THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB
Make your own free website on Tripod.com
The book THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB is currently available on Amazon

ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: Neo-Capitalism—Inclusive pro-market solutions to our social problems

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world: and that is an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo [ But then, Hugo never had to deal with the American political system....] The purpose of this web page is to solve social problems—so that our free-enterprise system can operate as intended....The two greatest concerns of Americans are “unemployment”, and “excessive government spending” [increasing our already over-heated deficit]--and the following addresses both—in the highest and best interest of the American people....

NOTE TO THE READER: This is a “living web page” amended as current events dictate—apologies for the chaotic organization—it is in serious need of a brush and scrub up—look for the nuggets in between the redundancy [tongue-in-cheek, folks.....]...Finally, this site has been hacked [it appears some people just can’t handle change—our evolving to solve our social problems—progress] –and quotation marks, dashes, etc., appear as squares—so please read for content....THX

TO UNDERSTAND ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM, PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

POSTED: May 11, 2014

Please Forward To Mr. Geithner: CBS Sunday Morning, 5/11/14

THE GORDIAN KNOT IN OUR UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS:

How do we fix our unemployment crisis when we stand on one foot, and then the other—waiting on the market to create jobs—IT IS INCAPABLE OF CREATING? And given “automation”, alone, is less and less capable the further we advance into the 21st Century—creating a ever larger cache of unemployed.

According to the CBO, on our current path, it will be 2017 before we return to even an anemic 5.5% jobless rate, with unemployment benefits long since expired—and if the market fails—THE UNEMPLOYED ARE OUT OF LUCK!

We can’t claim that fixing our unemployment crisis, is our highest priority—when we do not have a plan to fill the void caused by ever diminishing job creation, by the market.

The truth is, we do not currently have a viable solution for our unemployment crisis.

And at the core is the anachronistic BELIEF that “the market can provide anybody wanting a job, with a job.” This has not been true since the mid-1970’s, and evident by high and pervasive unemployment in the OECD, since.

In short, 86% of Americans believe that “anybody wanting to work should be able to find a job” in the face of a market that is INCAPABLE of creating enough jobs to meet the demand—and given automation, alone, the lack of jobs will grow exponentially as we advance into our 21st Century economy.

Further, the above BELIEF has resulted in a disaster [the 2010 election--when a retaliatory electorate, because we didn’t fix unemployment, has ushered in a House full of lunatics—and a Washington in gridlock].

Also, our high unemployment has resulted in a sluggish recovery—the market thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming workforce.

That is, there is NO upside to unemployment, the jobless lose, and the market loses!

And the irony is that we have the “legal authorization”, on the books, to end our unemployment crisis—TOMORROW [deficit-neutral under HR 870, etc.]! And at no time should our unemployment rate exceed 3%!

In sum, Humphrey-Hawkins [15 USC § 3101] was ahead of its time—when it was signed into law in 1978, by President Carter—Now it is INDISPENSABLE to the EFFECTIVE functioning of our 21st Century market economy.

FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT, Amazon

Jim Green, Democrat opponent to Lamar Smith, TX, 2000

PS Apologize for the candor—and CAPS, for emphasis.


POSTED: April 18, 2014 [1934-2014]

President Obama/Council of Economic Advisers:

The field of Economics is awash in graphs and tables—to tell us the health or ill of our economy, but none, nada which warn us of the danger of how unemployment impacts the bottom line.

High Unemployment [6.7%]/Sluggish Recovery is not a non-sequitur. Our manufacturing is disappearing because people do not buy stuff when they are jobless. The prism this problem is currently being looked through has something to do with our laws –[the oligarchy] regarding “employees” in America—which still have one foot on the plantation—

As a result of this anachronistic mind-set the Republicans blather on in magical thinking—with the promise that if we cut taxes for the 1%, they will create jobs [and not spend this windfall on a bigger yacht—they promise--wink, wink]; and the Democrats stand on one foot and then the other—as we inch along--waiting on the Market to fix our unemployment crisis—and if the Market fails, the unemployed are out of luck!

The larger point being: We need to change the dialogue—we need to change the message. We need to start showing how unemployment cuts into corporate profits.

We currently have the “legal authorization”, on the books , to limit our unemployment to 3% [15 USC § 3101]--i.e., at no time should our unemployment exceed 3%--but given the mind-set in Washington, today, it might as well be written in Greek. Congressman Conyer’s deficit-neutral, Pro-Market HR 870 never got out of Committee, while it should be voted on today—given our highest priority—and while unlikely, the Republicans might get on board if we shifted the emphasis.

This is a case where the American people are way ahead of Washington…86 % believe that “anybody wanting to work should be able to find a job”—i.e., 15 USC § 3101 has solid political support--Washington just isn’t listening.

Given “automation” alone, an expanding and contracting public workforce is an INDISPENSABLE component to the EFFECTIVE functioning of our 21st Century economy—and we need to introduce into our dialogue, IMHO:

“3% is the zero-sum threshold above which unemployment starts undermining the Market--and the loss in income to the Market is compounded exponentially with each percentage point of increase in unemployment, above 3%”.

FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT, Amazon

Jim Green, Democrat opponent to Lamar Smith, Congress, 2000


POSTED: April 18,2014 - A proposed new index


THE PATH TO FULL EMPLOYMENT

William F. Mitchell
Department of Economics
University of Newcastle
Australia


Dr. Mitchell,

When the American economy went into a tail-spin in 2008, and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month—CNN’s economic guru, Ali Velshi, on “YOUR MONEY” railed weekly against “public-sector” job creation—which I point out because of just how far off course our economic experts are in America—IMHO, 180 degrees off course!

I point this out because, in my observation, it is not readily understood that in our 21st Century economy, The Buffer Stock Employment Model is an indispensable Pro-Market solution, i.e., an expanding and contracting public workforce [that contracts as employees return to the private-sector] is an INDISPENSABLE component to the EFFECTIVE functioning of a modern market economy.

For example, “automation”, alone, in our transition towards modernity since the mid-1970’s—limits the Market’s ability to create jobs—and this becomes progressively more so as we advance into the 21st Century---and yet, in the U.S., at present [and apparently throughout the OECD], our job creation is based on standing on one foot and then the other, waiting on the Market to create our jobs—and as a matter of fact—this has resulted in a sluggish recovery [certainly in the U.S.], and has also resulted in ubiquitous unemployment throughout our Market economies, with double-digit common in the Eurozone.

I am writing, however, is to ask a favor. I have been working on a truism, theory, law, whatever that offers a scientific basis for the Pro-Market necessity for public-sector jobs. The favor is to ask if you, or a graduate student, could translate this into a statistical model? I understand the concept, just don’t have the mathematical/statistical skill to create. You may not agree with my proposed model—or the threshold point at which unemployment starts undermining a healthy market [an index not currently measured, to my knowledge]…but any assistance is greatly appreciated.

The larger point, here--it is generally believed that the call for “public-sector” jobs—intrinsic to The Buffer Stock Employment Model--is to address the adverse “social” consequences of unemployment—and what is being missed in this conception is the vital role of “public-sector” jobs to the health of our economies, now, and going forward in the 21st Century.

The concept is as follows:

“3% is the zero-sum threshold above which unemployment starts undermining the Market--and the loss in income to the Market is compounded exponentially with each percentage point of increase in unemployment, above 3%”.

With highest regards,

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, District 21, TX, 2000

Bio info: http://www.amazon.com/James-L.-Jim-Green/e/B001KHZIMM/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0


POSTED: March 29, 2014—GREEN’S LAW

President Obama/Council of Economic Advisers:

GREEN’S LAW: At no time should our unemployment exceed 3%--3% is the threshold above which unemployment starts undermining the Market.

GOING forward in the 21st Century, the necessity to create a “reservoir of public employees” is two-fold--and triggered anytime our unemployment hits “3%”—[the threshold above which unemployment starts undermining the market—Green’s Law, and as well mandated by the “legal authorization” in Public Law 15 USC § 3101]:

1] To address the adverse “social” consequences of unemployment—and a consummate responsibility, as a civil society, and….

2] An expanding and contracting public workforce [The Buffer Stock Employment Model] is an INDISPENSABLE component to the EFFECTIVE functioning of a modern market economy—our 21st Century economy.

In short, it is a “win-win” solution—the jobless win, and the market wins!

A single word defines our current “everyone loses” economic model: IRRATIONAL –and driven by extremist right-wing Milton Friedman and the erroneous and discredited “Phillips Curve”--

By relying on this archaic model, however, we stand on one foot and then the other waiting on the market to create our jobs--and if the market fails, the unemployed are out of luck…

Further, it is based on the erroneous belief that the market can provide anybody wanting a job, with a job—which “automation”, alone, has diminished since the mid-1970’s.

Unemployment is a “social” problem, with serious social consequences—but rather than being treated as a problem we as a society have the responsibility to solve—such as the cure for AIDS, or Polio—

Rather, we use a model making the solution contingent on an outside factor: The highly erratic nature of the market—with the empirical evidence, alone, offering consummate proof that we are on the wrong track—i.e., according to the CBO, it will be 2017 before we return to even an anemic 5.5% jobless rate!

In short, we do not have on the table, at present, ANY program specific to addressing/ending this extremely serious social problem—and advocated, here, is the solid public support for:

THE NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT [hereafter NTN]—A federally mandated Social Insurance, owned by our employed, to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed. A modest 4% of salary policy cost will create more “private-sector” jobs in 6 months than HR 2847, in 6 years,

See also: deficit-neutral HR 870/FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT, on Amazon

Jim Green, Democrat opponent to Lamar Smith, 2000



POSTED; January 20, 2014

President Obama:

We need a national dialogue on the devastating social downside, by not legalizing Pot. When we now spend more locking people up, than we spend on educating our youth—[even disregarding the cost of interdiction]---and 50% of those we have locked up in for drug related offenses—we need to start looking at “medical” rather than “criminal” solutions--IMHO.

The primary reason I am writing, however, regards the most serious social problem facing America, today [and inter-related to the above]: Pervasive Unemployment.

And quite by accident I came across an explanation for our inability to solve this problem [and true throughout the OECD]—the “belief” that the market can provide anybody wanting a job, with a job.

The data doesn’t support this—it hasn’t been true since the mid-1970’s, and on the basis of automation, alone, it becomes exponentially less true as we advance into the 21st Century.

Further, according to the CBO, on our current path it will be 2017 before we return to even an anemic 5.5%, with unemployment benefits long since expired [and in jeopardy, now]—and if the market fails, the unemployed are out of luck.

The puzzlement for me—when we have the “legal authorization” [15 USC § 3101] to limit our unemployment to 3%--[a Pro-Market solution]--Why on earth would Larry Summers [the consensus in 2009] be to apply anachronistic economic theory: Fix the market, and this will in turn fix unemployment—rather than—fix unemployment, and this will fix the market?

High unemployment/sluggish recovery is not a non sequitur, and a retaliatory electorate in 2010 [we didn’t fix unemployment], ushered in a House full of lunatics!

Representative Conyers is the lone Congressman who advocates for implementation of Humphrey-Hawkins [HR 870], and I am writing to urge you to explore this, or a like methodology, for solving our unemployment crisis.

For instance, The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act [hereafter NTN]: A federally mandated, Social Insurance, owned by our employed, to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed. For a modest 4% of salary policy cost we can create more “private-sector” jobs in 6 months, than our current path [HR 2847], in 6 years. Further, this has strong political support—86% of Americans believe “anybody willing to work, should be able to find a job”.

With highest regards,

Jim Green, Democrat opponent to Lamar Smith, 2000


Thank You!

Thank you for contacting the White House.

President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible Administration in history. That begins with taking comments and questions from you, the American people, through our website.
Our office receives thousands of messages from Americans each day. We do our best to reply to as many as we can, but please be aware that you may find more information and answers to your questions online.
We encourage you to visit WhiteHouse.gov regularly to follow news and updates, and to learn more about President Obama's commitment to moving our Nation forward.

For an easy-to-navigate source of information on Federal government services, please visit: www.USA.gov.
Thank you again for your message.

The Office of Presidential Correspondence


POSTED: January 4,2014

ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: A Pro-Market Solution For Our Unemployment Crisis [what we are doing now is Anti-Market]

Pope Francis has presented us with a challenge for social and economic justice—but until we get honest about the “Belief” that is preventing us from moving into our 21st Century economy…here and throughout the OECD [the market-driven economies, including the U.S.]--both the jobless and the market will suffer.

During the 2008 election the electorate spoke loud and clear—Fix Unemployment. With majorities in both the Senate and House, I thought the Democrats would employ Public Law 15 USC § 3101, which provided them with the “Legal Authorization” to limit our unemployment to “3%”. In short, at no time should our unemployment in America exceed “3%”.

To my dismay—the Democrats opted for 1950’s economic theory, with employment now being restored at a snail’s pace, and the result has been a disaster [I believe the 2010 election was retaliation for not fixing unemployment, and also ushered in a House full of lunatics]!

The Democrats would have had broad public support in 2010, with 3% unemployment, and now that is in jeopardy for 10 years, and it left us with a Washington in paralysis.

Also, according to the CBO, on our current path, it will be 2017 for us to get back to even an anemic 5.5%, with unemployment benefits long since expired—[the House Republicans are threatening not to renew the current rollover, as I write]--and if the market fails, the jobless are out of luck….

The puzzlement for me is why would our brightest and best make such a critical error? The solution to a problem is measured by results—and the data, alone, shows this result to be miserable.

Further, this is not limited to our leaders in America—and is also true throughout the OECD, with Eurozone 12.1%, as I write, and 25% in Greece and Spain, common. I would add that I believe all of these leaders are genuinely concerned with fixing joblessness.

So, I ask, why do our leaders keep applying 1950’s economic theory, in a 21st Century economy—particularly, given the most serious social problem facing us today, widespread unemployment?

And my take is because it is based on a pervasive, but false, “Belief”:

THE “BELIEF” THAT THE MARKET CAN PROVIDE ANYBODY WANTING A JOB, WITH A JOB —[and our market economies stand on one foot and then the other waiting on the market to solve a problem it is INCAPABLE of solving--more on this shortly—this “Belief” is bedrock for Republicans(1), and let’s not forget that pervasive belief once had it that the world was flat]….

And thus the policies and laws to solve unemployment, in our market-driven economies, have been framed around, and based on this “Belief”….and it cannot be disregarded, what psychologists call “groupness”—a circle the wagons mind-set by vested interests to preserve the status quo—for instance by the Council of Economic Advisers, and their counterparts in the OECD.

Also, many in the “rank and file” have so bought into the myth that ONLY the market can create jobs—they have joined with the 1% who deny climate change to justify drilling the Rockies down to an anthill---to assure their having a job—the planet be dam--ed!]….

But, this hasn’t been true since the mid-1970’s, and “High and persistent unemployment has pervaded almost every OECD country since the mid-1970’s”, according to Dr. William F. Mitchell, and every credible economist [and pervasive unemployment dominates our news programs to this day].

What happened in the mid-1970’s, as the result of a Grotian Moment-like paradigm shift in the world economy, is open to debate—I believe it was the result of the converging forces of automation, globalization, technology, etc., reaching a critical mass in the mid-1970’s—i.e., we became victims of our success, and since, we have celebrated automation in the workplace, and then got a “deer in the headlights” regarding the displaced employee [a problem that left uncorrected, will grow exponentially as we advance into the 21st Century]. In the U.S. we defined the impact of this economic shift as “malaise”.

A factor apparently not considered throughout the OECD is that unemployment is a “social” problem, with serious social consequences—We, as societies, have the responsibility to solve….and when every waking moment in capitalism is spent pondering how to eliminate as many of us humans, as possible, from the workplace—to increase profits—why on earth would we turn to the market to solve a social problem--that is antithetical to its objective?

In sum, the world has changed, our solution for unemployment hasn’t, and the result has been a disaster—i.e., as a result of the “Belief”, above-- nowhere in the OECD do we have ANY program SPECIFIC to ending unemployment!

For perspective on the stubborn and sub-conscious nature of this “Belief” [3% is perceived as unsustainable, for example], ask: Why can we land on the Moon, but we can’t fix unemployment? And why would we turn to anything as erratic as the market for a solution? And why do we ignore data which clearly tells us we are on the wrong path?

My solution is The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act [hereafter NTN]: A federally mandated, Social Insurance, owned by our employed, to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed. For a modest 4% of salary policy cost we can create more “private-sector” jobs in 6 months, than our current path [HR 2847], in 6 years. Further, this has strong political support--86% of Americans believe that “anybody willing to work should be able to find a job….” [a quote from President Obama in “The Audacity of Hope”].

The market thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming workforce [FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT, and ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: NEO-CAPITALISM Inclusive Pro-Market Solutions For Our Social Problems, on Amazon/Kindle]—High unemployment/sluggish recovery is not a non sequitur. NTN is a “win-win” solution—The unemployed win, and the market wins.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000 www.Inclusivism.org

(1) The Republican’s job creation theory [asserted as fact] is cut taxes for the 1%, they will build factories with the windfall of cash—and we will all have a job in the corporation—it is BS—been there, did that—[Reaganomics] it has a 7 year shelf-life before the economy collapses [1987 & 2008], it drove us into a $10 trillion hole to dig out of, it cost the taxpayers $6 trillion more [and counting] to clean up their mess, and a 14.4 million job loss—In short, rather than being pro-market [which they boast] the Republican agenda is a menace to the market! And the “Belief”, above, explains why Republicans spew out broad-brush, mean-spirited, irrational blather “The jobless are lazy”, etc., etc…..

The lesson from Supply-Side is that we cannot siphon America’s wealth away from the consuming middle, without sending our economy into meltdown [and yet, it is the Republican One and Only program, to this day]! And, the Republican/Conservative propaganda that the government is an intrusive problem “and private enterprise a reliable solution” is both archaic and destructive in a 21st Century economy.

A BRIEF ADDENDUM: If one concludes that the market cannot provide everybody wanting a job, with a job—then they must look elsewhere to solve the problem of unemployment—and this, I believe, is the perceived conundrum faced by those charged with fixing our unemployment crisis—their only choice is “public-sector” jobs, and many fear this will compete with “private-sector” jobs—but this is specious--for one, the employees are doing different things—and in the trade-off there is a far greater loss to the market by not employing an expanding and contracting public workforce [Buffer Stock Employment Model--Dr. William F. Mitchell, Australia]--that expands during downturns in the market and contracts as employees return to the private sector—[triggered at 3% under Humphrey-Hawkins].

And apparently least understood is that this is an indispensable, a sine quo non component to the effective functioning of a modern market economy. Humphrey-Hawkins is Pro-Market—and they had it on the nose in limiting our unemployment to 3%.

And as just one illustration—were it not for the moneys from Social Security Insurance [Social Insurance] in the U.S. percolating up through our economy during the 2008 meltdown, we would not be talking about having narrowly averted another Great Depression, we would be buried in one! A weapon, incidentally, available to President Obama, that was not available to FDR—and it also explains, in large part, why we have not had a Great Depression since.

And, perhaps it needs to be added that Social Insurance is democracy in its highest form. Cicero [106-43 BC] and reiterated by Christ “The people's good is the highest law”—and American citizens Pooling their money for the common good--while confused Republicans/Conservatives think the will of the American people is socialism, communism, or like blather—it is, in fact, DEMOCRACY!

On a societal level, our choices are: Adapt and change in a world that is changing whether we like it or not—or create a Police State to hold anachronistic [unworkable] solutions in place….and in America, we have, sadly, opted for the latter….

Three vital components in creating a buffer stock of employees, include: 1] it would be based on the premise that we have far more work that needs to be done, than persons to fill these jobs [“make-work” jobs, is archaic thinking]. 2] It must have renewable funding [this is not a “jump-start” solution, as currently practiced], and 3] it will not add a dime to our deficit.

Finally, the notion that this would result in massive federal job creation is absurd, archaic—and HR 870 provides the correct model, with grants to local jurisdictions—and our local unemployment offices become employment offices.

To overcome this “Belief” we need to think differently, for instance, our mind-set should change from fix the market, and this will in turn fix unemployment—to fix unemployment, and this will fix the market. And our current anemic result in job creation is consummate proof of the fallacy that “market-only” solutions work [Ron Paul, et al]--it is a fallacy.

At present, American law still has one foot on the plantation--American “employees” are seen as “A Pool Of Slaves” [persons without rights—a slave by definition], to be used and discarded “at will”—

While conversely, the human need to be a productive member of society cannot be stressed strongly enough (2), and in time, in America, it will be looked upon as a Human Right—after all, our “economies” are only about one species—us—us human beings--it is one of the few things communism got right. If it isn’t clear yet, I am a capitalist….I staunchly support: Make a better widget, sell it for a million bucks, and retire in South Florida—but the truth is, labels have become a menace and our political parties need to evolve into a single label, objective: “eclectic problem-solver”….[and a fitting label for President Obama—but undermined by our current political paralysis].

(2) Our current indifference to this human need is the reason for our epidemic of workplace violence, a pernicious incarceration rate, and our youth shooting each other at an alarming rate in every major city in America—and at the core of this indifference, and a plethora of other ills--is an anachronistic “BELIEF”….

Bio Info: http://www.amazon.com/James-L.-Jim-Green/e/B001KHZIMM/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

PS: Apologize for the caps [most software is not friendly with emphasis, where intended], and the length



AP: For Release Anytime

ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: The Pro-Market Solution For Our Unemployment Crisis

Pope Francis has presented us with a challenge for social and economic justice—but until we get honest about the “Belief” that is preventing us from moving into our 21st Century economyÖhere and throughout the OECD [the market-driven economies]--both the jobless and the market will suffer.

During the 2008 election the electorate spoke loud and clear—Fix Unemployment. With majorities in both the Senate and House, I thought the Democrats would employ Public Law 15 USC § 3101, which provided them with the “Legal Authorization” to limit our unemployment to “3%”. In short, at no time should our unemployment in America exceed “3%”.

To my dismay—the Democrats opted for 1950’s economic theory, with employment now being restored at a snail’s pace, and the result has been a disaster [I believe the 2010 election was retaliation for not fixing unemployment, and also ushered in a House full of lunatics]!

The Democrats would have had broad public support in 2010, with 3% unemployment, and now that is in jeopardy for 10 years, and it left us with a Washington in paralysis.

Also, according to the CBO, on our current path, it will be 2017 for us to get back to even an anemic 5.5%, with unemployment benefits long since expired—[the House Republicans are threatening not to renew the current rollover, as I write]--and if the market fails, the jobless are out of luckÖ.

The puzzlement for me is why would our brightest and best make such a critical error? The solution to a problem is measured by results—and the data, alone, shows this result to be miserable.

Further, this is not limited to our leaders in America—and is also true throughout the OECD, with Eurozone 12.1%, as I write, and 25% in Greece and Spain, common. I would add that I believe all of these leaders are genuinely concerned with fixing joblessness.

So, I ask, why do our leaders keep applying 1950’s economic theory, in a 21st Century economy—particularly, given the most serious social problem facing us today, widespread unemployment?

And my take is because it is based on a pervasive, but false, “Belief”:

“The Belief that the market can provide anybody wanting a job, with a job”--[it is bedrock for Republicans, i.e., they REALLY believe this[1], and let’s not forget that pervasive belief once had it that the world was flat]. And thus we have framed our policies and laws to solve unemployment, based on this “Belief”Ö. [also, many in the “rank and file” have so bought into the myth that ONLY the market can create jobs—they have joined with the 1% who deny climate change to justify drilling the Rockies down to an anthill---to assure their having a job—the planet be dam--ed!]Ö.

But, this hasn’t been true since the mid-1970’s, and “High and persistent unemployment has pervaded almost every OECD country since the mid-1970’s”, according to Dr. William F. Mitchell, and every credible economist.

What happened in the mid-1970’s as a result of a shift in the world economy, is open to debate—I believe it was the result of the converging forces of automation, globalization, etc., reaching a critical mass in the mid-1970’s—i.e., we became victims of our success, and since, we have celebrated automation in the workplace, and then got a “deer in the headlights” regarding the displaced employee. In the U.S. we defined the effect of this economic shift as “malaise”.

A factor apparently not considered throughout the OECD [including the U.S.] is that unemployment is a “social” problem, with serious social consequences—We, as societies, have the responsibility to solveÖ.and when every waking moment in capitalism is spent pondering how to eliminate as many of us humans, as possible, from the workplace—to increase profits—why on earth would we turn to the market to solve a social problem--that is antithetical to its objective?

In sum, the world has changed, our solution to address unemployment hasn’t, and the result has been a disaster.

My solution is The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act [hereafter NTN]: A federally mandated, Social Insurance, owned by our employed to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed. For a modest 4% of salary policy cost we can create more “private-sector” jobs in 6 months, than our current path [HR 2847], in 6 years. Further, this has strong political support--86% of Americans believe that “anybody willing to work should be able to find a jobÖ.” [a quote from President Obama in “The Audacity of Hope”].

The market thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming workforce [FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT and ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: NEO-CAPITALISM Inclusive Pro-Market Solutions To Our Social Problems, on Amazon/Kindle]—High unemployment/sluggish recovery is not a non sequitur. NTN is a “win-win” solution—The unemployed win, and the market wins.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000 www.Inclusivism.org

[1] The Republican’s theory [asserted as fact] is cut taxes for the 1%, they will build factories with the windfall of cash—and we will all have a job in the corporation—it is BS—been there, did that—[Reaganomics] it has a 7 year shelf-life before the economy collapses [1987 & 2008], it drove us into a $10 trillion hole to dig out of, $6 trillion more to clean up their mess, and a 11.1 million job loss—In short, rather than being pro-market [which they boast] the Republican agenda is a menace to the market! And the “Belief”, above, explains why Republicans spew out broad-brush, mean-spirited, irrational blather “The jobless are lazy”, etc., etcÖ..

The lesson from Supply-Side is that we cannot siphon America’s wealth away from the consuming middle, without sending our economy into meltdown [and yet, it is the Republican ONE AND ONLY program, to this day]!

A BRIEF ADDENDUM: If one concludes that the market cannot provide everybody wanting a job, with a job—then they must look elsewhere to solve the problem of unemployment—and this, I believe, is the perceived conundrum faced by those charged with fixing our unemployment crisis—their only choice is “public-sector” jobs, and many fear this will compete with “private-sector” jobs—but this is specious--for one, the employees are doing different things—and in the trade-off there is a far greater loss to the market by not employing an expanding and contracting public workforce [Buffer Stock Employment Model--Dr. William F. Mitchell, Australia]--that expands during downturns in the market and contracts as employees return to the private sector—[triggered at 3% under Humphrey-Hawkins]--and apparently least understood is that this is an indispensable component to the effective functioning of a modern market economy. Humphrey-Hawkins had it on the nose in limiting our unemployment to 3%.

Three vital components in creating a buffer stock of employees, include: 1] it would be based on the premise that we have far more work that needs to be done, than persons to fill these jobs [“make-work” jobs, is archaic thinking]. 2] It must have renewable funding [this is not a “jump-start” solution, as currently practiced], and 3] it will not add a dime to our deficit.

Finally, the notion that this would result in massive federal job creation, is absurd, archaic—and HR 870 provides the correct model, with grants to local jurisdictions—and our local unemployment offices become employment offices. Our mind-set should change from fix the market, and this will in turn fix unemployment—to fix unemployment, and this will fix the marketÖ..At present, American law still has one foot on the plantation--American “employees” are seen as “A Pool Of Slaves” [persons without rights—a slave by definition], to be used and discarded “at will”—while conversely, the human need to be a productive member of society cannot be stressed strongly enough [2], and in time, in America [given we don’t blow ourselves up], it will be looked upon as a Human Right—it is one of the few things communism got right. If it isn’t clear yet, I am a capitalistÖ. But the truth is, labels have become a menace and our political parties need to evolve into a single label, objective: “eclectic problem-solver”Ö.

[2] Our current indifference to this human need is the reason for our epidemic of workplace violence, and our youth shooting each other at an alarming rate in every major city in America—and at the core of this indifference, and a plethora of ills ignored--is an anachronistic “Belief”Ö.

Bio Info: http://www.amazon.com/James-L.-Jim-Green/e/B001KHZIMM/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0



POSTED: November 25, 2013

TO: The NEW YORKER

Please Forward to Malcolm GladwellÖ.I have 11 books on Amazon/KindleÖ.not that any are selling that wellÖ.but I want to tell you a story about a theory that is covered in several of the books.

Prevailing thought in Washington, as well as by most Americans, and the leaders in the OECD, is:

Fix the market, and this will in turn fix unemployment—but I say NO---just the opposite is true—Fix unemployment, and this will fix the market--and I have found that I am definitely a “David” in trying to make this point.

During the 2008 election the electorate spoke loud and clear—Fix Unemployment. With majorities in all three branches, I thought the Democrats would employ Public Law 15 USC § 3101, which provided them with the legal authorization to limit our unemployment to “3%”. In short, at no time should our unemployment in America exceed “3%”.

To my dismay—the Democrats opted for the former, above, with unemployment now being restored at a snails pace, and the result has been a disaster [I believe the 2010 election was retaliation for not fixing unemployment, and also ushered in a House full of lunatics]!

Also, according to the CBO, on our current path, it will be 2017 for us to get back to even an anemic 5.5%, with unemployment benefits long since expired—and if the market fails, the jobless are out of luckÖ.

The puzzlement for me is why would our brightest and best make such a critical error? The solution to a problem is measured by results—and the data alone shows this result to be miserable.

Further, this is not limited to our leaders in America—but is also true in most of the OECD, with Eurozone in excess of 10%, as I write, and 25% in Greece and Spain, common. I would add that I believe all of these leaders are genuinely concerned with fixing joblessness.

So, I ask, why do our leaders keep going down this unrewarding path—to address the most serious social problem facing us today—widespread unemployment?

And my take is because it is based on a pervasive, but false, “belief”:

The belief that the market can provide anybody wanting a job, with a job [and let’s not forget that pervasive belief once had it that the world was flat].

But, this hasn’t been true since the mid-1970’s, and “High and persistent unemployment has pervaded almost every OECD country since the mid-1970’s”, according to Dr. William F. Mitchell, and every credible economist.

What happened in the mid-1970’s as a result of a shift in the world economy, is open to debate—I believe it was the result of the colliding forces of automation, globalization, etc., reaching a critical mass in the mid-1970’s—and since, we have celebrated automation in the marketplace and then got a “deer in the headlights” regarding the displaced employee. In the U.S. we called this shift “malaise”.

My solution is The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act: A federally mandated, Social Insurance, owned by our employed to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed. For a modest 4% of salary policy cost we can create more “private-sector” jobs in 6 months, than our current path [HR 2847], in 6 years.

Finally, the market thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming workforce [FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT, on Amazon/Kindle]. It is a “win-win” solution—The unemployed win, and the market wins.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000
http://www.amazon.com/James-L.-Jim-Green/e/B001KHZIMM/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0





POSTED: April 18, 2013

April Jobs Report

President Obama/Council of Economic Advisers:

Since the mid-1970’s, the Market has been less, and less, capable of creating the jobs necessary to its viability—and going forward in the 21st Century, an expanding and contracting public workforce is an—indispensable-- component to the effective functioning of a modern market economy.

Every credible economist agrees with Dr. William F. Mitchell that “High and persistent unemployment has pervaded almost every OECD country since the mid-1970’s.”.

In the mid-1970’s, the world economy underwent a paradigm shift: The colliding forces of automation, technology, globalization, etc., reached a critical mass—resulting in ubiquitous unemployment in all of the OECD countries—and leaving their leaders conflicted, ever since, regarding the displaced employee.

Eurozone unemployment is still in double digits, with Greece and Spain both in excess of 20%, and we still have 12 million jobless Americans, in spite of our optimistic, but lethargic, 7.6% unemployment rate.

In the U.S., we took a pro-active role in addressing this economic shift—and in 1978 President Carter signed into law 15 USC § 3101--which “authorizes” the creation of a “reservoir of public employment” at any time our unemployment in America exceeds “3%”--a Pro-Market solution.

In Australia, Dr. Mitchell has proposed THE BUFFER STOCK EMPLOYMENT MODEL: An expanding and contracting public workforce, that expands during downturns in the market, and contracts as employees return to the private sector, and in applying our Law--triggered anytime our unemployment exceeds 3%.

For multiple reasons, the legacy of fear associated with McCarthyism, and the erroneous belief that public sector jobs equate with massive deficit spending—Washington keeps insisting that the market can fix a problem—it is no longer capable of fixing—i.e., our unemployment crisis.

In short, the world has changed, our solution hasn’t, and fixing unemployment has been a disaster [the 2010 electionÖ].

And not being considered are Pro-Market, deficit-neutral: HR 870, and The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act: A federally mandated, mutual insurance, owned by our employed—to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed [via Social Insurance]. For a modest 4% of salary policy cost, we could reduce our unemployment to 3%, within a year of passage.

See also: ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM, and BACK TO FULL EMPLOYMENT, on Amazon/Kindle.

Jim Green, Democrat opponent to Lamar Smith, 2000 www.Inclusivism.org



POSTED: 3-25-12

President Obama/Council of Economic Advisers:

We have two distinct paths to end our pervasive unemployment—

Path 1] Puts the unemployed first—

Path 2] Puts corporations first—

We chose the latter—and in 3 years the unemployment needle has barely ticked downward—

Unemployment was a major economic/social/political issue before 2008—but made infinitely worse by the meltdown.

“High and persistent unemployment has pervaded almost every OECD country since the mid-1970’s”, per every credible economist—albeit, they differ on the reasons why.

It appears we became victims of our success—and the forces of automation/technology/globalization, etc., reached a critical mass in the mid-1970’s—resulting in ubiquitous unemployment in all of the OECD countries—and has left their leaders to address the problem of the displaced employee, since—

In 1978, the U.S. responded pro-actively to this phenomenon by enacting into law Path 1, above, [15 USC § 3101]—But Washington, under pressure from corporate lobbyists has treated this solution, to this day, as if it were laced with cyanide—

The mind-set underlying Path 2, archaic but in transition, is that the American employee is to be seen as a person without rights--to be used and discarded “at will”—and Path 1 is seen as laced with cyanide, because it poses a threat to this “Sacred Cow”.

Not that many years ago the U.S. Supreme Court classified employee grievances under the category of “Master-Servant”—and employment “due process” was recognized less than 40 years ago.

Under Path 2—the objective is to “jump start” the economy—which will then, via “private sector” jobs, end our unemployment crisis—but current projections show that it will take 7 years just to get back to 5% [our current norm for full employment]. Further, if the market fails—the unemployed are out of luck--

Path 1 asserts, however, that the government has an absolute responsibility to step in when the market fails to create enough jobs—15 USC § 3101 “authorizes” the creation of a “reservoir of public employment” anytime our unemployment in America rises above “3%”—See “deficit-neutral” funding in HR 870 [currently in Committee], and as opposed to Path 2--renewable funding is mandatory.

The market thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming workforce—

That is, Path 1 is a Pro-Market, “win-win” solution—the American people win, and capitalism wins—

In short, to date, we have taken the wrong path--

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000 www.Inclusivism.org

POSTED: 11-5-11

Jeffrey Immelt, Jobs Council/Council of Economic Advisers:

Re 60 MINUTES interview: For all the talk about ending our unemployment crisis in America—the effect has had little more than our giving lip service to a solution—

The proof of this is that all of our solutions up to now are limited to, and predicated on the market solving the problem—

And evident by the premise that if we “jump start” the economy—this will fix our unemployment crisis—when a “jump start” is useless in fixing unemployment in any meaningful way—and it can ONLY be solved with “renewable funding”.

Further, there appears to be a blind spot to the nexus: Sluggish Economy/High Unemployment. That is, that our sluggish economy is a direct result of our high unemployment.

And when this connection is made, fixing unemployment will cease to be a step-child in the process [as it is now]—and finding a solution will be given the importance it deserves.

In short, it will be recognized that the “authorization” in the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act [15 USC § 3101, hereafter H-H], is dead-on correct in finding a solution to our unemployment, in a modern market economy.

H-H is a Pro-Market solution.

Specifically, H-H authorizes the creation of a “reservoir of public employees” anytime our unemployment in America rises above “3%” [And as of today, we are exactly three times over the percent necessary to trigger this Public Law].

The reason we have ignored this path in ending our unemployment crisis is complex—and not limited to the obvious cost—[albeit, it can be accomplished deficit-neutral]—and as well, this also ignores that a “reservoir of public employees” is a indispensable component so that a modern market economy can function correctly.

But by all outward appearances [given the path we have followed] this solution has not even been on the table, in spite of the “authorization”—and thus the question: “This is how we are going to fix unemployment—so tell us how to make this solution a reality? –Has yet to be asked.

This solution, incidentally, is not without support in DC—see HR 870 [currently in Committee]. Rep Conyers would fund via Wall Street—my preference is a proposed
“Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act”: A federally mandated, mutual insurance, owned by our employed to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed—similar in construct to Social Security Insurance— www.Inclusivism.org

This is the message of the “99%”.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

CC: President Obama

POSTED: April 29, 2011

F. Michael Kelleher, Special Assistant to the President

President Obama: ENDING OUR UNEMPLYMENT CRISIS

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF “ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM”: The Path To Deficit-Free, Pro-Market, Private Sector Job Creation – www.Inclusivism.org

1] Congress to pass: “The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act”—A federally mandated, mutual insurance—owned by our employed in America [from janitor to CEO], to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. The policy cost would be limited to 4% of salary, with additional funds, if needed, from a windfall profits tax on excessive profits, for instance, by our major oil corporations, etc.

2] The Department of Labor would create a National Trust Fund, with the funds from the employee insurance to be received via existing FICA accounts, and supplemented as above, if needed.

3] A commission would be set up in the Department of Labor to review grant requests from any every jurisdiction in America, including but not limited to states, local governments, indian tribes—but specifically rejecting “privatization” requests [which historically have cut services to increase profits].

4] The target would be to reduce our unemployment to no more than 3% nationally within one year of enactment, i.e., to “not more than 3% for persons aged 20, or over, and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over”—as currently authorized under the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act [15 USC § 3101],

5] And which also authorizes the government/president to create a “reservoir of public employment” anytime our unemployment rises above “3%” [and we are 3 times over the % necessary to trigger this law, at present].

6] Further, grant funds would be distributed to authorized jurisdictions to train persons for gainful employment.

7] To the greatest degree possible this Act would be carried out under the over-arching Buffer Stock Employment Model, where public employment would expand during down turns in the market [triggered at 3% unemployed, under H-H], and contracts as employees return to private sector employment [with the Act creating more private sector jobs in 6 months, than The HIRE ACT in 6 years, if ever].

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

F. Michael Kelleher, Special Assistant to the President

Please forward to: President Obama

In your Prologue to “The Audacity of Hope” you gleaned from conversations with thousands of Americans that “Most of them thought that anybody willing to work should be able to find a jobÖ.”.

So where is our Commission to make this a reality?

It seems improbable that so many persons, and from diverse backgrounds, would have asserted this fundamental belief—unless it is seen as what should be a fundamental truth in America—

We need to push out all the noise—an oppressive deficit, the Republicans in Congress, anachronistic economic theories, etc., and focus, singularly, on how do we make as a reality in America: “Anybody willing to work should be able to find a job”.

The ONLY question to be asked by this Commission: How do we achieve this?

By all outward appearances, this will require a restructuring, and different mind-set, from the path we are on now—which isn’t working. It would be impossible to have 9.1% unemployment [in truth, closer to 15%] if HR 2847—The HIRE Act was working—

Further, this Commission would have a heads-up from legislation we already have, or pending, on our books. Specifically, HR 870 [currently in Committee], and 15 USC § 3101, and we can fund either without adding a dime to our deficit. See also: www.Inclusivism.org

Further, the method advocated by Representative Conyers, and the other proposed methodology will create more “private sector” jobs in 6 months, than our current path in 6 years, if ever. Capitalism thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming, workforce.

Finally, I am also writing for a purely selfish reason—not because I need a job--I am 77 and happily retired—I am also a life-long Democrat and want to see you re-elected—and it will never happen if we don’t fix our unemployment crisis—

If we fix unemployment, however, everyone wins—the American people win, and capitalism wins—

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000



Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: THE SOLUTION

Please Forward To: Professor David Gergen

Professor Gergen—As a brief follow-up to our discussion on 2/22/11 at TLU in Seguin, TX—re America’s readiness to elect a Black president in 2008—I did not, in any sense, mean to suggest that you favored that–indeed, quite to the contrary-- I picked up a reservation re our readiness in the election—albeit you celebrated our readiness. You certainly would not have been alone if you had, in fact, misread.

An area where I would assert America is definitely being misread at present, however, regards our unemployment crisis—and the willingness of most Americans to chip in to help their neighbor get a job—Americans have said this over and over to our politicians [and President Obama in particular] but our “leaders” are not listening—and in spite of the legal means and authority under Humphrey-Hawkins.

Further, we can fund millions of jobs in every jurisdiction in America, that go wanting every year, and at an enormous waste of human potential--via a renewable fund--and without adding a dime to deficit—

Specifically, with a federally mandated, mutual insurance, owned by our employed [from janitor to CEO]—to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. It is a known fact that public sector hiring stimulates private sector hiring—and for a modest policy cost of 4% of salary--we can create 7-10 million jobs on an accelerated schedule [with the public and private sectors working in concert]— On our present course, with HR 2847, we are talking 8-10 years, if ever, to accomplish what can be accomplished, here, in 6 months—see: www.Inclusivism.org

My proposed title for this legislation is “The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act”—which I would urge the Senate to pass and then challenge the Republicans in the House to explain why they voted against jobs—particularly that would not add a dime to the deficit!

A final thought—re the fellow from Minnesota who strongly advised against our putting on the brakes in a struggling recovery—I concur 100%--there is no dispute by every concerned American re our deficit—but as George Soros noted on GPS—Obama has allowed the Republicans to take over the agenda—and we need to wrest it back ASAP lest we go hopelessly “off the rails” to borrow a favorite phrase—And returning to job creation with a laser-like focus could be just the ticket to re-set the agenda.

Kindest personal regards,

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000
Jgreen5@satx.rr.com

CC: President Obama

POSTED: 2/11/11

F. Michael Kelleher, Special Assistant to the President

President Obama/Fellow Democrats:

On February 10, 2011, in a speech at Marquette University, President Obama asserted a belief deeply held by most Americans “Everyone who wants a job, can get a job.”

Indeed, according to a recent Zogby poll, as reported by The Nation—"86% of Americans think the government should provide a job to anyone who wants one".

It is another instance where government policy doesn’t match its rhetoric—and like the uprising in Egypt—where the people are saying one thing, and the government [until, today] is deaf as an adder!

But not without a cost for our deafness—and evident by us Democrats getting hammered in the mid-terms—

For instance, the legislation hailed as our “savior” --HR 2847 [AKA failed Reaganomics]—is an un-funded mandate committing billions of dollars to cross the palms of our corporations with silver—on the promise that they will hire us out of our unemployment crisis—

There is a folksy adage for us guys—“Getting a job is like getting a girl—it is easier to get one, when you got one”—

And true to form [and keen on this adage] many corporations [pocketed the windfall, and] hung out signs “The unemployed need not apply”—and as noted our unemployment needle has barely moved—and we still have 15 million Americans unemployed!

The truth is—it would be impossible to have 9% [closer to 17%] unemployed—If HR 2847 worked! Our unemployment rate is consummate proof that what we are doing isn’t working!

And a millstone hanging around our neck is the sacred cow—jobs can only be created by the market—according to Hoover--

The irony is all of this is that we already have a law on the books to make a reality of the statement by President Obama--15 USC § 3101—which authorizes the government/president to create a “reservoir of public employment” any time our unemployment exceeds “3%”—and we are three times over the percent necessary to trigger this law!

Further, we can fund this new policy [make President Obama’s statement a reality] with a renewable stimulus, and without adding a dime to our deficit, to wit: A federally mandated, mutual insurance, owned by employed to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed --www.Inclusivism.org

Working Americans, would chip in to help their neighbor who is unemployed [which millions of Americans have expressed an interest in doing]—i.e., proposed: Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act--

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000




POSTED ON: November 20, 2010 [Celeste's birthday]

THINGS WE DEMOCRATS NEED TO FIX....BEFORE JANUARY

First, is a better method of communicating [educating the public] --so that the public knows that we are on their side, and on the right side of history. When we failed to do this--we allowed the Republicans to take over the national dialogue, to lie to the public, and energize the lunatic fringe to the detriment of almost every American.

For instance, every informed American understands that a government's only tool to prevent an economic collapse is “cash”, and plenty of it-- And yet, the Republicans effectively convinced our "uninformed"–that President Obama was a "tax and spend" Liberal on a drunken spending spree [which is patently false]--but with the end result of a 60+ seat margin in the House, and a weakened Senate—

Secondly, is creating JOBS—and Congress needs to pass on an emergency basis, THE NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT [Americans helping fellow Americans]--A federally mandated, mutual employment insurance, owned by our employed--to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. With a modest policy cost of 4% of salary, we can create 7-10 million jobs within the next 90 days, and in addition to being a renewable stimulus, it will not add a dime to our deficit—see www.Inclusivism.org and Google: Buffer Stock Employment Model.

The world has changed, our solutions haven't [HR 2847, warmed over Reaganomics] –and the result has been a disaster! Had we Democrats fixed unemployment, all of our good works would have been bulletproof—when we failed to fix, ALL our good works became a target, and our current motto should be “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished”--

Finally, and perhaps most important--is creating Fail-Safe electronic voting. When the Republican motto is “Lie, cheat and rob to get elected—so we can lie, cheat and rob the American people blind, once elected”--does anyone really believe they are above tampering with an already flawed electronic voting system? And our first job creation project should be building a universal fail-safe electronic voting system, to wit:

The basics--Every electronic voting machine must produce a hard copy which allows the voter to verify their cast votes—which would then be inserted into a software-free optical scanner for a second count—if the counts don't balance, the election cannot be certified—for details see web page, above.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

POSTED: November 7, 2010

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

President Obama/Fellow Democrats:

DEMOCRATS HAVE A VERY NARROW WINDOW IN WHICH TO SAVE THE SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE IN 2012, AND MOVE AMERICA FORWARD IN THE 21st CENTURY

We Democrats lost the House because we did not fix unemployment, which has now flat-lined at 9.6%, and “lagging index” devoid of political traction.

The following will create, deficit-free, 7-10 million [public/private sector] jobs, with an annual median salary of $18-38, 000. Further, the funding is renewable and will avoid the necessity to return to Congress every time stimulus money runs out—and also avoid our continuing to extend unemployment benefits, ad nauseam.

Absent our enacting this pro-market legislation [on an emergency, temporary basis] before the end of the year, the make up in the new House will block passage, specifically, to prevent the Democrats from providing a viable solution to our unemployment crisis, even though they may agree with its viability, and the fact that it will not add a dime to the deficit.

Further, we already have the legal authorization in a law passed by Congress, 15 USC Section 3101, which authorizes the congress/president to create a “reservoir of public employment” anytime our unemployment exceeds “3%”--and we are three times over the percent necessary to trigger this law.

The following is urged to carry out the clear intent of this law: A federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance, owned by our employed in America—to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed—and it can be easily implemented via our existing FICA--for detail please see: www.Inclusivism.org

Further, this concept has broad political acceptance, and expressed to President Obama during the campaign by our employed, to help their unemployed neighbor—and the following title is recommended: The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act of 2010.

Finally, this is a pro-market solution and is an indispensable component so that a modern market economy can function correctly—and with a modest policy cost of only 4% of salary to fund. Also, please Google: Buffer Stock Employment Model which urges a work force that expands during downturns in the market, and contracts as employees return to private sector employment.

----> A BRIEF HISTORY RE WHY WE ARE, WHERE WE ARE:

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

President Obama/Fellow Democrats:

There is a line of reasoning we have ignored regarding why we have unemployment—and absent our following this path we have not been applying a viable solution to fix our unemployment crisis in America—and we have paid an enormous political price for the omission--

In many ways we are victims of our own success—and the colliding mega-forces: automation, technology, globalization reached a critical mass in the mid-1970's, and all of the OECD countries [including the U.S.] have struggled with pervasive unemployment since [it also ushered in our sharp turn to the Right—Reagan/Thatcher, etc.]--

Our response in the U.S.--President Carter signed into law the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act in 1978 [hereafter H-H] which authorizes the government/president to create a “reservoir of public employment” any time our unemployment in America exceeds “3%”. H-H is a pro-market solution.

The truth is, capitalism never has, and never will, provide everyone with employment—and when every waking moment is spent pondering ways to eliminate as many of us humans as possible, from the workplace, to increase profits—it is devoid of rational human thought for us to look to capitalism to solve our unemployment crisis--[And yet, inexplicably, we have a widely-held myth in America that work can only be created via capitalism—it is a fairy tale—and is destructive to our market economy]!

For clarity, we should never condemn the CEO for closing a plant, if they are losing money—but we should be outraged by a government that is non-responsive to this void in a market economy—[the Republican response is to pretend the problem doesn't exist--] –

To address this dilemma, in 1998, Dr. William F. Mitchell [Australia—and consistent with H-H] proposed a Buffer Stock Employment Model—that expands during downturns in the market, and contracts as employees return to private sector employment—an indispensable component so that a modern market economy can function properly.

For example, were it not for Social Security Insurance moneys percolating upward through our economy--we would not be talking about having narrowly escaped another Great Depression—we would be buried in one!

And to fund our public workforce [and not add a dime to our deficit] we need a federally mandated, mutual employment insurance, owned by our employed [from janitor to CEO]—to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed, see www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

FAIL-SAFE ELECTRONIC VOTING:

So long as the potential for manipulation of electronic voting continues to exist—our elections in America will be in peril! In spite of all the polls showing a strong Obama victory--it was not until 10PM Central on 11-4-08.....that we could breath a sigh of relief....we had been cheated out of the past two elections....with many believing that Bush was never legally elected president of the United States....and we were braced for the worst.......this can, and MUST be fixed before 2012 [and our failure to fix may well be the reason for the vote in 2010], so that this never happens again, and in the interest of all who support fair and open elections--regardless of party. Accordingly, it is urged that we adopt the following proposed "FAIL-SAFE ELECTRONIC VOTING ACT":

size=25
counters


THE FAIL-SAFE ELECTRONIC VOTING ACT

1) EVERY electronic voting machine (hereafter EVM), must be inexpensive, identical throughout the U.S. in a 1/150 ratio, and must count and produce a hard-copy of the recorded votes. In addition, an extra copy of their recorded votes would be produced (not necessarily a hard-copy), marked "Voter's Copy", and containing “NOTICE: Do Not Destroy Until Every Election On Your Ballot Is Certified". [If Wal-Mart refused to give us a receipt for our purchases—would they not be suspect—and this regards our democracy].

2) After confirming that their votes are recorded correctly, the voter would then insert the hard-copy ballot into a software-free (count only) optical scanner (hereafter OS), for a second count. The hard-copy ballot would be retained by election officials in the event a candidate asks for a recount (not possible under the current system, and which undermines the legality of each such election). The EVM and the OS must be manufactured by different companies (which is universally true today).

3) Election officials assigned to oversee the EVM, would be prevented by law from overseeing the OS, and vice-versa, and stiff criminal penalties would be imposed for violations.

4) Further, every EVM would be programmed with raw data re the total registration rolls, by party, and norms for their voting history, etc.,----as an “alert” to a possible irregularity, such as an “Under-vote”—or “vote-flipping” etc., and standards established to suspend certification where there is an “improbable result”, at least temporarily, of a particular election until the discrepancy is cleared up. (This is what computers do best, and it would be very easy to create such a program).

5) At the end of the election day, tallies would be taken from the EVM and the OS, for each candidate. If the tallies didn't balance for any given election, or if there is an “alert”, that election cannot be certified until the "error" is corrected. If the candidates agree, minor discrepancies in the count could be disregarded. While probably rare, the Voter, or a random sample of Voters, would be required by law to return their Copy of the recorded votes to the election office to clear up any "error", or where an “alert” signals the need for same.

6) Further, every state provides for a recount when the total vote falls below a certain percent of difference between the candidates, impossible to conduct with the current EVM—and thus Congress must mandate the following regarding presidential candidates: A RUN-OFF election is mandated and triggered in those states where the percent of total vote is less than .5% of difference between any given candidates; said election to be held on the second Saturday following the election, on PAPER BALLOTS ONLY, and contain ONLY the names of the relevant candidates, for instance: “Barack Obama, Democrat” and “John McCain, Republican”—with oversight in counting by a representative(s) of each party—said procedure providing more than adequate time to meet the Electoral College mandate. NOTE: Had this been the law in 2000, Al Gore would be our president, and the American economy would not be in meltdown!

7) Finally, absent the above safeguards, and until these safeguards are in place--Congress must mandate that PAPER BALLOTS, ONLY, can be used in our presidential elections. This is not a “partisan” issue, it is a “pro-democracy” issue. Most importantly, this will return the responsibility for our elections, and our vote counting, back into the hands of the individual voter, where it belongs, and out of the hands of “corporate control”---it is after all "our democracy", itself, that is at risk if we don't take these steps---and in that regard, is there any time or cost differential that is too great?
Reply To: Jim Green -- Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000
jgreen5@satx.rr.com www.Inclusivism.org

POSTED: 10-1-10

President Obama [Fellow Democrats]

RE FIXING UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA: We Blew it!

In a conversation with Americans--whether the group is large or small—always running in the background is the question: How can we fix unemployment? [And the urgency to fix has greatly accelerated since our economic meltdown]--

If Americans had employment security--their anxiety about our future would virtually vanish--

We told the electorate we could fix the problem--and the Democrats, in large part, were handed the reins of government for this purpose—

But in the end we dropped the ball—we got bad advice--the world has changed, and yet, our “experts” looked at anachronistic models, including Reaganomics, for a solution—

And we allowed lobbyists and corporate slugs to write the legislation [HR 2847] to fix our unemployment crisis---we took the wrong path, and it was an insufferable misstep --and in the only arena that counts—RESULTS—we failed dearly—and all of the current polls tell us we are also going to pay dearly in the mid-terms--

The indisputable proof of our failure is: 9.6-15% unemployment! We didn't fix the problem—PERIOD--we blew it—and our failure blew life into the Tea Party!!

Further, the worn out blather that employment is a “lagging factor” in a recovery [sure, under our out-dated model]--fell on deaf ears, and has been a menace and destructive in our taking the right path—

Which leads to the proposed solution, and we need to start with the mind-set that we have far more jobs that need to be done in America, than we have Americans to fill them--

Every jurisdiction in America, jobs that would make us energy independent, and even a high-speed rail system—all provide avenues for millions of jobs, that currently go begging in America, for lack of our creativity—and funding--

And yet, we can generate the funds for millions of jobs without adding a dime to our deficit by urging Congress to pass a federally mandated mutual employment insurance, owned by our employed--to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. See: www.Inclusivism.org

With a modest policy cost of only 4% of salary—we can generate the funds to create 7-10 million public/private sector jobs with an annual median salary of $18-38,000.

Further, the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act has provided us with the legal authority to fix our unemployment crisis—But we took the wrong path--but it is almost never too late to do the right thing.....

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

ADDENDUM: 10-4-10

Please forward to Lee Hersch re “The Bullying Project”:

In your interview on CNN this AM you said studies may show that bulling is the result low self-esteem, or “high self-esteem” --with all due respect, it is impossible for a person to have “high self-esteem” [positive feelings about one's self] and be a “bully”--[this is antithetical to a person respecting their self-worth]--and my suspicion is a common mistake where we confuse high self-esteem with “arrogance”. A few years back a study was released [and inexplicably widely quoted] citing high self-esteem as a cause for criminal behavior—the notion is absurd, and again, a confusion with “arrogance”.

Considering all of the division in America, today-- if there is any thing in short supply it is persons with a sense of “high self-esteem” [devoid in every member of the “Tea Party”]--and Shirley MacLaine should be applauded for suggesting we need a cabinet post to engender high self-esteem in Americans – To clarify the point, ask yourself: Did Hitler have high self-esteem?

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000 www.Inclusivism.org

POSTED: August 18, 2010 [April's birthday]....

F. Michael Kelleher, Special Assistant to the President

President Obama – Fellow Democrats: Yesterday, former President Clinton extolled Democrats as the “fix it” Party – but the truth is, Senator Boxer is five points behind in the polls, and runs a real risk of losing her Senate seat in California – because, when it comes to unemployment, the Democrats have become the “Don't know how to fix it” Party –

Indeed, one financial expert has documented that each of the new jobs created, as part of our current recovery, has cost “a staggering $5,657,492 to create” – that it would take “500 years” for the government to recoup the money from income taxes –

Further, and in spite of these exorbitant expenses we still have a 9.5% unemployment rate and “nearly TEN MILLION Americans are still relying on unemployment checks to put food on the table” – and compounded by the fact that just this past week “484,000 workers filed for unemployment benefits for the first time!”--

Unemployment is an “either/or” proposition – one is either employed, or they are not – the method one is using is either working, or it isn't working, and it can be said with absolute clarity – the method the Democrats are currently using to solve unemployment in America – isn't working!

And it is no longer a viable political tool to use “blue smoke” -- that is “Not to worry, work is a 'lagging index'--work will return someday”--the public isn't buying it [re Senator Boxer] --

And rather the public sees the method used by Democrats to solve our insidious unemployment problem in America, as incompetent –

In short, all of the empirical evidence is telling Democrats that “conventional wisdom” has it wrong – that the path we are on isn't working – and yet they are inexplicably not listening – and it will likely cost them majorities in both the Senate and House [and America a progressive agenda] as a result!

What would work is a proposed NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT – which enforces the mandate/authorization in Humphrey-Hawkins to create “a reservoir of public employment” anytime our unemployment exceeds “3%” [and we are three times over the percent necessary to trigger this law] –

And all of which can be done without adding a dime to our deficit!

Specifically, via a federally mandated, private [not for profit] mutual employment insurance [similar to our auto insurance in most states], owned by the American worker [from the janitor to the CEO] to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed.

For a modest 4% policy cost we could create 7-10 million jobs with a annual median salary of $18-38,000 – within 90 days of passage – for detail see: www.Inclusivism.org

So to repair our “fix it” mantra – what are Democrats waiting on?

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

PROPOSED: Congress to enact, on a temporary emergency basis, the NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT [authorized under the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978, see below] -- Americans who are employed helping out those who are unemployed—In part, on the model of Social Security Insurance, and/or our mandatory auto insurance in most states [we hope we never need home owner/auto insurance—but grateful for the coverage if we do]....

Just the facts –

It is projected on data available that the following will create 7-10 million jobs on an accelerated schedule—within 90 days of being signed into law--and not add a dime to our deficit, to wit:

1] Everyone who is employed [from the janitor to the CEO] would pay a modest policy cost of 4% of salary for a private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance – with the funds collected to be used to hire/train our unemployed.

2] Further, the funds collected would be matched dollar for dollar with a levy on those earning over $250,000 [which would be recouped in whole or in part by the stimulus to the economy] – but the combination would generate sufficient funds to create 5 million jobs with an annual median salary of $18,000.00 [the average annual salary for commuter pilots].

3] In addition, it is projected that 4% is the trigger point, in the aggregate, to accelerate private-sector hiring, and with private and public sector working in concert the jobs created is increased to 7-10 million—i.e., a major step towards Full Employment.

4] Finally, this should not be confused with “shovel-ready” stimulus jobs -- or the WPA, which is actually offensive to this concept – this is an essential component in a market economy, to moderate the business cycle and so that the market can operate at its highest efficiency—the fact is we have far more jobs which need to be done in America, than we have humans to do the jobs—including, but by no means limited to, converting to a carbon-free energy source – the list of jobs we need to do in America is almost endless --

POSTED: July 25, 2010

PLEASE FORWARD TO: Candy Crowley, State of the Union --July 25, 2010 [AMENDED]

On State of the Union this AM you posed which is more ominous high unemployment or a high deficit?

The question is: Why are we locked into a mind-set that our only way to fix unemployment, is by increasing the deficit?

Our brightest and best are hot-wired to this point of view and it seems impossible for them to think outside the box—their minds short-circuit to “Well, I guess were stuck—the only way we can fix unemployment, is by increasing the deficit” – where is our imagination, where is our creativity?

There are probably several alternatives we haven't considered yet—the alternative I have been urging since President Obama took office would create 7-10 million jobs in the next 90 days, and would not add a dime to our deficit!

Specifically, a federally mandated, mutual insurance [similar to our auto insurance], owned by our employed to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. Details at: www.Inclusivism.org

And rather than greasing the palms of merchants [HR 2847 – re-fried Reaganomics – which “might” fix unemployment in 10 years] our small businesses would get well because they would have consumers buying their products! The alternative posed, here, is a pro-market solution!

All of the OECD countries have struggled with high unemployment since the mid-1970's [which gave rise to the cold winds of conservatism, since—Reagan, Thatcher] and the respective governments are befuddled with how to solve the problem—

Combined with our meltdown --in many respects we are victims of our own success [in addition to Bush's incompetence] – as the colliding forces of automation/technology/globalization reached a critical mass and the combination altered “work”– with millions of jobs never returning --

In short, the world has changed, our solutions haven't!

And the reality is that our governments have no choice, None, other than to create a permanent public workforce [to preserve our market economy]– that expands during market downturns, and contracts as the market recovers, as employees return to the private sector.

Google: Buffer Stock Employment Model & our Humphrey-Hawkins [1978], which authorizes the president/government to create a “reservoir of public employment” anytime our unemployment rises above “3%” ---- so what's our hold up?

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

July 4, 2010

F. Michael Kelleher, Special Assistant to the President

President Obama – Fellow Democrats:

Michael Steele has it dead wrong. The oil spill, and our unemployment crisis in America have an eerie similarity, and are equally scary: We have the best minds on the planet working on the problem and they don't have a clue, in terms of effective results – for how to fix the problem [BP is losing billions – does anyone really believe they would not stop this in a NY second --if they knew how?] ---

Regarding our unemployment crisis, since the close of WW II – our best minds on the planet have been warning us that a public workforce is an indispensable component in a modern economy – so that our market economy can function properly – by holding unemployment in check.

In many ways we are victims of our own success—and while we celebrate automation and technology – they have made us victims because we have blindly followed the anti-business policies of the Republicans [inexplicably saying “Me too”] --and refused to accept that we have NO choice other than to create a “public workforce” to fill the void created by the displaced jobs – in the interest of capitalism, as well as the unemployed workers.

Indeed, our Full Employment Act in 1978, Humphrey-Hawkins, authorizes the government to create “a reservoir of public employees” whenever our unemployment rises above “3%” –

As one economic expert observed re the July DOL jobs report that the government response, to date, could be compared to “throwing a pale of water on a forest fire” – And our long-term unemployed remains unchanged at almost 50% – it could be added regarding our meager results—if the problem was really understood – why would our “economic experts” urge Congress to use re-fried Reaganomics [H.R. 2847 – grease our corporations and they will hire us out of unemployment – WRONG]

And, while our economic experts spar over whether we should hit the gas, or hit the brakes re government spending – the truth is we can create 7-10 million jobs, on an accelerated schedule --without adding a dime to our deficit, [see www.Inclusivism.org] – but until we get honest over the fact that our ONLY choice is to create an expanding and contracting public workforce [Google Buffer Stock Employment Model], this social/political/economic problem will never be solved!

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

27 May 2010

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President

President Obama, Fellow Democrats:

The battle lines are clearly drawn, aside from the oil spill crisis: Fix unemployment, or write off the Senate and House in the November election --

Economic Inclusivism [hereafter EI], offers a very uncomplicated solution-- which will move us well on our way to Full Employment, and will not add a dime to our deficit:

Every person in America who works, no matter how humbling or exalted their position—would chip in a small % of their income to purchase an insurance policy which would provide the funds to hire/train those Americans who are unemployed.

In part, it is a protection should they get caught up in a RIF, or otherwise lose their employment, but equally as important it is a neighbor-to-neighbor concept—helping out a fellow American who has lost their employment, which a majority of Americans have expressed an overwhelming interest in doing.

And thus, the title for the proposed legislation Congress is urged to pass, THE NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT, to wit: A federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance [much the same as our current auto insurance], owned by the American employee [from the janitor to the CEO], to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed.

For a modest policy cost of only 4% of salary—matched with a dollar for dollar levy on those making over $250,000 – would create 5 million jobs with an annual median salary of $18,000.

Further, it is projected that 4%, is the trigger point, in the aggregate economic stimulus, to stimulate private sector hiring which would have the dual effect of increasing the jobs created to 7-10 million jobs, and zero out the levy for most making over $250,000.00.

Twice in American history we have passed pro-market laws mandating Full Employment [1946 & 1978], and the latter-- Humphrey-Hawkins authorizes the government to create “a reservoir of public employment” when ever our unemployment in America exceeds “3%”-- i.e., we are already three times over the percent necessary to trigger this law – and we have far more jobs that need to be done in America, than we have persons to fill these jobs – so we need to hop to it!

EI is a “win-win” social/economic solution – capitalism can thrive, only, with a robust, fully employed, consuming public – and thus both the American people win, and capitalism wins. For detail see: www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000

POSTED: April 18, 2010

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

President Obama and Fellow Democrats:

Unemployment has fissures which run into virtually every other social problem facing Americans –

Fixing our unemployment crisis is comprehensive in addressing most of our social ills – including excessive incarceration [with every dollar competing with dollars spent to educate our youth], as only one example.

Twice in American history we passed laws mandating “Full Employment” in the United States [ 1946 & 1978, and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter, respectively], and Humphrey-Hawkins [1978] authorizes the U.S. Government to create a “reservoir of public employment” when our unemployment rises above 3% –

Full Employment is a pro-market concept – capitalism can thrive, operate at its highest efficiency – ONLY – with a robust, fully employed, consuming public -- In short, it is a “win-win” solution, both the American people win, and capitalism wins.

And rather than competing with private sector jobs [a myth] an expanding and contracting public workforce is an indispensable component for capitalism to operate at its highest efficiency. [Google: Buffer Stock Employment Model]

Also, conventional wisdom defaults to the notion that the only way to raise the funds for “public employment” is via deficit spending. while the following proposed temporary, emergency legislation would not add a dime to our deficit [is fully compliant with PAYGO].

Proposed Title: NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT [employed Americans have expressed an overwhelming interest in helping out fellow employees].

Specific Legislation: A federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance [on the model of Social Security Insurance], owned by the American employee [from the doorman to the CEO] to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. For details see www.Inclusivism.org

* Like Social Security Insurance, this is a PAYGO insurance.

* With public and private sector employment working in concert 7-10 million jobs could be created on an accelerated schedule, for a modest policy cost.

* This is a renewable economic stimulus, it will not be necessary to return to Congress for additional funding when stimulus money runs out, as currently exists.

* Existing FICA and SE accounts provide the infrastructure for rapid implementation.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000

POSTED: 4/3/10

FELLOW DEMOCRATS: We can fix unemployment in America -- or write-off the Senate and the House

Subject: THE PRO-MARKET PATH TO FULL EMPLOYMENT: NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT


F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

Please forward to: President Obama

The current legislation to address our persistent unemployment in America suffers from a major flaw:

It is not inclusive.

During the past year our unemployment has been hovering around 10% – and was unchanged in the labor report on 4/2/10 -- but the true figure is closer to 16% – and minorities have historically been denied employment at a much higher percent than non-minorities.

Our current mind-set for fixing unemployment [which origninated under Reagan] has not been successful in correcting this inequity – and indeed, is indifferent to this inequity [it is a coincidental rather than an intended result].

Further, this methodology for solving our insidious unemployment in America has been slow, tedious, with an uncertain result—[by current definition, correcting unemployment is defined as a “lagging index”] --and it is projected to take 3-4 years to turnaround our unemployment problem – prolonging the “misery index” for millions of Americans.

Accordingly, Congress should be urged to consider the proposed “NEIGHBOR-TO-NEIGHBOR JOB CREATION ACT” which would have an almost immediate impact on correcting our unemployment crisis in America, and has overwhelming support by American workers.

Specifically, a temporary, emergency Act, to wit: A federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance, owned by the American employee [from the janitor to the CEO] to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed.

A modest policy cost of even 4% of salary—combined with a dollar for dollar match from a levy against those making over $250,000.00 would create 5 million new jobs, with an annual median salary of $18,000.

Further, the policy cost for the employee would be reduced, at the point of collection, by the projected tax savings currently spent for food stamps, unemployment compensation, welfare, prison costs, etc. In addition, the stimulant to the consuming power of the American people would zero out the levy for most of those making over $250,000.00. This a a pro-market solution.

Finally, it is projected that 4% is the trigger point, in the aggregate, to stimulate private sector hiring, and with public and private sector hiring working in concert America would be well on it way to full employment, and we have far more work to be done in America than we have persons to fill the jobs, as President Obama counseled during the campaign.

For detail, Google an Australian concept “Buffer Stock Employment Model”, and www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX 2000

90 DAYS TO FULL EMPLOYMENT – THE NITTY GRITTY --

Specifically, we need legislation for a temporary emergency jobs program, to wit: a federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance – owned by the American employee [ from the janitor to the CEO ] to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. The funds could easily be collected via established FICA accounts.

Even a modest policy cost of 4% of salary – with a dollar for dollar match with the funds collected, by a levy against those making over $250,000 [as distinguished from a 4% tax increase] which in combination would generate 5 million new jobs with $18,000 as the median annual salary. Additionally, the policy cost to the employee would be reduced, at the point of collection, by the projected tax savings currently spent for food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, and prison costs, just to name a few of the tax savings. Further, the stimulant to the consuming power of the American people would, for many, zero out the levy against those making over $250,000.. Under no circumstances, however, should the matching funds come from the employer -- where they would be passed along to the consumer in the higher cost of consumer goods.

Further, it is projected that between 2-4% is the trigger point, in the aggregate, to stimulate private sector hiring – and with private and public sector employment working in concert, this would generate in the neighborhood of 10 million jobs--eliminate unemployment in America. This is a pro-market solution where public sector employees would return to the private sector, as the market improved--and subsequent reduction in the policy cost to the employee.

This legislation has numerous advantages, to list just a few: 1) It would immediately start putting Americans back to work; 2) it would not add a dime to our deficit – 3) it would act as a permanent economic stimulus [it would not be necessary to return to Congress when the stimulus money runs out]; 4) It would be Americans helping out their fellow Americans, which they have expressed an over-whelming interest in doing [it is pro-active in addressing our insidious unemployment problem, and would have strong public support]. Google, Buffer Stock Employment Model, for more detail.

DEFINITION:

Economic Inclusivism [hereafter EI]: A method for creating jobs, that will not add a dime to our deficit, and will act as a permanent economic stimulus to our economy. Specifically, a federally mandated, privately managed [non-profit] mutual insurance --owned by our employed [from the janitor to the CEO], to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. Further, the policy cost for the employee would be reduced-at the point of collection via its tax savings-because this is a cost-effective use of our taxes currently spent for food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, prison costs, etc. EI addresses head-on, and provides a viable solution to the two most serious problems facing America, today, a sluggish market economy and our insidious unemploymeent [see below]. Regarding EI being an economic stimulus -- were it not for Social Security and Military Retirement moneys percolating up through our economy we would not be talking about having just narrowly escapted another Great Depression -- We would be buried in one! See also - YouTube: JGREEN56789

POSTED: March 27, 2010

An open letter to: Tim Kaine, DNC Chair

President Roosevelt called for “bold experimentation” and with America's future in our hands and the wind at our sails the Democrat controlled Congress have two urgent tasks before the November election—We don't have a minute to spare –

The first is the passage of a Fail-Safe Electronic Voting Act, and the second is a job creation bill that will put America back to work on an accelerated schedule [and we can do both without adding a dime to our deficit].

With the recent Supreme Court decision to give corporations an open check book – this would guarantee our elections are controlled by the American citizen, not corporations, and we may never have this opportunity again.

Incidentally, we still have $119 million of unused HAVA funds in Texas, alone, to build the proposed electronic voting machines – and the proposed jobs program would provide the manpower to build –

Specifically, 1) EVERY electronic voting machine (hereafter EVM), must be inexpensive, identical throughout the U.S. in a 1/150 ratio, and must count and produce a hard-copy of the recorded votes. In addition, an extra copy of their recorded votes would be produced -- marked "Voter's Copy", and containing “NOTICE: Do Not Destroy Until Every Election On Your Ballot Is Certified". [If Wal-Mart refused to give us a receipt for our purchases—would they not be suspect—and this regards our democracy].

2) After confirming that their votes are recorded correctly, the voter would then insert the hard-copy ballot into a software-free (count only) optical scanner (hereafter OS), for a second count. The hard-copy ballot would be retained by election officials in the event a candidate asks for a recount (not possible under our current system, and which undermines the legality of each such election).

3) At the end of the election day, tallies would be taken from the EVM and the OS, for each candidate. If the tallies didn't balance for any given election, that election cannot be certified until the "error" is corrected.

Finally, we need a temporary emergency job creation program, to wit: A federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance, owned by the American worker [from the doorman to the CEO] to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. Comprehensive details at: www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED: February 27, 2010

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

RESTORING AMERICA TO FULL EMPLOYMENT BY JULY 4, 2010 – WITHOUT ADDING A DIME TO OUR DEFICIT

Public sector employment triggers private sector employment—and with the two working in concert we can restore America to full employment by July 4, 2010 – if the legislation proposed, here, is signed into law by May 1, 2010.

The Buffer Stock Employment Model [Google] calls for an expanding and contracting public workforce – that expands during downturns in the market, and contacts as employees return to the private sector.

This is a pro-market solution to our unemployment problem in America: A truism regarding capitalism is that it can thrive – operate at its highest efficiency – only – with a robust, fully employed – consuming public.

In short, the legislation proposed, here, addresses the two most serious problems facing America today: A struggling market, and insidious unemployment [that is again on the rise].

Specifically, Congress needs to pass the following temporary emergency job creation legislation: A federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance, owned by the American employee [from the doorman to the CEO] to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed—with the option of being made permanent.

The policy cost should be limited to 2% of salary, and reduced at the point of collection by a projected tax savings currently being spent for food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, prison costs, etc. The newly generated funds could be received through the existing FICA insurance accounts.

Further, it is projected that 2% is the trigger point, in the aggregate, to stimulate private sector employment -- with public and private sector employment working in concert to restore America to full employment. [That is, the modest cost is not intended, and may not necessarily result in all of the funds necessary for public jobs—it is the two working in concert].

Finally, This insurance would not add a dime to our deficit, it is an economic stimulus, and would not only provide a sense of security to the individual employee in our shaky economy, it would also be employees helping out their fellow employee, which they have expressed an overwhelming interest in doing.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 For details see: www.Inclusivism.org

POSTED: February 22, 2010
F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi:

The conundrum re capitalism is that while every waking moment in capitalism is spent eliminating as many of us humans as possible from the workplace, in the interest of increasing “profits” – capitalism can thrive – operate at its highest efficiency – ONLY – with a robust, fully employed, consuming public –

For clarity, we should never condemn the CEO who closes their plant because they are losing money – but we should be outraged by a government that is non-responsive to this void in our capitalist system.

And a temporary response such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and welfare are half-measures at best – and more often than not more destructive than constructive –

In analyzing why we are so ineffective in addressing this conundrum in capitalism, it cannot be ignored that in America our government is inexplicably still paralyzed by the shadow of McCarthyism.

To effectively solve our unemployment crisis in America and create jobs, Congress should be urged to pass the following legislation: A federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual employment insurance, owned by the American employee [from the doorman to the CEO] – to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. [See: www.Inclusivism.org]

This could be created as an extension to FICA, or as a stand-alone insurance policy [with similarities to our Social Security Insurance], and as emergency legislation – until our unemployment crisis is brought under control – with extensions/made permanent [Google: Buffer Stock Employment Model].

The policy cost should be limited to 2% of salary [or as determined by the CBO] and reduced by the tax savings from unemployment insurance, etc., ].

In short, we can restore America to full employment with this legislation without adding a dime to our deficit – it would act as permanent economic stimulus – and it would immediately start putting America back to work.

And finally, we cannot ignore that were it not for Social Security and Military Retirement moneys percolating up through our economy – we would not be talking about having narrowly escaped another Great Depression – we would be buried in one --

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000

NOTE TO THE READER: this is a “living web page”, and amended as current events dictate, and apologies that it is not the most organized page on the webÖand it is in serious need of a “brush and scrub up”Ö.[please look for the nuggets in between the redundancy--thx]...apologies are also made that CAPS are used, where italicized words would have been much preferred----but the software on this server does not allow italicized words. This concept has been on the internet since July 9, 1996—since that time it has taken on many mutations—albeit from the first posting retaining our urgent need for a federaly mandated mutual insurance fund, owned by the American worker, to provide the revenue to hire/train our unemployed—A Social Security Insurance for our generation, if your wish, AND ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVE CAPITALISM. That is, retaining the urgency that we seek “inclusive”, rather than “exclusive” solutions to our social problems. To illustrate, the “exclusive”, and greed-driven agenda of the Republican Party since the election of Reagan could be compared, as a method for solving social problems, to pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out—and we are currently living the result of their ineptitude. Finally, this concept may sound too “quirky”, for some, or too simple in its concept (not buried in esoteric words intended to confuse even the author) to be valid---and in an open society we should put new ideas, or alternative solutions on the table where they would rise or fall on their own merits, in the marketplace of ideas, but in spite of our claim to “openness” what I have found is that absent a ton of money to drive it---alternative solutions don't even make it to the table.....so much for “free speech”.....as for the “funny name”, it is intended to define it as close as possible, and given a name as a nuance--to distinguish it from other concepts---but then “Microsoft” was a funny name until we got used to it......THX, jgreen5@satx.rr.com

PROLOGUE: [An apolitical statement--devoid of political intent] Rather than their claim to being the “free-enterprise” party—Republican propaganda from the first day Reagan took office to the present—their one and only program [to shift America's wealth out of the hands of the electorate and into the hands of the already most wealthy] is destructive to capitalism—it is destructive to our market economy, and evident by the fact that more businesses have failed when they have been in power since 1980, than at any other time in American history. While claiming to be pro-market—their policies have led to the demise of capitalism in America—and the meltdown of our economy in 2008. The last time the top 1% held as much of America's wealth—as it did on the last day Bush II was in office—was in 1928, just prior to the Great Depression. In short, when they undermined the buying power of the masses by moving America's wealth out of their hands—and into the hands of the top 1% [via massive tax cuts]--they destroyed the pro-market system that had allowed America to flourish and grow prior to that time and had resulted in America becoming a super power. All of that is now at risk as a result of this inept one and only program—and inexplicably--still the one and only program of the current Republicans in Congress! They could change, but don't hold your breath. The Republicans in Congress would no doubt say that this is a partisan statement but the empirical evidence is indisputable—and every living American needs to have it very clearly fixed in their mind that the current Republican party is the anti-capitalism party—and that their one and only program is destructive to our market system and to the American economy! It is obvious the American people understood this intuitively by their vote in the last presidential election—but it needs to be on every billboard so that it is clearly fixed in the American psyche that the current Republican agenda is destructive, dangerous to the American economy. We need to do this for the survival of America—we have suffered for far too long under this lie perpetuated by Republicans.....that they are the “free-enterprise” party—they aren't!

More Detail....

POSTED: January 27, 2010

IT IS SUICIDAL TO OUR ECONOMY TO USE DEFICIT MONEY TO CREATE JOBS

An open Memo to Speaker Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: I am a life-long Democrat and candidate for Congress, in Texas, in 2000. In reviewing the “Jobs For Main Street Act of 2010”, I am concerned that we continue to rely on “deficit” money to create jobs in America--[I am aware that the funding is from unused TARP funds] –but we are unnecessarily kicking the can down the road, as it were—and in any event this is a stop-gap, rather than long-term solution.

Further, by using deficit money we are not only passing the costs along to our grandchildren, what do we do when this round of stimulus money runs out? It is an endless cycle of digging us deeper and deeper into debt.

The fact is, we can restore America to full employment without adding a dime to our deficit and the methodology urged is a renewable economic stimulus—perhaps best seen as the Social Security Act for our generation.

Accordingly, I would urge you to consider Economic Inclusivism [ www.Inclusivism.org ] a federally mandated, private [non-profit] mutual insurance, owned by the American employee [from the janitor to the CEO] to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. If a person is employed in America, they would be automatically enrolled.

Further, the policy cost would be limited to 2% of salary, the trigger point in the aggregate to stimulate private sector hiring, with this cost to be tax deductible—at the point of collection-- because this is a cost-effective use of our taxes [in savings from taxes used for food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, etc.], and this would act in concert with private sector hiring to move us back to full employment.

In short, this is Americans helping out other Americans, which they have asserted an overwhelming interest in doing.

Accordingly, Speaker Pelosi, would you please assign this proposal to the CBO for analysis, and forward the results to President Obama?

Best regards,

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000

October 30, 2009

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

THE REASON OUR JOB RECOVERY ISN'T WORKING....

It is based on an erroneous premise.... “conventional wisdom” has it wrong......

The premise is that capitalism will provide employment for everyone, and if we just hang out long enough capitalism will save or create all of the jobs necessary—and in the interim tell the public ---not to worry, employment is a “lagging factor” in our economic recovery....

This premise is actually anti-capitalism....and is asking capitalism to do something it has never done, and is incapable of doing.....please consider the following “pro-capitalism” excerpt at: www.Inclusivism.org

1) Both Mandelbrot and Taleb remind us, in their warnings about our current economy--a truism about capitalism--that it operates by “fits and starts”, constantly subjecting its proponents to the capricious whims of the market, and evident by the fact that we have had 12 serious recessions since the Great Depression. We can correct this with the Buffer Stock Employment [BSE] Model---modified to include the word “permanent” expanding and contracting public workforce--that expands during downturns in the market, and contracts as employees return to the private sector.

2) That rather than creating massive deficits to create this permanent component to our capitalist model, and to correct this flaw in capitalism, we need to pass the following legislation: Specifically, a Temporary Employment Insurance Fund Act [TEIFA], a federally mandated, privately managed [non-profit], mutual insurance fund owned by our employed (from the janitor to the CEO) to provide the funds to hire/train the unemployed. In short, Economic Inclusivism [hereafter EI] is a “renewable” economic stimulus that will not add a dime to our deficit, or to our individual taxes.

3) The cost for this policy would be limited to 2% of salary, and the 2% cost would be deducted from federal taxes paid,at the point of expenditure, based on this being a cost-effective use of our taxes [the savings in food stamps, alone, would more than off-set by the loss in tax revenue to the government - Indeed, this addresses so many areas that are currently paid for with tax dollars,excessive prison costs, etc., that the implementation EI could result in a tax cut]. In short, and like Social Security Insurance, this is an “insurance” [and available SOLELY to persons who are working] and is not a general “tax” [albeit additional funding may be considered from those making over $250,000]. Further, it is projected that the revenue generated by the 2% policy cost is the trigger-point, in the aggregate, to re-energize private sector hiring, and with the two working in concert will move us back to full employment. That is, EI may not necessarily provide all of the income necessary to result in full employment--but rather act as a stimulant, with the public and private sectors working in concert towards full employment [it would depend on how the CBO crunches the numbers]....

[ Keynes advocated government deficit spending to correct downturns in the market---Economic Inclusivism advocates spending money to correct downturns in the market, but provides for the money to come from an insurance pool, via an insurance policy owned by the employed in America, rather than increasing the deficit---which weakens the dollar---and in time undermines the original objective. ]

This Act is urgently needed, at present, to reverse our hemorrhaging jobs in America, a process which is feeding on itself. Twice in American history we have passed laws mandating “Full Employment” (1946 & 1978, and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter). Full Employment is a pro-market concept--a point lost on Republican ideologues. EI puts teeth into these laws—to the benefit of both the American employee, and capitalism.

The conundrum re capitalism is that while every waking moment in capitalism is spent eliminating as many of us humans, as possible, from the workplace (including shipping American jobs to the Far East) in the interest of increasing “profit”----as an economic concept, capitalism can thrive (operate at its highest efficiency), only, with a robust, fully employed, consuming public. [Source: common sense]

And while we should never condemn the CEO who closes a plant because they are losing money—we should be outraged by a government that is not responsive to this void in our economic system.

During the Great Depression Keynes advocated government deficit spending to put persons back to work.

Unemployment is a social, political, as well as economic negative—and thus relying on unemployment insurance to shore up capitalism is a half-measure, at best, and the question is: How do we reverse our current exponential loss in employment, and create a permanent fix to our unemployment, without incurring even further deficits?

And, the purpose of EI is to provide the solution to this dilemma.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 YouTube: JGREEN56789

free web counter


THE WAY I SEE IT:

America is at a cross-roads—and we urgently need to make the changes outlined in Economic Inclusivism, herein. In the broadest sense, our choices for the future are limited: We can either change and adapt, in a world that is changing whether we like it or not, OR create an ever expanding Police State—so we can hold in place anachronistic social solutions—that not only don't work—but also become more and more obsolete every day.

Our trend over the past 30 years—[from the first day Reagan took office, to the present] has been to opt for an ever expanding Police State. As certain evidence, in 1975 we spent $5 on education, for every $1 spent on prisons—we currently spend more on prisons than on education—by 1990 we had passed up every nation on earth in locking people up—and currently, we have 5 times more persons incarcerated than any other nation on earth—with no end in sight—in short, we have 5% of the world's population, and 25% of all prisons inmates on the face of the planet [over 2.2 million], in our prisons!

This manic increase in a Police State has been to protect the wealthy, as massive amounts of Americans wealth has been shifted upward, to the already wealthy, and so that our health insurance companies, which are owned by our most wealthy, could rob Americans blind—taking an obscene $300 billion a year in “profits” [AKA theft} from our healthcare system....enough to provide healthcare to every man, woman, and child—THREE TIMES OVER!

SO, our choices are change OR suffer an ever expanding oppressive Police State—and continued diminished civil liberties.......

The American people intuitively understand this crisis—and that is why they overwhelmingly gravitated to the CHANGE mantra of the Obama administration—now it is up to our politicians to deliver.....

Clarence Darrow averred that “Laws should be like clothes, tailored to fit the people who wear them”. Where it really counts—the laws in America are not tailored to fit what is in the best interests of the American people, but rather are tailored to fit what is in the best interest of the wealthy—and at the expense of the rest of Americans... and from the first day Reagan took office the Republican agenda has been to make their wealthiest contributors, wealthier—PERIOD.....the Republican Party [virtually every Republican member of Congress], today, has no other agenda! It is the sum total of their agenda!

And, as only one bit of evidence as to the truth of that statement: The necessity for health care reform in America is a No-Brainer—the path we are on is unsustainable and will ruin the American economy, and is a cancer on the pocketbook most Americans, if not corrected—and yet, it is almost impossible to reform it because the laws in America are not tailored to fit the American people, as advocated by Darrow.

In sum: We have only one of two choices as America forges forward into the future—We can change, and start writing our laws so they are tailored to fit the America people-- or we have no other alternative than to create an ever expanding Police State to keep our antiquated laws in place—WE HAVE NOT OTHER CHOICE!



ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM [ hereafter EI ]: Capitalism adapted to globalization, which includes a permanent expanding and contracting public workforce (based on a modified Buffer Stock Employment Model), that expands during downturns in the market, and contracts as employees return to the private sector. Said public workforce funded by a mutual employment insurance, owned by those employed to provide the funds to hire/train the unemployed. EI is a pro-market, pro-capitalism solution—and the Bush administration drove the American economy into a ditch because they failed to recognize that the methodology advocated under EI is an indispensable component for capitalism to operate at its highest efficiency. In short, this is an essential modification in our adaption to a world market. Obviously, deregulation compounded driving the Bush economy into a ditch...but even absent that, our current capitalist model will continue to operate by fits and starts and is doomed to failure [ subject its proponents to the whims of the market and result in periodic recessions/depressions ] - absent this correction. The flaw in our current capitalist model will not be corrected short of our taking this next step in our social/economic evolution, and it is an easy fix. The consequences for the Bush administration is that more businesses failed during, or as a direct result of their policies—than during any other presidency in American history! And, deficit spending, to correct our unemployment problem--as we are doing now, will weaken the dollar and create an inflationary spiral that will wipe out all of our gains----What is that saying about making the same error over and over, and expecting a different result...

Economic Inclusivism [ EI ], is best understood as a next generation Keynesian Economics.

Like Keynesian, EI is pro-capitalism. Its purpose is to preserve market capitalism, and as the name implies, including the largest number possible into our economic model is a pro-market, pro-capitalism concept.

Keynes advocated the government use of deficit spending to correct downturns in the market. He never, however, intended this as more than a short-term fix—until the market corrected itself—since deficits weaken the dollar--and are, in fact, a delayed “tax”.

Time will not be spent, here (and in spite of an incredible urge to do so), condemning the grotesque abuse and distortion of Keynesian Economics by Republican administrations since the election of Reagan in 1980—with each creating obscene deficits (so they could give massive tax cuts to the top 1%, and thus shift America's wealth to their wealthiest contributors)--and in the process crippled economies around the world, as well as creating an almost fatal blow to our American economy, at present.

Three factors will be considered in this next generation of Keynesian Economics:

1) Both Mandelbrot and Taleb remind us, in their warnings about our current economy--a truism about capitalism--that it operates by “fits and starts”, constantly subjecting its proponents to the capricious whims of the market, and evident by the fact that we have had 12 serious recessions since the Great Depression. We can correct this with the Buffer Stock Employment [BSE] Model---modified to include the word “permanent” expanding and contracting public workforce--that expands during downturns in the market, and contracts as employees return to the private sector.

2) That rather than creating massive deficits to create this permanent component to our capitalist model, and to correct this flaw in capitalism, we need to pass the following legislation: Specifically, a Temporary Employment Insurance Fund Act [TEIFA], a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance fund owned by our employed (from the janitor to the CEO) to provide the funds to hire/train the unemployed. In short, EI is a “renewable” economic stimulus that will not add a dime to our deficit, or to our individual taxes.

3) The cost for this policy would be limited to 2% of salary, and the 2% cost would be deducted from federal taxes paid, based on this being a cost-effective use of our taxes [the savings in food stamps, alone, would be more than off-set by this loss in tax revenue to the government - Indeed, this addresses so many areas that are currently paid for with tax dollars, that the implementation EI could result in a tax cut]. In short, and like Social Security Insurance, this is an “insurance” and not a “tax”. Further, it is projected that the revenue generated by the 2% policy cost is the trigger-point, in the aggregate, to re-energize private sector hiring, and thus move us back towards full employment.

[ Keynes advocated government deficit spending to correct downturns in the market---Economic Inclusivism advocates spending money to correct downturns in the market, but provides for the money to come from an insurance pool, via an insurance policy owned by the employed in America, rather than increasing the deficit---which weakens the dollar---and in time undermines the original objective. ]

This Act is urgently needed, at present, to reverse our hemorrhaging jobs in America, a process which is feeding on itself. Twice in American history we have passed laws mandating “Full Employment” (1946 & 1978, and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter). Full Employment is a pro-market concept--a point lost on Republican ideologues. EI puts teeth into these laws—to the benefit of both the American employee, and capitalism.

The conundrum re capitalism is that while every waking moment in capitalism is spent eliminating as many of us humans, as possible, from the workplace (including shipping American jobs to the Far East) in the interest of increasing “profit”----as an economic concept, capitalism can thrive (operate at its highest efficiency), only, with a robust, fully employed, consuming public. [Source: common sense]

And while we should never condemn the CEO who closes a plant because they are losing money—we should be outraged by a government that is not responsive to this void in our economic system.

During the Great Depression Keynes advocated government deficit spending to put persons back to work.

Unemployment is a social, political, as well as economic negative—and thus relying on unemployment insurance to shore up capitalism is a half-measure, at best, and the question is: How do we reverse our current exponential loss in employment, and create a permanent fix to our unemployment, without incurring even further deficits?

And, the purpose of EI is to provide the solution to this dilemma.

In time we will need to pass legislation making work a legal right for Americans, in the interest of capitalism, and for the same reason outlined above. Up to now, conventional wisdom has concluded that the best way to fill the void is by creating a welfare state, but history has shown us that this is more destructive, than constructive, and EI provides an infinitely better alternative. The following will connect the dots, to fill in any blank spots, re Economic Inclusivism:



SUMMARY OF THE FACTS RE “THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB”, BELOW:

Federal Judge William W(no period) Schwarzer falsified a federal court record with the intent to deny to a U.S. Citizen rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Under the “equal protection” Clause it is unlawful to apply the law one way to one person, and another to another person—so in essence---Schwarzer was lying to undermine everyone's freedoms in the United States---once we open that floodgate and say---well OK, we'll look the other way in this case---where do we then draw the line saying it is not OK? Once we look the other way, in even one case, we may as well throw the Bill of Rights into a shredder! Also, over the years I have found confusion with "bending" the law to one's political persuation--not all that uncommon--with the use of FRAUD to make the law inoperable--as different as night and day and which is "breaking" the law--and also virtually unheard of in American jurisprudence!

And we cannot ignore that Schwarzer was a Federal Judge, or that he was born in Berlin, Germany and spent his formative years under the adverse influence of the Third Reich----which obviously had nothing but contempt for the civil liberties of others.....and which gave Hitler license to perpetrate the holocaust......

Denying the civil rights to a million, or even one person, is God Damn serious business...protecting those rights is what allows us to call ourselves a “free” people....and under no circumstances to be swept under the rug---as the Federal Judiciary has done...At one point I was offered what would be $100,000.00 by today's dollars to just go away, but since they refused to acknowledge their violation of the U.S. Constitution, I refused their bribe.

On April 18, 1984 I filed a Complaint For Fraud against Schwarzer---which to this day has not been denied by the federal judiciary.....Senior Federal Judge Belloni, who was flown in from Portland, Oregon to hear the case (no local federal judge in San Francisco would hear the case---because he was “one of their own”)-----Belloni said that Schwarzer could not be sued for “money damages”---he never made a finding that the Complaint was without merit—thus leaving a cloud over the case....

Also, a foot note to Belloni's appointment by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit to fly down to San Francisco on an emergency basis to hear this case should not go unnoticed. Five days after this case was filed on April 18, Federal Judge Vukasin in San Francisco filed an Order of Recusal—refusing to hear the case (NOTE: he did not dismiss the Complaint, either). For the next several months the case floated unassigned—I could not approach the bench with a motion—there was no judge to approach. Suddenly, in early July a case that it appeared would float forever—had to be disposed of immediately and I was given less than a week to move my work schedule around and appear....and I was specifically denied a continuance of even three days.....Was Belloni under some mandate to dispose of this case before the opening the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco on July 16, 1984—he filed his Decision the same day [as fate would have it my cousin was a Democratic National Committeeman and I attended the Convention----more on this below]...

On appeal, Appellate Judge Anthony Kennedy (who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Reagan) rubber-stamped Belloni's “money damages”--but did not make a finding that Schwarzer had not committed fraud... .the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court and not one single federal judge, to this day, has removed this cloud by making a finding that Schwarzer had not lied—to deny to a U.S. Citizen freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution.....because Schwarzer did lie......

So why did Schwarzer lie?

The most transparent reason appears to be the act of a “good ole boy”--to cover-up criminal negligence on the part of local officials in the death of our son—(which would have resulted in some serious money damages---and worse).....and Schwarzer said in his Summary Judgment (the gimmick used by judges to deny jury trials to Americans), that the facts in this case could not be trusted in the “hands of a jury” (with God as my witness this is in a federal court record)........a statement, standing alone---which says that under no circumstances a jury trial should be denied!

What may not be readily apparent is that the Defendants in this civil rights action acted with INTENT –they intended to cause harm to my son for what they considered just retaliation for my having written a memorandum that inexplicably threatened their authority.....i.e., the pathetic Bastards suffered from low self-esteem....but it is these facts that Schwarzer said could not be trusted in the “hands of a jury” and to make sure a jury would never have the chance to consider—he falsified the court record to cover up these facts.

Also, compounding this is the real possibility that Schwarzer lied because of his upbringing under the the sociopathic mentality of the Third Reich? Schwarer was 14 when he left Germany in 1938----he was an indoctrinated Hitler Youth---membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory in Germany after 1936......did he lie because of his contempt for freedom of the individual in America....the corner stone of our law.....i.e., he was intentionally trying to undermine the U.S. Constitution—because of his contempt for our law in America.....has Hitler undermined our freedoms in America from his grave?

Either way, Schwarzer lied----and he undermined the U.S. Constitution in the process---and the federal judiciary has covered it up!

More detail follows the “cartoon”, below, which was filed in protest in U.S. Supreme Court case # 79-1627—in the archives of the U.S. Supreme Court, to this day. For clarity---I do not have contempt for Harvard---I have nothing but respect for Harvard—it has produced some outstanding human beings, such as President Obama---THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB is about a three of their bad apples....One, incidentally, who is a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court—and who also played a major role in the appointment of George W to the presidency---and we all have had to suffer through how badly that turned out for Americans, and America----it was Kennedy who issued the Stay—to stop the counting of votes cast by U.S. citizens in Florida—and thereby stole the election from Al Gore---and saying this was a criminal act, is insufficient.... [see more detail, below].....

PLEASE NOTE: As a result of these events it was clear to me that we had serious flaws in our system—what had happened here was irrational—blatantly insane—and I began to understand the proliferation of work place violence in recent years—and it would be inaccurate to say that I had not entertained such thoughts—but for better or worse, I am far too civilized and given a creative bent [a curse, not a blessing in a police state] I started reverse engineering [for lack of a better term] our system—and to question why and how this could happen? The result is this web page—interlocking systemic changes which I dubbed Economic Inclusivism—so titled to define as close as possible the objective and necessary to correct the flaws in our system.

POSTED: June 9, 2009

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

Please forward to parties of interest:

Are we indifferent to our unemployment as Gingrich proclaims?

FED Chairman Bernanke reported on 60 Minutes (6-7-09) “The lesson of history is that you do not get a sustained recovery as long as the financial system is in crisis.” The question is: At what point did our exponential loss in employment become the accelerate , the cause, either in whole or in part, for our continued economic decline? Capitalism thrives on a robust, employed, consuming public---Full Employment is a pro-capitalism, pro-market concept—and absent that it withers and dies on the vine (what is happening now). Provincial thinking is not indifferent to our unemployment—but is our hemorrhaging jobs in America being given the weight it should be given in finding a solution to our economic crisis? The following alternative solution is proposed to reverse our current economic crisis, and start us back towards Full Employment: www.Inclusivism.org

Best regards,

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

CC: Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke

RESPONSE FROM FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD:

To: "Jim Green"
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 4:11 PM
Subject: Response to your e-mail concerning: Board Members


Dear Mr. Green:

Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Federal Reserve Board and for the link to your organization's website. This information will be shared
with the appropriate Board staff.

As you know, the Federal Reserve's ultimate monetary policy objective is to promote the health of the U.S. economy, which we do by pursuing our mandated goals of price stability and maximum sustainable output and employment. The Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy making body, will be carefully evaluating incoming information bearing on the
economic outlook and will act in a timely manner as needed to support growth and to provide adequate insurance against downside risks.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

JPD
Board Staff

POSTED: Memorial Day, 2009

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

Please forward to President Obama:

Please consider the following proposed Act of Congress which is urgently needed to reverse our hemorrhaging jobs in America, a process which is feeding on itself.

Full employment is a pro-capitalism, pro-market concept. Capitalism can flourish (operate at its highest efficiency), only, when we have the fewest unemployed and both the perception and the reality re the current meltdown in our economy, is that it would disappear overnight if we had full employment.

The resistance (stumbling block) to full employment is based on two assumptions, both erroneous. One says that employment can only result by giving massive tax cuts to the most wealthy, who in turn will build factories with the windfall income, and thereby create jobs in the corporation; and the second is based on the belief that massive deficit spending is needed to achieve full employment, and based on the Keynesian Economic model applied in the 1930's.

Economic Inclusivism, a more modern Keynesian model [www.Inclusivism.org] provides an alternative method to both of the above assumptions that will not increase our deficit, or our individual taxes, by even one dime. Further, it will provide a “renewable” economic stimulus, and thus it will not be necessary to go back to Congress for more money (and increase our deficit even further—which weakens the dollar) when the infrastructure money runs out.

Specifically, Congress needs to pass a Temporary Employment Insurance Fund Act [TEIFA], a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance fund owned by our employed in America (from the doorman to the CEO), to provide the funds to hire/train the unemployed. Most importantly, this is a pro-market solution that will not only lead to full employment, like Social Security Insurance, the “trickle up” effect in our economy will make America more recession/depression proof.

The cost for this policy should be limited to 2% of salary, and deducted from federal taxes paid, as a cost-effective use of our taxes (the savings in food stamps, alone, would more than off-set the loss in tax revenue). Further, 2%, in the aggregate, is the trigger point to stimulate private sector hiring, leading to full employment.

Twice in American history we have passed laws mandating “full employment” (in 1946 & 1978, and signed into law by presidents Truman and Carter). Full employment is a pro-market concept, and necessity, and the, above, would put teeth into laws currently on our books.

Time and again during the campaign American employees expressed a willingness to help the unemployed—and this is particularly politically viable in that this is an “insurance”, owned by the American employee, and not a “tax”.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED: MAY 14, 2009 - Keynes mostly had it right--this is where he had it wrong.....

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

As a brief follow-up to your email----Keynes mostly had it right----this is where he had it wrong.....

The great conundrum re capitalism—in the interest of making a “profit” it kills off the lifeblood essential to sustain it----full employment!

For clarity, we should never condemn the CEO who closes a plant because they are losing money, but we should be outraged by a government that is not responsive to this void in our economic system—to the detriment of the electorate.

The fact is, that absent a permanent expanding and contracting public workforce, that expands during downturns in the market, and contracts as employees return to the private sector [ Google: Buffer Stock Employment Model ]—capitalism will never work correctly......and evident by the fact that we have had 12 serious recessions since the Great Depression.

That is, this is a yet to be incorporated, but indispensable component of capitalism, and our failure to incorporate this into our theory about capitalism is the reason our economy is currently in meltdown.....

The all-consuming question, however, is: How do we create a permanent expanding and contracting public workforce without creating huge deficits, and this is where
Economic Inclusivism departs from Keynes....and asserts that we can address this conundrum in capitalism without adding even one dime to our deficit!

Indeed, Economic Inclusivism provides a solution that will not add a dime to our taxes (or deficit), and it is a “renewable economic stimulus”--i.e., we will not need to go back to Congress, and increase our deficit even further, when the infrastructure money runs out.

Specifically, we need a Temporary Employment Insurance Fund Act [TEIFA], a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance fund owned by our employed in America (from the doorman to the CEO), to provide the funds to hire/train the unemployed. Most importantly, this is a pro-market concept.

Time and again during the campaign American employees expressed a willingness to help the unemployed—and this is particularly politically viable in that this is an “insurance”, and not a “tax”--a point frequently lost re Social Security Insurance (one must pay in to collect—and a point generally misunderstood due to miserable PR—and a Congress that couldn't keep their hands out of the til---thus “privately managed”). Further, the cost for this policy would be limited to 2% of salary, and deducted from federal taxes paid, as a cost-effective use of our taxes. For comprehensive details see: www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED: MAY 8, 2009 - JOB LOSS IN APRIL

WE have a major brain disconnect when it comes to unemployment in AmericaÖ.

During April, 539,000 jobs disappeared in America---this is good news---the lowest in 6 months and we had been losing jobs at the rate of over 600,000 per month, with over 5 million jobs lost since January 2008---when our economy became a giant sinkhole taking everything above down with it as it got wider and deeperÖÖ

The bad news for April is that our overall unemployment climbed to 8.9%--[which doesn’t include our underemployed and those who have given up]—driving our true lost labor potential in America to over 12.5%--i.e., by a conservative estimate we are giving up over $390 billion per year in lost potential output!

The brain disconnect is the failure to connect the dots between: Robust Capitalism & Full Employment----

Indeed, the disconnect is so complete that we actually have persons using words like “unemployment is a lagging indicator”---like not to worry—trust our economic indices--- work will come backÖ.just give it time, this is “normal”----but people don’t eat over time----they eat every day! And as if people can or will be “good consumers” when they are unemployed?

Capitalism cannot function without “good consumers”—even if we ignore the injury caused to individuals and families by unemployment!

And the irony is, our economy is only about one species----us, us human beingsÖ.

This is a no-brainer and yet we treat our unemployment and the unemployed like a step-child in the economic scheme of things---even though capitalism goes right into the toilet when people are not employed!

What on earth can these people possibly be thinking?

Stated slightly different—we should never condemn the CEO who closes their plant if he/she is losing money—but we should be outraged by a government that is indifferent or inept at addressing this conundrum in capitalism: Full employment is essential to its survival, and yet their every waking moment is spent cutting labor costsÖÖ

This has an easy solution---twice in our history we have passed laws mandating “full employment” in America (1946 & 1978---and signed into law by presidents Truman and Carter).

To create full employment, and immediately restore our market economy to good health we need immediate passage of the Temporary Employment Insurance Fund Act [TEIFA], a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance fund owned by our employed in America (from the janitor to the CEO), to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed. It is the Social Security Insurance Act of our generation. For comprehensive detail see: www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED: April 26, 2009

Obama Administration:

Restoring liquidity to our economy is obviously an essential ingredient in helping to right our badly listing economic shipÖ.

But until we address our insidious unemployment problem---which is growing exponentially---and dealing a fatal blow to our capitalist model---- (which thrives only with a robust, employed, consuming public)----all else will be for naughtÖ..

Our economy could be likened to a giant sinkhole that is taking everything above down with it as it gets wider and deeper (we need to create 100,000 jobs per month just to keep up with our birthrate) and rather than creating jobs, our unemployment is feeding on itself--- with 5 million jobs lost since January 2008, and is currently racing downward at a clip of over 600,000 jobs lost every month---with no end in sightÖÖ

We can immediately reverse this downward spiral in unemployment without adding a dime to our taxes, or to our deficit---and with a “renewable” economic stimulus program (we will not need to go back to Congress, and further deepen our deficit spending--when the money runs out for infrastructure) —--

By enacting the Temporary Employment Insurance Fund Act [TEIFA], a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance fund—owned by the American worker, to provide the funds to hire the unemployed American worker----The Social Security Act of our generationÖ.only in this case it will immediately turn us back towards full employment and result in the elimination of Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, and Food Stamps.

[I recently added the word “Fund” to the title of this proposed Act on the premise that it could be purchased as a “policy”, or like “shares” (with multiple units) as an option to be incorporated into this Act.]

The minimum contribution to this fund would be 2% of salary (from the janitor to the CEO), and additional policy/shares could be bought in 2% increments, with said cost to be deducted from federal taxes paid, as a cost-effective use of those taxes.

Also, it is projected that 2%, in the aggregate, is the trigger-point to reinvigorate private sector hiring and start us back towards full employment—as private and public sector employment feed on each other. Private management is urged to avoid in the future the $5 trillion IOU Congress owes the Social Security Insurance trust fund.

For comprehensive details, see: www.Inclusivism.org

Our unemployment is the most visible and tangible element of our economic recovery---and as it affects both us humans and our capitalist model----and until we fix unemployment we will not have turned the corner on our economic recovery in America--so what have we got to lose by trying this?.

.Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED: April 18, 2009

To Reverse Our Insidious Job Loss We Need Immediate Passage Of The Temporary Employment Insurance Act [TEIA]:

We need to create 100,000 jobs per month just to keep up with our birthrate, but not only are we not creating new jobs, we are—and on an accelerating schedule---losing over 600,000 jobs per month, with no end in sight!

The Temporary Employment Insurance Act [TEIA] will provide for a permanent economic stimulus--- to provide temporary public employment when there is a downturn in the market, and contract as employees return to private sector employment.

[Google: Buffer Stock Employment Model—the objective is to provide optimum levels of employment in the interest of preserving capitalism—TEIA is the most direct path to strengthening entrepreneurship].

A major benefit in enacting TEIA is that it will eliminate the necessity for further deficit spending as the means to correct our current (and future), massive job loss, and it will immediately move us back towards full employment.

Throughout America, Americans have shown a willingness to cut their hours so that their neighbor can continue to remain employed, and in the same spirit, TEIA provides a means for the employed in America to chip in to help out the unemployed, and to strengthen their own employment.

Specific details include:

1) It will immediately reverse our hemorrhaging jobs in America.
2) It will not add a dime to our taxes.
3) It will not add a dime to our deficit.
4) It is a “renewable” economic stimulus (it will not be necessary to go back to Congress for more stimulus money, as the money for jobs runs out, and increase our deficit even further).
5) It will correct a major flaw in our theory about capitalism (the insidious enemy of capitalism is not socialism, or communism, as ideologues have terrorized the American people with since McCarthy)---it is “unemployment”—capitalism thrives on a robust consuming public—and it is the absence of same that is causing our economy to act like a giant sinkhole---that as it gets wider and deeper, takes everything above down with it).
6) The below will immediately restore confidence in our economy—i.e., enactment of TEIA is a major step in turning the current recession/depression around.
7) It will have wide public acceptance (the absence of an increase in our taxes, or deficit, will have bipartisan support).

Specifically, We need a TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT [TEIA]: A federally mandated, private (not for profit) managed, mutual insurance plan owned by those employed, to provide the revenue to hire/train the unemployed. The policy cost would be limited to 2% of salary (from the doorman to the CEO), and the 2% purchase cost for the policy would be deducted from federal taxes paid---- [a zero loss in tax revenue, i.e., this is a cost-effective use of our taxes, even a savings, in the expenditure of our federal taxes].

Also, it is projected that 2%, in the aggregate, is the trigger-point to reinvigorate private sector hiring and start us back towards full employment—as private and public sector employment feed on each other. Private management is urged to avoid in the future the $5 trillion IOU Congress owes the Social Security Insurance trust fund.

This is a human to human investment solution, similar in concept to Social Security Insurance for our generation, but unlike Social Security Insurance, dividends would be paid annually from unused funds, and policy holders would vote on national projects such as a high-speed rail system, etc.

Like Social Security Insurance, however, this would also have a substantial, but rarely recognized, social benefitÖ.were it not for Social Security moneys percolating up through our economy, daily, we would not be talking about averting a Depression---we would be buried in one! And, it is no accident that America has not had another Great Depression since the 30’s----and averted, solely, as a result of our implementation of Social Security—and passing this law would only further strengthen this economic/social benefit.

Further, this would create all of the jobs necessary to make America energy independent, and as we move to full employment we can eliminate Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, and Food Stamps.

Twice in American history we have passed laws mandating “full employment” (1946 & 1978), and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter. This is a pro-capitalism concept. The enactment of TEIA would, at long last, fulfill this promise to the American people. For comprehensive details see: www.Inclusivism.org

This is a "win-win" solution, capitalism wins --and the American people win--and a win for the countries that follow our lead.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

PS The evidence is clear that we got into this economic nightmare because our “movers and shakers” disregarded (along with more than just a touch of greed) the most fundamental rule we learned in Kindergarten—“Don’t play with matches”Ö..and they have all but burned our economy to the ground, and took the rest of the world with usÖÖwe can turn this around by enacting TEIA.

POSTED: April 11, 2009

To The Honorable: Barack Obama, President of the United States

Twice in U.S. history we have passed laws mandating “full employment” for the American people (1946 & 1978, and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter, respectively). This is a “pro-capitalism” concept.

Australian economic policy offers the means by which to provide for “full employment” in the Buffer Stock Employment Model: A permanent, expanding and contracting public workforce, that expands during downturns in the market, or as a result of seasonal adjustments in the market, and contracts as employees return to the private sector.

But what we have failed to acknowledge is that this is an indispensable component of capitalism—and that this needs to be made a permanent component both in theory and in practice re capitalism--and essential for capitalism to work properly.

The absence of same has also been a major contributing factor our economy currently being in meltdown, and also explains why laissez faire capitalism doesn’t work, and will never work. The insidious enemy of capitalism is not “socialism” or “communism”, as Republican ideologues have tried to frighten the American people into believing since McCarthy—the insidious enemy of capitalism is “unemployment”—capitalism can thrive only when we have a robust consuming publicÖÖ.the proposed legislation, below, is a “pro-capitalism” concept.

Also, those who would argue that we currently have both public and private employment—miss the point---when we fail to incorporate this concept in and make it an institutional part of capitalism ---this could be compared to the inane argument that we have “universal healthcare” because persons can go to ER for treatment—this is not universal healthcare, it is the symptom of a system that is broken—rather than comprehensive healthcare for all of its citizens.

To facilitate the above, the following—which offers numerous advantages over what we are doing now-- is proposed:

1) It will immediately reverse our hemorrhaging jobs in America.
2) It will not add a dime to our taxes.
3) It will not add a dime to our deficit.
4) It is a “renewable” economic stimulus (it will not be necessary to go back to Congress for more stimulus money, as the money for jobs runs out, and increase our deficit even further.
5) It will correct a major flaw in capitalism----with this flaw subjecting us to the capricious whims in the market (causing capitalism to act like a rudderless ship)---and resulting in the needless injury to millions of Americans. For instance, we have had 12 recessions (with erratic loss of employment) since the Great Depression, and twice in our history our economy has acted like a giant sinkhole---that as it gets wider and deeper, takes everything above down with it (the Great Depression, and Now)—the proposed legislation, below, will correct this major flaw in capitalism.
6) The proposed legislation will immediately restore confidence in our economy—i.e., a major step in turning the current recession/depression around. The most visible sign of recovery (for the victims of our current economic meltdown) will be the reversal in our insidious, and snowballing, loss of employment (which at present we appear helpless to do anything about).
7) It will have wide public acceptance (the absence of an increase in our taxes, or deficit, will have bipartisan support).

Specifically, We need a TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT [TEIA]: A federally mandated, private (not for profit) managed, mutual insurance plan owned by those employed, to provide the revenue to hire/train the unemployed. The policy cost would be limited to 2% of salary (from the doorman to the CEO), and the 2% purchase cost for the policy would be deducted from federal taxes paid [a zero loss in revenue, i.e., a cost-effective use, even a savings, in the expenditure of federal taxes].

Also, it is projected that 2%, in the aggregate, is the trigger-point to reinvigorate private sector hiring and start us back towards full employment—as private and public sector employment feed on each other. Private management is urged to avoid in the future the $5 trillion IOU Congress owes the Social Security Insurance trust fund.

This is a human to human investment solution, similar in concept to Social Security Insurance for our generation, but unlike Social Security Insurance, dividends would be paid annually from unused funds, and policy holders would vote on national projects such as a high-speed rail system, etc.

Like Social Security Insurance, on the other hand, this would have a substantial, but rarely recognized, social benefitÖ.were it not for Social Security moneys percolating up through our economy, daily, we would not be talking about averting a Depression---we would be buried in one! And, it is no accident that America has not had another Great Depression since the 30’s----and averted, solely, as a result of our implementation of Social Security—and passing this law would only further strengthen this economic/social benefit.

Further, this would create all of the jobs necessary to make America energy independent, and as we move to full employment we can eliminate Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, and Food Stamps. For comprehensive detail see: www.Inclusivism.org


This is a "win-win" solution, capitalism wins --and the American people win--and a win for the countries that follow our lead.

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED 3-15-2009

PROPOSED: A “RENEWABLE” ECONOMIC STIMULUS AND ADJUNCT TO OUR CURRENT PROGRAM, THAT WILL NOT ADD A DIME TO OUR TAXES, OR DEFICIT

WE, need immediate passage of the following legislation for the following reasons:

1) It is an indispensable (a vital, yet missing) component of capitalism. Absent this component, capitalism is constantly subjected to fits and starts which vacillates between excess and implosion (as is currently occurring) and which undermines a vital ingredient to keep our market economy healthy: Viable and abundant consumers. The greatest enemy of capitalism is not communism or socialism---it is unemployment. In short, this legislation will moderate the instability in the market which subjects Americans to the whims of the marketplace, and periodically result in recessions/depressions.
2) It is a “renewable” economic stimulus, and thus congress will not need to go back to the well, as it were, or bankrupt our future generations by driving us further into debt with an excessive deficit.
3) It is the quintessential definition of the “Change” the American people voted for, and expect, and this legislation will not add one dime to their taxes, or to our deficit. In short, it will receive broad public acceptance.
4) It will immediately restore confidence in our economy because the most visible sign of recovery in the eyes of the electorate will be the abatement of our hemorrhaging jobs.
5) A frequently over-looked benefit of Social Security Insurance: Were it not for Social Security moneys percolating up through our economy, daily, our current economic crisis would not be limited to a Recession—we would already be in a full blown Depression! The following legislation will have the same dual effect---address an important social need, and strengthen capitalism at the same time. This is a pro-capitalism solution.
6) Twice in our history we have signed into law (1946 and 1978—and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter, respectively) legislation for “full” employment, but we have yet created the framework which will lead to “full” employment. This legislation is the essential, but missing framework, and will lead to “full” employment.
7) To maintain a viable and stable workforce, essential to capitalism, an expanding and contracting public workforce, working in synergy to stimulate private employment (advocated under the Buffer Stock Employment Model), we can reverse the current downturn in the market, blunt the current erratic nature of the market, and prevent recessions/depressions in the future.

Specifically, We need a TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT [TEIA]: A federally mandated, private (not for profit) managed, mutual insurance plan owned by those employed, to provide the revenue to hire/train the unemployed. The policy cost would be limited to 2% of salary (from the doorman to the CEO), and the 2% purchase cost for the policy would be deducted from federal taxes paid. This is a human to human investment solution, similar in concept to Social Security Insurance for our generation, but unlike Social Security Insurance, dividends would be paid annually from unused funds, and policy holders would vote on national projects such as a high-speed rail system, etc. Finally, this would create all of the jobs necessary to make America energy independent, and as we move to full employment we can eliminate Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, and Food Stamps. For comprehensive details see: www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED 3/1/2009

To The Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States

An expanding and contracting public work force is an indispensable component of capitalism. Absent this component, capitalism will not work properly.

As validation of this truism re capitalism—[and this paper is not about finger pointing, but rather about our finally getting honest with ourselves] --if Bush’s version of capitalism worked—is pro-business as claimed—why did so many of our businesses and major corporations fail under Bush, and it drove our economy into chaos?

Capitalism as we know it now is in a constant state of flux, is constantly subjected to the whims of foreign cheaper labor costs and the whims of the business cycle, and this instability periodically results in recessions/depressions.

And this instability adds to the cost of consumer goods.

We currently have on our books two laws mandating full employment (1946 & 1978), and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter, respectively, but we have yet created the mechanism to achieve this goal and to correct this fatal flaw in capitalism.

And yet, a public work force can be created without adding even one dime to our taxes, or deficit.

Specifically, to get started we need a Temporary Employment Insurance Act (TEIA), a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance plan—with each policy owned by those employed (from the janitor to the CEO)—to provide the income to hire the unemployed.

This is a human to human investment plan as we help out each other—an investment in the public good similar in concept to Social Security Insurance---and not inconsequential, an indispensable ingredient so that capitalism will work as intended.

The cost for this policy would be limited to a modest 2% of salary as this is the trigger-point, in the aggregate, to reinvigorate the return to hiring/re-hiring in the private sector, and lead to full employment, as intended by federal statute.

[The purpose of this insurance is to cause a synergy between public and private sector employment—as the two work in concert--and not necessarily to fully cover the cost of public sector employment—thus the fixed 2% cost per each policy holder. Also, the 2% would be treated in the same manner as our contribution to the presidential election fund—the moneys would go to the insurance fund, and be deducted from taxes going to Washington].

Unlike Social Security Insurance, however, dividends would be paid annually from unused funds, and each policyholder would have a vote on national projects, such as a high-speed rail system, etc. Also, unlike the temporary employment created in our economic stimulus program, this would both augment that employment objective, as well as remain as a permanent component of capitalism.

Additionally, the elimination of Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, and Food Stamps, alone, would greatly off-set costs, and add to the funding pool for public sector employees, and at an enormous savings to us as consumers, as well as taxpayers.

This is a “win-win” solution—a win for the public so that we can immediately stop hemorrhaging jobs when unemployment exponentially feeds on itself—as it is doing at present---and a win for capitalism.

The insidious enemy of capitalism is not “socialism”, or “communism”, as right-wing ideologues have traumatize the American public into believing since McCarthy—the insidious enemy of capitalism is “unemployment”.

Finally, the end objective is full employment, made up mostly of private sector jobs, and augmented with an expanding public workforce when there is a downturn in the market, and contracted as employees return to the private sector, when the economy corrects itself, and as outlined in the Buffer Stock Employment Model. For complete details, see: www.Inclusivism.org

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

ADDENDUM: March 6, 2009

The job creation program outlined under Economic Incusivism (www.Inclusivism.org) will create the income for millions of new jobs, and it will not add a dime to our taxes, or increase our deficit by even one dime. It also offers the following advantages:

1) It is a “renewable” employment program, and thus congress will not need to keep appropriating billions of dollars, and even further increase our deficit—to keep funding the “temporary” jobs created by the current stimulus program--which will end when the funding runs out.
2) It is a “pro-market” concept, and essential to capitalism to assure a viable consuming public.
3) The savings to corporations could be passed along to consumers in the lower cost of consumer goods. 4) It is a particularly politically viable program to which the vast majority of American workers are fully committed.
5) It is an indispensable ingredient of capitalism and so that it can function as intended.
6) It will immediately reverse our precipitous drop in employment—which is growing exponentially as our unemployment feeds on itself (currently at 8.1% and growing daily), and move us back towards full employment.
7) Once underway, our Unemployment Offices would become Employment Offices, and the elimination of Unemployment Insurance, Welfare and Food Stamps would provide an enormous savings to us as taxpayers, as well as consumers.

Finally, the end objective is full employment, made up mostly of private sector jobs, and augmented with an expanding public workforce when there is a downturn in the market, and contracted as employees return to the private sector, when the economy corrects itself, and as outlined in the Buffer Stock Employment Model. For complete details, see: www.Inclusivism.org

Prologue to Economic Inclusivism: The Path To Work Becoming A Human Right As The Model To Save Capitalism

Capitalism thrives on full employment, and yet every waking moment in a market economy its managers ponder ways in which to eliminate as many of us humans, as possible, from their collective staffs—to cut labor costs----and increase “profits”.

As a result, capitalism, as a system, is in a constant state of flux, and requires an expanding and contracting public workforce to assure full employment—i.e., the maximum number of economically viable consumers possible, to buy their products.

The insidious enemy of capitalism is not “socialism”, or “communism”, or “liberalism”, as right-wing ideologues have tried to traumatize the American public into believing since McCarthy—the insidious enemy of capitalism is “unemployment”.

The expanding and contracting public work force [Google Buffer Stock Employment Model] is an essential ingredient so that capitalism can work properly----

That is, not only as a means to moderate the erratic nature of the business cycle, which periodically results in recessions/depressions--but also, so that capitalism can operate at its highest profitability.

In short, the two are integrally linked and have a symbiotic relationship to each otherÖwith each essential to the other in the interest of full employment and in preserving capitalism as a viable economic model.

The funds to hire the buffer stock of public employees would come from a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual employment insurance----owned by those who are employed, to hire the unemployed—i.e., this is an employee to employee investment plan as they help out each other—similar in concept to Social Security Insurance---

And established under a Temporary Employment Insurance Act (TEIA), passed by Congress—and thus would not be a cost passed on to the consumer, via their employer—i.e., it would be totally paid for and owned by the employee policy holder.

Further, this would not cost a dime in increased taxes, or add a dime to our deficit.

Unlike Social Security Insurance, however, dividends would be paid annually from unused funds, to the owners of this insurance, and each policyholder would have a vote on national projects, such as a high-speed rail system, etc.

Further, the cost for this policy would be limited to a modest 2% of salary (from the janitor to the CEO) as this is the trigger-point, in the aggregate, to reinvigorate the return to hiring/re-hiring in the private sector, and lead to full employment. [The purpose of this insurance is to cause a synergy between public and private sector employment—as the two work in concert--and not necessarily to fully cover the cost of public sector employment—thus the fixed 2% cost per each policy holder].

Additionally, the elimination of Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, and Food Stamps would greatly off-set costs, and add to the funding pool for the buffer stock of employees.

This is a “win-win” solution—a win for the public so that we can make a correction when our market economy falls apart and starts hemorrhaging jobs, as we are at present (and this would immediately stop the hemorrhaging)—and a win for capitalism.

Finally, the end objective is full employment, made up mostly of private sector jobs, and augmented with expanding and contracting public sector jobs. Our unemployment offices would be converted to employment offices, and work/training cannot be denied to any citizen who applies. Our final step in recognizing work as a Human Right is to codify the following constitutional amendment into the U.S. Constitution:

"Work shall hereafter be the legal right of every citizen, and Congress shall, except for retirement/disability programs under federal jurisdiction, make no laws which will abridge the right of any citizen of legal age, to work and be a productive citizen."

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com www.Inclusivism.org

Posted: 2/23/09

WHY BUSH’S VERSION OF CAPITALISM FAILED

Both Republicans and we Democrats support capitalism—the difference is that Republicans don’t understand how capitalism worksÖ.and as a result of some really bad ideas have seriously undermined capitalismÖ..indeed, the Republicans could correctly be called the anti-market economy party.

We are currently swabbing up the mess caused by some really bad Republican ideas, by shoring up these really bad ideas, rather than exploring why these ideas failed.

Bush’s (the Republican agenda since Reagan) version of capitalism failed because it failed to understand capitalism.

Mostly, they failed to understand that the insidious enemy of capitalism is not “socialism”, or “communism” (Republican political strategy and propaganda since McCarthy to terrorize the American people)----the insidious enemy of capitalism----is “unemployment”.

And as a result Republicans pretended that unemployment didn’t existÖ..or that it was a nuisance---and some even believed that it was good for capitalism as a hedge against inflationÖ.never mind the humans that were injured in the process ÖÖ(and this is the reason they lost the last election).

The fact is, every waking moment under capitalism is spent eliminating as many of us humans, as possible, from the workplace—cutting labor costs---to increase “profits” ---this is a natural characteristic of capitalism. This is the market acting as it should act. For Republicans, however, it is never mind the humans that are injured in the process ÖÖand we are still trying to shore up this really bad idea.

For clarity, we should not condemn the CEO who closes a plant because he (she) is losing money—but we should be outraged by a government that is paralyzed in it ability to intelligently address this characteristic of capitalismÖ.

We have some stop-gap measures such as unemployment insurance, and food stamps and welfareÖ.but these are not intelligent, long-term solutionsÖ.because they fail to understand capitalism---and only shore up some really bad ideasÖÖ

In short, If we don’t fix the unemployment conundrum in capitalism—we have not fixed the problem with our economyÖ..and we will continue to hemorrhage jobsÖ..and we will also lose all of the political capital we gained in AmericaÖ..

The answer to this puzzle—the way we can save capitalism---can be found in the Buffer Stock Employment Model---an expanding and contracting public work force, that expands during down turns in the market, and is contracted as employees return to the private sector. See Google

For clarity, capitalism does not function properly without a (permanent) buffer stock of employees—and it will never function properly without this elementÖ

This is the essential element of capitalism that has been missing in our government policies-----

With a strong emphasis on “essential element”----and absent this we will always be subject to erratic swings in the market, and periodic recessions/depressions. And, all of which can be corrected by employing this modelÖ.in short, we need to take this step to save capitalismÖÖto save our market economy.

And we can create a buffer stock of employees Öfix the problemÖ.without an increase in our taxes, or deficit, by even one dime!

Specifically, we need (at present) a Temporary Employment Insurance Act (TEIA), a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance plan, owned by our employed---to provide the income to hire our unemployed.

And, like Social Security Insurance, it is Americans helping other Americans.

The cost for this policy should be limited to 2% of salary (from the janitor to the CEO), as this is the (permanent) trigger-point, in the aggregate, to reinvigorate private sector employment—to start us back towards full employment.

Further, the elimination of Unemployment Insurance and Welfare, alone, will greatly off-set costs—increase the pool funds to hire a buffer stock of employees, but unlike Social Security Insurance, dividends should be paid annually from unused funds—and policy holders would vote on national projects such as a high-speed rail system, etc. For detail see: www.Inclusivism.org

The end objective is full employment—made up mostly of private sector employment—but absent a buffer employment stock of employees, the capitalist model falls apartÖ(and creates the kind of economic nightmare we are currently trying to dig our way out of)Ö.they have a symbiotic relationship to each other.

No doubt, Republicans will say that the 2% is a tax---and will try to sabotage this solution to our unemployment problem---the same as their efforts to sabotage our current Economic Recovery—

And will be obstructionists as they were during the Great Depression—and for the same reasons---because they have placed their political objectives above the interest of the American people---only now, the American people are on to themÖ..

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000

POSTED OUT OF SEQUENCE [To see if the reader is paying attention...lol]:

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence

PLEASE FORWARD TO: Mr. Peter Orszag, White House Budget Director [as follow-up to your interview on CNN 5-17-09]

A Proposed Act of Congress To Immediately Reverse Our Exponential Loss of Employment In America, Which Is Feeding On Itself:

The following is being advocated to provide the revenue to turnaround our insidious job loss in America, at present, and start us back towards full employment; including creation of the jobs necessary to make America energy independent, in the interest of protecting our environment.

It offers the following advantages: (1) This is a “renewable” economic stimulus—it will not be necessary to go back to Congress for more money when the infrastructure money runs out, (2) it will not add a dime to our deficit, and (3) it will not add a dime to the taxes paid by individuals.

Further, the Buffer Stock Employment (BSE) Model would be incorporated into this concept, in the highest and best interest of our capitalist market system, i.e., a permanent expanding and contracting public workforce, that expands during downturns in the market and contracts as employees return to the private sector.

Specifically, a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance fund—owned by our employed (from the janitor to the CEO) to provide the funds to hire/train our unemployed (perhaps best seen as the Social Security Insurance Act for our generation).

The cost for this policy would be limited to 2% of salary, but unlike Social Security, dividends would be paid annually from unused funds and recipients would vote on national projects.

Also, the 2% cost to the individual employee would be deducted from their federal taxes paid, as a cost-effect use of our taxes (the cost to taxpayers would be less than any like program created by Congress to do the same thing, perhaps far less).

Further, it is projected that the revenue created by the 2%, in the aggregate, is the trigger-point to reinvigorate private sector hiring—and start us back towards full employment, as public and private sector employment feed on each other, and with the synergy between the two creating full employment.

Twice in America we have passed laws mandating “full employment” (1946 & 1978, and signed into law by Presidents Truman and Carter), and the long-term objective is “full employment” (i.e., under existing law we have a social obligation to provide employment/training to anyone who applies, and in time we need to establish a “legal right” to employment) and all of which is in the highest and best interest of market capitalism----which thrives, only, with a robust fully employed consuming public.

This is a pro-market concept—if we had full employment, our economy would not be in meltdown.

The proposed title for this Act of Congress is the Temporary Employment Insurance Fund Act [TEIFA]. For comprehensive detail see: www.Inclusivism.org

Respectfully Submitted:

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX 2000 jgreen5@satx.rr.com

POSTED: 2-7-09

The following is being advocated, not as a replacement for, but rather as an adjunct to, our current economic stimulus package, as an added abatement to our accelerating unemployment:

Most importantly, this will not add a dime to our taxes, or deficitÖ.

To immediately reverse our proliferating unemployment--we need a Temporary Employment Insurance Act (TEIA), a federally mandated, privately managed, mutual insurance plan, owned by our employed—to provide the funds to hire our unemployed. The cost for this insurance would be limited to 2% of salary, per policyholder. Further, each policyholder would have a vote on national projects, such as a high-speed rail system, and dividends would be paid annually from unused funds. Finally, the elimination of unemployment insurance and welfare, alone, would greatly off-set costs.

THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS ARE ANTI-CAPITALISM!

The conundrum in modern capitalism—which we have yet to come to grips with—and the reason our economy is currently in crisis:

A truism is that capitalism is not in the social welfare business—(nor should it be)---indeed, advocates would be quick to remind us of this, almost as a badge of honor, and every waking moment in a market economy is spent cutting as many of us humans from the workplace as possible—cutting labor costs---in the name of “profit”.

Nothing wrong with making a “profit”, but the conundrum is that the greatest enemy of capitalism---is unemployment.

The International Labor Office has offered a solution for this dilemma in the Buffer Stock Employment Model, but inexplicably, we are not listeningÖ..

Specifically, they advocate an expanding and contracting public work force that expands during times of a downturn in the market, and is contracted as employees return to the private sector, as the market improves.

Most importantly, this would moderate the erratic swings in our free market system and result in an abatement, if not the elimination of recessions/depressionsÖ..

In short, this would be a win for the 3.6 million who have lost their employment since we entered our current recession, and we could have nipped this in the budÖ.

And it is a win for capitalismÖ..as billions of dollars have been lost as a direct result of our current recession—and in the absence of the safeguard outlined above!

And the most inexplicable of all is that we could implement the Buffer Stock Employment Model, without an increase by even one dime in our taxes, or adding even one dime to our deficit! See: www.Inclusivism.org.

So what is our resistance? When our choices are a “win-win” vs a “lose-lose”Ö.why on earth would we stay on a path where everyone loses, rather than take the path where everyone wins?

Just “change”, alone, is part of the problem—we humans hate to change—albeit, this past election shows the vast majority are receptive to change—but there are other factors in playÖ.

First, where employment is concerned we still have one foot in the “plantation”, but mostly we are still laboring under “McCarthyism”, the fear that commies are lurking behind every treeÖ

And Republican propaganda would have us believe that any "public employment” is “communism”, or “socialism”, or “liberal”, and they would rather destroy our capitalist system, than admit that they have sawdust for brains!

In sum, no one should blame the CEO who closes his plant because he is losing money—but we should be outraged by any government that is paralyzed in its ability to implement a viable solution to this conundrum in our capitalist system—and to save the capitalist system!

POSTED: 1-20-09

RE: The Buffer Stock Employment Model proposed by the International Labor Office can correct unemployment in America

During the campaign President-elect Obama made reference to comments by employees who said they would be willing to have their hours cut so that a fellow employee could continue to be employed.

It is a mind-set that is prevalent among America workers. And it is also the reason why “unemployment” is one of the easiest problems to correct in our current Recession—as well as one of the least expensive.

And, it is also the most critical in turning the current Recession around.

It is also because of this mind-set that the employees, themselves, can correct the problem and it will not cost the taxpayers a dime in increased taxes.

Specifically, we need a mutual insurance plan owned by those who are employed, to provide employment for those who are unemployed.

The cost of this “Employment Insurance” would need to be on a graduated scale but in the aggregate less than 2% of wages would generate far more than enough income to create the currently sought four millions new jobs, and move us towards full employment.

Like Social Security Insurance—the citizen is taking out insurance for themselves. And one cannot make a claim unless they have paid in.

Unlike SSI, however, this should be set up strictly as an “insurance plan”—an insurance by employees, for employees. No money would go to Washington in the form of taxes, and while it would need to be compulsory—dividends would be paid annually from unused funds.

Further, employees should be allowed to vote on national projects, such as a high-speed rail system, albeit in the present many of the jobs would be for infrastructure repair, and moving us toward energy independence/green jobs would, of course, be a high priority.

Also, the elimination of unemployment insurance and welfare, alone, would also go a long way in off-setting the costs. It could be established as the Temporary Employment Insurance Act (TEIA) to meet the current crisis, and then made permanent.

The International Labor Office has established the model under which this Employment Insurance can be carried out—specifically, The Buffer Stock Employment model:

The Buffer Stock Employment model is an expanding and contracting work force where public employment would be expanded in times of economic downturn in the market economy, and contracted as employees are absorbed into the private sector, in an improving economy.

Respectfully,

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000

PROLOGUE: Project: jgreen [from Harvard University H.2.O C:\Documents and Settings\Inclusivism.org\Desktop\H2O - jgreen Summary.htm]

Affiliation: Social Reform
Starts: 8/1/06 Ends: 12/31/06
Leaders: JGreen
Keywords: Economic Inclusivism: A 21st Century Solution

Description:
Economic Inclusivism outlines certain systemic changes we need to make so that we can intelligently address the problems we face in the 21st century.


We live in a dangerous world, because we live in an exclusive, rather than inclusive world. With just the few systemic changes outlined in the synopsis of Economic Inclusivism, below, and applied in concert, we can change thatÖ....if we have the political will...and remain a democracy.


Economic Inclusivism is broken down into two categories: Social/Prison Reforms and Economic Reforms

Social/Prison Reforms

1) We need to re-classify all crime in the future as violent or non-violent, and discard the archaic terms felony and misdemeanor.

2) We need a much greater use of "Shock" Incarceration (as originally intended); a greater use of fines and probation (both civil and criminal), in lieu of incarceration, and an expanded menu of sentencing alternatives.

3) We need the creation of Federal Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers, for the diagnosis and treatment of the violent offender.

4) We need to pick-up the lead taken by England, in treating drug addiction as a "medical" rather than a "criminal" problem, so that we can effectively curb drug-related crime, and keep drugs out of the hands of our youth.

Economic Reforms

5) To address our insidious practice of "exclusion", Congress must enforce a citizen's legal right to work, as enacted by Congress in "The Full Employment Act of 1946", and as outlined in the Democratic National Platform position asserting "Opportunity to every American". We need to recognize that the right to work and be a productive member of one's society is a human right.

Accordingly we must ratify the following constitutional amendment: "Work shall hereafter be the legal right of every citizen, and Congress shall, except for retirement/disability programs under federal jurisdiction, make no laws which will abridge the right of any citizen of legal age, to work and be a productive citizen".

6) To ensure enforcement/fund this legal right, Congress would create a privately owned, federally mandated, mutual insurance plan, with limited ownership by each person who works, which would provide work/training to any citizen who applies.

7) Since this program of "inclusion" would address 95% of our social ills (crime, welfare, drugs, etc., and exacerbated in many cases by inept Band-Aid programs), the federal budget could be greatly reduced and our current Federal Income Tax would be replaced with a National Sales Tax, value-added tax, a national lottery, or some combination of taxes other than our current Federal Income Tax. We currently spend 26 billion annually for the Internal Revenue Service, and corporations and individuals spend trillions trying to get around the Tax Code, all of which is passed on to us, the consumer, in the higher cost of consumer goods.

7a)A Universal Healtcare System is an essential ingredient of a sane society.

NOTE TO THE READER: This is a "living web page"....is edited often to keep pace with current events (such as the fantastic news that we have a President Obama)....but as a result there are many duplications and the web page is in dire need of a "brush and scrub-up" so please forgive.....also this web site does not provide for intalisized words....so CAPS are used instead....albeit would MUCH prefer the former....finally, the comprehensive outline for Economic Inclusivism, is below--good luck finding it....[just kidding....but THX for your patience]!

SEPTEMBER 29, 2008--The following is the alternative to the failed bailout by Congress (details below):

The $700 billion bailout is long on headaches, and short on alternatives—as a result of the current economic crisis.

Here is an alternative, and it is long overdue in our social evolution:

We need a constitutional amendment or legislation to build into our free enterprise system a recognition of the Human Right to work and be a productive member of society. (see www.Inclusivism.org).

This was a given in primitive societies but lost during the Age of Industrialization and advent of the corporation.

And the Republican pabulum asserts that all the “jobs” we need can be created by corporations (the market), and that all of our social needs can be met under this modelÖ.

A point most now see as patently absurd, and evident by Bush’s failed economic policies, and at best a remnant of the plantation!

And when every waking moment in a market economy is spent trying to eliminate as many of us humans from the workplace as possible, in the name of “profit”---it is obvious this model is grossly flawed!

And evident by the 1.6 million jobs that have been lost in America in just the past 12 months, alone!

Here is the alternative solution:

Use the $700 billion to set up an insurance program to implement a legal right to employment for every citizen in America, and let the money flow upwards to correct the problems in the market—and to address this essential Human Right.

The most important lesson we have learned from Social Security, and practiced widely in Europe, is that “trickle up” is an essential ingredient in sound economic policy—with emphasis on “essential” to sound business practices.

And when managed properly Social Security Insurance brought in more money than it paid out! America became the richest and most powerful nation on earth since, and as a direct result of, Social SecurityÖ.

Bill Gates became the richest man on earth as a direct result of Social Security and Military Retirement moneys percolating up through our economy—as reiterated before.

Further, by using Economic Inclusivism (paid for by a mutual insurance plan, owned by every person who works, i.e., a federally mandated insurance plan much like Social Security) we would become pro-active in addressing our economic woesÖ

And, this would allow those corporations that are poorly managed, or allowed the mischief of deregulation to get the better of them—to go by the wayside, while new and much stronger corporations would grow up in their place. And rather than weaken our economic system, as argued by Republicans based solely on greed--it would in fact greatly strengthen our corporations and the free enterprise system!

This is not anti the free enterprise system—this is an essential ingredient to strengthen it!

Regarding the legal basis for a “legal right” to employment: As a concept, the notion that we should come with hat in hand, to beg for the means by which to earn our breadÖto address our essential, inherent drive for “self-preservation”-----is patently insane! Barbaric! A remnant of the “plantation” mind-set--in a 21st Century economy and world.

This is a totally different context in which to look at work and human productivity---than our present mind-set----and it is grounded in freedom of the individual, embraced by the U.S. Constitution. Currently, work is looked at within the context of the “plantation”Ö..the master/slave mind-setÖ.which is anachronistic and dysfunctional in the 21st Century. Further, it is an adjunct to the free enterprise system, indeed, an essential ingredient—the grease to make the wheel work, and the sole focus is on freedom of the individual.

In short, this is a “win-win” solutionÖ.for the American people as well as our economy--- but don't hold your breath waiting for a rational solution to our current economic crisis....

And no doubt Republican ideologues—who are determined to sabotage the American people in the name of greed----would rant on with the same drivel they have used for the past 70 yearsÖ.to the absolute detriment of the American people, and America!

Heaven forbid that the Republicans might actually do something that would benefit the American people rather than take us down the same path that has almost ruined our economyÖ.and in many cases shot themselves in the foot in the process!
ÖÖ.And for reasons only God could understandÖ..

Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, Dist 21, TX, 2000

CLA
CLA

[Economic Reforms]

1) We need a constitutional Amendment making work the legal right of every citizen of legal age. We need this Amendment (or laws passed by Congress) for “economic” reasons, i.e., because it is cost-effective within the context that it will cost us more to clean up the damage caused because we did not take this next step in our social evolution, than if we do. Parts of America already look like Third-World countries as a result of mass employment shipped to the Far East, etc. Finally, my suspicion is that this concept will not sound foreign when we evolve and finally realize that “Human energy is a terrible thing to waste” (to borrow from “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”). We currently waste the human energy we could gain from millions of humans, to the detriment of our progress! —AND when we get over our FEAR that this poses a threat to free enterprise, and recognize that this will in fact STRENGHTEN, rather than weaken the business community.

2) To ensure enforcement/fund this legal right, Congress would create a citizen-owned, federally mandated, mutual insurance plan, with limited ownership by each person who works, which would provide work/training to any citizen who applies.

3) Since this program of "inclusion" would address 95% of our social ills (crime, welfare, the absence of universal healthcare, drugs, etc., exacerbated in many cases by corrupt and/or inept Band-Aid programs, which cause-- rather than correct our social problems--, costing us billions annually)-- In our savings--our current Federal Income Tax would be replaced with a flat tax, a National Sales Tax, value-added tax, a national lottery, and/or some combination of taxes other than our current Federal Income Tax. In short, we would scrap our current Tax Code, start over, and re-written for the benefit of the American people, rather than the special interests.


[Social/Prison Reforms]

4) We need to re-classify all crime in the future as violent or non-violent, and discard the archaic felony and misdemeanor.

5) We need a greatly expanded menu of sentencing alternatives, including a much greater use of "Shock" Incarceration and the use of fines, restitution, and probation (both civil and criminal), in lieu of incarceration. Prison should be a last resort, not first.

6) We need to convert many of the prisons, in our massive prison system, into Federal Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers, for the diagnosis and treatment of the violent offender.

7) We need to decriminalize drug use and addiction and treat as a "medical" rather than a "criminal" problem, and addressed within the context of a universal healthcare system, so that we can effectively curb drug-related crime, and keep drugs out of the hands of our youth. (This one change would cut our prison population in half, and save the hundreds of billions we waste system wide, which could be used for education and funding a universal health care system, i.e., result in the effective use of our taxes).

NOTE TO THE READER: This concept has been on the internet since July 9, 1996—since that time it has taken on many mutations—albeit, fundamentally retaining the urgency that we seek “inclusive”, rather than “exclusive” solutions to our social problems (as we currently do). It is also a “living web page”, and amended as current events dictated, and this has resulted in it not being the most organized page on the webÖ(it is all here, you just have to dig for it)Ö.apologies are also made that CAPS are used, where italicized words would have been much preferred----but the software on this server does not allow italicized words. THX, jgreen5@satx.rr.com

ORIGINAL WEB PAGE:

THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: A Prescription To End Terrorism, And Illegal Immigration

PROLOGUE: The Theory of Economic Inclusivism asserts that many of our current social solutions are the CAUSE for many of our current social problems, in our endless spiraling down into a police state. Rather than questioning the validity of social solutions which have become obsolete, in a rapidly changing world, we have applied police state solutions to make these anachronistic solutions work.

The result has been disastrous.

For instance, since 1975 Americans have demanded more and more prisons, in the erroneous belief that this was the correct means by which to address crime, and by 1990 the American incarceration rate passed up every nation on earth.

But this was just the beginning, and at present we in America have 5% of the world's population, and 25% of all inmates on earth in our prisons, 2.2 million. Certain propaganda ads, including the Willie Horton ad, have contributed to our prison building hysteria.

The end result is that we daily turn non-violent criminals, into violent career criminals, and evidenced by the grizzly stabbing death in Illinois of two pre-teen girls on Mother's Day, 2005, by a recently released inmate.

Also, with education and prisons competing for the same dollar, many states now spend more on prisons than educating our youth with the result that we currently have one-third of the high school students in our major cities failing to graduate, and the percent is exponentially greater with minorities.

In short, our proliferation of prisons has made America MORE dangerous, not less.

In an effort to correct this destructive trend, the Theory of Economic Inclusivism outlines those changes we need to make so that we can intelligently adapt in our rapidly changing world , preserve our constitutional freedoms, and reverse our dangerous trend towards becoming a police state. Those changes are set out in detail by copying pages 5-7, below.

Dear Bill Gates: [Please forward to Bill Gates, re TIME, June 18, 2007, and in response to his philanthropic effort re “solving inequity”. Economic Inclusivism provides the solution to this problem. It is the “creative capitalism” he is seeking. While we have gained enormous conveniences in our modern world, we have also lost something far more important, and that is the acknowledgement that every citizen has the right to be a productive member of society. This was a given in primitive societies, and it must be restored as a Human Right, and codified in our statutes, and where applicable as a constitutional right. Once we restore this vital Human Right, the other inequities Mr. Gates refers to will solve themselves. Our failure in recognizing this Human Right is the reason Mr. Gates sees our “broken system” as “irrational, inefficientÖ.” We need to build back into our psyche the lost belief that EVERY citizen has a BIRTHRIGHT to be a productive citizen. The reason Rush Limbaugh is such an evil and divisive person is because he panders to and promotes this wedge in the human psyche. The importance of making the changes outlined in the Economic Inclusivism cannot be underestimated.]. The purpose of the Theory of Economic Inclusivism is to solve social problems. For any nation to solve its social problems, first, it must acknowledge within each citizen a yet to be asserted human right of that citizen to work and be a productive citizen. As noted, this was a given in primitive societies, but was lost in the age of industrialization, and the advent of corporations. It is a right held by the citizen, and to be effective must be codified as a legal or constitutional right of each citizen. Because of our failure, currently, to recognize this Human Right.... many of our current social solutions could be compared to pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out.

For most Americans there is only a vague connection between the appointment of federal judges, and their everyday lives; and yet it is a zealously guarded tool used by the fanatic right to shred the freedoms they enjoy everyday, at every turn. THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB, below, is about one such corrupt federal judge, who was born in Berlin, Germany, spent his formative years under the adverse influence of the Third Reich, and then undermined the U.S. Constitution with Hitler's ideas—unfortunate for ALL Americans--it is true.

We live in a dangerous world, because we live in an exclusive, rather than inclusive world. With just the few systemic changes outlined in The Theory of Economic Inclusivism, we can change thatÖ....if we have the political will. Ö.This web page is dedicated to those children and adults whose parents have saddled them with “make the world a better place”Ö.better keep your spurs on, you’re in for a rough rideÖ. NOTE: This web page does not recognize italicized words, and thus an apology is made, here, to the reader for using caps when same would have been much preferred; also this is a "living web page", i.e., amended as new events call for comment, so apologies are made for a redundant phrase here and there...THX, Jim Green, author, jgreen5@satx.rr.com

Former chief of the CIA’s Clandestine Service stated “if we don’t deal with the root causes [of terrorism]—economic, social, and cultural. We’re not going to get it right.” (U.S. News & World Report, 11-1-04). Economic Inclusivism outlines the legislative and constitutional reforms necessary to get it “right”, and so that terrorism will become statistically irrelevant, in the larger scheme of things. So long as we have humans, we will have terrorists....thus a War (large W) on Terrorism is ludicrous! A waste of money! What we need to do is make the social changes outlined, herein, so that terrorism becomes statistically irrelevant....because that is the best we can ever hope for....

Since 9-11, there has been an alarming erosion of our constitutional freedoms as part of the right-wing agenda to turn America into a Police State. See below, THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB [an expose' of the dangerous cabal that plotted to steal America's political agenda] and consummate proof of this agendaÖ..It stands as a grim WARNING to those who take their freedoms for granted, in America.

By the year 2015, less than 10 years from now, it is predicted that over 50% of the world’s population will live in mega-cities, each with many millions in population. For instance, Tokyo is predicted to have a population of 27.5 million, and New York City 17.9 million. “In 1950, there was only one city with a population of more than 10 million—New York. In 2015 there will be 21, and the number of urban areas with populations between five and ten million will shoot from 7 to 37.” (National Geographic, November,2002). The most compelling question facing all of us as we move further into the 21st Century is: How do we intelligently manage humanity, given our current world economy (globalization), combined with this urban explosion? Our only VIABLE choice, I would assert, is by implementing ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM, A Call For Systemic Change Post 9-11,
outlined herein.

What we are doing now is "wrong-premised". We are asking the wrong questions. What we should be asking is what is necessary to create a "safe and sane society" in which to live and raise our children? For instance, our economic system should be framed within the context of this larger question, not the other way around, as we do now. Economic Inclusivism directly addresses this larger question, within the context of the world as it actually exists, and provides the means by which a "safe and sane" society can be accompolished.

In the 1930’s, the wealthy industrialists in Germany threw their money and power behind Hitler because they believed that turning Germany into a police state was the best way to protect their “assets”. This same erroneous thinking is being applied in America today. As certain proof of this police state mentality, we have five times more persons incarcerated in America, today, than any other country in the world! Must we re-live the nightmare of another Hitler’s Germany, before Americans finally wake up?

Indeed, the apathy in America and the degree to which we have moved down the path towards a right-wing police state is frightening! The following is a grim warning of the danger:

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged.
And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the
air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
-William O. Douglas, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1898-1980)

The expose' below, when a Plaintiff accidentally stumbled into the inner-workings of the dangerous ultra-right wing agenda, at the highest levels of our government, is symptomatic of this apathy.

We did not arrive at this cross-roads in our history in a vacuum, and in an effort to counter our current dangerous direction and agenda, I have looked to root causes and outlined the following alternative bifurcated solution for economic/prison reforms (which in this context bear a symbiotic relationship to each other).

We do not need to turn America into a police state, with severely diminshed civil liberties, but we must make certain systemic changes, i.e., we do have a choice.

Specifically, we need to take certain legislative and constitutional reform action so that we can intelligently address the social chaos and apathy which has been caused by the colliding forces of globalization and automation/technology on our social institutions. These forces, while offering enormous social benefits, have also created a whole new set of social problems, including disintegration of the family, and the proliferation of violence in our schools, churches and workplaces; and thus call for a whole new set of social solutions.

Our response as individuals to the negeative side effects of globalization and automation/technology has resulted in an explosion in the sale of home security devices, as we barricade ourselves in our homes. Before WW II, it was not uncommon for families to leave their homes unlocked when they went away on vacation.

On a governmental level, over the past 50 years plus, we have chozen Band-Aid programs to counter these adverse effects, over systemic change, and built the largest prison system in the world. Indeed, every dollar we waste in our insatiable need to incarcerate persons, is a dollar that is deducted from educating our youth, given our equally insatiable demand for lower taxes. The problem, it seems, is one of twisted priorities where we spend billions in tax dollars annually to correct problems we ourselves have created by inept Band-Aid programs/policies! And the War against Iraq is a textbook example of our twisted priorities where we are bankrupting America with a problem we should never have created in the first place! For instance, as of my 72nd birthday, April 18, 2006, the 450 billion we have wasted could have been spent on alternative fuel sources which could have made America totally independent of Middle East oil, at least part of the reason for this war, and we wouldn't have 20,000 American soldiers dead or wounded!

The solution proposed, here, is devoid of an ideological agenda and the sole criteria has been to find practical solutions, which when applied in concert, will both preserve our freedoms under the Bill of Rights, and create a "safe and sane" environment in which to live and raise our children in the 21st Century economy. Indeed, the systemic changes proposed, here, provide the only VIABLE means we have by which to preserve the Bill of Rights, and reverse our current oppressive police state solutions. All other paths lead to further diminution of our individual civil liberties. My background for this proposed solution includes over 20 years employment in the American criminal justice system, as a probation officer and chief probation officer, and I was a candidate for Congress in the 2000 election. I have titled this seven-point program for economic/social reform:

THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: A 21st Century Solution

[Social/Prison Reforms]
1) We need to re-classify all crime in the future as violent or non-violent, and discard the archaic terms felony and misdemeanor. The word felony has been implanted in the public's mind to mean "armed and dangerous", and yet over 70% of our prison inmates (all felons) are in prison for non-violent offenses. As a result, the term "felony" is distracting us from addressing the real problem....the violent offender.

2) We need a much greater use of "Shock" Incarceration (A sentencing alternative I authored in the 1960's); a greater use of fines, restitution, and probation (both civil and criminal), in lieu of incarceration, and fines paid directly to victims instead of the state all as part of an expanded menu of sentencing alternatives. [We have 5% of the world's population, and 25% of all prison inmates on earth, in our prisons! If we had the same proportion of inmates to general population as the rest of the civilized world, we would have 400,000 persons incarcerated, not 2,200,000, as we do at present! And yet our PR is that we are the most free country in the world? We daily turn non-violent persons into violent career criminals, with over 99% released back into society, making life in America MORE dangerous, not less! And the grizzly stabbing death, in Illinois, of 8 and 9 year old girls, on Mother’s Day, 2005, by a recently released inmate, is a textbook example of this inept approach..Öwhen on earth are we going to accept that to whatever degree....we are also part of the problem? Prison should be a last resort, not first!] We can correct this by mandating that our legislatures return to the pre-1988 (pre the Willie Horton ad) standard: For every $1 budgeted for prisons, $5 MUST be budgeted for the education of our children. This appx ratio was not set by statute, but rather by tradition and common sense. At present, we budget more for prisons than educating our youth, and were not becoming a police state?

3) We need to create Federal Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers, for the diagnosis and treatment of the violent offender. We have learned a great deal about violent behavior in recent years (see www.brainplace.com), and yet we do not have a cohesive or concerted national program or policy in America for dealing with this national epidemic and disgrace. The sheer numbers of homicides by handguns, alone, tells the whole story: Canada 151, Australia 57, Germany 373, Japan 19, England and Wales 54, the United States 11,789! When we add in all deaths by guns, including the fact that 9 children are killed by guns everyday in America, our gun violence escalates to a staggering 28,663! Also, we need to allow for voluntary admissions to these Centers, to prevent juvenile and family violence. It is essential that we seek out "problem-solving", not "punishment" oriented solutions, which actually exacerbate crime.

4) We need to pick-up the lead taken by England, in treating drug addiction as a "medical" rather than a "criminal" problem, so that we can EFFECTIVELY curb drug-related crime, and keep drugs out of the hands of our youth. To demonstrate how specious our thinking has become in this area, alcohol and tobacco kill ten of thousands of persons annually, and yet these drugs are not classified as "dangerous". The tiny handful of persons with "addictive personalities" has totally shaped our drug policies while "addiction", in all of its forms, can only EFFECTIVELY be treated with a medical solution. We have wasted billions on interdiction, and yet, youth drug abuse is actually increasing.

[Economic Reforms]
5) To address our insidious practice of "exclusion", Congress must enforce a citizen's legal right to work (1), as enacted by Congress in "The Full Employment Act of 1946", and as outlined in the Democratic National Platform position asserting "Opportunity to every American". The right to work and be a productive member of one's society is also a human right. Accordingly, we must ratify the following constitutional amendment: "Work shall hereafter be the legal right of every citizen, and Congress shall, except for retirement/disability programs under federal jurisdiction, make no laws which will abridge the right of any citizen of legal age, to work and be a productive citizen." [Our lapse in enlightenment regarding this urgently needed systemic change -- believed by the ignorant and uninformed to be "communism" -- combined with some really peculiar notions about guns, is the cause for almost all violent crime in America. This is a “practical” rather than a “liberal” solution in our 21st Century economy, a point totally lost on ideologues. This is not a “safety net” (the conservative propaganda buzz term to undermine “social” programs), this is recognizing within each of us a “human right”. The distinction is as different as night and day. Further, rather than being a wildly radical idea, a recent Zogby poll found that "86% of Americans think the government should provide a job to anyone who wants one", according to the April 4, 2005 issue of The Nation. Economic Inclusivism, however, does not ask that the government provide a job, but rather recognizes within each citizen the legal right to work and be a prouctive member of the society, as a HUMAN RIGHT. Also, For clarity, I am a capitalist. I support limited interference on the part of government in the free enterprise system, and find the ownership of “business”, or a government controlled economy, as currently incorporated in both socialism and communism, to be patently absurd. We will always have government controls so that we have safe food, and medicine, etc., and we rightfully should have, that is separate and apart from the government doing, what a free enterprise business can do better. I would vehemently disagree that our recognition within each citizen a “human right” to work and be a productive citizen to be an interference with the free enterprise system, and it would have more of a psychological impact on the individual, than an economic impact on the economy, as it currently exists. A person wishing to become a doctor, will still become a doctor, or a CEO, or bartender, whateverÖ.people do what is most compatible with their nature and talents and Economic Inclusuvism would not change that. Indeed, it in some cases it would provide a greater assist in their reaching their goal, than is currently available, and it is much more efficient in utilizing our greatest resource: humans, that our current system. Most importantly, it is the right thing to do ].

6) To ensure enforcement/fund this legal right, Congress would create a privately owned, federally mandated, mutual insurance plan, with limited ownership by each person who works, which would provide work/training to any citizen who applies. Work could include: Child care for low income working families, building a high-speed rail system, the urgent need outlined by the NEA for School Modernization, the creation of Federal Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers for the diagnosis and treatment of the violent offender [HINT: convert our excessive new prisons into said Centers], repairing our rotting infrastructure (the list of social benefits is endless). As owners of this plan, each worker would vote on proposed national projects and dividends would be paid annually from unused funds. A projected cost of 8% would be less than the worker currently pays for welfare. [Like Social Security and military retirement moneys, Economic Inclusivism would STRENGTHEN, not weaken the business community....these steps are necessary to preserve, not harm capitalism in a rapidly changing economy...Ö.Bill Gates became the richest man in the world because of these monies percolating through the economy....If W (and the wacko Neo-Con ideas) was the president in the 30’s, instead of FDR, Bill Gates would be on the street with a “Will work for food” signÖ.....and further this will prevent our further movement down the erroneous path towards communism or towards the other extreme, fascism (our current movement), both of which require a dictator, and the wholesale loss of our civil liberties, to hold the government in place.]

7) Since this program of "inclusion" would address 95% of our social ills (crime, welfare, drugs, etc., and exacerbated in many cases by inept Band-Aid programs), the federal budget could be greatly reduced and our current Federal Income Tax would be replaced with a National Sales Tax, value-added tax, a national lottery, or some combination of taxes other than our current Federal Income Tax. We currently spend 26 billion annually for the Internal Revenue Service, and corporations and individuals spend trillions trying to get around the Tax Code, all of which is passed on to us, the consumer, in the higher cost of consumer goods.

7a)A Universal Healtcare System is an essential ingredient of a sane society!

SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:

The purpose of the Theory of Economic Inclusivism is to solve social problems.

For instance, one of the most serious problems facing America, today, is illegal immigration, and yet it could be solved over night if Mexico were to adopt the proposed changes in 5 and 6, above. See rationale in the following letter:

The problem of illegal immigration into the United States is never going to be solved until Mexico recognizes a yet to be defined human right:

The birthright of every human to work and be a productive member of the society they are born into.

This was a given in primitive societies, when every member of the group was included in as a matter of necessity, for the survival of the society.

This all changed during the 20th Century, with the advent of the corporation, globalization, and enormous advances in automation and technology.

And we have struggled ever since with the millions who have been cut out, rather than included into the larger society.

What we have most learned is that welfare doesn’t work, and is more destructive than constructive.

We have also learned that pretending the problem doesn’t exist, or making such nonsensical statements as everyone should “pull themselves up by the bootstraps”, doesn’t work either.

The latter is based on the myth (or rather, out and out lie) that a free enterprise system can or will solve this problem, when in fact it is absolutely antithetical to making a “profit”.

And the exhausting ideological debate on both sides of the issue has been debilitating, because it is non-productive, it has not led to constructive results.

Accordingly, we must encourage Mexico to incorporate into their Constitution, the following Constitutional Amendment, which is an adjunct, rather than adverse to the free enterprise system:

“"Work shall hereafter be the legal right of every citizen, and Congress shall, except for retirement/disability programs under federal jurisdiction, make no laws which will abridge the right of any citizen of legal age, to work and be a productive citizen."

And it wouldn’t be a bad idea for the United States, as well. How this can be incorporated into our free enterprise system is outlined in the Theory of Economic Inclusivism (www.Inclusivism.org).

It is up to the people, so long as Mexico, or any country for that matter, is a democracy. But for America, our illegal immigration problem would be solved over night.

In Summation:

“The right to work and be a productive member of the country one is born into is a human right, and a country’s failure to recognize this is the cause for most of their social problems.”

Jim Green

[This may shed some light. In an effort to address the problem of world poverty and human starvation, the G8 looks for relief through a prism with three premises: Aid, Debt, or Trade, or a combination of the three.

Let me propose a fourth:

That we recognize within every human, a legal right to work and be a productive member of the society they are born into, as a “human right”. It is ironic that when this is suggested for America, we hear the hue and cry of communist or socialist or heaven forbid “liberal”, but when suggesting that this concept be adapted by Mexico, it is embraced as a God’s send, because it would solve our illegal immigration problems, instantly!

When we accept that something is a “right”, we don’t ask can we do it, we just do it.

Our economic systems apply to only one species: Humans

Indeed, the primary source of almost every social problems we face, today, is rooted in our failure (or resistance) to recognizing within each human, the “human right” to work and be a productive member of the society.

Our resistance is due in large part to greed on the part of the wealthy, and prejudice on the part of the poor, the worst in humansÖ.i.e., we do not have a valid reason for our resistance to this new consciousness.]

(1) Definitions: A “right” is “something no one can take from you” (former Attorney General Ramsey Clark). The legal “right to work”, is not the “obligation” to work, nor is it the “right to look for work” as frequently misinterpreted by ideologues (who inexplicably assert we already have this right). Nor is it the right to a specific job (there is a separate body of case law which has been underway since the 1920’s, and frequently sabotaged by ultra-conservatives, see THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB below, which addresses the right to a specific employment). The singular most important purpose for this constitutional amendment is to recognize within each citizen the “human right” to work and be a productive member of their society, and is rooted in the wisdom of the sages: “The people’s good, is the highest law.” Cicero Orations (c. 106-43 BC), and Plato’s Republic “satisfaction of the common good is the ideal state” (427-347 BCE). In the age of globalization and expanding technology to suggest that a market economy will address this human right is naïve, absurd. To get lost in the notion, however (the compulsion to categorize), that this is “communism” or “socialism”, or God forbid “liberal”, is to not understand what is being said, here.

Under communism, the term “right to work” was never seen as a right held by the individual, nor was a “right” seen in the same light under Russian communism, as seen under the U.S. Constitution. Under communism, they saw the “right” to work as an obligation, and that is antithetical to the intent under Economic Inclusivism. Here, it is specifically intended as a right held by the individual. There is no obligation placed on the individual. A right ceases to be a right, if it is seen as an obligation.

Also, if we have low unemployment, or no unemployment, that would not be a substitute for recognizing: The right to work and be a productive member of the society one is born into, as a Human Right. Without recognizing under the law this new, and yet to be recognized Human Right, nothing will have changed. And to correct many of our social ills, in the 21st Century world, it is essential that we codify this concept into the law.

To incorporate this concept into our law would change our state of mind. It would encourage cooperation, rather than competition in the work place. It would make all of us more productive human beings. But most importantly, it would change the way we look at each other, and make obsolete the xenophobic hysteria which is so paralyzing in far too many humans.

POST NOTE: A grim reality is that America simply hasn’t evolved enough as a society to yet recognize a legal right on the part of each citizen to be a productive member of our society, a constitutional right. As a result we waste one of our most valuable resources: Humans, and are thus true to form with our image around the world that we are a plastic, throwaway society. A major benefit of Economic Inclusivism is that it would change the way we look at each other, and return us to sense of civility. However, even if it were fully enacted into our law tomorrow, it would take 20 years (a whole generation) to wash away all of the BS and coarsened demeanor which has been created by our current inept social/economic solutions.

HOW TO READ AND UNDERSTAND ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM (EI):

Dear Reader: We live in an era where new ideas are quickly labeled, or categorized, so that they can just as quickly be dismissed or sabotaged. The Catch 22 in this approach to problem solving is that our problems never get solved and we persist in applying solutions to our social problems which no longer work, in a world that is changing whether we like it or not. For instance, after years of hearing that EI is based on the Communist Manifesto, etc., or that the intent is to carry out some left- or right-wing agenda, the following is suggested to the reader:

The various components of EI were picked with the same dispassion a mechanic might use in sifting through their toolbox to pick out those tools which can best be used to make an engine operate at its highest efficiency. Or, to use another metaphor, with the same considered thought a golfer might use in picking the right club so as to get the best score. There is no hidden political agenda; the only question being asked: What tools do we need to use so that we can intelligently address the social problems we face today? An accurate “solution” the ONLY consideration. A point frequently lost on ideologues. [To distinguish from "communism" and "socialism", for the ignorant and uninformed, both incorporate the concept of government ownership of business, which I find patently absurd! Here, the methodology is distinctly different from the methodology used under either communism socialism. For those who would argue that this is an intrusion into the concept of a "free market", how do they explain the FED's manipulation of the prime rate....since when have we had a "free market"?].

The XY&ZÖ.so why Economic Inclusivism? My conclusion after the events outlined, below, in THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB, is that what happened then was patently insane! There is no rational explanation for these events. It would have been easy to turn violent towards the perpetratorsÖ.this is usually the way these matters are resolved. Rather, I turned inward and started researching to try to understand how the events, below, could have occurred in the first placeÖ..only those who are blind cannot see that we are in a period of enormous transition. The world of the 19th Century, or even many parts of the 20th Century, no longer existÖany yet, many of our current solutions are designed around the premise that they doÖ.with disastrous results! As a result I wrote (or I should say what evolved into) Economic Inclusivsm, as a group of inter-locking solutions which, when applied in concert, will return us to a state of homeostasis. Where our civil liberties are not in jeopardy, and America can return to being a “safe and sane” country in which to live. Many feel that we are spinning out of controlÖand greatly exacerbated by the events of 9-11. We have created an extremely dangerous country in America, by applying solutions which no longer work; which we then spend billions to correct because of our inept solutions! Our insane incarceration rate, just to name one. Marching America towards a Police State, with severely diminished civil liberties, is the product of applying solutions which no longer workÖ.it could not be more wrong as a path for us to followÖ.and yet that is the path we are on! Economic Inclusivism provides solutions to our problems, as they actually exist, in 21st Century America, and is antithetical to a Police State.

The choice is up to usÖ.so long as we are a democracyÖÖ

It would be more accurate for the reader to see this proposed solution as intended to preserve “capitalism” and our fundamental freedoms, rather than an effort to save the poor from starvation (a frequent misinterpretation). Saving the poor from starvation was a consideration in picking the “tools” proposed, here, only to the extent that saving the poor from starvation IS in the best interest of the rich. That is, by PREVENTING our current movement down the path toward one or the other of the two extremes: communism or fascism (our current trend), this solution is in the best interest of rich and poor, alike. In large part, what makes Economic Inclusivism particularly viable is that it is a “win-win” solution. Our current direction, where the rich win and the poor lose is a slippery slope where in time everyone will lose. in short, the ultra-right wing agenda of the Bush administration is a prescription for social disaster.

(Note: this web page does not allow for italicized words, and thus an apology is made, here, to the reader for using caps with some words, throughout, to emphasize a point, where the use of italicized words would have been much preferred. Also, inexplicably, some words have been garbled (hacked)) with punctuation, so please ignore.)










THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB

[Re: THE HARVARD BOYS CLUB, below, two irrefutable facts stand out:

Schwarzer was a Hitler Youth, while growing up in Hitler’s Germany; And, Schwarzer—while as a sitting U.S. District Court Judge---did, in fact, falsify a federal court record with the INTENT to deny to myself certain protected rights under the U.S. Constitution (and to cover-up criminal negligence on the part of the government defendants in the death of our son).

If the question is: Is there a nexus between Schwarzer being a Hitler Youth (his indoctrination with Hitler’s ideas) and his wanton disregard for the U.S. ConstitutionÖthe answer is a resounding YES!

Our claim to “freedom” in America, is only as valid as the certainty of a legal remedy, for each given citizen, if their rights under the U.S. Constitution are violated. Without a legal remedy when our rights are violated, the Bill of Rights becomes a toothless tigerÖ.much ado about nothingÖ.a country that is free in name onlyÖi.e., a country that is not free! Schwarzer did not invalidate just my freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, he invalidated yours too, the "equal protection" clause precludes any other conclusion! If I don’t have rights in America, neither do YOU!]

America is f----d up. We need to change. The following changes need to be made: This case regards the grotesque, and obvious, violation of a citizen’s legal rights under the U.S. Constitution, under the Bill of Rights, the effect of which adversely affected the healthcare of a small child. The child died. In an effort to cover up criminal negligence on the part of the government defendants, and to prevent the Constitution from being applied as written, a Federal Judge falsified the court recordÖÖand in the process he threw the Bill of Rights, for every citizen, into an incinerator....

"Excellent, excellent. A fine blend of truths, half-truths, and blatant falsehoods." A reprint from The NEW YORKER, in the archives of the U.S. Supreme Court. For background on why this "cartoon" is on file at the Court, see below.
:
IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT IN THE DEATH OF A JOURNALIST’S SON, AS A RESULT OF RETALIATION FOR HIS/HER WRITINGS (THE EXACT SAME FACTS AS HERE); IN PAST YEARS, EVERY JOURNALIST IN AMERICA WOULD BE WRITING TO ASSERT THEIR OUTRAGE OVER THIS ABRIDGEMENT OF THE FIRST AMEMDMENT. [THUS RAISING THE QUESTION: WHAT FURTHER PROOF DO WE NEED THAT AMERICA HAS BECOME A POLICE STATE, WITH A COWARDLY PRESS [or as Michael Moore averred, a press that is just plain “lazy"] AND A RELATIVE RATHER THAN ABSOLUTE FIRST AMENDMENT?]

Chapter One

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS:

"It is little wonder that truth is stranger than fiction, afterall, fiction has to make sense." Mark Twain

WHAT FOLLOWS is a personal odyssey when the Plaintiff in a civil rights action accidentally stumbled into the inner-workings of the dangerous police state agenda by elements of the extreme right [our current political agenda]. The following is documented by court records and historical events:

In writing judicial decisions, most judges set aside a part of the document to outline those facts which are not in dispute. The following are the undisputed facts regarding a U.S. District Court case, currently on file in the Northern District Of California, in San Francisco: Docket No. C 77 0307 WWS--NDC:

U.S. District Court Judge William W Schwarzer, to whom this case was assigned, is the only federal judge in America to have been born in Berlin, Germany (4/30/25) and to have spent his formative years under the adverse influence of the Third Reich.

Federal Judge Schwarzer falsely reported the facts in his Decision in the above case, with the INTENT to vacate a U.S. citizen's protected legal rights, and to sidestep specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the first such fraud in American history. [judges frequently “bend” the law to fit their own political persuasion, but lying to make the law inoperable is “breaking” the law, a distinction as different as night and day. And this fraud is infinitely magnified since it regards the Bill of Rights, and gives a whole new meaning to the nonsensical propaganda by the Ultra-right regarding “liberal activists judges”. Enforcing the Bill of Rights is not a “liberal” idea ].

Unlike other types of fraud, this fraud created a "legal imperative". Because of his position in our government, Federal Judge Schwarzer's fraud has the effect of throwing the Bill of Rights into an incinerator.

Once we accept that it is OK for a federal judge to use fraud as a tactic to vacate protected constitutional rights for U.S. citizens, where do we then draw a line saying it is not OK? When the loss of our constitutional freedoms reaches our neighbor on the left, or our neighbor on the right? As any good attorney will confirm, this precedent has the potential to eat away at the Bill of Rights like a cancer. It is the fact that this potential exists that makes it so dangerous. Every federal judge in America is now free to use this same tactic to diminish our constitutional freedoms, with impunity. The minute Federal Judge Schwarzer committed this fraud to paper, he destroyed the Bill of Rights in America. This fraud is not permissible..not once, not ever.

By lying, Schwarzer was also covering up ciminal negligence on the part of the government defendants in this action, in the death of our six year old son.

These facts are not in dispute. In a letter from Simon Wiesenthal, in Vienna, Austria, he has argued for mitigation (1), and cited that Hitler Youth were not to be prosecuted under the terms of the Nuremberg Trials (1945-46). On the side of mitigation, it could be argued that Schwarzer is the innocent victim of an indoctrination with Hitler’s ideas as a Hitler Youth (Schwarzer was 14 when his family moved from Germany in 1938; membership in the Hitler Youth was compulsory after 1936). On the other hand, why on Earth would anyone with this background be appointed to the federal bench?
(1) In his two-page letter, Mr. Wiesenthal strongly suggested that Judge Schwarzer was Jewish, or of Jewish heritage, when he stated that it was against Germany morality for non-Jewish Germans to leave Germany at that time (1938). Frankly, it never occurred to me that Schwarzer should be prosecuted as a war criminal, but rather that his fraud should be exposed, and reversed, so as to prevent the potential danger it presented to our Bill of Rights. (Albeit, an effort to prosecute Schwarzer as a war criminal, even if unsuccessful, would certainly bring his fraud to light and result in a reversal).

Perhaps, because of his indoctrination in a government where civil liberties were non-existent, Schwarzer saw his fraud as little different than cheating on a golf score; but the reality regarding the above entitled action, is that Hitler, by some insidious grip on history, has been able to contaminate the U.S. Constitution with his fascist ideas, from his grave..specifically the demise of individual civil liberties.

Further, there are other inexplicable actions on the part of U.S. Government officials, at the highest levels of our government, in Schwarzer’s ascendancy to the federal bench. In the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Schwarzer was named to be the senior legal counsel to the PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE CIA ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES (The Rockefeller Commission). This appointment was made by then President, Jerry Ford, and at the behest of CIA Director George H.W. Bush.

As senior legal counsel to this commission, Schwarzer was in a position to control information on items the Commission set down for itself to review and, the Commission did, in fact, decide to again review the Kennedy Assassination. This commission was set in motion to quell a public clamor for an investigation into CIA abuses by the Nixon Administration. During the Watergate hearings, the public learned that Nixon had used the CIA to spy on American citizens and to use this information to his own political ends. To assuage the public outrage, Ford set up the commission, and placed it under the name of his then vice president, Rockefeller (who was held in high esteem by the public). Ford and Bush then set up the commission so as to defeat its intended purpose and keep the public in the dark by naming Schwarzer [and those of like-mind] as the gatekeeper. (also, it should be of more than passing interest that the reforms which did result by Congress passing the Foreign Intelligence Sureveillance Act (FISA)in 1978, as a direct result of the Rockefeller Commission, and limited as they were, to prevent unlawful intrusion into the private lives of American citizens, have been all but erased, post 9-11, by the very same right-wing clique which caused the abuses in the first place, and evident by Bush's admission in December 2005, that he conducted illegal wiretaps on Americans [without a warrant], in direct violation of FISA!).

In August 1976, and as an obvious payoff for his work on the commission, Ford named Schwarzer to be a U.S. District Court Judge in spite of the fact that he was not a U.S. citizen by birth (and in deference to the many highly qualified judicial candidates who were born in America) and in spite of the fact that Schwarzer had no prior judicial experience whatsoever! Six months later, the above case was assigned to Schwarzer. In 1990, then President Bush, elevated Schwarzer to the coveted Directorship of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. In March, 1995, this organization published the document "Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts". A frightening prospect, given that Schwarzer sees nothing wrong with using fraud to vacate U.S. Citizen's protected constitutional freedoms. Indeed, the real reason behind the desperate struggle to re-capture the White House by tarnishing Clinton was to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologues, the most recent of course being Pickering and Miguel Estrada, to carry out the “Plan”!

The proof of this was never more evident than when Bush made a plea, just before the 2002 election, for immediate confirmation of the right-wing ideologues he wishes to appoint to the Federal Bench, and currently before the Senate for confirmation. (Post election, Bush said that he was restoring Pickering for appointment,in spite of his earlier rejection by the Senate for being anti-civil rights).It is obvious by their vote in this election, most Americans simply do not see that controlling the Federal Bench is the KEY to turning America into a Police State, and the demise of our freedoms in America! Thus we must not see Schwarzer's fraud, and federal judges of like mind, as an insignificant footnote, but rather of compelling public importance to Americans!

Upon his retirement last year, Schwarzer was given glowing praise for his work on the federal bench from his personal friend Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist (even though Rehnquist knew of his fraud).

The federal judiciary is that thin black line that stands between our freedoms in America and a tyrannical dictatorship. The historical role of the federal courts is to be the "guardian" of our constitutional rights.

Given the crucial role of the Federal Courts to our continued freedom in America, on April 18, 1984, I filed a Complaint For Fraud against Federal Judge Schwarzer, at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Five days after this case was filed, on April 23, 1984, Federal Judge Vukasin, to whom the case was assigned, entered an Order of Recusal, stepping aside from hearing the case.

For the next several months the case floated unassigned.
I could not approach the bench with a motion; there was no judge to approach.

Most importantly, however, Judge Vukasin's Order of Recusal was confirmation that Schwarzer had, in fact, used fraud to deprive a U.S. citizen of his civil rights. The federal judiciary is notorious for dismissing cases as "frivolous" at the drop of a hat, and on the slimmest of evidence, if they have any basis whatsoever to do so. And particularly where the judiciary, itself, is being questioned. The mere absence of an immediate dismissal of the Complaint as "frivolous" provides substantive proof that the fraud complaint against Judge Schwarzer is meritorious.

Federal Judge Schwarzer used fraud as a tactic to vacate a U.S. citizen's protected Constitutional rightsÖthis is an undisputed fact.

Chapter Two

MORE FACTS....

"It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong." Voltaire

Suddenly, on July 6, 1984, a case which it appeared might float unassigned foreverÖ. Had to be disposed of immediately! The Clerk of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, called me at work to advise that the hearing had been scheduled for 10AM on the morning of July 12, 1984, allowing for less than a week to prepare. The request for even a few days continuance to adjust around my work schedule, was expressly denied. The Clerk advised that James Browning, then Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had named a Senior Federal Judge from Portland, Oregon to hear the case, and that he would fly down on the morning of the 12th of July.

San Francisco was a beehive of activity on the morning of July 12, 1984Ö.with 20,000 extra reporters in town, and the frantic efforts to put the final touches on the city for the opening of the Democratic National Convention, on July 16, 1984. An FBI agent stood next to the U.S. Attorney, who flipped open his coat to let me know he was wearing a gun and that he was ready to blow me to Kingdom Come if I made a false moveÖ..all I was armed with was wordsÖ..

On July 16, 1984Ö.the same day the Democratic National Convention opened, Senior Federal Judge Belloni, from Portland, rendered his Decision. Judge Belloni dismissed the case on the premise that Schwarzer could not be sued for "money damages".

Inexplicably, however, Belloni did not go on to make a finding that the Complaint For Fraud that had been brought against Schwarzer was without merit. Such a ruling was essential to answer the Complaint and also to remove the stain raised by this Complaint. It was a glaring omission and added even further proof that the charge of fraud (a criminal offense) brought against Schwarzer is true; and that Schwarzer had, in fact, lied to vacate a U.S. citizen's protected Constitutional rights.

Another interesting aside, at one point during the many months when the case was floating unassigned, I went to the U.S. Attorney’s Office with a document of some kind (I don’t recall what now) . The receptionist apparently thought I was an attorney, and led me through the honeycomb of offices to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. There was a large gathering of attorneys in his office, and they were discussing this case. The U.S. Attorney became flushed with anger at the receptionist, and he took both of us by the arm, one of us on each side, and led us back to the reception desk. At that point he held his hand up over my head and said to the receptionist in an angered tone “Don’t ever let this person in here again!” As the U.S. Attorney knew well, he should have been prosecuting rather than defending Schwarzer.

As fate would have it, and perhaps known to the FBI and to the federal judiciary, my cousin, Fred Brown, was the Democratic National Committeeman for the State of Kansas and was at the convention in San Francisco. With a petition signed by 200 Delegates to the convention, I could have addressed the convention, and exposed this egregious fraud, and tightly held secret by the federal judiciary, to the rest of the nation (unfortunately, I became aware of this procedure only much later). Indeed, perhaps it was in anticipation of this scenario that caused someone in the judiciary to panic and to force the dismissal of this action on an urgent schedule. Just 10 days earlier, it appeared they were satisfied to let this case float unassigned forever.

On the night of Wednesday, July 18, 1984, my cousin was finally able to get extra tickets so that I could attend the convention. For the great majority who have been spared this experience, it is total chaos. It was a great evening to attend, however, and it was the evening Mondale accepted the nomination and made history by naming Geraldine Ferraro as the first female candidate for Vice President.

The tickets for admission on to the convention floor were embedded with a holograph and perforated along the bottom for a quick detach. The ticket was to be worn around the neck at all times. The tab at the bottom contained certain basic personal information, including the party who arranged for admission (in this case my cousin); and the ticket was designed so that the tab at the bottom could be easily removed by convention authorities and the information quickly telegraphed to police authorities in the event of any hostile or aggressive behavior.

Also, the color of the ticket one received provided a quick reference to convention authorities as to how far one was permitted to advance on the convention floor. For instance, I was given a delegate's ticket, which placed my point of advancement pretty far back from the podium (it appears that politicians are not all that trusting of the delegatesÖ). My cousin, on the other hand, had a ticket which permitted him to actually walk on to the podium, had he had reason to be there. All of us civil types, of course, welcomed, rather than resented, this convention structure given the history of violence in America.

Having had a couple of days to plan and having good reason to be cynical about the system and a corrupt judiciary, I took certain steps to expose this fraud before going to the convention, which gave no little concern that I could be arrested.

Earlier in the day, on July 18, 1984, I took my cousin and his wife out to lunch in Sausalito. Throughout the lunch I had planned to lay out the case I had filed in federal court and explain the danger to the Bill of Rights by leaving Judge Schwarzer's fraud on the books. But, as this very pleasant lunch went on, I just couldn't get out the words "I sued a federal judge for fraud"; and an inner voice told me that if I did, I would damn sure not be attending the Convention that evening.

In preparation for attending the convention, I had prepared 500, one- page leaflets entitled "IS THE AMERICAN PRESS DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND?" It has been my contention for many years, and I am even more convinced, given the Monica nonsense, that the American press has lost its way. The constitutional basis for a "free" press is to warn the American people when their constitutional freedoms are in jeopardy; and few cases could better underscore the need for this constitutional protection of our freedoms. When the press drifts from their constitutional mandate, however, then the American people have lost the benefit of having a "free" press and could well result in losing our freedoms. Unfortunately, the press today is about making money..period.. and the indifference to the issues raised in this case, alone, is consummate proof.

The temporary tent set up outside of the Marcone Convention Center, where guests to the Democratic National Convention received their tickets, was filled with security types, as my cousin stood next to me to assist in getting a ticket. This was no place to have been carrying a ream of leaflets calling the American press deaf, dumb and blind; and I left the box for same in the trunk of my car.

The chaos on the convention floor actually assisted in my plan to deliver a copy of my leaflet to every press booth in the convention hall, no easy task under any circumstances, and in a situation where it seemed there were more press booths than newspapers in America.

About an hour into the festivities, I excused myself to go get a Coke and hot dog. Given the long lines, this assured my cover for at least an hour. Instead of getting refreshments, however, I walked to my car, about two blocks away, and retrieved the leaflets from the trunk. I had thought ahead, a bit, and had limited the documentation to one page, thus avoiding staples which might have set off the metal detectors when I returned to the convention hall.

There was a multi-stage security checking system at the entrance to the hall, which, given the history of violence against our political leaders in America, is an understood and expected requirement at these type of events. I slid the typing paper box on to the conveyor belt so that it could be x-rayed. I tried to look like what I was doing was “normal” (albeit, it was anything but normal..the protestors were a safe two blocks away..out of shouting range of the festivities); and I was not sure what would happen. I worried how I would explain to my cousin, if I had been arrested. I considered that they might not allow me to bring the box into the convention center at all, or worse prevent me from re-entering the convention. My nerves were shot. After several nervous moments as the box passed through the x-ray machine, and the other x-ray equipment revealed I had no weapons on my person, they handed the box back to me. I am convinced, in retrospect, that our personal appearance goes a long way in these security checking profiles (students frequently remark that I have a resemblance to Leslie Nielsen and like him or not, I just didn't fit the stereotype of a mad bomber, etc.).

With box and contents in tow, I took the elevator and headed to the upper levels of the convention center, looking for press booths. The search was short-lived, and in each case I tried to leave a copy of my document in the "IN BOX" in each press booth, if I could find one. In some cases I would hand the paper directly to a reporter, such as the New York Times, etc. The paper documented that Judge Schwarzer had used fraud to vacate a U.S. citizen's protected constitutional rights (the most dangerous crime there is to a "free" country), and that federal judges at the highest levels of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, for what ever their reasons, were trying to cover up this fraud, the Bill of Rights be damned!

The paper included the docket number of the case and my home telephone number so that follow-up to the charges could be readily investigated.

From the top level of the convention hall I worked my way down, a floor at a time. It seemed like a million miles of cable covered the floor of the convention hall so that not even one word of this historic event would be missed. But what could be more important to a free country than the fact that Hitler's ideas (whether by accident or design) had been used to undermine in the U.S. Constitution? Was anyone listeningÖ..

Back on the convention floor, I handed a copy to Sam Donaldson. I had the sense of having invaded his "royal presence", and as the "year of Monica" has shown us, Sam is out for Sam. If it smells like money for himself and ABC, Sam is interested; but protecting the individual civil liberties of ordinary citizens, forget it!

Seeking the "status quo", or "don't rock the boat", seems by far to be the standard followed by our "free" press, apparently no matter how egregious the crime against our individual freedoms. Our Bill of Rights are hedged in such a manner so as to guarantee the preservation of all of our freedoms. We have free speech [First Amendment] to complain if a court denies our right to a jury trial [Seventh Amendment] and a free press [First Amendment] to expose this judicial corruption, etc. But if apathy or money or whatever renders this process inoperable, then woe be to us, for we will not be free much longer; and in the aftermath of the events of 9-11-01, it should be clear that our civil liberties are tenuous, indeed.

Shortly after the dismissal of the Complaint For Fraud, I appealed to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and the case was assigned to Anthony Kennedy. Judge Kennedy quickly signed an Order closing the case against Schwarzer "with prejudice", which, in legal terms, means the case for "fraud" cannot again be brought against Judge Schwarzer.

Appealing this matter to the U.S. Supreme Court in a fruitless effort to seek a judicial remedy was not new, and five times between the late '70s to mid-80s this case was on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court (each a monumental task in itself). At the behest of the high court, in an earlier filing, however, they demanded that I print the petition (at no small cost, as compared to sending a typed copy). In my Petition for Rehearing (which is automatic), after the Court denied certiorari, I incorporated a "cartoon" reprint from New Yorker magazine (see above). The Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court did not take well to this reprint, and called me at my office in California and asked that I withdraw the "cartoon" from my petition. I refused, of course, and the "cartoon" remains in the archives of the U.S. Supreme Court, to this day.

As a brief follow-up, in 1988, when Anthony Kennedy was named to the U.S. Supreme Court, by then President Reagan, I complained as loudly as I could to the powers that be in the senate confirmation hearings, regarding his unwillingness to remand this matter for a jury trial (i.e., that he was covering up this fraud, a criminal offense). My complaints fell on deaf ears. Also, it seems of more than a passing interest that Kennedy served on the Board of Directors at the Federal Judicial Center (as noted above, senior Bush named Schwarzer to be the Director of the Federal Judicial Center, in 1990). As we all know, now, it was Justice Kennedy who spearheaded the action to shut down the vote counting in Florida (that Saturday was Kennedy’s “duty” day at the Court), thus guaranteeing the High Court’s appointment of George W. to the Presidency in the 2000 presidential electionÖ.our democratic form of electing presidents be damned!

To illustrate the significance of Kennedy’s appointment, the following is a very possible scenario, had Kennedy not been confirmed by the Senate for covering up Schwarzer’s fraud in the above matter: The votes in Florida are counted and as everyone knowsÖ.Al Gore is elected President. The debt is paid down to the benefit of all Americans, and America is spared the same disastrous policies used during the Reagan Administration, which almost destroyed our country. President Gore actually listened to our counter-terrorist office when he was warned on August 6, 2001, of an imminent airline attack, and to Mossad (Israel’s CIA) with the same warning, and 9-11 was foiledÖ.it never happened. The house of cards known as the Enron Corporation, collapsed from the efficacy of its own pyramid schemeÖ.on schedule. Several of the now Cabinet members in the Bush Administration, including Dick Cheney, are indicted as co-conspirators in this scheme. In short, America was not set on its current perilous course, because our politicians actually listened to the electorate.

The name "The Harvard Boys Club", incidentally, was coined from the fact that Anthony Kennedy, William Schwarzer, and Douglas Hickling (the government official who was criminally negligent in our son's deathÖand Defendant in the above cited action) were all graduates of Harvard Law School, and all fellow members of the Olympic Club, a private men's club in San Francisco. Indeed, those with a long memory will remember the public uproar re Kennedy's membership at the Olympic Club (because of its racist policies and anti-semantic practices), and Kennedy had to resign and publicly denounce his membership in the Olympic Club.

A couple of anecdotal asides, at one point two “men in black” came into my office (I owned a real estate office in Hayward, California, at the time), ostensibly to get a paper notarized. These were large, imposing guys who were literally dressed in black suitsÖ.they just didn’t look like my usual clients. While one distracted me with the notary request, the other walked around my office, opening closets and walking into the back room. Startled by this intrusive conduct, I stood up and said “What the Hell do you think you’re doing?” Obviously, my better judgment should have deferred to their size, and it was clear that they felt they were above answering this question. The other then reached in his pocket and pulled out two crumpled dollar bills and dropped them on my desk (the usual, although not necessarily the cost of notarizing a document— but an inner voice told me this was no time to haggle over price).

My real estate office was really a front for carrying on my crusade against Schwarzer (although I had a small real estate business), and I kept the copy machine busy cranking out documents about ignoring the danger in Schwarzer’s fraud. As if being let in on a gag, although the atmosphere was very tense, I handed each a copy of “Is The American Press Deaf, Dumb and Blind”Ö.as I looked towards the door, and indicated ( very politely, of course) that they should leave and that I was not fooled by their unlawful intrusion. To this day I do not know if they were FBI, CIA, the MafiaÖ.but about one thing I am absolutely certain, they were not there to get a paper notarized.

At one point, during an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, I flew to Washington D.C. I had been corresponding with Carl Stern, then Law Correspondent For NBC News in DC, who covered the Court. My meeting with Mr. Stern at the NBC studios on Kansas Avenue, was a surprise to both us (to this day I do not know why in the Hell I thought at the time an ordinary citizen could influence the Court to hear a case). Mr. Stern was very courteous and took me back to his office, which to my surprise, and as with all of the Correspondents, wasn’t much larger than a closet. Most of their work, of course, was carried on from remote locations. I sat quietly as he made several follow-up calls to government agencies, on pending cases. He then looked at me with a wry smile and said “Damn bureaucrats.” (Which, ironically, he became, and admirably represented, during the Clinton administration).

It has always been a mystery to me that the gravity of Schwarzer’s fraud, and the danger to the Bill of Rights, which affects all of us, simply is not generally understood, and why the current management at NBC and the other major networks prefer to sweep attacks on our civil liberties under the rug. They prefer instead to take the position this as something that happened to my family, and that is too bad, but what does this have to do with the rest of America? It has EVERYTHING to do with anyone who is an American citizen! Perhaps we so take our freedoms for granted in America, we lose sight of the fact that there are forces in America who would burn the Bill of Rights (our individual freedoms) in a second if they could get away with it....and that is the danger to ALL of us in ignoring Schwarzer's fraud in this case. Every member of the federal judiciary who was in a position to reverse Schwarzer, and did not do so, is in violation of their oath to "support and defend" the U.S. Constitution, and should be impeached!

Mr. Stern gave me a ride back to Lafayette Circle so that I could catch the Metro back to my hotel. In our casual conversation, it seems that one of his twin sons had broken his arm and he was concerned with the outrageous medical bill he had been sent. He also counseled that I was dealing with a “Club”, which contributed to the title of this paper. I would only add that Carl Stern is one of our most distinguished newscasters, and his article in The Responsive Community [type in Carl Stern via Google] is must reading on the subject of responsible journalism.

Chapter Three

THE UNDERLYING FACTS....

It is a curse, not a blessing to be creative in a police state - Albert Einstein

It is difficult to pick an exact point at which the seeds for Economic Inclusivism started fermenting (albeit a name unique to this program was light-years away)Ö..but it would probably be the Fall of 1969, only a few months before Christopher was born. We had just moved from Kansas to Golden, Colorado, where I took employment with the Jefferson County Juvenile Court. Some have marked November 22, 1963, as the day "we lost our innocenceÖ.."Öand if this odyssey revealed anything, it is that our system is seriously broken Ö.and that we are in dire need of systemic change.

When we moved to Golden, Colorado, we had never heard of Rocky Flats Ö.a plutonium manufacturing plant run by Dow Chemical, some ten miles away. On May 11, 1969, only a few months earlier, the plutonium spontaneously ignited, and a fourth of the plant burned to the ground. Indeed, the public statements by the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), were very publicly soothing and held that no "significant" levels of plutonium were released into the atmosphereÖ.but studies conducted by the government (not released to the public), revealed an unusually high number of deformed cattle started turning upÖ.as well as accelerated cancer rates, and fibrosis of the lungs, in laboratory animal experiments.

We did not learn the devastating details of this fire until several years later when we were living in California. Quite by accident the subject came up, when a physicist friend started explaining what really happened at Rocky Flats. What we learned is that during the fire the plutonium formed into tiny crystals which not only saturated the ground downwind from the plant, but also became airborne, and that an unknown quantity of plutonium was lost.

We also learned that while the AEC was playing down the danger of the fire at Rocky FlatsÖat the same time they were quietly placing wind receptors around the Denver area to detect the levels of contamination. Another factor was the periodic "Chinook Winds" which came racing down the canyon above Boulder on a direct path across this plant and into Denver, sometimes reaching 100 MPHÖand thus making the control of these tiny plutonium crystals impossible.

The Rocky Flats plant is now closedÖand begs the question why on Earth would anyone build a plant that dangerous downwind from a major metropolitan area? It defies human logicÖ.we live in the antithesis of the Age of Reason.

In January of 1970, still uninformed by the government of the potential danger at the time, we purchased a home in Arvada, Colorado, a suburb north of Denver (which placed us even closer to Rocky Flats). Christopher, along with our two older children, April and Tod, moved into our new home , following his birth on January 20, 1970.

During the first couple of years, Christopher was a healthy, normal childÖ..with no symptoms of any illnesses. Just before his second birthday, however, Christopher became desperately ill and he had to be hospitalized. He remained in the hospital For 17 daysÖbut something was terribly wrong. Even upon his release he had trouble breathingÖ.and this led to several invasive diagnostic tests including a lung biopsy and heart catheterization.

In their puzzlement, Christopher was transferred to the University of Colorado Medical Center in Denver. Following the lung biopsy the lab tests revealed that Christopher had fibrous tissue in his lungsÖ.not Cystic FibrosisÖ.but rather fibrosis from an unknown source. The medical doctors at the University of Colorado Medical Center diagnosed Christopher’s illness as: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. As noted, due to the government’s suppression of the scientific studies which revealed the information reported, above, it was not until several years later that we learned that there may be a possible nexus between Christopher’s illness and Rocky Flats. In 1975 the AEC was abolished as a result of Rocky Flats, resulting in creation of the U.S. Department of Energy, and currently the Energy Department.

Regardless of the source of his illness, given the oxygen-starved altitude in Denver, the only therapy the doctors could offer was to place Christopher on oxygen 24 hours a day. His doctors urged us to move to sea level as soon as possible. I immediately went to California, hopefully to find employment in my chosen profession as a probation officer.

The Doctors in Colorado recommended San Francisco, San Diego, Boston or New Orleans, given the dual criteria that these cities had excellent medical facilities as well as being at sea level. I readily passed the Civil Service Exam for Probation Officers in Alameda County, California (a suburb of San Francisco), and from the date Christopher was first diagnosed, until we were living in California, was less than six months.

We must have looked like a scene out of the Grapes Of Wrath, as we trekked along at dusk on the high plateau which separates the Rocky Mountain and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges; with a U-Haul truck pulling our family car, and my wife in the second car, pulling our boat. We sang, in unison, “We ain’t got a barrel of moneyÖ..” A constant source of oxygen for Christopher, however, was a concern in this sparsely populated region in the event of car trouble or an unexpected delay. It was an enormous relief when we finally reached the more oxygen-rich sea level in California, and we shouted out each thousand foot marker "4,000, 3,000, 2000, 1000" as we descended down the mountain towards Sacramento.

The officials in Alameda County were fully aware that our move to California was on an emergency basis to seek medical treatment for Christopher. Alameda County, incidentally, is one of the largest counties in the U.S., with a population and annual budget larger than some of our states. A doctor at the University of San Francisco Medical School felt that our only real solution was a lung transplant, which at that time was more akin to science fiction, than medical reality, and had never been tried.

The real blessing, however, is that at sea level, Christopher, could get around without the constant need for oxygen, and for the first couple of yearsÖ.we moved back to an almost normal family existence, save for Christopher’s periodic need for hospitalization. At work, I became a “tenured” employee and was rated by my supervisor as "exceeding the requirements" for my work.

Also, I was elected to be on the board of directors with the Trans-Bay Probation Officers Association; and given my creative bent, I designed a statistical program for combining the pre-sentence report with a statistical gathering apparatus, so that we in Corrections could implement programs which would actually prevent future crime. Entitled B.R.I.D.G.E. (and not unmindful of the Golden Gate) the full name was Basic Research In Design, Growth and Education.

I did not see it at the time, but any program which might actually solve our crime problem in America is perceived as a threat to the great majority in Corrections (there are a few exceptions, very few); and thus in hindsight it is a sad fact but the last person the American people should call upon to help solve our insidious crime problem is our “experts”, because they are not interested in preventing crime! Indeed, the more crime the better, regardless of their statements to the contrary, because in their twisted perception this might cost them their “job”, and irrespective of how many innocent persons are killed by their indifference! [To illustrate the point, and not to get too far ahead of myself, when Texas was floating bonds in the early 90’s in preparation for the largest prison building spree in American history, a chief probation officer admonished his staff “Now you will want to vote for these bond issues because it will mean more jobs for us”! When FBI statistics reported an increase in crime in Texas, last year, it was obvious that this massive prison building program was not the solution, but in this “small-minded” mind-set, actually trying to make America safer is not even on the table!]

In spite of the successes during our first two years in California, both as regards Christopher and at work, there was a problem with “low morale” in the Alameda County Probation Department and the administration solicited and encouraged suggestions from staff, ostensibly to correct the problem. Given my mid-western upbringing, my response was the same as stopping to help a neighbor fix a flat tire. In retrospect, the administration’s true agenda was to find a scapegoat to blame, and thus deflect the problem away from their poor management.

In response to their solicitation, I prepared a memorandum outlining four constructive suggestions which I felt would help to alleviated the problem of low morale among staff. I submitted the memorandum, and then left for a three week vacation and family reunion in Kansas.

When I returned, I was confronted by the office supervisor and told if I did not immediately withdraw the memorandum that I would be fired on the spotÖ.I was given the lunch hour to think it over. The suggestions were singularly constructive, and included such innocuous suggestions as the creation of a “floating clerical position” to help alleviate the probation officer’s paperwork ( a major source of low morale). As I found out later, they found this suggestion to be particularly threatening to their authority. They preferred to see probation officers as children (even though a degree was an employment requirement). I had Christopher's welfare to considerÖand his hospitalization plan was critical to our medical options.

But withdrawing the memorandum, (not only in total deference to rational human thought, but also in violation of the first amendment) was not a solutionÖ..I learned you cannot make peace with persons who are evil. I was transferred to a hostile supervisor, and denied transfer to another department. Over the next six months, they tried to create a paper case against my work, in complete deference to my earlier excellent evaluations. It is difficult to fathom the depravity of the small-minded and the evil, but being the cowards that they were, and knowing full well that this was "blacklisting", they called my wife on Christmas Eve, to tell her I was fired, they didn’t have the guts to tell me to my face.

The U. S. Supreme Court set down the “due process” law under the United States Constitution, for "tenured" employees under this exact circumstance [ARNETT v KENNEDY, 1974] . The High Court ruled that a tenured employee has a “property” interest in continued employment, and thus is entitled to “due process” under the 14th Amendment. Specifically, this “due process” included: The right to a pre-termination copy of the written charges upon which the termination is based; compliance by the agency with their applicable “rules and regulations” ("due process" by definition); and the right to a “speedy” post-termination civil service hearing.

I immediately appealed for a civil service hearing. Their “rules and regulations” mandated that the hearing "must commence within 10 working days of the filing of an appeal, and to be concluded as quickly as possible". In Fact: the start of the hearing was delayed for over three months (so they could prepare their “charges”Ö.a major complaint was that my “handwriting is poor”); and the agency dragged the hearing on without resolution for almost three years (the longest in California history)! Christopher passed away a year after the hearing started, two days after his sixth birthday. During that year my hair changed from dark brown to almost gray due to the agency's INTENTIONAL delays (because they did not have a justification for this termination)!

No rational person could conclude that this was a “speedy” hearing, and Schwarzer lied when he ruled, by Summary Judgment, in Federal Civil Rights Case: C-77-0307-WWS, that the government officials “complied with their Rules and Regulations” (1). When Schwarzer lied by stating that the applicable "due process" law had been "complied" with, he also rendered the U.S. Constitution feckless! This ruling is a blatant fraud, with far-reaching implications: First, it vacated our right to a jury trial, where we could have a fair hearing on the facts [a Seventh Amendment right], and a subsequent legal remedy against the Defendants. Most significantly, however, this fraud was intended to negate our Constitutional rights as U.S. Citizens! IF we don’t have constitutional rights, neither does any other citizen in America (the “equal protection” clause allows for no other conclusion). The net effect of Schwarzer’s fraud was to vacate our citizenship, as U.S. citizensÖ.which is all the more remarkable given the fact that Schwarzer is a product of Hitler’s Germany. Had Schwarzer told the truth when he made this ruling (that the Defendant’s had “not complied”), he would have had no choice but to apply the remedy required by law under the Constitution.
(1) To state, as a matter of fact, that the government officials violated (rather than complied) with their “rules and regulations” sounds pretty innocuousÖ.but these were not mere “rules and regulations”Ö..in this instance, these were LEGAL RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONÖ.a fact Schwarzer was FULLY aware of! Further, Schwarzer was FULLY aware that the violation of a citizen’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, in this instance, held the potential for a direct and adverse impact on the healthcare of a small child, and thus, by their failure to comply the government officials were criminally negligence in the death of this child!

Given the circumstances of Christopher’s illness, it was a grotesque lie!

Criminal Negligence is defined in the law as a wanton disregard for how a reasonable and prudent person would act under like circumstances. Federal Judge Schwarzer also lied to cover up the Defendant’s Criminal Negligence, in Christopher’s death. If the Defendants had complied with the Bill of Rights, the "due process" set down by the high court, Christopher might still be alive.

In his book, “Freedom Inside The Organization”, Dr. David Ewing penned, “Employee rights are like a black hole in space, so impacted by tradition that light can barely escape.” In the 24 years since Dr. Ewing made that observation, workplace violence has escalated into an almost daily occurrence because of our unwillingness to place our newest civil rights movement on the table so that we can discuss “problem solving” solutions.

Indeed, as I write this Michael McDermott is on trial for murdering seven of his fellow co-workers, and incidents of workplace violence in the U.S. Postal Service have been too numerous to cite individually; just to name those which have become notorious, and in deference to the hundreds of incidents of workplace violence, per U.S. Department of Labor statistics, which go unreported by the media every year. By our indifference to this new movement, the message to the American worker is quite clear: If you have a grievance, become violent, otherwise the media will pay no mind to your grievance. It is clearly the wrong message, and highly irresponsible on the part of the press to send this message. I am quite sure that if I were a violent person, I would be in prison in California, as a result of the events above, but I would be remiss in denying that I had violent thoughts.

To those who still do not see the larger picture. The violation of a citizen's constitutional rights is a DAMAGE, irrespective of any other injuries. But unlike other situations where persons are damaged, such as a result of medical malpractice, an auto accident, etc., if the courts will not provide a REMEDY when our constitutional rights are violated, then our Bill of Rights become worthless, of no value. And it is on the strength of this single fact, ALONE, the absolute assurance that we have a legal REMEDY when our constitutional rights are violated, that allows Americans to claim that we are a free people. It is our ONLY basis for our claiming that we are free!
Absent a legal REMEDY, the Bill of Rights is reduced to a toothless tiger, meaninglessÖ.and it is this tiny thread, ALONE, that protects our 290 million Americans from a tyrannical dictatorship! We have nothing else. I did not declare what my constitutional rights are in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court did.

IN SUMMATION: This case regards INTENT on the part of a government agency to cause the death of an employee’s son, as retaliation against the employee for having written an internal memorandum addressing the problem of low morale in the department. The proof of this INTENT is evident by the agency’s GROTESQUE AND INEXPLICABLE violation of the employee’s constitutional rights, set down by the U.S. Supreme Court in ARNETT V KENNEDY (1974). To cover up the agency’s CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in the death of this child, and to keep these facts out of the “hands of a jury” (the judge’s own words), Federal Judge William W Schwarzer falsified the court record, with the INTENT to render the employee’s constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights of every other citizen in America, WORTHLESS,! Which is all the more remarkable given that Schwarzer is a product of Hitler’s Germany.

[The employer knew in this case that the employee’s son was gravely ill, and required periodic hospitalizations. Even if an employee is charged with murder, the employer would not be justified in canceling the employee’s hospitalization plan if there was even an outside possibility this could adversely affect this child’s health care. Common decency, alone, dictates that arrangements would be made in the interest of this child’s healthcare. IN THIS CASE, however, the hospitalization plan was INTENTIONALLY canceled as RETALIATION against the employee for having written a memorandum the employer inexplicably perceived as “threatening their authority”. When Schwarzer lied to keep these facts out of “hands of a jury”, he removed any doubt that he is a Nazi! A fundamental premise in Nazi dogma is that “democracies” erred by treating all of their populace as “citizens”. And history has well documented the result in the scourge of the holocaust, when Jews were denied citizenship under Hitler. The point, here, being that Schwarzer, being fully indoctrinated in Nazi dogma, did not see me as a “citizen”, and thus what happened to myself and my family, to him, didn’t happen, or was irrelevant. His actions provide consummate proof that he is a Nazi!]

As further evidence paste to browser: http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm

The bottom line is:

This case is about Freedom, mine and YOUR FREEDOM.

While there is a copyright (TX-5-634-932) on the materials, here, permission will be readily granted to circulate freely. For further information please contact at: jgreen5@satx.rr.com

Chapter Four

A Post Script....

ADDENDUM: To my friends in academe

Most thinking persons agree that what humans most want is a "safe and sane" world in which to live, i.e., not only a safe environment in which to live and raise their children, but one that makes sense. Contemporary art such as a Clockwork Orange, and comic George Carlin seem to have best tapped into the proliferating insanity of modern life, and our growing discontent.

There are major forces afoot in the world today that are playing havoc with our social institutions: specifically, globalization and automation. While these forces offer enormous social benefits, they have also created a whole new set of social problems, such as disintegration of the family, and greatly increased violence in our schools, churches and workplaces, thus calling for a whole new set of social solutions.

The underlying premise of Economic Inclusivism is that our continued application of what were once considered venerable rules, not only don’t work, but are a contributing factor in proliferating our social problems (such as the archaic notion of using "punishment" and "getting even", instead of "problem-solving" soultions to address our crime problem; and our economic solutions are based solely on "greed", i.e., the bottom line for what will most save taxes for the rich, not what is best for the larger society). Lost in this, and counter-producitve to a "safe and sane" world, is the common sense understanding that "altruism" and "self-preservation" are flip-sides of the same coin. Indeed, many of our current solutions could be compared to throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

For instance, in the 1980’s, we started closing down our mental hospitals, and building prisons like there was no tomorrow. By 1990, we had passed up every other major industrial country in the world in prison inmate population (and yet our PR is that we are the most "free" country in the world?). We contributed to this by electing officials who promised to eviscerate criminals; few had the guts to step forward and tell us the truth: That this would actually make America more dangerous, not less, and it was a death knell for any politician who was honest with us.

As a result, we currently have 5% of the world’s population, and 25% (one out of four) prison inmates in the world, in our prisons! To put this is in even greater perspective, if we had the same number of persons in prison, per the general population, as the rest of the civilized world we would have 400,000 in prison, not 2,000,000 as we do at present! Further, we daily turn "non-violent" offenders into "violent" career criminals, by this inept solution, when over 99% will be released back into society! Why has the rest of the civilized world not found it necessary to use these types of extremes to address crime in their countries? We could send most to Harvard for what we spend on their incarceration, and every dollar we spend locking people up is a dollar that is deducted from educating our youth. As a result of closing down our mental hospitals and asking the menatlly ill to self-medicate themselves (most throw the pills away on their way out the door), all of our major cities in America are littered with homeless persons, over 60% of whom are schizophrenic, making our streets even more unsafe.

The fact is, and this will become more and more apparent the further we move into the 21st Century, that we have only one of two choices: To find work as the legal right of every citizen, or create a welfare system of some type. We have no other viable choices, and history has already shown us that welfare is more destructive, than constructive.

There are organizations in America who want to turn back the clock, i.e., who are anti-globalization, such as the group that tried to disrupt the world economic conference in Seattle a few years back, and with demonstrations in Washington D.C., but this folly. These forces can not be stopped, even if it were advisable, which it is not. How we respond to our current progress, however, is a matter we can do something about and Economic Inclusivism is a comprehensive program for social-economic/prison reforms (which have a symbiotic relationship to each other) which we need to take so that we can effectively adapt to these new changes. I have titled this program: Economic Inclusivism.

NOTE: Published in the Gazette-Enterprise on August 28, 2002

Dear Editor:

With almost a year behind us, now, perhaps it is time to sort out in a more dispassionate manner the attack on the WTC, on September 11, 2001. First, is the sheer destructive act, and then the political fall-out:

I had turned on CNN just to catch the latest news, and was on my way over to a "conservative" friend’s home to have coffee. The fact that we do not share the same political views does not mean we cannot be friends. As I watched, it was apparent that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper, and I was reminded of the plane which hit the Empire State Building a few years back. I immediately called my friend and said "Hey, turn on CNN, it looks like a plane has hit the Sears Tower".

Suddenly, another airliner appeared in the background as the camera was fixed on the crash with little commentary. When the other plane crashed into the second tower (initially, I thought they were just re-running an earlier film) there was a gasp by the staff at CNN as they were as stunned by these events as those of us watching.

By the time I got over to my friend’s home it was apparent this was not an accident, in any sense of the word. Over the next several hours we were glued to the TV as tried to sort out just what the Hell was going on, as we learned of the crash in Pennsylvania (which it was not clear at that time was related), and then the crash into the Pentagon.

It was clear to both of us that America was under attack, and in spite of our political differences, we were totally joined in our patriotic outrage, and we were both ready to re-enlist (which given our advanced ages would have, of course, been prohibitive).

Later that evening, I encountered a person in a local store, who was a naturalized American, who said to me in broken English "And they thought they could divide us by this attack". It was then that I realized just how deep a nerve had been hit in America, and that the unifying effect this attack had had, by everyone who considered themselves to be an "American", was electrifying.

Over the next several days it became more and more apparent as to who had attacked us as Americans became as united as we were after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the sense of patriotism was almost universal as American flags started appearing everywhere.

Ironically, after the attack on Pearl Harbor pandemonium broke out in Los Angeles as fear spread that they would be hit next. Perhaps this fear of such an attack represented a microcosm of the fear most Americans felt after the attack on the WTC and Pentagon. How would be attacked next, and where? As we know now, perhaps the most dangerous of these religious zealots perished in the plane crashes on September 11.

The political fall-out has changed considerably over the past year and perhaps this change is best identified by a letter to an editor from Ronald F. Avery (Sunday, August 18, 2002), in which he challenged "Bush and the boys (to) take lie detector tests concerning what they knew before (emphasis added) the WTC destruction on Sept. 11".

The unspoken part of this message is an even darker scenario that the Bush administration knew of the attack (or God forbid, may have even been a party to it happening), and allowed it to happen for political reasons: First, to carry out their pre-existing agenda to limit even further our civil liberties (it is erroneously believed by the right-wing that turning America into a Police State is the only way to protect their "assets"—why else would we have five times more persons incarcerated that any other country in the world?). And/or secondly, to further enrich their already rich friends in the military-industrial complex, at the taxpayer’s expense.

And while the pre-knowledge point of view advanced by Mr. Avery, is perhaps not widely held, it seems almost everyone has experienced some disillusionment over what our government knew before the attack. Particularly after we learned about how our intelligence agencies had failed to connect the dots; it as if their over-lapping jurisdictions were wired together with bubble gum.

My own take on this is that if our government did have some advance knowledge, no one in Washington had the political acumen to fully anticipate the electrifying and unifying effect this would have on the American people. Perhaps I am wrong. I have always looked with a jaundiced eye, however, as to why Bush was in Florida that morning?

If the Bush Administration has traded on honest feelings of patriotism by the American people, for political reasons, or is now sending up trial balloons of a possible attack on Iraq to distract us from thinking about an economy which has tanked, this clearly brings into question "what did they know, and when they know it?"

Initially, we were ready to burn the Bill of Rights, and within hours and days Attorney General Ashcroft had comprehensive legislation on the table calling for severely limited civil liberties, in the form of the Patriot Act, and the formation of the Office of Homeland Security.

The operative words here are "hours and days". Comprehensive legislation takes weeks and months or even years, not hours and days, making their early knowledge of an attack even more suspect, particularly since limited civil liberties was an Ashcroft agenda even before the attack.

In the wake of the Watergate Scandal, it was learned that the Nixon Administration had used the CIA to spy on the American people, resulting in creation of the Rockefeller Commission. The result was certain reforms to protect the American people from unlawful intrusion into our private lives by our own government. Almost all of these reforms have now been erased, following 9-11, by the very same right-wing clique which caused the abuses in the first place!

Perhaps, the best question, now, is what have we learned over the past year? No enlightened American can call what were are doing now a "war". Wars are declared again countries, not a tiny band of outlaws! When it became known that Muammar Kadafi was involved in the terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland, we took retaliatory action against Kadafi in Libya, as we rightfully should have, but we didn’t call it a "war"!

Declaring this is a "war" is dangerous in two ways: First it calls for limited civil liberties which are clearly not warranted, and secondly calling a retaliatory action a "war", is a declaration to this tiny, tiny handful of religious zealots that have already won, because they are causing Americans to spend billions upon billions of dollars in valuable resources to chase them down. It is an extreme case of the tail wagging the dog.

A couple of final thoughts, there is a real danger in making sweeping indictments of persons simply because they are from the Middle East, or members of the Muslim religion. And I would like to quote from Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, at the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, "Terrorists must be dealt with not as Muslims or Middle Easterners, but as human beings guilty of almost unspeakable criminal conduct." To put 9-11 in perspective, then, we must recognize that we are dealing with a tiny handful of criminals! Period!

Finally, it is not that ridding the world of terrorists is not a worthy goal, it is an impossible goal! There will always be a zealots like Timothy McVeigh, or bin Laden, who will feel that they are justified in killing innocent people out of some perverse need to "get even", no matter how irrational their thinking. Hunt them down and bring them to justice, as we did Timothy McVeigh, of course! Declare war on them, Never! As for our part, as American citizens, and as world leaders, we need to make certain systemic changes and take certain legislative reform action, such as Economic Inclusivism (www.Inclusivism.org), so that we can prevent the kind of anger and frustration, out of which "terrorists" are born and flourish.



Short Stories (futuristic fables)

O.J. SAMPSON
A blueprint for a safe and sane world following 9-11

New Years Day, 2029

Word rippled like wildfire through the NFL grapevine, an elite group of past and present NFL football playersÖO.J. Sampson (or just OJ, to his friends and the nation) had gotten into a violent marital dispute with his wife Michelle, the evening before, and OJ was arrested. Their marital difficulties was no secret to this group.

OJ stated that he would be making a public statement later that day.

How we had changed over the past forty yearsÖ.grown up could perhaps best describe this changeÖfollowing the arrest and conviction of O.J. Simpson. It was ironic that Simpson had been arrested 40 years to the day earlier in a domestic dispute, on New Years Eve 1989Öbut no one heeded this red flag, and in 1996 Simpson was convicted of murdering his wife Nicole, and Ron Goldman, and Simpson was executedÖ.
Ö.

On the night of his execution, riots broke out in every major city in the United StatesÖ.one quarter of Washington D.C was burned to the ground. With the fires clearly visible from the steps of the White House, President Clinton and the leaders of
the senate and house promised immediate legislative actionÖwith major changes in the way we do business. President Clinton proclaimed “Systemic problems, call for systemic solutions”Öand the following comprehensive legislative program, called: The Economic Inclusivism Act, was enacted into law within the next six months:

First, and long over dueÖ.the archaic terms “felony” and “misdemeanor” were replaced in the classification of crime, and thereafter all crime was re-classified as either “violent” or “non-violent”. The reason for this change was quite significant. The term “felony” was fixed in the public’s mind as “armed and dangerous”Ö.and yet, over 70% of our offenders were in prison for “non-violent” crimesÖ.albeit all were “felons”! This distortion and distraction in terms stood in the way of our finding real solutions to the real problem: The violent offender. Indeed, in our hysteria to lock up “felons”, Americans were duped by corrupt politicians into building and maintaining the largest prison system in the worldÖfew politicians had the strength to speak up and tell Americans the truth: That this would actually exacerbate, rather than correct our crime problem in America.

Almost all crime is committed by male youths ages 15 to 25, or prison recidivists from this same group, who are doing life on the installment plan. We daily turned non-violent persons into violent angry persons, by our primitive and punitive prisons, and criminal justice system. The new legislation made every effort to keep persons convicted of non-violent crimes out of our prisons, and whenever possible out of our criminal justice system.

Accordingly, There was a much greater use of “Shock” Incarceration for the first-time non-violent offender, greater use of probation, and a much greater use of “civil” probation, and the imposition of fines (both civil and criminal), in lieu of incarceration. Indeed, incarceration was considered for use only as a last resort, not the first, as had been common in the “dark ages” in the quarter century preceding Simpson’s execution. And, the taxes saved from this wasteful destructive path of trying to build our way out of our crime problem, by building more and more prisons, were spent where there should have been spent all along, in educating our youth.

Further, the new legislation included the creation of Federal Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers for the
diagnosis and treatment of the violent offender. Violent crime can be the result of anything from the act of a pathological killer to a brain tumor, but without the proper diagnosis and
Treatment the public had no way of protecting itself.

The primitive notion under the “Punishment Model” (the operative model for the American Criminal Justice System, prior to this time)Ö. Equated “time in prison” as just punishment for certain crimesÖbut under this perverse and uneven system, an offender could spend more time prison for smoking pot, than murder, and more often than any sane person could tolerate, pathological killers were released because they had served their “time”Ö.to kill innocent persons again!

Simple logic and wisdom confirms the truism that vengeance only begets vengeance . As a result of our archaic thinking, however, the most dangerous serial killer in America, at the time, was the State of Texas. The only correct evaluation of the “Punishment Model” is that the model, itself, is insane. Also, the new legislation provided for voluntary admissions to the Diagnostic and Treatment Centers , which was particularly helpful for youth subject to momentary feelings of violence, and in cases of domestic violenceÖ.thus these persons could seek treatment in the interest of preventing crime , without the stigma of a criminal record.

Also, long overdue, was revision of our drug prevention legislation. We had wasted billions upon billions of taxpayer’s dollars on the promise that “interdiction” would solve our drug problemÖand yet every knowledgeable study showed this was a “push-down, pop-up” problem, i.e., because drug sales are very lucrative, even if we did interdict and stop the flow of drugs from Columbia (for example)Ö..a new market would soon “pop-up” in Indonesia. And, thus interdiction was never more than a Band-Aid programÖand did nothing to address the systemic changes that were necessary to correct this insidious problem.

England had had particular success in treating drug addiction as a “medical”, rather than as a “criminal” problem (as addictions [of all types] rightly should be treated), and England introduced a program to provide the addictive drug to the addict, and thus was able to dry up drug-related crime. Also, since marijuana grows wild in every state, and has always been impossible to control, America took the lead advanced by Australia and legalized citizen’s home grownÖand we also allowed the sale of marijuana in our liquor stores. By legalizing the sale of marijuana we
Were better able to keep marijuana out of the hands of our
Youth (the same as with alcohol), As any middle school child at the time would confirmÖ.it was ten times easier to get marijuana for a party, than liquor, because of state control.

As noted, this comprehensive legislative package became known as the Economic Inclusivism Act. For too long we had seen the destructive results of “exclusion”, and how this had contributed to our insidious crime problem, and social ills.

Economic Inclusivism is probably best understood as a more modern form of Capitalism, and contains the following elements: 1) Work/training became the legal (constitutional) right of every citizen; 2) Congress enacted a mutual insurance-type plan, owned and paid for by every worker in America (appx 8% of wagesÖless than they were currently paying for welfare)Öwith the funds from this insurance plan used to implement each citizen’s constitutional right to work; 3) Work was needed to provide child care for low income working families, to build a high speed rail system, to repairing the rotting infrastructure in America (the list is endless)Ö.each year the working owners of the insurance plan would vote on the programs they would like to see implemented. Training would be provided to meet the needs of an ever changing world, and thus was beneficial to both the private and public sector; and, the overall benefit of Economic Inclusivism was to level out the adverse effects of an expanding and contracting business cycle.; 4) Replacement of the Federal Income Tax system with an eclectic tax generating system, put more money in the hands of every worker, and thus stimulated the economyÖ.it was a “win-win” solution, that by its construction, addressed 95% of our social illsÖand thus brought about the urgent systemic changes needed to repair and heal our country which had been ravaged by riots and firesÖ.

The comprehensive legislative changes cut our crime rate in half by the year 2012, and preserved our endangered constitutional freedoms, following 9-11.

the wall of klieg lights and cameras almost blinded OJ as he stepped to the podium to face the press, following his promise for a public statement earlier in the dayÖÖHe spoke slowly, “I am today admitting myself into the Federal Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Riverside”ÖÖ

-30-

THE DEATH OF A DEAMONÖ.
(A Futuristic Fable)

May 27, 2037Ö.

They all had one thing in common. They all hated school. The reason why they had been turned off to education was a puzzlement to their teachers, and to researchers for years, and there was no one singular reason. Some had gotten into drugs, some into sex, some were suffering from dyslexia, some were just bored because they had fallen behind because of one or more of the above. The lack of cortical brain center development was common to almost all, in part, as a result of their lack of an education and the new procedure held out great promise for their, and society’s dilemma.

Without the new procedure their future looked bleak. Many would go on welfare, or to prison; some would become homeless or OD on drugs. Collectively, their numbers were in the millions.

The research was carried out at McGill University in Canada. The first student would go into the lab today. It was a great time for exposure to the advantages those who are educated appreciate everyday in the interpretation of information about the world. All of the JFK assassination papers had finally been released, and as most had suspected, the assassination was the result of a conspiracy.

As researchers had known for years, an actual chemical change takes place in the brain whenever we learn something. Now we had the opportunity to create these chemical changes in a laboratory.

No more boring classesÖ.no more boring teachers, no more flunking tests and the resulting sense of low self-esteem. Now we can induce these chemical changes by encapsulating an encyclopedia of all the information in the world, directly into the brain, from a computer downloadÖ.



-30-









FastCounter by bCentral




[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
powered by lycos
SEARCH: Tripod The Web