Candidate's Views

     Robert E. "Bob" Kinford is not your ordinary politician. I have worked for most of my life on ranches an in feedlots as a working cowboy. Like many Americans I am fed up with the great American Con game called politics. Unlike the other candidates, I actually work for a living and know what it is like to be on the lower side of the American social classes. Unlike the other candidates, I write my own speeches instead of reading what others have written for me on a teleprompter. Unlike the other candidates, everything you read here was written by me and not some PR person making big bucks to make me sound like you want me to. When I travel it is in public transportation and not a chartered jet or limo. I currently work on a ranch out of Van Horn, Texas, and live on the ranch with my wife Cathleen "Catie", and son five year old son Dakota.
Reasons For Running    National Health Care   The Economy   Immigration / Illegal Aliens

Energy  The Environment   War on Terror  Taxes   How to Win Back Our Government!

Reasons For Running

    Like many Americans, I am disgusted with politics as usual. I cannot believe the audacity of the current field of Presidential candidates. How can any of them assume they are in touch with the average American? When was the last time any of them had to worry about making their rent or mortgage? When was the last time any of them worried if they were going to be able to afford to drive to work? Do any of them worry about receiving adequate medical care? The fact is that none of them has to worry about the same things the average citizen does.
 
    In order to make the changes needed in our government to permanently stabilize our economy, to have an affordable medical system, to have actual trade with other countries, we need to clean out the career politicians. This must be a grassroots level guerrilla political machine straddling lower and middle income America. We must think outside of the Washington fog and realize that our government is supposed to be run by us, the ordinary citizen. We must take advantage of the tools of technology this day has provided us. 

     In my view, our politicians are no more than prevaricating elocutionists telling us what they think we want to hear in order to keep (or acquire) their desired office.  Rather than write their own speeches they have speech writers to make them seem more intelligent. Rather than show their real persona, they are marketed by campaign mangers much like a new snack food or computer game promoted by a New York City advertising agency.
 
     These prevaricating elocutionists make empty promises of what they are going to do for us, hoping we will buy into their “vision” of how things should be. If they really believe that they can follow through with their promises, I can only assume they are in their own little egotistical world wherein they are omnipotent. 
I’m not deluded by such visions of personal grandeur. Anything I would like to accomplish would have to be approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate. In other words, the prevaricating elocutionists running for all offices are doing nothing more than packaging themselves up like a Hostess® cupcake and hoping we buy them. While these prevaricating elocutionists are bombarding us with their empty promises, they are beholden to the big businesses and special interest groups, which are donating them money to run their campaigns. With campaign contributions for some candidates running over the $100,000,000 mark the run for President has gone from who is the best qualified to who can put on the best dog and pony show.

    In essence, it has come to the point where we are voting for the lesser of two evils. We can vote for the biggest liar or the best liar. However, we can change things, and that is why I am running. To make a real difference in the way our elections are run and to bring the government back to the people. What you read is written by me. What I say is what I think. I’m not just a marionette of a public relations puppeteer. I might not have any experience in Washington, but I do have to worry about the things the rest of you do.

     As I said, I am not deluded by visions of grandeur. I realize I have about as much chance of winning this election as a three-legged mule would have of winning the Kentucky Derby. In today’s political climate, I would probably be assassinated if it even appears I might win. If that be the case, why run?
    Because the only way for the people to regain control of the government is for someone to step up and do it. The founders of this country framed our government so that We the people are allowed to make the changes we deem necessary to govern ourselves.  We need to send a message to Washington, loud and clear, that the way of doing business is going to change.

    This opportunity to change our government was guaranteed by the founders of our country with a little document called the Constitution. I don’t know if they still have the requirement, but California used to require passing a course in the Constitution before from graduating eighth grade.  If all states required student to pass this course before graduating high school, perhaps this country would not slip into the politically insensitive abyss we are now in.  
    In Article VI, the Constitution gives us gives us the tools to instigate change. It states:

     The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
     
    The portion of interest to us at this time is:
or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
This means that “We the people” may petition for a convention to amend the Constitution for whatever changes we deem necessary. This would include changes such as setting term limits for the House of Representatives and the Senate.  In order to carry this through, we would need to petition our state legislatures to hold a Constitutional Convention. Later, after examining some of the problems we are facing, as well possible solutions not thought of by the other candidates, I will propose a number of changes which can be implemented by “We The People.”      This campaign will, if nothing else, result in some positive changes and show some different avenues than the ones we are now traversing. It is time to do onto our government before our government does onto us!
  top

National Health Care

     Admittedly, we are in a crisis with health care. How to solve it has been bantered around by our “public servants” for decades and it keeps getting worse with nothing being done. As we listen to “experts” from both sides of the political spectrum on this subject it just gets more confusing. Current legislation caters to the insurance companies and medical profession to the detriment of the public. I’m not inferring that members of the medical profession should be paupers, nor that insurance companies should not make a profit. I am saying that there needs to be a balance. We also need to look at why the cost seems to be so much higher here in the United States than in other countries.

     The cost problems arise from several different areas. Each and every one of our alleged “public servants” in Congress will give you a different reason for why medical costs are so high. The same thing is true if you ask them why drugs are cheaper in Canada or Mexico. Of course their answers are spoon fed to them from their puppet masters in the industry. 
First of all, there are exorbitant prices on drugs which are very inexpensive. The best example I can give is an anti-inflammatory drug called dexamethasone. This is a drug I have personally used in cattle and horses (the same grade used on humans). It is available through veterinary supply houses for the cost of $5.50 for a hundred cc bottle. When our son Dakota was born prematurely, he was administered this drug at a cost of $150 (one hundred and fifty dollars) per cc. This would mean that same $5.50 bottle of the drug would have a cost of $15,000.   What could possibly be the reason for a markup of over 2,000 (two thousand) percent? Could it be corporate greed? Perhaps.

    In 1998 I was living in northern Montana, right on the border of Canada. I had an accident with a grinder that kicked back and hit my knee. It was seventy miles to the nearest medical facility in this country but only twenty miles to a clinic in Canada. Total cost in Canada for the stitches was only $40. In our country going to the emergency room for the same treatment would have been over ten times that.

     Similarly, a tooth extraction in this country can be over several hundred dollars. Jump across the border into Mexico and it is under thirty dollars. In all three cases, the same companies manufacture the drugs used but there is an astronomical difference in prices. Why? Partially red tape, and partially because our government allows it. There is also a conundrum here which raises its ugly head in other parts of our economy.
Regardless of the cost of manufacturing, or where it is manufactured, corporations are charging us more than they do other countries for the same product. I will expound on this more in my views on the economy. For now, let me say that a new vehicle in Canada costs less by the difference of the currency exchange, than it does to buy it in the United States.

    Drug manufacturers claim they must charge more to cover the cost of developing new drugs. This is a good reason to them. To me it sounds like a good excuse. Look at the number of prescription dugs advertised on television and in magazines. They are spending millions, perhaps billions, of dollars on advertising drugs that we should not know exist until our doctor informs us that we need it. The drug companies are spending millions more providing our doctors with free samples to get us hooked onto drugs that probably are not actually safe to begin with.

    Not safe to begin with? Just look at the number of class action lawsuits for drugs which have caused heart problems. Look at the “mild side effects” listed in fine print or spouted off on television ads like an auctioneer at a hog auction. Headaches, dry mouth, diarrhea, upset stomach, anal seepage, bloody noses and insomnia. Often the so called side affects are the very thing you are seeking relief from. How, when you have the above mentioned side affects, can these drugs actually be deemed safe? They cannot be. In essence it seems that the medical profession  and drug companies are in collusion to make as much as they can in an effort to cover the malpractice suits coming later.

    This brings us to medical malpractice which adds billions of dollars annually to our cost of health care. Cost to doctors for malpractice insurance can run for $40,000 to over $100,000 a year. Several things can and need to be done in order to address this problem. First, all doctors should be licensed by the federal government rather than the individual states.  When doctors are found to be negligent, they should be placed on a probation period. If they are found negligent a second time their license to practice medicine would be revoked. By requiring a federal, rather than state, license, these doctors would be prevented from moving to another state to set up practice.

    The second tier in this area would be to prohibit out of court settlements. Insurance companies like to settle out of court because they wind up paying less than they would if a jury found a doctor guilty of negligence. Ambulance chasers like to settle out of court as they can get their percentage of the settlement before anyone discovers their suit is frivolous. If all cases would be forced into court (and filing attorneys forced to court costs when the doctor is found innocent of negligence) we would see a drop in malpractice suits. 

    Of course, insurance companies and attorneys will be against this. Insurance companies will be against it because their cost of losing a case in court is higher than simply settling out of court. Attorneys will be against it because they will no longer be able to settle out of court for cases that should never have filed. However, the bottom line is frivolous cases will be fewer, and doctors who are truly negligent will be weeded out of the system. In the long run, this will lower costs in this segment to the insurance companies which (should) reflect in lower premiums to doctors and hospitals.

    Another factor of insurance cost lies in the fact that professional and trade associations don’t always take advantage in the numbers of their members to provide them with low cost insurance. The cost difference of insuring with a large number of  rather than through a smaller group (or individually) is astronomical. Several years ago, I worked in a large corporate owned feedlot, riding herd health. The corporation had over 80,000 employees. My cost for carrying medical, dental, and vision on Catie and Dakota was only $140 a month. I accepted an offer on a ranch in Texas, which offered more money along with a health insurance plan. The new job, which offered more money, also came with a shock. To cover Catie and Dakota with the same kind of insurance through this smaller company’s insurance jumped to $750 a month. 

    Trade and professional associations often fail to take advantage of this pricing difference. For instance, the National Educator’s Association (NEA) has 3.2 million members and provides no health insurance program. (www.nea.org) Teachers receive their salary from taxpayer’s money. Rather than take advantage of their collective numbers to acquire low cost insurance, each school district procures its own insurance at a higher cost. With a little organization at the top, all school teachers in the country could be receiving health care at a lower cost by coverage through the NEA rather than through their school district. How many other trade and professional organizations could provide the same kind of service, lowering health care premiums for millions more Americans.

Rather than spending billions (and raising taxes to do so) on a national health care program, we could curtail costs by doing several things.
1.    Regulate drug prices to prevent price gouging. This would include assuring that we are being charged no more for a drug here than in other countries.
2.    Prevent the advertising of prescription drugs to the public. Our doctors are responsible for knowing what drugs are available for our symptoms.
3.    Make sure that the drugs being released are actually safe. Side effects such as blurred vision, headaches, and anal seepage are sure-fire clues that the drug is not safe in the long run. Don’t release them until the side effects are no longer there.
4.    Total accountability with medical malpractice claims on both sides of the suit. Whereas settling out of court may be less expensive for the insurance companies in some cases, it promotes frivolous lawsuits and does not weed out incompetent doctors.
5.    License doctors at the federal level rather than state. This would prevent doctors from having their license revoked in one state from merely setting up shop in a different state.
These are things which could, and should be accomplished. However you will never hear any of these solutions being addressed by the other candidates. Why? Because they need the contributions of the medical and drug communities in order to keep from working while telling you how much they have your best interest in mind.
  top

The Economy
K.I.S.S (Keep it Simple Stupid)

    Economists will talk about supply and demand, but what it really boils down to is greed verses need.  Greed is winning and the political prostitutes in Washington are doing their part to make sure it does. Rather than come up with a permanent, greed free solution, they just keep coming up with the same short-term fix. That way, as soon as the economy stabilizes, the big corporations can go on another record-breaking profit binge. The recent billions lost in the mortgage companies is just a symptom of these tactics.

    Credit card companies are probably not far behind. Currently, if you are late (not miss, just late) with a credit card payment your interest rates will go up. In many instances, the interest rate may rise to over 20% and your minimum payment may increase four-fold. When other creditors discover you were late or missed a payment on a bill (other than the one you owe them), they will increase your interest rates because you are a “bad risk.”  I can’t imagine how they came up with the idea of this practice, but it is about as bright as wearing sandals in a snowstorm. If you hare having trouble making a payment, then how are you going to make a higher payment?  I remember when people charging these kinds of rates were called loan sharks, and thrown in prison. Today they are called bankers and are supported by a Congress that does nothing to stop the practice.

    How can we stimulate a fair, greed free marketplace with lending institutions? Simple; set a permanent prime rate at 4% to 5%, combined with a maximum interest rate of 10% with all loans on a fixed rate. On the surface, this may appear to be cutting into profits. Overall will make credit more affordable (and less risky) to the average consumer, resulting in fewer defaults and bankruptcies which translates into less loss and higher profits to lending institutions.

    Buying stock is an investment in a company, or should be. When the market takes a dive, the economists in the government take steps to “stabilize” the market. Of course, par usual for the government, all of their steps are only for the short term. Why don’t they just stabilize the market in a way which rumors have little or no affect? The high rollers on Wall Street will object, but why not pass a law requiring investors to hold stock for a set period? By requiring investors to hold their stock for a minimum of six months to a year it would prevent panic selling and large short term losses. This would also benefit the smaller stockholders with retirement accounts from suddenly losing their retirement investments.

    Supposedly, the World Trade Agreement(WT) Created by the TWO (World Trade Organization) was formed because of the “emerging” global economy. They seem to forget we have had a global economy since the time of the Phoenicians. Marco Polo was a “global trader.” Columbus accidentally found the “New World” searching for a new trade route to China.  The continual bashing of the retail giant Wal-Mart reminds us that purchases we make in this country affect people on the other side of the world. What the media and Wal-Mart bashers seem to miss, is that Wal-Mart sells the same brands as the other large retailers. The real difference is that the other retailers charge you more for the same product, made by laborers in the same sweatshops.

    The real culprits here are not the retailers, nor even the corporations taking advantage of the “cheaper labor.” The blame is actually divided between the governments of the countries, which allow the low wages, and our own political prostitutes.     The governments of these third world countries allow our corporations to enter their country and take advantage of their people. Our political prostitutes do everything they can for their corporate pimps so they don’t lose their valuable campaign contributions (not to mention trips and other “perks”.) But it does not stop there.

    Not only does our government condone factory sweatshops, it also condones price gouging those same products when they are sold back here at home.        
    Several years ago I was living on the Canadian border. I noticed the prices on pickups in Canada one day while driving past a dealer, prices appeared to be exactly the same as they were here in the states (despite the fact it took $1.40 in Canadian dollars to make one American dollar). Being the inquisitive type I decided to do some comparative pricing and discovered that the vehicles in Canada were priced exactly the same amount (dollar wise) despite the difference in cash exchange rates. Not surprisingly, it is illegal for an American citizen to buy a new vehicle in Canada because it cuts into business for U.S. dealers. Sounds much like what is happening in the medical industry with drug pricing, doesn't it?

    Drugs manufactured here costing more in this country than other countries. Autos costing thousands of dollars more in this country than what is charged in other countries for the same make and model. Of course the Wall Street Marionettes in Congress will give you all sorts of “reasons” as to why this is. An old cowboy proverb comes to play here: The only difference between a really good reason and a poor excuse is which end you’re on. Translated, this means if you are telling it, it is a reason, but to anyone listening (who has any sense) it is a poor excuse.
    Section eight of our Constitution states Congress is to “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The original intent of this was to assure the people free trade between the states, and avenues for trade between other countries. However it appears that members of Congress (and my esteemed marionettes...er opponents) have forgotten the meaning of trade. They have also forgotten that they are to be serving “We the people” and not “We the corporations.”

    Trade is exchanging one product for another kind of product.  You exchange (or trade) an item of which you have a surplus for an item you are lacking in. About the only real trade going on these days is money for cheap labor, and Wal-Mart is not the only one to blame.  In fact, they jumped on the bandwagon late yet are taking most of the heat.

    Companies like Nike® and Kodak® have been doing this for years, or even decades and no one seems to complain about them. Nike® would rather spend their money on athletes endorsing their product than on the workers who produce their product. When they moved their manufacturing plants overseas, did they pass on savings to American consumers (or to the people whose jobs they eliminated)? No, instead they spent the savings in advertising and endorsements from professional athletes while raising the price! It is as if they are shouting “Americans go to Hell (but give us your money on the way through)!”

    Read the identification plate on a Kodak Camera. “Designed in Japan and Manufactured in China.”  How is Kodak an American company? Their headquarters are here in the States, yet their entire manufacturing forces (as well as a large part of their design team) are based in foreign countries.  While it may somehow translate to better profits for their shareholders, how does it really benefit the general population of our country? This brings us right back to the Wal-Mart syndrome. 
     
    Trade is the act of exchanging what one has an excess of for things you do not have enough. Today, each country is capable of manufacturing (or growing) nearly anything they want or need.  Because of this, actual trade between nations is actually less necessary now than it was in the past.  In essence, to have a true global economy, which is beneficial to the global population, trade agreements need to include incentives that equalize wages between the countries. We will definitely hear the screaming of the political prostitutes and their corporate pimps. This is their greed-induced fear of losing profit from having no workers to exploit. In actuality, it is an opportunity for these corporations to expand their market.

    At one time, products were actually manufactured here in America. Americans could actually buy these products and the corporations made a profit. Then we began demanding higher wages and more benefits, including retirement benefits. What we did not recognize, is that for every wage increase, for every benefit, we received, it was cutting into the profit of the company we for which were working. In or for the company to keep its profit margins, they had to raise the price of the product. Corporations, wanting to keep their profit margins, began looking to developing nations for cheap labor.

    They found it at obscenely low levels in the underdeveloped countries around the world. Governments which were not run by the people, were all to willing to exploit their populations in the name of “free trade.” At first, we rebelled because we were losing jobs to countries producing inferior product. Then we became complacent because we were receiving low cost products. This is where the opportunity exists for corporations to expand their markets while eliminating trade deficits. Because American corporations now have factories scattered around the globe, the time is ripe to stop exploitation of workers while expanding their markets.

    Currently corporations exploit their foreign workforce by not paying them enough to buy the products they produce. By raising their wages enough to be comparable with wages in the US and selling the product in those countries they have increased their market base. At the same time, build (or reopen) factories here in the US to stimulate the economy here. Profit per unit will decrease, but this will be more than compensated for in total units sold. In this way they are increasing profit to their shareholders while actually benefiting the global population.

    Like I say, the political prostitutes and their Big Biz pimps will scream and say it cannot be done. However, if that were true, foreign owned businesses such as Honda and Subaru would not have factories here in America. American companies could do it as well, but choose to make a larger profit by underpaying workers in other countries.  The only way we can get these corporations to see the light is to charge a tariff on American companies that would raise their cost of production to above production costs here.

    Adjustments are also necessary in how the GNP is calculated. Profits of a company which provides a few jobs in this country by eliminating thousands (or millions) of manufacturing jobs is not creating that much to the economy of this country. When American companies change their manufacturing operations to foreign countries they are actually taking away from the GNP in the form of wages and taxes paid by the American people. They are taking away from the GNP in the form of their own property taxes and unemployment insurance paid out to laid off workers and in the form of people going bankrupt from losing their jobs.  By taking these companies foreign interests out of the GNP we will have an honest idea of what the GNP actually is.

        Another area of concern is the disparity between the rich and poor. The left wants to keep raising the minimum wage and increasing welfare “benefits.”. This only cuts into profits, which results in price increases, which leaves the bottom end of wage earners in the same situation. The right seems to think a “trickle down” economy is best. While this does work from the standpoint that there has to be a business before there can be a job, it does nothing to balance the economic woes of the poor to be paid a sub-standard wage.
    First, we need to realize that a Utopian society is impractical. If everyone were rich, then everyone would consider themselves above the dirty jobs that need to be done (Think septic tank cleaners etc here). Second, it is a mammal trait to have a pecking order or hierarchy in every group of animals. There is always an alpha at the head of the group and always a larger number at the bottom of the pecking order than at the top. We Homo Sapiens are no different which is easily verified by looking at societies over the last few thousand years.

    Before my ideas are misconstrued on this point, I see nothing at all with a company making a few billion. However for the CEO’s and other top executives to be making tens of millions while the average employee of the company is just above minimum wage, is ludicrous.  What is even more ludicrous is the existence of “golden parachute” clauses in their contracts. Why should a person be awarded millions of dollars for failure?

    Rather than raise the minimum wage, perhaps we should put a ceiling cap on salary and bonuses.  This cap should be tied into what the workers on the lower end of the corporate ladder earn. For instance if the lowest paid employee is making $20,000 a year, and the wage cap is 100 times the amount of the lowest paid worker, the CEO could “only” make $2,000,000 a year in wages. Bonuses need to be tied into productivity, profit, and dispersed through out the corporate ladder to those holding it up, not doled out to those perched on top of the ladder while being held up by those beneath them.   After all, a leader is only as good as those who he is leading.
     
    It would be easy to be as long winded as my opponents on this matter. The actual truth is that everything from agriculture, to energy to foreign policy affects the economy in one way or the other. The basic things we must do to stabilize the economy are:
1.    Encourage American companies to keep production “in house” rather than outsourcing.
2.    Give tax breaks to corporations who manufacture in foreign countries which sell the product to people in those countries as long as they manufacture products for sale in the USA, in the USA.
3.    Place a salary/bonus cap on executives in relation to the salary/bonuses received by the lowest paid individuals in the corporation.
4.    Place a minimum time limit after purchasing stock before you can dump it. I propose prohibiting sale of stock for a minimum of at least six months after purchase to promote trading on company profits rather than on speculative rumor.
    While the CEO’s (making millions of dollars a year), and the few people making their living by trading stocks will protest, these proposals will bring stability to our economy. Business and individuals will be able to plan for their financial plans without the worry of extreme stock market fluctuations or  swings in the interest rate.
  top

Immigration / Illegal Aliens

    If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull feeces is the best way to describe present policies of both parties. The majority of Americans have no idea of the vastness or remoteness of   our borders. The smoke and mirror show coming out of Washington is only to give the appearance of attempting to find a solution.

    If you want a real revelation of what the government is doing, visit construction sites in the southwest. There, people who have owned small construction companies are losing them from competition from illegal Mexican workers. Talking to some of these people you hear about housing tracts suddenly becoming ghost tracts. INS will do  a drive through inspection of the site. When INS leaves the workers mysteriously re-appear. The only reason for the timing of the disappearing work crews and appearance of INS is that the crew’s employers are tipped off about the inspection. Can you blame these illegal workers for trying to improve their lives? Do you think building a fence will stop them? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO! So how do we solve this problem?
.
    First, you cannot solve a problem until you know its cause.  The traditional illegal from Mexico was crossing the river in search of agricultural labor. Few people realize it, but prices for crops and livestock are determined by the commodities market and not by cost of production. Because of this, wages cannot keep up with the rest of society. As there are few Americans willing to work for these low wages, the people crossing the river illegally were actually a benefit to us as well as the workers. It allowed our farmers and ranchers to stay in business while allowing the workers to improve their lives.
    Now things have changed.  More and more of these people are being given higher paying jobs in construction, packing houses and factories. This newer practice is taking jobs away from Americans. The reason is summed up in two words: corporate greed.

    Corporate America wants cheap labor, and they do not care how they get it. NAFTA has allowed corporations to ignore federal minimum wage laws by moving manufacturing into a country that has none.  While the prevaricating elocutionists in Washington profess interest in human rights violations around the world, they sign trade treaties that do nothing to protect worker’s rights in other countries. They are giving American Corporations a license to ignore our minimum wage laws and to exploit workers in other countries at the expense of American jobs.

    It is easy to do a Google search on hourly wages paid by American companies in Mexico. The range reported is from $2.40 an hour to $10 and hour (with the high end being supervisory positions). If you can simply cross a river and increase your minimum wage by several dollars an hour (with the only penalty being sent home), wouldn't YOU do it? When they pool in with several others for a small apartment, they still have better housing and living conditions than they did in Mexico and are putting money in the bank to send home.   You cannot prevent people from attempting to improve their lot in life by building a fence. The only way to make this change is to improve conditions in Mexico to encourage them to remain home. This cannot be accomplished by allowing businesses to exploit the Mexican people.

    Corporations will whine, but it is only the greed talking. They have gone to countries in which they can pay wages reminiscent of the 1800’s yet they keep raising prices.  They have to cut out the fat at the top. CEO’s with salaries in the tens of millions. Hundreds of millions spent in advertising. Athletes get tens of millions to endorse a product that would not exist if it were not for the line worker making $3 an hour. There is plenty of room for these companies to raise wages in other countries while and sell their products in those countries. This would raise the living standards worldwide and reduce the number of illegal aliens coming across from Mexico.

    First, we must get the political prostitutes out of Washington and replace them with people who are in touch with reality. We must cajole NATO to prohibit trade treaties that give corporations license to treat workers worse than their family pets. The world is at a point where the economies of all countries actually affect one another. By allowing our corporations to exploit workers from other countries we are as guilty of violating human rights as the government of China.   
    We can no longer give corporations a license to exploit wherever and whenever they want to. If other countries are willing to exploit their own people in the name of “progress” we must set an example and not allow our companies to help them do so. This is not “protectionism” as the political prostitutes would have you believe. It is protecting people in other countries and allowing them to prosper. Perhaps CEO s will need to drop their salaries down to “only” a million or so a year, but the companies will survive. The people in Mexico will actually be better off financially and be able to buy some of the products they are producing. This would bring a whole new market for these products resulting in higher overall profits. It would also encourage Mexicans to stay at home rather than live as fugitives here.
  top

Energy

    Energy should be a non-issue. Once again, our “leadership” in Washington has ignored all except what they can do for their big campaign contributors. Rather than do what is good for the country and the environment, they do whatever it takes to keep the big corporations in business.

    The time has come to change our energy from limited, fossil-based fuels to renewable energy sources. Henry Ford wanted automobiles to be powered by methanol, which can readily be distilled from a wide variety of sources. Industrial hemp was one source of methanol, but growing it became illegal thanks to lobbying by oil and chemical companies. Not only can industrial hemp supply us with a renewable fuel source, the by products can be used to make plastics, soaps, and textiles.

    Hemp is not the only source for making renewable, alcohol based fuel. Nearly any plant matter can be used to distill methanol, including wood chips from sawmills and (hypothetically) even algae.
    However, we need to go farther than just weaning ourselves from fossil-based fuels for transportation. We need to insist that ALL new home construction in the United States include solar and wind generation systems. Not only will this reduce our dependence on fossil or nuclear fuels, it would eventually save money on repairs to the power grid as each home would be producing its own power. We need to create tax incentives to encourage, not only owners of existing homes, but businesses as well, to install solar and wind generation kits.     We must also be careful to do these things in a way which will harness the natural energy with a minimal affect on the environment. There is currently a study being done to harness the energy of the Gulf Stream by placing huge generators driven by the stream. However what they have not thought of is that these generators will have the effect of slightly slowing the Gulf Stream, and possibly even changing its course and temperature. These kinds of results need to be taken into consideration before blindly taking advantage of naturally occurring power sources.

         Fossil fuel energy production will still be needed for factories, high volume irrigation wells, etc., but the majority of our electricity needs can, and should be met by individual solar and wind power plants. Not only will it be better for the environment, but also will save money in the case of natural disasters or terrorist attack. Massive power outages lasting days or weeks will be a faint memory because each home would be generating its own power.
    The fossil sucking parasites posing as “energy companies” will howl “foul” and attempt to have their marionettes in Washington save them. Unless we change the way our government is run, they will once again get their way, and things will continue to get worse. It is time for us to make the changes in Washington we need to make. It is time for the big energy companies to diversify and join the 21st century, or go the way of the dinosaur. If we do not accomplish this, we will pay at the pump, at our electric meters, and with environmental decay. 

    We can fight part of this problem at the state level. I have a boilierplate petition you can download asking your legislature to require that all new housing be built with capability of providing its own power through a combination of solar/wind generation.

     top

The Environment

    We need to make some environmental changes. However, the fear tactics used by environmental groups is one of my pet peeves. The one constant in the environment IS change. There have been several ice ages from which the world has recovered from, and then fallen back into. These things happened way before the industrial revolution.
 Sixty miles from where we live in West Texas is Guadalupe Peak. This mountain is the highest point in Texas, nearly 9,000 feet in elevation.  It is also several hundred miles from the nearest ocean. The top of the mountain is a coral reef. The mountain itself is a big pile of algae. Now THAT is climate change! I have found conchs shells in the desert of New Mexico and oyster shells on a Montana hilltop. Did these changes occur from ranchers overgrazing the land, and too many SUV’s? Perhaps, but until they find evidence of ancient, advanced, civilizations 20,000 leagues under the sea I am going to doubt it.
    The plain, simple fact (not admitted to by most scientists or “environmental” groups), is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. While we do have some influence on this change, man is not the only factor resulting in climate change.  Volcanoes, naturally occurring forest fires, and the shifting of continental shelves all are parts of nature that contribute to changes in our environment. Truth of the matter is that man is only responsible for part of the climate change. How much of a part we play has not been totally proven one way or the other. While we need to be concerned, and need to do what we can to minimize our effect on the climate, we do not need to be running around in a panic. We do need to be changing the source of our energy uses. Fuel costs and environmental issues are tied together. The more dependent we are on fossil fuels the higher the prices will climb and the more damage we do to the environment. If we change to cleaner, renewable sources, such as alcohol, solar and wind, we can reduce our effect on the environment while lowering overall energy costs.

top
 

War on Terror

    Politicians seem to keep calling terrorists cowards. This does not seem to be an apt description. Cowards will do anything to protect themselves from harms way. On the other hand, terrorists will blow themselves up in order to do harm to those who they perceive to be their enemy. While we have not had another attack since the planes struck WTC, it is only a matter of time before they do. Has our presence in Iraq prevented an attack? It may have something to do with it. However, terrorist attacks keep growing in numbers across the globe, it is only a mater of time before it happens here again.
    Just how secure do we want our borders? Do we want to resemble Germany and have some version of the Berlin Wall around the whole country? How would that look to the rest of the world? Would we not be transforming ourselves from the “Land of the free” to the “Land of the free and fenced?”
    While we are busy spending money on Border Patrol and building a fence on the Mexican Border, the Canadian border is largely remote and easily crossed. There are many places on all three coasts, which are remote and could provide landing points for small groups of terrorists. If you were a terrorist, where would you cross, at a highly patrolled area, or at a point with little surveillance?  To put it bluntly, unless we are so ruled by fear that we are willing to give up our freedom and live in a totalitarian state, we will not be able to completely secure our borders. Even then, we will not be able to insure that terrorists will not be able to enter the country. So what do we need to do?
    It may be impossible to completely insulate ourselves from terrorist attack by “security measures. However there are things we can do, and the first thing is to secure our infrastructure from the inside out. We have gas and oil lines that, in many locations are above ground and vulnerable to attack. If OPEC decided to cut off our oil supply coincided with a terrorist attack on our exposed oil and gas lines, we would be crippled. 
    Things could get even worse. Fifty people (or less) could effectively shut down our power grid in less than an hour without setting off a single explosive device or even injuring a single terrorist.  Can you even imagine the chaos that would ensue with this scenario? The point is that rather than spending billions in securing the borders, we need to secure our infrastructure from the inside out.
    Part of this could be accomplished by following through with the ideas in the previous chapter on energy. By having most of our electricity produced individually, attacks on our electric grid would be minimized to a point where the damage would be so minimal as to not be worth the effort to attack. Accordingly, if our fuel were agriculture based, distilled fuel, OPEC would have no advantage over us. It would also allow our energy grids to be harder to efficiently attack, as there would be distilling plants scattered around the country rather than concentrations of refineries and pipelines.
    Once again, the lack of real action falls directly on the heads Congress and the candidates for president who have spent time in Congress. Why have they not developed policies that would be good for the environment, deliver us from the dependency on foreign oil and help make our infrastructure harder to attack?
    If the people in Washington were really interested in protecting our infrastructure from terrorist attack, and if they were really interested in how much the average American has to spend to go to work and keep their house warm, wouldn’t they have accomplished these things?
    One side claims we need to be “tough on terror.” The other side wants to “negotiate” with terrorist to get them to stop. Both sides tend to make the mistake of describing terrorist groups as cowards. I really do not think that, unless you have the fortitude and devotion to voluntarily blow yourself up, that you can legitimately call the terrorists cowards. There are also too many individual groups to effectively negotiate with, or to carry out a large enough military campaign to wipe them out. The only realistic thing I can see to do is “Speak softly but carry a big stick.”
    We cannot possibly police the world in an effective manner. Neither can we seek justice from a suicide bomber. As the largest and oldest democracy in the world, we absolutely cannot set an example by fencing ourselves off from the rest of the world and spying on our own citizens. We need to modify our infrastructure in a manner that reduces its vulnerability. We need to keep as close an eye on the situation as possible without infringing on our Constitutional rights. To do otherwise only gives terrorist groups propaganda to use against us. We need to protect ourselves not only from terrorist groups, but also from a government, which would protect us by controlling our every move.
    No matter how tightly we secure our borders, and no matter how much we tighten security, there will always be ways for terrorists to enter the country. East Berlin, even with the wall, armed guards etc, people still managed to get over or through it to East Berlin without getting apprehended (or killed.)
    Terrorists who would try to enter from Mexico are trying to blend in with those coming in from Mexico in search of higher paying jobs. The flow of people coming in from Mexico in search for those jobs could be reduced by economic incentives. For that to happen, we need to do is convince the Mexican government, and the American companies there to pay a fair wage. Once we slow the flow of our southern neighbors coming across the border, our Border Patrol will have fewer people to sift through in search for actual terrorists. In the long (and possibly short) run, this would be cheaper than building a fence that will only be crossed anyway.
    Sadly, enough, the possibility of a terrorist attack, is today, just as much a possibility as being a victim of a mugging or other act of violence. Just as one is not completely protected by a high tech home security system, we cannot completely protect our country from a possible terrorist attack. While we must remain vigilant, we cannot allow fear to overtake us, nor to allow our government to take away the basic freedom allowed by our Constitution.
    While the actual process we need to follow may not be very clear, it is clear that we need to proceed with caution. 
    As it stands now, our decisions on how to handle terrorism are made from three reasons. Out of fear, a denial of the problem, or instilling fear into the public to gain more control. While we cannot completely do away with security measures, nor can we take too many. What measures we do take should be based upon logic and reason instead of fear.
  top

Taxes

    The “esteemed” members of Congress keep jacking their jaws in a never-ending promise of tax reform.  Of course, that is just to keep the average citizen quite while they pay homage in tax breaks to big business and the wealthy. They have also managed to keep the tax codes complex enough to confuse everyone but a tax consultant. In recent years a flat tax has been proposed, but the wealthy seem to resent that as it removes their loophole and forces them to pay.
    A flat tax would not only be the fairest and simplest way of having an income tax, it would also be the easiest to administer. The hardest thing to decide about a flat tax plan would be the level to begin taxation.  As you are eligible to receive WIC if you make under $35,000 a year, the flat tax rate should start above that level, probably around $40,000 after the standard deductions we have in place now. Business and corporations would be allowed to deduct expenses as they do now, but would have to pay 5% after deductions, with no loopholes.
    I also believe that the inheritance tax should be repealed. I am not saying this from the standpoint, not of a rich person with a large estate.  I just believe that if a person works their whole life, they should be able to rest assured that their heirs will receive their rightful inheritance without the government taking a cut.
    We are also being gouged at the gas pumps by the federal fuel tax. While this was a good way to finance road building and maintenance, it needs to be changed.
    Currently all of the federal fuel tax money goes back to Washington and is distributed back to the individual states. The problem with this is that states with lower populations (and fewer representatives in Congress) don’t get the money they need to keep their secondary interstate roads in repair.
    Several years ago, the state of Montana reported only getting back thirty cents on every dollar collected in the state. Many of the western states are in the same situation. As a result, secondary roads between these more sparsely states do not receive the repairs they need. Because of this, I would propose that federal fuel taxes should remain in the state in which they are collected. Only if a state has a surplus would they be required to place money into the nationwide pool. This would allow the larger states (with  smaller populations) to repair their roads when they need to rather than waiting around for the government to give them money which had been collected in their state.
top
 

How to Win Back Our Government!