Judy's Homegrown Blog

voting – Writeindependent.org – congress – district – pledge – honest – candidate – No Labels – Trans Pacific Partnership – NAFTA – GATT

I live in California’s District 33, where only the top two vote getters advance from the Primary to the General election. That means I only have to look at two people: the incumbent Henry Waxman and his challenger Bill Bloomfield.

Bill Bloomfield says he’s an Independent. He says he’ll be tough on campaign reform. But I called his office, and he’s a Republican through and through, so I don’t buy it that he’s an Independent, but more importantly, I don’t trust that he will be tough on campaign financing because of the following emails between myself and someone working in his office:

Hi Judy,

I certainly like the general gist of what I saw in the video and feel it is in line with Bloomfield’s general platform.  However, one of his objectives with No Labels is to remove the idea of “pledges” from Congress (except, as Bill puts it, the pledge of office and pledge of allegiance) as he sees them historically as either ineffective or, more importantly, dangerous.  No Labels is looking to soften the bargaining positions between parties and sees pledges as signed, ridged commitments to a particular position as opposite to its cause.  For more details, please visit www.nolabels.org to see the twelve objectives they’ve outlined to work on repairing Congress.

But I would love to find a way for us to work together as we are obviously working in the same direction.  Bloomfield has just taken a hardline stance against signing any pledges altogether, but certainly isn’t against the well-intentioned nature of yours.  Let me know if you can think of any ways for us to cooperate without signing a pledge and let’s do that.

Regards,

Name removed here

Bloomfield for Congress
office: (310) 513-5033
www.bloomfieldforcongress.com

My reply:

Dear *****,

I like that you want to work together. I think, though, that your stance on not taking pledges is actually oxymoronic. If you pledge not to take a pledge, then you are taking a pledge!

Think about that one.

Now remember, the reason we pick one candidate over another is because of his convictions. If someone decides not to have a specific conviction, then it’s very hard to want to vote for them.

I have decided to blog about this problem. It seems like the candidates are trying very hard to dodge the issue of taking what is effectively “bribes” from lobbyists. If you want another example of a person who is aggressively taking a stance on this issue, visit Rootstrikers. Lawrence Lessig has a pledge for candidates to not take lobbying jobs, ever, after they are in office.

I think I stand correct that most of your constituents don’t want Mr. Bloomberg to take any big money or favors from special interest groups that would tend to sway his decisions in congress.

My biggest concern is something called the Trans Pacific Partnership. If Mr. Bloomberg prevails in the upcoming election, I can guarantee you that I will do everything in my power to persuade Mr. Bloomberg to say “NO” to the TPP. And I will do everything possible to educate our country’s citizens about the TPP, because it’s even worse than NAFTA, GATT, and all the other “free trade” agreements combined.

Judy

Here is another candidate dodging the issue of campaign finance. It’s not likely that there will be any opposition to the Pledge, unless of course the people opposing it want to make themselves look like people who want to take bribes.

Dear Gail,

Please, I urge you to strongly consider this Pledge because we just discovered that Public Access Stations will air our infomercial. I am reaching out to people in every district across the country to have the infomercial walked into the stations, so that we can exercise more influence in Washington than we are currently receiving via “representative government”.

Consider it a way of saving our country from the special interests, SuperPACs and whatever companies or countries are funding them.

Sincerely,

Judy Frankel

On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:51 AM, <ggailparker@cox.net> wrote:

Judy,

I am a candidate in Virginia’s Congressional District 1.  We are currently evaluating whether to sign the pledge.  We rarely receive donations and compliance is not the issue.  (We normally do not sign pledges nor do we respond to “surveys” as they usually seek to “lock down” candidates positions in order that the opposition can attack them.)

I encourage you to continue your efforts and wish you much success.

Sincerely,

Gail for Rail Parker
www.GailParker.us
Independent on the ballot in Virginia for eight consecutive years.

Santa – Claus – Presidential – Candidate – POTUS – Independent – JetBlue – advertising – truth in advertising – third party – choice – voting – vote – Writeindependent.org

Santa is mad!

I like Santa Claus. He’s one of my favorite people. Not the Santa that visits us on Christmas, but the one who’s running for President of the United States. If you haven’t heard of him, it’s about time you had.

Santa emailed me the following JetBlue advertisement and had a few complaints about it:

http://bit.ly/QMG24Q

Santa fired off an email to Allie, who probably works in JetBlue’s customer relations. Here is the text of that email:

… regarding your ill-conceived ‘election protection’ program:
Jet Blue has just alienated 40% of its potential market.

http://bit.ly/PCtex4

By limiting the choice for voters to Republican and Democrat, you omit the 40% of Americans who self-identify and independent voters.

As I wrote previously, you are promoting your ‘contest’ in a misleading way that appears to constitute false advertising – since participants in your contest cannot actually vote for the candidate of their choice.

Either drop the contest or include a selection/choice for “other” or “independent” candidate. Otherwise, you risk offending followers of independent and third-party candidates, such as myself. Alienating 40% of your potential market is a big risk.

Santa
www.SantaClausforPresident.com

To which Allie replied:

Hi Santa,

We appreciate your interest and for reaching out. Our poll is officially unofficial and we know it’s not truly representative of all the possible choices.

A big part of why we decided to run our fun marketing campaign is to encourage Americans to get out and vote for whatever party and  candidate they’re interested in.

Best of luck in the upcoming election!

All best,
Allie

But Santa was still angry, and felt that Allie missed the point. So he fired back:

Hi, Allie:

Thanks for your well-wishes. Unfortunately, JetBlue’s stance doesn’t address the concern among the 40% of voters who can’t vote for an independent in your ‘election protection’ poll. It can’t be that hard to add a block for independent voters to click, as you already have for Republicans and Democrats.

Jet Blue is giving the impression that its “throwing many millions of independent voters (and their candidates) under the bus,” and that, likely, will be the tone of the press release I am drafting. This election isn’t limited to the two main parties, contrary to your promotion. JetBlue’s stance on its promotion is about as un-American and un-Democratic as it gets.

If you actually mean what you wrote in your response to me, that JetBlue’s “marketing campaign is to encourage Americans to get out and vote for whatever party and candidate they’re interested in,” then do that by including a block for independents to click. Otherwise, JetBlue is misleading its potential customers and showing and telling independents they don’t count. That block of voters is larger than either the Republicans or Democrats.

All the best, Santa

I wrote Santa the following email tonight, to let him know my thoughts on his actions:

You are absolutely right: the tone of JetBlue’s piece is offensive because it is so depressing. Rather than making people feel like their vote counts for something REAL, they make us feel as though we are boxed into two choices, and neither one is very good. I’m sure that they echo the feeling of the masses, and that is precisely the feeling that YOU and I mean to blast through, saying “It doesn’t have to be this way!” People who are depressed feel as though they have no choice, there is no other option than to feel terrible. That is essentially how most people feel about politics.

What makes me most angry is voter-eligibles who choose to throw their vote away because they haven’t even considered voting for the alternatives. Rather than throw your vote away, vote for someone whom you can get behind and who you believe in! It might be a symbolic, protest vote, yet if enough people did it, we would have a real “third party” come out of it! (Though I don’t mean to say a “party” is even necessary). I believe in the people, in building consensus, in a collective consciousness if you will, that is more powerful than any political party.

Writeindependent.org – Pledge – Honest – Candidates – House of Representatives – 2012 Election – money in politics – money out of politics – California – Trans Pacific Partnership – Pledge for Honest Candidates

Let it be known: I am trying to make a statement with the Pledge for Honest Candidates. I want to SHAME the congresspersons who won’t sign it. Most of us are so fed up with politicians spending money to promote themselves that they are ready to “mandate campaign reform,” even if they don’t know what that phrase means.

 

Yesterday, I called the following candidates and left messages, then sent emails asking them to sign the Pledge:

Bob Flores CA District 43

Sukhee Kang CA District 45

Jerry Hayden CA District 46

Gary DeLong CA District 47

Ron Varasteh CA District 48

 

I called Jerry Tetalman of CA District 49 and talked to Chuck, who asked me to send my information. I sent him the following email:

Dear Mr. Tetalman,

 

I spoke earlier with Chuck Franz about our website, Writeindependent.org. Allow me to introduce to you the Agreement for Honest Candidates that aims to take money’s influence out of politics. Here’s a link directly to that Agreement: http://www.writeindependent.org/contentpage.php?id=21.

 

And here is a great video that explains how that Agreement works to garner you votes in the upcoming general election: http://youtu.be/PmlN6eYhJ4k We plan to buy media all over the country to run the infomercial, so it’s important that you watch it.

And finally, I called David Secor, CA District 50, who answered his own phone and said that the Pledge sounded exactly like something he would support. I sent him an email, and he agreed to the Pledge, and now he’s a Pledge signer.

 

For every nine or so people who SAY they think the incumbents are corrupt, there is only one person who pledges to DO something about it once they get into office.  Don’t take their word for it. Make them sign the Agreement for Honest Candidates.

 

I want you to follow my lead: call these supposed “representatives,” tell them you want them to sign the Pledge, and make them feel ashamed for making all kinds of excuses why they won’t.

 

Today I moved on to Virginia. I called Gail Parker of VA District 1 and left a message. I always describe the purpose of my call and follow up with a similar email to the one above.

 

I talked to Sean, a volunteer at the campaign headquarters of Adam Cook VA District 1. I ended the day on a high note, calling Kevin Chisholm VA District 10, and I actually got him on the phone. He was excited about the Pledge and was pretty sure it suited him just fine. If for any reason you don’t see a star by his name, call him up and ask him to follow through by sending me an email at complaints@writeindependent.org to say that he’s a Pledge signer, and we’ll make that red star show up next to his name.

 

Together, we can shape the election process of this country. But if I have to call every candidate on the list, I will because my life isn’t over yet, and I’m bound and determined.

 

Shame on those who continue to take money to barrage us with television ads! I want a serious debate, not tv ads. And I want a congressman who will promise NOT to vote for the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is the worst piece of legislation coming before congress within the next couple of years! If you don’t know what the TPP is, look it up on this blog or google it. Then tell your candidate not to vote for the Trans Pacific Partnership, or you won’t vote for them.

 

Writeindependent.org  – economy – hoarding – job creation – stimulus – economic – hardship – wealthiest – wealthy – production – American Express Publishing and Harrison Group – 2012 Survey of Affluence and Wealth – America – Jim Taylor

The biggest barrier the economy has to bouncing back is this problem of hoarding. It’s not just the biggest companies and banks holding onto too much cash. It’s individuals as well. Read:

The 2012 Survey of Affluence and Wealth in America, from American Express Publishing and Harrison Group, finds that the wealthiest Americans are hoarding three times as much cash as they were two years ago. Their savings rate soared to 34 percent in the second quarter of 2012, up from 12 percent in 2007.

This skyrocketing savings rate is the flip side of lost confidence. A whopping 82 percent of the wealthy respondents said they would increase their spending and investing if they had more confidence in the future.

“[The wealthy are] basically stuffing money under the mattress,” says Jim Taylor, vice chairman of Harrison Group. “This has resulted in people managing their risk to a ‘no loss’ position rather than a ‘real gains’ position,” Taylor said. “That’s not the great tradition of American investing.”

In other words, the wealthiest are saving at a rate that is 3 times the amount they saved a few years ago. This money, if not circulated in the economy, does much to starve the economy of jobs and needs to be put to productive use. It’s a vicious cycle: people lose confidence in the markets, they hoard cash, the cash stops flowing to businesses, and the businesses lay off people, decreasing customer’s ability to pay for goods and services, which causes fear in potential investors.

We are our own worst enemies.

Source:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fear-loathing-one-percent-165400847.html

Writeindependent.org – campaign reform – money out of politics – bribery – corruption – government – representatives – special interests – pledge – honest – candidates – House of Representatives – congress – balance budget – Grover Norquist – Trans Pacific Partnership – TPP

I’ve started my campaign in earnest: to call each congressional challenger who hasn’t already signed, and ask him or her to sign the Pledge for Honest Candidates. Of course, I’m starting in California because that’s where I live.  I’ve learned one thing already: phone calls work where candidates are concerned.

I always know inside of five minutes whether the candidate is seeking office to be a servant to the people or wants the position as a career. It’s something in their manner, and it’s usually expressed by the amount of reluctance they have to making a pledge that would remove their ability to score big campaign dollars once in office.

I was lucky enough to start the day with three incredible people:

Jack Orswell, District 27
David Hernandez, District 29
Stephen Smith, District 34

I trust that all three of these people will sign the pledge because I could tell that they had been through the wringer, trying to campaign against candidates who are so well backed that they expect to lose.

I may not agree with their platforms, but I can say that they are the kind of people who will listen to their constituents. How can I tell? First of all, they answer their own phone. They make themselves available, and they listen. Even if they aren’t representing the party of the majority of their district, I believe they would bend to the will of the people if given a chance to hear out the people’s grievances.

It would be interesting, for example, to have constituents of Stephen Smith explain to him why he shouldn’t vote to turn Medicare into a voucher program. I’d love to be a fly on the wall of his office if a handful of Medicare recipients came to him and explained why Medicare is a good thing.

If Mr. Smith did sign the pledge, he wouldn’t have a torrent of lobbyists coming from the financial industry explaining why it’s in his best interests (hint, hint) to vote in favor of privatizing Medicare. And his constituents wouldn’t have to worry that he’d vote in favor of a certain industry so that they could pour poison into their water table rather than listening to the people who had to drink that water every day.

And they wouldn’t have to wonder if Mr. Smith’s arm were getting twisted by all the corporations that wrote the Trans Pacific Partnership, a NAFTA-on steroids “free trade” bill that will get passed if we don’t fix this problem of money in politics real soon.

I also called my own Bill Bloomfield, running in District 33. This was my second call to the congressman challenger, who runs against incumbent Henry Waxman. Bill used to be a Republican, but now he calls himself an Independent. I don’t care what he calls himself; I have trouble trusting a guy who won’t sign my pledge. So far, I have only talked to his assistant, Jason, who says that Mr. Bloomfield doesn’t sign pledges, that pledges have gotten us the terrible congress we have now. I know who he’s talking about. He’s referring to Grover Norquist, the mastermind behind the worst (for Americans) pledge ever: the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which basically protects the wealthiest of the wealthy from ever paying more than they now pay with the Bush tax cuts in place. It also keeps us from ever balancing the budget. Imagine that: a balanced budget!

To people who complain that Pledges are bad, I say this: a pledge is a promise that you sign. It is important for candidates to have strong convictions with which their constituents agree, else why would they vote for them? If ever there were a nonpartisan issue that most voters can agree upon, it’s that their representative should not take money from a special interest group, because it is a conflict of interest and it sways a congressperson’s vote. It’s a bribe, plain and simple.

If nothing else, the Pledge draws attention to the corruption in our government. To sign or not to sign? I don’t trust anyone who won’t (at the very least) consider it.

The excuses I’ve heard from candidates run the gamut. Some say that the Pledge doesn’t get rid of PACs and Super PACs (it does) because PACs can promote a candidate without coordinating with them. I say that PACs and SuperPACs are handled by the Pledge because all we have to do is show a “conflict of interest” situation exists and that congressman is in deep water. They don’t even have to take money. If the VALUE of a person or entity’s “contribution” is more than $100, then the Pledge strictly forbids it. You won’t hear “My name is ____ and I approve this message” anymore once the Pledge becomes law.

I’ve heard candidates say that they can’t constrain themselves to a $100 limit because then they can’t compete with the other guy. I tell them that their limit is $2,500 right now, because that is what the FEC allows. Many of the challengers have trouble finding donors that will give that much, but when they do, they want to be able to accept it. The Pledge allows it, because a challenger is not yet in office. It’s when they get elected that they have to reduce their donations to $100 per. Incumbents statistically have a much easier time getting reelected, so they shouldn’t have to spend ridiculous sums of money to do so, if their voting record matches their constituents’ wishes. In other words, if they do a good job, they get reelected, not if they raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I talked with Mark Takano, running in California’s District 41. He was worried about limiting himself to $100 per contribution. He wanted to be sure it had to be the same for everyone “If it’s a law, I’d consider supporting [it]. I don’t think this would necessarily pass congress. Make the people feel that…the system’s not rigged against ordinary people.…Unless that’s true for everybody… That’s a rule I’m willing to abide by.”

And why WOULD congress pass a law that the People wanted? If it doesn’t support their ends, why would congress pass a law? This is the problem with trying to get incumbents to rein themselves in. WE MUST have our representatives promise to pass this as legislation BEFORE they get elected. It must be a clear mandate from the people, and that mandate has to start somewhere. That is why I am making these phone calls.

Finally, I called John Tavaglione, who is running against Mark Takano in District 41. I offered the same information, but I was talking to his assistant, whose name I never learned. Everyone today received an email like the one here:

I hope that we will be working together to educate your constituency about our efforts to get money out of politics. Everybody is ready for it!

Here’s my website and the infomercial that will convince voters to mandate campaign reform as our first order of business once the new congress convenes: http://youtu.be/PmlN6eYhJ4k

Let me know if you agree to the pledge and I’ll get you on our list of signers! All you have to do is reply this email with your answer.

But in the case of John Tavaglione, I did something a little wicked. I thought twice about doing it, but I caved in to my baser instincts. I purposely forwarded the email I had just sent to his competitor, Takano and just added a simple introductory sentence at the top. Now he knows that Takano is considering the Pledge and the edge it would give his campaign above his opponent.

Writeindependent.org – economy – fix the debt – job creation – national debt – solutions – economy

Politicians often say they’re going to “create jobs” and “fix the economy” but they offer very little in the way of real solutions. Politicians often don’t want to admit that we need to raise taxes in order to balance the budget because it’s an unpopular idea. Nobody wants to pay MORE taxes to a government that is poorly run and spending money in objectionable ways.

All the more reason for us as citizens to become involved in changing the face of politics. If you know the government is not working in your best interests, then contact your representative (or the challenger candidate that you like best) and pressure them to change their course.

On the Writeindependent.org website, the only position that candidates will affirm or deny is whether or not they will take money and favors from lobbyists, PACs, or individuals in excess of $100 through the Pledge for Honest Candidates. This is the beginning of keeping our republic viable, but it is by no means the answer to our economic problems.

This past year, I have been searching for answers. I wanted to know if there was a way to mobilize the positive forces in our better natures, to coordinate our needs and desires into an effort to change the status quo, centered around the general election. In that quest, I found two economists who offer the following suggestions to stimulate the economy and foster an environment where jobs are created. I offer this information here, and credit the two economists below, along with their titles.

1. Reform the tax code to…

a. Include a steeply rising marginal tax on the highest earners, and
b. Levy taxes and fees to internalize the social costs of private enterprise; e.g., effluent fees on carbon emissions.
c. Revise taxation of corporations to discourage growth by acquisition and encourage repatriation of foreign earnings.

2. Provide tax incentives and reduce regulations to enable people to invest in new and early-stage enterprises in their communities.

3. Incentivize innovation in clean energy businesses by levying a carbon tax.

4. Break up the big banks.

5. Re-enact a modified version of the Glass-Steagal Act to require the separation of investment banking from depository banking.

6. Decentralize government: Move power and money out of Washington down to the local level via General Revenue Sharing.

7. Discourage hoarding by businesses and banks.

8. Revise and strengthen anti-trust laws.

9. Focus on the long-term; e.g., Rates of taxation of capital gains should rise steeply the shorter term the investment.

10. Audit the Federal Reserve. Also, require the Fed to close its discount window to large banks and businesses and open it to entrepreneurs and small businesses.

11. Campaign finance reforms:

a. Set limits on outlays for political “pro’s” and campaign advertising; no limits for expenditures to equip political volunteers.
b. Recognize the value of volunteer participation by giving a tax credit for the time people spend on campaigns.
c. Allow campaign contributions only from natural persons, not from corporations, unions or other organizations.
d. Do not allow PACs, “bundling” or other organizational contributions.
e. Reduce, and do not index, limits for individual monetary contributions.
f. Enable time to be provided at no cost by major media to enable candidates to conduct debates.
g. Do not allow public financing of campaigns. The only public financing should be provided on a matching grant basis to parties to help them cover the cost of voter registration, education and training for voters and activists, and outreach and informational activities to encourage people’s participation in the political process.

Peter Bearse, International Consulting Economist
Carmine Gorga, PhD Political Scientist, President of Somist Institute

Writeindependent.org – economy – solutions – economic crisis – recession – depression – fix congress – job creation – fair tax – tax reform – wealth inequality – distribution of wealth – executive salaries – executive bonus – stimulate economy – entrepreneur – early stage funding – externalities – cost of pollution – carbon tax – micro-financing – business start-up

International economist Peter Bearse, who was featured in our video called “How to Fix Congress in One Easy Step” has outlined in greater depth the economic solutions to our recession (or depression) crisis. He and Carmine Gorga, PhD have collaborated to write the following recommendations:

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO REFORM the ECONOMY

Ÿ       Complete development of a new model that brings economic justice and distributional concerns into an integrated political-economic framework. Such a model is necessitated by the fact that the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration, like that of other governments, have been inspired by the “ideas of defunct economists.”^[1]

Ÿ       Devise triggers and mechanisms to limit inequalities of income and wealth in the U.S. These would follow from a new “Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities.^[2] For example, legal limits could be put in place, both on executive pay and unearned financial sector and executive bonuses. The former would address the excessive multiples that corporate executives are paid relative to their employees;^[3] the latter, excessive bonuses paid to people for taking excessive risks with other people’s money  or to executives of underperforming or even failing companies.

Ÿ       Introduce economic democracy into the U.S., including:

1. Broadening and liberalizing legislation that enables Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) to include proper representation of long-term employees in the governing boards of companies;
2. Expanding the legal rights of long-term stockholders in corporate governance and major corporate decisions, including those on the distribution of retained earnings;
3. Legislation to limit or prohibit growth-by-purchase rather than growth-from-within; e.g., limit growth via “M&A” (mergers and acquisitions).
4. Gain-sharing to distribute the returns to productivity more equitably.^[4]
   

Ÿ       Enact former Senator Mike Gravel’s “Constitutional “Democracy Amendment” and “Democracy Act”. These would enable laws to be made via national initiative and referendum (I&R).^[5]

Ÿ       Convert the “Earned Income Tax Credit” and the welfare system into a Guaranteed Family Survival Income based upon hours worked per week in relation to family subsistence requirements [less food aid, if any). This could pertain to limited time periods to help families overcome hardships and enable better transition(s) to a sound economy.

Ÿ       Revise Gross Domestic Product to account for…

1. Costs external to the market economy, such as the costs of carbon emissions, large plant shutdowns involving jobs’ shifting to other countries, et al.;
2. The value of women’s work in the home;
3. The value of volunteer work, including political volunteerism; and
4. Other significant omissions identified by various analysts and reports over the years.

Ÿ       Adopt and implement a “National Entrepreneurship Development” program to…

1. Substantially increase funds available for investment in new, innovative or early-stage, independent enterprises;
2. Subsidize entrepreneurship education at all levels;
3. Allow a portion of unemployment insurance funds to be used to finance business start-ups (by adapting past models from states and other countries);
4. Enable many more start-up funds to be obtained without SEC registration, via “crowd sourcing”, Joint Municipal-Private Security Offerings, micro-financing programs, Community Development Finance Institutions, et al.

Ÿ       Amend, refine and advocate significant changes to laws that regulate the financial sector. These should include oversight by independent citizens’ committees of regulations still being written to implement “Dodd-Frank” and taxation of financial transactions, such as a “Tobin tax” that would be higher, the shorter the term of an investment.^[6]

Ÿ       Formulate and advocate changes to the legal framework that governs the operations of large, private, multinational and private/public corporations in the United States. Especially: A Constitutional amendment to revoke corporate personhood unless corporations introduce provisions of “economic democracy” into their governance.

Ÿ       Provide incentives for government agencies to save money (rather than spend the full amount of their budget).

Ÿ       Reform the tax code to —

1. Simplify, but also increase progressivity of the graduated income tax;
2. Remove incentives for short-term and Increase incentives for long-term (more than 5 years) investment;
3. Enact a Value-Added Tax or Consumption tax that is also progressive;
4. Maintain the inheritance (“death”) tax;
5. Heavily tax “fast-trading” financial transactions.
6. Tax costs external to (unrecognized by) the market economy, including costs of carbon emissions, large plant shutdowns involving jobs’ shifting to other countries, et al. As OWS recognized, this would be “a move toward a true (and full-)-cost market regime in which the price of every product reflects the ecological cost of its production, distribution and use.”^[7]
   
7. Gradually eliminate all tax advantages and subsidies to established (more than 5 years old) businesses.
   

---

^[1] See Gorga, Carmine (2010), THE ECONOMIC PROCESS. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Dr. Gorga calls his framework “Concordian Economics.” Work to put it into testable, econometric form is ongoing by Gorga and Bearse.^[2] As set forth by Gorga, op.cit., as essential prerequisites to a “Concordian Economics>“^[3] “In 1980, American CEOs earned 42 times more than the average employee…that figure has sky-rocketed to more than 300 times…By way of comparison, top executives at the 30 (German) blue-chip(s) …rarely earn over 100 times…” Shultz, Thomas (2011), “Has America Become an Oligarchy,” Spiegel Online (10/28, translated from the German).

^[4] Note that this and ESOPs serve to reduce unjustified inequalities in the distribution of returns to productivity, a problem that Robert Reich identified as one of the causes of our economic crisis in his book AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America’s Future (Vintage paperback).

^[5] As proposed by former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel. See Gravel, op.cit.

^[6] First advocated by Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin in his 1972 Janeway Lectures at Princeton, this tax was “originally defined as a tax on spot conversions of one currency into another.” In this author’s view as himself an economist, such a tax should include all financial transactions and graduated to decrease with the length of time that an investment enabled by a financial transaction is held — “to put a penalty on short-term financial excursions…” Quotes from WIKIPEDIA on “Tobin Tax.”

^[7] Farrell, Paul B. (2011), op.cit.

Writeindependent.org money is speech – free speech – corporations are people – Citizens United – money in politics

We have catch phrases in our country that make no sense whatsoever. One of them is “money is speech.” In many cases, money is propaganda. Very different.

If what they mean by “money is speech” is that money buys television time, then they should really be saying “money buys air time” and “air time is speech time.” But it isn’t free speech! It’s very expensive, and because it’s expensive, it ain’t free.

Let’s see how long “free speech” lasted on television if we told the stations that they had to air all the political ads for free.

Writeindependent.org – taxation – taxes – tax – Constitution – congress – Democrat – Republican – President – politician – lobbyist – federal budget

-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan …

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it… is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren’t so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he’s fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid…

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
‘Taxes drove me
to my doom…’

When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’

GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN