President Searle’s Voluntary Tax Plan

Introduction

As a candidate for the US presidency, I should share my thoughts concerning tax reform. Herman Cain offered his 9-9-9 Plan, which he claims will lead to a Fair Tax. Rick Perry’s talking Flat Tax, which he says he’ll announce in detail next week.

I call my plan the Voluntary Tax Plan. This I introduced two days ago as a posted comment to an article on Yahoo News. Yeah, I know: Yahoo News is not the world’s most prestigious forum for introducing new proposals. But as a candidate totally lacking in financial resources, I have to take what I can get.

This is what I posted:

QUOTE:

Here’s a half-baked idea – which some of you might refine (please do).

Congress should enact legislation to phase in tax cuts across the board. The following assumes no change in personal income for the years in question. [I’ll expand on the previous sentence after the word UNQUOTE below – Steve.] For the first year, everybody pays 10% less in personal income taxes to the feds than they did the year before. The next year, same deal. I’m tempted to add yet a third and a fourth year to that – same deal. But corporate tax rates wouldn’t be changed.

Social Security payouts and Medicare wouldn’t be touched. But Defense spending would be the first to feel the pinch.

I propose that each US corporation (and any patriotic private citizen in a donating mood) voluntarily contribute to whichever threatened government program they favor. This might be a form of ultimate brinksmanship, but I am firmly convinced that corporations will pony up since they know how good they’ve got it and would be in the best position to contribute. Not to mention: Corporations think they own this country anyway, so we should force them to make the contributory choices necessary to protect what’s theirs.

Maybe it’s about time US [government] expenditures were calculated as part of a business plan. Then we’d see how much we really need to spend from hard-headed businessmen who know about bottom lines and reasonable business expenses, not giving a hoot about earmarks, or about pleasing special interests.

Oh, did I mention a permanent cap on government borrowing? And maybe (just maybe) the stimulus our economy needs would come from the increased spending from We-the-People having less of a tax burden.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Don’t beat me up too badly about this, since (honestly) this thought just popped into my head. In any event, it’s got to be better than 9-9-9 or Perry’s flat tax (Perry’s obviously desperate at this point).”

:UNQUOTE.

Expansion of cited sentence, above

Now I’ll expand on the cited sentence in the quote above, which I’ll repeat: “The following assumes no change in personal income for the years in question.”

Suppose a taxpayer’s income does increase (or decrease) from year-to-year. I will take Year 1 as an example. If he earns more during Year 1, he wouldn’t pay 90% of what he paid for that prior year. He would pay 90% of what he would have paid during that prior year had he earned his higher income during that prior year. The same idea would apply for those who end up earning less, and this adjustment would be applied for any future year involving these legislated tax cuts.

“Shooting Game” objected

Someone posted a reply to my plan – calling him(?)self “Shooting Game.” He(?) wrote: “well is not defense one of the main responsibilities of the federal government?”

I replied to “Shooting Game” as follows:

QUOTE:

We’re all responsible for our national defense, aren’t we – not just the feds? For instance, the way we vote could affect how large or small that defense is, regardless of whether it’s supposed to be “one of the main responsibilities of the federal government.”

The security of the United States is not only the concern of each citizen, it is the concern of those who make the most money from this enterprise. If push came to shove and my plan were to be enacted, we wouldn’t even come close to not having enough money to defend ourselves. Corporate and, yes, even personal charitable contributions would keep the Pentagon afloat. If not, then what would that say about how much we care about our country? In other words, maybe it's time the more hawkish among us put their money where [their] mouths are.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Don’t worry…if it even looks like we might come up a little short, foreign countries would be anxious to contribute. Maybe it’s about time they did.”

:UNQUOTE.

Voluntary Tax Plan?

Of course my plan isn’t 100% voluntary. Nor am I committed to the 10% rates of reduction. Unlike Herman Cain, I effectively admitted that my plan is a work in progress – hence my opening statement (above): “Here’s a half-baked idea – which some of you might refine (please do).”

I envision major US corporations huddling, both before and as my plan wends its way through Congress, to come up with a unified response. I intend to propose my VTP immediately. I expect Congress to shoot it down without fanfare – most likely killing it committee. However, in January of 2013, I will ask the American people to vote in a new Congress for 2015. I will emphasize, the only way to change our tax system is to (at least) throw out all incumbents and (at best) vote in independents representing no political party.

This, of course, would be necessary to enable passage of any legislation opposed by the special interest lobbyists who are so ably represented by our current crop of Congressmen.

Since I couldn’t get a cooperative Congress before 2015, that will give our corporations time to develop their business plan – that is, their response to my challenge to “voluntarily” cover the shortfall my tax cuts would generate. I have a great deal of faith in the efficiency of the modern US corporation, which also would be quite unwilling to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by starving it of “necessary” revenue.

Of course, what defines “necessary” will be a function of how our corporations and our military huddle to determine the real cost of the best defense we can buy for the amount of money available.

Comprehensive Tax Reform

I have a number of ideas concerning a total tax reform package.

ONE:  We would have to enact Economic Transparency Laws in order to remove, to the greatest possible extent, the veil of secrecy that surrounds our corporate transactions. I am skeptical of claims that such ETLs might compromise a businessman’s competitive advantage – especially since all US businesses would be covered by such laws. As for foreign corporations doing business on US soil, they would (also) have to realize: Such disclosure is now part of the cost of doing business.

Without having as much financial data as possible at our fingertips, how on earth could we possibly make intelligent laws governing business conduct and general taxation?

TWO:  I would oppose tax exemptions for charity and for religious establishments. Actually, I would oppose tax exemptions for everybody.

THREE:  We should take a serious look at how badly our 50 states undermine their own economies, while in competition with each other. My new constitutional model, based on a concept I’d developed in the 1970s, would mitigate the effects of cutthroat interstate competition. My system, which I call Cross-Sectional Representation, is linked here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/saving-world-chicago-style.html

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

Herman Cain vs. Steven Searle

I won’t pretend to know all the answers, so that would make me far more open to suggestions than Mr. Cain. I don’t have any secret group of economic advisers (as does Cain). I’ve never been a businessman – having been a lifelong state civil servant.

Quite frankly, though, I find Herman Cain to have far more bluster than wisdom. This quote from his website is a case in point:

QUOTE:

Phase 2 – The Fair Tax

Amidst a backdrop of the economic renewal created by the 9-9-9 Plan, I will begin the process of educating the American people on the benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair tax.

·       Ultimately replaces individual and corporate incomes taxes

·       Ends the IRS as we know it and repeals the 16^th Amendment.

:UNQUOTE.

Cain said (above): “I will begin the process of educating the American people…” Just who the hell does he think he is? Some kind of savior? Does he really think that much of himself or that little of us? Or both?

As for repealing the 16^th Amendment, enactment of the Fair Tax wouldn’t do that. Only a constitutional amendment could – and that’s no slam dunk.

I suspect Herman Cain doesn’t know squat about macro-economics. Bravo for him that he has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and a master’s in computer science. But those don’t translate to a broad understanding of economic policy. To be sure, my humble background (an AA degree) doesn’t bestow that understanding either. Here’s the difference: I’m willing to admit it.  Cain, however, comes across as one who is trying to position himself as the mouthpiece for an Elite he respects/fears but doesn’t understand.

Herman Cain is, after all, a motivational speaker. He gets paid a shitload of cash to turn people on. I wonder, though, if anyone who listened to his paid performances feels he sat through something profound. Or was it just rah-rah, go-team kind of stuff?

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“None of the other candidates will be able to enact their tax reforms, since (unlike me) they are unwilling to challenge a status quo Congress dominated by the big two political parties. After all is said and done, only such a challenge will end up making a difference.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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

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