Paramilitary Intolerant Islamic Groups - PIIGS

We are not at war with Islamic Terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot be at war with a tactic. War is terrifying. Does that make all soldiers terrorists? That's the problem you run into when you alter the meaning of well defined terms to refer to something else. We should eliminate any form of the word terror when labeling groups and instead, call them what they are. We are at war with Paramilitary Intolerant Islamic Groups - PIIGS. 

Muslims who practice Islam as a religion of tolerance and peace, and who we need to help defeat this enemy, will not be offended by the acronym PIIGS. They will appreciate the distinction between themselves and those who have subverted their religion. They will be the first to stand up and condemn the PIIGS. And for those few who won't, what does that say about them? 

The FBI announced they are investigating the San Bernardino attacks as an “act of terrorism”. What does that mean? Wouldn't it make more sense if the FBI had announced they were investigating the rampage as an attack by one or more PARAMILITARY INTOLERANT ISLAMIC GROUPS.

No doubt the Progressives will find the acronym PIIGS offensive and will immediately resort to their tactic of political correctness to demonize any transgressors who dare to use terms or express ideas they don't like. That's ok. Most Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and are beginning to see PC for what it really is – Progressive Censorship.

Voter's Creed

 

The Right to Vote:
I believe that voting is both a right and a responsibility.

I believe I have the right to vote or not to vote.

I believe that when I vote, I have a responsibility to understand who, and what it is I am voting for, or against.

I believe the candidates have a responsibility to earn my vote.

I believe that I have a responsibility to give each candidate the opportunity to earn my vote.

I believe that if I always vote based on party affiliation, I cheapen the value of my vote because I have failed to force the candidates to earn my vote.

I believe that for national elections, it is my responsibility to understand our nation's most important issues.

I believe each candidate is responsible for presenting their detailed plans on how they would address our nation’s most important issues.

The “United” States:
I believe the United States is stronger when Americans are united around common goals.

I believe candidates and political parties should strive to unite all Americans around those common goals.

I believe candidates and political parties should never adopt strategies that pit one group of Americans against another group for political gain.

I believe that dividing Americans is never in our nation’s best interest.

I believe it is my responsibility to reject those candidates who try to divide Americans.

National Economic Objective:
I believe the economic policies of the United States government can, and should be, guided by a single National Economic Objective.

I believe our federal government’s National Economic Objective should be to enact polices that will:

“Continuously improve the standard of living of ALL Americans”

I believe this National Economic Objective will help:

• Unite our divided nation.
• Prevent our leaders from advancing proposals that have been designed to divide our nation for political gain.
• Force our elected leaders to focus on our major economic challenges.

I believe that today our major economic challenges include:

• A regulatory environment that impedes the growth of US based, profit funded, private sector jobs.
  
  
• A safety net system that is ill defined, poorly managed, fraught with moral hazards and wastes far too many tax payer dollars.
  
  
• A growing national debt that acts like a brake on our economy.
  
  
• Senior Entitlement programs that are unsustainable under current funding law and will accelerate the growth of our national debt.
  
  
• A tax system that impedes economic growth by forcing people and businesses to make sub optimal economic decisions.
  
  
• A federal government that is not motivated to be good stewards of our tax dollars or our nation’s fiscal health.
  
  
• An education system that has failed to provide our children with the skill sets they will need to succeed in a technically advancing global economy.

Jobs:
I believe the best way to improve a person’s standard of living as well as their sense of worth and well being is through a job.

I believe that from an economic standpoint there are two types of jobs.

1. Profit Funded Jobs and
2. Taxpayer Funded Jobs.

I believe from a national economic standpoint, profit funded jobs are better at growing the economy and in improving the standard of living for more people than are taxpayer funded jobs.

I believe that taxpayer funded jobs are better at redistributing income then they are at growing the economy.

I believe that every job is important to the person who holds that job but that US based, profit funded, private sector jobs are the most valuable for the long term health of our economy and are the most important type of job for achieving our national economic objective.

I believe therefore, that our federal government’s job policy should be to do everything within the government’s authority to entice Americans and the rest of the global private sector to create, fill and maintain permanent, full-time, US based, profit funded, private sector jobs.

I believe the U.S. Job Burden stands as the greatest obstacle preventing the  growth of the U.S. based, profit funded jobs we need.

What is the Job Burden?
I believe the Job Burden is…

The collection of government regulations and other costs that are imposed on for-profit businesses that do not add value to the goods and services those businesses produce.

I believe that a core set of regulations that protect people, nature, and our natural resources from the negligent and unscrupulous acts of some will always be needed to “properly regulate” any market based economy. But, far too often, our regulations do more to prevent good people from doing good then they do in preventing bad people from doing bad.

I believe that every nation imposes its own Job Burden on its businesses but that the US Job Burden has become the most expensive Job Burden in the world.

I believe the best way to expand the U.S. job market and improve the U.S. economy is for Congress to systematically optimize or eliminate the U.S. Job Burden.

I believe that until we substantially reduce the U.S. Job Burden, the United States will continue to lose jobs to other nations as those nations improve their product quality and production efficiency while they reduce their Job Burdens.

I believe business taxes can help explain the harm caused by the Job Burden.

I believe that economists know that a business cannot pay taxes. Only people can pay taxes. All any business can do is collect enough money from its customers when it sells them goods and services to pay its expenses, including its taxes.

I believe it is the owners and investors – through reduced returns; or employees – through reduced compensation; or customers – through increased prices who actually pay for all business taxes and the other Job Burden costs of a business.

I believe however, that through globalization, the owners’ returns are protected because they can always invest in improving markets overseas.

I believe that with the advent of two earner households and an ever more generous safety net, the U.S. labor supply has become more flexible (elastic). These demographic and policy changes have made it less likely that employees will absorb the full cost of any Job Burden increases.

I believe therefore, that it is typically the US customer - through increased prices, who actually pays for most of the U.S. Job Burden.

I believe the Job Burden is a tax that is hidden from the customer because it is buried in the price. Customers have no idea how much they pay for the Job Burden.

I believe the Job Burden is America’s most regressive tax and therefore hurts the poor more than any other tax because; rich and poor pay the same amount of Job Burden tax when they purchase the same product. The lower a person’s income, the greater is the percentage of their income that they must expend to pay for the Job Burden tax on basic necessities.

I believe that, depending on the product, the Job Burden portion of US manufactured goods will range from 15% to 40% of the purchase price.

I believe that any politician who wants to improve the standard of living of the poor should start with policies that reduce the Job Burden.

I believe I should support those candidates with the best plan to reduce the Job Burden.

Congress and the Job Burden:
I believe a “properly regulated” free-market, capitalist economy (Capitalism) has proven to be the greatest economic engine for advancing the standard of living for more people than any other economic system ever devised.

I believe that a business is simply: people agreeing to pool their talents and resources to fill a want or solve a problem that others are willing to pay more for than it costs to provide.

I believe capitalism works because, more than any other system, it aligns with human nature. We humans are social animals who learn through trial and error. We are born with a desire to continuously improve our standard of living; or as our Founding Fathers phrased it: “the pursuit of happiness”.  We achieve our goals through a delicate balance between our natural instincts of cooperation and competition. It is this self-serving and self-correcting “invisible hand” that is shared by all of us that allows capitalism to succeed with a minimum set of intervening rules and enforcement policies.

I believe that each restriction we place on capitalism makes our economy less efficient.

I believe for-profit businesses work, in part, because every business leader knows that their primary job is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize the return on investment for their owners.

I believe that business leaders know they have a responsibility to consider all options, including outsourcing, off shoring or relocating overseas in order to fulfill their obligations to their owners.

I believe that If managers fail to produce a competitive return on investment, the owners will either change the management or move their investments.

I believe it is the responsibility of our elected leaders to understand the fundamentals of Capitalism and human nature and enact those policies that convince business leaders of both foreign and domestic firms that their best business opportunities can be found in the USA.

I believe that any elected leader who labels US business leaders as un-American or un-patriotic for moving their operations abroad is a demagogue trying to hide his or her own leadership and legislative failures.

I believe that any elected leader who does not understand the critical link between jobs and the Job Burden is not qualified to legislate business taxes or business regulations.

I believe the real reason why Congress taxes businesses is because they want the additional tax revenue but they fear voter retribution. So, Congress deceives the voters by taxing US businesses, which in turn must hide the tax from the customer-voters by imbedding it in the price of the US made goods and services sold. Only people pay taxes. Business must always pass along their taxes to people.

I believe that Congress succeeds in the business tax sham because our education system fails to teach the linkage between business taxes, private sector jobs, and our economy.

I believe that if Congress passed a law that required every sales receipt to include a line item for the Job Burden cost of that product, Congress would stop taxing our businesses and would be far more judicious with the business regulations they enact because the voters would demand it.

I believe the Show the Job Burden Tax on the Receipt Act would be one government regulation that businesses would support because once the voters realized that the Job Burden of US manufactured goods could exceed 40% of the price, the people would force our elected leaders to become better stewards of our economy.

I believe I should reject those candidates who would add to the US Job Burden.

Government Labor Costs:
I believe that some of the biggest obstacles to growing U.S. based jobs are the business paid portions of the federal safety net. These include:

• Payroll Tax: (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment).
• Health Insurance: (Premium Support and the Affordable Care Act).
• Retirement funding: (Defined Benefits and Defined Contributions).
• Minimum wage premium: (The amount above the free market wage for that job in that location).

I believe these US Job Burden costs are nothing more than government imposed labor costs that, unlike corporate income taxes, must be paid whether a business makes a profit or not.

I believe that in 2014, the U.S. Corporate Income Tax raised  $321 billion in federal taxes while the Payroll Tax alone raised $1 trillion.

I believe these government imposed labor costs increase the cost of U.S. labor by 15% to 30%.

I believe that any U.S. imposed labor premium is anti-competitive in a global economy but that 30% is unsustainable.

I believe that increasing the cost of U.S. labor decreases the demand for U.S. labor.

I believe the easiest, most effective and most obvious way for any U.S. based employer to reduce their U.S. government imposed labor costs is to reduce their U.S. based employees. Thanks Congress!

I believe the safety net programs that Congress has funded through U.S. based jobs are important for our national safety-net, but we should never expect or ever allow our businesses to ever pay for any portion of our safety net programs. The cost to our jobs and our economy is simply too great.

I believe there are much better ways to pay for our safety net then with our jobs.

I believe I should reject any candidate who is not committed to the elimination of all Government imposed labor costs.

Senior Entitlements:
I believe that Senior Entitlements is the group name given to the Social Security and Medicare programs.

I believe the escalating costs and poor fiscal management of our senior entitlements must be addressed. The longer we wait to fix the problems will only make the eventual solution that much more harsh on our seniors and expensive for ourselves and our children.

I believe our Senior Entitlement programs are underfunded by over $40 trillion. If we hope to continue paying the senior benefits that have been promised using the same pay-as-you-go funding, we will have to tax our children and their children an additional $40 trillion over the next 75 years. This will slow their economy and weaken their future.

I believe the Democrats want to fix our Senior Entitlement deficits by increasing business paid, and employee paid payroll taxes. In other words, Democrats want to add to the Job Burden. This will do more harm than good to the long term health of our economy.

I believe the Republicans want to fix our Senior Entitlement deficits by reducing senior benefits. In other words, Republicans want to penalize seniors for Congressional mismanagement of taxpayer funds.

I believe the solutions offered by either party will be so distasteful to the American voter that both parties will continue to “kick the can down the road” until our collective American can falls off the fiscal cliff.

I believe we need to convert the way we finance our senior safety net from a fiscally inefficient pay-as-you-go insurance model to a far more fiscally sound, growth oriented, perpetually funded, lifetime capital investment model.

Imagine, you're a young person with a newborn child on the way and you want to be responsible and help fund your child’s retirement and you are asked to select one of these two choices.

Pay-as-you-go:
Do nothing now. When your child start’s working at age 20, she will Contribute 6.25% of her pay for 50 years to help pay the Social Security benefits of those who are already retired. When she retires at age 70, those who are still working will pay for her retirement. Or

Lifetime Capital Investment:
You and all other current taxpayers can make a one-time deposit of $750 in your child’s account and the federal government will guarantee to pay the same benefits, with the same cost of living increases for as long as she lives and she will never have a penny deducted from her pay to pay for the retirement of someone elsein the plan.

I believe that before you make your choice, you should consider the following facts.

• The historic average return of the U.S. equity markets has been 10.4% per year.
• The worst 70 year period in U.S. equity market history still managed a very respectable 9.86% annual return. In other words, if you made a one time investment in U.S. equities at the beginning of any 70 year period, the worst you would have done would still have managed an average annual rate of return of 9.86%.
• Social Security began collecting taxes and paying benefits in 1937.

I believe that had Social Security invested $250 in the equivalent of a market index in 1937 for each US citizen born, then 70 years later, in 2007, that one time investment would be able to pay the same average benefits for the same expected lifetime with the same projected cost of living increases as today’s Social Security system. There would of course be four very important differences.

• The $20 trillion in unfunded Social Security liabilities today would not exist.
• The $2.7 trillion in Special U.S. Treasury IOU’s that U.S. taxpayers owe to future Social Security beneficiaries would not exist.
• The $800 billion per year Payroll Tax for Social Security that is used to redistribute income from workers to retirees would not exist.
• The equity investment pool would have reached the perpetual self-funding level of $8 trillion. It would be able to cover all future benefits as well as eliminate the need for additional taxes to cover new births.

I believe that a one-time investment today of about $750 for each US citizen born, that grows at 10.4% per year, would be able to pay the same projected, cost of living adjusted, average Social Security benefits when those citizens retire at age 70.

I believe that replacing Social Security and Medicare funding with lifelong investments in America would place our nation on a glide path to eliminate our unfunded liabilities in those programs.

I believe the taxpayer cost to fund an Invest-in-America program for Social Security would be about $3 billion per year. (4 million births X $750). And another $3 billion for Medicare.

I believe that $3 billion per year is less than the amount of foreign aid we have provided to Egypt and Pakistan each of the last 20 years.

I believe that converting Social Security and Medicare funding from a pay-as-you-go insurance program to a Life-Time Invest in America investment Plan would reduce program costs from over $1 trillion per year to about $6 billion per year.

I believe that with just this one change, we could, over time, reduce our federal safety net program cost from $1.4 trillion, (46% of federal spending and 8% of GDP), to $395 billion or 2.3% of GDP.

I believe Congress should develop an economically sensible tax policy to pay for our safety net programs that does not harm our jobs, our economy, our poor, or our children’s future.

I believe I should support those candidates who support Senior Entitlement reforms and the tax policy to support it.

Taxes:
I believe that when discussing tax reform, Congress should unite behind the battle cry - Start Over!

I believe the federal income tax and payroll tax systems accounted for over 90% of the federal tax revenue raised in 2014.

I believe that Congress should be held accountable for the negative economic impacts of federal tax policy.

I believe that if you want less of something, you should tax it. If you still want less, tax it more. The Payroll Tax is a $1 trillion a year tax on US based jobs. Do we really want fewer jobs?

I believe that consumption taxes would be the least economically harmful type of taxes.

I believe that because of their history of abuse and over use, we the people should grant Congress far less authority to favor and disfavor various groups and activities through the tax code.

I believe we can help guide our elected leaders to manage our economy more effectively and to fund and run our safety net programs more efficiently if we replace the economically harmful Income Tax and Payroll Tax systems with two new progressive consumption tax systems.

The Safety Net Tax - SNT:
The SNT is a retail consumption tax established to pay for all federal safety net programs. The SNT would be based on the FairTax. Progressivity would be achieved through a rebate, paid in advance, for the tax paid at the poverty level, to those U.S. citizens, living in the U.S. and earning less than 1.5 times the poverty rate for a family of 4.

The Personal Income Tax system - PITS:
The PITS is a hybrid personal income and personal consumption tax designed to pay for all federal expenditures that are not covered by the SNT. The PITS would be based on the progressive Hall-Rabushka Flat Rate Tax.

Comments:
I believe you could help improve this creed if you wanted to. I hope you want to.