Sharing the Sacrifice Act

Sharing the Sacrifice Act

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, tie congressional compensation to Median Income and make adjustments for smaller government.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

(a)          In General- Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is repealed.

(b)          Technical and Conforming Amendments- Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is amended—

(1)          by striking `(a)(1)' and inserting `(a)';

(2)          by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and

(3)          by striking `as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this subsection' and inserting `adjusted as provided by law'.

(c)           Effective Date – This section shall take effect 30 days after the Act is signed into law.

SECTION 2. TYING COMPENSATION TO MEDIAN INCOME.

(a)                   Median Income shall be as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office on a yearly basis.

(b)                   The compensation for all members of Congress shall be tied to the Median Personal Income of the state they represent.

(c)                   Compensation shall be set at 2.5 times the Median Personal Income of the state.

(d)                   Compensation shall be limited to 3 times the National Median Household Income.

(e)                   Effective Date – This Section shall take effect the next fiscal year after the Act is signed into law.

SECTION 3. STAFFING AND STAFF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.

(a)                   Staff shall be limited to 9 staff members per Representative in the House.

(b)                   Compensation for each staff member of a Representative shall be limited to 1.5 times the Median Personal Income of the state of the Representative.

(c)                   Compensation for each staff member of a Senator shall be limited to 1.5 times the Median Personal Income of the state of the Senator.

(d)                   Total Compensation for a Senator’s staff shall not exceed 15 times the Median Personal Income of the state of the Senator.

(e)                   Effective Date – This Section shall take effect the next fiscal year after the Act is signed into law.

SECTION 4. LEADERSHIP SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.

(a)          Majority and Minority Leaders in the House will be paid 1.15 times the Median salary of all other Representatives – leaving out the other Majority or Minority Leader and the Speaker of the House.

(b)          Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate will be paid 1.15 times the Median salary of all other Senators – leaving out the other Majority or Minority Leader.

(c)           The Speaker of the House will be paid 1.25 times the Median salary of all other Representatives – leaving out the salaries of Majority and Minority Leaders.

(d)          Effective Date – This Section shall take effect the next fiscal year after the Act is signed into law.

I'll be your CEO for $100k per year

I will be any company's CEO for $100,000 per year salary.

One of the first things I will do is adjust the compensation model.  The company will become at least 50% Employee Owned.

EO-Stocks will be divided by company position and stay with the company, so technically, it won't be 'employee owned' in the sense that an individual employee owns stock, but it will be employee owned in that each position, from new-hire secretary to long-time CFO will each have a certain percentage of stock assigned to their position.  The employee will get the Dividends from the stock each quarter and will have a vote in all shareholder meetings, etc. as long as they hold that position in the company.

New Hires may have only one issued share to their position.  For each quarter with the company, they add one share, up to the max allotted for that position.

This creates a vast incentive for the company to be run efficiently, productively and profitably - everyone working there has a financial stake in the success of the company.

Of course, the employee can not sell nor transfer the stock, but when they leave the company, "their" stock will be bought back from them.  So, everyone, from day one, has a 'severance package.'  This will make everyone work to reduce turnover.

So, any company looking to greatly improve productivity and profits, lets talk.

If Kior wants to hire me, I could get them profitable in less than two years.  But I'm not going to reveal THAT secret here.

My Solutions for a Fair, Free and Just Society

PUSH THE RESET BUTTON!  Constitution of the United States 2.0

Thomas Jefferson

When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the State, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution.

On the Federal level, the first thing I would do is wipe out all laws, amendments, federal agencies, bureaus, councils and conglomerates passed, ratified or set up since December 15, 1791.

I would then go through and edit out all of the remnants of slavery and sexism that were in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights and make (small) necessary adjustments to update the document to modern times.  The (tweaked) Bill of Rights would become an integral part of the Constitution as opposed to Amendments.

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times." --Thomas Jefferson

Then, when we are back to a Constitutional Basis, I would :

Work up amendments that :

• Establish and protect voting rights of all citizens, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, descent, ability, disability or political philosophy. This would just expound and enshrine all voting rights.
  I would likely try to dictate that voting districts be based solely on geography, political boundaries (city, county and state lines) and population.  A square grid system being the most ideal 'redistricting' method.  These squiggly, wandering lines based on voter race are just anti-democratic and the GOP takes way too much advantage of the system to control election outcomes.
  I would try to include real consequences for elected officials or anyone who tampers with election outcomes or voter turnout. I would expand definitions of 'poll tax' and outlaw such things as well as any voter disenfranchisement practices.
  
  
• I would address the "Corporation" issue that (some of) the Founders wanted to, but ultimately failed to, address.  I would constitutionally limit corporations to their original intent and ensure that their board of directors, CEO, staff and to a more limited degree, their investors, would be held responsible for corporate misdeeds and malfeasance (if they were actually involved).  I would also ban the corporations from becoming involved in politics, influencing politicians or contributing in any way to political campaigns.  The real people who own, manage and work at the company are still more than free to get involved in politics, but the legal fiction 'corporation' can not.  Note that Unions are also usually corporations.

Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

I linked to it, but like this so much I figured I'd include it here for all (both?) to read :


"in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.


“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

To that end he fought for corporate regulation, he fought for fair wages for workers, he fought for safe and healthy work environments, and he fought to protect consumers. And the people loved him for it. Roosevelt’s policies toward corporations were immensely popular. He busted up so many giant corporations that he became known as a “trust buster”. The busting up of these corporations created a lot more competition for customers and for employees, resulting in higher wages and lower prices and more jobs. And you know what? Corporate profits did just fine."



• Banking and Financial Institutions.  Just like corporations, these entities must be kept from doing more harm than good.  Practices of abusing and exploiting individuals in order to enrich shareholders must be stopped.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction... I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

• Federal Reserve.  Eliminated and shut down. It is a private institution and printing and issuing currency should be done by The People, not any corporation.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

• I would re-establish, with constitutional limits, the federal organizations necessary to manage the duties and obligations of the Federal Government.  This would include the Armed Forces, Social Security, Postal Service ( from which I would strip the absurd retirement requirement ) and Federal Transportation department for infrastructure.  Keeping in mind that the law of the State should override the law of the Nation on everything not expressly enumerated as Federal Powers.
• Department of Education - yes, I am afraid I would rebuild it.  We need to ensure that all children are getting a basic education no matter where they live in the country.  I hope that I would be able to make the department a lot smaller and a lot less invasive while still able to accomplish it's goals.
  I would include in the requirements a Life Lessons course that would include budgeting, money management, smart shopping, selecting insurance, home ownership versus renting, personal responsibility and independence subjects.  I imagine this course would start in High School and continue for four years.  I might also require lessons on how to follow government, research bills and laws and keep informed on reality.  Some might deride this as an Anti-Fox agenda, but I think that would speak more to the character of Fox News than anything else.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.

• Internal Revenue Service.  Taxes have been around for a very, very long time.  They are needed to run the country.  For those who say they are not constitutional, I would ask you to read the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8. 
  I would find a static formula for yearly personal income tax rates.  I think I would start it at 1% and add based on the bracket's share of national income.  I would treat all forms of income equally - work, investment and inheritance. 
  There would be no loopholes and few tax shelters - such as IRA, HSA, 401k and other such 'encouragement' investments. Tax shelters would only be allowed if there is conclusive evidence that the activity given tax advantage promotes a healthy economy and personal independence. 
  Tax brackets would be in 10k increments up to 100k then go to 20k up to 200k, 30k up to 320k, 50k up to 520k, 70k up to 800k, 100k up to 1.5mil and keep going like that, with each bracket paying a slightly higher rate on that bracket of income.  I would try to keep it so that nobody pays less than 1% of their income and nobody pays more than 20%, with most people paying around 10% of their total net incomes. 
  The nice thing is that congress couldn't hand out tax favours in exchange for funding or votes.  It would be automatic and set in stone, no favours, no abuses, no evasion.  
• I would not tax spending at the federal level. That is like a poor tax and would make life harder on those with less income.  It would also discourage spending large sums, which would be detrimental to the economy.
• On Taxes - I would likely eliminate and outlaw property taxes.  These are used for nothing but allowing a government to steal land from the rightful owners. At the very least, I would outlaw taking land for back taxes.  There would have to be some good laws written to consider land abandonment, possession (squatting) to ownership and other items.
• Business and Corporate taxes. I would make this where it is a tax on profits only - after expenses and payroll - maybe after dividends to shareholders.  I would hope to be able to create an adjustable rate based on a formula that takes a base rate of 5% and adds something like
  ((average real executive pay(not vps)/average worker pay)*.10)
  so a company where executives make 250 times more than the average employee would pay 30% taxes on profits and a company where executives make only 25 times more would pay 7.5% taxes on profits.  Founders, Owners and those who were responsible for starting the business would have some salary advantages in that formula to not penalize small business owners for reaping the rewards of their hard work.
• I would establish anti-black-market laws and regulations.  This would kind of replace the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which I doubt I would rebuild. The big change that these laws would bring is that they would effectively legalize and regulate recreational drugs.  It would no longer be illegal to grow, sell, possess or use any drug or alcohol.  It would no longer be illegal to grow the non-drug plant Hemp.  However, any crime, damage or harm done while involved in any of those activities would have increased penalties.  There would be a lot of 'while intoxicated' additives to crime descriptions. 
  Selling to or use by minors would also be illegal, although age limit would be decreased to 18 with a 'If you can go to war, you can whatever' policy.  Maybe 18 would only be if you are enlisted, 21 otherwise.  This would also end the DEA and related agencies.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves.

• Speaking of 'enlisted,' I would abolish all forms of sexism in military service.  Women can go front-line if they want to. Gay people of all genders can serve openly and without discrimination.  Punishment for sex or orientation based hate crimes in the military would be harsh.
• Consumer Health and Safety Agency.  Oh, yeah.  I would create this Agency and roll a lot of the good function of other agencies under this one.  This would protect the consumer from all kinds of things - food that would make them sick, drugs that are contaminated or harmful if used wrong,  financial predation and abuses of all kinds.  This would take up the good and necessary roles of the FDA, DEA, CPA and other regulatory bodies.  It would likely need departments under it such as a Department of Recreational Drugs and Alcohol, a Department of Financial Regulation, Department of Medical Safety and others.
  It would be largely independent with minimal congressional oversight (aka - political control) so that it would be fair and balanced in it's rulings.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

• Freedom of Religion.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

  Freedom only exists until it becomes tyranny.  There is no freedom to oppress others, discriminate against others nor to force others to endure your prayers and rituals in order to enjoy an otherwise public, secular event.  A government building posting religious texts or images inside or outside is a signal that the religion represented is an official religion of the government that put it there.
  The point of Freedom of Religion is that you are free to practice your religion.  The Separation of Church and State means that you are not free to use government to advance your religion or force others to endure it nor adhere to it's beliefs.
  I will repeat myself here - you are free to practice your beliefs, have your beliefs, speak about your beliefs and even keep silent about your religious beliefs.  You are not, in any way, free to pass laws that force your religious beliefs onto all citizens, regardless of their beliefs.
  Government is not free to limit your religious belief nor practices - until you infringe upon the equal rights of others to remain free and enjoy public spaces and events.
  You are not free to use Public Education to indoctrinate your beliefs onto the children of other people, some of whom may not share your religion.  Religious education should be done in churches and homes, not in public schools.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

• Supreme Court.
  

  Thomas Jefferson

  You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

  The structure of the Supreme Court would change drastically.  No more lifetime appointments, much higher ethical standards. Our current court is dangerously right-wing activist and has not arbitrarily ruled on a constitutional basis. They have done outrageous things such as the Citizens United ruling making corporations equal to people.  Clarence Thomas not recusing himself from a case that his wife was paid to lobby against one side is reprehensible.
  
  
• Freedom of the Press and the Media.
  
  Freedom of the Press must be preserved.  News is important to our society.  Mishandling a news story to create propaganda should not be allowed.  I would implement a Truth in Broadcasting law that would require News Programs to adhere to only factual and accurate reporting.  News would also have to report the full story, not just a piece of the story where the limited facts shared would create a bias.  The law would also require Opinion shows or pieces to be labelled, with tv shows having a disclaimer before and after each commercial and/or segment.  Question is, how to keep government from forcing it's version of 'truth' onto the press and keep the press honest??


• Health Care
  
  This is one area that needs some serious revamping.  I firmly believe that when corporations started owning hospitals and physician practices that we started doing less healing and more 'treatment.'  I would probably make it illegal to profit from providing health services.  We would have to set up a salary schedule for all types of health care workers.  You would still have to pay for services, or have insurance that covered it - but all the costs would be much lower.  Right now, corporate masters are requiring doctors to see a certain, high, number of patients per hour - destroying our health care quality.  I would make it so that doctors have an incentive to Cure and Heal patients instead of just treat symptoms and actually prolong illnesses in order to profit from return visits.  I'd be tempted to set up one federal hospital in each state and one federal physician's office in each town that requested one.  The yearly salary would be the same no matter how many patients they saw or procedures they performed - maybe some outcome bonuses for curing patients.
  
• Insurance
  
  Most insurance is a big rip-off.  It usually doesn't cover whatever happens and they have 'loopholes' for what they won't pay for.  Big changes here.  For one, insurance would have to cover things that actually happen.  For instance, a water heater leak could not be excluded because it 'falls under flood damage.'  I would also consider some way to recoup part of your money if you never used the insurance or some of the difference between what you paid and what you used.  Otherwise, it is gambling and a rip-off.  Especially when it is government required.  This may fall under the Consumer Health and Safety Agency.

I suppose that is enough for now.  What do you think?  Comment, Ya'll!!

It is not the Government taking your money!

The top 10% of income takers - because you can't earn that kind of money - are walking away with 149% of all gains in income.  But, one hundred forty nine percent is more than the whole, you say?  Yes, it is.  Some of that is because the income for the bottom 90% fell, dropped, was stolen by the top 10%.

You can admire "Job Creators" or "The Wealthy" all you want, but the top 10% are not either.  They are the Uber Rich Robber Barons of modern times.  They create wealth for themselves at the expense of others - only now it is on a National or even Global scale.

The fact is that the tax burden is the lowest it has been in a very long time.  We are all paying less taxes than in 1979.  So why are people complaining about high taxes - because taxes are lower than they have been in decades?

Republicans want to destroy the government.  They want to turn control of the United States of America over to the corporations and the uber-wealthy robber barons.  What else can be happening?

In looking for supporting documentation, I found a Politifact article.

Conservatives note that even though the rates are dropping, upper-income Americans still account for the lion’s share of the nation’s income tax revenue. "So while it is true that tax rates … are significantly lower than they were 30 years ago, the rich are paying a lot more of the overall tax burden," says Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell. Federal figures show that the top 5 percent of taxpayers accounted for more than half of the income tax dollars paid.

Well, Duh-hu, Danny boy!  The rich are taking more than the lion's share of income, they SHOULD be paying the lion's share of taxes, Genius!  The top's income is rising and the middle and lower's debt is rising.  The greed of "The Rich" and the sycophants that worship them are destroying the country!

On a side note - a bone jarring funny :

Apparently, replacing cartilage fixes scanning or printing problems!

Wal-Mart America

So this morning on Facebook, I read a post from a tow-the-line conservative about how Wal-Mart was going to lose customers for not having more check-out clerks working.  You know, they have twenty lanes, but only two or three people working them, so only two or three lanes available for checkout. Unless you want to take personal responsibility and stand in long lines to check yourself out.  The poster was going to leave their buggy and walk out to go shop at a local mom and pop store... oh, wait... Wal-Mart killed most of those... oh well... maybe they will go back at night when there are less people so it would mean shorter lines.  Anyway, there were several people agreeing with the Original Poster's stance.

Seriously? Who are they to question the omniscient wisdom of Corporate America - the Free Market itself!?!

Sure, Wal-Mart mostly hires part time workers so they don't have to pay benefits and the pay is so low that even the full time employees can't really make a living - have you seen the high prices these days? Of course, conservatives don't want these people making more money, that would hurt company profits and somehow make things worse than they are now, right?  More people with more money to spend is bad, right?  A few people having most of the money is better, right?

What about all these people who are unemployed? They could work at Wal-Mart for less money than they get in unemployment right?  Who wouldn't jump at that chance?

If you want to get a look at the GOP and Conservative dreams for the employment market in the United States, look no further than China.  Yeah, the pay is horrible, safety measures are ignored for productivity and suicides are so high that companies put safety nets around their buildings to catch jumpers, but man, are they productive and profitable and that's what really counts, right?  Who needs to worry about paying rent somewhere when there are company dormitories workers can live in - four to a room, bunk beds provided?  The companies even own stores within their complex that carry the employees' every need - shop where you work, how convenient!  The employees never even have to leave the company grounds - and besides, there is such a short window between their shift end and curfew that they couldn't really get very far any way before they would be hunted down... er... found and dragged ba... er.. safely escorted back to the residential area.

So, in the takeover of the United States, you don't have to learn Chinese, you just have to vote Republican.

I lived on a full time Wal-Mart wage for a couple years.  I had a one bedroom apartment in a duplex beside a fire department and my main meal was cheap egg noodles with ranch dressing and a can of tuna.  Sometimes I'd treat myself and mix in peas.  Yeah, Tuna Helper was too expensive. I think I got health insurance, but I couldn't afford it and a doctor visit at the same time.  I would walk to work sometimes to save on gas.  So, yes, I can see people not taking that work.  People want to Earn A Living, not Eek Out An Existence.

One World Shadow Government

(Inspired by discussions on Agenda 21)

Okay, lets just for a moment say that there is a "one world government" out there trying to keep us from destroying the planet so that their leaders can be given eternal life and have dominion - even in the shadows - over the world.  So, the theory goes, they are going to throw us into camps, make us ride bicycles to work and have corporate farms produce the food.

So what?  Nothing we can do about that.  We're not superheroes, this is not a movie nor a book.

If there IS such a conspiracy, then "The Liberals" sure are not behind it, because that is who everyone is pointing at and the "Shadow Government" is the one making everyone look (the other way) at "The Liberals."

Fox Newz is pumping out enough "Hey, no! Look over here, be afraid of this!" propaganda to keep the well armed distracted and the commoners scared to leave the house.  They've got people absolutely convinced that even though their favored party was in complete control for 6 years, mostly control for another 6 that it was NOT their fault the economy crashed and that even though the economy has been improving consistently, despite the GOP temper tantrum stonewalling, that Obama is destroying it (the economy).  Believing Fox despite all evidence to the absolute contrary.

Anyway, world government throwing people into camps and feeding them and making them ride bicycles to work....

You know, if we beat them to it - if we make changes to be more sustainable, to make sure the human-caused fact of global warming is reduced or eliminated and that the Earth shall remain habitable with a decent climate and habitable land for a long, long time - well, then they won't feel they have to round people up and put them in camps to keep them from destroying the planet.

So, we can do it on our terms, or let the scary shadow one-world government do it to us.

If you hate the EPA, go back and look pictures of New York before the EPA, look at all the Rivers that caught on fire and see WHY that was put into place.  Look at the current atmosphere in China - the air is poison.  But, we have people pushing to go TOWARDS that again.

To me, freedom means that you have the freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another.  I like the freedom to go outside without a gas mask or oxygen tank.  I like to be able to drink water without worrying about getting sick from it. If that means a corporation is not free to pollute, then I'm all for it.

Maybe its the shadow government pointing it's finger at the sustainability movement because they want it to fail so they can control the world.

... got to go back to work...

Links of Support

I've talked a lot about how the damage to the economy has come from the top 1% taking more money out of circulation and into their coffers, leaving less for the rest of us.  Here is a 2009/2010 blog post with graphs and stuff that may help explain it a bit better : Reality Base

I would like to point out that you can see the gap start to widen dramatically right after 1980.  What happened then? Anyone? Anyone?

Along with the top getting more and more money, they also began paying less and less in taxes.  So not only did they start taking our money, they stopped helping support the country, putting a bigger burden on us average wage-earners. Alternet : Titanic tax shirking

Finally, I have talked a lot about how True Freedom relies on defeating the (Modern Era, circa 1980) Republican Agenda.  I've written about the anti-freedom, big-brother government they want and how they despise the REAL Constitution of the United States of America and they hate the Country that the Founders envisioned and our Forefathers helped build.  A Democracy was built, they want a Corporate Theocracy.  Anyway... good article that goes into some details about what I've been saying : Alternet : Freedom

"the expansion of the security state—criminalizing more behavior, increasing law enforcement’s surveillance of the public, and locking up more people—is a real threat to our personal liberties, and it, like the disastrous “war on drugs” is supported heartily by the Right (with a small number of exceptions in the libertarian wing of the conservative movement)."

Economic History Links

Instead of rambling more in this post, I will just add links.  MAN! The Links! (All may not agree with my conclusions, but data is data worth reading every analysis)


Here is a link : http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

"In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ.  In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent."

and another : http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Data_on_Spending_by_President

"Fifty years ago, the Republicans were mildly interested in keeping government small and efficient. For example, Eisenhower and Nixon both reduced the size of the government slightly.   That all ended with Ford. Since Ford, it seems as if the two parties have traded places: the Republicans are enlarging the government rapidly, and the Democrats are trying to keep spending down."

and again : http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

"Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111^th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies. Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years."

and here : http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

"For the mathematically inclined, if you take the first derivative of the data presented to find the slope of each President’s debt increase, you will find that the Republican slopes are consistently more positive than the Democratic slopes.  For everyone else, this just means that unbiased mathematical proof exists to support the claim that since 1945, Republican presidents have borrowed more than Democratic presidents regardless of the inflation rate"

"Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36.  Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%.  In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%.  In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year.  Those averages aren't that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II." 

and http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

"Compare these numbers with the HUGE, UNPRECEDENTED INCREASES in the National Debt that both George Bushes (and Ronald Reagan) have created! Since Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National Debt (he must have had a lot of laughs over that joke), THE NATIONAL DEBT HAS INCREASED MORE THAN TEN TIMES OVER!!!"

and http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Debt-Taxes-and-Politics.php?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics-update

"As the chart clearly illustrates, the tax cuts in the early 1980s coincided with the beginning of an acceleration in real federal debt from a relatively consistent level over the previous three decades."

... wow... these are awesome!!!

and a final link - Read This.

My conclusion : By all that is Good, by all that is Right and Just, by all that is Rational and Reasonable, by all that is Economically Positive - Don't Vote Republican in 2012!!