Centrism: Why We Need It 1793847061, 1881850175, 4383692002

Citation preview

CENTRISM: Why We Need It

By Martin Goldberg Copyright 2020

Dedication To all those who take a deep breath, lay aside the emotion, and seek solutions for our time.

I. Introduction “If every base is set, then why does no answer soar?” America is the home of this great dilemma. Polls routinely show the rock bottom popularity of Congress and its leaders,[1] yet members of the deliberative body still claim reelection by record numbers. People love to mouth off over the antics and corruption of politicians, and somehow continue supporting candidates from the political fringe, often against their own interests. Compromise and unified advancement are seen as evil ideas, unless they refer to narrow party matters, leaving no opposing member to seize glory. The stage is grimly set. What makes this so puzzling is the very nature of America’s political system. Ours is not a “winner takes the cake” structure like we see in countries such as the United Kingdom, where parliamentary majorities rule the day. Nor do we stray to the verge in Italy, where a brittle “partitocrazia” commands throngs of shattered governments. The United States Congress does not get dissolved at the whim of a prime minister seeking good election tidings, but rather sits two years and becomes renewed on set voting days. The prime minister in our case is the president, elected to a fixed four-year term with an option of return just once. Only the Supreme Court is designed to accommodate a lifetime of service, yet even there the democratic mandate holds sway, with appointments requiring consent of the Senate. By design, the assemblage is meant to limit exclusive or dominant power on the part of one particular branch or party. The people elect Congress, which controls spending and affirms presidential appointments. A president is likewise chosen by the electorate and enjoys the power to veto legislation, while being held to task by the threat of impeachment and removal if he violates the

law. Finally, the judiciary can rule laws unconstitutional, preventing the supremacy of the legislature seen in examples such as the British House of Commons. If the laundry list seems peculiar, let us be clear: the United States is a system designed to promote compromise and conviction, not self-directed crusades by a single actor. And yet it does. The Federalist Papers’ warning to avoid factionalism has been tossed aside; polarization is at record highs, and sensible agreement frowned upon. Who can forget Mitch McConnell’s commitment to making Barack Obama a one-term president,[2] or Democrats describing Donald Trump with every divisive label they can imagine? Hatred is the mainstay, or perhaps a certified owner of our time. The unmitigated rage of this world might help explain the growth of presidential power. When the Congress proves too partisan to move forward on issues concerning the American People, the voters turn towards figures who will prosecute that option through the Executive Branch, for they desire progress, not simply fanfare words. If the price is a confident and far-reaching single leader, the card may well come free of its wallet perch. But the question remains: why? What exactly has driven one of the greatest political experiments in the world into a brimming foundation of stored up frustration? Are we doomed to continue reaching higher levels on the ferocity index, or could there be some alternative available? That answer would be a “Yes,” and “There already is.” It just happens to be marketed and mutilated so terribly to where people imagine something horrendous upon hearing the word. Politicians give lip service to the concepts of bipartisanship and working together, yet these are all too frequently masks for private gain. Folks hear the word “Centrism” and automatically think of selling out, doing corporate bidding, or staining the honor of the partisan firebrands. Never mind how partisans can be just as guilty of

betraying the people where principles are concerned: centrism is bad because there is nothing substantial behind it. To be fair, there is some reasonable truth supporting such an opinion. Centrism is too often used as a convenient excuse for those in office to enrich their own cabal, while dropping scraps to the people who put them there. The languid nature of Congress is similarly disheartening, with the casual observer assuming those calling for compromise are simply trying to undermine their fellow statesmen. But centrism is also something more. The reason the term has become so bastardized is for purely political and strategic reasons. Politicians can claim the label as they seek to appear “bipartisan,” or “non-ideological,” though often their intent is the opposite. As they belabor to sell American citizens and workers down the river, they favor the guise of centrism as an excuse. The passage of NAFTA demonstrates how Democrats and Republicans could be brought together to support global financial interests ahead of the common man, much like they joined hands to repeal Glass-Steagall, and invade the Middle East. As we have borne witness, these politicians are not centrists at all, because their presupposed pragmatism actually devolves into radical DONOR interests; including war profiteers, the big banks, and cheap labor lobbyists. We are thus left with the compelling need to establish a set of constitutional principles defining centrism, with the goal of preventing the utter mutilation practiced by opportunistic politicians. The following angles will serve as a ballast point promoting the authentic centrist viewpoint: -

Respect for the American Nation, and her people. An understanding that economic growth without quality of life is fleeting. Commitment to protect the planet from overdevelopment and pollution.

-

Support for trade deals bolstering American businesses, especially smaller firms. Opposition to cheap labor migration, both of the legal and illegal varieties. Belief in the importance of low-cost healthcare, and an end to medical bankruptcies. Smart business regulation, tailor-made based on size of the company. Strong labor laws, along with private sector unions. Clear deficit reduction strategies, looking at all parts of the budget. A culturally-intelligent foreign policy which looks ahead and considers implications. Ratification of an Employee and Internet Bill of Rights. The crucial aspect to these positions is that they weed out unprincipled corporate bankers, along with bleeding hearts who struggle to connect related issues. It is the only way that we can competently develop a thesis around centrism that stands the test of political time, which is from one election to the next. Very few fake centrists can meet such standards, giving our succeeding examination more clarity.

II. Understanding Polarization “For no man lives in the external truth among salts and acids, but in the warm, phantasmagoric chamber of his brain, with the painted windows and the storied wall.” ~ Robert Louis Stevenson Perhaps the most destructive side of partisanship lies in the way it makes us immune to sheer reality, or at least a relatively unmolested version of the same. The average person, or “normie,” if we are to employ internet speak, is content to merely transmit words sourced in the treasure trove of an information radiator. For political opinions, the base would be any available talking head or communications operative. Messaging as a larger category is manifested in the way politicians change terms in order to get electoral groups on their side. The movie Vice demonstrates how the once neutral term of “estate tax” got recast by Republicans under the “death tax” label, with marvelous results. While the levy itself applies primarily to wealthier inheritances, referencing death riles people up who may have little stake at all. “How dare you tax me for DYING?” is the broader takeaway. Democrats have become adept at passing dialog along to their supporters as well. During the Iraq War, the popular phrase was fanatically dismayed yawns of “Bush got us involved in the quagmire!” with the last word being especially critical. Once the term filtered through the MSNBC and Air America sub-consciousness, it became suddenly popular for layman liberals to employ that specific verbiage in their discourses. Few bothered explaining WHY they chose quagmire, as opposed to any other descriptor, yet the distinctness of the word and its frequent employment by D.C. liberals suggests deliberate political calculation. This took fresh blood in 2008, with Democrats parading the “Hope and Change” message like it was some organic manifestation

of human will, as opposed to an extremely well-funded political operation. I distinctly recall letters to the editor in local papers glowing over how Obama had “inspired a whole generation to hope for change,” as though he was not simply an opposition party candidate. Such a statement might seem ridiculous to certain observers, but for Obama’s supporters, its spirit was a pure and undying truth, the outlook of their world. Considering how disparate people are in their media consumption habits, it should come as no surprise that little thinking is done around how various issues intersect. The person reading Huffington Post versus another who frequents Breitbart will have strikingly different outlooks based on how information is processed and presented. In the latter’s columns, a story might focus on the health and fitness of a leftist candidate, while the former downplays that content and plays up fears of racism. If readers of either publication spend much of their lives plugged into the outlets, they will be unlikely to ever agree, and even potentially see one another as actual enemies, rather than political opponents. Cable news viewing statistics for 2019 help hammer this point home, with Fox News coming in at an average of 2.57 million views, MSNBC at 1.8 million, and CNN at 1 million.[3] We can further explore the dynamic by considering the partisan associations of various American networks[4]: Fox News (Center-right to Right-wing) CNN (Center-left to Left-wing) MSNBC (Center-left to Left-wing) ABC (Center-left to Left-wing) CBS (Center-left to Left-wing) Further complicating matters is the way in which people of diverging political viewpoints perceive one another. In his seminal book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt uses extensive survey data to explain not only which principles are valued by individuals based upon their background and affiliations, but also what they

assume or believe about those who disagree. The broad chasm of accuracy between conservative and liberal perceptions is an especially interesting phenomenon, with the former group being more on target than the latter.[5] The existing foundation of media and public discourse demonstrates to us the importance of disassembling issues so that individual voters understand how interrelated they happen to be. A common failure on the part of would-be centrists is in their allegiance to traditional party notions of right and wrong, which stranglehold discussions before they can begin. Over the course of this text, our goal will be to provide clarity and verbal weaponry to advance the genuine centrist agenda.

III. Environmental Matters So long as we rely on basic party-driven talking points, any meaningful progress becomes kneecapped, especially in the realm of the environment. Listening to modern politicians talk, one would have to conclude that the planet is either hopelessly doomed, or nothing should be done because we can simply grow the economy and forget about climate change alarmism. Corporations have done an excellent job of framing discussions this way, where we must “believe” in global warming, or disbelieve, but either position automatically jettisons both moderation and real-life environmental projections. Is the planet truly going to end in twelve years,[6] or are we only beginning to prime the pump of economic growth? The polarized universes continue existing on fragile terms, offering up a pretty picture of how far apart attitudes have strayed when it comes to what should be unifying across all peoples. Before anything else comes to the matter, it is worth noting that much of the environmental movement is predicated upon excitable drama. The lead-up to the Green New Deal’s unveiling is a fantastic example of the extremes which can be taken, against all common sense. Aside from the shrill predictions that our world stood to end in barely a decade without the costly legislation’s adoption, observers caught sight of the youth-driven Sunrise Movement on Capitol Hill, where the group stormed Diane Feinstein’s office to hoot and holler about the planet. A particularly passionate young lady in the building also began bouncing around the hallways, preaching about the Holocaust and its survivors in service to the environment, her face becoming visibly red and hyperventilated throughout it all.[7] The following year, world audiences were given the image of Greta Thunberg, a child with selective mutism who launched a hunger strike in front of the Swedish Parliament building to protest perceived inaction on global warming. Thunberg would later

castigate leaders of the United Nations at a New York summit, angrily demanding “How dare you?” and lamenting her sacrifice of education to make the trip. Despite all the attention she generated, empowered progressives have pointed out how “people of color” had attempted similar environmental campaigns and garnered significantly less attention,[8] a possible indication of society’s biases. [9]

As cute as these tidbits are, they evade the real cause of planetary degradation in favor of pliable political ideas. The human race has long seen itself collectively above criticism; after all, we were appointed over other species according to various religious texts, and therefore in the minds of many observers the problem cannot possibly be inherent to us. Furthermore, author Daniel Goleman of Ecological Intelligence explains how we like to make excuses to feel better about pollution. For instance, a person might recycle plastic bottles to “do their part,” but fails to question why they purchased landfill waste-creating bottled beverages in the first place. [10] Placing plastics in a blue bin makes us one of the “good guys,” so broader discussions about the terrible state of affairs can be safely ignored. Another angle on this front would be “Green Energy.” It is certainly true that adopting more solar and wind might reduce dependency on fossil fuels, but the argument does not end there. These alternative sources are all too often a cynical mask for limitless development, albeit wearing green wrapping paper. Wind for starters has specific requirements concerning location and raw material cost. Windmills must be designed to catch regular currents and may be disruptive to local fauna.[11] The continuing debate revolves around the expense of installing turbines, and their relative efficiency at generating energy.[12] Solar is billed as a natural solution, and with some good reason. Panels can be laid on top of most buildings and may entirely replace a person’s electricity consumption, with some plants even “buying

back” the created energy surplus. Newer models can still catch rays on cloudier days, preventing loss of generation due to a weather change. At the same time, the overall effectiveness of solar panels depends on the model and weather conditions,[13] and they require costly raw materials as well.[14] On the subject of hydropower, this means of energy generation has been around for centuries, going back to the ancient Egyptians. Mills in later years were often positioned alongside a body of water so the natural flow might turn a waterwheel to help the machinery function, thus reducing human labor whilst also boosting production. In current times, the Three Gorges Dam serves as another example. This gargantuan structure in China’s Yangtze River Valley puts out 84.7 TWh annually[15] to help the growing world power meet its energy needs. A similar style has been erected in Canada to assist with development and energy consumption.[16] The positive side is large-scale energy creation which might help reduce dependency on coal-fired plants, an environmental objective. What proponents fail to mention however is the gross systemic damage caused by industrial-sized hydropower systems. In the case of the Three Gorges Dam, redirection of water flow caused massive flooding of the river valley, destroying established communities.[17] Furthermore, the construction interfered with natural habitats by allowing sediment buildups which had devastating effects on marine life.[18] A similar practice by the Soviets that diverted flows to the Aral Sea caused a devastation of animal and plant life in the (now steadily shrinking) body of water.[19] A seriously misunderstood issue tied to development is the question of immigration’s impact on the environment. Even as consumption remains a paramount concern, progressives continue to advocate the acceptance of climate refugees into countries with already high carbon footprints.[20] The matter leapfrogs to urban regions where regular migration is concerned, but also affects the country on a macro level. Despite complaining about development

and pollution, progressives support a program that will guarantee more pollution and resource consumption. This is not a political opinion, but actual fact. It has already been shown in the Western world that people are sluggish about shifting to renewable forms of energy, either because of cost or industry influence. Why then would anyone want to boost the number of folks using it in an increasinglysmaller space? Let us be mature about this for a second. The average carbon footprint per capita (per person) in the United States is estimated at 17.5 tonnes. The same calculations find Mexico at 3.91, and El Salvador at 1.01.[21] Both countries are major feeders for migration to the United States, particularly of the illegal variety. If we continue with unchecked access in order to satisfy emotional appeals about humanity or “women and children,” the natural procession is that those migrants will begin rising up to the level of consumption native to our country, and therefore contribute more pollution along with Americans. There are other factors to consider as well, such as: - Food consumption: Available data suggests the average American goes through 1966 pounds of food each year.[22] - School overcrowding: According to Federation for American Immigration Reform, population growth from migration has fueled issues with school crowding: “As a result of this immigration-driven population growth, about 14 percent of schools exceed their capacity by six to 25 percent, and eight percent exceed it by more than 25 percent. To alleviate overcrowding, more than one-third of schools use portable classrooms, and one-fifth hold classes in temporary instructional space, such as cafeterias and gyms.”[23] The answer to this problem will lead to the government spending more money on building new schools, creating an added problem for the planet.

- Water Treatment: It is estimated we already spend $41.7 billion annually on water treatment programs.[24] The more that population expands, the greater the toll on the environment. Water treatment works by treating fluids that are pumped back into a public supply. Boosting the number of people “crapping and washing” will push the system to its limits, requiring the development of new plants to accommodate. Bear in mind that the energy consumption bills for these systems are already sky high, and millions of Americans do not have access to clean drinking water even today.[25] - Public Safety: Illegal immigration has a large impact on crime, which is often misreported by immigration advocates.[26] More police resources are spent on this matter that could otherwise be diverted towards environmental projects. - Welfare: There is also a substantial drag on the economy from immigrants utilizing welfare services.[27] - Road use and degradation. Taking the road issue for a moment, it should be easy to see how corrupt the notion becomes. Metropolitan areas are already extremely crowded, with constant development destroying natural beauty and ensuring highly-congested commutes. Further expanding the number of people settling in a smaller region guarantees more waste and less quality of life. This is not a complicated issue. If we care about the future of the planet, and the tranquility of the world in which we live, the solution must be to preserve, not destroy it. What Can Be Done The centrist approach to the environment is all-encompassing and considerate. We must seek to expand energy development on all fronts, with the mind of making people see value. Solar is a good option, but the smartest way to encourage adoption would be to drastically expand the present tax break, which currently stands

around 30 percent. When one recalls that solar panels on a residential home can cost up to $25,000 for installation[28] it is easy to see why middle and working class families struggle to justify the cost. Other forms such as hydropower, wind, and nuclear should be similarly examined for industrial use, but with limitations and strict environmental protections in place. In addition, America must have a serious conversation about the casualties of overdevelopment and free movement. As the nation bore witness during Hurricane Harvey, previous draining of Houston wetlands to develop land proved devastating because the natural systems to absorb water were eradicated, leading to further damage. [29] Just because short-term financial gain looks good does not mean we should be reckless with the laws of nature. Restrictions on development at all levels must be enacted to preserve both quality of life and a healthier planet. In that same vein, our migration policy should concern itself not simply with the economy, but also the larger questions of sustainability and public health.

IV. More On Immigration Migration is frequently discussed as a crucial issue, but years upon years pass without consistent success in achieving specific objectives. A plethora of reasons help explain why progress is so sluggish, and each must be carefully examined. Before that, let us consider the background. Advocates of open borders and American worker displacement enjoy conjuring up insane fantasies like "We are all immigrants," or "Immigrants work harder than Americans." Both statements are false, with the latter straying dangerously into the category of abject racism. Since people tend to utilize them as talking points more than actual data, we shall address each one here: "We are all immigrants" translates to "You cannot have any control on borders because at some point in the past your relative was an immigrant." Let us pause to consider how only an imbecile could adopt such a view. For one, resources are finite in nature, and societies are not limitless conduits of growth. The United States is not some overflowing land of milk and honey that constantly expands physically to accommodate whoever desires access. These imbeciles pretend folks are coming in to join the Oregon Trail and make a claim on land out West (with progressive permission from the natives, of course). Obviously, things are quite different. We have increased development, destroying small communities, making commutes atrocious, poisoning the environment, and disconnecting people from each other. We are told it is about multiculturalism and diversity, yet in reality newcomers cling close to their culture, refusing to integrate while using the flimsy laws of the American system to agitate for constitutional protections. When presented with the possibility of reform, they quickly demonize their opponents as racists, despite pursuing ethnocentric programs when it comes to hiring other people. They benefit from the fact that the political

system serves short-term interests, allowing senators to craft bills that will upset unity and identity in the name of neoliberal economics. The next unsupported and even racist claim is that “Immigrants work harder than Americans.” A more appropriate translation of this talking point would be “Immigrants work harder than white and black Americans,” because they are the collective targets of the antinational crusaders searching for cheap labor. That latter point cannot be quickly dismissed, as the country has a long history of working people struggling to be guaranteed respect. During the 1800s, Chinese workers were favored by industrial leaders because they could be paid less and treated horribly by labor supervisors. In the 1900s, a burgeoning labor union movement responded to corporate abuse by starting to demand far better protections and treatment for their respective constituent fields. Companies reacted by hiring disenfranchised black citizens from the South, who they could pay less as non-union laborers. Ever since the 1960s, firms have used cheap illegal immigrant labor as a means to undercut the American working class, aided by new trade deals such as NAFTA, which radically shifted manufacturing South in favor of low-wage, low-skill domestic jobs. Even for industries that remained, the allure of replacing American workers in order to save money is blatant and widespread. For instance, we have the example of an employee at Hormel Foods admitting that the company preferred Hispanics over whites because “They don’t ask for breaks. They don’t ask for raises.”[30] This was after a legacy under which the firm attempted to slash existing worker pay by 23 percent.[31] So the simple fact that white workers refuse to work for less money and under poor conditions gets them labeled as lazy or racist. Sadly, challenging the narrative becomes a significant problem when it is has already be so well acculturated by the political class. The angle on so-called “high-tech” visas is a stunning example of the issue. When generally conservative senators Joni Ernst and Mike Lee signed on to legislation that would remove the country-specific cap on such visas, they faced reticence from Senator Richard

Durbin. As a consequence, staff at the Immigration Voice, a proIndian lobbying group, suggested he was a racist who wanted to ethnically cleanse Indians from the United States.[32] One must swiftly question how any organization demanding unlimited access to a particular country for their corresponding ethnic group can make such claims with a straight face. The idea is to simply demonize those concerned about worker displacement in favor of corporate victories. America’s cheap labor lobby has been so successful that previously frowned upon behaviors by the president are now seen as politically viable. In the lead-up to the impeachment of Donald Trump, the commander-in-chief attended a political rally with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Texas meant to boost his foreign ally’s support. Several months later, Trump would be greeted by a large rally in India celebrating their friendship. These acts might seem typical for politicians, but they come as the Indian government is making an aggressive push to expand the cheap labor visa policies discussed before. Remarkably, India already gets 75 percent of the H1B visas issued by the American government,[33] yet still demands more. There is of course no evidence that immigrants “work harder” than Americans. The very suggestion implies work ethic is based on nationality or race, perhaps one of the most socially reprehensible concepts to propose. Some immigrants work hard, while others do not. The same can be said of Americans. Reality is more nuanced than neoliberal activists would like folks to believe. That being said, the statement feathers an inevitable question: if immigrants work harder, then why are their countries usually in such poor shape? One would logically conclude that superior work ethic leads to economic growth and high standards of living, just like the neoliberals claim will happen in America with mass immigration. If that were true, migrant source countries would be so prosperous and safe that few of them would leave.

Let us also consider the results of the tech industry, a popular epicenter of job outsourcing and immigration traffic.[34] Reports have actually shown that immigrant coders perform poor work, necessitating corrections by Americans that hurt productivity and limit the outcomes of this assumed advantage.[35] The pro-foreigner approach has the added effect of creating ethnic enclaves that discriminate on the basis of race or culture.[36] Addressing Illegal Immigration Perhaps the most complicated migratory argument revolves around illegal border crossings, currently estimated at around 851,000 in fiscal year 2019.[37] As usual, hysteria has displaced common sense while the nation tries to adopt to changing policy objectives. Populist Republicans rightly point out the issues caused by big business seeking to find cheaper labor at the expense of the country. At the same time, they have a tendency to oppose some of critical fixes needed, such as a change in foreign policy decisions and an end to the War on Drugs. Rather than seeing everything as requiring a reactionary-style response, we can look at it from a multipronged perspective; secure the border, but also create conditions back home to where immigrants are less likely to come. Democrats on the other hand like to create problems which they later blame on others. The child separation policy is a good example. When Barack Obama was president,[38] the practice went into effect in part to prevent the trafficking of kids across the border. Contrary to what the bleeding hearts will claim, not every “family” that crosses the border is legitimate,[39] and in some cases smugglers may use the familial pretext to get through, with reports suggesting that 600 children were “recycled” by malicious actors to gain access to the country.[40] Unsurprisingly, leftists only began screeching loudly once a Republican was in office, claiming children were cruelly being separated from their parents as part of some dastardly scheme of dehumanization.

There’s no question that the handling of folks can be improved, yet we would be naïve to assume collective outrage will disappear if the practice ends and child trafficking rises. Herein stands the problem with poorly-informed people reacting to news headlines that they are clueless about: the political pressure can create worse outcomes due to the rush after (misguided) public opinion. We inhabit a sick world, and so at times rough answers are needed to avoid the victimization of children. Just because it looks bad does not mean the practice must end. Beyond those policies, and a reform to asylum practice that ventures past the Executive realm, investment in the necessary physical impediments to travel is important. Observers tend to be extremely one-dimensional in their comprehension of border security. It’s obvious that a wall or fence is not going to solve the problem by itself. However, when the government strives to make changes by addressing the push/pull factors and eliminates job or welfare magnets, it becomes far more effective at preventing entrance. When the state requires folks to seek a safe third country to enter for refugee purposes, or coordinates with foreign partners to prevent illegal immigration, it serves as an ideal supplementary policy to the physical barrier concept. What Can Be Done Addressing mass immigration of both the legal and illegal varieties requires a multicultural approach with centrist underpinnings. First, we need to destroy the magnets drawing people in. This means severely curtailing welfare through work requirements, and adopting national E-Verify systems. E-Verify must however be granted access to appropriate databases, such as those held by the FTC. People often fall through the cracks when it comes to issues of identity theft, creating unstable and imperfect enforcement.

E-Verify alone will not address the problem. Large fines must be levied on corporations hiring cheap labor that is undocumented, and laws should allow for prosecution of those executives overseeing the practice. On the push side, the federal government should make a point of not prohibiting nearly as many drugs as we presently do. The point is to reduce violence throughout Central America, giving them less reason to leave. Furthermore, the U.S. Government ought to cease exporting anti-contraception policies to underdeveloped countries. When people are in poverty, having lots of children they cannot afford is a recipe for destitution.[41]/[42] America should also consider the long-term effects of its foreign policy goals. To some degree, our economic strength is derived from the might of our military, and its reach around the globe. At the same time, short-term solutions lacking hindsight fail to adequately assuage the greater problems afoot in other regions. For instance, Cold War logic held that propping up reactionaries would be to the benefit of regional stability. The problem was with the type of folks selected, many of whom were little more than petty criminals with an axe to grind. Smarter choices in this regard would severely help avoid creating immigration “push” factors. A good example of the type of leader to support would be Jose Napoleon Duarte in El Salvador. Although generally aligned with the United States, he also took it upon himself to push for political and financial reforms, starting when he served as mayor of San Salvador, and continuing through his presidential term. The key point lies with a willingness to fix underlying problems caused by corrupt political actors, rather than following a scorched earth approach like the extreme right and left. For instance, as mayor he moved to ensure that wealthy interests reimbursed the city for unpaid utility bills over previous years,[43] something a regular politician may well have ignored in order to keep the peace with his supporters. As Duarte described his philosophy:

“Christian Democrats believe in a new social order built not on materialist values, but on solidarity among human beings. The common good is achieved by participation from every member of the community. Recognizing the rights of each human being in a democratic society is the essence of Christian Democracy.”[44] That precisely is where the dividing point strikes between compassionate, reform-minded leadership and the attitudes we see driven strictly by money. When the United States backs people like Noriega in Panama or Duvalier in Haiti, we contribute to conditions under which people flee due to concerns about their ability to move up and succeed. Corrupt regimes tend to solve problems with violence, and certainly the drug trade does no favors in that regard. As far as foreign policy is concerned, we need to focus on people who understand the pulse of the culture, not simply the interests of the gilded class. Only through them will a sustainable polity be established. With the focus on legal migration, several reforms need to occur. First, we ought to fix the problems with the existing system, which is corrupt and takes far too long. This should encourage people to come based on legal standing, as opposed to illegal means. Adopting a merit-based program concerned with skill level and country of origin would also do a lot of good for the nation. An ideal model to follow would be the Australian points system, which allows people access contingent on what they have to offer. Concurrently, we can eradicate present programs such as the diversity lottery, and avoid calls to remove the caps from specific countries.[45] We must also repair the 1965 Immigration Act, balancing our draw to reflect the various cultures of the United States. Fifty percent of migrants should be selected from regions like South America (Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, and Argentina, Peru, and Paraguay), Europe, and Australia or New Zealand. The rest can come from the existing sources, ensuring a wonderful system of diversity for the country. Refugees

Accepting refugees has been part of our country’s history for many years, to varying degrees. Going back to the Vietnam War, we brought in over 100,000 South Vietnamese who were fleeing the country as it fell to the communist North. There is nothing wrong with our approach, assuming it can be handled appropriately. One of the bizarre moments of the 2015 Middle East crisis (largely created by feckless foreign policy decisions) was the way people threw out logic in favor of pure emotionalism. A grave and justifiable concern raised by skeptics was that the refugees from Syria and other regions would in fact by used as a fig leaf to bring violent terrorists into their nations. As it turned out, the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Bombing[46] and some in the Paris attack were of refugee extraction, [47] validating such fears. Skeptics further noted how the government’s vetting system was inadequate, and thus might create loopholes to allow the wrong people access to the country. In a peculiar development, the usually anti-government Cato Institute began parroting government talking points on refugees, claiming the system for vetting was functioning properly.[48] Perhaps the move was simply in their economic interest when one considers the think tank’s financial backers, but it represented a prime example of the dysfunctional behavior we see today. The centrist alternative demands a proper vetting system be erected, preferably with input from foreign nationals who understand the culture in whatever source country is chosen, and thus can provide better information than our current apparatus. Such a structure must account for the fact that warn-torn countries do not always have documentation, making the process difficult. It is also crucial to be selective in terms of where the refugees originate; while Syrian Christians might be a safer and respectable choice, individuals from regions where Islamic terrorism is centered should be looked at with more skepticism. This does not mean none can be accepted, or that all Muslims are terrorists; it merely ensures we comb with a finer set than the “Have a heart” crowd is liable to demand.

V. Why the Tax Debate Is Stupid Taxes in Western civil societies have been a contentious issue for hundreds of years. In the United Kingdom, various fees introduced over time created protest movements and broad political reforms to eradicate the least acceptable versions, or at least diminish their intensity. These chokepoints included taxes on the poll (or head), hearths, births, marriages, burials, widowers, bachelors, land, number of house windows, servants, hunting, shops, and even hair powder.[49] Since the American Revolution, our country has had a similar fixation with taxes. We don’t like them, constantly look for ways to avoid, demand they be raised (or slashed), and condemn opponents for failing to contribute their “fair share.” As recently as 2012, the presidential election revolved almost entirely around tax plans, with Mitt Romney demanding further reductions on earlier Bush era rates, and Obama insisting that the upper tier cuts should be allowed to expire, leading to higher bills for the wealthy (at least on paper).[50] The presidential election was unique in its fault lines, drawn over previous decades of political debate. In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed the Emergency Recovery Tax Act, and followed this with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. These pieces of legislation had the dramatic effect of reducing the highest tax bracket from 70 percent to around 30 percent.[51] The latter piece also cut the corporate tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent.[52] To what extent the government ever collected on this higher rate in full is unclear, but the move, coupled with deregulation of various facets of the economy, led to seismic stock market growth. Supporters often defend such cuts by appealing to the Laffer Curve, a concept implying that lower rates would lead to more growth, and thus higher tax revenues. The idea’s namesake, Arthur Laffer, further claimed that tax beyond a certain

level would cause collection to fall off as people stop attempting to make money or produce goods.[53] Reagan’s advocates presented Laffer’s proposal as an argument for their beliefs, but an important detail was left out. They were relying on the assumption that the government would make serious attempts to shrink itself alongside these revenue policies. In reality, Ronald Reagan was very timid, if not resistant, to major spending cuts. He would actually expand taxation by signing the 1983 Social Security Amendments Act, which permitted the government to tax retirement benefits from the program.[54] The Social Security payroll tax would further rise from 9.35 percent in 1981 to 15.3 percent by 1990 based on proposals advanced by Alan Greenspan. The collected funds were then used to purchase Treasury Bills, and that money ended up being siphoned by other government programs, contributing to the Social Security funding crisis of today.[55] As president, Reagan also jacked up defense expenditures as part of a Soviet containment strategy while largely protecting entitlement programs from the scythe. Not once did he present a balanced budget, although he did achieve a roughly 5 percent cut in spending in the first year, and eliminated an expensive public sector job training program.[56] More importantly however, he set the stage for the Republican Party’s uncompromising position on tax increases. His successor, George HW Bush, famously campaigned in support of the slogan “Read my lips: no new taxes.” After a successful foreign policy pursuit in the Arabian Gulf, he increased the gas tax, and was soundly destroyed by Billy Clinton at the 1992 ballot box. The late 1990s saw the GOP adopt the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a signed contract created by lobbyist Grover Norquist that they would not vote to increase taxes under any circumstances. Republicans later forced the issue by co-opting the grassroots Tea Party movement, which stood for “Taxed Enough Already” and provided steadfast opposition to Barack Obama’s presidency on the

revenue question. In 2011, negotiations for the dream budgetary “grand bargain” fell apart as conservative Republicans balked at the idea of agreeing to tax increases in exchange for historic reductions in federal spending. Conservative religiosity on the matter billowed forth during a presidential debate, where candidates unanimously agreed to walk away from a 10-1 spending deal if it included any tax increases.[57] Things got more serious in 2017 following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which dramatically reduced rates across the board, with an especially large impact on corporate tax structures. That proved insufficient however, for many Republicans insisted on the merits of “Tax Reform 2.0” in the lead-up to the 2018 and 2020 elections.[58] Of course the issue is not only captured by the Center-right. In reaction to the perceived growth in inequality allegedly caused by lower tax rates on the rich and deregulation policies, the political Left erupted in support of Occupy Wall Street, a protest group focused on extracting higher revenues from the wealthy. The Democratic Party would ultimately make elevated tax rates a central issue for the 2012 election, playing hardball when it came to the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, which were eventually permitted to lapse after an extension of two years until 2015. From this point onwards, political figures on the Left began to focus strictly on the issue, while also advancing expansive social welfare programs. Gone were the days of 1984, when Walter Mondale solemnly declared his plan to increase taxes in the name of deficit reduction at the Democratic Convention.[59] Now higher rates are a virtue, with wealth taxes becoming increasingly popular.[60] In 2016, Bernie Sanders released an array of revenue proposals totaling an estimated $19.6 trillion over ten years. This package included increases on capital gains, the estate tax, carried interest, and energy.[61] Four years later, Elizabeth Warren upped the ante with her advocacy of a 2 percent “wealth tax” on net worths over $50 million, with an added surcharge of 1 percent for those beyond $1 billion.[62] This latter idea became a lightning rod in the Democratic

primary, with moderate and centrist-leaning Democrats opposing it, while the notion emerged as a litmus test for progressive leaders seeking presidential office. With both ends considered, we face a more serious question: how does one ensure the implemented (or diminished) taxes are even collected? It is a bigger issue than most want to admit, for while anyone can celebrate the merits of “soaking the rich,” or “growing our way to more revenues,” getting people to actually pay is complicated. In the United States, where progressives complain of the need for higher taxes, the IRS reports on the so-called “Tax Gap,” which deprives the government of annual revenue. From 2008-2010, this amounted to $406 billion annually, or 16 percent of overall taxes and 18 percent of annual revenues,[63] which was around 2.8 percent of GDP at the time. Put against the span of deficits in the period,[64] it would have gotten us deathly close to a budget surplus in 2008, and made large dents in years after that. When the details of Democratic proposals are taken into the discussion, it seems clear that taxes on offshore money and speculation would be difficult to enforce without large-scale international cooperation; itself a disadvantage where smaller tax haven countries are concerned. If we are dealing with the prime minister of island nations such as Dominica or Barbados, they might be hesitant to assist with enforcement due to the large benefits that the rich provide. These countries often place their citizenship up for sale (for as little as $100k in Dominica or Saint Lucia),[65] and offer low tax rates in general.[66] In fairness, the United States could attempt to strip citizenship from people who domicile elsewhere for tax reasons, but that might have the undesirable effect of reducing their financial impact in the country, so it remains a complicated issue. But these evasion issues are not exclusive to America. Liberals tend to use Europe as their model to promote social democracy, with high taxes the tradeoff for healthy and financially-secure citizens.

The part of the debate left out is how large a problem getting those taxes paid happens to be. If we look at Italy as the focus model, you have a sliding scale beginning at 23 percent and rising to 45 percent for the wealthier filers. All this is used to fund national healthcare, universities, public housing, and pensions. In 2014, the country suffered a tax evasion rate of 27.55 percent, or 36.9 billion Euros. This was actually a downward trend from the previous year, when it came in at 29 percent, or 37.87 billion Euros.[67] Neighboring Greece is a similarly depressing case. When the government collapsed in 2011, observers were quick to pick their sides. Those in support of the EU tried to explain away the Greeks as overly comfortable socialists who needed discipline by the German-led Brussels establishment. They stood by the institutional New Democracy and Panhellenic Socialist Movement parties, encouraging them to advance an austerity agenda. On the opposing side, populist and leftist movements decried the EU’s terms as tantamount to abolishment of sovereignty, especially after a technocratic government was installed in Athens. This animosity led to electoral success for the Communist Party, Independent Greeks, Golden Dawn, and Syriza, with the latter forming a government after elections in 2015. Chief on the agenda of these forces was the rejection of budgetary cuts and pension reforms demanded by the authorities in Brussels as an exchange for the proposed financial bailout. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (Syriza) would eventually fold to EU demands, accepting a bailout[68] and agreeing to austerity measures until as late as 2060,[69] but the symbol of brash defiance remained. As truth would have it, both narratives are wrong, or at the very least incomplete. Yes, Greece did institute sweetheart policies to benefit larger corporate interests, but that is hardly the full extent of the matter; if anything, workers were actually emulating corrupt business behavior, if not inspiring it. Decades of mismanagement led to an environment where the average state worker made three times

his equivalent in the private sector, government agencies paid people for 13-14 months of work to get around EU salary caps, the country had four times the number of teachers as Finland but poor outcomes, and a state-run railroad system bringing in revenue totaling but a fraction of its annual operating cost.[70] Furthermore, widespread tax evasion practiced in the country meant revenue was low, and the government would even remove tax collectors from the streets before the 2009 election to gin up support. [71] Adding to all that, state officials actively suppressed the reporting of total funds being spent in order to present a brighter financial picture. I bring these examples forth to emphasize the seriousness of the tax avoidance matter, and the related problem of collection. Despite media perception, there is broad bipartisan collusion dedicated to hindering or preventing the implementation of tax policies that the same politicians might just as quickly describe in positive terms. In 2009-2010, Democrats engaged in a hard-fought battle to pass their version of healthcare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” Though initially meant to include a government-funded public insurance option, the insistence of Senator Joe Lieberman caused this to be removed, clearing the way for a filibuster-proof Senate majority.[72] The legislation, which went into effect fully in 2014, introduced a slew of taxes to help fund its various provisions, including the famous “Cadillac Tax” on expensive employer healthcare plans. This 40 percent charge was originally intended to be effective in 2018, yet got delayed in December 2015 until 2020. Then once 2018 rolled around, it was again postponed until 2022. Another tax, of 2.3 percent on medical devices, got pushed back in 2018 to 2020. Finally, the Individual Mandate tax collected on citizens without healthcare coverage ended up being wholesale repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. One might call these developments the result of pure partisanship, but the story is rather purple. Democrats opposed the

Cadillac Tax when it was passed due to union complaints, and actually joined Republicans to repeal almost all the Obamacare taxes in 2019. The result is that the primary revenue means remaining is the investment tax, while the bulk of the law’s spending stays in line, costing the country immensely. According to a study released by the Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the repeal of Obamacare taxes would lead to a $373 billion loss of revenue over ten years,[73] even as Democrats campaign on increasing taxes for the rich and corporations. The Housing Double Tax America is not alone in the world when it comes to expensive housing. Globally, our country ranks 23 out of 25, coming behind several European countries, but well behind others.[74] What makes matters more complicated is the bizarre nature of our taxation policy. Real estate is taxed on a property basis (a practice going back to the founding), and before the creation of the federal income tax in 1913. Property tax is designed to pay for roads and community services, with rates ranging from 0.27-2.47 percent across the nation.[75] There is nothing inherently wrong with this system, save for its impact on affordability where the self-funded model is concerned. In the United States, people are expected to mostly fund their own retirement without pension programs, and also purchase healthcare. Given this situation, why do we double-tax their rent or mortgage payments? As any homeowner knows, a portion of the monthly charge is an escrow related to property taxes; renters on the other hand pay a similar charge, but it is simply folded into the bill every thirty days. Let us consider the insanity of the notion in regards to the middle or working class. Rents for an apartment in Los Angeles, New York, or Washington, D.C. can easily run $2,000 per month, or $24,000 yearly. Assuming a person makes $100,000 in that same period, he will be parting with almost 25 percent of his income to cover the cost

of a roof over his head. But hold on a second, because that figure is pre-tax. In reality, our friend must shell out $24k AFTER he has paid taxes, healthcare, and retirement contributions. When you figure that after-tax on $100k is around $72k, give or take a state tax, you see him giving back closer to 33 percent of his realized income for shelter. Since living quarters are not really negotiable unless you reside with others indefinitely or live in a car, rent and mortgages are really just another tax, meaning that the genuine tax burden on $100k around a city is closer to $50k. And many folks work long hours for such an outcome. Now think about a lower-income person, say someone on $40,000 annually. They too must make contributions, and pay tax. This places them in the perversely cruel position of paying expensive rent on an after-tax income of about $2,000 each month, and doesn't factor in the influence of regular costs like groceries, the phone bill, and transportation. "We are an ownership society," they might say, or perhaps appeal to the need for fully-privatized Social Security accounts. But even with that burden, we seldom see a concentrated effort to free up money and allow folks just that ability. It's as though the money is believed to materialize out of nowhere to service everyone’s wildest dreams. What Can Be Done A broad-based campaign of tax reform on the state and local levels is needed to make right what can only be seen as an economic injustice. By exempting mortgage and rent payments from taxation we would free up potentially billions of dollars for use by American households. In other words, more funds available to invest, boosting the returns and growth of the stock market, or use for other objectives. Some families might save the money, while others spend it in their local (or digital) economy. Furthermore, folks could set extra aside for a future down payment, or save for college expenses.

Ultimately, such policy decisions should take into account the immediacy of humanity's finite existence. We all have around 100 years to live, some more, and some less. Keeping that in mind, why should individuals slave away all their life simply to maintain an adequate shelter? And of course it is not a question of them dodging taxes; they already pay when it comes to property charges, so the present model is a bizarre punishment on common sense. A further reform would end, or heavily reduce, taxes on overtime pay, bringing relief to our working class families who sacrifice extra hours to help companies and first responder departments run. At the peak of tax policy, America should give strong consideration to a flat tax with severely reduced deductions for the wealthy, or perhaps the Fair Tax system. Both models would greatly simplify the tax code, and the Fair Tax in particular would be harder for the rich to avoid because it applies to consumption (a necessity) rather than income (which can be manipulated by accountants). Provisions that provide a prebate to lower-income and middle-class individuals might serve to lessen the burden of a high sales tax on their everyday life.

VI. Taking On The Debt America has an interesting relationship with deficit spending. On the one hand, politicians love clamoring about the terrible practice, preferably when they are out of office. But if they happen to secure victory, it all goes out the door in favor paying off donors and political constituencies. The National Debt basically serves as a righteousness barometer for the powerless, much like the Constitution is sacred only when it impedes another party’s immediate progress. But things don’t have to be this way. History shows both a difficult intransigence on the matter of spending, along with prime examples where cooperation yielded substantial results for the good of the American checkbook. The critical factor is to ensure a broad-based coalition can be assembled in the name of compromise, as occurred in previous years. First, we can examine the legacy of Ronald Reagan, commonly known by conservatives as “the Gipper,”for his foreign policy and tax cuts, while liberals accuse him of being an advocate for only the rich. Both would probably agree that he failed in his plan to majorly reduce government spending, although he oversaw a significant rollback in economic regulations. In line with the historical record, Reagan made it clear that "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."[76] He would actually make a deal to increase taxes in 1981, supposedly on the provision that House Speaker Tip O’Neill would give him “three dollars in cuts for every dollar in added taxes.”[77] As observers know, these cuts never fully materialized, and the deficit ballooned outrageously. Reagan would end his time in office with the following statistics[78] on spending:

- The Department of Education’s budget more than doubled to $22.7 billion, - Social Security spending went from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. - Farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion 1987. - Medicare in 1981 cost $43.5 billion, but was $80 billion in 1987. - Federal entitlements were $197.1 billion in 1981, only to rise to $477 billion six years later. - Foreign aid was boosted from $10 billion to $22 billion. - The Gross Federal Debt increased from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. In fairness to Reagan, he did sign the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act of 1985, an early experiment with sequestration that served as a historic constraint on federal spending. The legislation worked by ensuring that if Congress passed a spending bill which surpassed specific budgetary totals, a broad-based cut would occur to rein in costs. The only way around this would be for the legislature to enact another budget resolution. Unfortunately, the unpopular act would be gutted by a court decision in 1986, and was left with limited impact going forward. Under George H.W. Bush, Congress enacted one of the most successful deficit control legislations ever attempted on the federal level: The Budget Enforcement Act. The BOE modified GrammRudman by introducing caps on discretionary spending, pay-as-yougo procedures, and updated deficit objectives. In plainer terms, the controls meant Congress’ spending would be limited, and required new outlays or tax cuts to be offset by equal budget reductions or tax increases. If it happened that these things did not occur, automatic

sequestration cuts would be put forth by the Executive Branch. The BOE is regarded as one of the more successful measures on federal spending because it tied the hands of representatives trying to vote away difficult cuts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Congress allowed some of the stricter provisions to expire in the early 2000s, reverting instead to the PAYGO model that resulted in the Budget Control Act of 2011, a flimsy set of controls which add nothing to actually prevent future spending.[79] The present legislation allows Congress to simply vote for a debt ceiling increase whenever they feel like it, thus undermining most requirements. As an example, in 2019 President Trump signed that’s year’s bipartisan budget act, raising the spending caps that were set for years 2020 and 2021. On the positive side, previous reductions in interest rates and the Middle East drawdown led to savings of around $4.9 trillion, while projected entitlement costs went down by $2 trillion due to related developments.[80] Still, these changes do not account for the current rate of federal spending, which is dramatically high. The first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency brought a modified approach to the matter of taxation. Buoyed by the support of his party’s congressional majority, Clinton enacted several spending initiatives, while also raising the upper tier tax bracket from 28 percent to 39.9 percent. This might seem like a large figure, but in reality it was down from the equivalent before Reagan, which stood at 70 percent. November 1994 anointed the “Republican Revolution,” bringing to power new conservative majorities in the House and Senate that were hostile to further tax increases. Clinton would end up negotiating with the opposition to enact welfare reform, which led to an estimated savings of $50 billion.[81] Additional action by Congress between 1993-2000 helped reduce both defense (from 4.3-2.9 percent GDP) and domestic (from 3.6-3.2 percent GDP) spending, resulting in a series of budget surpluses for the years 1997-2001.[82]

Bush Senior and Bill Clinton are good articles for focus because they represent an era of politics when centrist budgetary policy achieved positive outcomes for the political system, and the people. It’s worth noting that the majority leader of the Senate from 19951996 and the latter year’s Republican presidential nominee was Bob Dole, one of the old school fiscal hawks in the party, and a person less obsessed with tax cuts than his vice-presidential choice, Jack Kemp. Since the early 2000s, observers have seen the toxic growth of self-centered and partisan behavior where the budget is concerned. To begin, we previously noted how the PAYGO rules instituted in 2002 as a replacement for the BOE have made it much easier to increase federal spending. Former vice president Dick Cheney gave life to the high spending mentality when he noted that “Deficits don’t matter”[83] politically, and the Bush Administration cut taxes twice while also spending trillions on a Middle East campaign. Historically, leaders like Benjamin Disraeli pushed for increased revenues to fund foreign excursions,[84] yet Bush did not. The result was a massive wave of federal spending increases from 2001-2009, totaling an expansion of 83 percent.[85] The best effort by Bush to control spending involved his proposal to partially privatize Social Security in 2005. This reform would have used price indexing for benefits and permitted Americans to invest about one-third of their safety net in the stock market, aiming for (hopefully) higher returns. According to analysis from the EPI,[86] the plan might not have been better than the status quo of the time in terms of outcomes for participants. Due to a combination of political concerns and poor leadership, the legislation never advanced beyond committee level. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, Republicans used the rallying cry against extreme spending to take back the House of Representatives and force the item at Barack

Obama’s side. Leading the GOP’s efforts was Paul Ryan, who famously promoted his three-part Path to Prosperity plan to address Washington’s liberal cost policy. The proposed legislation included an uplifting of small businesses, large reductions in taxes, and a reform of the Medicare system. Under the fresh plan, seniors would receive “premium support vouchers” to purchase insurance, rather than it being provisioned directly by the government. Additional elements included a change in Medicare eligibility by two years for those at the age of 55 starting in 2019, and a plan to reduce spending as a percentage of GDP from 12 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in 2021, achieved in part with the planned repeal of Obamacare. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggested the plan would not produce budget surpluses until the 2040s.[87] As with Social Security reform, the proposal did not get very far, passing the House but failing 57-40 in the Senate. While there were many false attacks made on the Ryan Plan, particularly that it would end Social Security (false) and Medicare (simply restructure), passage was unlikely due to the underlying approach, with tax cuts and spending cuts tied up together. This program might work with large GOP majorities and the presidency, but divided government meant a guaranteed death knell. Our system is built on compromise, so trying to walk forward without making concessions usually backfires. A good example of how compromise can work – and partisanship destroys—would be the infamous “Grand Bargain” negotiations of 2011-2013. Obama’s loss of the House majority in 2010 led him towards the Bill Clinton-style compromise politics of the 1990s, including openness for Social Security reform. The summer of 2011 brought the famous debt ceiling showdown, which culminated in the S&P downgrading the U.S. credit rating,[88] along with an agreement to make $38 billion worth of cuts. All such drama surrounded a longrunning negotiation between Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama over deficit reduction. The famed Erskine-Bowles Commission failed to find common ground, but Obama endorsed as

much as $1.2 trillion in cuts, while Boehner wanted closer to $700 billion.[89] Despite their vast differences, Boehner and the president were focused on a compromise plan including spending reductions and tax increases, in line with the 1990s themes of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, narcissistic politics got in the way. Republicans led by Eric Cantor revolted against proposed tax increases, using their signing of Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge as an excuse. Somewhat less crucially from a numeric standpoint, progressive Democrats backed away from welfare cuts or changes to entitlements, and the agreement collapsed. Narrow self-interest prevailed, and the country continued to suffer its fiscal crisis. Since that moment, there have been several abortive attempts to cut spending, such as 2013’s “Up to Us” campaign championed by Senator Mark Warner. More recently, Senator Rand Paul’s “penny plan” was proposed as a moderate measure, and in both cases shortsighted ideological politics caused them to be laid aside.[90] What Can Be Done Looking at history, it might seem futile to hope for progress, but as we saw in the 1990s, there are real opportunities for those willing to bargain. As fiery as partisan quibbling might appear today, the hangover and withdrawal effects are truly mind-changing. People get tired of arguing over the same things, especially when they get up in years, so a gradualism model might work best. 1. Republicans Must Abandon Their Anti-Tax Zealotry No one likes taxes, nor indeed desires them. They are however a necessary element for any formal state or society, so the debate rests on HOW MUCH, as opposed to religious screeching. Agreeing to higher rates on the super wealthy might seem like a violation where Reaganomics or libertarian ideals are concerned, but it will be important if any real cuts are to be enacted. Being fiscally

conservative means just that, and massive tax cuts without accompanying spending reductions is recipe for extreme financial liberalism and inflation. 2. Both Sides Must Stop Idolizing Programs With conservatives, it’s the military, with leftists, welfare. In each case, reticence towards Social Security changes have hamstrung any meaningful developments. The budget ought to be approached agnostically, with legislation crafted based on independent observers, not special interest groups. 3. Campaigns and Earmarks Financial democratic politics fail on fiscal discipline issues because politicians need money to get elected. Capping spending (or publicly-financing elections) will allow people to run more on issues, not corporate or union money. In addition, allowing congressional earmarks would reduce the risk of politicallyunpleasant decisions by providing a give and take approach. Morally and ethically they look bad, but we need to look at politics on the issue; without incentives, you will not see any major cuts. 4. Reinstate the BOE Congress’ hands ultimately need to be tied on the spending issue. The BOE is less threatening than a Balanced Budget Amendment, at least given the current state of affairs. Looking at the Clinton model, we see how incrementalism and compromise is much better than hard partisanship, which has gotten us to the present fiscal disaster. 5. Finally, a Balanced Budget Amendment This is the dream of most budget hawks, and certainly an ideal worth pursuing. It might be done using a constitutional convention, as passage through Congress remains a grim consideration. Any

such amendment should have automatic sequestration cuts triggered if Congress fails to enact a balanced program, including through the popular continuing resolution strategy. This total could be 5 percent of the overall spending for that year, and permit exceptions for times of war, but only with strict fiscal limits and requirements for annual review. Furthermore, these times of war cannot be those pursued without a congressional declaration, as the current “War on Terror” will likely continue indefinitely on open terms. Budgeting “off-the books” must similarly be curtailed to prevent politicians from getting around limitations on spending.

Social Security and Medicare Social Security is easily one of the most contentious issues facing the centrist thinker. The program, which is collected by around 63 million Americans,[91] remains extremely popular, with polls showing large majorities opposed to reductions or cuts.[92] In addition, 57 percent of retirees reported Social Security being a major source of income for them. The average Social Security benefit in June 2019 was $1470, or over $17,000 per year, which works to support a large chunk of people’s retirement income, while serving as a safety net for the working poor.[93] Furthermore, Social Security Disability Insurance provides an emergency backstop in case of accidents and the unpredictable. Survivor benefits can also be used at times by children, such as in the case of former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who used such funds to help pay for college.[94] The biggest proponents of Social Security argue it is self-funding, important for the working poor, and crucial to preventing the growth of inequality in America. Still others point to returns of around 5.7 percent for the program, versus around 7 percent for 401ks, arguing it remains competitive and safe as a saving scheme.[95] At the same

time, Center-right Republicans and libertarians posit that the trust fund is running out of money, and capable of paying out only 75 percent of benefits starting in 2034, hence their push for partial privatization in 2005. Other observers have noted that the original Social Security plan only guaranteed an equal amount of money out that was drawn in to the participants, and was merely meant to aid private sector workers. However, Congress increased the payouts twice in the 1950s, and implemented a COLA adjustment, warping the system as the total number of workers per retiree dwindled drastically. They also point out that the investment return of Social Security is worse than bonds or even some stocks.[96] Regardless of the viewpoint, there is at least consensus around the need for something to be done, particularly to protect existing Social Security funds. Several politicians in the late 1990s advanced the notion of a "lockbox" approach[97] to protect its assets from seizure by other programs. Most notably, former Vice President Al Gore campaigned in 2000 on this very issue, promising to put Social Security in an "iron-clad lockbox" if elected.[98] What Can Be Done 1. Raise the Cap on Social Security Taxes Currently, Social Security funds can only be taken out of up to $118,500 worth of income. Increasing this ceiling would provide more support for the program as worker ratios decline in the future, although it is not a guaranteed fix. According to some research highlighted by Bankrate,[99] raising the current rate of 12.4 percent by 1 percent would extend the life of the trust fund by 5 years past 2034. A boost of 2 percent would support it for 18 more years, and 3 percent up to 15.4 percent would lead to insolvency at the much later date of 2087. The downside would be the unpopularity of increased taxes on Americans. 2. Complete Privatization

This option is favored mainly by libertarians, who argue the return on Social Security money is so low that people would not thrive much from only a partial shift to a non-defined benefit model.[100] They will typically cite the example of Chile, which adopted a 401kstyle model for its Social Security program in the 1980s under the influence of economy minister Jose Pinera. The plan has resulted in annual returns as low as 2.3 percent,[101] and as high as around 12 percent,[102] which supporters point to as an example of success. Ironically, Jose Pinera's brother, Sebastian, would later become president and face protests over the perceived lack of financial security[103] in the retirement system, ultimately acceding to more funding for the program. This includes a 20 percent increase in the minimum pension.[104] The obvious problem here lies with the haplessness of folks when it comes to budgeting. While it has less growth potential, a fixed income provides stability, especially to the very poor. Leaving people to their own devices could result in additional poverty if they have poor market performance, or simply do not save enough. The West Virginia pension reform demonstrates how such an issue can play out, as some workers receive a guaranteed check, and others struggle to make it on a lump sum. When given a chance to switch back, over 78 percent chose to do so, and the state actually saved money.[105] In addition, broader national data suggests that 401kstyle retirement schemes can cost governments as much as 91 percent more than traditional pensions.[106] 3. A Balanced Approach Rather than clinging to partisan squalor, centrism presents a far better program with advantages to all. First, the defined benefit must be recognized as critical to the livelihood of poor folks. As much as stock growth can be a good thing, we misunderstand human nature, which will be destructive where money is concerned, and hence steady, small checks are maintained. To make it more sustainable,

the model must be changed to a self-funded vision. In this case, 65 percent of Social Security taxes would be placed in a special bond paying 6-7 percent annually, beating the current 30-year return of less than two percent. The investment would grow in that person's account, without regards for others having to fund their future. Furthermore, people would have the option to allocate 35 percent of their funds to low-cost index funds meeting strict government requirements about passive management. Of course folks would have the freedom to keep it all in the special bond fund if they so choose. While not perfect, the system would allow people to withdraw a fixed amount monthly upon retirement, offering long-term stability. Conservatives must learn to appreciate the plight of the poor here, and progressives should appreciate that even lavish pension funds are typically invested in the stock market, either in part or wholesale. Medicare/Medicaid If Social Security is the sacred cow, Medicare and Medicaid are the holy puppies of American politics. Few can forget the countless times protestors have shrieked about "Hands off my Medicare," as though everyone collectively owns the government behemoth. Presently, Medicare covers around 60 million retired Americans, with varied options depending on status. Medicare Part A is concerned with hospital inpatient care, Part B focuses on outpatient care, and Part C is dedicated to Medicare Advantage, a private offering by some insurance companies. Part D on the other hand addresses prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. It should be noted that the original projection for Medicare was a price tag of $12 billion by 1990, while the total in that year actually came to $90 billion.[107] In 2019, Medicare benefits spending was a whopping $731 billion, or 15 percent of the federal budget.[108] At least a large part of the cause is Medicare Part D, which was poorly-designed and did not feature any new taxes to pay for it. Recent figures imply the Medicare hospital trust will run out of money in 2021,[109] though some claim this will not be a significant issue for the program.[110]

Like Social Security, it is a program depended on, but there are concerns for the future. Medicaid on the other hand is a healthcare program designed to serve those who are extremely poor. To qualify, one must have an income of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, which works out to $16,394 a year for an individual, and $33,534 for a family.[111] Because Medicaid covers all expenses, as opposed to Medicare, which handles only 80 percent, some people are forced to give up their assets in order to qualify. One can see pretty quickly how inefficient the system is. Requiring older folks, especially those on a fixed income, to purchase additional coverage beyond what they have paid throughout life simply generates added financial insecurity. Furthermore, mandating that people give up their assets to achieve basic health protections seems devious and counterproductive, creating more poverty in the process of pretending to address it. What Can Be Done The scope of the healthcare debate ought to be changed sharply so as to align costs with sensible policies. To begin, Medicare should be expanded to provide more substantial coverage to the elderly, including full assistance with any hospital, long-term care, or specialized treatment required. These shifts are bound to be pricy, yet they remain preferable when placed against the extremely costly model seen today, where countless seniors go bankrupt each year due to high expenses.[112] The burden could be balanced by requiring payments for routine checkups, exams, and other visits, which are cheaper to provide and easier for companies to compete on when they look for ways to drive down overhead. A similar approach to Medicaid would be sensible; we should not seek after anything that leaves people financially destitute, but an element of personal responsibility ought to be built into the model. A Note On Innovation

The common refrain from libertarians and conservatives is that government control of healthcare will stifle innovation and competition, leading to less advanced care. It is true that social democratic healthcare systems emphasize preventative measures rather than treatment – but there is good reasoning behind the practice. Our primary goal should be to PREVENT people from getting sick through dieting and wellness. When one considers how much a poor food selection is seen to impact health, and the questionable standards of food production in the United States,[113] along with poor health outcomes,[114] policymakers should be paying attention. The lobbying efforts on the part of the food industry play a negative role here, and thus closer examination is required. Another problem relates to patents, both for medications and specific treatment programs. If a company manages to secure the patent or rights for a specific drug, they might be tempted to jack up the price dramatically, and thus boost profits. This was seen in the case of Martin Shrekli, who got ahold of the Daraprim drug used for HIV treatment and raised the price by a factor of 56, from $13.50 to $750.00. The question then becomes one with steep ethical troubles in its wake. Should we encourage an environment where people can make gigantic profits by limiting access to a particular treatment, especially if a generic may not be available at lower prices? More pointedly, what about treatments used to manage potentially lifelong conditions? An asthmatic child for instance needs access to EpiPens that might well save their life. As we witnessed with the company Myan, a similarly cynical spike in prices from $103.50 to $600.61 left many families struggling to pay for the critical device.[115] Clearly this is a problem. Conservatives like to talk about personal responsibility and self-funded retirements, but these large costs on the consistent make saving for anything over the long-term extremely difficult. While it is reasonable to expect people to pay for basic preventative visits out of pocket, penalizing others due to conditions out of their own control seems needlessly cruel, and also unhelpful to the success of the country.

We can better process this side of the debate by examining how costs are actually increased through the existing model. An undeniable matter for consideration would be how emergency room services operate. When people utilize ambulance rides or the ER as a way to get around insurance coverage restrictions, they add thousands of dollars of expenses to hospitals which may never be covered. Illegal aliens are well-known for such behavior, with estimates standing at them costing the system as much as $18.5 billion each year.[116] If people simply duck out on their medical bills, which is likely due to how little private insurance plans tend to cover when it comes to emergency care, the hospital must find other ways to absorb costs, leading to the disaster of high charges for service. These prices end up getting baked into healthcare premiums as well. Unfortunately, most spectators in the healthcare discussion will not be made aware of how such things fuse together, and thus look at solutions differently than others. Any answer must go beyond the normal talking points to examine matters rationally, or else we risk going with suggestions that create further problems down the road. What Can Be Done First of all, we need a comprehensive approach to healthcare costs, and their associated causes. Simply relying on outcomes doesn’t cut it, because we end up left without a firm avenue to advance from, and the solution is a shot in the dark. A critical first step involves the full repeal of McCarran-Ferguson, a terribly destructive law from the 1940s which helps exempt insurance companies from antitrust laws, giving them easier rein to drive up costs.[117] At the same time, any centralized system should be designed with the goal of fundamentally reducing costs by preventing illnesses in the first place. We can do this by promoting different dietary approaches, particularly in the school system. Children may well eat junk food at home, but in the cafeteria it might not hurt to introduce

some better formulas in the name of health. On the broader level, attitudes towards individual well-being must change to have critical effects. Some folks might recall when Mike Bloomberg pushed for a 16 ounce cap on the size of sodas served in New York City stores and supermarkets, generating great controversy. Certain people backed the move because of dietary concerns, as a 24-ounce drink can contain as much as 72 grams of sugar. Libertarians condemned the control, which they viewed as part of a growing “nanny state” attitude from the government. There were even protestors who went out and bought double of the new size to spite his restrictions.[118] Such a decision is bound to generate controversy, but perhaps observers missed the point entirely. Yes, one can elect to buy multiple sodas to make up for the difference, but doing so creates INCONVENIENCE. Humans in the modern world are used to easy access, so generating a fresh normal may well reduce the amount of soda one consumes, or even satisfy the person who would previously down a larger portion. The alternative view suggests folks are so committed to the old size that they will refuse to do without, which any rational observation of human behavior would quickly rebut. Incentivizing good actions (or penalizing bad) is another way to draw down costs in the healthcare system. Dieting obviously plays a role in the debate, but physical activity matters too. According to the CDC, only 23 percent of Americans get an adequate amount of exercise each week.[119] Furthermore, data shows that 1 in 3 Americans is considered overweight, and 2 in 3 are obese.[120] This is disturbing because excessive weight is an associative factor to various medical issues, including high blood pressure, certain cancers, diabetes, and Gout.[121] The issue of heaviness is also tied to energy waste. Research suggests that up to 1 billion gallons of gas annually is burned as a result of the weight from larger people.[122] In addition, it is estimated that fatter individuals may cost employers up to $4,000 more each

year in medical expenses than a person of normal weight would.[123] These numbers present a tremendous drag on the economy, and in the case of the latter issue, our healthcare system. The objective here is not to stigmatize or mock those who happen to be overweight, but the ties do bind, especially where heath costs are concerned. As a result, it is important to structure the healthcare system in a way that accommodates such issues, and gently encourage better habits. In order to achieve this objective, two primary approaches should be used. First, incentives should be created for those with healthy lifestyles. Various forms might take the shape of a health tax credit for those practicing good wellness habits, or lower bills and premiums. Perhaps a partial refund of annual premiums could be worked out as a vehicle to further those patient-centered benefits. On the flip side, a plan to address unhealthy behaviors maintained by people in the United States is crucial. There are certainly cases where lack of exercise and dieting are cultural, stemming from ignorance more than a lack of kind. Concurrently, you can present multitudes with advice, and they will not necessarily follow it until there is some incentive created. Precisely at this junction the possibility of a surcharge for those who refuse to observe sensible eating and exercise habits should be examined. Focusing on obesity for the moment, people above a certain size should be required to pay a small surcharge at their annual checkup. Why? Because they are higher risk, and the condition is preventable. Previous models cruelly denied care based on conditions entirely outside the individual’s control, but the centrist version removes that possibility. Folks who have an accident or are suddenly taken ill with cancer will always be covered, but people on the road to likely disease stand to pay a little more. Again, the objective is not to harm those who are in such a condition, but rather nudge them in the direction of change. The beauty is that folks will likely wish to avoid the fee, and begin to take action (such as losing weight or quitting

smoking) to get there. And a health support program will be designed to offer aid as people contemplate major lifestyle changes. Quite crucially, the centrist plan incorporates elements for both sides; conservatives want individuals to fix problems in their own life, and liberals desire more government care. Together they fuse to provide a reasonable model. Higher Education Much has been praised about America’s transition from a manufacturing-based economy to one dominated by the service sectors. Supporters claim it allows us to purchase goods at lower prices, while also benefitting foreign countries with jobs and development. Detractors believe the shift has impoverished Americans while also leaving human rights violations to propagate in foreign production facilities. There are valid points on both sides, but to whatever extent we are a service-based economy, the role of education provides the possibility of a way up for those who would have previously worked in factories. An immediate problem in this realm lies with tuition costs. Data available reveals an increase in the price tag by over 200 percent since the late 1980s,[124] and as much as 1,122 percent since 1978. [125] Even state schools have done the same tomfoolery, resulting in a dynamic where poorer folks have limited opportunities outside of scholarships, which are not always available or all-encompassing. It leaves us with a situation where the average student debt load coming out of school in 2016 was over $31,000, a disturbing amount as young people orient themselves towards the first steps of professional life.[126] Even Marco Rubio, the senator and former presidential candidate, only paid off his debt right as he became a candidate for President of the United States.[127] The truly devastating part about this whole saga is that federal student loan debt is usually non-dischargeable,[128] so the person cannot simply declare bankruptcy if the interest becomes too much of a burden to

carry. In other words, we create countless debt slaves while preaching the virtues inherent to learning. What Can Be Done America needs to have an adult conversation about how higher education is structured. To begin, there is minimal reason to run students through four years of general education courses right after they complete high school. If they cannot read and write properly by the time of graduation, then the problem is with the secondary school system, not higher education. For all the billions being spent, our outcomes thus far do not meet the mark, so a major overhaul of public schools is the first place to start. In addition, young people need to know about good opportunities outside the typical 4-year degree pathway. For instance, trade professions are still in need of folks, but these possibilities don’t fit the societal standards of a “good career,” and thus are looked down upon. Schools should do a better job of informing people about their options, and a federal framework ought to be established. Because we know that scam institutions exist, these guidelines should operate on the basis of current success stories, such as the Apprentice School, which employs people and sends them to classes, all within a forty-hour workweek.[129] In step with the general education reforms, university can become less time-consuming. Our institutions should center on learning, not partying and vacation. If you are going for a History major, that can be completed in three years or less, and perhaps moved online to control costs. Liberal Arts degrees should not demand more than $5,000 annually, taught on a distance basis or with hybrid functions. Should the target be law, then it ought to feature a European-style approach, where the Bachelor of Civil Laws replaces the Juris Doctor, thus saving time and money.

An obvious reason for the high cost of tuition is the ridiculous spending on brick-and-mortar facilities. We can address this by adopting the cheaper model based on specific majors. As noted before, liberal arts degrees do not require access to laboratories or high-tech software beyond the library. Schools could make the lectures available online, as Coursera does, and simply hold exam days for tests or office hours to submit papers. If lectures are inperson, they should be optional, as European schools tend to do. Motivated students will attend and successfully complete their exams, while the lazier must learn to adapt towards a system which refuses to hold their hand. If things work as ideally planned, we might even see more independent thought, as folks drive themselves instead of reacting to a sharp prod. It’s no coincidence that college tuition has risen exponentially alongside the liberal provision of federal student aid. If we think logically, the federal authorities giving colleges guarantees on Pell Grants and student loans exacerbates the problem by eliminating any incentive to lower prices. Supposing the feds step up to give the Pell Grant ($5500 in 2020) and student loans. Now the colleges know they are guaranteed that amount by law, so they jack up the cost even higher because they know that young folks are desperate to get ahead. Sensible policy would dictate that such programs are ended. The result would be a temporary shortfall as universities shriek, realizing they can no longer gouge the feds and students. Then, reality would set in, and the markets adjust to accommodate working and middle class people. It is possible that they would simply refuse to reduce rates, but then students could boycott the institutions until they successfully did so. A further insurance measure to this would involve reducing the number of foreign students granted access to our schools, thus undoing their attempts to use out-of-state tuition as a financial weapon.

VII. Additional Issues Defense of Liberty Politicians are great fans of raising the Constitution flag whenever confronted by an election campaign or, perhaps more frequently, the opposition. One merely goes back a few years to see ominoussounding articles referencing the efforts of Barack Obama to “Shred the Constitution,” by conservatives, or Trump doing the same, by leftists. For most of them, the Constitution is just a convenient reason to be outraged over what SOMEONE ELSE has done. Once they have regained power however, those concerns magically blow away, becoming replaced by the passive indifference of government. While these electoral duels work for politicos, they evade and mask the very real erosion of civil liberties going on in the United States. In many cases, the Bill of Rights only applies to people based on a very narrow examination of their lives. We have free speech, but speaking out can get you fired. We have freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, but not under “probable cause.” We have freedom of religion, but it is constantly being encroached upon, or religion encroaches on areas designed to remain secular. These restrictions terrify people into submission, deterring them from entering public life for fear of losing their own livelihood. It also helps explain why richer folks tend to dominate the electoral system; they have much lower personal financial risk and can express themselves with diminished consequences. No, this is not a treatise against wealthy or successful people; rather, we need to protect the common man’s ability to get involved. Central to the centrist agenda on this subject is the establishment of an Employee and Internet Bill of Rights designed to safeguard people in the workplace. Under its terms, employees would have full protections to express political opinions or make jokes in their

personal lives, or on the internet. Employers should be permitted to dismiss workers only for things that contravene policies AT work, but not based on activities outside that realm. The benefit would be in reducing motivations for the process of “doxing,” where people take comments online or in a private association and use them to mount pressure campaigns that get the target fired. Similarly, it will protect online content creators who are censored or demonetized based on offering even moderate dissenting opinions, or simply reporting on controversial news.[130] During the Chic Fil A controversy of 2012, a liberal CFO recorded himself confronting someone at the drive-thru about the fast food company’s position on gay rights. The video went viral, leading to his dismissal and struggle to attain employment so as to support his family. Yes, his behavior was petty and cruel, but not deserving of a financially-destructive blacklisting from that point on. [131] In another case, a Virginia police officer lost his job after membership in the exclusionary religious Asatru Free Assembly was discovered.[132] A religion like the AFA might seem disgusting to many of us, but in a free society we do not go around chucking people on the street for spiritual “thought crime.” Oftentimes people who claim to adore the Constitution are fixated on denying rights using the doctrine of political acceptability. Freedom is not so fickle; you either grant liberties to everyone equally, or resign yourself to the fact that the system will be unfair and discriminatory. As a nation, the former is critical to treasure. What Can Be Done Employment security remains a central and related component for the Bill of Rights. Under present conditions, employees in many states can have their positions eliminated or be let go merely because it is convenient under Right-to-Work laws. As a consequence, people live with anxiety and uncertainty about what the future might hold. The centrist platform insists on an approach

which balances worker performance with private sector labor union participation. Government labor unions are less important because the nature of the state makes employment more secure. By combining strong labor laws with tax incentives, we can encourage companies to invest in their employees, whether by providing better retirement programs (such as full 401k vesting on day one), enhanced paid leave, and overtime pay for managers. Judicial Reform We frequently hear appeals for the reduction of state spending and power, yet significantly less attention sticks to the ridiculous strength enjoyed by law enforcement agencies and courts. Under existing law, police can seize money from people who have not been convicted of a crime, and violently break into a person’s home on the dubious basis of “probable cause.”[133] These practices are typically defended as a means to combat crime,[134] yet in reality they can be easily abused by those with malicious or corrupt intent. In addition, sentences doled out by court systems have been weaponized to benefit private prison systems,[135] as well as probation service companies.[136] It is therefore imperative that a major reform of sentencing and policing practices occurs at the federal level, ensuring laws supersede corrupt rules manifested by individual states to support campaign donors. Of course such changes should further accommodate a shift in the power commanded by federal courts. Right now, district judges are able to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal decisions or striking down entire laws. As we saw during the Obama and Trump administrations, these rulings result in endless litigation which can hamstring the government’s ability to achieve anything, particularly in the window of a two-year congress. The issues associated with this system are enormous and costly. In the future, legislators should adopt a Notwithstanding Clause to help legislation survive the arduous legal campaigns waged against it, at least long enough to achieve good for the people.

A further note on federal prosecutions is critical here. The Justice Department’s historical practice has been to prosecute someone until they can no longer afford to defend themselves, thus making a plea deal more appealing, and the conviction rate high. If people choose to fight and are acquitted, or perhaps have their conviction thrown out, they may well be forced into bankruptcy. The case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell illustrates the problem well; he had his conviction reversed by the Supreme Court, but only after racking up $10 million worth of legal fees.[137] For someone making only a high six-figure salary, this structure is ridiculous, and it helps explain why poorer folks either suffer high sentences with a public defender, or simply take pleas deals. Rather than defend this injustice, the answer is to require the federal government (or state) to pay all legal fees associated with unsuccessful convictions.

Consumer and User Safety An issue seldom addressed in political debates is the SOURCING of our consumer items and medicine. As free trade has expanded alongside population growth, corporations and governments have sought to maximize availability for consumers by adopting genetically-engineered crops and unsafe production environments in unregulated zones. The result is a situation where many folks know little about where their food or medicine originates, but have to go along with what seems available. On the first point, the FDA is badly in need of comprehensive audits and reforms. Even many of the stylized tags placed on foods, such as “Free Range,” are simply bureaucratic code words that do nothing to protect consumer health. We should be looking at European Union food production laws,[138] which are far more

stringent and encourage truly organic means of producing products. [139]

The alternative risk is a scenario in which farmers continue feeding their livestock corn (or mostly corn), and fail to account for the deleterious effects on human beings. This question should likely create a debate over the state’s role in the market, and that talk is necessary. We tend to assume lower-cost goods are preferable, even if they may lead to negative health consequences down the line. Politicians operate within the temporal field, lashing themselves to what immediately benefits reelection, such as big industry donations. They are obviously less-motivated by health outcomes, because that is not as lucrative. A firm centrist policy will demand closer consideration to save our future. Medications While there is substantial misinformation peddled about pharmaceuticals and vaccines online, an indisputable fact surrounds their sourcing and production. We presently allow China to provide ingredients for around 80 percent of our drugs, and 97 percent of antibiotics overall.[140] While this might be seen as a positive in the realm of market liberal economics, it poses a massive security threat to the Western world. China is not a democracy, nor even a centralized state with appreciation for openness and transparency. We cannot know whether their standards are safe, or that the government is not colluding to damage their geopolitical opponents. There is no hysteria in this position; rather than rely on standing armies, modern states like to do battle with proxies, or indirect warfare. What better way to achieve such objectives than to influence the creation of our medicine? The centrist position demands a shift in manufacturing centers for medical supplies, preferably to Puerto Rico, which used to be our primary source for drug manufacturing. Such a change would also help boost the island’s ailing economy, and help reform its corrupt

government.[141] No longer can we afford to be loose with an issue affecting healthcare costs, child welfare, and human lives. Foreign Policy There is a raucous debate over the question of America’s foreign policy that cuts across partisan divides, often to hilarious effect. Democrats claim to oppose intervention, but go along providing it involves buzzwords such as “smart power,” or “kinetic military action.” After destabilizing regions like the Middle East, they claim we must accept refugees from those source areas. The GOP tends to favor aggressive military involvement, but then backs regimes with devastating treatment of the people, causing instability, revolution, and high levels of migration. Neither side seems willing to endorse a practical foreign policy that actually serves national (and international) interests. To start, the non-interventionist position ought to be further clarified. On the one hand, it is popular as a playing card in each election, with candidates declaring that “America shouldn’t be the policeman of the world” to great applause. Of course this concept is more aspirational than real. After all, our economic system and debtfinanced markets are propped up not by the good faith and credit of the United States (massively in debt), but our global military presence, which encourages other countries to cooperate. At the same time, senseless intervention in lieu of getting the economic and financial houses in order becomes a dangerous gamble that we cannot afford to partake with. Inflation matters; just because it does not immediately manifest in peoples’ lives does not mean the problem can be avoided. Any bright look at how salaries have changed in the last thirty years, along with housing and consumer goods prices, is a good indication. The government deceives people with the officially-reported inflation stats, suggesting a far rosier picture than the microeconomic facts imply.[142]

With this in mind, the United States must begin a full reassessment of our present activities around the world. This should start in the Middle East, where our interests inexplicably surround Saudi Arabia and its proxies. What makes everything so bizarre is the fashion by which the Saudis operate, funding terrorist activities across the globe and actively undermining American objectives. It is well-known that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and this was followed by the Pensacola Naval Base Attack, perpetrated by a Saudi officer allowed in the country under a fighter jet training program.[143] The world also bore witness to the murder and mutilation of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, many believe by order of the Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Salman.[144] The pattern is blatant and disturbing. During past administrations, the excuse was wrapped up in a supposed need for energy security, but changes in technology along with domestic drilling make it less crucial than before. As the nation moves toward energy independence, the centrist plan ensures a sharp distancing from the Saudis coupled by rapprochement aimed at the reform movement in Iran. Ideally, religious fundamentalism will be gradually stomped out in the Middle East, and in that light our foreign policy should operate. It is worth noting in relation to the Gulf countries that they have large populations of foreign-sourced workers,[145] many of whom are not Arab or Muslim. The smart viewpoint will look at these individuals as future actors transforming their countries from one-dimensional petrostates to moderate forces working towards development and peace. Another aspect of the question is our relationship with Israel. Unfortunately, politics have developed into such meaningless tribalism that politicians are either expected to go wholeheartedly and unquestionably towards supporting Israel, or otherwise vehemently oppose it. Cleary this is a counterproductive approach. Like any other multiparty democracy, Israel has various associations that represent ideologically disparate positions. Some are highly nationalistic and support territorial expansion, such as the Likud,

while others remain skeptical, such as the left-leaning Meretz. The very controversial government of Benjamin Netanyahu has operated with starkly different majority totals in the Knesset, from a high of 68/120 seats to lows of 61/120. There is also a large support base for Israeli Arab interest parties, a group representing around 20 percent of the national population. Even the infamous Ariel Sharon was not opposed to the existence of a Palestinian state; he envisioned a multipolar region where Israel was closely aligned with the Christians in Lebanon,[146] and Jordan served as the Palestinian state.[147] As such, it is not necessary to diametrically align oneself either for or against Israel, and the United States can benefit from the relationship without sending military aid or becoming subsumed by petty religious motivations. The advantage of reducing involvement in Middle Eastern politics would lie with the deficit elimination program mentioned earlier. Defense spending is not the majority of the budget, but it also has areas where drawdowns can be pursued. Such a change would also permit our armed forces to practice a policy of Communist Chinese containment. Over the last few decades, China has been buying up regional government throughout Africa[148] and the Caribbean,[149] creating a central geopolitical threat to America through economic and governmental investments. The difference between China and the Middle East nations is related to both scale and deployment ability. While terrorist-supporting regimes are a threat, they lack the size and technological prowess visible in the People’s Liberation Army. Ultimately, technology will be a focus for future combat zones. America’s ability to become the king of information warfare, while also expanding into space weaponry, assures our capacity to secure national interests in the years ahead. This objective is of critical value to the centrist policy maker.

VIII. Conclusion Sometimes the most ideal solutions are needlessly rubbernecked by flashier or more excitable alternatives. The sensible route takes a second role because spectators are thrilled by savage brawls, and not the careful outlines of policy and legislation. What results is the enactment of frequently poor laws that fail to fix problems, or no laws due to disagreement running high. People then take these impasses and apply them towards human relationships, viewing their acquaintances using the lens of partisan fist fights. Nothing is changed, but the endless rage pot continues bubbling over, and the worst of it is that they likely feel just in holding such opinions. On this very hill, centrism has the capacity to make things change. The challenge is great, for the creation of new conditions requires first an approach committed to proper articulation. If we address the conservatives with an appeal for state intervention, it must be explained in such a manner as to appeal to his interests, and not fall headway over the cliff defined by socialism. Similarly, eradication of certain government departments and taxes should be communicated in a pattern which appeals to the progressive’s quality of life. Individuals tend to be rational when the squabbling noise is diminished, but otherwise they revert to basic inclinations, where the speaker becomes a clear and present threat. For this reason, centrist advocates must know the language and aspirations of the folks they are attempting to reach. There is a vivid risk that people who wish to expand the centrist message will become subsumed by a vapor of condescension or technocratic droning, at least from the target’s point of view, and thus fail to be successful. Getting past the problem will be a Herculean challenge, but it is certainly worth the effort. The spoils of triumph in this regard are rich and long-lasting. Communication that is effective can change the heart, both

emotionally and within the realm of the political world. Centrists have the capacity to build coalitions which can look past the fomented anger powering party politics, and replace that fury with solutions meeting common interests. Rather than perceiving one another as enemies, we should forge unity and respect for the contributions that each individual makes, focusing on what enshrines the good in their life, and the happiness which advancement can bring. We can find the strength to build a nation that does not look at matters from the standpoint only of those with money or means, but examines the complimentary nature we share as citizens, neighbors, and children of God.

About the Author Martin Goldberg is an economist and social scientist who has also authored the books Total Invincibility, Six Months In A Van, How To Suck At Business, and Ass Culture. When he’s not chuckling at his own handiwork, he can be found working as an amateur gardener and fitness expert. He makes his home in Florida land. You can find him online pretty easily with a web browser search.

References [1]

Enten, H. (2019, June 1). Congress' approval rating hasn't hit 30% in 10 years. That's a record. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/poll-of-the-week-congressapproval-rating/index.html [2] Barr, A. (2010, October 28). The GOP's no-compromise pledge. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/thegops-no-compromise-pledge-044311 [3] Andreeva, N., & Johnson, T. (2019, December 27). Cable Ratings 2019: Fox News Tops Total Viewers, ESPN Wins 18-49 Demo As Entertainment Networks Slide. Retrieved from https://deadline.com/2019/12/cable-ratings-2019-list-fox-news-totalviewers-espn-18-49-demo-1202817561/ [4] Jurkowitz, M., Mitchell, A., Shearer, E., & Walker, M. (2020, February 21). U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided. Retrieved from https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-andthe-2020-election-a-nation-divided/ [5] Haidt, J. (2013). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion. p. 334. New York: Vintage Books. [6] Gage, J. (2020, January 15). 'Out of context': AOC backtracks on claim climate change will end world in 12 years. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/out-of-context-aocbacktracks-on-claim-climate-change-will-end-world-in-12-years [7] Jeremy Ornstein Sunrise Movement 1 : Adults - Face Harsh Reality - GROW UP!, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=z2fN67GUrYw. [8] Unigwe, C. (2019, October 5). It's not just Greta Thunberg: Why Are We Ignoring The Developing World's Inspiring Activists? | Chika Unigwe. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/05/gretathunberg-developing-world-activists [9] Palmer, S. (2019, October 1). Supporting Greta Thunberg is evidence of 'white supremacy', activists claim. Retrieved from https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/10/supporting-gretathunberg-is-evidence-of-white-supremacy-activists-claim.html [10] Goleman, D. (2009). Ecological Intelligence: How Radical Transparency Transforms The Marketplace. pp. 35-36. London: Allen Lane. [11] Berwyn, B. (2017, November 22). How do offshore wind farms affect ocean ecosystems? Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/how-do-offshore-wind-farms-affect-oceanecosystems/a-40969339 [12] Simmons, R. (2016, March 25). What's the True Cost of Wind Power? Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/whats-true-costwind-power-321480 [13] Solar Performance and Efficiency. (2013, August 20). Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/solarperformance-and-efficiency [14] Runyon, J. (2019, September 9). Solar Companies Scramble to Find a Critical Raw Material. Retrieved from https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2017/11/15/solarcompanies-scramble-to-find-a-critical-raw-material/ [15] Krishnamurthi, G. (2014, December 18). Three Gorges Dam: Power Generation, Economics, and Impact. Retrieved from http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/krishnamurthi2/ [16] Wilt, J. (2017, July 5). What's the Future of Hydroelectric Power in Canada? Retrieved from https://thenarwhal.ca/what-sfuture-hydroelectric-power-canada/ [17] Staff, B. B. C. (2012, April 18). China's Three Gorges Dam may displace another 100,000. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-17754256 [18] Hvistendahl, M. (2008, March 25). China's Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe? Retrieved from

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinas-three-gorges-damdisaster/ [19] MacFarquhar, N. (2018, August 16). The tragic story of the sea that disappeared. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/aral-sea-uzbekistansoviet-union-agriculture-climate-change-irrigation-a8489721.html [20] Kaduuli, S. (2020, February 5). Canada has a moral obligation to accept climate migrants. Retrieved from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2020/canada-hasa-moral-obligation-to-accept-climate-migrants/ [21] unstats | Millennium Indicators. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751 [22] Golgowski, N. (2012, January 1). Average American consumes one ton of food a year while equating a gallon of soda a week. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article2080940/Average-American-consumes-ton-food-year-equatinggallon-soda-week.html [23] School Overcrowding. (2002, October). Retrieved from https://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/school-overcrowding [24] Statista Research Department. (2016, February 18). Projected spending on water and wastewater infrastructure U.S. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/618215/usspending-on-water-and-wastewater-infrastructure-projection/ [25] Philip, A., Sims, E., Houston, J., & Konieczny, R. (2017, August 15). 63 million Americans exposed to unsafe drinking water. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/14/63million-americans-exposed-unsafe-drinking-water/564278001/ [26] Bandler, A. (2016, October 22). 9 Things You Need To Know About Illegal Immigration And Crime. Retrieved from https://www.dailywire.com/news/9-things-you-need-know-aboutillegal-immigration-aaron-bandler [27] Camarota, S. A. (2015, September 10). Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households. Retrieved from https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-NativeHouseholds

[28]

Schwahn, L. (2020, March 13). What Do Solar Panels Cost and Are They Worth It? Retrieved from https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/finance/save-money-putting-solarpanels-roof/ [29] Cullen, T. (2018, April 7). Houston's development boom destroyed wetlands that naturally absorbed flood water - and left thousands in Harvey's path. Retrieved from https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/houston-developmentboom-destroyed-water-absorbing-wetlands-article-1.3454807 [30] Genoways, T. (2014). The Chain: Farm, Factory, And The Fate Of Our Food. p. 29. Retrieved from https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/12389095 [31] Ibid, p. 26. [32] Munro, N. (2020, March 3). Mike Lee Rewrites Giveaway Bill, Helps India's Outsourcing Companies. Retrieved from https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2020/03/03/mike-lee-rewritess-386-giveaway-bill-helps-indias-outsourcing-companies/ [33] Dhillon, D. (2018, May 8). Indians accounted for 75% of all H1B visas in the US in the last two years. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in/indians-accounted-for-75-of-all-h1bvisas-in-the-us-in-the-last-two-years/articleshow/64079333.cms [34] Munro, N. (2020, February 17). CEOs Keep 1 Million Indian Graduates in U.S. Jobs, Legally. Retrieved from https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/17/ceos-keep-1-millionindian-graduates-in-u-s-jobs-legally/ [35] Sussis, M. (2019, May 4). Untold Stories: The American Workers Replaced by the H-1B Visa Program. Retrieved from https://cis.org/Report/Untold-Stories-American-Workers-ReplacedH1B-Visa-Program [36] Baron, E. (2019, March 11). H-1B: Outsourcing giant games visa system to discriminate against non-South Asians in hiring, lawsuit claims. Retrieved from https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/03/08/h-1b-outsourcing-giantgames-visa-system-to-discriminate-against-non-south-asians-inhiring-lawsuit-claims/

[37]

Giaritelli, A. (2019, October 5). Most illegal crossings in 12 years: Border Patrol took 851,000 into custody during fiscal 2019. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mostillegal-crossings-in-12-years-border-patrol-took-851-000-intocustody-during-fiscal-2019 [38] Budryk, Z. (2019, September 13). Biden incorrectly claims Obama administration didn't separate families. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/461230-biden-incorrectlyclaims-obama-administration-didnt-separate-families [39] Giaritelli, A. (2019, May 18). DNA tests reveal 30% of suspected fraudulent migrant families were unrelated. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-nationalsecurity/dna-tests-reveal-30-of-suspected-fraudulent-migrantfamilies-were-unrelated [40] Dinan, S. (2019, November 13). More than 600 children 'recycled' by migrant smugglers at border: ICE. Retrieved from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/13/more-600children-recycled-migrant-smugglers-borde/ [41] Naidu, D. (2014, January 23). Group: Access To Contraception Can Reduce Poverty. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/family-planning-poverty_n_4372575 [42] O’Hara, M. (2016, April 27). Lack of access to abortion leaves women in poverty | Mary O'Hara. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/contraceptionabortion-access-women-poverty [43] Duarte José Napoleón. (1986). Duarte: My Story. p.56. New York: Putnam. [44] Ibid, 45-46. [45] Hansen, M., & Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. (2019, December 13). Miles Hansen: Lee's immigration bill will give Silicon Slopes the hightech workers it needs. Retrieved from https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/12/13/mileshansen-lees/ [46] Richardson, B. (2015, September 14). Carson links Boston Marathon bombers, refugee crisis. Retrieved from

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253516-carsonraises-boston-marathon-bombers-amid-refugee-crisis [47] Henley, J. (2015, November 14). Paris terror attacks 'carried out by three coordinated teams of gunmen'. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/syrian-greecerefugee-paris-attacks-killers [48] Nowrasteh, A. (2016, February 23). Syrian Refugees Don't Pose a Serious Security Threat. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-dont-pose-serioussecurity-threat [49] Mander, M. (1979). How To Trace Your Ancestors. pp. 100103. St. Albans, Hertfordshire: Granada. [50] Sahadi, J. (2012, July 5). Obama vs. Romney on taxes. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2012/07/05/news/economy/obama-romneytaxes/index.htm [51] Reagan signs Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA). (2010, October 14). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/this-day-inhistory/reagan-signs-economic-recovery-tax-act-erta [52] Muresianu, A., & Pomerleau, K. (2019, March 21). The Economics of 1986 Tax Reform, and Why It Didn't Create Growth. Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/economics-1986-tax-reformdidnt-create-growth/ [53] Amadeo, K. (2019, January 6). The Laffer Curve Explains Why Tax Cuts No Longer Work. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-laffer-curve-explanation3305566 [54] Williams, S. (2018, July 9). The 1 Thing Nearly Everyone Forgets About Reagan's Social Security Reforms in 1983. Retrieved from https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/07/09/the-1-thing-nearlyeveryone-forgets-about-reagans.aspx [55]

Taibbi, M. (2010). Griftopia: bubble machines, vampire squids, and the long con that is breaking America. pp. 49-50. New York: Spiegel & Grau.

[56]

Samples, J. (2012, December 11). Limiting Government, 1980–2010. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/policyreport/marchapril-2010/limiting-government-1980-2010 [57] Smith, J. (2013, September 6). 10-to-1? Not enough for the GOP. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddowshow/10-1-not-enough-the-gop [58] 'Tax Reform 2.0' will make America even greater. (2019, September 25). Retrieved from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/25/tax-reform-20will-make-america-even-greater/ [59] Mondale Promises to Raise Taxes [1984]. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eowwp6bkpo0 [60] Li, H., & Smith, K. (2020, February 24). A Wealth Tax Would Increase Foreign Ownership of U.S. Capital. Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-tax/ [61] Klein, P. (2016, January 19). Here's a list of Bernie Sanders' $19.6 trillion in tax hikes. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres-a-list-of-bernie-sanders196-trillion-in-tax-hikes [62] Irwin, N. (2019, February 18). Elizabeth Warren Wants a Wealth Tax. How Would That Even Work? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/upshot/warren-wealth-tax.html [63] Gale, W. G., & Krupkin, A. (2019, April 9). How big is the problem of tax evasion? Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/09/how-big-is-theproblem-of-tax-evasion/ [64] Amadeo, K. (2020, March 2). Is the US Budget Deficit Really That Bad? Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-byyear-3306306 [65] Smith, S. (2018, January 6). Hurricane-hit countries slash cost of citizenship-by-investment programs. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hurricane-hit-countries-slashcost-citizenship-investment-programs-n832161 [66] Maverick, J. B. (2020, January 29). Top 10 Offshore Tax Havens in the Caribbean. Retrieved from

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/100715/top10-caribbean-tax-havens.asp [67] Italians are Europe's worst tax cheats (again...). (2016, September 7). Retrieved from https://www.thelocal.it/20160907/italians-europe-vat-tax-evasiondodge-again [68] Faiola, A., & Mui, Y. Q. (2015, July 13). Greek leader's debt deal ignites revolt at home from austerity's opponents. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/greece-agrees-to-apunishing-ultimatum-from-european-leaders/2015/07/13/4b6c2f2a28f3-11e5-960f-22c4ba982ed4_story.html [69] Baynes, C. (2018, August 19). Greece bailout programme finally comes to an end but country faces decades of austerity. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-eurozonebailout-programme-end-alexis-tsipras-euro-europe-debt-austeritya8498501.html [70] Lewis, M. (2011). Boomerang: Adventures of a Financial Disaster Tourist. pp. 44-46. London: Allen Lane. [71] Ibid, p. 51. [72] Norman, J., & Reichard, J. (n.d.). Senate Democrats Drop the Public Option to Woo Lieberman, and Liberals Howl. Retrieved from https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletterarticle/senate-democrats-drop-public-option-woo-lieberman-andliberals-howl [73] Sullivan, P. (2019, December 17). Analysis: Repeal of ObamaCare taxes in bipartisan spending deal costs $373B. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/474933-analysisrepeal-of-obamacare-taxes-in-bipartisan-deal-costs-373-billion [74] Davis, D.-M. (2020, January 22). The 25 most expensive countries to live in, ranked. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/most-expensive-countries-to-live-inranked#22-germany-4 [75] Kiernan, J. S. (2020, February 25). Property Taxes by State. Retrieved from https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-

and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/ [76] Richman, S. (2014, July 30). The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan: Sheldon L. Richman. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0 [77] Kessler, G. (2012, December 14). The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/factchecker/post/the-historical-myth-that-reagan-raised-1-in-taxes-forevery-3-in-spending-cuts/2012/12/13/58a33e4c-4555-11e2-8061253bccfc7532_blog.html [78] Richman, S. (2014, July 30). The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan: Sheldon L. Richman. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0 [79] Rosenberg, Y. (2019, August 12). Was the Budget Control Act a 'Colossal Failure'? Retrieved from https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/08/12/Was-Budget-Control-ActColossal-Failure [80] Ibid. [81] CRS. (2001). Short History of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Short History of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Washington, DC. [82] Staff, W. (2020, February 3). Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_ad ministration#cite_note-CBO_BEO2016-1 [83] Scher, B., Mahoney, B., Gerstein, J., Touré, M., & Glover, J. (2018, February 7). Deficits Don't Matter. So Why Are Democrats Complaining About Them? Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/07/deficits-dontmatter-so-why-are-democrats-complaining-about-them-216946 [84] Powell, J. (1996, December 1). William Ewart Gladstone's Great Campaigns for Peace and Freedom: Jim Powell. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/william-ewart-gladstones-greatcampaigns-for-peace-and-freedom/ [85] Edwards, C. (2012, December 15). George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ. Retrieved from

https://www.cato.org/blog/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-lbj [86] Bivens, J. (2005, January 26). Privatization fix for Social Security is worse than doing nothing. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20050126/ [87] Staff, C. B. O. (2011, April 5). Long-Term Analysis of a Budget Proposal by Chairman Ryan. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/25159 [88] Peston, R. (2011, August 6). US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/worldus-canada-14428930 [89] Ferris, S. (2016, February 12). Showdown scars: How the $4 trillion 'grand bargain' collapsed. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/policy/finance/268857-showdown-scars-how-the4-trillion-grand-bargain-collapsed [90] Lowe, T. (2019, June 4). Republicans join Democrats to kill Rand Paul's fiscally responsible Pennies Plan because no one cares about the debt crisis. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/republicans-joindemocrats-to-kill-rand-pauls-fiscally-responsible-pennies-planbecause-no-one-cares-about-the-debt-crisis [91] Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security. (2019, August 14). Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/socialsecurity/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-about-social-security [92] Newport, F. (2020, March 27). Social Security and American Public Opinion. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/258335/socialsecurity-american-public-opinion.aspx [93] Romig, K. (2020, March 2). Social Security Lifts More Americans Above Poverty Than Any Other Program. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-liftsmore-americans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program [94] Cirilli, K. (2012, August 11). 10 facts about Paul Ryan. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2012/08/10-factsabout-paul-ryan-079592

[95]

Morrissey, M. (2018, April 23). Social Security is looking like a pretty good investment these days. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/blog/social-security-is-looking-like-a-pretty-goodinvestment-these-days/ [96] Beach, W. (1998, January 15). Social Security's Rate of Return. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/socialsecurity/report/social-securitys-rate-return [97] Hiltzik, M. (2011, March 8). Disproving the notion of a Social Security trust fund 'lockbox'. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/business/la-xpm-2011-mar-08-la-fi-hiltzik20110305-story.html [98] Weisenthal, J. (2009, April 11). Why Al Gore's Lockbox Wouldn't Have Saved Social Security. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/why-al-gores-lockbox-wouldnthave-saved-social-security-2009-4 [99] Phipps, J. (2017, December 19). Will raising the cap really save Social Security? Retrieved from https://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/will-raising-the-capsave-social-security/ [100] Tanner, M. (1998, May 26). Social Security: Partial Privatization Is Not Enough. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/social-security-partialprivatization-is-not-enough [101] Moreolo, C. (2017, May 1). Chile: Chilean pensions under pressure. Retrieved from https://www.ipe.com/chile-chileanpensions-under-pressure/10018671.article [102] Pinera, J. (1997, July 1). How We Privatized Social Security in Chile: José Piñera. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/how-weprivatized-social-security-in-chile/ [103] Bonnefoy, P. (2016, September 10). With Pensions Like This ($315 a Month), Chileans Wonder How They'll Ever Retire. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/world/americas/withpensions-like-this-315-a-month-chileans-wonder-how-theyll-everretire.html

[104]

Bonnefoy, P. (2019, October 23). Chile President, Responding to Protests, Promises to Address Economic Woes. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/world/americas/chile-protestspinera.html [105] Childers, B., & Bond, T. (2017, April 10). Public pensions matter - just ask Michigan and West Virginia. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/328082public-pensions-matter-just-ask-michigan-and-west-virginia [106] Watkins, J. (2017, June 29). Three States That Abandoned Their Pensions – And Suffered The Consequences. Retrieved from https://protectpensions.org/2017/02/24/abandoned_pensions_conse quences/ [107] Davidson, J. D. (2015, August 4). 50 Years Later, Medicaid, Medicare Still Spend Us Into Oblivion. Retrieved from https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/31/medicare-medicaid-sameproblems-50-years-ago/ [108] Cubanski, J. C. F., Neuman, T., & Freed, M. (2019, August 20). The Facts on Medicare Spending and Financing. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicarespending-and-financing/ [109] Office of the Actuary, L. (2019, April 22). Press release Medicare Trustees Report shows Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will deplete in 7 years. Retrieved from https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/medicare-trusteesreport-shows-hospital-insurance-trust-fund-will-deplete-7-years [110] Gleckman, H. (2018, June 6). No, Medicare Won't Go Broke In 2026. Yes, It Will Cost A Lot More Money. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/06/06/nomedicare-wont-go-broke-in-2026-yes-it-will-cost-a-lot-moremoney/#fff13e57eb1c [111] Skowronski, J. (2020, January 14). A state-by-state guide to Medicaid: Do I qualify? Retrieved from https://www.policygenius.com/blog/a-state-by-state-guide-tomedicaid/

[112]

Lord, D. (2018, November 6). Why are so many Americans over 65 declaring bankruptcy? Retrieved from https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-are-so-many-americansover-65-declaring-bankruptcy-2018-11-06 [113] Conley, M. (2019, April 5). Chemicals that make food last longer may harm us. Retrieved from https://news.yahoo.com/uslags-behind-europe-in-food-safety-regulations-experts-say090000861.html [114] Sawyer, B., & Daniel McDermott KFF, B. (2019, March 28). How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? Retrieved from https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-shealthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-of-sickeradults-who-have-experienced-a-medical-error-in-last-two-years-2016 [115] Mylan CEO on EpiPen drug price controversy: "I get the outrage". (2017, January 27). Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epipen-price-hike-controversymylan-ceo-heather-bresch-speaks-out/ [116] Conover, C. (2019, July 12). How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/howamerican-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumentedimmigrants/#1b89526012c4 [117] Garvin, J. (2019, March 1). Bipartisan legislation to amend McCarran-Ferguson Act introduced in House. Retrieved from https://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2019archive/march/bipartisan-legislation-to-amend-mccarran-fergusonact-introduced-in-house [118] Bennett, D. (2013, October 30). New York's Mayor Declares War on Soda. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/new-yorksmayor-wants-make-giant-sodas-illegal/327471/ [119] Ducharme, J. (2018, June 28). Only 23% of Americans Get Enough Exercise, a CDC Report Says. Retrieved from

https://time.com/5324940/americans-exercise-physical-activityguidelines/ [120] Overweight & Obesity Statistics. (2017, August 1). Retrieved from https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/healthstatistics/overweight-obesity [121] Ratini, M. (2018, April 14). 10 Health Conditions & Diseases Linked To Obesity. Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/obesity-health-risks#1 [122] Fung, B. (2012, April 30). Obesity Makes Us Waste More Than a Billion Gallons of Gas Every Year. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/obesity-makesus-waste-more-than-a-billion-gallons-of-gas-every-year/256521/ [123] Obese employees cost employers thousands in extra medical costs. (2014, May 13). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140513152933.htm [124] Martin, E. (2017, November 29). Here's how much more expensive it is for you to go to college than it was for your parents. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-collegetuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html [125] Quandt, K. R. (2017, June 24). College has gotten 12 times more expensive in one generation. Retrieved from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/college-tuitionincreased-1100-percent-since-1978/ [126] Issa, N. (2019, June 19). U.S. Average Student Loan Debt Statistics in 2019. Retrieved from https://www.credit.com/personalfinance/average-student-loan-debt/ [127] Wile, R. (2017, July 24). It took Marco Rubio 16 years and a book deal to pay off his student loans. Retrieved from https://splinternews.com/it-took-marco-rubio-16-years-and-a-bookdeal-to-pay-off-1793847061 [128] Friedman, Z. (2018, June 20). Can Student Loans Now Be Discharged In Bankruptcy? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/06/18/bankruptcystudent-loans/#4408385044f8

[129]

Neuhauser, A. (2016, May 11). This School Has a Tougher Admissions Rate Than Yale – and Doesn't Grant Degrees. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/this-schoolhas-a-tougher-admissions-rate-than-yale-and-doesnt-grant-degrees [130] Alexander, J. (2019, June 7). YouTube's new policies are catching educators, journalists, and activists in the crossfire. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657112/youtube-hate-policieseducators-journalists-activists-crossfire-takedown-demonetization [131] Peterson, H. (2015, March 31). A former CFO is now unemployed and living on food stamps after his rant against Chickfil-A went viral. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/excfo-unemployed-after-chick-fil-a-rant-2015-3 [132] Staff, A. P. (2019, April 17). Virginia police sergeant loses job after white nationalist probe. Retrieved from https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/04/virginia-police-officer-fired-afterwhite-nationalist-probe/ [133] Kaminsky, M. (2014, August 22). Can the Police Search Your House Without a Warrant? Retrieved from https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-the-police-search-yourhouse-without-a-warrant [134] Reed, E. (2017, July 24). Trump Just Resurrected the Ugly Practice Known as Civil Forfeiture for No Reason. Retrieved from https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/civil-forfeiture-trumpresurrects-an-ugly-practice-for-no-reason-14237541 [135] Getlen, L. (2014, February 23). Corrupt 'Kids for Cash' judge ruined more than 2,000 lives. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2014/02/23/film-details-teens-struggles-in-statedetention-in-payoff-scandal/ [136] Ramachandra, K. (2019, June 28). "Set up to Fail": The Impact of Offender-Funded Private Probation on the Poor. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/20/set-fail/impact-offenderfunded-private-probation-poor [137] Cain, A. (2016, September 10). Bob McDonnell owes $10 million in legal fees. Retrieved from

https://www.richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/bobmcdonnell-owes-million-in-legal-fees/article_bcfe6873-dd0f-535fa2a1-927782b02659.html [138] Rainey, C. (2017, September 20). USDA Can't Stop Millions of Pounds of Fake 'Organic' Imports From Entering U.S. Retrieved from https://www.grubstreet.com/2017/09/millions-of-pounds-of-fakeorganic-food-entering-america.html [139] Beans, L. (2016, June 27). 13 Ways the EU Beats the U.S. on Food Safety. Retrieved from https://www.ecowatch.com/13-waysthe-eu-beats-the-u-s-on-food-safety-1881850175.html [140] Huang, Y. (2019, August 14). U.S. Dependence on Pharmaceutical Products From China. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/blog/us-dependence-pharmaceutical-productschina [141] Roy, A. (2020, March 18). Puerto Rico Can Help The U.S. End Its Dependence On Chinese Pharmaceutical Ingredients. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/03/16/puerto-ricocan-help-the-u-s-end-its-dependence-on-chinese-pharmaceuticalingredients/#22a58d2a4037 [142] Smith, C. H. (2016, August 8). If people knew the actual inflation rate, it would implode the entire system. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/if-people-knew-the-actual-inflationrate-it-would-crash-the-economy-2016-8 [143] Cox, B. (2019, December 10). Saudi murders in Pensacola revive 9/11′s unanswered questions: Opinion. Retrieved from https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/newswire/2019/12/10/pensa cola-shooting-saudi-murders-9-11-unansweredquestions/4383692002/ [144] Staff, A. J. (2019, June 19). 'Credible evidence' links MBS to Khashoggi's murder: UN report. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/khashoggi-killing-credibleevidence-linking-mbs-murder-190619100354253.html [145] Staff, P. R. C. (2018, October 18). Economic growth attracts migrants to Persian Gulf. Retrieved from

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/10/18/economic-growthattracts-migrants-to-persian-gulf/ [146] Woodward, B. (1987, September 29). ALLIANCE WITH A LEBANESE LEADER. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/09/29/alliance -with-a-lebanese-leader/ab94dec7-2029-409b-8ebd-cbf954318cc1/ [147] Sussman, G. (2016, July 15). Ariel Sharon and the Jordan Option. Retrieved from https://merip.org/2005/03/ariel-sharon-andthe-jordan-option/ [148] Mead, N. V. (2018, July 31). China in Africa: win-win development, or a new colonialism? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/31/china-in-africa-winwin-development-or-a-new-colonialism [149] Oswald, R. (2019, March 25). Caribbean Islands becoming hot spots for Chinese investment. Retrieved from https://www.rollcall.com/2019/03/25/caribbean-islands-becoming-hotspots-for-chinese-investment/