
Both companies will be subject to the same market forces. We believe that FDA testing must be reorganized towards a scientific, rather than political, polarity; We believe that the government, medical organizations, and individual citizens should be allowed to purchase drugs made in a regulated, verifiable, and safe manner from anywhere that has the lowest price (fair and free market values); and we can see a precipitous momentum towards some version of state sponsored (so-called Single Payer) health care (sooner or later… and although quasi-socialist at best, it would create competitive equity between the current advantage over 75% of the Industrialized world holds over America in terms of their corporate subsidy, a virtual reverse tariff, from some version of Single Payer extant in those same states). Therefore, both companies will have to really spend a lot of money over time to develop the next phase of Cancer treatment, while continuing to earn fewer and fewer dollars on current drugs they created, as market forces intervene to reduce profits.
Company #2, participating in this continued example with the Major Project in some well defined and standard Joint Venture Process, may simultaneously accelerate its results by obtaining confidential data sets from others in its study and data groups, expect some additional assistance financially, cost reductions through efficiencies of scale, and discover joint cause products (an improvement on current processes or products) with other JV companies participating within the Major Project Group.
That distinct advantage costs them no less of their R&D budget than Company #1, but it stretches their dollar and purchase power out in such a way that even at a minimum the benefits to their company is a reasonable trade off when looking at the BCA. Moreover, it would probably allow them tax credit opportunities in certain cases, and open up the possibility to additional joint venture partnerships and product cross-pollination.
The downside to this private-public model for Major Projects is that any and every company, which is expending capital into any Venture, must relinquish the scarcity mentality.
Like the “Manhattan Project” and “Apollo Project” before, it is possible to imagine a reasonable level of internal confidentiality and National Security via compartmentalization, management, and coordination. That said, by making open in a controlled and restricted environment their data sets, some propriety is lost in exchange for more chances at additional propriety, product innovation, and most importantly SERVICE TO THE HIGHER GOOD.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
What are the Top Ten "Apollo-style" or Major projects The Rattlesnake Party would suggest the USA needs to make a Priority?
The two Major Project not listed here which we take as granted are Infrastructure and Health Care (Insurance).
Here is the top ten list:
10. Micro-robotics (Nanotechnology)
9. Vehicles (and Perpetual Motion)
8. Space Exploration (unmanned missions to survey the Solar System)
7. Education
6. Food (Production, Security, Processing, Nutrition, etc.)
5. Energy Independence
4. Genetics (including Gene Therapies, Customer, Vaccines, Stem Cells, et.al.)
3. Cure for Cancer
2. Pollution (air/water/earth) Abatement and Environmental Protections
1. Global Warming Abatement
Here are the Summaries;
10. Micro-robotics
This new arena of discovery has many implications for uses in Health Care, (Counter-) Intelligence, Space Exploration, Robotics, etc.
9. Vehicles
A coordinated effort to commercialize non-polluting conveyances for all forms (air, sea, land, and space) of transportation.
8. Space Exploration (unmanned missions to survey the Solar System)
A twenty-five year effort to map our solar system, and to a lesser extent the Universe, as accurately and in as great a detail as we have available in Google Maps about the Earth today.
7. Education
Coordinated efforts to define, create, develop, and deliver a true 21st Century educational system to our next generations that they may compete in the global economy, further these and future Major Projects.
6. Food (Production, Security, Processing, Nutrition, etc.)
Coordination of improving the nutritional value, content, safety, distribution and delivery of foodstuffs throughout the world in order to effectively eliminate hunger.
5. Energy Independence
Creation of National Independence by development of Domestic Energy resources in an environmentally responsible and economic manner.
4. Genetics (including Gene Therapies, Custom Vaccines, Stem Cells, etc.)
DNA-RNA shall be studied from all creatures to discover cures, therapies, and vaccines for their viruses and disease.
3. Cure for Cancer
Conducting a full-scale war on the causes, treatment, and cure of All Cancers.
2. Pollution (air/water/earth) Abatement and Environmental Protections
Air and water shall contain almost no measurable pollutants by 2038, to cure the so-called “Dead Zones” in the oceans, to have cleaned up every Superfund Site by no later than 2048, and created no new sites.
1. Global Warming Abatement
To create a massive full-scale effort to tackle the prospect of Global Warming; To create a National Preparedness Network of citizens trained (a la National Guard) to react to Natural Disasters as first responders; To develop an advanced warning National Weather Alert System; and to perfect the Sciences of Climatology, Atmospheric Sciences, and Oceanography.
Here is the top ten list:
10. Micro-robotics (Nanotechnology)
9. Vehicles (and Perpetual Motion)
8. Space Exploration (unmanned missions to survey the Solar System)
7. Education
6. Food (Production, Security, Processing, Nutrition, etc.)
5. Energy Independence
4. Genetics (including Gene Therapies, Customer, Vaccines, Stem Cells, et.al.)
3. Cure for Cancer
2. Pollution (air/water/earth) Abatement and Environmental Protections
1. Global Warming Abatement
Here are the Summaries;
10. Micro-robotics
This new arena of discovery has many implications for uses in Health Care, (Counter-) Intelligence, Space Exploration, Robotics, etc.
9. Vehicles
A coordinated effort to commercialize non-polluting conveyances for all forms (air, sea, land, and space) of transportation.
8. Space Exploration (unmanned missions to survey the Solar System)
A twenty-five year effort to map our solar system, and to a lesser extent the Universe, as accurately and in as great a detail as we have available in Google Maps about the Earth today.
7. Education
Coordinated efforts to define, create, develop, and deliver a true 21st Century educational system to our next generations that they may compete in the global economy, further these and future Major Projects.
6. Food (Production, Security, Processing, Nutrition, etc.)
Coordination of improving the nutritional value, content, safety, distribution and delivery of foodstuffs throughout the world in order to effectively eliminate hunger.
5. Energy Independence
Creation of National Independence by development of Domestic Energy resources in an environmentally responsible and economic manner.
4. Genetics (including Gene Therapies, Custom Vaccines, Stem Cells, etc.)
DNA-RNA shall be studied from all creatures to discover cures, therapies, and vaccines for their viruses and disease.
3. Cure for Cancer
Conducting a full-scale war on the causes, treatment, and cure of All Cancers.
2. Pollution (air/water/earth) Abatement and Environmental Protections
Air and water shall contain almost no measurable pollutants by 2038, to cure the so-called “Dead Zones” in the oceans, to have cleaned up every Superfund Site by no later than 2048, and created no new sites.
1. Global Warming Abatement
To create a massive full-scale effort to tackle the prospect of Global Warming; To create a National Preparedness Network of citizens trained (a la National Guard) to react to Natural Disasters as first responders; To develop an advanced warning National Weather Alert System; and to perfect the Sciences of Climatology, Atmospheric Sciences, and Oceanography.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Why Does The Rattlesnake Party suggest ten or more “Apollo-style” projects to be undertaken by the US Government?
First, we believe Government needs to be less involved in the personal information and lives of its citizens in order to fulfill the vision of Liberty that our Founders clearly spelled out.
With that premise, one way to keep Government focused on the higher good of its citizenry, to develop a concerted and collective national effort, is to give it a real task list filled with real problems that will benefit all human society.
Further, one “Apollo-style,” or Major, Project, let us call it a Major Project, alone would have the phenomenal effect of creating new private and indirect “government” jobs to be bid on by private parties. We would not advocate growing the size of the government, but reassigning and reorganizing with the constraints of what is now the largest bureaucratic edifice in US History—thanks to the neo-cons.
As true patriots, only American companies would be eligible to bid, and if the ONLY expertise comes from overseas, then those groups and/or individuals would need to create a Domestic Entity, and ostensibly train our citizens to effectuate the work required.
Domestic companies pay taxes, citizens with jobs pay taxes, and both spend money in our Domestic Economy. Just one Major Project would have a strong positive effect on the expansion of our economy, let alone a dozen!
With that premise, one way to keep Government focused on the higher good of its citizenry, to develop a concerted and collective national effort, is to give it a real task list filled with real problems that will benefit all human society.
Further, one “Apollo-style,” or Major, Project, let us call it a Major Project, alone would have the phenomenal effect of creating new private and indirect “government” jobs to be bid on by private parties. We would not advocate growing the size of the government, but reassigning and reorganizing with the constraints of what is now the largest bureaucratic edifice in US History—thanks to the neo-cons.
As true patriots, only American companies would be eligible to bid, and if the ONLY expertise comes from overseas, then those groups and/or individuals would need to create a Domestic Entity, and ostensibly train our citizens to effectuate the work required.
Domestic companies pay taxes, citizens with jobs pay taxes, and both spend money in our Domestic Economy. Just one Major Project would have a strong positive effect on the expansion of our economy, let alone a dozen!
Friday, February 1, 2008
On the Constitution
This is a complex subject, so I will defer to an excellent piece of new scholarship to set the tone to the latest and greatest technology in understanding the constitution, and how both sides of the "abortion debate," are both technically right, but that whichever view eventually prevails (with full acknowledgment that statutes on the books state a woman has a right to choose) both sides have a right to be heard, as per the 1st Amendment.
"Abortion and Original Meaning
JACK M. BALKIN
Yale University - Law School
Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 128
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 24, No. 101, 2007
Abstract:
This article argues that the debate between originalism and living constitutionalism offers a false dichotomy. Many originalists and their critics improperly conflate fidelity to the original meaning of the constitutional text with fidelity to how people living at the time of adoption expected that it would be applied. That is, they confuse original meaning with original expected application.
Constitutional interpretation requires fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution and to the principles that underlie the text, but not to original expected application. This general approach to constitutional interpretation is the method of text and principle. This approach is faithful to the original meaning of the constitutional text, and to its underlying purposes. It is also consistent with the idea of a basic law that leaves to each generation the task of how to make sense of the Constitution's words and principles in their own time. Although the constitutional text and principles do not change without subsequent amendment, their application and implementation can. That is the best way to understand the interpretive practices characteristic of our constitutional tradition and the work of the many political and social movements that have transformed our understandings of the Constitution's guarantees. It explains, as other versions of originalism cannot, why these transformations are not simply mistakes that we must grudgingly accept out of respect for settled precedent, but are significant achievements of our constitutional tradition.
The article applies this method to the most contentious constitutional issue of our generation - the constitutional right to abortion. It concludes, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the constitutional right to abortion is consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in particular, its prohibition on class legislation that is embodied in the Equal Protection Clause.
The article criticizes Roe v. Wade's original trimester system, arguing that there are actually two rights to abortion instead of one. Finally, it explains how courts might have better implemented the constitutional guarantee of the two rights to abortion in ways that are more respectful of democratic politics.
[This article will appear in 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007). A response to critics, expanding on the some of the key ideas of the article, appears in Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption, 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987060]"
Read the full text and see how he demonstrates how such bastions of the Right, as Scalia, are admitted "faint-hearted originalist," working from a theory that is flawed.
In other words, like all aspects of human society, we believe judges, as humans, must make a full attempt to interpret the constitution yet stay within their part of the balance of powers using the best Technology available to them, in order to ADHERE TO THE PRIME CONCEPTS ENSHRINED IN OUR BUNDLE OF RIGHTS AND THE BALANCES OF POWERS.
For those who would use the Constitution to outlaw Abortion or Homosexuality, we STRONGLY DISAGREE that this is the equation of human liberty set in motion by our founders.
Unfortunately, for those of us who may indeed believe that if it was our own physical womb which was holding a fertilized ovum that we would personally protect and defend that little critter with our life, it is clear that that homunculus doesn't pass the 5th Amendment or other tests of personage enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, for instance, as Balkin states, "It is hard to see how a fetus could be compelled to testify against anyone, much less against itself."
Scientific reason thus permits us to simultaneously imagine that the fetus may indeed be very valuable to society, the family it will be born into, etc., and yet comprehend why the fetus doesn't have (for instance) Miranda, or any other Rights. It is the mother who would be robbing a bank, be arrested, and required to be Mirandized (another example).
The brilliance of this argument isn't so much that we "love" abortions, in fact we would hope prudence and civil progress would create access to contraception, prevention, and abstinence using a scientific and reasonable basis. Further, that we believe Education (not just sex education, but science, math, sports, etc.) is one of the best contraceptives available.
No, the brilliance of this argument is that all the judges whose words are "final," at least until someone more brilliant, or a situation more enlightening occurs, are only human and thus limited by the technology of the day. That is why our "framers" developed a Constitution which contains an organized intrapreneurial methodology for the social revolts they knew, scientifically, were a regular part of human government.
Could you imagine if all our damn lawyers would focus their energy on constructive progression of the Science of Law, instead of frivolous lawsuits?
We are neither "originalist," nor "constitutionalists," rather we seek reason and wisdom which protects the principals of established constitutional and case law. We believe Congress or the Executive must be restrained from burdening the people and the Judiciary is that protection in the Balance of Powers. We believe in the enshrinement of our bundle of rights, and finally that all these laws and rights must be translated into plain English for common reference and daily use-- otherwise, at the rate we are going, we will end up a nation of lawyers.
"Abortion and Original Meaning
JACK M. BALKIN
Yale University - Law School
Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 128
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 24, No. 101, 2007
Abstract:
This article argues that the debate between originalism and living constitutionalism offers a false dichotomy. Many originalists and their critics improperly conflate fidelity to the original meaning of the constitutional text with fidelity to how people living at the time of adoption expected that it would be applied. That is, they confuse original meaning with original expected application.
Constitutional interpretation requires fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution and to the principles that underlie the text, but not to original expected application. This general approach to constitutional interpretation is the method of text and principle. This approach is faithful to the original meaning of the constitutional text, and to its underlying purposes. It is also consistent with the idea of a basic law that leaves to each generation the task of how to make sense of the Constitution's words and principles in their own time. Although the constitutional text and principles do not change without subsequent amendment, their application and implementation can. That is the best way to understand the interpretive practices characteristic of our constitutional tradition and the work of the many political and social movements that have transformed our understandings of the Constitution's guarantees. It explains, as other versions of originalism cannot, why these transformations are not simply mistakes that we must grudgingly accept out of respect for settled precedent, but are significant achievements of our constitutional tradition.
The article applies this method to the most contentious constitutional issue of our generation - the constitutional right to abortion. It concludes, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the constitutional right to abortion is consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in particular, its prohibition on class legislation that is embodied in the Equal Protection Clause.
The article criticizes Roe v. Wade's original trimester system, arguing that there are actually two rights to abortion instead of one. Finally, it explains how courts might have better implemented the constitutional guarantee of the two rights to abortion in ways that are more respectful of democratic politics.
[This article will appear in 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007). A response to critics, expanding on the some of the key ideas of the article, appears in Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption, 24 Constitutional Commentary (2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987060]"
Read the full text and see how he demonstrates how such bastions of the Right, as Scalia, are admitted "faint-hearted originalist," working from a theory that is flawed.
In other words, like all aspects of human society, we believe judges, as humans, must make a full attempt to interpret the constitution yet stay within their part of the balance of powers using the best Technology available to them, in order to ADHERE TO THE PRIME CONCEPTS ENSHRINED IN OUR BUNDLE OF RIGHTS AND THE BALANCES OF POWERS.
For those who would use the Constitution to outlaw Abortion or Homosexuality, we STRONGLY DISAGREE that this is the equation of human liberty set in motion by our founders.
Unfortunately, for those of us who may indeed believe that if it was our own physical womb which was holding a fertilized ovum that we would personally protect and defend that little critter with our life, it is clear that that homunculus doesn't pass the 5th Amendment or other tests of personage enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, for instance, as Balkin states, "It is hard to see how a fetus could be compelled to testify against anyone, much less against itself."
Scientific reason thus permits us to simultaneously imagine that the fetus may indeed be very valuable to society, the family it will be born into, etc., and yet comprehend why the fetus doesn't have (for instance) Miranda, or any other Rights. It is the mother who would be robbing a bank, be arrested, and required to be Mirandized (another example).
The brilliance of this argument isn't so much that we "love" abortions, in fact we would hope prudence and civil progress would create access to contraception, prevention, and abstinence using a scientific and reasonable basis. Further, that we believe Education (not just sex education, but science, math, sports, etc.) is one of the best contraceptives available.
No, the brilliance of this argument is that all the judges whose words are "final," at least until someone more brilliant, or a situation more enlightening occurs, are only human and thus limited by the technology of the day. That is why our "framers" developed a Constitution which contains an organized intrapreneurial methodology for the social revolts they knew, scientifically, were a regular part of human government.
Could you imagine if all our damn lawyers would focus their energy on constructive progression of the Science of Law, instead of frivolous lawsuits?
We are neither "originalist," nor "constitutionalists," rather we seek reason and wisdom which protects the principals of established constitutional and case law. We believe Congress or the Executive must be restrained from burdening the people and the Judiciary is that protection in the Balance of Powers. We believe in the enshrinement of our bundle of rights, and finally that all these laws and rights must be translated into plain English for common reference and daily use-- otherwise, at the rate we are going, we will end up a nation of lawyers.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Rule of Law, not mere fascism...
If we consider the source of law in America, first we have the Judeo-Christian moral code which is premised upon the ten commandments.
By the time of the American Revolution, there was a clear Protestant view on the interpretation of these rules. One of the clearest comments as to why America exists is both Freedom OF and Freedom FROM Religion.
Although we believe everyone has a right to practice their own philosophy and religion within the context of common law, the need to impose an interpretation upon others is left for the courts.
To take an example, "This is not a Christian Nation in the strictest sense because it is not a crime to worship idols." Of this we are thankful for the wisdom of the founders, not so much because we insist on idolatry, rather that certain laws outlive their usefulness within the context of modern science, reason, and humanity.
Homosexuality is a real hot button issue. It is an good example of how science has informed us that by default something like 1 ~ 15% of all human have that innate psychology to be able to function as or ONLY function as such. So our human laws (in the past, wherein such practice was literally illegal) attempted to take precedence over natural laws.
A final Example, lets say the city council made it against the law for dogs to crap. Well, this is unreasonable by definition, because anyone who owns or has owned (or even has much of a brain in their head) can tell you that this is one of the important functions in the domestic arrangement between human and canine... they poop, and we pick it up (ideally).
So this hypothetical City Council might have more of a point in outlawing dogs from public streets and parks, imposing a fine for anyone walking a dog not picking up after the animal, or improving funding for their animal control department-- depending on what net effect they are attempting to have. Of course should they choose to impose all three one might argue this hypothetical Council has become Fascist, but more than argue it is the Responsibility of those citizens who disagree to then use the mechanism of Democracy and Government to reverse such laws.
And so government is a collective of human beings limited by their own knowledge, perspective, and abilities to attempt to effect change. Government makes laws, which are interpreted by courts. Eventually laws need to be improved to refine the result sought, modified to protect citizens bundle of rights, or even removed for being untenable.
Our founders understood this, and created a republic of States. Each State was a virtual country which belonged to a larger collective (until the Union was formed after the Civil War). The principles still remain, and each City, County, and State governance mechanism is a "laboratory of democracy."
You could only envision this in an Age of Reason.
A modern example of the cutting edge of the Rule of Law is California. Now I qualify by saying that not all is well in California Uber Alles, but our government is moving where the current USA administration and Congress has failed to adjust accordingly-- for instance in the fight against global warming.
Now that we have firmly established that law is not a fixed point, rather a moving target, which evolves like our thoughts, and bodies, over time, let us attempt to ascribe how we apply the law and live by it.
A further genius of our founders was to establish a Constitution. I could begin about the Magna Carta, or how the Founders used the example of the Ten Commandments which became adorned with hundreds of other more mutable laws thereafter by the Jews, rather I would like to take a more physical view.
The body and its functions were slowly being uncovered (along with things like physical science) back towards the end of the 18th century, and likewise the concept of "Constitution," or constituent parts is a great piece of genius in law.
We now know that the human body replaces EVERY cell something like every 12 to 180 days depending on the tissue type. This is really amazing and weird in and of itself, but thats not the point. There is always a liver, a heart, lungs, etc, and they're always more or less in the same place doing the same things-- otherwise that body dies.
So it is with our Rights and Responsibilities (chief amongst these is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-- although that is in the Declaration) that no matter what "cells" (Laws) are in place to assist the function of the "constitutional organs," it is the function which is most vital.
Therefore the role of law is to be clear, relevant, and applicable to the society which that law intends to govern.
In our case, the Founders added the role that all laws must be subset to our Bundle of Rights, and have put the functions of organized revolution (elections, balance of power, bill of rights) to ensure protection of these inalienable rights with which all American Humans are born.
By the time of the American Revolution, there was a clear Protestant view on the interpretation of these rules. One of the clearest comments as to why America exists is both Freedom OF and Freedom FROM Religion.
Although we believe everyone has a right to practice their own philosophy and religion within the context of common law, the need to impose an interpretation upon others is left for the courts.
To take an example, "This is not a Christian Nation in the strictest sense because it is not a crime to worship idols." Of this we are thankful for the wisdom of the founders, not so much because we insist on idolatry, rather that certain laws outlive their usefulness within the context of modern science, reason, and humanity.
Homosexuality is a real hot button issue. It is an good example of how science has informed us that by default something like 1 ~ 15% of all human have that innate psychology to be able to function as or ONLY function as such. So our human laws (in the past, wherein such practice was literally illegal) attempted to take precedence over natural laws.
A final Example, lets say the city council made it against the law for dogs to crap. Well, this is unreasonable by definition, because anyone who owns or has owned (or even has much of a brain in their head) can tell you that this is one of the important functions in the domestic arrangement between human and canine... they poop, and we pick it up (ideally).
So this hypothetical City Council might have more of a point in outlawing dogs from public streets and parks, imposing a fine for anyone walking a dog not picking up after the animal, or improving funding for their animal control department-- depending on what net effect they are attempting to have. Of course should they choose to impose all three one might argue this hypothetical Council has become Fascist, but more than argue it is the Responsibility of those citizens who disagree to then use the mechanism of Democracy and Government to reverse such laws.
And so government is a collective of human beings limited by their own knowledge, perspective, and abilities to attempt to effect change. Government makes laws, which are interpreted by courts. Eventually laws need to be improved to refine the result sought, modified to protect citizens bundle of rights, or even removed for being untenable.
Our founders understood this, and created a republic of States. Each State was a virtual country which belonged to a larger collective (until the Union was formed after the Civil War). The principles still remain, and each City, County, and State governance mechanism is a "laboratory of democracy."
You could only envision this in an Age of Reason.
A modern example of the cutting edge of the Rule of Law is California. Now I qualify by saying that not all is well in California Uber Alles, but our government is moving where the current USA administration and Congress has failed to adjust accordingly-- for instance in the fight against global warming.
Now that we have firmly established that law is not a fixed point, rather a moving target, which evolves like our thoughts, and bodies, over time, let us attempt to ascribe how we apply the law and live by it.
A further genius of our founders was to establish a Constitution. I could begin about the Magna Carta, or how the Founders used the example of the Ten Commandments which became adorned with hundreds of other more mutable laws thereafter by the Jews, rather I would like to take a more physical view.
The body and its functions were slowly being uncovered (along with things like physical science) back towards the end of the 18th century, and likewise the concept of "Constitution," or constituent parts is a great piece of genius in law.
We now know that the human body replaces EVERY cell something like every 12 to 180 days depending on the tissue type. This is really amazing and weird in and of itself, but thats not the point. There is always a liver, a heart, lungs, etc, and they're always more or less in the same place doing the same things-- otherwise that body dies.
So it is with our Rights and Responsibilities (chief amongst these is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-- although that is in the Declaration) that no matter what "cells" (Laws) are in place to assist the function of the "constitutional organs," it is the function which is most vital.
Therefore the role of law is to be clear, relevant, and applicable to the society which that law intends to govern.
In our case, the Founders added the role that all laws must be subset to our Bundle of Rights, and have put the functions of organized revolution (elections, balance of power, bill of rights) to ensure protection of these inalienable rights with which all American Humans are born.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
What is a True, Simple, and Fair TAX?
Strictly speaking we believe that Milton Friedman's critique of Keynes is the best available science to date-- although he is still technically a Keynesian. Our Party is eager to find the next discovery in Economics, as with all the sciences and arts.
The maths which if you are really curious you can look up in a variety of publications, such as;
Taxing Sales Under the FairTax:
What Rate Works?
By Paul Bachman, Jonathan Haughton,
Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, and David G. Tuerck
Other equations may apply, but at the end of the day 11% tax on all income (personal, business, etc.) only once (no sales, estate, savings, or other "double taxation") would basically allow the US Government to have about as much revenue as it currently collects.
The primary distinction is that the tax forms (and there are tentatively only two, one for business and one for personal) are potentially postcard size.
Current Republican "Fair Tax," is a virtual VAT, or National Sales Tax. Although this would be a simplification, the enforcement mechanism would be burdensome to the states (relying upon their existing enforcement of retailers and wholesalers), and we believe this system is open to fraud.
Dick Armey's Fair Tax, (although eventually was combined with the VAT to essentially kill the deal, as Democrats feel this unfairly squeezes the middle class consumers) was close to the Miltonian tax with the rate set at 17% and an exemption for first moneys earned (to exempt lower income earners from tax all together... which led to Republicans hybridizing this reasonable proposal with the National Sales tax).
So we believe, although its not perfect, a straight tax of 10% (1% less than what the government currently anticipates to collect in revenues) would save enough money on a macro level to justify the required budget constraint (with say a reintroduction of congress and the executive to pay-go and balanced budget commitments), and possibly make up for the 1% shortfall.
As for the poor, and low income earners, The State needs to have a social apparatus for any number of reasons (for instance taking care of Veterans who defended our country and come home with mental or physical disability), and as such can issue vouchers as part of that apparatus which (like food stamps) can be used to allow the government to pay itself "agency to agency," so to speak-- transferring treasure from one department back to the general funds.
One final note, as an extension of this Miltonian Postcard, we believe every citizen (even those paying with vouchers) should have a vote on the back of the form to fund any one or more major committee(s). 33% of taxes paid come with Taxpayer discretionary allocation, whereby the Taxpayer can select one or more of the several dozen major committees held by both houses of congress which they would like to see their moneys forward to directly-- without commingling into the general fund.
I wonder what our Education Budget would look like, then, eh moms?
This would further restrict our leaders from improbable spending habits which conflate deficit spending and create rediculous loopholes.
The maths which if you are really curious you can look up in a variety of publications, such as;
Taxing Sales Under the FairTax:
What Rate Works?
By Paul Bachman, Jonathan Haughton,
Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, and David G. Tuerck
Other equations may apply, but at the end of the day 11% tax on all income (personal, business, etc.) only once (no sales, estate, savings, or other "double taxation") would basically allow the US Government to have about as much revenue as it currently collects.
The primary distinction is that the tax forms (and there are tentatively only two, one for business and one for personal) are potentially postcard size.
Current Republican "Fair Tax," is a virtual VAT, or National Sales Tax. Although this would be a simplification, the enforcement mechanism would be burdensome to the states (relying upon their existing enforcement of retailers and wholesalers), and we believe this system is open to fraud.
Dick Armey's Fair Tax, (although eventually was combined with the VAT to essentially kill the deal, as Democrats feel this unfairly squeezes the middle class consumers) was close to the Miltonian tax with the rate set at 17% and an exemption for first moneys earned (to exempt lower income earners from tax all together... which led to Republicans hybridizing this reasonable proposal with the National Sales tax).
So we believe, although its not perfect, a straight tax of 10% (1% less than what the government currently anticipates to collect in revenues) would save enough money on a macro level to justify the required budget constraint (with say a reintroduction of congress and the executive to pay-go and balanced budget commitments), and possibly make up for the 1% shortfall.
As for the poor, and low income earners, The State needs to have a social apparatus for any number of reasons (for instance taking care of Veterans who defended our country and come home with mental or physical disability), and as such can issue vouchers as part of that apparatus which (like food stamps) can be used to allow the government to pay itself "agency to agency," so to speak-- transferring treasure from one department back to the general funds.
One final note, as an extension of this Miltonian Postcard, we believe every citizen (even those paying with vouchers) should have a vote on the back of the form to fund any one or more major committee(s). 33% of taxes paid come with Taxpayer discretionary allocation, whereby the Taxpayer can select one or more of the several dozen major committees held by both houses of congress which they would like to see their moneys forward to directly-- without commingling into the general fund.
I wonder what our Education Budget would look like, then, eh moms?
This would further restrict our leaders from improbable spending habits which conflate deficit spending and create rediculous loopholes.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Universal Faction
We are not actually trying to create a "Political Party," per se, because that would mean we subscribe to the status quo.
In fact ours is a natural Birthright of every patriotic American.
Your family didn't need to come over in the Mayflower, or fight in 1776, or even the Civil War to be able to make a claim to Ben Franklins categorization of the vigilant, courageous, humble, and precise Rattlesnake as symbolic of the American spirit.
No American deserves to be tread on by illicit government agents or illegal corporate activities. Don't Tread on US!
So even though we ask you to "join" our group, membership in our Party is actually an "Opt out." We are a Universal Faction calling to be recognized as a center of consciousness in the American Soul. Wake up Americans, wake up politicians, wake up world!
We do have specific core values, and any American who partially or totally disagrees with us is still a Member-- until he or she insists that America does not deserve to exist. Otherwise we are open to rational discussion of the issues...and All US Citizens and those who understand what we are about are current members of the Rattlesnake-- we want freedom, liberty, justice, and rule of law throughout the world.
We love our 230+ year experiment in Liberty, Reason, and Truth-- warts and all... and we can wait to help her heal up and get all better.
In fact ours is a natural Birthright of every patriotic American.
Your family didn't need to come over in the Mayflower, or fight in 1776, or even the Civil War to be able to make a claim to Ben Franklins categorization of the vigilant, courageous, humble, and precise Rattlesnake as symbolic of the American spirit.
No American deserves to be tread on by illicit government agents or illegal corporate activities. Don't Tread on US!
So even though we ask you to "join" our group, membership in our Party is actually an "Opt out." We are a Universal Faction calling to be recognized as a center of consciousness in the American Soul. Wake up Americans, wake up politicians, wake up world!
We do have specific core values, and any American who partially or totally disagrees with us is still a Member-- until he or she insists that America does not deserve to exist. Otherwise we are open to rational discussion of the issues...and All US Citizens and those who understand what we are about are current members of the Rattlesnake-- we want freedom, liberty, justice, and rule of law throughout the world.
We love our 230+ year experiment in Liberty, Reason, and Truth-- warts and all... and we can wait to help her heal up and get all better.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Rattlesnake Party Endorsement
We obviously endorse Ron Paul.
That said, it is at this point a suspension of disbelief that the hegemony and mechanics of the status quo would allow him to succeed to the White House.
What that means, is we must persist, have our voices heard, and insist on our core values to be recognized. 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.
We would love if Mr. Paul is able to make a strong showing at the Republican Convention. At the end of the day, however, Mr. Paul is the right guy in the wrong Party. Once that dog and pony show is over, we invite him to run as our nominee for November!
Under the Current Republican (~9 years) Rule: Tax Code has gone terribly wrong becoming more confusing than ever; Deficit spending has exploded; Washington Insiders get away with crimes (Libby); Corporations write their own regulations; Habeas Corpus has been suspended (not since the Magna Carta!); Indefinite Detention without charges for US citizens?; National eavesdropping; Fraudulent War with Fraudulent billing by Fraudulent contractors; over 50 scandals; We have mortgaged our economy; We are educating our children to be the D students of the world; and Science consistently takes a back seat to politics!
That's why we started The Rattlesnake Party.
That said, it is at this point a suspension of disbelief that the hegemony and mechanics of the status quo would allow him to succeed to the White House.
What that means, is we must persist, have our voices heard, and insist on our core values to be recognized. 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.
We would love if Mr. Paul is able to make a strong showing at the Republican Convention. At the end of the day, however, Mr. Paul is the right guy in the wrong Party. Once that dog and pony show is over, we invite him to run as our nominee for November!
Under the Current Republican (~9 years) Rule: Tax Code has gone terribly wrong becoming more confusing than ever; Deficit spending has exploded; Washington Insiders get away with crimes (Libby); Corporations write their own regulations; Habeas Corpus has been suspended (not since the Magna Carta!); Indefinite Detention without charges for US citizens?; National eavesdropping; Fraudulent War with Fraudulent billing by Fraudulent contractors; over 50 scandals; We have mortgaged our economy; We are educating our children to be the D students of the world; and Science consistently takes a back seat to politics!
That's why we started The Rattlesnake Party.
Rattlesnake Party
(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 and more.)
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.
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 and more.)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)