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.

The Shrinking Middle Class in America

The middle class in the United States has been shrinking because it has been under attack from both ends for over 50 years. Politicians have figured out a very effective election formula.

1. Grant special favors and give payouts to mega-wealthy donors in exchange for money to run election campaigns.
2. Grant special favors and give payouts to poor people in order to “look compassionate” and buy votes.
3. Get the money for all of these favors and payouts by taxing the middle class and rendering their savings useless through deficit spending.

A middle class family now pays over 1/2 of their income in taxes and gets little to no value for it. Fifty years ago, taxes like that would have caused a riot. The middle class family could afford to buy just about everything the government provides if the government wasn’t always taking their money. Deficit spending hits the middle class disproportionately. The poor don’t have the extra money to save so don’t notice the effects as sharply, unless the price of food or gasoline is increasing. The rich make money from deficit spending. the middle class have some money to save, but what is the use? It used to be a middle class family could put $1000 in a jar or a bank and have something 10 years later. Now, that $1000 doesn’t buy much ten years later. The middle class family that saved $1000, or $10,000 or even $100,000 sees their net worth disintegrate over an average lifetime. A lifetime ago, a millionaire in the United States could afford just about anything they could desire. Now a millionaire cannot afford to live a middle class lifestyle for more than a few years.

So, the middle class worker who has seen their salary go up 30% but their after tax income rise little and the buying power of that money drop feels uneasy. The middle class person who saved their whole life to have $200,000 in a 401K, only to realize that is not enough money to live for 20 years, feels uneasy. The middle class person who just had their health insurance cancelled because of the ACA feels uneasy. Most middle class people don’t understand all of the details of this, they just feel it in their gut.

Real World: When I was young, if I had $100,000, I could have bought the house I live in currently (it sold for $55,000 in 1977), the car I drive (MSRP $3,371 in 1978) and had enough money left over to live for 20 years (at $3000/year for food and utilities). Now, for $100,000, I couldn’t buy the vehicle and have enough money left over for a year. The MSRP on the vehicle ($45,765) is about the price of an average house in 1977 ($49,000).

The Problem With Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders “socialist” ideas are bad because they are “Magic Unicorn” ideas. he promises all of these wonderful things “for free.” There is no such thing as free. When pressed on how he will pay for them, he is as slippery as ice and never gives an answer beyond, “make the other bad people pay for it.”

Bernie talks about “Medicare for all.” The closest country to Medicare for all is France.

Current US Medicare is an 80/20 plan, for which Americans pay about 3% for most of their lives in order to receive coverage at age 65.

Current French insurance is a 50/50 plan for which French workers pay around 21%.

The French receive significantly less health care in many areas than that to which people in the US are accustomed. Yes, the French system offers good basic care. However, it does not offer cutting edge, on demand care that many US consumers demand. When I talk with people from Canada and Europe, they have trouble even understanding the concept of on demand care. They think it is natural that somebody with a minor complaint waits and people with life threatening conditions get priority. They have no concept that someone with a runny nose wants care just as quickly as someone with a heart attack.

To create an on-demand 50/50 plan will require people in the US to pay a 25% payroll tax, maybe more.

To create a “Medicare for all” 80/20 plan will require a payroll tax of around 1/3 from each person.

If he said, “I propose Medicare for all, but realize that it will cost everyone 1/3 of their paycheck. However, everyone in the US will receive top healthcare.” I could support that point of view. Even if he said, “We can have a system like France, but it will cost you 25% of your paycheck,” he could at least be considered honorable.

Instead, Sanders says, “I propose Medicare for all and it will cost almost nothing.” This is what makes Bernie Sanders a lying scum of the worst kind. Or maybe he is just senile.

Here are the actual figures from Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind - Bernie Sanders— “Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program” Only $466, compared to the French, which pay $10,500 on $50,000 (or Euros), or the Medicare for all figure, which would be $16,500 per year. Currently that $50,000/yr. family pays $1500/year to receive Medicare 40 years later.

How can Bernie cover someone for $466 now, when it is difficult to cover them when they pay $1500 for 40 years before the system has to pay a cent. The answer from mathematics is that he can’t. He is lying through his teeth.

So, as you can see from the “Medicare for all” sample, Sanders is talking about people getting things for nothing. “Magic Unicorns” will provide government services for everyone. If Bernie Sanders proposed a system like France or Germany, we could discuss it. It is hard to have a rational discussion with someone who is promising magical unicorns.

Conservative View of Political Parties

Should we get rid of parties? No, the people have the right to assemble into groups in the United States.

Should we get rid of the illegal and unconstitutional system that the Dem/Reps use to control for whom people vote? Definitely.

Remember how many news stories and memes there were about “You can write in Bernie,” or “Maybe the Republicans will run someone else,” or “Maybe another Independent candidate will enter the race,” that were published during the 2016 election. That shows that most people in the United States, including those "experts" who are supposed to know in the media, do not realize that all of those options were impossible under the current legal structure. A group of wealthy, powerful Republicans looked into running an Independent candidate for president in 2016 and concluded that it was not legally allowed.

People should know that, especially since the relative success of Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, thousands of laws have been passed to make it difficult or impossible for anyone who is not the choice of the Republican and Democratic Party to run for office. These laws make it especially difficult at the local level, partially because federal courts are less likely to meddle in local law and partially because the Democrats and Republicans know that new parties would be more successful if they were able to start locally, so make ballot status impossible at that level.

Conservatives should support reasonable ballot laws that apply to all candidates the same.  There should not be a reason that people in the United States do not have at least six to eight choices each time they vote.  This change, more than any other, will break the grip of special interests on politics and make politicians responsible to the best interests of the voters.

Conscious Conservativism Loses as Senator Flake Retires

I am sad to see Senator Jeff Flake go. Neither Trump, nor the person running against Flake in the primary, Kelli Ward, is a conservative. They are both populists. Ward expresses some views that are traditionally conservative and some that are very liberal, depending on what she thinks will get peoples’ attention. I can’t think of any conservative view that I have heard Trump express.

I didn’t agree with Flake on everything, but can say that he was a conservative most of the time and appeared to be trying to do what he thought was best for the United States.

Goodbye Jeff Flake

Why Congress Does Not Simplify the Tax Code

The problem is that there are two competing goals for the tax code. The first goal for the tax code is to raise revenue to operate the government. The second goal is to influence the behavior of citizens. This goes back to one of the first major taxes in the United States, a tax on whiskey Whiskey Rebellion . Alexander Hamilton felt the tax was a way to raise revenue from the unseemly behavior of drinking whiskey.

Congress is reticent to give up any power or control over the people. That is why people get a tax deduction for doing one behavior and a tax penalty for doing another. These objectives sometimes fight each other. For example, you get a deduction for installing alternative energy like solar or wind power only to find another government agency charges a “grid fee” for not using as much electricity from the utility company.

Those that see the tax code solely as a means of raising revenue want the code to be as simple as possible. This makes taxes easy to collect and makes cheating on taxes more difficult.

Those who want to accomplish various other goals with the tax code, such “redistribution of wealth,” “social justice,” “supporting clean energy,” “making home ownership affordable,” “supporting working families,” “making US companies more competitive,” or whatever goal, need a complicated tax code to accomplish those goals. Of course, there are also the more unsavory goals, such as rewarding constituents and campaign donors through tax code changes.