Join our email list to receive free weekly articles. Please enter your email address below.
We should end Gerrymandering through non-partisan redistricting commissions!
Gerrymandering artificially reduces the voice of minority voters, results in non-competitive races, favors incumbents, and leads to the election of more extreme candidates. Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts for political gain. It involves strategically redrawing the district boundaries to favor a particular political party, incumbent politicians, or specific demographic groups. Gerrymandering can be done in various ways, including packing and cracking. Packing is concentrating supporters of an opposing party into a few districts, resulting in their wasted votes and limited influence in other districts. Cracking is dividing supporters of an opposing party across multiple districts to dilute their voting power and prevent them from gaining a majority in any district. The purpose of gerrymandering is to manipulate election outcomes, typically by favoring one political party over others. This can lead to uncompetitive elections, reduced representation of certain communities, and a lack of responsiveness to the electorate's preferences. When districts are heavily skewed in favor of one party, elected officials may not face significant competition from the opposing party. This can result in a lack of accountability and reduced incentives for politicians to moderate their views or seek compromise, potentially leading to more extreme and polarized positions.
Below are a few key points from the Congressional Budget Office’s 2022 report “The Economic Effects of Waiting to Stabilize Federal Debt”:
- “The longer action is delayed, the larger the policy changes needed to stabilize debt.”
- “As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), federal debt held by the public is thus projected to climb from 102 percent at the end of 2021 to 202 percent in 2051. A perpetually rising debt-to-GDP ratio is unsustainable over the long term because financing deficits and servicing the debt would consume an ever-growing proportion of the nation’s income.”
- “Policymakers could restrain the growth of spending, raise revenues, or pursue some combination of those two approaches.”
- “Waiting to put fiscal policy on a sustainable course and allowing federal debt to continue to climb would have several effects on the economy. As federal borrowing increased, the amount of funds available for private investment would decline (a phenomenon known as crowding out), and interest costs would increase. Perpetually rising debt would also increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis and pose other risks to the U.S. economy.”
- “Regardless of when the process was begun, stabilizing federal debt as a percentage of GDP would require that income tax receipts or benefit payments change substantially from their currently projected path.”
- “Cut spending for certain government benefit programs—mostly for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.”
- “The longer policymakers waited to implement a policy change, the more debt would grow in relation to GDP, and the greater the policy changes needed to stabilize it would be.”
- “The negative effects of delaying the implementation of policy changes on people’s consumption and labor supply would be disproportionately borne by younger people and lower-income people.”
We should significantly reduce the cost of prescription drugs by negotiating most favored nation drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for all Americans!
A $3,000 bachelor's degree is a reality now!
We can drastically reduce the actual cost of college by streamlining the approval process for 100% virtual accredited universities, such as Newlane University. At Newlane University, a bachelor's degree costs only $3,000. Alternatively, at Newlane, students can earn credits that transfer to other schools for just $39 per month.
We should address the humanitarian crisis at the border, expand the economy, and increase the tax base by making it much easier for properly screened immigrants to legally work in America and pay taxes.
We could dramatically reduce poverty in America and improve the labor force by emphasizing workfare over welfare.
As of June 2023, the national debt and unfunded liabilities represent approximately 339% of GDP, whereas in 1930, they accounted for only 16% of GDP. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has expressed great concern, stating, “we are on an unsustainable fiscal path” and “better to deal with it sooner rather than later.”
According to the federal government, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to become insolvent by 2035, while the Medicare Trust Fund is projected to face insolvency in 2028. The government has been kicking the can down the road for 60 years, accumulating more debt and burdening future generations. Is this the future we want to leave for our grandchildren?
Per the "THE 2022 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS" (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2022/tr2022.pdf) released 6-2-22:
- “Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost is projected to exceed total income in 2022, and the dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2035.”
- “If substantial actions are deferred for several years, the changes necessary to maintain Social Security solvency would be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations. Significantly larger changes would be necessary if action is deferred until the combined trust fund reserves become depleted in 2035. For example, maintaining 75-year solvency through 2096 with changes that begin in 2035 would require: (1) an increase in revenue by an amount equivalent to a permanent 4.07 percentage point payroll tax rate increase to 16.47 percent starting in 2035, (2) a reduction in scheduled benefits by an amount equivalent to a permanent 24.9 percent reduction in all benefits starting in 2035, or (3) some combination of these approaches.”
Per the "2022 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE AND FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS" (https://www.cms.gov/files/document/2022-medicare-trustees-report.pdf) released 6-2-22:
- “Current-law projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that will need to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers.”
- “The expenditure projections reflect the cost-reduction provisions required under current law but not the payment reductions and/or delays that would result from the HI trust fund depletion. In the year of asset depletion, which is projected to be 2028 in this report, HI revenues are projected to cover 90 percent of incurred program costs.”
- “The financial projections in this report indicate a need for substantial changes to address Medicare’s financial challenges. The sooner solutions are enacted, the more flexible and gradual they can be. The early introduction of reforms increases the time available for affected individuals and organizations—including health care providers, beneficiaries, and taxpayers—to adjust their expectations and behavior. The Trustees recommend that Congress and the executive branch work closely together with a sense of urgency to address these challenges.”
Voters should not be forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils”!
We should adopt Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) for all elections. RCV allows voters to vote for their favorite candidate rather than being forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, because RCV eliminates the “spoiler effect”. Voters often want to vote for a 3rd party candidate or a more moderate candidate, but they are worried that if they vote for their favorite candidate, then their least favorite candidate will win, spoiling the election results.
Voters in RCV elections rank candidates by preference rather than selecting just one candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots of voters who ranked the eliminated candidate as their first choice are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on their second-choice preferences. The votes are then counted in rounds, eliminating the least popular candidate until a candidate receives a majority of votes.
A huge benefit of RCV is that candidates are forced to be less polarizing, because candidates have to appeal to a much wider audience. Rather than just focusing on the most extreme voters in their party, the candidates must consider the opinions of Independents and Moderates.
Special interest groups raise costs for consumers & make our economy less efficient & our society poorer!
Special interest groups are successful at lobbying politicians because special interest groups have a significant, specific, and direct interest in the policy they are promoting, while the cost to each individual citizen in society is usually too small for the individual to formally object. Politicians’ number one focus is getting re-elected and staying in office, and special interest groups help politicians’ election campaigns with funding and support.
Special interest groups raise costs for consumers by reducing competition for their cause and/or industry by lobbying politicians for regulations, tariffs and excessive occupational licensing requirements. For example, accountant special interest groups want a complex tax code so that there is a tax return preparation business. Tariffs on imported products raise the cost to the consumer and tariffs typically cost more jobs in other industries than they protect in the tariff industry. Excessive occupational licensing requirements raise the cost to consumers and reduce the number of jobs available; by promoting higher standards than are necessary, the licensing board can limit the number of accountants, doctors, hairdressers, plumbers, taxi drivers, and teachers, which drives up the value of being in the trade, thus promoting self-interest over the consumer and society. Limiting government’s power and scope can help to limit the influence of special interest groups.
We should ban politicians and high-level government officials from being lobbyists!
We need to end the revolving door in Washington, DC. In politics, the revolving door refers to the movement of individuals between positions in the public sector, particularly government and regulatory agencies, and positions in the private sector, such as lobbying firms, corporations, or industry associations.
The revolving door can take different forms, including:
Government to industry: Public officials or regulators leaving their positions in government or regulatory agencies to work for private companies or industry associations that they previously regulated or had oversight over. This allows them to leverage their inside knowledge, connections, and influence for the benefit of their new employers.
Industry to government: Individuals from the private sector, particularly those affiliated with industries or interest groups, move into government positions where they can shape policies and regulations that directly impact their former employers or industries. They may use their industry experience and connections to influence decision-making in favor of the industry they represent.
Critics argue that the revolving door can lead to regulatory capture, as individuals may be more inclined to favor the industries they are associated with or pursue policies that benefit their future job prospects. A regulator can make decisions that benefit a potential future employer and then significantly benefit themselves when they leave the government for a high-paying job at said employer. It can undermine the integrity and impartiality of the regulatory process by blurring the line between regulators and the regulated.
Under current law, certain former government officials or employees are restricted from engaging in lobbying activities related to their previous government position for a cooling off period of typically one to two years. The purpose of a cooling off period is to prevent conflicts of interest, undue influence, and the potential for corruption. These restrictions typically apply to high-ranking officials or individuals who held influential positions that could potentially exploit their knowledge and connections for personal gain.
A one to two year cooling off period is not nearly long enough to prevent corruption. We should ban politicians and high-level government officials from being lobbyists!
Tariffs raise the cost to consumers, reduce our standard of living, & usually result in net job losses!
Tariffs are taxes on imported products that raise the cost to consumers for those imports. By raising the cost of the imported products, the tariff allows domestic companies to charge consumers higher prices for domestic products and thus, protect the industry. Tariffs not only raise the cost to consumers, they also typically cost more jobs in other industries than they protect in the tariff industry. Simply put, the tariff essentially reduces competition at the expense of the consumer and decreases society’s standard of living.
Almost all economists agree that free trade benefits everyone, yet tariffs still exist. Tariffs exist because industry special interest groups spend a lot of money lobbying politicians and promoting the idea of saving jobs in that industry. The jobs that are saved are easily seen, but the jobs that are lost in other industries due to the tariffs are much harder to see.
For example, steel tariffs make other products more expensive and less competitive in the domestic and world market. Steel tariffs do save domestic steel worker jobs, but at the expense of other domestic jobs that use steel, including appliance manufacturing jobs. When the cost of steel in the United States increases artificially due to the tariff, the sale price of United States-made appliances also will increase, thus making them less competitive against foreign-made appliances that do not include the steel tariff markup.
The sugar tariff is another excellent example of how our resources are being wasted by tariffs. Sugar is much cheaper to grow in Brazil than in the United States, but the American sugar special interest lobby has been able to promote tariffs that result in American consumers often paying double the world market price for sugar.
Another strong example is the American automobile making market. American auto makers and the United Autoworkers Unions support the 25% tariff on imported pickup trucks and SUV’s, because it benefits the auto maker’s bottom line and the ability of the auto makers to pay their union workers higher compensation. If a light truck made in Europe or Japan would typically sell here for $35,000, it will cost the American consumer $43,750 after the tariff, an additional $8,750. This tariff supports the American auto industry at the expense of the American consumer.
Without tariffs, companies that cannot compete in the free market will go out of business, which will free up the capital and workers needed for industries in which our country is more efficient and effective in producing.
Tariffs should only be used in national security situations, which are very rare. In a national security situation, the government can agree to buy a limited quantity of domestic production which would enable a small domestic industry to exist.
American industry should focus on what it does best, and trade for those products and services that we do not produce as efficiently. Propping up inefficient industries and businesses with tariffs increases prices for products and reduces our standard of living.
93% of the public favor the use of body cameras by police to record interactions between officers and the public.
Per a 2016 Pew survey, 93% of the public and 66% of police favor the use of body cameras by police to record interactions between officers and the public. According to the survey, 59% of the public believes that body cameras would increase the likelihood of cooperation with officers, while 66% believe that a police officer would be more likely to act appropriately when wearing a body cam.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/police-views-public-views/
87% of the public "favor laws that would prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns" and 86% "favor background checks for people who buy weapons at a gun show or from a private individual."
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/police-views-public-views/
America spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined, creating a huge debt burden for future generations!
The United States military should be the mightiest in the world, speaking softly, but carrying a big stick. Unfortunately, the out-of-control military industrial complex has resulted in wasted resources and a huge debt burden that is reducing the standard of living of current and future generations of Americans.
When Congress, bureaucrats, military leaders and private contractors all benefit from military spending, it is easy to understand why there is so much support for interventionalist policies. Private contractors spend a lot of money lobbying politicians because there is a lot of money to be made in the military complex. Just like with other special interest groups, any special interest that benefits financially from war will support politicians that are war hawks. Military installations are purposely spread all throughout the country, thus politicians from across the country are inclined to support military spending because it benefits their Congressional district, even when a weapons program might be obsolete.
Unlike the private sector, government spending does not have a natural trigger that determines when there is waste. Do we need aircraft carriers in today’s military? Would the Navy or the contractors who provide carriers tell the Congress or the public that we should downsize? The incentives of those involved are to maintain or increase military spending, not to downsize or become more efficient.
In 2019, the U.S. spent $732 billion on military spending, accounting for approximately 38.5% of worldwide military spending of $1.9 trillion. The U.S. spent more than the next 10 countries combined; triple the Chinese spending of $261 billion; and almost twelve times as much as Russia’s $65.1 billion. Most of the other top 10 spenders are strong U.S. allies, including France at $50.1 billion; Germany at $49.3 billion; the United Kingdom at $48.7 billion; Japan at $47.6 billion; and South Korea at $43.9 billion.
Per Wikipedia.org, the U.S. military has more than 160,000 active-duty personnel permanently assigned outside of the U.S. in more than 150 countries, including Japan 53,732; South Korea 26,416; Germany 33,959; and Italy 12,249.[1] World War II ended 75 years ago, yet we still have 100,000 soldiers stationed in Germany, Italy and Japan. In today’s world, technology plays a key role in determining who will be the most effective military. If the U.S. spends a lot of money on unnecessary bases around the world, that leaves less money for military technology, research and development; thus, more spending doesn’t necessarily mean a more effective military.
Whenever America wastes resources, those resources cannot be used in productive ways. For example, if the U.S. has 400,000 more soldiers than we actually need, those 400,000 soldiers cannot be employed in the private sector performing productive jobs that would raise the national GDP by $40 -$60 billion; thus increasing the national income and improving the standard of living.
On the home front, there is the concern of our own veterans and their families. One sure way to improve the health and safety of our veterans is to avoid unnecessary wars and conflicts, thus preventing death, physical disabilities, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and high suicide rates among our veterans.
[1] Wikipedia: List of countries with overseas military bases. (2020, December 6). Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases#United_States
We can reduce division in the country and make elections more democratic by reforming the current election system, implementing ranked-choice voting, nonpartisan open primaries, and ending gerrymandering.
We should ensure that regulations intended to prevent abuses by big corporations do not negatively impact small businesses.
We should decrease the influence of money in politics through campaign finance reform, including stricter regulations on campaign contributions, spending limits, and disclosure requirements.
We need limited government, and we need better government. Check out this video...
- A few points from the video. Massive government spending made inflation worse. The border is not secure. Gross National Debt surpassed $34 trillion dollars in 2024- a burden for our grandchildren. Big government never works well, regardless of which party is in power. The bureaucracy keeps getting bigger and less efficient. The private sector creates things that work and makes their customers happy, or they go out of business. The government shut down the economy and way underestimated how bad the impact would be. Markets are much more efficient than government, so limiting government makes our economy more efficient.