Reform Agenda

"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."

James Madison, Ratified 1788, Amendment X, United States Constitution

These Reform Agenda items must be redressed to turn our governments back to the limited restraints of their constitutions or charters.  It will be an ardent task to reverse a course of unlimited government that has been so passionately pursued.  Political dominions built and maintained with funds literally confiscated from the People they purport to serve.  Empires so perverted over the years that public service has succumbed to self-sustenance aided and abetted by political coalitions, special interest groups, "social justice" advocates, and public-sector employee unions and associations.

Our Call to Action encourages each of us to exercise individual initiative in doing what needs to be done to make the Reform Agenda a possibility, if not an eventuality, rather than a cast of false hope.  Economically, it forces government to retreat from their present course by depriving them of the monetary funds necessary to continue their quest of unlimited government; Politically, it puts legislators in office that support the conservative values of our Founding Fathers and the limited restraints of constitutions and charters; and Socially, it fills the void left as government withdraws from the waste and belied promise propagated by the social welfare state, with humanitarian love and empathy that lifts those up from malaise and despair with an offer of hope and aspiration.

Some of the Reform Agenda items relate only to the Federal Government.  Many of the reforms detailed are directed toward the Federal Government but in concept must also be redressed on the State, Local, or Municipal levels consistent with their constitutions or charters.  A few may only concern State or Local Government.

"Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience?"

James Madison, 1787, Federalist No. 14

Constitutional & Limited Government:

RA-C1. Amend the U.S. Constitution

  1. Limit Legislators Terms (Article I)
  2. Limit "Native Born" Citizenship (Amendment XIV)
  3. Repeal Amendment XVI (Income Tax)
  4. Repeal Amendment XVII (Senate Election)
  5. Add Balanced Budget Amendment

RA-C2. Limit the Scope of Government

  1. Phaseout the Department of Education
  2. Phaseout the Department of Energy
  3. Consolidate the Dept of Housing & Urban Development into the Dept of Health & Human Services
  4. Consolidate the Dept of Transportation into the Dept of Commerce
  5. Consolidate the Dept of Agriculture into the Dept's of Health & Human Services and of Commerce
  6. Consolidate the Dept of Labor into the Dept's of Health & Human Services and of Commerce
  7. Consolidate the Dept of Veteran Affairs into the Dept of Defense
  8. Create the Department of Science and Arts
  9. Phaseout & Consolidate a Variety of Administrations, Agencies, Commissions & Services

RA-C3. Diminsh Government Regulation Upon Business

RA-C4. Eliminate State Mandates

RA-C5. Privatize "Entitlement" Programs

  1. Social Security
  2. Medicare

RA-C6. Privatize Government Programs & Services

  1. Air Traffic Control
  2. Airport Baggage & Passenger Screening
  3. Federal Crop & Flood Insurances
  4. Student Loans

RA-C7. Repeal or Revise Liberal Legislation

  1. Congressional Budget Act, 1974
  2. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), 1977
  3. No Child Left Behind Act, 2001
  4. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2002
  5. Public Company Accounting Reform & Investor Protection Act, 2002
  6. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 2009
  7. Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2010
  8. Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, 2010
  9. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2012

Economic & Budgetary:

RA-E1. Reduce Government Spending

  1. Freeze Public-Sector Employee Hiring
  2. Phaseout or Consolidate Departments & Independent Services
  3. Reduce the Number of Public-Sector Employees by Attrition
  4. Commensurate Public & Private Employee Expectations
  5. Redefine Discretionary vs. Non-Discretionary Spending
  6. Revert to Biennial Zero-Based Budgeting

RA-E2. Remodel the Income Tax

  1. Cut Individual Income Tax Rates
  2. Discharge Income Tax Deductions & Credits
  3. Eliminate Corporate (Business) Income & Capital Gains Taxes
  4. Require Individual Income Tax Withholding & Estimated Taxes
  5. Bury the Inheritance Tax

RA-E3. Balance Government Budgets

RA-E4. Introduce Charitable Spending Accounts

RA-E5. End Public Campaign Financing

RA-E6. Replace the Income Tax with a Consumption Tax

RA-E7. Allocate Education Funds by Voucher


    RA-E9. Out-Source Government Services

RA-E10. Scrutinize Government Subsidies

  1. Business Subsidies
  2. Education Grants
  3. Farm & Commodity Supports
  4. Refundable Tax Credits
  5. Renewable Energy Subsidies
  6. Research Grants
  7. State Block-Grants

Political & Social:

RA-P1. Control Immigration & Naturalization

RA-P2. Withdraw from The United Nations

RA-P3. Abolish Public Employee Unions

RA-P4. Shorten Congressional Sessions

RA-P5. Balance Tort Remedy

RA-P6. Aim for Energy Independence

RA-P8. Ensure a Fair Election Process

RA-P9. Focus the Republican National Committee

RA-P10. Break the Bondage of the Welfare State

(Detail for many of the Reform Agenda items are not yet complete, thank you for your consideration.)

RA-C2. Limit the Scope of Government:

Milton Friedman spoke of this concern: "The most unresolved problem of the day is precisely the problem that concerned the founders of this nation: how to limit the scope and power of government."  We'll address this quandary as directed by Thomas Jefferson:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson, 1823, to Justice William Johnson, The Complete Jefferson

RA-C5. Privatize "Entitlement" Programs:

The term "Entitlement" is set in quotations to denote the common vernacular.  We prefer the term "Deferred Benefit."

RA-C5.1 Social Security:

Social Security, an individual retirement plan initiated by our national government in the New Deal era of the mid 1930's, complete with a savings trust fund committed to provide for future benefits.  Family-based security benefits added in the late 1930's: spousal and minor child dependent, and survivor benefits.  Adult Disability and Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA's) introduced in the 1950's.  Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and automated COLA's formalized in the 1970's.  The original individual retirement benefit is now titled Old-Age & Survior Insurance (OASI).  While all of these and more benefits were being heaped onto the system, the trust fund was raided by our federal government and spent as discretionary income, leaving IOU's and a pay as we go system in its' stead.

Contributions into the Social Security system to date have exceeded paid out benefits creating IOU's from the Federal Treasury to the tune of approximately 2.6 trillion dollars.  Officially the funds were borrowed, but we believe "raided" is a more fitting description as they were used to purchase low yielding Treasury Bonds instead of investment in much higher yielding mutual funds.  With no trust fund, the system is reduced to what is not much more than a dying ponzi scheme that has maximized its' base; with for the first time in its' existence the cost of benefits teetering on exceeding payroll receipts into the system, and with future unfunded mandates in the billions turning to the multi trillions of dollars.  The big red one.

Over the program history legislators have wrung their hands in attempts to make the Social Security system "forever" solvent.  Raising the individual and employer payroll deduction rates, the annual limit on payroll deductions, the age at which individuals can retire at full benefits, and more have all been enacted.  One common thread, "raising".  The collective system has failed, it's long past time to pull the string on the way of government.

We can fix it, our Reform Agenda will "Privatize Social Security".  Here's our major plan elements:

  • Present Social Security recipients shall not be effected, their benefits under the present plan shall continue as promised.
  • Social Security retirement benefits for those individuals fifty-five years of age and older at this privatized plan's enactment shall not be effected, future benefits shall be provided as promised under the present plan.
  • Present Social Security retirement ages shall be unchanged.
  • Combined benefits for all present and future participates shall not be less than those allowed under the present Social Security plan.
  • For the present and near future both the Social Security individual payroll deduction and employer match shall continue at the 6.2% rate.
  • Viability of our reform is based upon the historically proven knowledge that broad based mutual fund investments in the years leading to an age of retirement will return on the average 2 - 3 times that of US Treasury Notes & Bonds, the present Social Security Fund source of investment under the current plan.

Here's the major changes as we transition from government to private administration:

  • Individuals fifty-four years of age and younger shall have a 2.0% share of their 6.2%, plus 2.0% of their employer match of 6.2% of the Social Security payroll tax deduction invested in a fund dedicated to their individual and family security.  This fund shall be termed an Individual Security Fund (ISF).  ISF's shall not be drawn upon or used for any other purpose except for those detailed herein.
  • ISF's shall be invested in mutual funds, choice of funds from an approved menu shall be chosen by the individual or selected by default.  The menu shall take into account the individual age so as to safeguard their investment for retirement; the risk assessment of the mutual funds investment shall be commensurate to the number of years approaching retirement age.
  • Spousal and dependent children survivor benefits shall consist of a monthly annuity from the participant's ISF prorated for the number of years until the spouse reaches the age of 100 years or until the youngest dependent child reaches the age of 24 years, whichever is longer. *  The monthly annuity benefit shall be weighted to reflect the number of dependent children in the beginning of the survivor program throughout its existence until the youngest is emancipated at the age of 24 years.  (Through the age of 23 allows for the opportunity of four years of child college or extended education should such be sought.)
  • Full Disability Insurance (DI) benefits shall consist of a monthly annuity from the participant's ISF prorated for the number of years until the recipient reaches the age of 100 years. *  This annuity shall be reduced by the degree of partial disability for the years prior to the age of retirement.  DI eligibility guidelines shall be strengthened and revised to ensure that true disability thresholds are met and that benefits reflect an accurate degree of disablement.  (Strengthened eligibility guidelines shall reflect the fact that there are too many able bodied beneficiaries receiving DI benefits.)
  • Present individual Old-Age & Survivor Insurance (OASI) retirement benefits shall be reduced by 3.33% for each year of age under the age of fifty-five years at the date of this plan's enactment.  To compensate for this reduction, a monthly annuity from their ISF shall be received during retirement. *  The length of the annuity proration shall cover the individual to the age of 100 years.
    • Like Social Security benefits, the monthly annuity from the ISF shall be of a greater amount with retirement at a higher age.  (The difference between age 62 and age 67 would increase the ISF by 5 years worth of contribution and investment, and would as well reduce the length of annuity proration from 38 (100-62) to 33 (100-67) years.)
    • Individuals presently under the age of twenty-five may receive no Social Security benefits at retirement, they shall receive Individual Security through their ISF built up through a working lifetime of investment. *
  • A death benefit to surviving beneficiaries shall be awarded equivalent to a twelve months worth of ISF annuities prorated to a number of years that would have taken the participate to reach the age of 100 years, a one year lump sum. *
  • Remaining funds in an ISF following allocation of spousal and child dependent survivor, disability, retirement and death benefits shall be awarded to the surviving beneficiaries of the participate, to be transferred into their respective ISF's.
  • At the point in time when Social Security payouts decline under this privatized plan and receipts into the system begin to once again exceed expenditures, both the share of the individual payroll tax deduction and employer match into ISF's shall increase in 0.4% increments.  (The individual payroll tax deduction and employer match into ISF's will initially increase from 2.0% to 2.4%.)  This adjustment in 0.4% increments shall proceed until plan receipts and expenditures come into long-term equalibrium.
  • Nothing in this plan shall effect present private voluntary individual retirement plans such as employer funded employee pensions, tax deferred and other legislative retirement plans (401(k)'s, etc.), and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's).

    * Individuals presently receiving these benefits, or participates fifty-five years of age or older at this privatized plan's enactment shall not be effected, their benefits shall continue as promised under the present Social Security system.  ISF annuity allocations shall be supplemented if need be; spousal and child dependent survivor, disability, retirement and death benefits shall not be less than those accorded or those that would have been accorded under the present Social Security plan.

  • Allotting the initial total of 4.0% of the present individual payroll tax deduction and employer match to the ISF will constitute a reduction to present Social Security system receipts and to its' balance of payments.  For 2011, Congress has already taken this same individual payroll tax deduction of 2.0% out of Social Security system receipts and is passing it on to the individual in the form of a tax cut for the expressed purpose of stimulating the national economy.  Our privatized plan would result in taking a near term hit for at least ten and up to twenty years in the Social Security system balance of payments in return for dodging future unfunded mandates of multi trillion of dollars inherent in the present system.  The IOU's from our National Treasury will be called in one-way or the other.  The future financial viability of the current plan is inarguably unsustainable.  The sooner we transition to this privatized plan affording a much higher rate of return upon investment the better.

    The 4.0% in contributions into ISF's will be in themselves stimulative to our national economy in the form of investment into private capital.  An acceptable, though not advocated, alternative to the above plan would be to increase the total individual payroll tax deduction and employer match by 2.0%, from 6.2% to 8.2%, as to keep the Social Security system receipts at the current 12.4% (ignoring the 2011 2.0% cut) level.  Should this alternative plan be adopted, at the point in time when Social Security payouts decline under this privatized plan and receipts into the system begin to once again exceed expenditures, the total individual payroll deduction and employer match shall decrease in 0.4% increments.  (The individual payroll tax deduction and employer match will initially decrease from 8.2% to 7.8%.)  This adjustment in 0.4% increments shall proceed until total individual payroll tax deductions and employer match is again 6.2%.  At the point in time when Social Security payouts continue to decline under this privatized plan and receipts into the system begin to once again exceed expenditures, both the share of the individual payroll tax deduction and the employer match into ISF's shall increase in 0.4% increments.  This adjustment in 0.4% increments shall proceed until plan receipts and expenditures come into long-term equilibrium.

    We estimate that long-term equilibrium will be met at somewhere around a total of 8.0% investment in ISF's and the remaining 4.2% remaining available to meet the needs of those incapable of earning and building an adequate (present plan benefits) ISF annuity. 

    RA-C6. Privatize Government Programs & Services::

    We have both "Privatize" and "Out-Source Government Services" as Reform Agenda items.  The two terms are often mixed or interchanged but are distinctly divergent:

    1. Privatize is to take a service or function, non-delegated by constitution or charter, from government responsibility, control and execution; allowing the private-sector to execute the service within the auspices of the free-market economy.
    2. Out-Source is to use private-sector free-market efficiencies to take a service or function, delegated by constitution or charter, from government execution; while maintaining government responsibility and control.

    RA-C7. Repeal or Revise Liberal Legislation:

    "The internal effects of a mutable policy are ... calamitous.  It poisons the blessings of liberty itself.  It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."

    James Madison, 1787, Federalist No. 62

    RA-E1. Reduce Government Spending:

    "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

    Thomas Jefferson, 1824, Letter to William Ludlow

    We feel "parasite" (Webster's, parasite: an organism which lives, grows, feeds, and takes shelter in or on another organism) too strong of term but the essence of Jefferson's quote is definitely felt today.  The public-sector employee is not the problem, the government environment in which they work is.  Government is more bureaucratic by nature and more inefficient by comparison than that of the free-enterprise private-sector.  There's a simple universal truth, survival of the fittest, called competition; where it exists waste must be minimized, where it does not becomes froth with slothfulness and redundancy.

    We must cut the size and cost of government, a summary of key elements needed to achieve this end include but are not limited to Reform Agenda items detailed in their respective sections:

    • Limit the Scope of Government; to only those functions delegated, expressed and implied, by Constitution or Charter.
    • Privatize Entitlement Programs; turning government dependency to individual responsibility while capitalizing on the long term compounding of investment earnings.
    • Privatize Government Services; limiting government operations to only those functions expressed and implied, turning control back to the innovative private-sector.
    • Balance Public-Sector Budgets; government spending must be brought into equilibrium with government revenue.
    • End Public Campaign Financing; vast variety of media outlets make the solicitation of ample private funds available to viable campaigns for elective office.
    • Commensurate Public & Private Employee Expectations; making total public-sector employee service commensurate with that of the private-sector employee.
    • Outsource Government Services; capitalizing on enhanced operational efficiencies demanded by the competitive marketplace.
    • Scrutinize Government Subsidies; ending government dependency created from the use of public funds to fulfill political agendas, restitutions and social engineering.
    • Break the Bondage of the Welfare State; withdraw from the waste and belied promise propagated by the social welfare state.

    RA-E1.1 Freeze Public-Sector Employee Hiring:

    RA-E1.2 Consolidate or Eliminate Departments & Independent Services:

    RA-E1.3 Reduce the Number of Public-Sector Employees by Attrition:

    RA-E1.4 Commensurate Public & Private Employee Expectations:

    There is something inherently wrong with Private-sector employees paying taxes, fines, fees, etc. in support of Public-sector employee wages and benefits; where such total compensation is greater for those receiving than of those giving.

    Private employee compensation is ultimately decided on the battlefield of competition.  Public employee compensation should become commensurate to Private compensation in terms of equal work, equal pay.  For example, a Public educator may perform many tasks equal to that of one in Private education.  Beyond direct comparisons a methodology exits for performing work studies to evaluate job equivalency.  Work tasks are rated for such factors as Education, Training, Experience, Physical Effort, Responsibility, Safety Risks, etc. to determine the extent to which these factors are necessary to perform required job functions.  Using these studies it would be relatively easy to justly compare Public to Private work for the purpose of determining equal work, equal compensation.

    RA-E1.5 Redefine Discretionary vs. Non-Discretionary Spending:

    RA-E1.6 Revert to Biennial Zero-Based Budgeting:

    RA-E2. Remodel the Income Tax:

    We echo the words of President John F. Kennedy, Democrat: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget ...  As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.  Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget.  By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."

    Following the lead of a few of the States we have "Replace the Income Tax with a Consumption Tax" as a Reform Agenda item.  Until that time when replacement becomes reality, we must pursue necessary reform of the federal income tax code.  Though we cannot address it all here, States should implement changes to their income tax codes, where such tax still exists, consistent with the principles detailed herein. 

    RA-E2.1 Cut Individual Income Tax Rates:

    "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

    Thomas Jefferson, 1816, Note in Tracy's "Political Economy"

    President Ronald Reagan, Republican, believed and we concur, that government should not use the income tax code to influence individual or business behavior: "We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.  ...  But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure."  Our reform of the federal Individual Income Tax, in concert with the thoughts of Kennedy, Jefferson, Reagan and others, is based upon these principles:

    • Individual Income Tax Rates should be lowered to stimulate expanded business investment and economic growth.
    • Every income earner above the poverty level should contribute, have "skin in the game."  The number of individuals and families paying income taxes should increase.
    • Individuals and families with equitable standard of livings, should have equitable Income Tax Liabilities.
    • The income tax code should not pick winners and losers, it should not "take from one ... in order to spare to others ...", income redistribution through the income tax code should cease.
    • Government should not use the income tax code to influence individual or business behavior.
    • Loopholes in the income tax code allowing - many to reduce their Income Tax Liability with the use of multiple deductions and credits at the high end, and many others to receive redistribution funds through refundable tax credits from the federal treasury at the low end, should be closed.
    • In concert with many of the principles stated above, federal Income Tax Deductions & Credits should be discontinued.
    • Inherent "penalties" should not exist in the tax tables for marriage or other consensual cohabitation of up to two adults, or for the raising and fostering of children.
    • Income Tax Rates should remain progressive while recognizing the value of the household family unit.
    • Tax Deferred and Non-Taxable Contributions allowing individuals to responsibly invest for their own future, or to voluntarily assist those less fortunate; therefore limiting the present and future dependence upon government (Public Benefits) programs should be sustained.
    • Total Income Tax Liability should remain relatively neutral with present liability across the aggregate of all income levels.
    • Computation of Income Tax Liability and the preparation of Income Tax Returns should be greatly simplified.

    Defined terms and requirements for the computation of federal Individual Income Tax Liability consistent with our outlined principles:

    • Earned Income: Gross Pay (wages, tips, other comp.) and Contract Payments; Self Employment or Business Income; Taxable Benefit Of Group Term-Life Insurance; Interest Income; Net Rental Income; Net Royalties Income; Alimony and Child Support Income; Tax-Deferred Investment Accounts Distributions (401k, IRA, etc.); Non-Taxable Investment Accounts Distributions (Roth IRA, etc.); Private Pension Annuities & Income; Government Civilian and Military Retirement Pension Annuities & Income; Social Security and Individual Security Fund (ISF) Distributions (50%, employer paid portion subject to federal income tax); Medicine and Health Care (Medicare, other) Benefits (non-taxable); Unemployment Compensation; Self Employment or Business Profit Diverted For Personal Use; Corporate Stock Dividend Income; Short Term Net Gain On Sale Of Business Assets For Personal Use and Short Term Net Gain On Sale Of Corporate Stocks (held for less than one year); and Other Earned Income.
    • Unearned Public Benefits Income: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits (SNAP); Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Benefits (LIHEAP); Housing Assistance for Low Income Households Benefits; Phone Service Benefit; National School (Free or Reduced) Lunch Program Benefits; Medicine & Health Care (Medicaid, other) Benefits (non-taxable); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Benefits (TANF); Supplemental Security Income Benefits (SSI); Other Unearned Public Benefits Income.  Includes all payments from government entities, including those made to others (landlord, doctor, etc.) for the benefit of the individual or their qualified dependents, except those otherwise specified.  Does not include deferred benefits programs: Social Security, Individual Security Fund Distributions, Medicare Benefits, and Unemployment Compensation.
    • Tax-Deferred Benefits Contributions: paid with pre-tax income, subject to taxation at time of withdrawal.  Investment Accounts 401k's, IRA's, etc. Contributions; and Other Tax-Deferred Contributions.  (Subject to Income Tax assessment at time of withdraw, early withdraw may result in Income Tax and Penalty assessments.)
    • Non-Taxable Contributions: paid with pre-tax income, not subject to taxation at time of withdrawal.  Health Savings Accounts (HSA's); Charitable Spending Accounts (CSA's); Employer Based Cafeteria Health Insurance Plans; and Other Non-Taxable Contributions.  (Subject to qualified spending criteria or payment limited to qualified organizations.)
    • Taxable Contributions: paid with post-tax income, subject to taxation at time of earning.  Individual Retirement Accounts (Roth IRA's) Contributions; Individual Social Security Contributions; Individual Security Fund Contributions (ISF); Individual Medicare Contributions; Individual Voluntary Health Insurance Plan Contributions; and Other Taxable Contributions.
    • Mandatory Income Transfer Payments: government or court ordered payments to another individual or entity.  Alimony & Child Support Payments; and Other Mandatory Income Transfer Payments.
    • Health Savings Accounts (HSA's): unlimited accounts open to all individuals and families maintained by a health care insurance agent.  Account distributions can be used to pay for health care insurance premiums; and for individual and family dental, medical, pharmaceutical, physical therapy, preventative and reconstructive procedures, psychiatric, vision and other qualified health care products and services provided and approved by licensed health care professionals.  Aesthetic procedures, over the counter drugs and medical supplies, and other non-qualified products and services are not eligible.
    • Charitable Spending Accounts (CSA's): unlimited accounts open to all individuals and families maintained by a banking or investment agent.  Account distributions can be used to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care services, disease control and research, veteran health care and family aid services, disaster relief, long term (elderly & challenged) care services, and animal care & shelter.  Expenditures from a CSA must be made to a qualified organization, (501(c)(3)(CSA) tax-exempt status.  (See Reform Agenda item "RA-E4. Introduce Charity Savings Accounts" for more detail.)
    • Employer Based Cafeteria Health Insurance Plans: employee contribution to premium costs for Dental, Medical and Pharmaceutical, Vision, and other eligible non-taxable health care insurance.  Does not include short or long term Sickness & Accident, Long Term Disability, Life Insurance, or other non-qualified plans.
    • Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): total gross Earned Income plus Unearned Public Benefits Income.
    • Net Taxable Income (NTI): Adjusted Gross Income, minus Tax-Deferred & Non-Taxable Contributions and Transfer Payments.
    • Household: one or more individuals living in a single dwelling, where the funds necessary to provide for the dwelling are furnished by one or jointly by two.
    • Single Taxpayer: maintains Household independent of another; does not qualify as a Dependent to another Household.
    • Dependent Taxpayer: dwells within another's Household, or a qualified Dependent to a Household.
    • Filing Jointly: combined Adjusted Gross Income and computed Income Tax Liability of up to two consenting adults within a Household.
    • Dependents: Single and Dependent Taxpayers (1); up to two consenting adults Filing Jointly (2); children under the age of 18, children who are full time students under the age of 24, and individuals of legal custody (1 each).  Qualified Household Dependents can also include individuals within a Household with combined Adjusted Gross Income below the exemption for Dependent Taxpayer (ITL Table D-1, Column A - top line), (1 each).
    • Capital Gain: long term net gain on sale of business assets diverted for personal use and corporate stocks - held for more than one year.
    • Capital Gain Tax Rate: 15%.
    • Income Tax Return: Single, Dependent, or Households with Adjusted Gross Incomes above qualified (ITL Table, Column A - top line) exemption must file.

    The chart below shows the Income Tax Liability and the Average Income Tax Rate (AITR), for selective Net Taxable Incomes, using four different Household, Non-Household and Dependent scenarios.  The AITR is calculated: Income Tax liability / Net Taxable Income, the average tax rate paid in relation to total income.  This data can be used for quick estimates of approximate Income Tax Liability; and is a useful measure in making comparisons with historical income tax receipts, and for other data analysis.

    We've included a lot here, so let us explain and summarize:

    • Poverty Level Exemptions: built into our Income Tax Liability Tables represent the national poverty levels for a Household of one, and a standard increase for each additional dependent, using prior year data.  (The 2010 exemptions are based upon 2009 Poverty Levels of $10830 for a Household of one, and an additional $3740 for each dependent thereafter.  Exemption values are rounded to the nearest $100.)
    • Tax rates begin at zero up to the exemption income level and rise in 4% increments thereafter to a top marginal rate of 28%.  Income levels for each Income Tax Rate rise using Exemption Level Multipliers, the first 4% rate up to 1.5 of the exemption level, the second 3.0, then 5.0, 7.5, 10.5 and lastly 14.0 before reaching the top rate of 28%.  (Rising up, income ranges for each tax rate increase by a 0.5 multiplier.)
    • Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is the total of all income, both Earned and Unearned.  Gross Pay should be represented on your "Earnings Summary" attached to W2's.  Net Taxable Income (NTI) is AGI less Tax Deferred and Non-Taxable Contributions.  Box "1. Wages, tips, other comp." of the W2 represents "Net Taxable Income" herein as the total already has Tax Deferred and Non-Taxable Contributions deducted.  Our Net Taxable Income is synonymous with the presently defined Adjusted Gross Income.
    • The present federal Individual Income Tax Rates range from 10% to 35% (without the Bush tax cuts, 15% to 39.2%), our rates range from 4% to 28%.
    • Every Net Taxable Income earner above the national poverty level contributes, pays income taxes, but they begin at just a 4% rate.  Presently, 40+% of individuals or households pay no income tax, with many of these actually receiving funds from the U.S. Treasury in the form of refundable credits.  Our plan should greatly reduce this percentage, many if not most of these same individuals or households would incur some Income Tax Liability, though at a minuscule Average Income Tax Rate of no more than 2% and most often 1% or less.
    • Income Tax Deductions and Credits are discharged.  Neither high income earners through special deductions and credits, or low income earners through refundable credits should be able to game the income tax code for personal gain.  Nor should politicians be able to "buy votes" using taxpayer funds by providing the same.
    • The Income Tax Liability Tables are designed to maintain an equitable standard of living regardless of marriage or the cohabitation of two consenting adults, or the number of dependents across all income levels; marriage and child "penalties" inherent in the present income tax code are eliminated.  (See the explanation of the use of Exemption Level Multipliers in determining income level tax rates.)
    • The progressiveness of federal income tax continue.  Lower income levels pay lower tax rates, higher income levels pay higher tax rates.
    • Some Tax Deferred and Non-Taxable Contributions remain for the purposes of encouraging individual responsibility in the planning and saving for their own future retirement and health care needs; and for the charity to others.  Individual and family planning today should lead to reduced government assistance, Public Benefits, in the future.
    • Federal Income Tax Liability calculation and reporting is greatly simplified.

    In verification of one of the principles of our income tax reform, total Income Tax Liability should remain relatively neutral with present liability across the aggregate of all income levels, we use the chart below to see how our estimated Average Income Tax Rates compare to historical averages.  Though not shown here, the general decline (downward trend in all percentiles) in these rates have continued through 2010.  In comparison our estimated Average Income Tax Rates stack up very well with the 2004 - 2006 data.  Our Fiscal Metric chart, Annual National Gross Receipts, show tax revenues to be very good in historical terms for these same three years.

    Lastly let's address Earned and Unearned Income.  One of our principles is that individuals and families with equitable standard of livings, should have equitable Income Tax Liabilities.  In example we'll take two situations: one family of four received Earned Income from wages of $32,000; another family of four received wages of $18,000 and received another $14,000 in food, energy and housing Public Benefits assistance for a total of $32,000.  All other things being equal we believe it would be fair to say that both families attain like standard of livings and therefore should pay the same amount of income tax, $336 using ITL Table H-4.  Failure to include Unearned Income in the case of the second family, would leave them with $0 Income Tax Liability, breaking two guiding principles: they would have no "skin in the game" and they would be unfairly advantaged over the first family who maintained an equitable standard of living but incurred $336 in tax liability.  (The $336 tax liability for a taxable income of $32,000 is a rounded Average Income Tax Rate of 1%.)

    RA-E2.2 Discharge Income Tax Deductions & Credits:

    We want to simplify the income tax code while stopping its use for political paybacks and income redistributive purposes.  Government does not know best, the use of income tax deductions and credits to influence individual and business behavior must end.  We won't spend a lot of time here, our reform eliminates all Tax Deductions and Credits.  Let's define the terms as presently used:

    • Tax Deduction: the amount of funds a taxpayer spends for "a government qualified purpose"; the amount of which reduces the taxpayer's taxable income.  (In example a taxpayer with taxable income of $73,000 before deductions spent $6,500 during the tax year on home mortgage interest, an approved tax deduction; his taxable income would reduce to $66,500.)
    • Tax Credit: the amount of funds a taxpayer spends for "a government qualified purpose"; the amount of which reduces the taxpayer's Income Tax Liability.  (In example a taxpayer with Income Tax Liability of $13,800 before credits spent $36,500 during the tax year on a new "Plug-In Electric Vehicle", an approved tax credit of $7,500; his Income Tax Liability would reduce to $6,300.)
    • Refundable Tax Credit: "a government qualified standing"; the amount of which is awarded to the tax filer.  (In example a tax filer with Income Tax Liability of $1,200 before credits receives an approved child tax credit of $1,000 for each of three children; funds received from the U.S. Treasury would be $1,800.)

    Our examples only illustrate one deduction or credit per taxpayer.  Utilizing tax specialists the wealthy in many instances are sure to qualify for multiple Tax Deductions and Credits.  We need merely to look to the Historical Average Income Tax Rates chart above to quantify the impact these deductions and credits have upon the top income earner's Income Tax Liability.  The Top 1% of tax payers in 2006 with a top marginal tax rate of 35%, paid an Average Income Tax Rate of 22.79%.

    Loopholes in the income tax code allowing - many to reduce their Income Tax Liability with the use of multiple deductions and credits at the high end, and many others to receive redistribution funds through Refundable Tax Credits from the federal treasury at the low end, should be closed.  Neither high or low income earners should be able to game the income tax code for special favors or personal gain; nor should politicians be able to "buy votes" using taxpayer funds by providing the same.

    RA-E2.3 Eliminate Corporate (Business) Income & Capital Gains Taxes:

    Our Country has one of the highest Corporate Income Tax rates in the industrialized world.  In our view, a perfect example of the proverbial "shooting yourself in the foot."  For the past thirty or so years the Corporate Income Tax has accounted for approximately 10-12% of total federal income tax revenues.  We want to eliminate income taxes paid by business.

    We would not want to eliminate the Corporate Income Tax while leaving small business owners paying income tax on business profits at their individual tax rate.  Therefore, we eliminate income tax on all business profit "retained" for business use, increasing the availability of funds necessary for innovation and expansion.  Corporate shareholders would pay income tax on distributed dividends, small business owners would pay income tax on business profits diverted for personal use; both at the Individual Income Tax rate.

    Liberals always speak in terms of a static zero-sum gain economy, to them elimination of the Corporate Income Tax would translate to a 10-12% cut in income tax revenues.  We believe in a dynamic (Merriam- Webster, dynamic: an underlying cause of change or growth) economy.  Since income taxes are the last item to come off the "bottom line", all savings in same would be added to business net profit.  In dynamic terms we look at what would happen with business monetary funds not confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  A multitude of possibilities, we have come up with what be believe would be the most logical and common, the vital few:

    1. Award employees with either bonuses or pay increases,
    2. Invest in innovation or business expansion,
    3. Pay down business debt,
    4. Distribute dividends to stockholders or divert small business profits for personal use, or
    5. Reduce the price of products sold or services rendered.

    In a dynamic economy, the choices that businesses would make with added profits would impact both present and future tax revenues.  Elimination of the business income and Capital Gains Tax is a trade-off of present business tax revenue with present and future revenue received through taxes applied to the individual.

    The present Corporate Income Tax rate is 35%, small businesses pay at an top marginal Individual Income Tax rate also of 35%.  If employees are awarded bonuses with the added business profits, the employees would pay present income tax at a rate commensurate with their individual gross adjusted income.  Employee pay increases resulting in a raise of employee base salaries would result in additional future tax revenue through the Individual Income Tax; where raises in wages are commonly given as a percentage of base increase, a compounding effect would further enhance these revenues in the years to come.

    An investment in innovation would increase a business's competitive position, increasing future profits.  Eventually, a significant portion of this increased business profit would inherently end up in the hands of employees, shareholders or business owners.  Business expansion would almost certainly result in the hiring of additional employees.  Whenever employees or owners are rewarded with increased salaries or allocations, or employees are hired, the inevitable impact would lead to enlarged tax revenues through the Individual Income Tax.

    A business could chose to pay off debt.  The reduction of debt would in itself lead to increased future profits through the reduction of interest expenditures.  Again, sometime, somehow much of this increase in profit would end up in the hands of employees or owners thus increasing tax revenues collected from the individual.

    Dividends are presently taxed at either the Individual Income Tax rate or at the Capital Gains Tax rate dependent upon the length of time the stock has been held.  We would make a change here, to treat corporate dividends the same as business profits diverted for personal use by owners, both will be taxed at the Individual Income Tax rate.  Increased dividends paid by corporations to their shareholders or profits diverted for the small business owner's personal use would again result in added tax revenue through the Individual Income Tax.

    Though we end Capital Gains Tax paid by businesses, they remain for individuals.  The Capital Gains tax rate is presently 15% for all but the lowest two individual tax brackets.  Capital Gains Taxes would be paid by the individual on the sale of corporate stock or small business assets held for a minimum of one year.  The small business owner would only paid Capital Gains Taxes on gains diverted for personal use.

    There are estimates that 20-22% of the average price of every product sold and service rendered is due to "embedded" income and payroll taxes paid by the composite of individuals and businesses involved in the production of products or in the provision of services.  Key word "average", some products would incur less cost savings, others more; though definite savings in cost of supplies and equipment, services in general would experience less savings than manufactured products.  Bottom line, through the inherent forces of competition within the free-market, the average selling price of products sold and services rendered would mostly certainly work downward.

    We do not eliminate all income taxes nor reduce payroll taxes herein, income taxes for individual owners and shareholders benefiting from business profits and both the individual and matching business payroll taxes remain.  Therefore the 20-22% is not our estimate of average cost savings under the plan detailed herein.  However, business Income Tax Liability and compliance costs would be saved and prices reduced accordingly.  The net effect would lead to increased consumer purchasing power, a rise in standards of living, the dampening of price inflation, and a multitude of other positive economic factors.

    What is commonsense to us, would be dismissed by the liberal zero-sum gain mindset.  We believe that businesses and the economy react dynamically:

    Expanded Business Investment & Economic Growth = Greater Profits & Higher Wages = Increased Tax Revenues

    The elimination of the business income tax would create incentive for businesses to remain, return or move to, and expand in the United States.  We believe in a dynamic economy the present and future increases in tax revenues received through the taxation of individuals would more than make up for losses in revenue through business taxation.

    What more, our economy reacts largely upon speculation of future prosperity or the lack thereof.  We advocate phasing out the Corporate Income Tax at a rate of 5% a year, with the first reduction implemented one calendar year from the time legislation is passed; with the business Capital Gains Tax eliminated at the time the corporate income tax rate reduces to a rate below 15%.  The tax rate paid on retained small business profits would phase down at the same 5% increments.  The economy would begin to respond immediately once business leaders and investors became convinced that these tax cuts would materialize with certainty.  Individual tax revenues overall under this plan would in all likelihood make up for the loss due to the business tax reductions before they even occur.  A respondent economy would also have a positive impact upon state, county and municipal income and sales tax revenues; not to mention a multiplicity of other economic factors.

    There's another huge problem with business income taxes that this agenda item would remedy.  Many "business decisions" are made based on the effect of the business income tax upon profit.  Tax accountants are kept busy looking for ways to minimize business income tax liability to maximize business profits.  We don't have a ethical problem with this, but we know that business decisions need be based upon what's best for operational productivity and overall competitiveness; by taking away the business tax, we take away the conundrum between maximizing profits today and competitiveness long term.

    We're not done.  There's another interrelated factor that a zero-sum gainer would never contemplate.  The elimination of the business tax would create a boom to payroll tax contributions to support Social Security and Medicare.  Businesses do not pay payroll taxes based upon their profits, they match payroll taxes paid by their employees.  An increase in total employee wages either through higher salaries or greater numbers of employees would not only increase payroll taxes paid by individuals, but would also increase the matching funds paid by businesses.

    We have "Privatize Entitlement Programs" as a Reform Agenda item.  What a great time to create a boom to payroll tax revenue just when such a boom could be used help transition Social Security and Medicare to individual accounts.  Ultimately, we want to "Replace the Income Tax with a Consumption Tax", another Reform Agenda item.  Until that can be accomplished we will continue to pursue reforms to the present income tax code.

    RA-E2.4 Require Individual Income Tax Withholding & Estimated Taxes:

    RA-E2.5 Bury the Inheritance Tax:

    RA-E4. Introduce Charitable Spending Accounts:

    A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson contrasts the merits of individual versus governmental control of the distribution of income: "We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions.  But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure this object.  The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contribution to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye, and over which we can exercise some useful control?  Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State or the United States?  Reason and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice."

    We have "Eliminate Personal Deductions & Credits" as part of our Reform Agenda but we do not wish to reduce the incentive for donations to charitable organizations.  Major elements of Charitable Spending Accounts (CSA's) include:

    1. Very similar to Health Savings Accounts (HSA's).
    2. Contributions to Charitable Spending Accounts will be non-taxable and unlimited.
    3. Administration of CSA's will be by a banking or investment institution chosen by the self employed individual, business, or public entity.  Expenditures from a CSA shall only be allowed to qualified organizations.  (This instills automatic spending restrictions that reduces the need for Internal Revenue Service (IRS) monitoring.)
    4. All donations from a CSA shall be made to qualified organizations, (501(c)(3)(CSA) tax-exempt status.
    5. Organizations shall maintain a minimum 75% efficiency rating for a previous 3-year average to maintain their CSA qualified status.  (Program Expenses / Total Revenue = Efficiency)
    6. Program expenses constitute direct assistance in the form of services or products to the low income, elderly, challenged, injured, sick or the otherwise needy; for disease control & research; or for animal care and shelter.
    7. Participate cannot have a financial interest in the charitable organization.  Includes employment, family ties or mutual agreements that would constitute an attempt to defraud.
    8. Qualified donations include assistance to those providing:
      • food kitchens or food stuffs,
      • clothing distributions,
      • housing or shelter,
      • health care services,
      • disease control and research,
      • veteran health care and family aid services,
      • local, national and international disaster relief,
      • long term (elderly & challenged) care services, and
      • animal care and shelter.
    9. Donations to spiritual, religious, or other entities qualify only to the extent that they meet above requirements.  Dual-purpose organizations may have more than one tax-exempt or other status, but CSA contributions can only go to those entities meeting elements 4-8 above.
    10. A withdrawal from a CSA requires making federal income tax restitution at a rate equal to the top marginal individual income tax rate.  (Withdrawal of $1000 with a current top marginal individual income tax rate of 35%: $1000 * .35 = $350 income tax liability.)
    11. Beneficiaries from a CSA can deposit proceeds into any of their individual Tax Deferred or Non-Taxable accounts without incurring current income tax liability.  Other uses of inheritance proceeds from a CSA requires income tax restitution to be made at a rate equal to the top marginal individual income tax rate.

    We believe the introduction of unlimited CSA's will:

    1. Increase the incentive for low and middle-income earners to participate in charitable donations.
    2. Turn the philanthropists loose in their donations through the unlimited tax deferred terms of CSA's.

    Government tax receipts will take a major hit.  In return the social safety net will be enhanced and strengthened through the grace of charitable activity recognizing the dignity and aspirations of those aided, in deference to a bureaucratic government administered social welfare system that reduces those in it to the lowest common denominator, holding them down instead of lifting them up.

    RA-E8. TBD:

    RA-E9. Out-Source Government Services:

    We have both "Privatize" and "Out-Source Government Services" as Reform Agenda items.  The two terms are often mixed or interchanged but are distinctly divergent:

    1. Privatize is to take a service or function, non-delegated by constitution or charter, from government responsibility, control and execution; allowing the private-sector to execute the program or service within the auspices of the free-market economy.
    2. Out-Source is to use private-sector free-market efficiencies to take a service or function, delegated by constitution or charter, from government execution; while maintaining governmental responsibility and control.

    RA-P3. Abolish Public Employee Unions:

    To put this in historical context, Congress passed and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the landmark National Labor Relations Act ("Wagner Act") in 1935 - the Magna Carta of the American labor movement.  It excluded federal, state and local employees.  Once enacted it created the National Labor Relations Board to enforce the rights of labor.  Employers were legally obligated to bargain collectively with their employees.

    Roosevelt, champion of the labor movement, spoke of the viability of public-sector employee unions in his time.  He stated "Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government.  All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.  It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.  The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.  The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.  Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

    Roosevelt continued "Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.  Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities.  This obligation is paramount.  Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied.  Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.  It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

    Roosevelt had no inkling of to what depths politicians would succumb.  In 1958, New York City Mayor Robert Wagner signed an executive order allowing civil workers the right to unionize.  It was an obvious appeal to union voters, a Wagner aide suggested that city workers would be a large enough constituency to guarantee his re-election.

    This opened up the floodgates around the country as other Democratic legislators followed Wagner's lead.  In 1959, Wisconsin under Governor Gaylord Nelson became the first state to enact public employee collective bargaining laws.  President John F. Kennedy followed in 1962 with an executive order granting federal employees the right to bargain collectively.  From that point in time membership in public unions have risen exponentially.

    That's the history, "The Corruption Cycle" the result.

    Webster defines corruption in part as "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity".  The People's money is paying Public employees, and the union is receiving dues from the Public employee's salary.  The union purposely propagates itself through this cycle, we believe this process in whole effect meets Webster's definition.

    The skyrocketing costs of public employees' pensions now present a huge challenge to federal, state and local governments.  If allowed to persist, such massive obligations will inevitably force a fundamental re-ordering of government priorities.  After all, if government must spend more on wages, pensions and other compensation, it is equally limited on what it can spend on the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government; and on needs such as schools, roads, and relief for the poor on the state and local levels; in other words, the basic functions people expect their governments to perform.

    Beyond this cycle which has seemingly become more pronounced year after year, an employee that is in effect working for The People, and whose compensation is paid by The People, needs a union to do what?  Negotiate against The People?  Government is and should always be a non-profit, serve The People endeavor.  The People have no reason to deprive the Public employee of fair treatment, working conditions, compensation, etc.  After all, even without collective bargaining, government workers still benefit from far-reaching protections under existing civil-service statutes, more protections than most private-sector workers enjoy.  They would retain their full rights as citizens to petition the government for changes in policy.  Public employees' ability to unionize is hardly sacrosanct; it is by no means a fundamental civil or constitutional right.

    Another Reform Agenda item is "Commensurate Public & Private Employee Compensation".  Private employee compensation is ultimately decided on the battlefield of competition.  Public employee compensation should become commensurate to Private compensation in terms of equal work, equal pay.  In short, what is the legitimate need of a Public employee union?  To ensure fair treatment or work environment?  Hardly, The People have no reason to deprive Public employees of such.  To ensure fair compensation?  That should be set on the battlefield of competition, commensurate with that of Private employees.

    RA-P5. Balance Tort Remedy:

    President Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer by profession, advised his colleagues concerning their conduct in matters of tort litigation: "Discourage litigation.  Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can.  Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser - in fees, expenses, and waste of time.  As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man.  There will still be business enough."  We question the number of his profession that have heeded his words, whatever the number of "good men", we are certain that too many of the other still practice.

    We believe present tort abuse is rampant and doing severe harm to our economy and to our country.  Tort abuse costs our national economy multi billion of dollars annually.  Perspectively, some of the estimated economic costs due to our U.S. tort system, not all abuse, include:

    • Excessive tort costs in the United States due to lawsuit abuse total $589 billion each year.
    • To put the annual social cost of the U.S. tort system in perspective, it is equivalent to an eight-percent tax on consumption, a 13-percent tax on wages.
    • The annual price tag, or "tort tax" for a family of four in terms of costs and forgone benefits is $9,827.
    • For every product sold there is a dollar amount built into those products from the manufacturers to pay for liability and legal costs.
    • Even under conservative estimates, the American tort system is the most expensive in the world, and presents costs greater than twice that of the average cost of liability systems in other industrialized nations.
    • These figures do not reflect any indirect costs including those caused by layoffs and bankruptcies, lost opportunity costs, and the costs of safety precautions which are not tracked or measured.

    The actual dollar costs will change, undoubtedly become worse in future years, but as long as our present tort system functions without significant reform that discourages litigation abuse the resultant harm done to the U.S. economy will prevail.

    We always hear of two major costs attributed to the threat, rather the eventuality, of malpractice litigation paid for by doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and the remainder of the medical field; and passed on to patients, medical insurance companies, and state and federal medical assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.  About ten cents of every dollar paid for health care arguably goes to the malpractice insurance doctors must have to protect themselves in case patients sue them.  Insurance premiums for some doctors in high-cost states can reach $200,000 per year.  Malpractice litigation could cost $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975.  To avoid being sued, doctors also use excessive tests and other procedures to avoid lawsuits; "defensive medicine" could account for 26% of the total cost of medical practices billed to patients and their insurance surrogates.  Even as high as these combined costs are to medical care, we believe they could still represent less than half the story.  Medical malpractice litigation, to what total cost?

    Besides the tangible costs of Malpractice Insurance and of those associated with the practicing of defensive medicine, these significant intangible costs most certainly prevail:

    1. There are the intangible costs of litigation to the doctor and other medical care providers.  Hundreds of personnel hours are spent preparing for and attending court hearings and trials; a toll is paid by all those involved in litigation for the hundreds of hours of excruciating mental stress the process portends.
    2. There are the loss of competition costs in high risk medical fields.  Doctors, other medical care providers, and businesses get and stay out of certain areas of medicine such as anesthesiology, obstetrics and neurosurgery, and the pharmaceutical industry where the cost of malpractice insurance and the risk of malpractice litigation is the highest.
    3. Lastly and perhaps mostly there are the loss of competition costs to the medical care field in the providing of increasingly routine tests and procedures.  Many of these tests and procedures could easily be performed on the clinic level instead of at the higher cost hospital or critical care facility if not for the high cost and risk of malpractice litigation; again saving billions of dollars to patients, medical insurance companies, and state and federal medical assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

    Medical malpractice litigation, to what total cost?  Too much.  We want the truly injured to receive just redress, but not those who file frivolous lawsuits to the expense of everyone in the health care field and to the cost of everyone receiving medical care.

    Litigation abuse infects every aspect of our economic and social structure, not just the health care field.  No individual or business is immune from unjust litigation.  A few of the realities of litigation abuse include:

    • Lawsuits are often without just merit.
    • Claims are often exorbitant.
    • The accused loses even when he wins.
    • Lawsuits often amount to a "shakedown" of business.
    • In significant part, especially "class action", lawsuits enhance the lawyer not the injured, making them respectively unjust to the accused.

    The accused in most instances must hire legal representation and go through many hours of case preparation and excruciating mental anguish, no matter the merits of the Plaintiff's lawsuit.  He has little real opportunity to recoup funds spent or stress suffered.  Reputation is on the line whenever a lawsuit is filed.  Plaintiffs know that the Defendant is often left in a position of weighing the cost of paying the claim regardless of merit in deference to suffering the loss of individual reputation.

    Lawsuits can wreak havoc on a company's share value, reputation, and even business model.  The threat of a lawsuit and the related media damage can present a no-win situation for companies: either settle a false claim to end the bad publicity or fight on the facts but get tarnished in public anyway.

    Presently the U.S. tort system returns less than 50 cents of every tort-cost dollar to injured claimants, those it was designed to help.  Only 22 cents of every tort-cost dollar go to injured parties to compensate them for actual economic losses.  Twenty-four cents go to noneconomic payments, including punitive damages.

    Beyond the overriding objective of freeing our economy from the shackles of litigation abuse, our three basic principles guiding overall tort reform are:

    1. The harmed deserve just remedy from the responsible.
    2. The innocent deserve protection from the vindictive and the greedy.
    3. Tort claims should be equatable with injury.

    We're not for eliminating tort litigation, but aim to reduce the abuse inherent in our current tort system without the incorporation of artificial or mandated limits or caps.  Our tort reform has in its foundation the introduction of a Defendant Remedy.  The Defendant Remedy is a value of 10% of the Plaintiff Claim minus Award.  The maximum possible Defendant Remedy is 10% of the Plaintiff Claim where the Plaintiff won $0 in Award, this amount requires bonding by the Plaintiff prior to filing a claim to ensure that the Defendant Remedy is bona fide.  Let's look at three examples of how our reform would work:

    As shown in example Case #1 above, the Plaintiff is free from penalty if his Award matches his Claim; this reflects the desired state, the injured is justly compensated by the responsible.  The Plaintiff is deterred from knowingly bringing a claim for more than his legitimate damages, example Case #2, an excessive claim penalized the Plaintiff $50,000.  The Plaintiff would be reluctant to bring a frivolous lawsuit, example Case #3, a claim without merit required compensation to the Defendant for the amount of $100,000.  We believe our reform would induce prudence and responsibility into the litigation process.

    We'll talk about the bonding of the Defendant Remedy.  The maximum Defendant Remedy (Case #3) is 10% of Plaintiff Claim.  This amount must be bonded by the Plaintiff prior to filing lawsuit, this ensures the Defendant just remedy should the Plaintiff's Claim be found frivolous or greatly excessive.  As common in todays criminal system, bonding companies are willing to extend bond to an individual for a fee of 10% of the bond amount.  (10% of the Defendant Remedy would equate to 1% of the Plaintiff's Claim.)  We know that the natural course of the free-enterprise would extend a similar system to the litigation process.  In the criminal system the wiliness of a bonding company to post bond rests upon the probability that the accused will appear, either voluntarily or compelled, in future court proceedings.  In the litigation process, the wiliness a bonding company would have to post bond would rest upon the probability that the Plaintiff's case merits a at minimum 10% of Claim.  Of course, the Plaintiff could always post bond himself should he have the resources and desire to do so.

    We fully expect that this reform would accomplish our objective consistent with our principles.  Plaintiffs would continue to receive just remedy from the responsible without adverse penalty, as long as their claim was equitable with their injury.  Defendants would be protected from frivolous or in excessive claims by the pure nature of the Defendant Remedy.  The net effect of this reform would be to balance claim with injury; the net result of our tort litigation reform would lead to a freer and more dynamic national economy.

    RA-P6. Aim for Energy Independence:

    RA-P8. Ensure a Fair Election Process:

    We came out of the 2010 elections just a few months ago, but it's now time to begin looking forward to the next election to ensure that we have a fair election process in place.  Looking at recent presidential election history conservatives have good reason for concern, we:

    • Heard reports of partisan voter registration drives by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and affiliates, proved notorious for street money paid for the sole purpose of registering as many potential Democratic voters as possible.  If the obvious targeting of just potential Democratic voters is not unethical enough for an organization that receives federal funds, then registrations for the dead, imprisoned felons, imaginary, etc. surely are.
    • Observed repeated accounts of polls in heavy Democratically registered precincts held open late on election nights, allowing for extended voter turnout efforts in just those demographic areas most favorable to the election of Democrats.
    • Witnessed the "hanging chad" debacle in Florida following the 2000 presidential election.
    • Suspect biased attempts by the main stream media to influence voter turnout in two of the last three presidential elections.
      • Calling Florida for Vice President Al Gore while then Governor George W. Bush lead in counted votes one hour before the western polls closed in 2000.  (Western panhandle is strong Republican territory, in the Central Time zone.)
      • Released bogus exit poll results in several eastern states, early election day afternoon, indicating that Senator John Kerry was making a surprisingly strong showing in 2004.
    • Seen felony charges filed against the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic Leaders for the criminal damage to property, for the slashing of tires on 20 vehicles rented for transporting Republican voters to the polls in 2004.
    • Viewed video of members of the New Black Panthers armed with batons standing outside voting locations in 2008.
    • Read reports of twenty-five or so heavily Democratic preferenced precincts in Minnesota alone that tallied more votes cast than voters registered in 2008.

    All of this compared to the upcoming 2012 presidential election, if it's anticipated to be close, we haven't seen anything yet.  The liberal surrogates of the Democrat Party are not going to take the 2010 watershed elections in stride and reconsider their political views of country and world.  Let us state our thoughts very distinctly, we believe liberals hold an utilitarian view of ethics; that the ends of an action justify the means taken to reach those ends.  Many of the means that liberals will stoop to in the 2012 election process to get President Barrack Obama and others elected will in our estimation range from dirty and unethical to dishonest and illegal.  Republicans and conservatives had better be ready, and to be ready they had better start now.

    Elements necessary to ensure a fair election process:

    1. Each candidate for elective office shall bare the burden of proof of eligibility as required by constitution or statute prior to being placed on any election ballot.  Any "write-in" person winning the majority of ballots cast shall bare this same burden prior to being certified the election winner.
    2. Present voter registration roles shall be verified as to voter eligibility.  Voter Name and Address shall match current status and address shall be in precinct registered.  Registrants shall meet voter age eligibility and U.S. citizenship requirements.
    3. New or updated voter registrations shall be made in person accompanied with signed picture identification and proof of age and citizenship.  The registration shall include Name, Address; statement of Age, Citizenship and other Eligibility; and Signature of registrant.  The signature on the presented signed picture identification shall be matched against the registrant's signature.  Registrants shall be verified as to age eligibility and U.S. citizenship requirements.
    4. A process shall be in place that ensures that registrants for 2 & 3 above shall not be a convicted felon or meet any other restriction that would disqualify them from voting.  Registrations that cannot be verified or are found to be ineligible shall be removed from the registration role.  Any registrant removed from the role shall be notified in writing of the reason for such removal.
    5. Each precinct shall have a representative chosen by the Democratic Party and one by the Republican Party, and a third chosen by an election authority to represent independents or other.  This three person Precinct Panel shall be allowed to assign other representatives in their stead and shall have the responsibility and authority to ensure the viability of the election relating to the casting and counting of ballots.
    6. Absentee ballots shall be sent to registrants by request or statute, and to be considered valid shall be received back to the precinct prior to the date and time that final polls close.  Absentee ballots shall include Name, Address and Signature of voter.  Returned ballots shall be supplemented with a photocopy of voter's signed picture identification.
    7. Voter registration roles complete with Name, Address and scanned Signature of eligible voters shall be available at the election precinct site prior to any votes being cast.
    8. The Precinct Panel shall verify all ballot collectors; rather container, punch card machine, electronic or other as to "empty" or "zeroed" prior to any votes cast.  Any and all access to such collectors shall be monitored during the voting cycle.  Protections shall be in place that ensures that there is no access to such collectors except under the supervision of the Precinct Panel until all votes are cast, counted and results accepted.
    9. Voter shall present signed picture identification prior to casting their vote.  Identification including Name and Address shall be matched against voter registration role, and the role signed by the voter indicating that his vote is being cast at that date and place.  The signatures on the presented signed picture identification and scanned on role shall be matched against one another and against the voters signature on the role.
    10. Any question as to the eligibility of a voter, determined by any member of the Precinct Panel, shall result in the casting of a provisional paper ballot by the voter.  A provisional ballot should take the form of an absentee ballot but shall be identified accordingly.  Provisional ballots shall be supplemented with a photocopy of voter's signed picture identification.
    11. The Precinct Panel shall monitor the counting of conventional ballots or the downloading of vote totals for the purpose of determining voting tallies.
    12. The Precinct Panel shall monitor the counting of absentee and provisional ballots:
      • Pending statute requirements, the counting of absentee or provisional ballots shall be discontinued whenever the number of such outstanding ballots is not sufficient in number to affect the outcome of any pending election.
      • Absentee ballets may be counted at any time during the voting cycle.
      • Provisional ballets shall be counted after the polls have closed ending the voting cycle.
      • Any member of the Precinct Panel can challenge an absentee or provisional ballot.  Challenged ballots shall be held until the end of the counting process.
      • Challenged ballots shall be taken in front of a local judge, determined prior to the commencement of the voting cycle, by the Precinct Panel.  The judge shall make the final ruling as to the validity of any and all such ballots.
    13. No voting tallies, be them preliminary or final, shall be divulged at the precinct level except as in #14 below.
    14. The Precinct Panel shall submit election results to the appropriate election authority.  The results shall include the number of votes received by each candidate on the ballot, the number of write-in votes cast per elective office, and the number of absentee and provisional ballots (if any) not counted.
    15. The election authority shall question any and all election result inconsistencies, and shall send same back to the Precinct Panel for clarification or correction and resubmission.
    16. Once all precincts have submitted their results, and all results have been accepted, the election authority shall compile, tabulate and certify each elective office winner.
    17. The knowingly giving or manifestation, or the willful intent to ignore same, of false information or documentation during the registration, voting, counting or certification processes shall be met with prosecution to the full extent of the law.

    There's been a lot of talk over the past several voting cycles mostly from Democrats concerning voter disenfranchisement.  It's their way of trying to minimize objective scrutiny of the voter registration process and of voter eligibility in general where a lack of such can lead to votes cast by ineligible voters.  It seems, they never wish to talk about the nullification of one proper vote for each wrongful vote cast.  We do.

    In statistical methodology there are two types of errors that can be made in data collection or analysis; a Type I (alpha) error rejects that which is true, a Type II (beta) error accepts that which is false.  Equating this terminology to voting, an alpha error is to disallow a vote that is made, or would have been made, by an eligible voter; and a beta error is to accept a vote by an ineligible voter.  The point being, some speak of their concern for taking actions preventing the former with the mantra "all votes must count" while seemingly ignoring its' effects on the latter - voter nullification.  Each type of error must be honestly guarded against with equal voracity.  We believe implementation of the fair election process elements above will begin to get us there.

    RA-P9. Focus the Republican National Committee:

    The liberal surrogates of the Democrat Party are not going to take the 2010 watershed elections in stride and reconsider their political views of country and world.  Let us state our thoughts very distinctly, we believe liberals hold an utilitarian view of ethics; that the ends of an action justify the means taken to reach those ends.  Many of the means that liberals will stoop to in the 2012 election process to get President Barrack Obama and others elected will in our estimation range from dirty and unethical to dishonest and illegal.  Republicans and conservatives had better be ready, and to be ready they had better start now.

    A strategic approach to winning elections must differentiate between and focus accordingly those things that can best be accomplished by the coalitions involved.  Presidential and other national candidates for Senate and House can best energize the masses, draw large sums of donations, and use their contributions to contrast their opponents and key issues of the campaign.  State and local candidates can focus on local issues while associating themselves with those in their party running national campaigns and by working with local party representatives in promoting late voter registration and get out the vote drives.  Special interests groups can collect large sums of donations to use in advocation of major issues made prominent during the election cycle.

    The Republican National Committee (RNC) has a unique role to play as it is the only political element that is central, inclusive and permanent.  Central in that it has established staff and volunteers, and resources in every state and county in the union; inclusive in support of a party of national, state and local candidates and a full slate of platform issues; and permanent in that its operations are ongoing from election cycle to election cycle, candidate to candidate.  The RNC has staff, volunteers and resources at the local level with the knowledge and capability crucial to the election process developed through years of service.  They have:

    • Experience with the registration process at the county level,
    • Experience with the voting process at the precinct level,
    • Knowledge of the demographics of their counties, cities and precincts,
    • Knowledge of who and where those sympathetic to republican policies reside, and of those that may need assistance getting to the polls,
    • Ability to coordinate their efforts with those of local party candidates,
    • Working relationships with media outlets available and effective in getting out their messages, and most of all
    • Loyal staff and volunteers, and resources necessary to carry out that which must be accomplished.

    However, with all of this we have a difficult time discerning the tactics of the RNC, we do not detect the type of coherent strategy needed to prepare for the onslaught the liberals will bring to the 2012 elections.  Beyond using their Chairman, other officers, and members to be spokesmen for party nominees, values and platform issues, we believe the RNC and their state and local proxies should preserve their limited resources to primarily concentrate on three missions:

    • Finding good conservative candidates to compete in the Republican primaries or nomination process, providing for a fair competition, and determining their final nominees for each elective office.
    • Running a highly coordinated nationwide get out the vote campaign that synchronizes the energy of their vast membership and volunteers at the national, state and local levels.  Every state and county in the nation should have a central RNC headquarters to lead this effort.
    • Ensuring a fair election process beginning with voter registration in every county, and ending with the final vote counted and results reported in every voter precinct in the nation.

    The financing of individual campaigns can best be accomplished by the candidates themselves.  Issues can most effectively be advocated by third party coalitions.  The RNC can play a vital role by reserving their resources and focusing their energy on operations that aid Republican candidates in whole.  Get out the vote campaigns and ensuring a fair election process are vital ingredients to election victories, and can best be implemented through a central, inclusive and permanent source rather than those fragmented and temporary.

    If the RNC will focus, we will contribute our money and our time.

    RA-P10. Break the Bondage of the Welfare State:

    "The nature of the encroachment upon American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching.  Like a cancer; it eats faster and faster every hour.  The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue.  The people grow less steady, spirited and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity and frugality become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole of society."

    John Adams, 1775, To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay

    Will You Answer the Call?

    Call to Action Page