The Fight Against Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is the technique of manipulating the boundaries of a voting district in order to achieve a pre-ordained elections outcome.  Those in political power use this technique to maintain their power while still giving the illusion that those governed are choosing them in fair elections. 

Opponents of gerrymandering are fighting it on several fronts.

Maryland--  U.S. House District 6 was found to be gerrymandered in U.S. District Court.  Maryland has been ordered to re-draw its districts in a more appropriate manner.

Colorado--  Voters passed Measure Y.  It creates a commission which must contain representatives of the Democratic, Republican parties, plus must include members who are not affiliated with either party.  The commission will be responsible for drawing voting districts.

Michigan--  Voters passed Measure 18-2, which is similar to the Colorado measure.

Missouri-- Voters passed Amendment One.  It proposes that a demographer make boundaries that are fair to both major parties.

Utah--  It appears that Utah narrowly passed Proposition 4.  It appears that Proposition 4 will create an independent redistricting commission to make recommendations for fair districts.  However, the districts will still be created by the state legislature and governor.

It is amazing that in this area of modern technology measures this complicated must be designed to prevent gerrymandering.  A simple computer program could be written to make all districts of equal population without regards to ethnicity or party affiliation.  I guess that would mean certain groups could not game the system to gain power.  That is why there is resistance to such a movement.   

New York Fed President Williams Worries That Interest Rates and Inflation Are Too Low

John Williams, President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, stated that he believes that both interest rates and inflation are too low.  It appears that the problem is that if interest rates and inflation are low, the Fed cannot use it's usual trick of lowering interest rates if the economy goes into a downturn.

I don't believe that either are too low.  The Fed target of 2% for inflation is designed to help banks and other corporations with large amounts of capital.  In an inflationary environment, those who receive money first benefit.  In a world with 2% inflation, a person who puts away $10,000 in their 20s has the buying power of less than 1/2 that when they reach retirement.  In as deflationary environment, those who receive money last, like consumers and workers, benefit.  At 2% deflation, a person who puts away $10,000 in their 20s has more than $20,000 of buying power when they retire.  In a perfect world, there would be no inflation.  Deflation is actually normal in a world of industrial or technological innovation.  As less time and resources are needed to create useful items, the price of those items should drop.  Power, not a perfect world is the goal of the Federal Reserve.

It is difficult to tell whether interest rates are too low or too high.  There is no market mechanism to determine interest rates.  They are for the most part artificially determine by the Fed. Williams are worried that they are too low because they do not give him and his colleagues enough room to tinker with the economy.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson--

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks... will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

It appears that Jefferson foresaw the homeless problem 200 years ago.  The US government created the Federal Reserve anyway and it has been asserting power over our lives ever since.

George Will Writes Good Opinion Piece About Civil Forfeiture

One of the ways the government has attacked private property rights is with a method of law enforcement known as civil forfeiture.  Civil forfeiture is generally a process by which government confiscates property which is involved in the commission of a crime.  It started with drugs and money confiscated in a drug bust, but has spread to vehicles, houses and other forms of property.  The corner turned when states and the federal government started to give proceeds from disposal of the seized property to the law enforcement agencies doing the seizure.  That turned civil forfeiture from a law enforcement tool to a profit making activity.  A conviction is unnecessary to keep property in some states.  Property can be seized merely because an officer claimed probable cause.  Laws are written to make the expense and hassle to have property returned to people later found innocent that they usually do not bother. 

States have in general made out of court settlements with people who protest this process.  That has kept a reasonable precedent from being established.  Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case out of Indiana.  Hopefully, as George Will writes in this Washington Post column Civil Forfeiture Makes Law Enforcement Lawless... ,  the Supreme Court will soon rule to change that.

Conscious Conservative Health Care

Before health insurance was linked to employment, there was another insurance model. People like Dr. Ron Paul have called it “health insurance like car insurance” to make it easier to understand. These policies were usually called “major medical” or “hospitalization” policies. Some of them were specific, like “cancer” policies, although those were often inferior products.

Health insurance should go away in it s current form. Health insurance currently shifts the cost of healthcare from consumers to employers and the government. That creates an image of a never ending deep pocket that increases the prices charged incredibly. If people had to pay for their own services, the prices of those services who go to what regular people, not a mega-corporation or government agency, can afford.

With a major medical policy, people pay for their own regular visits to the doctor an tests. This sounds horrible because of the inflated pricing, but it wasn’t. Going to a doctor used to cost about $10 ($60-$70 in today’s money) and tests were only a couple of dollars ($10-$15 in today’s money). We were starting to have a comeback of that in our area with $35 medical clinics, until the ACA shut all of them down. What the major medical paid was emergencies that cost more than a preset amount and hospital stays. Another thing with major medical is that they didn’t care about pre-existing conditions, unless it was so far advanced that a person would end up in the hospital soon. There was not an extra cost to insure people with pre-existing conditions, because the insurance company was not on the hook for every doctor’s visit, test, etc.

A couple of government reforms may help facilitate this. One is making medical services and insurance tax deductible for individuals. It is for employers and that is one of the things that supports the employer based health care system. The other is requiring upfront pricing for health care services. Health care is the only service of which I am aware that sends you a bill for thousands of dollars a year after you have agreed upon the price and received the service.  This could simply be abolished by a law rendering these bills void. 

Funding Government Without An Income Tax

A question that often comes up is,  Without the Income Tax, how will we ever fund government?"  I remind people that the Income Tax was not the major source of funding in the United States for about the first 170 years of the country's history.  Here is how the Founders did that.

From the US Constitution:

—Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.—

This lays out several ways to raise revenue without direct taxes. Four of the more popular.

Fees—- If government provides a service, they collect a fee for that service.

Duties— Tariffs or dues paid to conduct international commerce.

Imposts— Indirect taxes that are used to fund a related purpose. A car registration fee to drive on government roads or a tax on gasoline to support road construction are examples.

Excises— Fees to sell or transport goods or services. The problem since the Whiskey Tax in the United States is that these taxes are not usually levied equally to raise income but to control or encourage certain behaviors.

What makes these taxes different from taxes like the Income Tax, which is basically organized armed robbery?  Properly levied, a reasonable person can avoid them completely. Unlike the Income Tax or FICA, a person can choose to buy private services, not conduct international commerce, not drive on government roads or not make their living buying and selling goods. Some of this may seem hard to imagine in the current world because government has often backed up taxation with laws prohibiting private alternatives.

It is past time for the United States and the individual states to go back to their heritage.  Taxation should be based on a person taking a voluntary action which they can avoid if they wish.  Taxation should not be based on a person solely living, breathing or making an honest living.

Rigging Elections New Mexico Style

In polls conducted in July and August of this year, independent US Senate candidate Gary Johnson was predicted to be a contender in New Mexico.   Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat, came up with a something to stop that.  Rig the ballots. 

The tool Oliver is using to rig the ballots is called a straight-ticket voting.  In straight ticket voting, voters only check one box, pull one lever or touch one button and vote for every member of a certain party.  This greatly favors the party with the most candidates on the ballot.  In New Mexico, that is Oliver's party, the Democratic Party.  Oliver herself is up for re-election this year and would benefit from a straight ticket vote.  It puts New Mexico Republican candidates at a disadvantage, but it kills any chances for independent candidates.  Since there is not more than one independent candidate, they do not get a box to check, lever to pull or button to push.  Often smaller parties are also not allowed to have a single party designation for their candidates either.  It is human nature.  Given the choice of checking one box or reading through an entire ballot, most people will check one box.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in September that Secretary of State Oliver does not have the authority to make the straight ticket decision unilaterally.  It had been reported initially that Oliver would ignore the court order because sample ballots had already been printed.  However,  it appears that New Mexico has made arrangements to re-print the ballots.

This is an example of why there should not be partisan elections officials.  In this case, the partisan elections official was attempting to rig the ballot to not only favor her party but to give herself a greater chance to win re-election.  Ballot rigging, gerrymandering and other scams are assured whenever the election's referees work for one of the teams involved.  Elections officials should be independent civil servants or there should be a multi-partisan committee.

The IRS Serves Up Another Dose of Mass Confusion

This week the IRS released regulations on the new tax break for small businesses.  Qualified Business Income Deduction  The idea was that middle income business owners could deduct 20% of their income on their income tax returns.  Middle income was defined as small businesses which sold goods that had incomes of less than $157,500 ($315,000 for a married couple) or $207,500 ($415,000 for a married couple) for those that provided services.  There were strategies which people were getting ready to employ to take advantage of the new deduction.  One was to break up businesses into smaller entities, so that these entities would be beneath the $157,500 or $207,000 limit.  Another was for key employees to re-organize as private contractors.  In that way, an attorney who is a private contractor making $150,000 per year would qualify for the credit.  The IRS is alleging that these two activities are taking advantage of loopholes and wrote its new regulations to discourage these activities.  This brings up two issues.

The first is that Congress is favoring one group of citizens over another.  It is inexcusable that a person who calls themselves a business gets a 20% deduction but an employee does not.  It is one more example of the absurdity and inherent unfairness of the Income Tax.

The second is that when people attempt to comply with the law, the IRS designates that legal behavior as a loophole.  That shows the contempt which the IRS has for the people of the United States.  The IRS believes that all income belongs to them.

The United States grew to a world power over a period of about 170 years without using an income tax as a primary means of revenue.  It is time to go back to an income tax free United States.

Trump v. The Federal Reserve

There have been many stories this week about the battle between President Trump and The Federal Reserve about the direction of the US economy.  Some appear to stay somewhat neutral.  Most take the side of either the President or the Reserve.  However, it is hard to find any which ask the real question.

Why is either trying to control the economy?

The United States Constitution gives Congress the power "... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures;..."  Notice that it puts this power with the Congress and not the president or The Federal Reserve.  It also says nothing about using this power to manipulate the economy.  Neither President Trump nor The Federal Reserve should be trying to manipulate the economy.  If branch of government should, it may be Congress under the Commerce Clause, but most would argue that is not the intent of that clause.  Government agencies being involved in the economy inevitably ends to certain political interests benefiting to the loss of everyone else.

Two things should happen, but probably won't.

Congress should take back the power of creating money.

Beyond the function of providing security and a rule of law, government should get out of the practice of trying to control the economy.

The Real Russian Hacking Problem

Yesterday's headline from the Los Angeles Times web site read 12 Russians indicted in hacking of Clinton's campaign and computers handling voter registration .  That Russia could be considered to influence the election by hacking into private Democratic Party and Clinton emails shows a major flaw in the United States election system.

The flaw is not that the Russians could hack the Democratic National Committee.  The flaw is that the Democratic National Committee has so much power that trying to affect the workings of the committee is considered as affecting the election.

Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party should be the quasi-governmental entities which they have become today.  The Russians getting access to data from either of these organizations should have about as much effect as somebody accidentally running over a campaign sign.  The way to accomplish this is to have a healthy choice of candidates on the ballot.  Not just a Republican and a Democrat, but also independent candidates and candidates from several other parties.

The real hacking of the election is not that the Russians got information from the Democratic National Committee.  The real hacking is that the Republicans and Democrats have rigged the election system in such a way that it matters.  When are the offending Democratic and Republican Party officials going to be indicted?

Kelo Case Comes to the Big Screen

"Little Pink House" is a movie about Susette Kelo, the Kelo in Kelo v. New London.  She bought her first house, a little pink one, in 1997.  Then the New London Development Corporation decided it would be better to take her Connecticut home and give it the the Pfizer pharmaceutical company.  Kelo took her case all the way to the US Supreme Court but lost.  The court ruled that New London had an interest in taking her property because they could charge Pfizer more for property tax.

This movie should be shown in every classroom to illustrate the need to combat runaway local government and disdain for property rights in the United States.  Although not released nationally, you can find a list of show times at this web site  Watch Little Pink House

Here is the official trailer. 

RESPECT Act Tries to Curtail IRS Abuse

U.S. Representatives Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) and Joseph Crowley (D-NY) are continuing their efforts to rein in asset forfeiture abuse.  According to Roskam, over 3/4 of people who have their assets improperly seized by the IRS do not get them back.  Currently, the IRS seizes assets from any bank accounts it deems as having "suspicious" activity.  This practice is known as "structuring."
  
Roskam's bill would "... prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from carrying out seizures relating to a structuring transaction unless the property to be seized derived from an illegal source or the funds were structured for the purpose of concealing the violation of another criminal law or regulation, to require notice and a post-seizure hearing for such seizures..." House Committee Report  


The House voted unanimously to pass a similar bill in 2016.  The bill passed the House again in 2017, but has been sitting in the Senate Committee on Finance since last September.

I wonder why the Senate will not act on the IRS inappropriately taking assets?  

Inflation May Be Rearing Its Ugly Head

Over that last 10 years, the United States Government and the Federal Reserve have turned up the printing presses, creating more money than ever in US history.  They have touted that they have done this without creating massive inflation, which is a seeming impossibility.  Part of this was a lie.  Those who remember how much they paid for groceries or gasoline in 2007 compared to today can attest to that.  A major way the government produced this trick was to change the way inflation is calculated in 2015.  Consumer Price Index Undergoes Most Significant Change In 25 Years

Even with the change to hide the not so dangerous inflation, it appears that massive inflation may be on its way.  Inflation hit a five year high in May of this year and appears poised to go higher.  Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated that conditions were similar to the beginning of the 1970s while talking to a group of international bankers.  He stated that he believes that bankers can handle the situation, but who knows?

The only proven way to combat inflation is to limit the government's ability to create money.  This is often done by attaching money to some commodity, like gold or silver.  Although this can cause occasional short term problems, it stops the long term systemic problem of steady inflation.  It also puts an end to acute periods of run away inflation.

Broward County Caught Rigging Elections

   

In the 2016 election, Tim Canova lost the Democratic primary election to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Canova thought there were improprieties and asked to examine the ballots.  Broward County (FL) officials destroyed the ballots before they could be checked.

In the Broward County Circuit Court case of Canova v Snipes, the court ruled that the county had broken federal law by destroying the ballots.  Sounds like some shenanigans to me.  Snipes plans to challenge the ruling.

https://ivn.us/2018/05/14/judge-ballots-wasserman-schultz-race-illegally-destroyed/

Conscious Conservatives Fight for Private Property

Many conservatives are aware of the 2005 Kelo decision, which gave broad latitude to local governments in the use of eminent domain.  Conscious Conservatives should be against eminent domain in almost every situation.  It is sad that the current President of the United States claims conservative support, yet bragged about using eminent domain as part of his real estate deals.  Private property must be respected. There is little abuse of government power greater than using the collective authority to take property from one citizen to give to another. 

Another concept that is supported by some conservatives but should be disdained by all is civil asset forfeiture.  Originally a means to confiscate stolen property and contraband, government has turned seizing assets into a profit making operation.  In some states, a police officer can take your property simply by alleging they have probable cause that a crime might have been committed.  State laws, court fees and procedures make getting the property back more costly than the value of the property.  In many cases, there has been no crime committed and the person whose property was taken is never charged with a crime.  An Arizona case was settled out of court, which means that no precedent will be set.  It also means the plaintiffs were unable to get confirmation that seized asses were being used to purchase personal items for police department leaders.     Asset Seizures Lawsuit Reaches Settlement  

Below is a chart from Mother Jones which shows how asset forfeiture has increased at the federal level.

Abolish the Income Tax

Most people don't know that the Income Tax is relatively new in the history of the United States.  Although initiated with the 16th amendment in 1913, it was not widely used at that time and did not become the major contributor to the federal budget until the 1950s.  An interesting historical observation is that the high income taxes of the 1950s were supposed to be temporary.  They were designed to balance the budget from the debts incurred due to World War II and the Marshall Plan.  However, Congress soon found a way to spend this new revenue and then some more.  President Johnson stated that the United States could afford "Guns and Butter" and the income tax was here to stay. 

As this drawing from Harper's Weekly by Thomas Nast shows, many in the United States considered the income tax a form of slavery.  That is probably the best reason to get rid of the tax.  The income of most people is derived from labor, either physical or intellectual.  There is no moral reason to claim that anyone has a right to another person's labor.

Another reason why the income tax is not part of a free society is that Congress uses it not only to raise revenue but to control behavior.  This has a long history in the United States, going back to Hamilton's WhiskeyTax.  The tax code is at least 2500 pages long. That is because there are all sort of behaviors which people in Congress wish to reward, like buying solar panels and others that they wish to punish, like selling real estate.

The main reason why income taxes should be abolished is that it is a very efficient but easy to hide way to reward political supporters and punish political enemies.  A simple change in the tax code can change a tax burden drastically.  A tax change can also bankrupt an industry or send billions in the direction of certain industry.

A properly sized government can be funded without a personal income tax.  Income tax, by taking a portion of a person's labor, can be seen as a form of slavery.  The income tax is used more to control behavior than to raise revenue.  It is also an efficient and obscure way for political forces to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.  Due to these factors and more, the income tax should be immediately abolished.

Stopping Inflation

We talked about the problem of inflation last week.  The picture above shows a good example of why inflation should be stopped.  Somebody who had $20 in 1988 could just about feed their family for a week.  I was married in 1988 and remember a food budget of $10.00 per week for my wife and myself.  If they put that $20.00 in a jar, by 2013 that same $20.00 might just make a decent meal.  This discourages people from saving and encourages spending.  

How do we stop inflation?  The best way is to slow or stop money creation.  One the the best ways to do this is to create a system where money cannot be created out of thin air.  Currently, money is primarily created out of thin air by two methods, deficit spending by governments and expansion of credit by the banking industry.

This wasn't always the case.  Traditionally, paper money was a "note" or "IOU" statement that represented a real commodity.  Gold and silver have been particularly popular.  The $20 bill used to be redeemable for an ounce of gold.  Currently, that ounce of gold can be traded for more than $1000.  That is plenty of groceries.  If money is tied to a commodity like gold or silver, in order to print more, you have to acquire more gold and silver.  That stops inflation in two ways.  The first is that it stops overprinting of money.  The second is that even if money is overprinted, there is an underlying understanding as to what the money is worth.  A $20 bill=an ounce of gold=two carts of groceries.

People correctly argue that there is now probably too much money to go back to the Gold Standard ,   However, there is no reason to not use a variety or Basket of Commodities .  Although the value of some commodities change relative to others, this is usually a slower and less drastic process than how paper (or electronic) money with no backing changes value.  An ounce of gold is still the same chunk of metal it has been for thousands of years.  However, the value of a paper dollar relative to that metal changes by the second.  I believe the biggest error people make is saying that the price of gold has changed.  It should be said that the value of the dollar has changed.

We should make all paper or electronic money exchangeable for a real asset that can be touched.  We should also require that any bank or government that creates more money should have to acquire more of that asset first.  That way, the value of money will be stable and won't be manipulated by those in power for their own gain. 

The Problems With Inflation

Inflation is a difficult subject, which is why most politicians avoid it.  Most definitions of Inflation tend to focus on one of its main effects, increase in prices.  Inflation is really an increase in the money supply relative to the number of goods being produced.   If there is more money than goods, the money is worth less (if there is too much money, it becomes worthless).  The opposite condition is called "deflation."  Deflation occurs when production of goods increases and more money is not created.

There is a general rule.  Inflation is good for whoever gets the money first (i.e. government, banks, large corporations) and deflation is good for whoever gets the money last (small businesses, workers).  Governments usually create the money, so they try to convince the populace that inflation is good.  That is because they want to have the ability to create money in order to reward constituents.  Notice that the Federal Reserve in the United States has an inflation target, not a deflation target or stability target Why is 2 percent the Federal Reserve's inflation target? Because it is. In the United States, money creation has been shifted to the banking system through creation of credit.  Banks also have an interest in creating inflation.  The more money they can lend, the more profit they can make.    Actually neither inflation nor deflation is an ideal condition.  The best condition is where the amount of money roughly matches increases in production and population.  Since this cannot be achieved perfectly, a money should go through brief periods of inflation and deflation, with the goal of keeping money stable. 

Problems with inflation--

For the individual--  Worker's' salaries do not keep up with inflation.  Workers in the United States today have seen their buying power decrease steadily.  Inflation also takes away the power of saving and investment for the average family.  30 years ago, somebody who had a million dollars or won a million dollars in a lottery was considered to have enough money to last forever.  They could be said to be rich.  Now, people who are trying to retire with one million dollars in investment accounts are finding it is not enough money for even a modest lifestyle.

For public policy--  Inflation creates an environment where the government is trying to catch its own tail with various entitlement programs.  The federal government collected little money for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.  In 1975, the average recipient of Social Security received around 200 dollars per month.  What would that buy today?  Now, the average recipient receives more than $1300 per month.  The problem is that when they were workers in 1975, they only paid an amount of Social Security Tax sufficient to cover $200/month.  In fact, most did not earn enough annual income in 1975 to support a $1300/month payment later in life.  Inflation means that government has to cover that difference.  The crazy thing is that $200/month in 1975 bought more than $1300 today.  The average rent payment was only about $80 per month  Rent of Primary Residence Inflation Calculator .  Due to inflation, an $80 monthly rent is impossible today. 

Next time, we will go into some plans to stabilize currency. 

Make Votes Count Again

Approximately 1/2 of all voters skip general elections in the United States.  The number is even higher in regular elections that do not include voting for a major office like president.  Both the Republican and the Democratic candidates in the 2016 election only had about 1/4 of the voters choose to their electors.  No candidate for president in the lifetime of most people has been endorsed by 1/3 of the voters.

The primary reason for voters skipping elections is lack of choice on the ballot.  Most people do not know the reasons, but instinctively know that the ballots are rigged, forcing them to make a choice between "the lesser of two evils."  It wasn't always like this and has gotten much worse since the candidacy of Ross Perot and the election of Jesse Ventura.

There are dozens of tricks which legislators who are members of the Democratic and Republican parties use to rig the ballots.  The primary technique is the  "two largest" laws.  These laws state that only candidates from parties which are either the "two largest" by voter registration or whose candidates received the "two highest" vote totals in a prior election get special privileges.

An example of this is the presidential primary system.  In many states, only the "two largest" parties get to choose their own presidential candidates.  Other parties will have the names of whatever candidate won the primary in that state.  This is called "substitution."  For example, the Republican Party of Ohio was able to "substitute" Donald Trump's name for that of John Kasich on the Ohio ballot.  Other parties did not have that privilege. 
In Arizona, people are only allowed to register to vote as members of the party whose candidates received the "two highest" vote totals for governor (Republican and Democrat) without going through a special procedure.  Those who don't check the Republican or Democratic box are considered "other."  So why doesn't another party just get a higher vote total in a future election?  Since people are not allowed to register as members of their party, they are not allowed to have candidates on the ballot.  It is Republican vs. Democrat until the law is changed. 

Some other random tricks:

North Carolina allows people to donate more money to the Republican and Democratic parties than the other parties.

In Pennsylvania all candidates, except Republicans and Democrats, must collect 5000 signatures to run for office and those signatures must be spread out over a 10 county area.

In Arkansas and Texas, candidates, except the Republican and Democratic (see the pattern) must file to run for public office the year BEFORE the election.

The Conscious Conservative belief is that every qualified candidate should have an equal chance to be on the ballot.  All "two largest" laws should be immediately repealed.  If states wish to have a year before or ten county requirement, let them, but they must apply to every candidate.  Anything else is just a rigged election.

The Main Goals of Conscious Conservative

It is easy for pundits, politicians and people, including myself, to get lost in the myriad of issues presented today.  However, I find it necessary to re-focus every once in a while and get back to what is important.  Most issues are just side distractions.  The issues I list below are the ones I believe are key in determining how a government acts towards its people.  If we change these policies, all others will fall into place.

There are four things that need to be accomplished, in no particular order.

1. Restore the vote to the people. Right now, just about every ballot in the United States is rigged in favor of keeping Democrats and Republicans in power. There is no reason that every person who is qualified to run and wishes should not be on the ballot.
2. Return to a sound currency. This is the hardest for people to understand. An inflationary currency benefits those who get the money first. Economists will say, “We need inflation because it gets people to spend.”
3. Get rid of the income tax. The US ran for 170 years without an income tax being a major part of government income. The main purpose of taxation in the US, going back to Hamilton’s “Whiskey Tax,” is to control the population.
4. Restore the sanctity of private property. Even before the Kelo Decision Kelo Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice , government began overstepping its bounds. Government takes the property of unpopular people to redistribute to those who are more popular. 

Only when the votes of people begin to count, the currency is sound, people get to keep the money they earn and people control the property they own, will the power between government and individual citizens be restored to its proper balance. Then we can begin to debate other issues.  I believe that debate will be short as these changes will make most other issues disappear.

The Evils of Politics Based on Envy

I found this interesting video from The Atlas Society.