My Philadelphia Adventure

[Editorial Note: The following consists of Facebook updates that I made from my phone while attending the Continental Congress 2.0 event in Philadelphia, PA July 1 - 4, 2012]

Sunday, July 1, 2012:

12:35PM: Ah, the drama of the American highway on a holiday weekend. Angry parents, exhausted, whiny children, and the only smile worn is on my face.

6:03PM Settled in at the hotel, and getting ready to have a meeting of the minds over dinner.

Monday, July 2, 2012:

6:38AM: What an ungodly hour to be awake. At least there's coffee.


9:34AM: Finally registered and checked in. Sitting in the hall; very nice facility, but light turn-out so far.


11:22AM: A late start is better than no start. We've begun.


11:45AM: Beginning voting. When I vote "yes", it means that I think the topic should be in the final document; "no" means, not necessarily that I disagree with the sentiment, but that it should not be in the document at this time.


End to corporate personhood: I vote "no".
Money is property, not speech: I vote "yes".
Campaign finance reform: I vote "yes".
Health care: I vote "no".
Employment: I vote "no".
Protection of the environment: I vote "no".
Tax reform: I vote "no".
Criminal justice reform: I vote "no".
Election reform & ending voter disenfranchisement: I vote "yes".
Fiscal responsibility: I vote "no".
Government ethics reform & closing the "revolving door": I vote "yes".
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia statehood: I vote "no".
Veterens benefits: I vote "no".
Protecting consumers from predatory practices...: I vote "no".
Student loan debt relief & grants: I vote "no".
Ending the communications monopolies: I vote "yes".
Immigration reform: I vote "no".
Protection of civil and human rights: I vote "no".
Ending perpetual war for profit: I vote "no".
Term limits: I vote "no".


12:13PM: Initial voting is complete. Committees will form next to work on categories that received at least 50% of the vote.


2:28PM: Forming committees in possibly the most confusing way possible. I've chosen Campaign Finance Reform, though I might eavesdrop on some others.


5:59PM: Done for the day. Now for food and beer.


Tuesday, July 3, 2012:


8:07AM: Awake, showered, and dressed. We don't meet until 9:30, so time to chill with Matt Forbes and whomever else happens to be around. Let's see where today takes us.


10:24AM: Hearing mini-speeches about the relationship between "99D" and Occupy.


11:05AM: Back in committee. Campaign finance reform once more.


1:20PM: About to hear a speech from David Cobb of Move to Amend. Should be interesting, at least.


1:54PM: David Cobb was certainly impassioned. I'm not sure that I agree with everything he said. I'll have to read his website later.


2:00PM(ish): The body voted to endorse Move to Amend. I abstained. I don't know enough about their organization, and I think that the issues are more nuanced than they appear to want to make them.


3:00PM: Committee work is completed, and the document is being pasted together in a kind of rough draft. There will be voting around 3:30. 


[Editorial Note: I was emailed the final working document, with pass/fail notes, proposed amendments, etc., after all of the voting was done. That can be found here: http://www.mediafire.com/?7507h092lw3756b. It's probably helpful to look at that in order to follow along.]


Speaking of voting, here are the results from yesterday (sorry they're late, I suck at this live reporting thing):

96 Campaign Finance Reform 
90 Election Reform

85 Corporations Are Not People 
85 Money is Property Not Speech 
82 Government Ethics Reform 
80 Tax Reform

76 Protecting Consumers
75 Protecting the Environment
73 Ending Perpetual War for Profit
71 Protection of Civil and Human Rights

65 Employment
64 Ending the Communication Monopolies
63 Healthcare
60 Student Loan Debt

58 Criminal Justice
53 Immigration Reform
53 Veterans Benefits
52 Fiscal Responsibility
50 Puerto Rico and DC

43 Term Limits

*All numbers are percent "yes" votes.


4:00PM: Beginning deliberations for voting.


4:14PM: Starting with Healthcare. I'm on my phone, so I can't post everything that's laid out for deliberation. I'll just report how I vote on things, and I'll try to get specific texts up at some point, if I have them. 


[Editorial Note: See previous link.]


4:43PM: Voting on healthcare: I vote "no".  Healthcare passes with 72.4%


4:52PM: Discussing "Corporations are not people".
...and a vote. I vote "no".
 Passes with 98.6%


4:54PM: "Money is property, not speech."
The discussions begin...


5:16PM: Voting on "Money is property, not speech".
I vote "no".
Passes with 76.9% of the vote.


5:18PM: Discussions begin on "Campaign finance and electoral reform".


5:30PM: Breaking for dinner. I'm going to try to upload the text of the campaign finance reform. It's long, and to me, it's THE document.
I'm probably voting "yes" on this and "no" on everything else.


7:00PM: Back to discussion. There are several proposed amendments to be discussed. We're going to be here all night.
I have the text of this item on my phone, in doc format. It won't let me select all so that I can copy and paste. I'm still working on that. I do NOT have the amendments.


8:11PM: I'm this close to moving to declare the whole thing a shambles.
We just spent at least 45 minutes debating the wording of a *suggested*, *possible* solution. A fact that I finally needed to get up and point out to everyone.


9:00PM: We have officially voted on all matters related to election/campaign finance reform, and succeeded in butchering the whole thing. I have no clue where we've ended up with it. I apologize for not having the full information, I will get it when I can.


9:05PM: Debating criminal justice issues. Talking about legalizing drugs. Mein gott.


9:29PM: Criminal justice issues: I vote "no".
Passes with 86.9% of the vote.


9:30PM: Debating employment issues.


9:34PM: Employment issues: I vote "no".
Measure fails.


9:44PM: Vote on civil rights issues. I vote "no".
Measure passed (missed the %).


9:45PM: Discussion on environmental issues.


9:49PM: Vote on environmental issues. I vote "no".
Measure passes.


9:50PM: Discussion on economic issues.


10:01PM: Adjourned until 8AM.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012:

8:35AM: Running late once more. We'll see how today goes.

9:36AM: Pushing votes through. Economic issues I vote "no". It passed. Ending communications monopolies I vote "no". It passed.
Next up: government ethics reform...

9:44AM: Apparently ethics reform means creating a fourth branch of government and banning lobbying. No mention of the fact that we are lobbying right now.

10:05AM: Ethics reform (minus the fourth branch part) vote. I vote "no". Measure passed.

10:06AM: Discussing veteren's benefits.

10:11AM: Veterans' benefits voted. I voted "no". It passes.

10:12AM: Discussing ending war for profit, which apparently has something to do with 9/11.
Christ.

10:48AM: Ending war for profit voted. I vote "no". Measure passes.

10:50AM: Discussing immigration reform.

11:00AM: Voting on immigration reform. I vote "no". Measure passes.

11:02AM: Discussion of consumer protection.

(sometime in the past 10 minutes): Voting on consumer protection. I was out of the room, so did not vote. The measure passed.

11:19AM: Discussing parade plans for this afternoon.

11:43AM: Voting on various amendments to already established points (God knows why). I'll save you some time: I vote "no".

12:17PM: Discussing education reform.

12:37PM: Vote on education reform. I vote "no". Measure passes.

12:50PM: Voting on the entire document. I vote "no". Passes with 92.2% of the vote.

1:54PM: I'm done. Skipping the march/rally and headed home to my wife. Physically and emotionally drained.

[Editorial Note: Evidently the document read at Independence Hall was just the grievances, and omitted the solutions. This document can be found here: http://www.mediafire.com/?wqdvd1vmtcm5f2n]

7:46PM: My Philadelphia adventure is over, with a new one bound to begin. I made it home safe and sound, thanks to a couple of liters of water and a cup of grapes from a thruway rest stop.
I think it might be bedtime.

Letter to Local News Stations

Sir:

As the Republican Presidential primary wraps up and we begin to enter the general election season once again, we are bound to see an influx of political advertising -- both national and local -- on your station and in other forms of media. Some of this advertising will come from the campaigns themselves, but we will likely see a drastic increase in external advertisements coming from Political Action Committees and their big brothers, the so-called SuperPACs.

The public is about to be bombarded with conflicting information as candidates and their supporters try to rally people to their side.
It would be a tremendous public service for someone to objectively assess this information. I would like to propose something that, as far as I am aware, has never been done before in any kind of consistent manner.

I propose that your station dedicates some time on the local news to these advertisements. For every advertisement that is submitted to your station, do an analysis and report on it.

Uncover who is behind each advertisement. For instance, if a spot is run by "Citizens for the Color Blue," report that the major players in that particular SuperPAC -- indeed, the ones who are speaking through the advertisement -- are Crayola, the Union of Blueberry Growers, and Cookie Monster.

Research the content of the advertisement. Tell the public if the views expressed are factually correct, out-of-context, misleading, or even blatant lies. If there are opinions expressed instead of facts, identify them and tell the public whether they are consistent with opinions expressed by that candidate or group in the past. If not, discover why.

Adding this segment to your broadcasts would be a great boon to the democratic process, and help to create a more informed electorate.

Thank you for your time,

A Proposal for a Working Document

I've been working on what I think should be the working document for The 99% Declaration. It weeds out a lot of what I see as being adjunct issues that can be fixed later. I think that it really cuts to the heart of the issue, and if taken seriously could be a very simple reform.

WHEREAS the pursuit of national service through elected office is ever more prohibitive to the average citizen;
and WHEREAS the presence of money in politics causes undue influence -- real or imagined -- over those elected to represent and serve the people;
and WHEREAS every citizen has a right to free political speech, and the ability of the wealthy to dominate the national conversation through unlimited expenditures infringes on the right of ordinary Americans to make their voices heard, and indeed can alter the speech of the citizenry through the propagation of misinformation;
and WHEREAS corporations as legal entities do enjoy certain rights, those rights are separate from the people who comprise the corporation, and do not include free political speech;
and WHEREAS Congress has become dysfunctional through polarization, lack of civil discourse, and representation of moneyed special interests, thereby neglecting its duty to represent the American people;
and WHEREAS America no longer has a clear direction or goal, resulting in an insular society where the rich seek to get richer and the poor struggle to survive;
This delegation of citizens, formed from the communities of these United States and its territories, convened as their fore-fathers did before, in this city of Philadelphia, do hereby declare:
PROPOSED 1. That the ability of a citizen to seek national office must not be prohibited by the size of his coffers;
PROPOSED 2. That elections must not be bought and sold by the highest bidder;
PROPOSED 3. That those elected must be kept in office due solely to their merit to the people -- not due to the deep pockets of their few supporters;
PROPOSED 4. That all citizens must be able to exercise their right to free political speech without fear of being drowned out by the loudest voices;
PROPOSED 5. That the right to free political speech belongs solely to the people, and not to any other entities;
PROPOSED 6. That corporations must not be allowed to exercise a right that they inherently do not possess;
PROPOSED 7. That there must be a return to civility in our national discourse;
PROPOSED 8. That a clear goal for our country must be developed;
PROPOSED 9. That Congress be bound to furthering our progress toward that goal.
We, the undersigned, on this, the fourth day of July, two thousand and twelve, do hereby petition the three branches of the government of the United States of America to address the grievances above.

Each of the numbered points labelled PROPOSED would be up for discussion by the delegates, and if they were voted to stay, they would change to RESOLVED. I have modeled this loosely on the document created by the First Continental Congress in 1774, the full text of which is here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_and_Resolves_of_the_First_Continental_Congress

I welcome suggestions on further points to add, either in the top section or the bottom. I think that by looking at this thing as a full document, and leaving off all of these arguments about the specifics of changing these things (which we shouldn't be dealing with), we will get a better idea of what we are all working toward.

Wrapping My Head Around a Tree

There a discussion going at http://www.the99declaration.org/debt_reduction regarding Modern Monetary Theory and Monetary Sovereignty, which are closely related economic theories. A user going by the name of Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, who presumably is the same person described here, has been pushing the idea that, essentially, we could pay all of our debts any time we want just by crediting bank accounts. Initially, I conceded that while true, that would result in a loss of confidence at the world level, which would cause inflation (since our money is based on nothing more than confidence in America).
Recently, a friend of mine and I got into a discussion about the national debt. He was looking at the statistics displayed on http://www.usdebtclock.org/, particularly debt owed per citizen. During the course of our conversation, I gained a clearer picture of the concept of Monetary Sovereignty, and would like to walk myself through how our debt works.

The first thing to realize is that the term "debt" is misleading. When you or I think of debt, we think of having a monthly bill to pay. Someone has fronted us money, and we make incremental payments -- usually with interest -- to square it up. At the national level, this is completely wrong. We only make payments when someone comes to collect. But what are they collecting on?
As I covered in my post, "8. Debt Reduction," all "debt" is in the form of treasuries. There are four types of treasuries: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. Federal Reserve Notes (ie: dollar bills), are backed by treasuries, so they could also be considered a form of debt. Debt held by the public stimulates the economy, while debt held by foreign investors *could* harm the economy.

We always hear that China holds the majority of our foreign debt. This is true. China has purchased more treasuries than any other foreign nation. What does that mean?
The nearest that I can tell, treasuries must be purchased using dollars. If not, it doesn't seem like it should be a difficult process to turn yuan into dollars. So the process seems to be:

1. American businesses and consumers send dollars to China.
2. China buys treasuries using its dollars.

Of course, since most of this is electronic now, it's a simple matter of converting my dollars into a Chinese company's yuan inside a banker's computer. Regardless, now China holds treasuries, which are worth more than they were purchased for. But what are they worth? If China were to come collect on all of those treasuries (assuming that they had all matured), what do we give them?

Dollars, of course.

So they currently hold a piece of paper that represents a debt. Then they turn that paper in for more paper, which also represents a debt (and is, in fact, backed by the same paper that China originally held).

Now, the obvious question is: What if we don't have enough dollars on hand to give to China for the debt that we owe them? Well, first off, like I said above, it's mostly electronic, so we can just credit their accounts. If they want paper, we can print them paper.

But won't this cause inflation? It might. If every country that held treasuries cashed them in, and the world was flooded with dollars, they would be very easy to obtain, so the demand for them may go down. If that's the case, however, why would any country ever cash in its treasuries? If worse came to worst, and they were forced to cash them to fix some kind of economic collapse, they risk devaluing the very thing that they need. Instead, why not just trade what they already have (ie: the treasuries themselves)?

Now, I'm not suggesting that we force foreign countries to cash in their treasuries. I'm also not suggesting that we continually run a deficit (which, incidentally, has little-to-nothing to do with the national debt). 

What I am suggesting is that national debt means very, very little when it's all based on a lot of nothing.

Rodger?

Pulling off on the Shoulder

I'm going to make a slight detour from writing about each point on the list. The more I go through them, the more I think that the list is way outside of its own scope. There are lots of nice things on there, like protecting our habitat, making sure that people can make a living, helping to ease the burden of debt on the lower class, and so on. The thing is, those are all symptoms of the real problems. The way I see it, the real problems are as follows:

1. The presence of money in politics causes undue influence -- real or imagined -- over those elected to represent and serve the people.
2. Every citizen has a right to free political speech, and the ability of the wealthy to dominate the national conversation through unlimited expenditures infringes on the right of ordinary Americans to make their voices heard, and indeed can alter the speech of the citizenry through the propagation of misinformation.
3. While corporations as legal entities do enjoy certain rights, those rights are separate from the people who comprise the corporation, and do not include free political speech.
4. Congress has become dysfunctional through polarization, lack of civil discourse, and representation of moneyed special interests, thereby neglecting its duty to represent the American people.
5. America no longer has a clear direction or goal, resulting in an insular society where the rich seek to get richer and the poor struggle to survive.

I think that this is where we need to start. Cut to the core of the problem, fix that, and work on the symptoms later. Otherwise, we're just taking aspirin for a brain tumor.

10. Student Loan Debt Refinancing

From http://www.the99declaration.org/student_loan_debt_refinancing

"Our students and former students are more than $1 trillion in debt from education loans. These young people have far fewer employment prospects due to the financial collapse directly caused by the unbridled and unregulated greed of Wall Street.

Ensuring a higher education, particularly in the fields of science, engineering, technology, green energy and mathematics, is no longer a luxury for the few and must now be viewed as a national security issue.

Banks receive virtually interest free loans from the Federal Reserve Bank and then charge upwards of 6% interest to our students for profit. Because education is the only way to secure our future success as a nation, interest on student debts must be immediately reduced to 2% or less and repayments deferred for periods of unemployment. Subject to the provisions of grievance five, the tax code will be amended so that employers will receive a student loan repayment tax deduction for paying off the loans of their employees.

Outright federal grants should be provided to those students who pursue and obtain degrees in the sciences, green energy, sustainability, mathematics, technology and engineering.  Moreover, to reduce the principal on all outstanding student loans, a financial transaction surcharge, similar to those fees charged by banks on consumers, will be introduced to banks and securities firms.

The current economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, resulted in the $1.5 trillion dollar bail out of Wall Street, secret Federal Reserve loans, and unknown losses of trillions of dollars to the economy. Work study programs should be expanded to increase access to higher education; universities and colleges that do not reduce tuition to affordable levels shall lose federal funding; and non-citizens who obtain their education in the United States should be provided an accelerated path to citizenship so the investments made in these students remain in the United States."

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I'm struggling to pay off student loans on a degree that I will most likely never use, due to inability to find a job in the field, loss of interest, and aging of the degree itself. On the other hand, I'm the one that made the commitment and took the risk, so now I'm the one dealing with the repercussions.

I believe that education is important. It doesn't matter what field you are in, an excellent grasp of the English language, at least some foreign language experience, a good understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts (including how our own bodies work), an appreciation for the arts (including philosophy), and a strong understanding of history are all useful and help make a well-rounded person.
I think that we really need to strengthen primary education. Extend the school year. Extend the number of years in public school. Teach children how to learn.
Everyone learns in a different way. If you can help children identify how they learn, you can engage them in learning from the start. The more you engage them, the more excited they will be about learning, and will be more successful at it.

I'd propose splitting education into two parts: primary and secondary. Primary education would encompass K-12 (or whatever ending point becomes necessary). Secondary school would be like college now, except that most of your prerequisite courses would already be covered. Think post-associate degree.

So, I'd strengthen primary education (K-12). Maybe you let students begin to drift off into degree paths after elementary school. Still provide a round education, but slowly incorporate more and more specialized learning. Let kids follow their interests.
But most of all, get them interested.

Make secondary school just that: secondary. If I followed a degree path during primary school that ends up preparing me for a career in medicine, for instance, maybe I could be a nurse right out of primary school. If I want to be a surgeon, a psychiatrist, an obstetrician, then I'd go on to secondary school, which I would pay for. Meanwhile, I could be starting my career with the knowledge that I already have.

It's unfortunate that a lot of us are saddled with student loan debt for degrees that we aren't using. I could maybe -- maybe -- see an amnesty for government loans. The rest, however, are our burden.

9. Jobs for All Americans

From http://www.the99declaration.org/jobs_for_all_americans

"Passage of a comprehensive jobs and job-training act like the American Jobs Act to employ our citizens in jobs that are available with specialized re-training through partnerships between companies seeking employees and community colleges and other educational institutions.

The American People must be put to work now by repairing America’s crumbling infrastructure and building other needed public works projects. These jobs should not be outsourced with cheap foreign labor or using foreign building materials. In conjunction with a new jobs act, re-institution of the Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps and similar emergency governmental agencies tasked with creating new projects to provide jobs for the families of the 151 million People living in poverty and low income homes.

Astonishingly, one in four children are living in poverty in the United States while 8.3% of American adults are unemployed and 16% are underemployed. Many others have simply given up looking for work. Special tax incentives should be granted to companies who partner with educational institutions to re-train workers to work in green energy and new sources of American manufacturing to reduce reliance on imported goods and services. A democracy simply cannot survive with more than half of its population struggling to acquire basic needs such as food, shelter, education and health care, a shrinking middle class and a tiny fraction of the population controlling the media and the political process.  This is a dangerous convergence of circumstances."

First off, we will never have "jobs for all Americans." There will always be people who choose not to work or who are unable to work. Because of prejudices, it's incredibly difficult to take someone from the street and put them to work -- they don't look right, there are large gaps in their work history (if they have one), they may not even have the proper documentation (most jobs require a social security card at the bare minimum). So this isn't as simple as "just train people to work."
So, this really should say "significantly reduce actual unemployment numbers." That's fine. We can work with that.

I would agree that training programs can be a part of the plan, but I disagree with specifying what that training should be in. Green energy is nice, American manufacturing is nice, infrastructure repair is nice, but there are plenty of other things that people could -- and should -- be doing. Helping people train for any career is a good thing.

Giving companies incentives to hire could work, but how? If you hand them some cash and say "go hire some folks," there's no guarantee that they will use that money for hiring. They could, on paper, use that money to cover their HR budget, use the money saved there on whatever else they feel like, and say "well, we had to pay HR to find candidates," and technically they used the money for hiring.
We could hand companies cash for every new hire, but that could easily open the door for a revolving pool of do-nothing jobs. Hire ten people, sit them in a room for a week staring at each other, collect a thousand bucks per person, pay them 300, and send them on their way. Repeat forever.
The biggest tool in the government's arsenal here is taxation. Corporations love tax breaks. So we could hike their taxes, but give them tax breaks for new hires. Again, that could cause that revolving pool, so maybe we do tax breaks per employee instead. But then the bigger the corporation is, the less it pays in taxes. So now we've just killed small businesses.

I'm not sure that we really can cause job growth through a government mandate. It's a nice idea, but I'm not seeing anything that's actually going to work, other than direct employment. That's fine, but it means even more government expenditures. I don't see that being a very viable option at the moment.

I would say that we help people get training for their next career, but focus mainly on fixing the economy as a whole. A lot of the other points on the list will help with that. So, let's get the economy back on track, and the jobs will follow.

8. Debt Reduction

From http://www.the99declaration.org/debt_reduction

"Adoption of a plan to reduce the national debt to a sustainable percentage of GDP by 2020. Reduction of the $15 trillion national debt to be achieved by BOTH fair progressive taxation and cuts in spending that benefit corporations engaged in perpetual war for profit, inefficient health care, pharmaceutical exploitation, over-prescribing medications for profit, monopolization of the media by a small group of corporations, the prison and military industrial complexes, criminal banking, securities and financial schemes, the oil and gas industry, and all other corrupt monopolies, entities and individuals that have used the federal budget as a private income stream for decades.  Corporate bribery of politicians can no longer be deemed a cost of doing business paid for a lucrative “return on investment.”  This abhorrent and brazen “pay to play” racket run by Congress, corporations and the top income earners, puts greed ahead of People, resulted in a $15 trillion national debt and an unprecedented downgrade of our sovereign credit rating."

This is one of those areas that I'm admittedly weak in. Some or all of this may be flat-out wrong. I know that Rodger Malcolm Mitchell (over on the99declaration discussion) is going to take exception to everything I'm about to say. Yet I plug on.

From what I can tell, the national debt is comprised of Treasury securities. There are four types, but they all seem to operate like an interest-bearing bank account. The interest is calculated different ways for each. So when someone buys a bond (for instance), they are contributing to the national debt.
This isn't a bad thing. When an American invests in treasuries, they are adding to their feeling of wealth, which could help stimulate the economy. The wealthier one feels, the more likely they are to spend on goods or invest in business.
The downside is that at some point, the government is going to have to pay that money back. If it has to sell another bond in order to do it, it's like paying off a credit card with a credit card. Your obligation is fulfilled to one party, but you have a bigger obligation to someone else.
Almost half of the debt is owned by foreign investors. This is where debt no longer helps our economy. It's nice (and probably necessary) to have an influx of foreign money, but there are no "feeling of wealth" benefits, and at some point someone's going to want to collect. If we have to take money from the American economy to pay debts owed to another country, it's going to hurt.

It seems to be that the main debate over whether to raise taxes or cut the budget to deal with the debt is missing the point. We can be in all the debt we want -- as long as we can pay it back. The more treasuries Americans own, the wealthier they feel. The more foreign countries and investors buy treasuries, the more we have on-hand in the economy. So, I think that the bigger issue is managing the debt in a more responsible way, and ensuring that it can be paid if someone comes to collect it without completely destroying the economy.
If we can make sure that we're at that point,  we can accrue all the debt we like.

7. Protection of the Planet

From http://www.the99declaration.org/grievance_7_protection_of_the_planet

"Human greed, exponentially magnified by corporations partnered with corrupt governments, is destroying the only habitable planet known to humanity. Multinational corporations have purchased so much influence in Congress (and other governments in the world) that they can secure the passage or blockage of regulations to maximize profits and minimize conservation of the environment.
The evidence of climate change due to human activity can no longer be denied by rational people and species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate. Humans have caused the extinction of hundreds, if not thousands of species through over-harvesting, pollution, habitat destruction, overuse of pesticides and genetic engineering to maximize profit, introduction of new predators and food competitors, over-hunting, and other influences. Unsustainable human population growth is an essential cause of the extinction crisis.
New comprehensive laws and regulations must be immediately enacted to give the Environmental Protection Agency, and other environmental protection regulators around the world, expanded powers and resources to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the environment, and to criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally or recklessly damage the environment.
No “corporate veil” should protect any employee, officer or director of a corporation that is directly or indirectly engaged in the intentional or reckless decimation of the planet for profit. The amount of profit a corporation can make must be balanced by conflict-free regulators with the inevitable damage that human activity inflicts on the environment.
The 99% of the American People demand the immediate implementation of programs and tax incentives to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy {those government subsidies should be eliminated immediately} to safe, non-toxic, reusable or carbon neutral sources of energy. Immediate adoption of higher greenhouse gas emission standards so that something of the atmosphere will be left for our children and grandchildren. The rights to clean air, water, and conservation of the planet for future generations shall no longer be infringed by greed-driven corporations and selfish individuals who care for nothing except money."

As I touched on in the last post about healthcare, this is an emotional issue. To have a real conversation about it, we need to strip away the emotion and just deal with the issue at hand. So excuse any harshness that might show up in this post.
First, I need to share something that was said by a very wise man who is no longer with us. It's not even close to being suitable for work, so if you're somewhere where you might offend someone (or if you're easily offended), please don't click through.
http://www.icomedytv.com/Comedy-Videos/ID/335/George-Carlin--The-Planet-Is-Fine-Transcript-0739.aspx
This site includes the transcript, so if you can't listen, you can read.

George Carlin was absolutely right when he talked about "saving the planet." The planet is fine. The planet will be fine until it is swallowed by the sun in about 5 billion years. It's humanity that's in trouble (and probably a good chunk of life as we know it). So if we re-frame the discussion as "Protection of our Habitat," we start getting to the root of the problem.
As I suggested in my last post, we need to have a much bigger discussion about where the human race is headed. This includes healthcare, reproduction, natural resources, and habitat (at the bare minimum). I don't believe that this is a discussion for the government, but a discussion that needs to happen between all humans. We need to start figuring out what we want life to look like in several hundred years, and start turning the wheels that will get us there. If we continue to focus on the moment, we're not going to have a future.

And maybe we won't. Would it be so awful if the human race went extinct? Something else would take our place. Maybe some kind of incandescent fungus. Maybe floating blobs of goo. Maybe plants will thrive on the higher carbon dioxide in the air and become self-aware. Is is fair that we demand that we live at the expense of the Ents? That's the real discussion.

Ultimately, yes, I believe that maintaining our current habitat and using our resources more responsibly is important -- for now. Eventually, we're going to have to make a decision about the survival of the human race, and the quality of life that it enjoys. Once we decide on that, the rest will follow naturally.

6. Healthcare for All

From http://www.the99declaration.org/healthcare_for_all

"Medicare for all or adoption of a universal single-payer healthcare system. The broken Medicaid program will be eliminated as redundant. Affordable healthcare for all shall be a human right. The Social Security trust fund shall be secured against government borrowing to fund unrelated spending. The earnings loophole shall be abolished by removing the $110,000 cap and lowering the tax rate which will keep Social Security solvent for future generations."

This is a gigantic, complex, and emotional issue, so I really can't write about all of the ins and outs here. What I can do is try to touch on a few key points that I think should shape the discussion.
First, though, I need to disclaim myself a bit. I work as lower management at a retail drugstore. We have a pharmacy, and the company also operates retail clinics (though we don't have one anywhere near where I work). As part of my 401K, I do own a small amount of stock in the company.
I also need to apologize in advance, because in order to discuss this issue, I have to strip away the emotion and just look at practicalities. Some things might seem harsh and unfeeling. Please bear with me through them.

In my view, healthcare is a slice of a larger issue that we as humans are facing. We are living longer, increasing our numbers, and depleting our natural resources. The combination of these three things is not sustainable. At some point, all of humanity is going to have to discuss what it is that we want to do to ensure the viability of future generations. Do we sacrifice our own longevity for our great-grandchildren? Do we limit our reproduction so that the population stays static? Do we find more efficient ways to use renewable resources so that there will be plenty for future generations? Do we start looking for a new home on another planet?
I'm not saying that we're going to go extinct tomorrow, but we need to start the discussion, so that our children can start the work, so that their children can flourish.

Now, to healthcare specifically. I have to wonder what we even mean by healthcare. Are we saying that every citizen can have access to affordable solutions for every potential health problem out there? Are we saying that if I get an infection, I shouldn't have to skip paying my electric bill for a month so that I can get an antibiotic (which requires paying for an office visit, at least one culture test, and then the script itself -- quite a bit of money when you're uninsured)? What exactly is the scope here?
Even if we assume that -- for instance -- cancer treatments should be available and affordable for everyone, I have to wonder why we tend to just look at treating cancer. Why aren't we focusing on preventing it in the first place? I think that preventative care is probably more important than treatment. If we can reduce the amount that people get sick, we can significantly reduce the costs associated with treating them.

I've long been uncomfortable with the idea of insurance companies. Since they are for-profit businesses, it is necessary that the average person pays in more than he'll ever get back out. They also seem to keep prices high, at least for pharmaceuticals. Let's take imaginary drug "Imaginex". Imaginex has a retail price of ten dollars a pill. It makes no difference what pharmacy you go to, they all sell it for right around ten dollars a pill (let's say there's a 50 cent spread). Now, I come in with my prescription for 30 pills.
Scenario 1:  I don't have insurance. In this case, I pay $300 for my 30 pills. It doesn't much matter where I go, I'm still paying $300.
Scenario 2: I have insurance. In this case, I'm paying whatever my insurance says my co-pay is. For a 30 day supply of Imaginex, it happens to be ten dollars. I get 30 pills for the cost of one! What a deal! Again, it makes no difference where I go, I'm paying ten dollars. However, my insurance company has used me and all of its other customers as leverage to get a lower price. They pay the pharmacy $200. So the pharmacy collects $210 for a $300 script.
In both of these scenarios, the consumer doesn't care where he gets his script filled as far as price, because he's paying the same amount regardless. Meanwhile, the pharmacy is going to charge as much as it possibly can, because the average customer doesn't care what they're actually charging the insurance company, and the cash customer pretty much has no choice.
I'm really not sure how you fix the problem. I don't know if increased competition could lower prescription prices to a manageable level without insurance companies. I'm sure that there are a lot of facets to this that I'm not seeing, but if I can buy a 30 day supply of Claritin (which used to be by prescription only) on Amazon for $13, it makes me think that there must be something that we can do for the rest of it.

I think that if we focus on getting at least basic healthcare affordable for everyone, increase preventative care, and start looking into the economics of prescription drugs, we can get to something that's manageable and effective for every citizen.

5. A Fair Tax Code

From http://www.the99declaration.org/a_fair_tax_code?page=1

A complete reformation and simplification of the United States Tax Code to require ALL individuals and corporations to pay a fair share of a progressive, graduated income tax by eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and unfair deductions, subsidies and ending all other methods of evading income taxes. 

The current system of taxation unjustly favors the wealthiest Americans and corporations, many of who pay fewer taxes to the United States Treasury than citizens who earn much less and pay a much higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. Any corporation or entity that does business in the United States and generates income from that business in the United States shall be fully taxed on that income regardless of corporate domicile or they will be barred from earning their profits in the United States.

This will allow honest companies and individuals who pay their fair share in income taxes to take over those markets in the United States economy formerly held by income tax cheats.

Businesses and individuals that pay taxes in other countries will no longer be permitted to use that excuse to justify their failure to pay federal income tax in the United States if they obtain benefits from doing business in the United States.

Corporations that create jobs in the United States will be rewarded by the tax code and corporations that remove jobs from the United States will be penalized by the tax code. The substitution of lower capital gains tax rates for graduated income tax rates shall be eliminated. This $4 billion a year “hedge fund loophole” which permits certain individuals engaged in financial transactions to evade graduated income tax rates by treating their income as long-term capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate (approximately 15%) than income tax.

Wow, I almost don't even want to tackle this one. There is a ridiculous number of conflicting ideas out there. They all have their pros and cons, on paper, but who knows what's actually going to work? And what does "fair" mean?

First things first, let's look at what's proposed here. We're looking at a progressive income tax (which is what we have now). It says, "eliminating unfair tax breaks, exemptions and unfair deductions [and] subsidies," so I'm not sure if we're talking about pruning the exemptions, etc, or eliminating them altogether. This also seeks to have corporations pay income tax the same as individuals do, and to have all income treated the same.
So, I think that what this proposes is essentially the system that we have now, but with no way to reduce the amount of tax that you owe, and everyone has to pay the same graduated rate on each tier of income, regardless of its source. In simpler terms: if you get money, you owe tax on it.
Generally, I'm OK with that.

When we talk about a "fair" tax, that can mean lots of things. To me, I think that we're talking about a system in which everyone shoulders the burden of having a government, but no one is overburdened by it. If any of your citizens cannot afford basic living expenses because of taxation, there's a problem with the tax.
Many people favor a flat tax -- one percentage that everyone pays regardless of income level. That sounds fair. My unease comes from the natural fact that in order to collect the same amount of revenue that we do now, the lowest earners would necessarily have their tax rate raised. In some cases (and I probably fall into this category), that tax rate increase would be the difference between affording basic living expenses and not. That should be unacceptable regardless of where you fall in the spectrum.

There are people who propose getting all revenue from other taxes and doing away with income tax altogether. I could find myself in this camp. For instance, if income tax was eliminated, and sales tax was raised, a person would be taxed more on their lifestyle than their income. The sales tax would have to become much more complicated, however, which could lead to exactly the same problems that we have now.
You would need food to be untaxed (as it is now), essentials (such as clothing and toiletries) either untaxed or mildly taxed, housing mildly taxed, and luxuries highly taxed (which could vary depending on the type of luxury -- electronics might be a mid-range tax, but a blimp would be very highly taxed). With all of these categories, who determines what product falls into which category? How do you ensure that the proper tax is paid when an item is bought? What happens when people stop buying blimps because they're taxed at 300%? Where does that leave the blimp industry?

So, here's my biggest problem with this whole thing: I'm not an economist. I can read about different plans all day long -- I still have no idea what's going to work. I'm really leaning toward thinking that instead of demanding sweeping reform and outlining a plan, we instead demand reform, period. Get the ball rolling.
We need incremental changes. Implement parts of one plan, and see how they work. Adjust as necessary. Implement some other bits and pieces. Adjust. Implement, adjust. I'm fine with starting with eliminating loopholes. That seems like it's just common sense.
Anything beyond that needs to be taken slow and measured against results.

4. Term Limits

From http://www.the99declaration.org/term_limits

"Members of the United States House of Representatives shall be limited to serving no more than four two-year terms in their lifetime.

Members of the United States Senate shall be limited to serving no more than two six-year terms in their lifetime. 

The two-term limit for President shall remain unchanged. Serving as a member of Congress or as the President of the United States is one of the highest honors and privileges our culture can bestow.

These positions of power and prominence in our society should be sought to serve one’s country and not provide a lifetime career designed to increase personal wealth and power."

The first thing that I notice here is how specific this is. The Senate limit seems to be modeled after the Presidential term limit, but the House one seems arbitrary. Is it designed to mirror the eight years that a President may serve? Why not make it six two-year terms, so that all legislators max out at 12?
Regardless, on its face, this provision seems reasonable enough. Upon further reading, it turns out that there's a giant debate about the concept.
The pro- argument seems to boil down to the idea that implementing term limits increases turnover, and turnover is necessary to ensure fairness, minimize corruption, and to bring fresh ideas to the legislature. The con- argument seems to be that there are good men and women in the legislature, and they should not be penalized because some legislators can't act ethically. If there is meaningful ethics reform, the argument goes, term limits are unnecessary.
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument. I'm tending to lean toward the pro- side. I think that yes, there are good congressmen, but they aren't the only good people out there. Especially in the two-party system that we have now, if the incumbent tends to agree with my views, I'm not going to run against him. I might be just as ethical as he is, and hold generally the same views, but I'll let him continue his ride, while I might have something new to bring to the table that he doesn't. If he were at the end of the limit of his term, I might consider running for his position, and he would be replaced with someone ethical, who generally agrees with his positions, but has a different slant on things. That's a good thing, I think.

There is something else to consider here, though. In order to impose term limits on Congress, we would need to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The main way to do this is to have an amendment proposed in both the House and the Senate, have it pass by a 2/3 majority in both houses, then each 3/4 of the states' legislatures need to support the amendment by a simple majority. This process usually have a time limit set on it, but it doesn't have to.
Meanwhile, there will be a major national debate. The people probably won't have any direct say (unless the amendment is to be ratified by convention, which has only been done once -- and even then each state has its own rules on how to hold a convention). Individual state legislative campaigns may be dominated by the issue.
Are we ready for all of that? Is this important enough to get the process going? Do we have any hope of getting a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress? Maybe the answer to all of these is yes.
We need to consider: is now the time to try to amend the Constitution to impose term limits on Congress?