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?

3. Eliminate Private Benefits to Public Servants

When I first read the header for this, I had no idea what it was about. Are public employees receiving health care from WalMart? Are their pensions paid by Goldman Sachs? After reading, I discovered what was actually meant.

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

The 99% of the American People demand the immediate prohibition of private benefits to all federal elected officials, staffers, public employees, officers, public servants, officials or their immediate family members. This prohibition includes an end to the corrupt “revolving door” in and out of our government. Elected and unelected public officials and their immediate families shall be banned from ever being employed by any corporation, lobbying firm, individual or business that the public official specifically regulated while in office.  No public employee, officer, official or their immediate family members shall own or hold any stock or shares in any corporation or other entity that the elected or unelected public official specifically regulated while in office until a full 5 years after their term or employment is completed. There shall be a complete lifetime ban on the acceptance of all gifts, services, money or thing of value, directly or indirectly, by any elected or appointed public official or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or any other entity that the public official was charged tospecifically regulate while he or she was in office.

What this seems to be saying is that I can't regulate the oil industry, then take a job with Exxon-Mobile. I can't oversee the banking regulations, then go work on Wall Street. I can't write a comprehensive law overwhelmingly benefiting the retail industry, then go be CFO of Macy's.
It also seems to be saying that I can't work in government, make all kinds of contacts and friends, and then come back as a lobbyist, using those contacts and friends to benefit my new company (and consequently, myself).
In general, I can get behind that.
The thing is, there is already a department in place to deal with these sorts of problems. The Office of Government Ethics (http://www.oge.gov/) oversees all ethics rules in the executive branch. They don't actually investigate allegations of violations, though you can report potential violations to them. They also don't cover the legislative or judicial branches. The Senate has the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House has the House Committee on Ethics. For some reason, complaints against Justices seem to be reported to the Clerk of whichever Circuit the judge belongs to.
So, we have an entire office that deals with the executive branch. Each branch has ethics laws already in place. Why don't we just strengthen and broaden the Office of Government Ethics? Make it all-inclusive. It seems a little strange to me that we're leaving ethics enforcement up to the individual branches. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, why aren't we letting it in this case?
I would support strengthening the OGE, reviewing current ethics law and guidelines to make sure that they make a good faith effort to eliminate the type of cronyism and "revolving door" politics that are alluded to above, and start holding government officials more accountable for ethics violations.

2. Overturn the "Citizens United" Case

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

The immediate abrogation, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic Supreme Court holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and its progeny.  This heinous decision proclaimed in 2010, equates the direct and indirect payment of money to politicians by political action committees, corporations, wealthy individuals and unions with the exercise of protected free speech. We, the 99% of the American People are outraged and demand that this judicially sanctioned bribery of politicians be reversed and never be deemed protected free speech again.

Right off the bat, I can see something that is a misinterpretation of the ruling. "...equates the direct and indirect payment of money to politicians by political action committees, corporations, wealthy individuals and unions with the exercise of protected free speech." As far as I can tell, after having read parts of the ruling and interpretations thereof, the case only has to do with independent speech. The candidates themselves are still bound by campaign finance rules.
And therein lies the problem. This is a giant gray area, and I have to say that reading the court's opinion, their logic is fairly sound. They reason that because the first amendment protects an individual's political speech, and corporations (specifically Political Action Committees) are just groups of people, the speech of that group of people can not be inhibited. They also reason that it is not the court's nor the legislature's job to "ration" speech -- in essence, they can't decide what amount of speech is fair for someone to have, since everyone is guaranteed unlimited political speech.
This idea that not all speech is equal, and that's OK, is logically based in history. If you think back to when the country was founded, the main distributors of ideas were the newspapers. Freedom of the press is also guaranteed in the First Amendment, so newspapers were obviously considered when it was written. If a newspaper editor wanted to publish nothing but liberal opinions, for instance, that would be their right, though it's not necessarily ethical. So the average person's speech at the time was limited to what they could get published in which newspapers. There are no laws -- as far as I know -- that seek to give equal time to anyone who wishes to publish in a newspaper.
Now, however, we have much more varied forms of media, and forms of media that reach much wider audiences. It does scream of injustice that any one individual or small group of individuals can get their message out to the masses at the exclusion of others. In essence, by not limiting the speech of few, you are silencing the many. But you can't limit the speech of the few, because they have just as much right to unlimited speech as the many do. It's a giant legal quagmire.
So how do we fix it? The only way that I can see to do it is to eliminate Political Action Committees altogether. Prohibit corporations, as entities, from campaigning for any particular candidates or parties. The individuals within the corporations, of course, still have unlimited political speech, and if they wanted to raise money or group money together informally to campaign for a candidate or party, they would be welcome to do so, but all the money would be treated as personal income, and subject to taxation. Obviously, throw in the caveat that independent expenditures (ie: if I were to pay for a television ad supporting Mitt Romney, but I'm not part of his campaign) would have to bear the names of the individuals responsible for the content, and you've got something that could be workable.

As a bit of an aside, I'd like to address something that I find incredibly positive that has come out of the Citizens United decision. I'm all for ballot access. I think that the more candidates on a ballot, the better. With that in mind, the current Republican primary, with the help of SuperPACs, is going great. Because the candidates themselves don't have to spend as much money to campaign, they are able to stay in the race far longer than they otherwise would have. That means that instead of having a nominee pretty much decided in the first few contests, the entire nation has an opportunity to make their voice heard.
I can't find anything wrong with that.

1. Elimination of the Corporate State

The second point in the list, overturning the "Citizens United" decision, is one factor of this topic, but we'll deal with it in its own post. For now, let's ignore that part, and focus on lobbyists and campaign finance.

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

"The merger of the American political system of republican democracy with the economic system of capitalism has resulted in the establishment of a corporate government of, by and for the benefit of domestic and multinational corporations. Therefore, the 99% of the American People demand an immediate ban on all direct and indirect private contributions of anything of value, to all politicians serving in or running for federal office in the United States.

This ban shall extend to all individuals, corporations, “political action committees,” “super political action committees,” lobbyists, unions and all other sources of private money or things of value, including but not limited to, direct or indirect gifts and/or promises of employment. Private funding of political campaigns by concentrated sources of wealth such as corporations have completely corrupted our political system. Therefore, all private funding of political campaigns shall be replaced by the fair, equal and TOTAL public financing of all federal political campaigns."

The first thing that I have to do here is address this snippet: "...the 99% of the American People demand..." I know that this is called The 99% Declaration, and that the Occupy Movement seeks to represent the 99% of Americans making less than $380,000 a year (or worth less than $8.4 million, depending on whether you're talking about the top 1% earners or the wealthiest 1%, which are different, albeit overlapping, groups).
The problem with this particular line is that it implies total consensus. It says that everyone who isn't in the top group agrees with this message. That is not -- and will never be -- the case. The best that we can do is reflect the opinion of the majority of the people in the 99%, and hope that we can make things better for the vast majority. Anything other than that is disingenuous.

That out of the way, let's look at the topic itself. The first thing that is addressed is lobbying. It says that no one who holds office or is seeking office in the federal government may accept anything of value from anyone, at any time. The obvious problem here is that they need to fund their (re)election campaigns. This is addressed next, by saying that all campaigns will be publicly funded only. It's implied that a candidate may not spend any money except that which is provided for him by public financing.

I would agree with the section on lobbying. There is no legitimate reason, as far as I can see, that a person would have to give anything to a politician in order for their voice to be heard. Even if someone wants to meet a politician for a working lunch, there is no reason that the office-holder can't pay for their own meal. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't meet for lunch. Perhaps someone can point out to me a legitimate reason that a politician would receive anything from a constituent (other than campaign contributions).

When it comes to campaign finance, we start to get into a weird gray area. Ideally, it should take absolutely no money to run a campaign. That would be the ultimate freedom of political speech. The problem is that everything in our society has value, including time. The amount of time that someone volunteers to your campaign can be considered a monetary contribution. If they spend that time producing a product (bumper stickers, websites, television commercials, YouTube videos, top hats with your face plastered on), that could be considered a monetary contribution.
Because everything has value, we can't have a completely free election. No candidate can run a campaign without supporters, and he is ultimately indebted to those supporters. So, if we look at 100% publicly financed campaigns, we have to either pay everyone who works on a campaign, or we need to ignore donated time and goods as contributions.
If we pay everyone involved in a campaign, we either end up with really small campaign teams, or we have a lot of taxpayer money being spent on unsuccessful campaigns. If we ignore donations of time and goods, we could still end up with candidates being indebted to corporations (think Rupert Murdoch donating a hundred hours of airtime to a candidate).
Currently, public funding is only available to Presidential candidates. They may be eligible for contribution matching during the primaries, and a $20 million grant for the general election. If we extend this to all federal offices, how much are we willing to carve out of the budget?
Personally, I think that campaign finance does need an overhaul. I'm not sure that public funding is the answer, but I think that it could be part of the answer. Let's throw out an idea to be beaten and forged into something workable.

Let's say that we outlaw all monetary contributions to federal campaigns. We provide some amount of public financing, and prohibit the use of a candidate's own money after a certain point (current rules allow $50,000 out-of-pocket when accepting public funding. This may or may not be fair). We allow donations of time and goods, but prohibit television advertisements (or require equal time given to all candidates' advertisements). If a news show reports on a candidate, that's fine; if they interview a candidate, they must give equal time to all candidates for that office. We create a public venue online for all candidates to use. This could include public forums, video streams, press releases, or anything else that you can imagine. This tool allows a candidate to get their message out to the vast majority of people, at little-to-no cost. Obviously, there are still production costs for videos, images, and the like, but it would be a step toward leveling the playing field for all candidates.

And that's really the goal.

Introduction

My name is Nathan Dunn. I live in New York's 20th Congressional District (The Fighting 20th!), and am considering running to be a delegate to the National General Assembly (NGA) put on by the 99% Declaration. The plan is to have 878 delegates convene in Philadelphia for the Fourth of July and complete a Petition for a Redress of Grievances to the United States government.
There are currently 21 suggested points to be included in the document. These are not binding in any way, and the NGA will ultimately draft, finalize, and submit the petition. The list is as follows (copied directly from http://www.the99declaration.org/):

1. Elimination of the Corporate State.
2. Overturning the “Citizens United” Case.
3. Elimination of All Private Benefits to Public Servants.
4. Term Limits.
5. A Fair Tax Code.
6. Health Care for All.
7. Protection of the Planet.
8. Debt Reduction.
9. Jobs for All Americans.
10. Student Loan Debt Refinancing.
11. Ending Perpetual War for Profit.
12. Emergency Reform of Public Education.
13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation.
14. Banking and Securities Reform.
15. Foreclosure Moratorium, Mortgage Refinancing and Principle Write Downs.
16. Review and Reform of the Federal Reserve Banking System.
17. Ending the Electoral College and Enactment of Uniform Federal Election Rules.
18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and Care of Veterans.
19. No Censorship of the Internet.
20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights Including the Repeal of the NDAA.
21. Curtailing the Private Prison Industrial Complex.

At first glance, it seems like I can get behind most of these points. Admittedly, there are some things on the list that I lack knowledge of, and so can't make an informed decision. To that end, over the next week or so, I hope to write mini-essays on each of these topics.

My goal here is two-fold: I will gain the knowledge needed to form an opinion on the topics that are obviously important to the group, and I will be able to convey that opinion to voters, should I choose to seek  a delegate position.

Let's dance!