Founding Fathers and Many Great Americans were Socialists (according to the modern Republican definition of socialism)

Introduction
Our Founding Fathers, most of our greatest Presidents, and many great Americans in our history were in fact Socialists. This is according to the modern definition of Socialism.

The majority of Republicans, Tea Party activists, and conservative leaders today have been throwing around the words “Socialist” and “Socialism” to just about everything. It seems that any idea where the public is allowed equal access is considered socialist. It seems that any activity operated by the government on behalf of the public is considered socialist. Although I don’t want government to manage everything in life, I do believe that some government management and oversight of activities is sensible. Not all government activities are socialist.

In this article I will point out that their modern definition of Socialism is in fact the best of America. I will also point out that every idea embraced by our Founding Fathers and our greatest Presidents would be considered Socialist today - if we use the modern definition of Socialism.

1. “Of the People, By the People, For the People”.

This phrase was stated by Abraham Lincoln in reference to the essence of our country, and yet it would be called “Socialism” by Republicans of today.

The Republican leaders today don’t believe that the people have a right to participate in democracy; rather, most Republicans believe in representatives (not direct democracy) who perpetuate the cycle of benefiting the elite at expense of the people.

The Republican leaders of today would rephrase Lincoln’s statement of America as “Of the elite, by the bribed representatives, and for the corporations.” Anything else would be considered socialism.

Yes, by modern definitions, Abraham Lincoln’s version of America would be called socialist.

2. The public library system
In the public library system, books are owned collectively and shared among the community for free. This concept sounds like Socialism! And the library is managed by a local government entity, paid for by tax dollars. Clearly this is a socialist concept! 

Do you know who created the public library system? Benjamin Franklin. Ben Franklin - that entrepreneur, inventor, witty statesman, and paragon of colonial America – he created the public library system. Was his creation of the public library system a socialist idea?

Also, here is a side note worth thinking about: The library system would probably not be created today. People would claim infringements on intellectual property. Yet Franklin made his fortune as a newspaper publisher and writer – intellectual property in printed form – and yet he had no problem with the idea of sharing information through a public library. This is something to think about when similar ideas are being discussed today.

3. Public schools
If conservatives had their way they would abolish all public schools. Only the rich would be educated because they could afford to send their children to private schools, or could afford to have a parent stay home for home schooling. Furthermore, conservatives have told me -very specifically - that teaching students practical skills is a socialist idea!

Do you know who created the public school system? Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed that all towns must have a public school. The public schools were essential for all Americans to learn about civics, to develop good character, and to learn practical skills. Oh yes, in modern terms, Thomas Jefferson would be considered a socialist.

4. Public Parks
Parks are areas of land set aside by the government for the people to enjoy. These parks are paid for by taxes or use fees, and managed by a government entity. This concept sounds like socialism to many people today.

When discussing parks and natural spaces today, many conservatives would rather see all land be used for private industry, and allow large spaces to be owned only be the wealthy. Yet the land belongs to the people before it belongs to any business. Therefore all land is public land until the people decide to use it or sell it for another purpose.

The first major proponent of national parks was President Theodore Roosevelt. He saw the beauty of parks and believed Americans would benefit by being in the rugged outdoors more often. Roosevelt was a Republican, and born into wealth. Yet if you believe that setting aside land for public use is a socialist idea, then you also must believe that Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist.

5. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Teddy Roosevelt also performed some other acts which modern Republicans would consider socialist. For example, Roosevelt created the Food and Drug Administration (a government entity which regulates a private industry). Modern Republicans would see this as an intrusion on private industry (and call it socialism), yet most other Americans would view this as a sensible move which protects the general public.

6. Printing Money

The Constitution of the United States authorizes the federal government to print money. This is contrast to the states or private banks printing money (which was common in those days). In modern times, Republicans would see this as socialism. Why should the federal government do something that private banks or individual states should do? Republicans today believe that banks should run free, and in this case it would mean printing their own money. Republicans would say that giving the job of printing money only to the federal government is a socialist proposal. I would argue that this is one task which is best left to the federal government, and is not socialism. And if you do think it is socialism, then all those men at the Constitutional Convention were socialists for having ideas such as these!

7. The People versus the Financial Elite

The Occupy Protesters are protesting one common sense idea: that the financial elite who have stolen money, damaged businesses, and destroyed the economy have not been effectively taken to justice. The Occupy Protesters, and the 99% of the population the protesters represent, simply want financial criminals punished, money returned to proper owners, and no more taxpayer money given to these crooks (who use the people's money perpetuate their crimes).

And yet, these ideas are called “Socialist” by Republicans and Tea Party Activists. In their minds, the ways of Mitt Romney, the Rockefellers, and Wall Street are the ways of America. Anything else is “Socialism”.

However, let us go back to the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. Prior to Jackson taking office, there was a national bank which was granted almost unlimited powers by the federal government. This bank was run by the financial elite of the day. Those elite used the bank to support political candidates they liked, and to refuse loans to anyone they didn’t like. Jackson believed this national bank was inherently un-American.

Andrew Jackson was a man of the people. He grew up as an ordinary American, without special privileges, and he despised any actions which benefited the elite at the expense of the people. Therefore Andrew Jackson fought this national bank with all his tenacity. Jackson eventually defeated the financial elite and their national bank – which was a great triumph for democracy.

In a series of speeches and letters he said things very similar to what Occupy Protesters are saying today. Jackson also complained that the rich and powerful should not have more influence in Congress than the average hard-working citizen, merely because those wealthy individuals can afford lobbyists and are able to take the personal time to influence Congress.

Such talk and actions from a President today would be called “socialist” and “communist”. I prefer to call it “democratic” and “egalitarian”.

8. Clean Water, Equal Access to Water

Water is fundamental necessity, and the person who controls the water controls society. Wars and feuds throughout history have been started over adequate water supply. Therefore equal access to water is essential. Yet to hear the conservative leaders talk about it, ensuring an adequate supply of water is another socialist idea.

Under common law (as well as federal law and in every state law), no one is allowed to hoard water, to prevent people downstream from using water, or to pollute the general water supply. Anyone who lives downstream is allowed equal access to water. In addition, every citizen in a metro area can be ensured that community drinking water meets a minimum level of health standards.

Over the course of American history, there have been hundreds of civic leaders throughout the nation who created and served on government agencies which manage water supplies. These Americans have ensured that people in their region have equal access to water, enough water to meet their needs, and water that is safe to drink. If you believe that it is a socialist idea for a government body to manage water on behalf of the people, and to ensure adequate water supply for the future, then you must concede that these numerous civic leaders were socialists.    

9. Transportation

Whenever public transportation is discussed, many conservatives adamantly state: “public transportation is a socialist/communist agenda – it is a plan to keep the people controlled and confined”. This is one on the most common, and longest held, charges of “socialism” or “communism” I have heard over the years. It is also one of the craziest.

Let us take a look at another type of transportation system (and one approved by the conservatives): the Interstate Freeway System. These are highways which are built and managed by the government (rather than private land owners) for the public to use (oh my – the public!) rather than selected individuals (such as the elite). And it is “Free” for the public to use - the word Free is even in the name! (taxes yes, but no tolls, so daily travel is free).

Do you know who the visionary was behind the Interstate Freeway System? None other than President Eisenhower, a Republican! The man who fought Nazis (the German socialists) in the 1940s, and then communists in the 1950s, was also the man who developed this “socialist/communist” idea of "transportation which benefits the public"!

If public transportation systems like rail and buses are socialist ideas, then freeways and public roads which also benefit the public are equally socialist. And so is Eisenhower.

Therefore, the next time you hear any proposal for an effective transportation system, think twice before dismissing it as a nefarious plot.

Conclusion

Either all of these acts are examples of socialism, or none of them are. Either all of these great Americans were socialists, or none of them were.

If you believe that the actions and views of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower were socialist, then you must concede that socialism is a good thing. You must concede that socialism is part of the American Character. You must agree that Americans should embrace socialism, fully and openly.

Otherwise, you should stop calling every proposal related to democracy, equality, and the good of the people as being part of a socialist or communist agenda.

Mark Fennell
Feb 12, 2012

During My First Term as President I Will…

If elected President, by the end of my first term I will do the following:

a) Secure our borders with an effective physical barrier, and deport at least 25% of illegal immigrants.

b) Prosecute at least 60% of financial criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and return all stolen money to proper owners.

c) Create a Small Business and Middle Class Task Force, which will evaluate the effects of all laws and regulations on those two key segments of society, as well as make recommendations to the appropriate officials.

d) Make the financial summaries of government operations easier to access, obtain, and interpret, along with an extensive set of links for more detailed information on each topic.

e) Persuade Congress to pass a series of legislative reforms which will:

1. Provide more oversight of the financial sector.

2. Establish significant restrictions of allowable financial transactions.

3. Restrict foreign ownership of federal, state, and municipal government operations, including infrastructure, security, and bonds.

4. Return authority of most government activities to state and local regions.

5. Increase personal freedoms and allow more personal choices for individuals.

These are the goals I will achieve in my first term as President of the United States.

I am ready to run for political office

I am ready to run for political office. I am emotionally ready, mentally ready, and physically ready.

I have become an expert in government agencies, civics, and the Constitution. I know more about government operations than most people who work in the government. I know more about the Founders beliefs and legal history than most Constitutional scholars.

I have developed several detailed solutions for specific issues – and I know my reforms will work because I have the insight and experience. I have also refined my ideas over several years. My plans will work.

I also have something many candidates don’t have: integrity. I will not be changing my positions just to make someone like me. I will stick to my beliefs and my plans because they are what most Americans want.

I have been involved in politics, government, and community affairs for over 20 years. I am very ready to implement my reforms and solutions. I am ready to fight the giant squid known as the federal government, and free the people from their oppressors.

I am ready to be in political office.

Free Market versus Capitalism

Introduction

The Free Market is NOT the same as Capitalism. They are two very different concepts.

We must make the distinction because capitalism needs to be restrained, while the free market should be encouraged to flourish.

The Free Market is the system where things happen. People do things. People create things. People provide needed services for other people.

In contrast, Capitalism is merely a method for moving money around. No goods or services are created using Capitalism (unless the capitalists specifically invest in goods and services). Capitalism in itself does not create products or create jobs.

The Free Market

The Free Market is the best economic system available. The Free Market is a system where people create goods and services, using their passion and pride. The people then exchange those goods and services for other goods and services.

We commonly think of the goods and services being traded for money, but that is not necessarily an absolute in the free market system. People can exchange goods and services for other goods and services. For example: I will repair your barn if you give me a bushel of wheat. Or, I will provide the meat if you prepare the meal.

All that matters in the Free Market system is that there is an exchange where both parties get something they need, by providing something of value to the other person. The only reason money is involved is because money is a standard unit from which to compare the price of goods and services.

Remember, the Free Market is the system where things happen. In a Free Market people do things. People create things. People provide needed services for other people.

Capitalism

Capitalism is vastly different from the Free Market. Capitalism is all about the movement of money. Capitalism has nothing to do with real activity.

In capitalism, money is moved around. Yet no goods are created. No products are made. No services are delivered. It is simply the movement of money.

And that is the inherent problem of the Capitalist system.  This is one of the central problems which has led to the economic situation of today.

Fallacies of the Capitalist supporters

The supporters of Capitalism say that Capitalism does create products and services, because of the investment into the businesses. This is not necessarily true.

First, understand that it is the dedicated people in our nation who create products and services. Capitalism is only one means to fund those businesses. Many successful people have never used Capitalism to grow their businesses.

Second, many of the financial elite in the past 20-30 years have used the method of Capitalism for strictly personal gain. They have used Capitalism as a method to defraud investors and to destroy businesses, while taking large personal profits. So in fact, Capitalism has been used by many financial elitists to destroy businesses and eliminate jobs, rather than to grow businesses and create jobs.

Capitalism is but one tool in the Free Market System

Capitalism is not the Free Market. Rather, Capitalism is a tool used in the Free Market system. And Capitalism is not the only tool.

Over the past few years I have meet with dozens of entrepreneurs throughout the nation and the world. All of them are quite successful. Note that every one of these successful entrepreneurs used the Free Market system, yet none of them used Capitalism.

Each entrepreneur created his own business, using his own money, and building it up over time. Small investments led to small profits, which were reinvested into the business.

Many of these successful businesses were created as a partnership, where each person provided some of his own savings, as well bringing his/her unique skills to project. In many cases, the project partners worked for almost nothing until the business became profitable.

There was no capitalism in any of these cases. There were no bank loans, no stockholder investments, and no connections to Wall Street. So you see, capitalism is far from the only tool available to boost prosperity in the Free Market system.

Capitalism as a tool: for good or for evil

Capitalism is a tool. And as with all tools, Capitalism can be used to create or to destroy. Capitalism can create happiness or it can cause harm.

If Capitalism is used as a means to boost the free market, then Capitalism is a useful tool. But if Capitalism is used solely to acquire more money without providing a useful product in return, then Capitalism is very destructive.

Capitalism is a useful tool when used properly. The proper use of Capitalism is to invest money in a business. This money is used to develop new products, to acquire supplies, to hire a skilled team, and to pay for marketing. As the business grows and makes money, some of the profits are given to the Capitalist investor while other profits are put back into the company.

When used in this way, Capitalism helps to create products and services, Capitalism helps a business to grow, and thus Capitalism does help to create jobs.

However, Capitalism by itself does NOT create any of these things. When used improperly, Capitalism will cause great harm.  If Capitalism is used to just move money around without creating a product or service, then Capitalism will destroy a community. If Capitalism is used as a mechanism to defraud others, then Capitalism will cause serious harm (not only to the people who were stolen from, but also to the general economic health of the region).

This is exactly what we have seen over the past 20 years, culminating into the situation we have today.

Focus on Free Market, not on Capitalism

In order to restore some sanity in our economic system, in order to create prosperity in our nation again, we must change our focus. We must place our support on the Free Market, and we must keep Capitalism in its place.

The Free Market is good. The Free Market is the best economic system available because it will obtain the greatest prosperity and personal happiness for the largest number of people.

We must stop thinking of Capitalism as our basic economic system. Capitalism should be thought of as just one tool of our economy, and not the entire basis for our economy.

We must remember that unrestrained Capitalism is NOT a successful economic system. Unrestrained capitalism causes destruction and chaos.

We must remember that Capitalism does not create jobs. It is the Free Market that creates jobs.

Furthermore, it has been proven over the past 20 years that unrestrained Capitalism destroys successful businesses and puts many good people out of work. In contrast, the Free Market economy allows successful businesses to prosper, and allows passionate workers to have good jobs.

We can appreciate that Capitalism, when properly used by responsible parties, can be a useful tool. Yet the serious damage caused by unrestrained Capitalism proves that we must restrict the privileges of the Capitalists.

If we encourage the Free Market to grow, at the rate of the unbridled creativity and labor of the people, while at the same time restraining Capitalism to only legitimate functions, then America will prosper again.

List of General Demands for Occupy Wall Street Movement

Introduction

One of the common complaints the elite make about the “Occupy” movement is that the people are not able to articulate specific demands. Therefore in order to aid the movement it is called upon individuals like myself to offer such a list.

The following is a List of Demands, created on behalf of the people.

We desire that the federal government and the financial elite take appropriate steps based on these demands to bring economic justice back to our nation.

General Demands

In general terms, the people demand the following:

1. The financial criminals who obtained their wealth through fraud and theft must be brought to justice. All stolen money must be returned to rightful owners. All criminals must be punished according to existing law.

2. Government agencies in all jurisdictions must do whatever is necessary to return stolen money to proper owners, to bring the financial criminals to justice, and to protect the people from any future financial crimes.

3. The financial elite must put the needs of the businesses before personal gain. Executives and investors must be dedicated to gradually growing the business over time, rather than being focused on quick profits and large paychecks.

4. The financial elite are obligated to help ensure that communities are economically healthy and that the nation remains prosperous. Personal wealth must not be obtained by sacrificing the general welfare of the communities or the nation.

5. All elected representatives who assisted the financial criminals in committing their crimes must also be brought to justice. These individuals must be replaced with representatives who are more responsive to the people. These representatives may also be charged with crimes as appropriate.

6. The financial elite must never be given any preferences over other sectors of the economy and other economic groups regarding government policy decisions, legislation, or enforcement of existing law.

7. All government money (actually taxpayer money) which was given to businesses as grants, loans, or stimulus must be immediately returned to the government treasury.

8. Wealthy corporations and individuals must pay their fair share in taxes. Those who benefit from the system to the greatest degree are obligated to return some of their profit to that system. Therefore all corporations and individuals who earn a substantial income must pay all taxes at the existing tax rate, without using any of slight-of-hand accounting methods to reduce their tax obligations.

This is our list of Demands. We further add that every elected representative, every government agency, and every member of the financial community take appropriate action to meet these demands.

Amendment on Legislative Process

Overview

The current legislative process has numerous problems, resulting in bad laws being created every legislative session.

The Constitution allows Congress to develop most of its own procedures. Unfortunately, the procedures which the Congressmen have developed tend to benefit the Congressmen themselves (either politically or financially) rather than the citizens.

In order to remedy this situation we need an Amendment. This Amendment will stipulate several specific rules for the legislative process. Each of these rules will help to ensure that the bills being proposed will benefit the people, not the elite.

Summary of Amendment

1. Bills must be shorter than 12,000 words (50 pages).

2. The problem and solution of each bill must be stated clearly.

3. All provisions in the bill must be related to the main topic.

4. Any provision drafted by lobbyists must be made public knowledge.

5. Every Congressman is required to read each bill before voting.

6. Congressmen must be allowed a reasonable time to read each bill, within sensible limits.

7. Filibusters of any type are prohibited.

Note: the full Amendment will be provided below, later in this article.

Reasons for Each Provision of this Amendment

1. Bills must be shorter than 12,000 words (50 pages).

Reason: Most of the bills proposed are ridiculously long. Some bills can be hundreds of pages. A few bills are over 1,000 pages. It takes a long time read such a bill and try to figure out all the possible ramifications. It is also impossible to discuss the details of a bill which has so many provisions.

Therefore, if we mandate that bills be kept to a manageable size, then each bill is easier to read, easier to understand, and easier to discuss.

2. The purpose of each bill must be stated above each major section.

Reason: There are several important aspects to any bill. a) The problem or issue to be addressed, b) the general concepts of the solution, and c) the specific legal language which will make the solution effective. However, the first two are left out of most bills, leaving most people wondering why the bill was needed.

Instead, the beginning of every major section of the bill should have simple paragraphs stating the issue to be addressed and a brief summary of the solution. This will help legislators and interested citizens better address the particulars of the bill.

Furthermore, judges and relevant government agencies can carry out the specific legal provisions more easily, because these officials can refer to the general purpose statements as well as the specific legal wording.

3. All provisions in the bill must be related to the main topic.

Reason: It is very common for legislators to attach provisions to a bill which are unrelated to the topic. The legislators do this to be sneaky: nobody notices those provisions until the bill passes, and then those provisions are technically enacted into law. Furthermore, most of these provisions benefit only a few people, usually political donors or specific industries.

Instead, any provision unrelated to the main topic of the law should be prohibited. All provisions must be discussed openly and honestly.

4. Any provision drafted by lobbyists must be made public knowledge.

Reason: Many bills, in part or in full, are drafted by lobbying groups. This can be a problem because those provisions often benefit only a few industries or socioeconomic groups. The majority of people suffer from a bad law, while only a few people benefit.

Legislators never want to be honest about this, because the lobbying groups are usually important political donors. It is for this reason that any provision written by a lobbying group must be made public knowledge.

On the other hand, some laws written by lobbyists and lobbying groups can be good laws. In fact, I am part of several groups which seek to enact better laws. I discuss ideas with people of similar interests, and I help draft possible provisions myself. Therefore I know that just because a lobbying group suggests a law does not make it inherently bad. It depends on the lobbying group. It depends on the particular proposed law.

Yet in either situation, full public disclosure of provisions written by lobbyists will benefit the general public. All legislators and all concerned citizens will be more fully informed regarding the intention of a law. Everyone will know of all particular groups that are behind the provision (and the people who may benefit personally from it).

5. Congressmen are required to read each bill before voting.

Reason: There is no excuse for a Congressman not to read each bill. Congressmen have only three related jobs: a) read each bill, b) discuss each bill, and c) vote on each bill. (The only other primary job is to communicate with constituents). Anything else a legislator does is not necessary. In fact, I believe that all other actions by a legislator should be done on his own personal time.

However, many legislators do not read the bills. I know, because I have read those bills closely! I have read several bills in their entirety. Then I hear several legislators talk about things in the bill which are in fact not anywhere in the bill!

This happens for every bill I have read fully, and I have read only a few bills in detail for each session. How many other bills are not being read fully by leading Congressmen? This is unacceptable.

The first way to get legislators to read bills is to keep them short, as in provision 1 of this Amendment. The second way is to allow legislators to demand a reading of the bill in its entirety before the main legislative body.

Also, the reading of the bill has a second benefit: legislators are more likely to write shorter bills if they know they will be forced to listen to the reading of each bill.

6. Congressmen must be allowed a reasonable time to read each bill, within reasonable limits.

Reason: Frequently laws are put to a vote before all of the diligent Congressmen have had a chance to read the bills. This is particularly true for larger bills and more significant bills. Therefore diligent legislators must be allowed a reasonable time to read a bill fully before it comes to a vote.

On the other hand, we cannot allow a few legislators to stall the discussion of the bills forever as a political tactic. Limits must be also be set.

7. Filibusters of any time are no longer allowed.

Reason: The filibuster tactic has prevented many bills from being considered.

A true filibuster is reasonable. One person talks for a long time. He does actual labor, for a cause he believes in. However, the virtual filibuster is a sham: a group of people saying “filibuster” and preventing a vote does not require any physical labor, and cannot be allowed as a tactic to stall discussion.

Amendment to Improve the Legislative Process

The following Amendment is submitted on behalf of the majority of citizens in order to create better legislation.

1. Bills must be short

A bill must be no longer than 12,000 words (approximately 50 pages).

Enforcement A: Any committee chairman and Speaker of the House must refuse to hear a bill larger than 12,000 words.

Enforcement B: A committee chairman or Speaker of the House may request that the bill be subdivided and resubmitted as separate bills before allowing the bill to be heard.

2. The purpose of each bill must be stated clearly

The purpose of each bill must be stated clearly at the top of the bill. The purpose of each major section of the bill must also be stated clearly at the beginning of each section.

Each “Purpose Statement” must include the following:

a. Problem: The problem or issue to be solved

b. Solution: Summary of the solution to the problem

c. Safeguards: The safeguards which prevent extreme abuse

These statements will be written in clearly written sentences, no longer than 3 paragraphs.

After a bill has been enacted into law, the Purpose Statements will become part of the Congressional Record. Judges, agency directors, and legal scholars may refer to these purpose statements when administering and interpreting the new law.

3. All provisions in the bill must related to the main topic.

All items in the bill must be related to the main topic of the bill. No provisions unrelated to the bill’s title will be allowed.

Enforcement A: Committee chairmen and the Speaker of the House can refuse to allow a bill to be discussed if there are any provisions unrelated to the primary topic.

Enforcement B: If a provision unrelated to the main topic was slipped in without noticing and the bill is passed, then that provision can be declared void by any federal judge.

4. Any provision drafted by lobbyists must be made public knowledge.

Any provision of a bill which is drafted by a lobbyist or lobbying group must be made public knowledge. Each provision must be labeled with a footnote number, which points to a sentence stating “This provision was drafted by [name of lobbying group].” The Congressman who submits the bill is responsible for providing accurate references for provisions connected to lobbying groups.

Enforcement A: Any Congressman who knows that a provision was drafted by a lobbying group may point this fact out during the discussion of the bill.

Enforcement B: If the Congressman who submitted the bill did not act in good faith and deliberately omitted the facts regarding lobbyist connections to a bill, then the Speaker of the House may refuse to hear the bill.

5. Every Congressman is required to read every bill before voting.

Each Congressman is required to read every page of every bill he will be voting on.

Enforcement: The Speaker of the House can order that the bill be read aloud, in its entirety, before being voted on. If the Speaker makes such an order, a minimum of 75% of Congressmen must be present at all times during the reading, or the bill cannot be submitted for a vote.

6. Congressmen must be allowed a reasonable time to read each bill, within reasonable limits.

Congressmen must be allowed sufficient time to read a bill before voting. “Reasonable Time” will be considered the time it would take an experienced legal professional to read the bill, also taking into account other bills to be read and discussed, and considering that the legislator’s only job is to read and vote on bills.

Enforcement A: If 40% of the legislators believe they have not had sufficient time, those legislators can state a reasonable extension time, and must be granted that time. The bill must be placed for discussion and vote after that date.

7. Filibusters of any kind are no longer allowed.

Filibusters of any kind are prohibited. No filibuster, virtual or actual, will be allowed.

Mark Fennell

9/25/2011

Steps to Control and Reduce Government Spending

Introduction

          I have been studying government operations for 20 years. I have also researched over 8,000 agencies and almost as many government programs. The steps discussed below are based on that knowledge and experience.

If we want to control government spending, then we must do the following:

A. Prohibit corporate welfare

B. Sunset non-essential government programs

C. Cap government borrowing

D. Use trust funds, pay for use and other funding mechanisms

E. Enforce reasonable budgets

A. Prohibit corporate welfare

1. Enact a new law which prohibits giving money to corporations for the purposes of financial assistance due to bad business decisions. All corporate welfare and business bailouts will become prohibited.

2. Immediately call in all money lent out as large business loans or bailouts. Note that banks and other financial institutions demand immediate recall of the loans all the time; it is time our government does the same.

B. Sunset non-essential government programs

1. Make three compressive lists of program categories:

          a. Essential program areas

          b. Non-essential program areas

          c. Constitutionally questionable program areas

          Essential program areas will include services that are vital to the United States government and to the general welfare of the people. Essential services include national defense, airline inspections, and secret service.

          Most other program areas will be considered non-essential programs. This includes most research programs and many social services. These may be very valuable, yet if money is tight these non-essential program areas may need to be trimmed.

          In addition, some program areas are constitutionally questionable. These programs may be useful, but might not be authorized under the Constitution.

         

2. Determine and Approve the Lists

          When determining essential programs from non-essential programs, ask a question every citizen must ask themselves: If I only have $100, and there is no magic money coming from the sky, what are the essential areas I need to spend that money on? And what areas can be crossed off the list if there is not enough money?

          Who makes the judgment on categories? Private civic groups will propose the lists, discussing the three categories among themselves. Congress will approve two of the three lists: essential and non-essential program areas. When Congress approves those lists they have official meaning and applications as described below.

          Members of Congress can propose program areas to add to the lists or move specific program areas among the lists. This can be done during any future legislative session.

         

3. Sunset all Non-essential program areas

          All non-essential program areas will automatically sunset (automatically close) after 10 years.

          We must enact a law with a list of non-essential program areas, and the decree that each of these program areas will be automatically closed after 10 years.

          The only way for any of these programs to continue is for Congress to reauthorize the program. A Congressman must propose the continuation of the program, with persuasive arguments why the program should continue. If reauthorized then the program will continue another 10 years, at which point the program must be reauthorized yet again.

          However, if Congress does not approve then the program will cease to exist. With the program gone, and perhaps the office gone that managed the program, we will have trimmed government spending.

          It is very probable that many of these programs will not be reauthorized. Consider the logistics: First, consider the vast number of non-essential programs. It is impossible for more than a small percentage of these programs to be proposed for reauthorization in any one legislative session. Second, typically less than 10% of bills in any legislative session become enacted into law.

          Furthermore, the proponents of the program must convince their peers why the program is good, how much it will cost, and why the government should pay for it. The opponents will have their chance to disagree and offer their arguments.

          Due to the logistics of passing bills in Congress it is very probable that the program will not be reauthorized, at which point the program will cease to exist. Then multiply this scenario by hundreds of programs. These government programs and agencies will finally be eliminated.

4. Essential programs never sunset

          The essential programs such as military branches and safety inspections will never sunset. Because these program areas are officially defined as “essential program areas” the programs continue to exist without any automatic closing.

          Note that any of these programs can be eliminated with a vote from Congress. There is simply no automatic closing.

5. Eliminate constitutionally questionable programs

          Some programs will be constitutionally questionable. They may be good for the public, but they are not authorized under the Constitution. Eliminating such programs will help keep government spending under control.

          First, civic groups must create a list of constitutionally questionable programs. Note that there will be no official government list.

          Second, during each legislative session a group of Congressmen should propose adding 10-15 of these program areas onto the official non-essential program list. If some constitutionally questionable programs are on the non-essential list, these programs will automatically expire in 10 years. There wont need to be any discussion of constitutionality - the program will automatically cease.

          On the other hand, if these programs are proposed for reauthorization, then the opponents can discuss the constitutionality at that time. The opponents may persuade their peers, and the program will cease to exist.

          Third, during each legislative session a group of Congressmen should propose the actual elimination of some constitutionally questionable programs. To be most effective, select no more than 25 programs. These programs should be the most clearly unconstitutional, and nothing as large as an entire department. Pick off the programs one by one, and let the agencies eventually wither away.

C. Cap government borrowing

1. About the debt

          One of the biggest problems contributing to government spending is the debt. This is money the United States government has borrowed from private citizens and foreign nations.

          The U.S. government should borrow no more than is absolutely necessary, and then pay off that debt as quickly as possible. Instead, the debt continues, and interest on the money borrowed has grown out of control. This must end.

2. Place a cap on interested paid on borrowed money

          Congress must enact a law which states that interest paid on borrowed money will be capped at a certain amount. This will keep the debt at manageable limits.

          Regardless of the amount of loan, or who the money is borrowed from, the United States government should never be required to pay interest that compounds forever. There must be a limit.

          Cap the limit on interest at 3x the loan amount. For example, the interest on a loan of $1,000 will be capped at $3,000, with a total payment of $4,000. Similarly, the interest on a loan of $1 million will be capped at $3 million, with a total payment of $4 million. 

          A limit on interest of 3x the original amount is more than reasonable. The lender gets his money back, plus a large sum as profit.

          If no lender agrees to these terms, then the government shouldn’t be borrowing any money. Remember, the U.S. government is never forced to borrow money. Also remember that the government can learn to live within its income.

3. Borrow only for emergencies and investments

          A government should only borrow money for three reasons: a) national defense during a time of war, b) emergencies such as natural disasters and large populations dislocated, or c) investment in technology or infrastructure which will benefit the majority of the people. Those are the only reasons why a government should borrow money.

          The government should consider its financial operations the same as any business. Businesses live within their income, if they didn’t the business would fail. The United States government can do the same. The government should live within its means most of the time.

          On the other hand, many businesses require investments. These investments often come in the form of business loans. The borrowed money is used to grow the business, then the business makes a profit, and a portion of the profit is paid back to the lender. This is a system which works fairly well.

          Similarly, sometimes government borrowing money can be good as an investment. For example, money can be used to develop new technologies or new modes of transportation. The people can make more money using these technologies and using these forms of transporting goods. That additional income can then be used to pay back the government loan.

Borrowing money is also appropriate for national defense and major emergencies. If major areas of the nation are destroyed then the nation as a whole will suffer and a balanced budget would be meaningless.

          Therefore sometimes it is necessary for the government to borrow money, but this should be very limited. The U.S. government should live within its income most of the time.

 

D. Use alternate funding mechanisms

1. Use other financing methods when possible

          The majority of government programs are funded from one path: individuals and businesses are taxed, the money goes into the general fund, and then the money is distributed by the Department of Treasury to specific agencies.

          Because of this traditional path it can be difficult to control government spending: additional money for a program is often taken from the general pool of funds, rather than spent as originally allocated for each project.

          Instead of the traditional path, we can create different paths for the flow of money. There are several advantages to using different paths for money flow, including: funds are less frequently comingled, and funds are more often spent as specifically allocated. It is also easier to provide financial oversight of these different paths.

          There are several non-traditional paths for financing government agencies. Two of the most common alternate paths are: pay for use, and trust funds.

2. Pay for use financing

          In the pay for use system of financing, the people pay directly for the services. The program is funded fully (or at least majority funded) by people who pay for the services. The money never reaches the general government fund; the program is financially self-sufficient. Furthermore, only those people who use the services actually pay for the services.

          The US Post Office is a classic example. Individuals and businesses pay for shipping services, and these paying customers support the postal service. Toll roads are another example. The drivers who use the toll road are the ones who pay for the construction and maintenance of those roads.

          The USDA grading service is another example: any farmer which wants his milk or beef graded must pay for the service. Thus, this USDA program is self-funded and self-sufficient.

          Any program which can be funded fully or in part through a pay for use system will be independent of the general pool of taxpayer money. The pay for use system should be used whenever possible.

3. Trust fund financing and oversight

          Trust funds, when properly secured, are excellent tools for financial management. Some government programs are already under trust funds. However, trust funds only work when the money is collected separately from other taxes. Also, trust funds must be strictly supervised and inspected to ensure no mismanagement of the funds.

          In a typical trust fund (private or government trusts), money is set aside into a specific account. That money cannot be touched except for the specific purposes stipulated in the creation of the trust, and the money can be distributed only in the specific manner stipulated by the trust.

          In addition, all legitimate trusts have oversight provisions. Someone outside the trust has authority to examine the trust operations and to discipline the manager as necessary if he misuses the funds. Such discipline can include large fines, jail time, and suspended licenses. With these provisions, the money in a trust fund will always be available for the stipulated purpose.

          The government currently has some trust funds. The Federal Highway Administration has a trust fund, collected by fuel related taxes, and is used to maintain roads. The airport system has a trust fund: when you fly on an airplane you pay an airport fee which is then used to maintain the airports.

          Social Security often comes to mind when people think of government trust funds. However, this is not really a trust fund. The money from employment related taxes are supposed to be set aside, as if it were a trust fund, and used only for retirement benefits. However, in reality these funds are comingled with the general fund. The government has used the money to pay for various unrelated programs, which is essentially improper management of the funds. This is a classic example of a bad trust. Instead, a proper trust fund must be created, which is kept totally distinct from the general fund, and managed by different directors. In addition, this fund must be strictly supervised by an independent entity to ensure no future mismanagement of the funds.

          Despite the problems of the Social Security Administration, I believe that many programs can be funded using the trust fund system. Keeping accounts separate will minimize the possibility for comingling. By using a trust fund, the money is more likely to be used for the desired purpose. The money is also more likely to be available when needed.

           

E. Enforce reasonable budgets

1. Eliminate Baseline Budgeting

          Since the 1970s the budget for the US Government has been set with baseline budgeting as a starting point. This is one of the main factors in creating out of control spending.

          In baseline budgeting, the budget for each agency and program is the same as last year’s budget, plus a rate of growth. This rate of growth can be anywhere from 2% to 15%.

          Note that this rate of growth is tacked on regardless of reality. This rate of growth will be tacked on regardless of how much the programs actually cost, the financial burden of the people, or the economic circumstances in the country. Even in the best of economic times, the rate of growth which is added to the agency budgets will usually exceed the rate of economic growth for businesses and individuals.

          Also remember this is the starting point for budget discussions. The increase is automatic. The budget is presumed higher, and it falls upon  the Congressmen to attack these increases, on every agency, every fiscal year. Furthermore, when there are cuts these cuts are only in the rate of growth; almost rarely are there actual budget cuts compared to previous years.

          In order to keep spending under control we must eliminate baseline budgeting. Congress must pass a law which puts an end to baseline budgeting and which prohibits automatic increases in agency budgets. This law will keep government spending under control significantly.

          The budget presented to Congress should start as the same budget as the previous fiscal year. Each agency which desires an increase in funds should send a detailed explanation as to why these funds are necessary. Any desired increases (including rate of growth and additional program expenses) will be considered at that time.

2. Budget should be based on income, not expenses

          The budget for the government should be based on income rather than expenses. Currently the government decides what it wants to spend, then taxes the people accordingly. This process should be reversed: the government should figure how much income it will get, then allocate the expected income to desired programs.

          With the current approach the government spends whatever it wants, and believes that someone will be there to pay for it. Life doesn’t work that way. I would like to have a home in Tuscany and a private chef, but I don’t have the income to do that. I have to be realistic - I must choose my expenses based on my income. The government must do the same.

          How will this process work? First, the government should project the income for the following fiscal year. One way to do that is to look at the last 5 years, watch the trend, and estimate the income for the next year.

          Second, the President (who is essentially the head manager for all agencies) must work with that income amount. All agencies and departments send the President their desired budget as usual. However, if the total desired budget exceeds the expected income, then the President must tell his departments to make cuts. The President must decide on a budget for each department, and then tell each department to make the necessary cuts in order to stay within that budget.

          Third, when the proposed budget reaches Congress this budget should be within the projected income. If not, then Congress can make their own cuts as desired. Congress should never pass a budget which exceeds the projected income.

          As a bonus: suppose that the actual income for the year turns out to be greater than the projected income? Then everyone can celebrate! The extra money can be used to pay down any debt, or be set aside for the future.

          All of this can be made official by passing a series of laws. However, enforcement of these provisions will be difficult. At least with a law in place there is greater incentive for the President and Congress to follow it. The public can also pressure their representatives to adhere to these laws.

         

3. Send Financial Summaries to each home

          I am a strong supporter of sending budget summaries to every home. At the simplest level, each home should be sent a brief financial summary of the U.S. government. This summary would include:

          a. Actual income for the last 5 years

          b. Expenses for each Department for the previous year

          c. Expenses for Congress and Judicial Branch for the previous year

          d. Debt status: amount of debt owed and to whom

          e. Deficit or Surplus: Income minus Expenses = $_____

          These summaries will be short pdf documents, 10 pages maximum, and can be sent as email attachments to anyone who requests the information.

          This short summary will be easy to read, with the important information at a glance. With these summaries the people can get a basic understanding of the government’s financial situation. Then the people can then put pressure on representatives as needed.

Summary

          If we want to control government spending then we must:

a. Prohibit corporate welfare

b. Sunset non-essential government programs

c. Cap government borrowing

d. Use trust funds and pay for use funding mechanisms,

and

e. Enforce reasonable budgets

          Using these tools we can regain control of government spending. Using these tools we can reduce the government to a reasonable size again.

Mark Fennell

August 23, 2011