An Ideal Society, as provided by the United States Constitution

An ideal society is one with individual liberties as championed by libertarians with a humanist government as championed by social democrats and a tax code that rewards companies hiring and paying good wages to U.S. workers.

Suggesting that an ideal society is possible via our Constitution is not saying America isn't already the greatest country in the world. Seeking to continually improve is a very American trait. Finding the right balance between the government doing the bare minimum and doing all that it can is important, but how it implements what it does is key.

An ideal society uses a capitalist system because capitalism is the best system to spur innovation and competition. However, all economic systems eventually self-destruct which is why there must be rules. You wouldn't play baseball without rules, and you shouldn't practice capitalism without rules.

True freedom means total freedom so long as you aren't infringing upon the freedoms of another. America is still stuck in a puritanical prohibition-era mindset which inhibits industry and criminalizes victimless crimes. A nanny state is only so many steps away from a Big Brother state. We must be free to have the religion of our choice, but the government must not legislate morality for us, beyond the defense of the right to life, liberty, and other inalienable rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. It is moral and just to defend those rights.

It is one thing for a government to legislate the personal behavior of a citizen which only affects that citizen. That is an unjust invasion. It is another thing entirely for a government to create an economic framework in which its citizens can thrive, by protecting capitalism and the rights of its citizens to engage in it, as well designating the means by which the citizens contribute to maintaining the government. It bears saying that government does these things as an agent of we, the people, and not through any actual power of its own.

However, current libertarianism confuses freedom by thinking it means only caring about oneself (and also confusing corporations with individuals). Thoughts of that nature have no place in a united society. “United We Stand,” is a saying with particular meaning for Americans as it well should. We are not all in this for ourselves; we are all in this together. Individual responsibility is not synonymous with being a bad Samaritan.

That is why it is so very important that all Americans receive education, health care, food, and housing (without encouraging a free ride on the system). There are numerous ways to achieve this. The simplest is that all Americans pay taxes within their means to help maintain the great country in which they reside. Fortunately, the Constitution grants the power for the federal government to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” which allows for a wide range of programs to benefit the American people. This was the interpretation of Alexander Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures (1791) for what is the United States if not its people?

Even James Madison, who generally opposed the “General Welfare Clause” from being used in such a way, wrote in Federalist No. 44 that, "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included.”

There are those who don't believe their tax money should be used to benefit anyone else. Some of them have a flawed understanding of the Constitution, some only care about themselves, some are just greedy, and some are all of those. They seem to think that application of taxes is theft when such costs could be avoided by moving to a different country. It isn't theft because you agree to abide by a countries laws and share in the associated costs when you live within its boundaries. Government cannot operate without some form of revenue. One thing is certain and that is that such views can only lead to an immoral, heartless, and divided society. Far too many conservatives and libertarians want a society where the poor cannot afford education and where those not rich enough to save for retirement must go into the gutter to die when no longer physically able to work.

However, the cost of the welfare state can be greatly reduced by a tax code that rewards companies hiring and paying good wages to U.S. workers as outlined here: http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-to-fix-americas-economy-simple.html

The above plan will greatly reduce the need for the welfare state. We can improve our assistance programs by investigating fraud and making sure that those receiving unemployment insurance are actually looking for work (which will require an economy with available jobs). We do have a problem with people taking advantage of the system, and we have to remove those people off permanent assistance who do not have a legitimate disability or are not being caretakers of others.

Some will say that any forms of safety net programs are socialism. However, socialism is when the people as a group have control of the means of production with no private ownership. Providing programs that benefit the people is neither socialist nor capitalist. It is simply a function of government.

So, what programs should the government (state or federal) provide to its people? The states should continue to provide public education. Unemployment insurance to those in between jobs is not only life-saving but a good investment since money given to those in dire need goes right back into the economy. Care for children of poor families and social workers are also something we cannot abandon.

For providing affordable health care to all American people, there are three choices.

• The first is an individual mandate. Everyone must buy health insurance. Those that don't buy insurance must pay a tax so that the government can recoup the money used to pay for the health care for those who are uninsured. This was the idea of Republicans in the 1980s to prevent a government takeover of healthcare. It is ironic that once Democrats adopted the idea, Republicans started to call it a government takeover.
• The second option is for the government to purchase health insurance for all with taxpayer money. I believe a system where each state purchases insurance for all of its residents from one health care insurer is best. This way, health insurers can compete for the business of the 50 states. This system could be handled at either the state or the federal level.
• The third is to stop providing care for those who can't pay. If you show up at a hospital with a gunshot wound and it can't be proven you can pay, they let you die. This way, the hospital or government doesn't have to eat the costs for caring for the uninsured. When hospitals provide care to those who can't pay, their costs increase, and they pass those costs onto those who can pay. This way, people stop getting a free ride on the system.

The third option is a completely uncivilized option which leaves us with option one or option two. Either is workable.

So, what we will have accomplished so far is: increasing the freedom of individuals, getting more people jobs at higher wages, getting more people basic necessities, and reducing taxes by reducing the need for the welfare state.

Sadly, there are still some people who believe that paying taxes is a form of violence against them. However, we have a representative government so if there are taxes you don't like, you were outvoted. It is a lie to say you had no say in the matter. You had your say. If you don't like it, you have the freedom to leave.

Do we have good representatives? That is an entirely different matter. It is up to us to speak with our votes and get better representation.
 

In order for the above changes to take place, the American people must want it to happen, and they must elect representatives who are willing to uphold the will of the people. So long as the American people believe the propaganda that it is not in their best interest to have their fellow Americans be well paid, it will not happen. It won't happen so long as Americans believe liberty means other Americans only having the freedoms that they themselves like. It won't happen until people decide the American dream is raising oneself up hand-in-hand with other Americans and not ascending on the backs of the rest without caring whether or not you're wearing cleats.

I will leave you with the words of our Founding Father John Adams which are taken from his great work, Thoughts on Government: Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies.

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

How To Fix America's Economy, Simple Really

Regardless of what caused the 2007-2009 US recession and its lingering effects, the fix is to spur the US economy and cause job growth. I'll discuss the cause of the recession at the end. It's not as immediately important as digging us out of the hole.

Outsourcing jobs to cheaper labor in other countries continues to be a cause of job loss, and some predict that companies are finding they can do just fine with less employees which means many of the jobs lost in the recession won't be coming back. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/business/economy/13obsolete.html

American economy cannot thrive if Americans don't have jobs or money. If Americans had more jobs and money, they would spend more causing business to boom and creating more jobs. It's a good cycle, but it's also a chicken and the egg question. So far, people have been saying chicken when they should have been saying egg.

The answer is give companies a tax break on the wages they pay to US workers. I suggest a tax break equal to 110% of the wages up to the value of an $80,000 yearly salary. A number of things will need to be done in addition which I will detail below, but the basic idea is that companies will hire more US workers and pay their US workers more in order to get tax breaks. Americans will then have more money to spend which will cause business to boom and require more jobs. It's true that at first some companies might just hire employees to watch paint dry in order to get the tax break, and there is nothing wrong with that.

To make this work, we need to first close the exploited corporate tax loopholes and tax shelters since some of the wealthiest companies pay very little in taxes. Possibly, eliminate many of the write-offs and deductions they use. They'll immediately be saving money by getting tax breaks on wages paid to US workers and can save more by hiring more and paying more.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html

We'll of course need to conduct a study of business in the US to determine the best numbers to use and see if any industries should be exempt. The 110% and the $80,000 I mentioned are just a starting point and are adjustable. It would mean the company would pay $88,000 less in taxes for each employee it paid $80,000. The numbers could very easily be 150% and $100,000 or 75% and 60,000. I'm just presenting the system here.

Another limit would be that a company will not get a tax break on wages paid to an individual who is already receiving the maximum amount. Someone will not be able create numerous shell companies to each pay him an $80,000 yearly salary and get a tax deduction for each one. Some might argue that nobody will get paid more than the highest amount that gets the tax break, but that won't be true for two reasons: 1) People get paid now without such a system in place, 2) Companies will pay more for the best workers.

The best part is that this system doesn't restrict free trade or outsourcing. I'm not talking tariffs. It just encourages making Americans wealthier. With that will come less government assistance programs and subsidies that the government has to pay which will be good because the government will likely be getting less money in taxes. It's not likely that if someone has a choice to get less than $10,000 a year on welfare and make $40,000 a year at McDonald's that they would choose to stay at home. I also predict this would reduce crime.

Unfortunately, none of our leaders (politicians) are doing anything as direct as this to improve the US economy. Cutting taxes can be great, but it doesn't dramatically increase job growth. Cutting taxes on the rich gives them the option of hiring more cheap labor overseas or buying another gold-plated Humvee upon which they can sniff crack out of a prostitute's navel. Though most likely, it will just be pocketed or invested.

Some claim that becoming more environmentally aware and going green creates jobs but not nearly enough. Fixing our health care system and providing subsidies to those who cannot afford it is great, but while will reduce health care costs in the long run, people will still be poor and the economy will not significantly improve.

So while the Republicans' idea of cutting taxes and reducing regulations so that companies can do whatever they want (outsource jobs, pay people less, make more money) isn't going to help much, the Democrats' idea isn't helping our economy either. Unfortunately, they're just going to be nitpicking at the details of each others' ideas in the foreseeable future.

If you like my idea, and I imagine you will if it's possible you'd like a sudden bump in your wages due to your employer getting a tax break on your wages, please write your Congressman about it. And if you're an employer, you may like being able to save money merely by paying employees. Alternatively, elect me President of the United States or give me mind control powers to give our politicians a sense of priority. However, spreading the word is easier.

And once we kick-start the economy, we'll still need to address the cause of the Great Recession as some call it. People don't agree on the cause. People are still debating the cause of the Great Depression.

One of the biggest reasons is the wealth gap in this country. The richest people have been increasing their wealth much faster than the rest of the country. You can't have much of an economy when 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth. Here's a link, though a search of “wealth gap” will likely turn up many different results.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

There are other possible causes of the recession as well.

5 reasons: http://www.slate.com/id/2240858/

Consumer debt: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/11430.aspx

Federal regulation or lack thereof: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/maximum-utility/did-the-fed-cause-the-recession/370/

This says the cause was low wages. Well, my plan would fix this. 

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Caused-the-Recession?&id=3575387

I find the below one ridiculous. Nobody loses their house because they can't afford to drive to work. If gas went up, wouldn't you just buy less groceries or cancel your cable TV?

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/04/22/oil-shock-did-high-oil-prices-cause-the-recession/?cf03388EF2=9B7C8681!NTAxMjExNTEyOmNvcnByYWRpdXNzc286+iwaU3okanZ6HJJHC0ecQw==

I find this an unbelievable idea. How can people afford cheap homes with no jobs?

http://practicalsmallbusiness.info/recession/what-caused-the-2008-recession/

Regardless of cause, it will need to be fixed so that after the economy improves with my plan, the bottom doesn't fall out again due to unsustainable borrowing, speculative lending, and bad gambles.

More Reading

I've received some comments on the above plan to fix America's economy. I respond to those comments here:
http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-defense-of-simple-plan-to-save.html

Net Neutrality Explained, The Real Deal

There are three principles to Net Neutrality:

1. All legal content on internet is treated equally.
2. ISPs cannot block access to legal websites, meaning they cannot block competitors websites or websites that have points of view they dislike. Cellphones cannot block your access to GoogleEarth so that you have pay for their GPS.
3. Companies or individuals cannot pay to have their pages load faster than other pages, prioritizing the internet into tiers. This will prevent big business from strangling small business, and not treat users differently based on whether they want to go to a site that had money to pay to be loaded faster.

That is all it is.

On a more technical level, some argue that packets of data of video should be loaded faster than text since video information is more harshly affected by loading speeds. Net Neutrality doesn't restrict how endpoints can prioritize the received data.

In support of it:
http://www.cc.org/net_neutrality

Against it:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775

The argument against it I think is best summed up as: If corporations decide to control what people can see, the people will be upset, and that if it can't be stopped, there's always TV, radio, newspapers, and telephones. That is a "meh" attitude towards freedom (moreover, naive). They used the fact that it was reported that Comcast decided to strangle the speed of BitTorrent clients on their network. They think that we don't have to protect our freedoms so long as it's being reported that they're being taken away. (Comcast is the largest ISP in the country.)

Both the above groups agree on the definition of Net Neutrality.

Those whom the ISPs pay lots of money so they can get the right to sell the power to control the internet have no shame in just making stuff up about Net Neutrality - as do many prominent talk show hosts and commentators (or they simply don't care to do good research - or about the truth).

For example, Glenn Beck gets his information from a book that has since been updated to no longer say what he says it says. The book also never had anything to do with Net Neutrality.

This video unfortunately explains that the Net Neutrality regulations recently passed by the FCC are very lax. They completely exclude wireless networks, such as for cellphones, so they CAN block any place on the internet that might interfere with them trying to sell you something. They new law also completely ignore principle #1 and #3. In fact, it says violating #3 is ok. To me, the wireless network and devices with contracts issue is debatable; completely ignoring principle #3 is not.

Net neutrality is something I have felt very strongly about for the last 10 years. It's only in the last few years that it seems a misinformation campaign was begun to turn people away from fighting for their own freedom. Without people knowing what an issue really is, there can be no rational debate on an issue.