The US should default – intentionally!

SCENE 1, ACT 1:

All of the key players are pretending to be negotiating an increase to the debt limit, so the US doesn’t go into default. The GOP is digging in by saying they want to see drastic cuts in spending and no new taxes. The Democrats are saying those things can be negotiated later; the important thing is to allow for more borrowing so we don’t default, which could happen in early August.

NOTE: This particular “play” is just starting – hence my designation of “SCENE 1, ACT 1.”

Why did I say “pretend”?

I think it’s entirely possible the Dem/Pubs are on the same page here. Both sides might actually agree with my proposal: The US should intentionally default, for reasons I quote below. However, the best way to do so might be to give the appearance of being unable to come to an agreement. The Dems and the Pubbers could point the finger of blame at each other, knowing they got what they really wanted anyway.

Seems far-fetched? Maybe. But I have a very suspicious mind and, make no mistake about this, these people are bastards. If they can create enough confusion, that will be a pretext to seize even more power. Or maybe even strike out in another diversionary war.

Two postings

This first posting was in response to an article on Yahoo News:

QUOTE:

[President Obama had spoken the following line, trying to say default was opposed by mainstream economists.]

“That's not my opinion, I think that's a consensus opinion.” You “think?” It either is or it isn’t.

We should just go ahead and default. This is a golden opportunity, since we are still in the driver’s seat. If we wait too long and keep on borrowing, we’re going to default anyway and then it will be too late. We won’t have any leverage left due to our weakened condition. Then, China will be in the driver’s seat and I don’t think they’ll be too merciful with our indecisive asses.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“No mainstream economist would dare make this proposal, but (really) this is our best chance.”

:UNQUOTE.

This second post was really a reply to a mass e-mail sent by Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun Magazine:

QUOTE:

I strongly disagree...we don't "have to" raise the debt ceiling. I know, I know...the usual suspects like Geithner would have us believe otherwise. But...has anyone truly thought outside the box on this one? Sooner or later, it's going to take some kind of trauma to restabilize the world economic order. Wars often do that. And, just as in the case of war, the outcomes aren't precisely predictable. However, even wars have their upside (I can't believe I just said that!).

Why should we wait for events to spin entirely out of control? We have control now, in terms of proactively refusing to raise the debt-ceiling. Of course, should that happen, the shit will hit the fan. But as I said, sooner or later, that will happen anyway. And I say, better sooner than later. For one thing, people will finally realize the seriousness of the situation: We can't keep borrowing forever.

If the ceiling isn't raised, there will be a national emergency. But it won't be the end of the world. We should recognize default for the blessing it could well turn out to be. Since defaulting will be our doing, we can have a great deal to say about how the dust settles. Again, better now than later when it will be others (the Chinese?) who will call the shots, much to our powerless chagrin.

I am stunned at how many well-intended people follow Geithner's dire warnings without even trying to think outside the box. I am proud to say, I'm not one of them.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Declare your independence by voting for Independents. Throw all the Dem/Pub bums out of Congress now."

:UNQUOTE.

Coup d’état, USA style

It’s well known that Pentagon planners play mock war games. They simulate, using computer programs, a wide variety of potential (though mostly far-fetched) war scenarios. All in the name of trying to determine our best response. Of course, all the major powers do this.

I wonder if we’ve taken the trouble to project what might happen (and how we could influence events) from Day 1 of Default. We have a lot of incompetence and plain mean-spiritedness in our governing class. But could it really be possible that no one has thought this thing through? Not even among our academics? Not even as a classroom exercise for future economists?

Are we that lame? I say “no,” though I’m tempted to say “yes, because we’re that stupid.”

If we do default (intentionally or otherwise), be prepared for lots of talking heads’ noise on the media. And a whole variety of smoke-and-mirrors routines to kick in, ranging from press conferences to movements by our military forces. The House (or at least Bachmann and her ilk) will call for Obama’s impeachment. However, Obama might invoke Directive 51 which basically suspends normal government operations and puts him in charge. To quote from Wikipedia:

QUOTE:

… sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short…claims power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy [my emphasis], or government functions."

…when [one man!] the president considers an emergency to have occurred, an "Enduring Constitutional Government" comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, [again, my emphasis] coordinated by the President," will take the place of the nation's regular government.

:UNQUOTE.

If the President could seize power, why would the GOP support an intentional, though apparently “accidental,” default? With the President in charge, wouldn’t the GOP lose at least some leverage? A question like that, though, assumes that the GOP and the Democrats are really in opposition or really in control. I happen to believe they aren’t, but act as they do to fool the public. There is an Elite; there is really a Shadow Government (though not necessarily one single Mr. Big); and that is the entity that is really in charge.

Nothing major happens without the Elite’s approval. The only real questions at this point: Has that approval been given? If so, has the Elite really thought through how this will play out?

Immediate practical benefits

When individuals go bankrupt, their debt can be either entirely written off entirely or it can be restructured. Just because the US could default on its loan obligations, doesn’t mean it’s entirely without resources. And those biggest resources are our military and the sheer scope of our economy itself. I can see the possibility of US leaders, after we default, whispering in the EU’s ear, “Go along with us to write off a huge chunk of our debt or we’ll pull all US forces out of Europe with no guarantee we’ll continue to provide the nuclear umbrella or, for that matter, any help whatsoever.”

Such a threat could inspire the EU to “magically” conjure up some loans or (and I love this word) “forgiveness.”

As for our economic gravitas: As traumatic as default would be for the US, it would be even more traumatic for everybody else – even the Chinese. We could use that as leverage to renegotiate for trade advantage, insist on currency reevaluation (the Yuan), and muscle our way into the internal affairs of developing (especially African) nations.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I don’t have any kind of economics training – I’m about as ordinary a bloke as you’re going to find – and yet why is it I’m the only one talking this talk?...Or am I?...I certainly hope I’m not alone in this.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Michele Bachmann’s exact words

Introduction:

I read all 2443 words of Michele Bachmann’s speech declaring her candidacy for the US presidency, which are on this link:

http://www.michelebachmann.com/2011/06/bachmann-officially-announces-her-run-for-the-presidency-of-the-united-states-in-waterloo-iowa/

In 25 words or less, I’ve never seen so many words wasted saying so little. To expand a bit: She doesn’t say, even once, exactly what she would do if elected. It’s easy enough to complain in general terms – barflies from coast to coast indulge this way. To illustrate her shortfalls, I will now quote from her speech interjecting my comments.

QUOTE:

I want to bring a voice, your voice, to the White House…

COMMENT:

It’s not enough to bring our voices to the White House. Electing one person to act on our behalf won’t be enough unless we replace every single Democrat and Republican in Congress with Independents. The Two-Party System is the problem – a greater threat to our security than bin Laden ever was.

QUOTE:

… I have brought your voice to the halls of congress …

COMMENT:

Right!! And that’s another problem. I’m sure Michele did a crackerjack job of representing her Congressional District. Hers was the voice of those people. And all of her peers did their best to represent their people. Tell me: Who represents the interests of the United States as a whole? That’s the problem: Nobody does. Somehow, magically, the House and Senate – with members representing only their own specific geographical entities – are supposed to cobble together policies good for the country as a whole and good enough to get themselves reelected.

My system of Cross-Sectional Representation can make that happen – without any magic being necessary. Details are on this link:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

QUOTE:

But our government keeps getting bigger…

COMMENT:

The Two-Party System and regional (as opposed to Cross-Sectional) representation are directly responsible for this growth. Not to mention that we vote to make this happen. Democrats will grow the government for social welfare purposes; Republicans will grow the Military Industrial Complex. Either way – we get bigger government.

QUOTE:

I want my candidacy for the presidency to stand for the moment when "we the people" reclaimed our independence…

COMMENT:

Then follow my campaign slogan for the US Presidency:

“Declare your Independence by voting for Independents.”

We-the-people cannot reclaim our independence by allowing the Two Party System to maintain its tentacle-like grip.

QUOTE:

My early days were difficult as they were for many Americans, especially during the time when my mother struggled to raise us after divorce. But we made our own way. We depended on our neighbors and ourselves and not our government for help.

COMMENT:

Did Michele “make her own way” through college or did she take out student loans made possible by Big Government?

QUOTE:

My first involvement in politics was working for Jimmy Carter's election in 1976. But when I saw the direction President Carter took our country…

COMMENT:

Sure, Carter was a weak president. But he took over from an awful one, a crook named Richard Nixon and his toady Gerald Ford. In Carter’s day, we were all suffering from PTSD at worst or an identity crisis at best. There have been presidents from both parties who have contributed to our country’s downfall. But both parties love the strongman style of imperial president. If we’re ever going to curtail Big Government, we’ve got to reign in the powers of the Chief Executive.

My own proposal? Elect a POTUS with a written contract who will forfeit his office if he violates his campaign promises stated in that contract. Eventually, I’d like to see a new constitutional system (as detailed on the yellowed link above) in which the president is a Congressman elected by his fellow Reps, but serving in a vastly reduced, mostly ceremonial role.

QUOTE:

We cannot continue to rack up debt on the backs of future generations.

COMMENT:

Well, Ms. Bachmann, does this mean you’ll reduce expenses by pulling us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. And by closing down all of our military bases the world over? If not, then what specific cuts do you propose? You haven’t proposed any at all in this particular speech.

QUOTE:

We can't afford an unconstitutional health plan that costs too much and is worth so little.

COMMENT:

What do you propose in its place? Anything? Nothing? Would you at least propose that the insurance industry be placed under the same anti-monopoly controls which serve to regulate every other type of big business in this country?

QUOTE:

We can't afford four more years of a foreign policy that leads from behind and doesn't stand up for our friends and stand up to our enemies.

COMMENT:

Why aren’t you more categorical about this sweeping accusation? Which friends haven’t we stood up for and how would you propose we stand up for them – while keeping in mind that you’d also like to reduce the size of Big Government? Which of our enemies haven’t we stood up to? How would you stand up to them? How much more money will you want to borrow to do that?

QUOTE:

As a constitutional conservative, I believe in the Founding Father's vision of a limited government that trusts in and preserves the unlimited potential of the American people.

COMMENT:

As a modern day wannabe Founding Father, I believe we should no longer be restricted by the original Founding Fathers’ vision. We are quite capable of having visions of our own. Why do we insist on allowing the dead to rule the living? For reasons of sentimentality? Our Constitution is – not – working. It’s an outdated embarrassment barely held together (by means of creative interpretations) by our courts and selectively ignored by our Congress.

You cannot expect a set of rules set down two hundred years ago to last forever. Wake up now – I mean it!

QUOTE:

I don't believe that the solutions to our problems come from Washington: more than ever, Washington IS the problem…

COMMENT:

But how, exactly, is Washington the problem? Was it the problem when Reagan was president? Are liberals the problem? You say nothing of reigning in the influence of lobbyists – who surely must be part of the problem. I can only guess here because you say nothing on what the problem is or how to solve it. Problem solving starts with defining the situation in the first place.

QUOTE:

… the real solutions will come from our businesses, our communities, our schools and the most basic and powerful unit of all-our families.

COMMENT:

No they won’t. Not by themselves. Each of these sources you cite can offer their best thoughts on solutions and how to implement them. But overall policy has to be created from above. There has to be some kind of government to funnel ideas to and make them into a cohesive whole. It’s one thing to argue against Big Government; it’s quite another to suggest that policy can magically come into being by itself from the four sources you cite.

QUOTE:

Our problems don't have an identity of party, they are problems created by both parties.

COMMENT:

Exactly! Which is why we have to get rid of the Two Party System. We-the-People can do this by insisting on voting only for independents for office.

QUOTE:

And the truth is that Americans ARE the solution and not the government!

COMMENT:

Which Americans? Different groups of us might have our own ideas about solutions (for one thing, there is no such thing as “the” solution). So who decides which of these groups ought to rule the day? We Americans are supposed to compromise. But Bachmann pretends we’re a homogenous lot being hammered by a not-quite-human force called Big Government.

Government is a necessary evil and I agree it has to be reigned in. I have written amply on this blog to offer ideas on how to do just that. Bachmann offers nothing.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Michele Bachmann isn’t just devoid, she’s malevolent.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Blagojevich and (??) are guilty

[NOTE: I’ll get to this part toward the end – (??)]


If I had been sitting on Governor Blagojevich’s jury, I would have voted “not guilty.” There are several reasons for this, but I’ll start with the One Great Reason:

Since the playing field in US courtrooms isn’t level, I would never vote “guilty” against any defendant. And I would say so up front, before even being selected for a jury. The state simply has too much power at its disposal; when they really want to get somebody, they get him.

Indented comment: As far as letting a guilty man go free: First of all, no juror sealed within the bubble known as a courtroom could possibly know that. Second, the guilty never really go free. Yes, I’m talking about karmic retribution here. One of the biggest problems in the West: We’re so arrogant, we feel we have to act like little Gods meting out justice.

After failing to nail their man the first time, the prosecution had no problem spending $10M of your money for another go-round.

Apparently, though, nobody bothered to ask one very important question: Why must it take a unanimous jury to convict? The US Congress can pass any bill into law with only a two-thirds majority in each House. And yet, in a jury trial, unanimity is the standard. Why not 9 out of 12? Three-fourths to convict compared to two-thirds to pass a law – sounds fair enough to me.

And yet, not one single commentator has even mentioned this in passing.

As for We-the-Sheeple, we’re so programmed to accept things “because they’ve always been done that way,” we’re doomed to keep spending our way to bankruptcy for our complacency.

However, I will add this: I happen to think Rodney wasn’t guilty of trying to sell Obama’s seat in the US Senate. The only thing he was guilty of was trying to deal on the phone and getting carried away. Translation? He was speaking straight from the id, without having engaged his filters.

According to one juror*: “There were several times we had to vote and revote and listen to the tapes and go through all our notes.” If the jury had to “vote and revote” and “go through all our notes,” that tells me they weren’t really sure. And yet the Governor, speaking in real time with his filters disengaged, was faulted by the prosecution for not being more subtle. For that’s what this is all about – subtlety. Since Guv B’s approach was ham-handed, he gets to hang, while other operators who are smoother manage to stay in business.

The truth of the matter is, Governor B had a valuable commodity at his disposal. And why not call it that? Hell, he could have even appointed himself to Obama’s old Senate seat. Then what could people have said? Not this: “He’s illegally profiting from his office,” since the law did not prevent him from self-nomination. [That law is still in effect!]

He should have appointed himself. Illinois is in such wretched shape, it would take a miracle man to save it. And Dem/Pubs have a way of preventing miracle men (that is, independents unaffiliated with any party) from winning elections. So our ex-guv could have removed himself from the nastiness which defines Illinois’ local politics by (legally!) appointing himself to the US Senate. End of story!

The jury taking 10 days to weigh the evidence is pretty telling. Frankly, I thought – for that reason alone – they were tempted to let him walk. However – and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise – juries can be cowed by overbearing prosecutors and prejudiced judges. That judge and those prosecutors knew there was too much at stake to let this guy walk. And, I’m sure, in all their subtle little ways, they bullied the jury.

An example:

QUOTE*:

The real drama in the case began, said the juror who is a computer programmer, when lead prosecutor Reid Schar stood up to begin cross examining Blagojevich and said, “you are a convicted liar” referring to [his] conviction of lying to investigators after his first trial.

“That scared us all to death,” the juror said, laughing. “We were so nervous after that little segment of the trial. We were unanimous on that one. The trial up until then had not been very dramatic…until he came out and did that.”

:UNQUOTE.

·       “You are a convicted liar” – Highly prejudicial and irrelevant to the cross-examination. And the judge allowed this? The Governor had been convicted of lying to the FBI – that much is true. But that conviction is pending appeal and has nothing to do with this current trial. The prosecutor hoped to plant this broader meaning: “Once a liar, always a liar. If he lied once, he’ll lie again.”

·       “That scared us all to death” – which was precisely Schar’s intention – as endorsed by the judge.

·       “We were unanimous on that one” – a very important first step toward building the unanimity needed for conviction.

I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some members of the jury thought, “I better go along with the game plan in case our deliberations are being secretly recorded [and, yes, this has happened]. I don’t want our homegrown Gestapo knocking on my door at midnight because I dared to doubt his guilt.” Yes, the G-men knocking on your door isn’t too far off. A jury’s deliberation room is one of the few areas where an ordinary citizen’s free speech rights still mean something. Do you think for a minute that Neo-Con micromanagers (including Obama) aren’t scheming to violate even that sanctuary?


Blagojevich and (??) are guilty

So what did I mean by this article’s title?

The Governor was “guilty” of poor form and of giving the appearance of impropriety – though neither is against the law.

The Illinois Senate was guilty of voting to bar him from ever again holding public office in Illinois. [I don’t know about you, but I feel We-the-People shouldn’t be told we can’t ever again vote for certain people. That’s classical overreach.]

Illinois’ politicians are guilty of hypocrisy, knowing full well they would have done the same thing Blagojevich did if they had a chance. [But not as obviously.]

The jury was guilty, since they were asking themselves the wrong question: “Is he guilty?” They should have asked: “If he is guilty, to what degree do we want to say so?” By failing to ask that question, the jury hands over to the judge the right to hand down a 300-year sentence. Legal experts are saying that “probably” won’t happen – more likely is 10 to 15. In any event, the judge has too much latitude in sentencing which I, had I been one of those jurors, would not have cared to allow him to exercise. It will be interesting to see if juror’s remorse raises its timid head – after sentencing.

We-the-Sheeple are guilty for going along with a legal system in desperate need of a fundamental overhaul. An example:

QUOTE [written back in 2010**]:

[NOTE: This is pretty much a confession that those who can’t pay the “going rate” won’t get much of a defense – Searle.]

If the case is retried, taxpayers will have to pick up the entire tab, including $110 an hour for his court-appointed lawyers, and whatever expenses are racked up.

That is the maximum a court appointed lawyer can charge in a federal case, but well below the going rate for a top defense attorney.

:UNQUOTE.

The prosecutor’s office is guilty of bringing this case to retrial after their first (overall) failure to convict. They could have been satisfied with a prison term for lying to the FBI or with knowing the ex-guv has suffered a financial burden defending himself and has next-to-zero in the way of future job prospects. They could have been outright gleeful that he was barred from serving in elective office ever again in Illinois. All of that, and they could have saved us the massive expense of this retrial.

They could have…but they didn’t.


The Dem/Pubs in Illinois

Other Illinois governors have gone to jail – and not just from the Democratic Party.  And the problems aren’t limited to the Chief Executive’s office. Too many pols from too many safe seats are the chief cause of this state’s economic and ethical woes. And yet the voters still don’t get it. They refuse to rebel by ousting all Dem/Pubs from office and electing independents. The two main parties are corrupt and everybody knows that – but that’s the problem: These two are a known quantity. And that actually comforts us!

Several factors keep the current system in place: Fear of change, fear of the unknown, the incumbents’ institutional and financial advantages, and the power of advertising. Especially that last. After getting beaten over the head for generations with flurries of political messages, we’re too numb to say more than “whatever.”

We’re not entirely powerless, though. I have a message for those of you who still have your wits about you: Take a little trouble to find out what the incumbents’ financial interests are, and those of their backers. And boycott their products or services. Doesn’t sound like much, but it wouldn’t take much of a boycott to be effective.

Example: Start with the Chicago Tribune newspaper, which is close to bankruptcy anyway. They’ve sold us out for so long, they deserve to be buried.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Just because we can’t do much doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   * source: Chicago Red Eye (newspaper), June 29, 2011

   ** source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/illinois-taxpayers-facing-massive-blagojevich-retrial/#ixzz1Qaxg9Hl8

Reflecting on the Wal-Mart class-action lawsuit

Opening statement:

I’m going to use the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Wal-Mart to make some larger points concerning the need for fundamental legal reform in the United States.

Today’s highlights:

·       Possible need for constitutional amendment to allow for Congress to review Supreme Court decisions;

·       Reforming the class-action lawsuit system;

·       The need for an ombudsman;

·       Creating an unfettered jury system;

·       Increasing access to and decreasing expense of the legal system.

The basic Wal-Mart case:

A Chicago Tribune newspaper editorial summarized as follows:

QUOTE:

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday in a case alleging sex-discrimination at Wal-Mart prompted a predictable reaction over the course of the week: Big business won, workers lost.

Not so. The ruling will restore the integrity of the class-action legal system, but it will not deny wronged workers their day in court.

This case revolved around a massive lawsuit brought on behalf of up to 1.6 million women who have worked at the giant retailer since 1998. The suit accused local Wal-Mart managers across the nation of using their discretion over pay and promotions to favor men. Wal-Mart disputed that there was a systemic policy of discrimination that led to unfair treatment. A California court had certified the case as a class action, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

:UNQUOTE [source: Chicago Tribune, June 25, 2011]

Some observations based on the article quoted above:

·       Of course, with this particular ruling, big business won and the workers lost. That is exactly what happened – so far.

·       Don’t let anybody tell you the Supreme Court isn’t politically motivated. To rule against Wal-Mart might have hurt our economic recovery – which would have displeased the Elite. Another example: For those who wonder why the High Court really “legalized” abortions via Roe vs. Wade, it’s quite simple: The Powers-that-Be decided an expedient means was needed to defuse the ghetto, which seemed at the time about ready to explode into full-scale urban warfare. Single-mom families (burdened with the prospect of yet another baby – this one unwanted) could have helped further destabilize our already shaky inner-cities.

·       How does this ruling “restore the integrity of the class-action legal system?” A California court and the Ninth Circuit court didn’t seem to think integrity was at stake here. Maybe those judges were suffering from a learning disability, which (of course) never afflicts the SCOTUS.

·       (Ultimately) the wronged workers won’t be denied their day in court? Define “ultimately,” White Man! It’s always harder for a small group of workers (or an individual) to succeed in court. For one thing, the expense is truly daunting and the process is time-consuming.

·       The article cites “managers…using their discretion [my emphasis] over pay and promotions.” Does that mean managers are actually allowed to discriminate? That would run up against Wal-Mart’s Non-Discrimination policy which says, “Walmart will not tolerate discrimination in employment, employment-related decisions…” Maybe the article meant to say, “managers…using generally-accepted standards to determine pay and promotions.”

·       The article doesn’t indicate if workers who felt they had been improperly evaluated by direct supervisors had lodged any formal complaints with upper management during the decade in question. If Wal-Mart has a Non-Discrimination policy, it would make sense that it would also have a corporate mechanism in place for redress of grievances.

Why the Wal-Mart workers should have prevailed

By “prevailed,” as used in the heading above, I mean “been allowed to proceed as a class-action lawsuit.”

The Chicago Tribune article (cited above) states:

“Moreover, a class-action judgment in this case would improperly lead to a one-size-fits-all remedy. If some women were seriously wronged, they might deserve significantly more compensation that others, the court said.”

[and]

“The lawyers collect millions, the victims collect $5 off coupons good for their next oil change.”

As for one-size-fits-all remedy, if that’s the current state of our class-action system, that needs to be changed. Allowing multiple parties, even though their injuries aren’t equal, to join as a class in a lawsuit falls within the realm of common sense. By allowing a mass of workers to sue one company for injuries sustained over a decade should actually make it easier to determine if there had been any statistically significant abuse attributable to the de facto corporate culture. And the expense involved in fact-finding could have been better borne by a larger pool of litigants. I am assuming, of course, that all parties involved, including the High Court, are interested in making “it easier to determine.” That is, are concerns that justice be done at all relevant?

We’re talking about measurable quantities here: Comparisons of pay and promotion between male and female employees over a significant period of time. Any one particular employee or employees working in one Wal-Mart store would have a hard time proving systemic abuse. If the entire class of women were found to have suffered from discrimination, why shouldn’t those who’d suffered more be allowed to recover more damages? The amount in lost wages should be easy enough to calculate.

The Tribune article is being dodgy by trying to compare loss of wages, which could vary widely within a large group of workers, with a situation in which “victims collect $5 off coupons good for their next oil change.” However, if that is in fact an accurate comparison, our class-action system definitely needs an overhaul.

Some larger considerations

Introducing an alternate system

I am in favor of an ombudsman system in which individuals who feel they have been wronged, especially on the job, can seek relief without having to pay a lawyer – or anybody else for that matter. Suppose a complaint is lodged (free of charge) with an ombudsman, who investigates and finds in favor of the complainant. Damages are awarded, which can then be appealed to a court. However, if the defendant does not prevail in court, punitive damages should be awarded on top of the original amount. And these damages would increase for each succeeding case in which a [different] complainant challenging the same employer on similar grounds wins a favorable ruling.

Corporations or entities which lose should be forced to compensate the ombudsman for all costs incurred in the performance of his duties.

This would prevent abuses from piling up over a substantial period of time – which, in the case of Wal-Mart, exceeded ten years. After all, justice delayed is justice denied. On the other hand, if Wal-Mart had not been allowed to exploit its female work force, perhaps that company wouldn’t have prospered as it did. However, it should not be the job of the courts to assure corporate profitability.

What about an unfettered jury system?

This might be overly idealistic, but I’ll put it on the table anyway. How about allowing an unfettered jury to decide matters of fact and law? Such a jury would not need a judge, but would elect one of its one to sit in place of a judge in order to act as moderator. Such a jury would not be prevented from considering any and all facts, whether “prejudicial” or not. The very idea is repugnant: That a jury needs a judge to deny to them information which he feels is prejudicial. This jury would be empowered to seek out any information it pleases if it should choose to consider more than what the opposing attorneys chose to present; these citizens would also have the power to subpoena.

Some purists would protest claiming we’d be encouraging crude street justice. However, I think of it as allowing the common sense of We-the-People a chance to manifest itself. Again, an unfettered jury.

The role of Congress

What I am about to propose might require a Constitutional amendment – or might be part of any replacement Constitution which might come to pass.

If Congress disagrees with any final, “highest-level” federal court decision, it should have the right to overrule that decision by means of a simple majority of both Houses – excluding the President (who of course is only one man). Laws cannot be passed without Congress, which surely must know what each law it passed was intended to “mean.” If the Courts rule in opposition to that meaning, the Congress should have the right to make any necessary correction. Why should the Supreme Court, which consists of only 9 members and often rules on a 5-4 basis, be allowed to determine what Congress had meant when passing its various laws?

Concluding statement

All I can do here is offer food for thought. Even if I were to become the next president, I could not overhaul our convoluted and increasingly unfair legal system single-handedly. I would need help – your help – to come up with ideas and to help elect that Independent Congress which can make all these good things happen.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“A society that doesn’t care about justice for all will soon find it has ‘justice’ only for the very few.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com