The US Debt Crisis: A Better Approach

The current situation: The US managed to dodge a bullet by (barely) beating the Aug. 2 deadline to increase our borrowing limit. But there were costs:

·       An immediate negative stock market reaction when investors realized the government would be less likely to spend in order to pull us out of recession;

·       A loss of confidence in our government by US citizens who saw far too many instances of leaders from the monopoly parties acting badly;

·       A downgrade from our AAA bond rating for the first time in our history (probably because the Powers-that-Be failed to offer S&P a large enough bribe not to);

·       No assurance that our long-term problems will ever be satisfactorily resolved.

Proposal: Our debt bomb can best be defused by implementing a new national constitution based on Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR).

Background note: I developed CSR in the mid-70’s and have posted on this concept numerous times on this blog. Most notably at:

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

Question: Could a government based on Cross-Sectional Representation have done any better in terms of raising the borrowing limit and cutting expenses?

To recap CSR: Before answering the question posed above, it will be necessary for me to recap exactly what CSR is. This I’ll do by quoting directly from a truly unique historic document: “The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle, candidate for US President in 2008”:

Cross-Sectional Representation: The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congressmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests. My proposal includes: Abolishing the U.S. Senate, thereby making the House our sole national legislative body.

 

Also included in CSR:

·       All federal court decisions can be overturned by a simple majority of the CSR House.

·       Abolition of the Presidency as a separate branch of government. Specifically: The President would not be popularly-elected, but would instead be a Congressman chosen by a simple majority of his peers in the CSR House. This “president” would only have the power (to the same extent as does our current president) to launch nuclear weapons; he would not have any other powers.

·       Election to the CSR House can only be facilitated by posting campaign material on-line at a designated website. This will, in effect, eliminate the need for political parties and fundraising for office.

·       Elections to the CSR House (for terms of about 3.5 years) would be staggered so that one seat to the House would be up for election every three days, instead of all seats every two years (which is the current practice).

So, how could CSR have done a better job?

The last bullet point (above) gives part of the answer. Right now, drama is created by Congressmen – all of them at once – worrying about reelection. That’s a huge force animating our virtual siege mentality when it comes to public debate on vital issues. Also, the fact that only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection takes considerable pressure off the other two-thirds.

But “pressure” and “drama” shouldn’t drive policy-making. The collective wisdom of our lawmakers should be the driving force – especially lawmakers who aren’t members of any political party. Due to the unique nature of CSR (detailed in the link above), political parties and bosses as we currently know them will cease to exist.

With each lawmaker freed from worrying about (1) advancing his party’s interests and (2) the influence of geographically-based Congressional Districts, he’ll be likelier to pass laws for more pragmatic reasons.

To put a finer point on item (2) above: There is a determined minority of Right-Wingers who are able to dominate the political agenda in this country because they can have a decisive effect on electing Congressmen in certain Districts where their numbers are concentrated. However, if we replace Districts with Cross-Sections, this “determined minority” will not be as effective since they can’t as easily sway Cross-Sections which are literally composed of average citizens who aren’t neighbors.

The role of the President

Right now, we have a system of government in which one man is allowed to be one of its three branches. And during the recent debt-ceiling debate, we were treated to the spectacle of this One Man Branch of Government coming right out and saying (in more or less these words): “Increase the debt limit by a large enough amount that I won’t have to be bothered by this issue again before I’m reelected in 2012.”

Not only was Barack Obama blatantly concerned about his prospects for reelection, but (as leader of his party) was concerned about his party’s prospects as well. [Reminder: Under CSR, there are practical reasons why parties or even lobbyists, for that matter, could no longer exert their present undue influence.]

In terms of efficiently passing laws that avoid “kicking the can down the road,” nothing is more destructive than the One Man Monarch (oops, I meant, One Man Branch of Government) and a Congress run by the seniority system which rules over committees.

The role of the Congress

The way Congress passes legislation is characterized by multiple built-in oppressors:

·       Bills can too easily die in committee (they can be pried loose from committee control, but only with great difficulty);

·       Chairmen of committees have too much power to control the fate of bills;

·       The Speaker of the House can decide when or even if certain pieces of legislation can even be voted on;

·       The Senate filibuster always looms large as a discouraging specter.

Had CSR been in effect, each Congressman could have reacted to the August 2 deadline for debt-ceiling increase by having made in advance (say, by July 27) the following sworn public statement:

QUOTE:

I will only vote for a bill to increase the national debt if it contains the following provisions:

ONE: To raise the debt-ceiling, but only by an amount sufficient to enable borrowing for one more quarter.

TWO: To mandate spending cuts of $1T spread over a decade, with at least 30% of those cuts to occur within the first three years.

THREE: To include this oath which would irrevocably bar consideration of any other debt-increase bill for two months: “By voting for this bill, I hereby swear by means of an oath, equal in authority to the Oath of Office which is required of all Representatives before assuming office, that I will not vote for any other bill to raise the debt ceiling earlier than 2 months from today.”

:UNQUOTE.

This type of bill would have great power based, as it is, on an oath and by preventing any kind of change-of-mind should future Congresses decide they didn’t want to trim spending so drastically. By allowing for only quarter-by-quarter increases in the debt ceiling, Congress and the President would be challenged to stay the course and remain mindful of their responsibilities.

This kind of bill would have been a “take it or leave it” offer to the Senate, which the Senate could not refuse since (due to the oath contained therein) the House could not consider any other variation for two months. Similar examples of legislative creativity aren’t possible under our current, overly-rigid system.

The following link describes a Congress (or even just a House) that can operate in a more streamlined (not to mention, creative) fashion, unhindered by a hierarchal Committee system:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/long-arm-of-law.html

Cuts in spending & changes in taxing

Our biggest problem is we have too many sacred cows protected by too many vested interests. Put another way: “We’ve become expert at thwarting reform.” But if we continue to insist on remaining so “expert” at keeping good solutions (and problem-solvers) at bay, only bad solutions will remain. The worst? Our Elite will decide there are too many of us to properly take care of, so they’ll find a way to thin the herd. A war? An artificially-induced pestilence? Invite other-worldly aliens to take a whack at us?

I like to think an Independent House, as established by CSR, could level the playing field and wouldn’t be afraid to create:

·       An equitable tax system good for the country as a whole;

·       Rules to govern bond rating agencies to assure a consistent and scientific basis for their ratings;

·       A military, no longer operating from over 700 overseas bases, that isn’t obligated to police the entire world;

·       A reformed judiciary system (possibly allowing for non-traditional judges and ombudsmen) where participants don’t have to pay to play – that is, where justice isn’t so damned expensive;

·       Alternatives to an education that aren’t as expensive as what the states are willing to allow. In this age of the internet, there should be widely-available access for citizens to educate themselves on-line, with credit for this knowledge being transferable to more traditional institutions;

·       An environment where states would be barred from competing for business with other states by means of offering tax breaks or financial incentives to relocate;

·       A cost of doing business which includes regulation of exotic financial instruments and disallowal of hidden ownership laws and off-shore shell corporations;

·       Usury laws to deny outrageous rates of interest for credit card activity or bank loans;

·       An equitable working environment for all, and not just for those who belong to a union, which assures fair treatment on the job and the possibility of a decent wage.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Of course, we could continue on our current course and simply allow the chips to fall where they may. But I guarantee that will please few of you.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Power of the People vs. “Constitutionality”

Today's question:

Do We-the-People have the right to replace the US constitution?

Friends of the Article V Convention:

There is a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention" [FOAVC] which says no! From their website:

QUOTE [from http://www.foavc.org/]:

The mission of Friends of the Article V Convention is ... to help the public understand the difference between an Article V Convention, which FOAVC fully supports, and a "constitutional convention" that would rethink the entirety of our current Constitution, which FOAVC emphatically does not support.

:UNQUOTE.

Article V and the FOAVC

The FOAVC claims that We-the-People have the right to amend our Constitution but not the right to replace it. As I will make clear in a bit, the Constitution itself allows for its own replacement. But the FOAVC chooses to focus, for what I believe are malevolent purposes, only on Article V, which follows:

QUOTE:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments...

:UNQUOTE.

Point/Counterpoint:

These "Points" are from the FOAVC website, from four consecutive sentences. "Counterpoints" are my comments.

Point:

...a "constitutional convention" -- one that seeks to literally discard, replace and re-write the current Constitution -- is blatantly extra-constitutional.

Counterpoint:

To call something "extra-constitutional" is not the same as calling it "unconstitutional."

Point:

It is neither authorized by our Constitution nor is it sanctioned elsewhere by any federal or state law.

Counterpoint:

How strange! Would it matter if it is "sanctioned elsewhere" if the constitution itself doesn’t authorize it? But of course we don't have to concern ourselves with this "elsewhere" authorization. Why? This is where FOAVC is wrong: Our constitution in fact does authorize a full-blown constitutional convention. I cite three sources for my reasoning:

ONE: Our current document replaced the original constitution (known as the Articles of Confederation) by means of a constitutional convention. Under the terms of the AOC, the Articles could not be altered (that is, amended or changed) without the permission of all of the states. However, our current constitution allowed itself to be established if ratified by only 9 out of the 13 states. In other words, our current constitution is, well, unconstitutional.

TWO: I took a careful look at the Preamble of the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Articles formed the union and We-the-People had the right to "form a more perfect union." So says the Preamble, which is the constitution's very first sentence. So why shouldn't we have the right to form an even more perfect union now - by means of a new constitution?

THREE: We-the-People had (and still have!) the right (as further reinforced by the Tenth Amendment) to make such a fundamental change (here's the Tenth): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people [my emphasis added]." My interpretation: We-the-People have the right to "ordain and establish" since these are powers not delegated to the United States.

The Preamble and the Tenth Amendment couldn't be clearer on this point.

Point:

In short, a "constitutional convention" would constitute a quasi-rebellious act if not an outright direct assault on our constitutional republic which, in the view of many constitutional scholars, would violate numerous federal and state laws.

Counterpoint:

Let's start with that first bit of nonsense: "direct assault on our constitutional republic." Such a convention would be an assault on our current constitution but not on the idea that we ought to have a "constitutional republic." [Wasn't our current constitution an "assault" on our first constitution?]

As for any claim that such a Constitutional Convention would "violate numerous federal and state laws," so what? Since the Constitution itself is supposed to be the supreme law of the land (and my point TWO above makes clear that the Constitution gives We-the-People the right to determine our mode of governance), any "federal and state laws" to the contrary would be, well, unconstitutional.

Point:

This is the type of convention that deserves the scorn of the American people.

Counterpoint: Scorn of the American people, eh?

"Scorn" indeed! I suggest FOAVC try this out for size:

Suppose three-fourths of our citizens wrote the following statement on their federal income tax forms:

"I, the undersigned (being one of We-the-People), hereby demand the creation of a constitutional convention to replace the entire U.S. constitution. If three-fourths of eligible voters approve of any replacement created by that convention, that would be sufficient to replace our current constitution." [I propose three-fourths, since that's the fraction of state legislatures needed to ratify amendments.]

Guess what! This majority voice won't be heard. This majority voice will be considered a "quasi-rebellious act." FOAVC, among others, will say, "We've got a direct assault on our constitutional republic on our hands."

If anyone "deserves the scorn of the American people," it would be our leaders for turning a deaf ear to demands for change (as, for example, expressed on our tax forms). And maybe another group is even more deserving of scorn (if we accept FOAVC's logic): Our Founding Fathers! They were arrogant enough to write a constitution which can only be amended but never replaced. In other words, they thought they got it right for all time. They (the dead) wish to impose their will on us (the living).

So what's wrong with our constitution?

The biggest thing "wrong" with it is the notion that it can't be replaced. Do we not have a right of self-determination? If our Founding Fathers were so keen on "No taxation without representation," then surely they wouldn't be so keen on asserting the tyranny of their generation over ours. If our current constitution is so great, why not put it to a vote? Why not subject it to good old American competition in the marketplace of ideas?

Here's a short list of my particular complaints:

ONE: The tyranny of the Two Party monopoly system, not even foreseen by our Founding Fathers, needs to be addressed.

TWO: Here I will cite one of FOAVC's core complaints: Even though Article V of our current constitution states that Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments" whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of our states request one, Congress refuses to do so. All 50 state legislatures have requested such a convention, yet Congress is silent. It fails to do its constitutional duty to "call a convention." And the Supreme Court does not rally in response to this outrage. I think we need a constitution which is not so easily ignored.

THREE: Concerning how easily our constitution is ignored, I cite the fact that West Virginia and Maine were unconstitutionally admitted to the union. Article IV, Section 3 is clear: “…New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state…” Realpolitik was at work to create WVa and ME, not the Supreme Law of the Land.

FOUR: Article V also says, "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." That would seem to imply that we will always have a Senate (and we will always have states!), and that's an amendment-proof fact of life. Why should that be so?

FIVE: The presidency has become entirely too powerful, an issue which in and of itself has to be addressed.

SIX: The Electoral College must go, since that was meant to restrain (that is, “thwart, if necessary”) the will of the people.

SEVEN: An increasingly exclusive legal system in which he who can't afford proper and long-term legal assistance can't have his day in court. [If you can't "pay to play," you lose by default.]

EIGHT:  Since we have a culture in which the unconstitutional Senate filibuster rule thrives, only a new Constitution can help create the new culture where that can’t happen.

Conclusion

There are groups like FOAVC which are trying to pry loose some power for the people. Or at least, they give that appearance.  I really wanted to give the FOAVC the benefit of the doubt. But I have come to the conclusion that they exist to divert energy and effort away from what is really needed: A full-blown Convention to Replace the US Constitution. They use very strong language in opposition to genuine, overall reform, as evidenced by two emails FOAVC sent to me. I’ll quote and refute those within the week.

We-the-People have the right to self-governance. More than that – to a self-governance obtained in a manner of our choosing. We don’t have to be told, by men dead for two hundred years, that we can’t replace their Constitution – ever – that we can only amend it. We don’t need the stooges of the FOAVC channeling those dead men.

If you have any doubts about the real intent of the Founding Fathers, just ask yourself one question: Why did they state, in Article V, that Congress “…on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..,” but doesn’t say what could or should happen if Congress doesn’t?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“With ‘friends’ like Friends of the Article V Convention, who needs enemies?”
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