American Ideas and Solutions

Ideas and Projected Solutions Central to American Life

Archive for the ‘American Ideas’ Category

Essay on Corporate Domination of the American Economy

leave a comment »

When I was a child, about 50 years ago, there was a general idea that, if
you wanted to make it in life, you could work hard with something that you
liked to do and create a living on your own by “producing” a product,
selling a skill or retailing a ready supply of a product made here in America.
You could literally create a product and go to a non-corporate, privately owned
factory and have that factory make your product or sell that factory’s products
on local market and be successful at it, if good business practices were
applied. This was the dream of many Americans; to have a small business of his
own by selling his crafts or skills or reselling someone else’s. This was an
achievable goal by anyone at the grassroots level at the time. Things have changed
since then.

It was in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s that the Us Government recognized
corporations as a separate tax entity making them equal to an individual in the
eyes of the government for tax purposes and made a board of directors as the
decision makers of the company’s daily business. This allowed for the grouping
of several business savvy people to pool their resources and leverage against
the individual to gain control of the sales market.

McDonalds was one of the first of these corporations to “take over the
market” with the sales of a hamburgers, fries and a drink. I remember when
their sign said “One million burgers sold.” and that was considered a major and
mind boggling accomplishment. That was in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s.

Dairy Queen and Krystals soon followed. This was the beginning of the end
for Mom and Pop burger stands to expect any more than a lifetime of work for a
meager return. The trend moved to electronics products, household cleaning
supplies and most all consumer goods, edging out local hardware and five and
ten cents stores.

WalMart is the major example this. It even went to the food supply with Winn
Dixie, Kroger, Albertson’s (formerly Skaggs Albertsons) and A&P; edging out
the local grocer. Have you heard of the Hoover vacuum cleaner door to door
salesmen? There were TV Shows in the 1950’s insinuating that men had to resort,
in shame, to selling these products because they could not make it as a local
merchant nor could they any longer work for the local merchant.

Then in the 1980’s and 1990’s the corporations started moving the
manufacture of these goods, along with the jobs that created the goods, to
other countries because of profit margin and because of better federal tax
status. Most products, now, are made in foreign countries and the jobs creating
them went to the foreign countries as well. The embargo taxes, cost of
processing federal and state red tape on importation, and state and federal
regulations on products resulted in inflation of prices for goods and makes it
near impossible for a small businessman to even try to produce, or manufacture
a product for resale on the local market and make a profit.

Now due to population growth and the exportation of factory jobs, there is a
lack of jobs available in the corporate sector and the individual still cannot
compete with the corporations for a market share in hardly any market. He
cannot even go to a local factory and pay for the production of a product
because, if there is a local factory, it is owned and/or regulated by a large corporation
making a competitive, similar product in large numbers.

The only exception I can think of are the “Pitchman” who accept individuals
products as projects and make them successful sellers through mass media and,
once again, mass production through large corporations, usually in foreign

The result is that the individual is at the mercy of a merciless corporate
world who has gained control, through lobbying and financial power, of the
federal government creating the idea that they are “too big to fail” or too
important in the job market to go against. Comment of the influence of the
Trade Unions is reserved for another time, but they also hold key
responsibility for cost of living, control of saleable goods production, and
lack of jobs problems here in the US.

If an individual can get a job, the recruiting rhetoric includes the insane
logic of: “Must be willing to give 110% to the goals of the employer” leaving
little to no resources of time or energy for himself or his family. If he
cannot get a job, he is many times forced into severe scrutiny and
demoralization by the federal and state governments through government
assistance programs like Federal housing (HUD), Un-employment Compensation and
Food Stamps pre-empting him in making make personal progress, at the risk of
losing those life sustaining resources. Too many Americans have lost the
ability to control their own destiny. This is a major reason why we hear of so
many horror stories of violent and felonious acts by citizens in America.

The politicians who want to make a change in this scenario are powerless at
the city or state level to change things because of the enormous power held by
large corporations in the federal government. The politicians who have any
solutions to this dilemma are too few to make the changes necessary to make a
difference because so many politicians are personally tied so closely to this
financial system that they have no desire to make any changes. It will take a
changing of the guardians of our personal interests in Washinton through the vote of the
people to make the change happen.

I hope we, as individuals, begin to realize that we will have to suffer
these consequences of a system favoring those with corporate and political
ability unless we make, through the ballot box, distinct changes in our
representatives in political office locally, statewide and on the federal



Written by American Ideas And Solutions

August 18, 2011 at 8:55 am

Doctor Heal thyself! Will the battle of the wills cause unavoidable financial illness?

leave a comment »

There is a philosophy that government is created to make uniform
regulations for a nation so that its people can have a uniform set of standards
in order to maintain unity of purpose and direction as a nation. In a Republican
Democracy type government, it is the responsibility of the masses to control
the government’s scope of regulation. If left unfettered any government will
regulate anything they can find the time to encompass.

America today has been moving, generally, in a progressive
direction toward more and more federal regulation and endowment in the past sixty
to seventy years. This has become a problem because nearly every faction of
American life is influenced by some regulation having been passed to influence
or regulate its fruition. This has created a financial burden on the government
that has not been addressed properly.  Now
there is a movement to take some of those regulations and endowments away and
downsize the influence of federal government on everyday life both for the benefit
of the freedom enjoyed by its citizens and to allow fewer burdens on the
federal government and thus relive the current economic crisis.

The old camp (of all-encompassing
government) is, of course, resisting this trend and this makes the new camp (of
change to less government) stoke its fires of change even more. The result is
that the international financial community has become skittish and uncertain
when it comes to the future of America. This has resulted in the downgrading of
America’s credit rating by S&P for the first time in history.

The fact that this is the first time in history illustrates the
magnitude of the friction between the two camps. The new camp, favoring less
government, is making enough of an impact to gain attention of the international

When there is a violent altercation of two or more people on any
street in the world, the reaction of the crowd is generally to stand back and
watch in order to see the resulting outcome of the altercation. The financial community
has decided to pull back until the outcome of the American internal disruption
is resolved. They are reserving their confidence of a swift conclusion of the
altercation, do not recognize either side as superior, and will not endorse the
instability of the current affairs.  If
either of the two camps wants to win back the confidence of the international
financial community, they will have to demonstrate their superior ability to
control and administer governmental direction, with financial responsibility,
to the satisfaction of the international community.

Restructuring any government will, no doubt, cause disruption as
it has done in the efforts of the progressives over the past sixty or seventy
years.   Any changes from here into the
future will certainly bring about disruption.
We must remember that change for change sake is not necessarily a good
thing but change for improvement is worth the price.

I personally favor less governmental regulation on activities and
fewer endowments and subsidies.  It not
only promotes the American idea of freedom of choice by independent citizens in
America, but it eliminates the large bureaucracies necessary to oversee the
execution, and administration of the regulations.

Just for arguments sake, people might say that some of the projects
funded by the endowments would not exist without federal funding.  I personally think that necessity is the
mother of invention and if left to our own natural incentives, in America, without
government intervention, we will not only find private endorsement for
necessary funding of necessary projects; but we will come upon swift, practical
application of the projects.  All those
rich people who do not want to give their money to the government will give their
money to just causes and projects if they are to be privately funded and not
attached to unfounded government regulation.

As for the monies being given for Food Stamps, Welfare, I refer to
my blog post “Social Justice vs. Equal Justice”  .

As for the dilemma of paying the current Social Security benefactors
I refer to my Blog post “The Evolution of Social Security” .  Our government should honor agreements with
those who it took money from in the pretense of offering a retirement
benefit.  It should probably put any
funds currently collected back into a fund separate from the general fund and
make any changes to the payment of future retirement benefits as is needed to
obtain stability.  When any government
makes a financial agreement requiring collection of funds for a specific
purpose, it must honor that agreement in order to retain the respect of its citizens.

Senator Rubio after the budget/debt limit debate of 2011

leave a comment »

“What kind of government do we want to have?”

Written by American Ideas And Solutions

August 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm

Posted in American Ideas

Senator Rubio – What kind of future will we choose?

leave a comment »

This speech is central to the discussions I would like on this blog.

Written by American Ideas And Solutions

August 2, 2011 at 10:26 pm

Posted in American Ideas

The Deficit, Budget Dilemma

leave a comment »

Are we ready to give in to all the negative projection, and suppositions being presented by the media?  I tire of reading the news today because of all the sensational negative scenarios that are only projected scenarios if this or that happens. They are only based on supposition if an event that has not happened yet takes place. There is little coverage of what can be done today or what is happening today to establish a more solid financial base for our federal government. I still have faith in the patriotism and strength of the majority of the population. The only thing I have doubt about is whether that patriotism and majority block of opinion can be mobilized to a degree to make that difference in Washington.

Yes, things have already gone off track to a degree that getting them back on track will be a bumpy ride but I have faith that, with proper incentive, the American people can prevail in saving the country we cherish. We have not moved away from the cause of the problem with the legislation being passed in congress today. Although it is a good move to be curbing the spending in Congress and to be not increasing taxes to justify more debt, we, as a country, are still spending more than we are taking into the national coffers.  I suggest that people stay in touch with their respective politicians and let them know that they expect them to follow up on the bill being passed. We must decrease spending in Washington in order to get a grip on the budget and decrease the growing debt.

your senator:​ral/contact_information/se​nators_cfm.cfm

your Representative:​/writerep/welcome.shtml

Most people will think that, if the current “disaster” (exemplified by the sensationalist media) is averted, the country is safe from financial collapse. This is not true. The disaster was averted.  Now let’s get the country off of the financial cliff we have been teetering on so that we do not stray too close to the edge again.

What precipitated the events of the last few weeks was the notice from the leaders of S&P along with the World Bank that unless The United States could come up with a more responsible budget that demonstrates to the world that we stand on solid ground with our debt/expenditure ratio, our exemplary credit rating would be diminished and influence the whole world’s economy.

It was by an adamant effort that political conservatives were able to influence a responsible raising of the debt ceiling (our legal borrowing allowance) without raising taxes on the American people to justify the extended credit.  This effort will be only a token if we as Americans do not show our support for this behavior by letting our respective politicians know that, you are glad that some spending has been curbed but it is not enough and you are concerned that the budget is still not where it should be. Without follow-up on the legislation this will only be a token advancement to a larger goal.  We must trim the budget in order to get out of the current rising debt crisis.

your senator:​ral/contact_information/se​nators_cfm.cfm

your Representative:​/writerep/welcome.shtml

Social Justice vs Equal Justice

with one comment

Social justice is based on the idea that a group of people are entitled to certain treatment or resources due to circumstances other than what the general population experiences.  It usually involves taking resources, provided by someone else, and providing them to the group of people.  It also involves allowing for different treatment or rights when a group of people do not have access to liberties, rights or resources due to a disadvantaged position in society.  It requires government to dictate conditions in order to regulate private affairs and gain ‘equality’ for the disadvantaged group of people.  This is one main tool of politicians who call themselves Progressives.  Why are they called Progressives?  One brick at a time they progressively dismantle the original foundation of our nation, based on freedom and equality for all, to gain government control over each of the issues brought to ‘social justice’.  The government must regulate these issues in order to maintain ‘equality’ through ‘social justice’. In order to maintain social justice, the government must regulate the behavior of the people to comply with each issue addressed.  Each time a law is passed in the name of Social Justice, there is a chip taken away from the liberties and rights of someone. I submit that this practice must be stopped in order to preserve the original foundation of our great country! Read Wikipedia’s definition of Social Justice:

Equal justice is based on the idea that all are entitled to certain treatment or resources through set standards of entitlement as defined by law.  It relies on compliance of all citizens to one uniform standard. It assumes applying civility and compassion through the private sector in the way of private non-profits, churches or other private groups in order to provide resources to the disadvantaged and social grace from the private sector when a group of people are in a minority. Read Wikipedia’s Definition of Equal Justice:

Social justice is the very thing the founding fathers fought against when they formed our nation.  This is the reason they wrote the first ten amendments to The Constitution.  The intent of the “Bill of Rights” was to provide all citizens with protection from government dictate or intrusion in certain parts of our lives.  Each time an exception is made in the name of social justice, the equal rights of the people are compromised.  Each time a law is passed in the name of Social Justice, there is a chip taken away from the liberties and rights of someone. I submit that this practice must be stopped in order to preserve the original foundation of our great country!

Here are some examples:

Using equal justice, the Civil Rights Act gave all people, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference equal rights to participate in the workforce having equal rights to access public resources. This allowed for the freedom of all citizens to access any public resources available without requiring government or institutions to instill mandates to comply with the law.   The law was self explanatory and required no physical resources to administer it with the exception that the individual citizen would have to use his own resources to gain access to public resources such as getting to a certain school or job.

Using social justice, integration legislation required employers to hire a ratio of races, and required schools to enroll a ratio of races disregarding cost or need of the institutions.  This put the burden of cost on the institutions instead of the individual in order to comply with the law.  It required taxpayer money to be spent, such as in the case of school busing.

In the name of Social Justice, it was decided in Congress that all Americans should have an opportunity to buy a home.  Here is where we got into the Freddy Mac, Fanny Mae debacle.  The government instructed banks that they must offer high risk loans to people who would normally be rejected because they could not repay the loans. Taxpayers money would eventually support the effort.

Social Justice is the basis of laws being proposed to limit the food available to the public in the interest of being healthier.  In New York a law was presented to forbid restaurants adding salt to the food in the interest of heart health.  The idea is that people who were refraining from salt would not have the ability to refrain from or could not eat at the restaurant; therefore all should forego the salt in the name of social justice.

In California there is a law being considered (possibly already dicided) to disallow the toys in McDonalds Happy Meals.  The basis is that McDonalds advertising put the parents at such a disadvantage in controlling their children’s eating habits that it would be required to forbid the toys in order to have healthier children.  This would take freedom of choice away from all the parents who are responsible enough to control their children’s eating habits.

The list goes on and on.  Each time a law is passed in the name of Social Justice, there is a chip taken away from the liberties and rights of someone.  I submit that this practice must be stopped in order to preserve the original foundation of our great country!

Written by American Ideas And Solutions

July 29, 2011 at 4:04 pm

A Practical Look at Term Limits for Congress

leave a comment »

A restructuring of Congress and the Senate with term limits would be a monumental task.

In order to accomplish the task, Would  we, as a people, have to find enough politicians willing to participate in voting term limits through our current system of lawmaking in Washington to amend the Constitution of the United States as stated below:


The Constitution of the United States

Article 1 Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1 Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Can we as Independents, Tea Partiers, Republicans and Democrats elect enough new politicians in the various fifty states willing and/or able to get the task done; or would there be enough people willing to act as non-partisans to elect enough politicians into a new Tea Party or Independent

Would the individual States ratify the new amendment as required by law?

Can we act as a majority to replace partisan favorites and career politicians who would most certainly resist? If not, will the new politicians have enough influence to sufficiently making a difference?

In the case of partisan favorites, there would be states and districts who would not want their favorite politician to be replaced.  They ‘have them in their pocket’ and would re-elect them in spite of the movement to elect politicians favoring term limits.

We must also define what we mean by time limits. In order for any politician to accomplish a campaign for a worthy cause, he would have
to present his cause and find enough support to vote it into law.  If he could not, he would have to wait for the playing field to change enough to find that support.  Four years would not be long enough to do that.  Would six years, eight years or even ten years be needed to get a job done? Changing political ideals depends on who is currently President and what the current majority opinion is in the House and Senate.

The idea of term limits is appealing but, if the American people really want this to exist in the House and Senate, there are many things to consider in order to create an atmosphere that will accomplish the desired result.

Please leave your comments. This is the purpose of this Blog. We must formulate new ideas and make them workable or abandon them to prevent their being only a distraction to what we all want to achieve; a federal system at the top level that truly represents the people and not special interest and big money.

Written by American Ideas And Solutions

July 29, 2011 at 1:54 pm