Ideas to Help America’s Middle Class

There are reasons WHY America's political system is dysfunctional and we want to change
that - We believe the source of ALL of our problems in America is too much money in politics Money influences our Congressional politicians to make decisions FOR special interests which always means AGAINST the Middle Class. Here's one way to help reduce influence money in Washington by attacking the primary cost of elections in the US - make TV and radio stations provide free air time as a condition for them receiving their public license to broadcast. This one element would remove the need for politicians to amass huge war-chests of cash in order to beat lesser financed opponents. Once TV and radio time are free, it's much easier to place a limit on actual spending.; For example, England only allows 100,000 pounds to be spent on elections. We could raise the limit to $1 million here and create an election system in the US where candidates could realistically run against incumbent politicians on an equal playing field. The problem today is that money is the deciding factor of who runs for office and who cannot.

Among countries where democratic elections are the norm, only two fail to offer free television time to national candidates – the US and Russia. This should be an embarrassment to our national politicians but it's not; it's just another example of our misguided institutionalized system of "legalized bribery" that is biased towards rich incumbents and against everyone else.

We MUST reduce the influence of money in politics or our national politicians will never make good decisions based upon what's actually good for America.; They will continue to be paid to vote against the Middle Class. The Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling greatly exacerbated the reality of political influence in America. We believe that ruling will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever decided by the Supreme Court. There are several groups trying to persuade Congress to amend the Constitution of the US in order to overturn the Citizens United ruling and we hope they';re successful. We'd like to see all corporate money banned from politics and a maximum contribution of $1,000 imposed on private contributors.

There are reasons WHY America’s tax system seems unfair and we want to change that - The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned the nation that "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Many of our Congressmen and women would have you believe we can have both, but they don’t fully understand the dynamics of human nature and their opinion is merely wishful thinking on their part. The world is erupting around us because of the inequality the vast majority of humans feel in every country of the world to varying degrees. The simple truth is – powerful interests in every country have molded opinion, laws, tax systems and political influence to favor themselves. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the US tax code that is a patchwork of competing concepts and favorable tax benefits to a wide variety of individual corporations and business interests.

The simple truth is - our tax system favors rich and powerful corporate interests. In the US, EVERY political decision in Washington relating to taxes and money is done on behalf of one or more so called “special interests.” Another simple truth is - we have to decide to restore a more equitable tax system in the US or face increased social unrest as prophesized by Supreme Court Justice Brandeis many years ago.

Our suggestion is - throw away the current US tax code; it’s been modified over the years to help one “special interest” or another with virtually no regard for America’s Middle Class. Here we’ll present some STARTING POINTS for a very progressive flat tax. We fully expect for these numbers to change as they’re refined with input from professional economists. But we think this sort of progressive flat tax is the way to go as long as the Middle Class is given reasonable rates that allows America’s job creators to become stronger.

Progressive Flat Tax for individuals based upon gross income with only two deductions –

Up to $22K - 0
$23K to $30K - 2%
$31K to $100K - 10%               (Most of the Middle Class, based upon income)
$101K to $167K - 15%            (Rest of the Middle Class, based upon income)
$168K to $250K - 20%
$251K to $1 Million - 25%
$1 Million and up -  30%

For personal taxes, no deductions except for:
1st home – can deduct interest and taxes; no deduction for additional homes;
Charities – can deduct cash up to $10,000 (or some other pre-determined amount);
Capital Gains Tax – same as your personal tax; this is a concept that was pioneered by President Ronald Reagan;
Inheritance Flat Tax – 0% up to 1 Million; 10% over $1 Million; 15% over 5 Million;
No deduction for married couples or having children or healthcare costs;

Corporate Taxes
Corporate taxes should also be rewritten with no special loopholes for particular businesses. A tax of 25% has been suggested as a fair tax for corporations without loopholes and perhaps that’s about right. We’re told a corporate tax rate of 25% is the rate in Germany, United Kingdom and Japan. This is an area that will require much research to accommodate competing factors. One thing to mention – we do not mind giving special tax preferences to certain sectors of business (such as manufacturing) that can specifically help to strengthen the Middle Class. In addition, we may support raising taxes on those businesses that send jobs offshore.

There are reasons WHY America’s commodity prices for food and energy are excessively high regardless of supply & demand and we want to change that – In terms of things that the Middle Class MUST buy, there are no more important commodities than food and oil products (energy).  For most of the 20th Century, commodity speculation was curtailed, but in the 1990’s, banks and other financial entities were given the go-ahead to speculate on commodities, such as food and energy with virtually no regulation. The Middle Class buys more food and energy-related products than anyone else in the US, by far. These two categories of commodities directly affect the quality of life of the Middle Class in America everyday and over the past decade, price spikes due to speculation has hurt the Middle Class (and most people throughout the world, for that matter).

Excessive financial speculation in commodities futures markets dramatically increases the volatility of prices for a host of commodities, from food crops like wheat, corn and soybeans, to oil and natural gas, to metals and minerals, and tends to make those prices higher. This damaging speculation has increased dramatically in the last decade, but the problem was brought on by Congressional policy decisions – decisions that can be reversed.

After the Great Depression, several laws were passed to regulate markets in order to prevent another economic collapse. One was the Commodities Exchange Act of 1936, which put limits on speculative traders to prevent them from dominating commodities futures markets. Companies directly involved in agriculture and food distribution could participate in the futures market at will, but outside speculators not in the business of agriculture or food distribution could only purchase 20% of commodity trades. This allowed speculators to still be involved in commodity markets without allowing them to dominate those markets in order to restrict speculative bubbles.

Deregulation and Consequences - These limits were maintained until the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) in 2000. Pressure from speculators and the administration’s predisposition towards deregulation led to changes in commodities laws – changes that, while appearing small at the time, have had profound effects on all commodities, but especially food and energy prices today. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CTFC), which had been created in 1974 to regulate commodity futures, fashioned loopholes that allowed outside speculators to trade unlimited amounts in commodities with almost no oversight or regulation. Speculators were now allowed to dominate commodity markets at will. In the Spring 2012 run-up of gasoline prices in the US, it is reported that 70% of oil futures are being purchased by US banks on speculation.

In a nutshell, we MUST reinstate the features of the original Commodities Exchange Act of 1936 and curtail commodity speculation which today often dominates commodity markets. This is an involved subject and some of you may want to investigate more thoroughly. Here, then is an excellent in-depth report written in 2008 by Michael W. Masters, Portfolio Manager for Masters Capital Management and Adam K. White, Director of Research for White Knight Research & Trading. These two gentlemen are “insiders” in the commodity futures industry and know what they’re talking about as you’ll read - Click here

The bottom line is this – many commodities have an effect on the quality of life of all people around the world, but none so profound as energy and food. We need to restrict the speculation trading of energy and food, and perhaps all commodities in order to give people prices that are not dominated by speculative forces created by short-term market psychology and not REAL supply and demand. If you’d like to learn more about short-term speculative forces on the cost of gasoline, here’s a tutorial from a Khan Academy presentation on the subject - Click here

There are reasons WHY stock and commodity markets have such wild price swings and we want to change that – Computer-generated trades in the stock and commodity markets can create wild price swings due to their sheer mass, sometimes in the millions of trades in a short period of time. This price volatility that can hurt the Middle Class and therefore the US should impose a financial transaction fee (yes, a speculation tax) for all trades on Wall Street and the Commodity Market of 0.1% (or a multiplier of 0.001). This will result in a modest fee of $1 dollar for a stock/commodity trade valued at $1,000.

Individual investors will obviously not feel the tax but it will affect large computer-driven mega-trades that occur millions of times a day and are intended to move stocks (and sometimes markets) by their sheer numbers. These are the trades that can drive stock prices higher or lower regardless of stock valuation or economic rationale. This small tax will help to curtail wild computer-generated stock and commodity price swings that tend to hurt small investors, such as those of the Middle Class.

Other countries are considering imposing Financial Transaction Taxes and by the time you read this, they may already be in place. This tax would be a great way to raise money for US taxpayers while helping to stabilize the stock and commodity markets. Believe it or not, this small tax could raise billions of dollars per year.

There are reasons WHY the financial markets crashed in 1929 and in 2008 and they are the same; we want to change that – Banks have become too big to fail, are speculating with money they don’t have and causing instability throughout the economies of the world. In 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and during a nationwide commercial bank failure and the Great Depression, two members of Congress initiated what is known today as the Glass-Steagall Act. This act separated investment and commercial banking activities, as well as insurance activities. At the time, "improper banking activity", or what was considered overzealous commercial bank involvement in stock market investments, was deemed the main culprit of the financial crash. According to that reasoning, commercial banks took on too much risk with depositors' money. DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

The Glass-Steagall Act protected America’s banking system until 1999 when Congress repealed Glass-Steagall with the establishment of another piece of legislation that bears the names of its authors, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999). This act basically eliminated all post-Depression banking restrictions against interactions between commercial banking, investment banking and insurance activities. Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed banking institutions to provide a broader range of money-making services that banks wanted to get into, including insurance underwriting and other dealing activities.

As we all know, the result has been devastating for America and more broadly, the world. If you want to know specifically who actually initiated the string of events that resulted in millions of American homeowners to lose their jobs, their homes and in many cases, there retirement savings, that would be former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, former Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and former Representative Thomas Bliley, Jr. of Virginia. They should all be ashamed of themselves and beg forgiveness from the Middle Class. At the very least, we sincerely hope they all have trouble sleeping at night.

Here’s an article from Mother Jones Magazine detailing the manipulation of Senator Phil Gramm, arguably the key architect of the Recession of 2008. It also includes mention of his wife, Wendy, Chairwomen of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).It was Wendy who manipulated the CFTC to allow Enron and other energy traders to use derivatives free of “over-burdening” regulations. Soon after manipulating rules to help Enron, Wendy quite her job at the CFTC and went to work for Enron on their Board of Directors. Click here for the complete story. It is disturbing to think about all the lives that have been ruined by the toxic duo of Phil and Wendy Gramm’s manipulation of regulatory rules that benefitted the commodity traders and Wall Street Banks while destroying the lives of so many in America’s Middle Class.

Shame on them.

There are reasons WHY there is so much influence peddling in Washington and one of those reasons is that our Congressional leaders and their staffs want to become lobbyists when they leave their federal jobs; we want to change that – Of 358 members of Congress who left office since 1998, almost 80% have worked as a lobbyist since retirement (info from the Center for Responsible Politics). The real question may be - how many worked as a lobbyist while they were in Congress? Probably most, if not all of them.

Military personnel, elected officials and their staffs must not be allowed to become lobbyists after leaving government service. The possibilities for conflict of interest while they work for the government is just too great (and obvious). One of the rules that Congress has imposed on EVERY FEDERAL AGENCY EXCEPT THEMSELVES, is that nothing that gives the “appearance” of a conflict of interest is allowed. If anyone associated with Congress works with legislation for or against an industry that they eventually go to work for, THAT IS THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Jack Abramoff, the notorious lobbyist that went to jail for his illegal activities, has painted the correct picture that Congress is bought and paid for in a variety of ways by campaign contributors. But many Congressional staffers and congressmen/women help corporate interests while they are in government and then take jobs with those same corporate interests or their surrogates, the lobbyist industry. It just has to stop if America is ever to have truly legitimate representation as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson and the Founders.

We absolutely have to curtail this revolving door with legislation that prohibits federal employees from ever becoming lobbyists. If you want to grow up to be a lobbyist, don’t work for the federal government; it’s as simple as that.

There are reasons WHY corporations that are making billions of dollars selling products in the US or using our natural resources do not pay any taxes here; we want to change that – The US taxpayer is getting screwed by our own US corporations setting up “headquarters” in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or wherever in order to avoid paying taxes. They do business in the US and other countries, but since their headquarters is an office outside the US, they don’t have to pay taxes here.

Our politicians have allowed US and international corporations to do business in the US in some cases without paying any taxes here. And these corporations use our common infrastructure including roads, law enforcement, firefighters, utilities, government, etc. And if corporations do not pay tax here, US taxpayers are the only other source of taxes here. I realize that many of you reading this have a minimal-tax ideology, but the reality is – the US needs a certain level of tax money and there are only two sources – business and taxpayers. PICK ONE!

Admittedly, this is a complicated issue and that helps perpetuate the absurd situation that companies such as General Electric or Exxon-Mobil may not pay their fair share of taxes regardless of their profits. We will investigate this issue and bring in experts in order to devise legislation that is fair and equitable to corporations and to America. Here is an excellent report written by Seth Hanlon in 2011 that describes another part of this issue: offshore tax deferral - Click here. Offshore tax deferral encourages companies to use accounting techniques to record profits offshore, even if they keep actual investment and jobs in the United States. This explains why U.S. corporations report their largest profits in low-tax countries, though clearly that is not where most real economic activity occurs.

Bain Capital has been in the news in 2012 as the former employer of Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Bain is headquartered in the Cayman islands for several reasons, but one is so foreign investors can contribute to Bain’s investments without paying US taxes. What this means is Bain is helping foreign investors screw the Middle Class of America. We don’t care if a corporate headquarters is in the Cayman Islands or Luxembourg, if they want to do business in America, they should have to pay tax here, as well. Period.

There are reasons WHY practically none of the international ships traveling here to do business are registered in the US and we want to change that – Shipping companies have been given the opportunity to do business in the US without paying the normal fees associated with doing business here. Shipping companies can registered their ships in the Marshall Islands or some other obscure location with low fees and no restrictions on safety and come use US territorial waters as if the US territorial waters were a “free travel zone.”

Well guess what – THE FREE RIDE IS OVER. We're stupid if we do not force US shipping companies (and international shippers, as well) to pay US registration fees. And it looks as though the lax safety regulations of the Marshall Islands may have contributed to the BP oil disaster by not requiring a knowledgeable decision-maker supervisor to be in charge during the oil drilling work (as would be required under US registered shipping regulation). This is not just about saving money. Eleven good men died on the Transocean drill ship perhaps unnecessarily because our politicians wanted to help their shipping company special interest buddies save a buck. Never again.

There are reasons WHY US Taxpayers do not receive royalties from our technological achievements funded with US taxpayer money and we want to change that – US taxpayers pay for research in a vast array of areas. And unlike private investors that fund the same kind of research, US taxpayers do not generally receive anything as a result of funding successful research that results in the creation of products that make money. This is totally wrong.; If research is being funded by US taxpayer money, then we should receive a royalty from the commercial sale of products based upon that research. It’s as simple as that.

Our politicians in Washington have devised a system that US taxpayers-funded research money is just given away freely without the possibility of creating a benefit for the funding source – the US taxpayer. It’s unbelievable. Politicians will tell us “the benefit to the US taxpayer is the use of the technology or product.”

Well that’s not enough!; That’s not how private investors think and why should US Taxpayers. Receiving monetary benefits from our taxpayer-funded research is way overdo. Simply put, engineering technology, pharmaceutical drugs and everything else created with US taxpayer funding should generate a royalty for US taxpayers if we paid for the research that created a product that makes money.
Let’s look at just three products:

a) US taxpayers paid for the creation of the Internet. Imagine if just $1 was added to the cost of every device that can connect to the internet today as a royalty to the US taxpayer.

b) US taxpayers paid for the research and equipment to create the global positioning system (GPS) that today the world enjoys for free. Imagine if just $1 was added to the cost of every device that can connect to the worldwide GPS system as a royalty to the US taxpayer.

c) US taxpayers routinely pay for research in the Pharmaceutical industry through the National Institute of Health and some of that research results in blockbuster drugs. And yet US taxpayers do not receive a royalty from the worldwide sale of those drugs. In fact adding insult to injury, US taxpayers usually PAY MORE for the drugs that we, ourselves, helped fund because the Pharmaceutical industry has convinced our national politicians to prevent drug prices from being “negotiated” by Medicare. The US taxpayer should be PAYING the LEAST for drugs created with US taxpayer funding, not PAYING the MOST.

The bottom line is this - Politicians are spending our money and not asking for anything in return. Doesn’t anyone in government acknowledge that our tax money pays for businesses to make money and we don’t even receive a “thank you” in return? Anyone?

The US is truly the military of the world now, but we don’t receive payment for our military support funded with US taxpayer money; we want to change that – Before the US entered World War II, we provided much need war machinery to England towards the war effort. But what most people don’t realize is that we didn’t give it away for free. We charged the British for our equipment even though the British was in a crises mode. Today, our politicians are more than willing to go to war for free and not worry about how that war effort is going to be paid for. Some US Congressional politicians (referred sometimes as “hawks”) are almost eager to recommend going to war and do so routinely. They love to rattle those sabers that are young sons and daughters must wield on our behalf. Most of these politicians have not actually been to war themselves, of course. One wonders if President Bush and Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had actually been in combat operations in their younger years if they would have been so eager to invade Iraq. We think not. These three politicians were completely naïve and unaware of the complexities, confusion and challenges that every war presents. And they were the sole decision makers.

In the first Gulf War, US taxpayers paid for our military to drive Sadam Hussein’s Iraqi military forces out of Kuwait. But the US taxpayer wasn’t reimbursed for the cost. And Kuwait is a RICH COUNTRY with significant oil reserves. The reality is Kuwait was probably slant drilling for oil under their Iraqi border tapping into oil reserves under Iraq, so they may not have been completely without blame in this border dispute. But Hussein was a self-absorbed madman who routinely made bad decisions and invading Kuwait was just one of many.

We can understand invading Rwanda or the Sudan without payment on humanitarian grounds (which we never did to stop the genocides) but helping a RICH country like Kuwait for free? Why? Imagine if we said “yes, we’ll help you defend yourself, but we want a 25% discount on all oil we purchase from OPEC for the next 20 years? Wouldn’t that have changed the dynamic of international oil prices and most likely, US economics?

The US now has almost 500 military bases around the world, outside of the US. Are all these bases necessary to defend ourselves? The answer is NO. Most of these bases are there to give the US a presence to intimidate world powers and to encourage host governments to continue being friendly to US business interests.  These are similar reasons why the Roman and the British Empires had bases all over their world too. And that didn’t end up very well for them now did it?

Well, it’s a waste of money and it’s unsustainable and most of those bases do not help to protect the US. We need to close a high percentage of these bases (perhaps as high as 80% or about 400 bases) and bring our troops and that money home. That still leaves 100 bases outside the US around the world. That’s still far more than any other country on Earth and should certainly be enough.

Healthcare and education are two of the significant costs that are hurting America’s Middle Class and we want to change that –

Healthcare - We fully realize that some believe that a single-payer health plan for America is “socialized medicine, but for-profit healthcare insurance paid by employers has been a primary problem for America’s Middle Class and small businesses that take the brunt of paying for healthcare. Before recent legislation, healthcare providers could terminate coverage if their subscribers got sick (who in the world would agree that is a good idea?), could refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and there was no restriction on “administrative” fees added to the normal costs of doing business. Terminating coverage if subscribers got sick was justification alone to warrant change to America’s healthcare system. So-called Obamacare has changed all three of these issues and should be given credit for that. Other aspects of Obamacare are not so clear-cut and we’ll wait until its costs are fully understood before we jump on the bandwagon to cheer for the full legislation.
The mandatory buying of coverage is something that is probably worthwhile since it will help pay for overall healthcare costs instead of relying on the Middle Class’s healthcare costs to pay for those that are not insured. Someone pays for everyone who gets sick and goes to the emergency rooms of local hospitals. Healthcare is not free so pretending that the Middle Class can pay into a system whose costs are influenced by un-insured people is disingenuous and shows a willingness to burden the Middle Class with everyone’s healthcare costs. We must get car insurance to drive in America in case we have an accident and healthcare insurance should have the same justification.

Education – In all other developed nations of the world, college-level education is either inexpensive or free. In the US, banks exploit students with exorbitant interest rates and fees. On average, college students graduate in the US with debt of $25,000; it’s absolutely a disgrace. We believe student loans should be no-interest loans. Therefore, we’ll support whatever system seems appropriate to make student loans no-interest.

In addition, there should be ample grants to encourage students to go to college in the first place. A college education benefits everyone in America and allows more people to enter the Middle Class. Our national priority should be to encourage a college education or as an alternative, trade schools that actually teach skills needed in the workplace. It was a belief of Thomas Jefferson that education should be free in America to insure an educated populace that would make good democratic decisions. We absolutely agree!

Unfunded wars have contributed greatly to the US debt and we want to change that – This idea would make it mandatory that taxes be raised to pay for all future uses of US military. This would avoid the significant debt that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have accrued to America. Conservatives love to blame the Obama Administration for running up debt, but the reality is a significant portion of that debt was created by our two wars.; Blaming the next Administration for costs created by the former Administration is disingenuous and meant to deflect criticism away from the real causes of our debt.

Conservative politicians want to reduce government spending (and the national debt) by reducing support entitlements for the Middle Class and Lower Income segments of the US population. That’s a valid point of view perhaps, but let’s be consistent – did any of those same politicians care about the deficits that would be created by the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is NO. It’s amazing to us that politicians look toward so-called entitlement programs to reduce America’s debt but are willing to go to war anytime anywhere without caring about the debt it will accrue. If a war is necessary, then let’s raise taxes to pay for it instead of raising the debt ceiling and then blaming the next Administration for it.

The US government is just too big and we want to change that – Let’s reduce the size of government and let’s start by reducing the number of elected officials in the House of Representatives! Many Washington politicians, especially in the House of Representatives, talk constantly about “reducing the size of government.”& We agree with them so much that we’d like to start with them! Currently, there are 435 elected members of the House. We think that number is too high and should be reduced by about half (50%). It’s obvious to us that the sheer number of members in the House adds to the dysfunctional discourse that the US Congress is now famous for.

Does anyone really think that we need 435 members of the House of Representatives in Congress? Reduce the number of the House by half and no one will notice (except, of course, the House members themselves). For those states that now only have one Representative (Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Delaware and Vermont) obviously their number would remain the same.

Congress has created many rules regulating everyone who works for the Federal Government, except themselves; we want to change that – Congress has exempted themselves from almost all of the conflict of interest rules and regulations that they created and now impose onto the Executive Branch (the President), the Judicial Branch (federal courts), all Federal Employees and the Military. In fact, Congress has imposed hundreds of rules and regulations for every agency throughout the Federal Government with the one exception of THEMSELVES. This is total hypocrisy and should be changed immediately.

Trade Agreements have been a major reason why manufacturing jobs have left the US and we want to change that – As it turns out, “free” trade is not really free. When the US trades with countries with no (or very low) tariffs, lower labor costs, non-existent environmental rules and lower taxes, it encourages our manufacturing base to move outside the US. And, of course, that';s exactly what has happened over the past 30 years. In fact, during the decade 2000 - 2010, the US lost over 50,000 factories representing millions of good Middle Class jobs. Adding insult to injury, companies based in the US can write-off expenses associated with closing factories here and re-opening them outside the US. Our trade agreements have certainly helped international business, but at the expense of America's Middle Class. In economic terms - we're consuming our own for short-term profits. It';s insane and here's the result -

After World War 2, US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) consisted of 70% Manufacturing and 20% Services;

In 2012, US GDP consists of 76% Services and 12-15% Manufacturing;

One important aspect of a country losing its manufacturing jobs is that when they go, other types of jobs leave as well. As manufacturing go, so does research & development and soon after, innovation.; R&D is closely related to manufacturing so it generally must be geographically close to the core manufacturing areas. Economists and politicians that think the loss of manufacturing jobs in America is necessary for a global economy and just a by-product of valuable “free-trade” agreements, are missing the big picture; and if allowed to continue, this mentality is undoubtedly the death-knell for America's Middle Class and America's position in the world economy.Here is an excellent op-ed piece written by a founding dean of Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences that describes some ramifications of losing manufacturing jobs in America and what they mean to the US - Click here.

Our trade agreements must be changed to even the playing field to support America's manufacturing base and our Middle Class. If we lose our manufacturing base completely, we'll continue to shrink our Middle Class and that is simply unacceptable. This a complicated topic that will require much research to come up with specific legislation to accommodate all competing interests. But if tariffs are the only solution, make no mistake - we will support targeted tariffs to protect US-based manufacturing and the Middle Class. We have to level the trade playing field again.

Today, large retail stores may not sell any products manufactured in the US and we want to change that – We think something between 10% and 20% (on average) might be a good percentage of products that must be manufactured in the US on average for large retail stores in the US (or their products contain 10% to 20% of US made components on average). The US Government already has these kinds of requirements for some of the products they purchase and when these Government rules are implemented, they often require 50% of components to be made in the US. This minimum manufacturing percentage would not have to be mandatory, as the federal government could give a tax break for those retail stores complying with a pre-determined percentage.

The Middle Class needs both Medicare and the availability of the US Postal Service, yet both have been greatly hurt by restrictive and inappropriate Congressional mandates; we want to change that –

Medicare - Medicare Part “D” was a prescription drug entitlement providing pharmaceutical drg cost benefits that have helped all Americans who are on Medicare. However, it was enacted without being paid for and consequently this has significantly increased US debt. It also included a very strange “gift” to the Pharmaceutical industry by mandating that Medicare administrators could not negotiate drug prices and had to pay full price for all pharmaceuticals purchased. This provision has caused Medicare to waste money and to look more inefficient than it should.

Some have said this provision was intended to make Medicare look bad and therefore was a “poison pill” type of legislation. Whether it was a “poison pill” or not, not being able to negotiate drug prices as the Veterans Administration and other healthcare entities can do, is absolutely wrong and must be changed.

Postal Service – Another so-called “poison pill” was added by Congressional mandate that has severely affected the US Postal Service. This provision makes the Postal Service pre-fund 75 years’ worth of employee health benefits in a 10 year period (starting around 2007). Because of this extraordinary cost, the US Postal Service is planning to close 4,000 local mail facilities and lay off as many as 100,000 Middle Class postal workers.

It seems absolutely insane to us that this is happening, especially now when the country is trying to dig itself out of the recession of 2008. We believe the US Postal Service, created by one of the Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, is a fundamental institution of the US that is necessary for a functioning country. The term “poison pill” appears to be appropriate to describe this Congressional mandate since it is unique and obviously hurts the Postal Service’s ability to pay its bills without drastically reducing its costs and service, while raising its prices. We would agree that reducing mail delivery to five days a week could be a realistic way to curtail postal costs, but that wouldn’t come close to paying for the pre-funding of 75 year’s worth of employee health benefits.

This “poison pill” needs to be terminated and the US Postal Service given good direction to allow it to balance its books.

In 2011, the US become a net exporter of oil products and the price of gasoline has done nothing but gone up; we want to change that – International oil companies extract petroleum from US lands and sell some of it for domestic consumption in the US and sell some in the international markets. The quantity of oil extracted from US lands has increased dramatically over the past decade and in 2011, the US had to import only 45% of the oil used domestically. But in 2011, US oil production was sufficient to provide ALL the oil products used in the US.

And yet, in 2011 the US still imported almost half of the oil used domestically. Why? Because international oil companies don’t care if the oil they extract from US lands benefits US consumers. The price they sell for domestic consumption is the same price that international markets pay (with all the international speculation added to the price), so there’s no real benefit to US consumers if gasoline and other oil products sold here come from California or Saudi Arabia. When one looks at how US oil is extracted and sold internationally, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that the US may be wasting its oil reserves to primarily benefit oil company short-term profits. That sounds un-American to us.

The concept of “Drill, Baby, Drill” appears to be simplistic rhetoric that’s naive, at best and proposed by those who primarily want to support the extraction of US oil reserves by international oil companies. What is it doing for us? The Keystone pipeline is a good example. There’s already a pipeline from Canada to the US where domestic refining takes place in and near Saint Louis, Missouri. But proponents want to bypass the Saint Louis refineries and transport the petroleum to the Gulf of Mexico because those Texas refiners sell their petroleum products on the international market. It’s a good deal for the oil industry but unfortunately does little for US consumers, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

The bottom line is this – US oil SUPPLY should satisfy US oil DEMAND first before exporting is allowed. Oil should be considered a “strategic commodity” just as India considers cotton. In 2012, India banned the export of cotton because international cotton prices were rising and hurting the ability for Indian citizens to buy clothing which, in turn hurt the clothing manufacturing industry. The Indian national government looked upon its citizens and domestic clothing industry more important than giving cotton farmers the absolute highest prices on the international markets. In other words, the Indian government put its citizens above the interests of cotton farmers to maximize profits. Shouldn’t US oil reserves be considered as important to the US economy/citizens as cotton is to India? Would our politicians even think of trying to protect us from international oil company speculative pricing? Sadly, we think not.

We want US oil to be used for US citizens FIRST in order to stabilize oil prices since we’re all affected by the price of gasoline and other petroleum products. We will explore ways to make that happen.