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

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