Political Hero #1

Jerry Brown gets the first Public Voter Award for Political Hero.

Before Bernie Sanders started his political revolution there was Jerry Brown. Jerry also tried to “wake people up” but Bill Clinton, representing the establishment, took the day. The corporations kept deregulating and the rest is history. It’s good to know your history.

It was before the internet. Toll free 800 numbers were cutting edge. It was an era of proud apathy for most of the public. Jerry gave it a hell of a try but not as many people paid attention back then.
 
For those who are paying attention now, here’s Jerry Brown speaking truth to power in 1992, running against Clinton, Bush & Quayle.
 
Jerry was the king of the stump speech and he should have become our president. Imagine how different things would be now if that election would have went to Jerry Brown and towards a government working for everybody instead of special interests. 
 
Bernie Sanders represents another chance for the public to do the right thing and vote for the good guy. I hope they don’t blow it.

Populism

Steve Bannon and David Frum debate the future of our ‘system’. Who will win? Socialism or Nationalism? Will it be Dr. Frankenstein? or his monster?

Race To The Bottom

The race to the bottom forces workers to compete for less so investors can profit more, dividing the world into those that are invested, and those that are not. The tax burden of investors is offset for them, by capital gains, which effectively places the entire tax burden of society onto those that are not invested.

Unfair global trade is just one of many tactics in a system of institutional slavery, where the investor class profits more by forcing the uninvested taxpayers to take less for their labor. This transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations divides the public economically and creates an insidious allegiance to the conflict-based economy.

Our global trade and investment policies have resulted in massive inequality and the destruction of the middle class, causing conflict, democratic decay, and social dysfunction.

The race to the bottom exposes the divisions of the public in a political spectrum measured in amounts of investment. The most important political spectrum is not democrats versus republicans or the varying beliefs they advocate, the true political spectrum is the invested class versus the uninvested taxpayer. Those two demographics are competing with each other economically and that is the distinction that matters to a representative government, because money is representation.

Invested democrats and republicans are on the same side, and together with other investors, they are exploiting the uninvested in what is called a race to the bottom.

 

Income-based Representation

Income-Based Representation apportions representatives based on the percentages of a state’s population in each tax-bracket.

Representation based on the population’s income can be used to more accurately apportion representatives to the states.

Tax Bracket Apportionment is a much better method to distribute representatives compared to the current methods of redistricting and gerrymandering.

For over a century the current house membership has been static at 435 representatives for logistical reasons that are no longer valid.

Congressional delegations should now transcend Washington DC and operate in, and vote from, their home states.

With Tax Bracket Apportionment, the percentage of a state’s population, per income-tax bracket, would be equivalent to the percentage of seats available to, and elected from, each tax-bracket.

If 47% of the population are in tax bracket one, then 47% of representatives should be from tax bracket one, and so on.

Available seats are apportioned to, and candidates elected from, income tax brackets, statewide, instead of congressional districts.

The percentage of the population in each tax bracket will be equal to the percentage of representatives apportioned to, and elected from, those same tax brackets.

Incumbents, mostly being from the same tax bracket, would compete for available seats as determined by the population of their tax-bracket. The plan would reduce incumbency and result in representatives motivated to increase the incomes of those they represent.

The passage of an income-based apportionment act would immediately achieve for the people, an overwhelming majority of representatives in congress motivated to remedy social dysfunction and the national demise

 A basic understanding of apportionment and redistricting is recommended to fully appreciate tax-bracket apportionment and income-based representation.