Brave Humans

Hello all,

Been off the site for a few weeks due to work issues, etc. I’m still a bit strapped, but I wanted to forward something written by someone else. The following is a post I read on the John Edwards for President site. The author goes by the name Happy Warrior. I’ll say up front that I don’t necessarily agree with all the specifics of the argument he makes. His points about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example are a bit off the mark for me. I’m also NOT endorsing John Edwards for President at this time. I’m bringing this to BraveHumans because I applaud Happy Warrior’s intent and approach. I strongly agree that (at least) some large subset of these issues really needs to be addressed in any serious campaign for US President.
See what you think.
Be Brave. Be Human.
-Grant

More than other candidates, John Edwards emphasizes providing opportunities for the less fortunate among us and the extent to which Bush administration policies have put many of us at risk of becoming less fortunate. However, his competitors would agree with virtually everything he is saying. If his emphases gain attention, they will quickly move to also emphasize them. All will run on Restoring the American Dream, a theme already expressed by Hillary Clinton. In a crowded field of Democratic presidential competitors, the successful candidate must distinguish him or herself from the other competitors. This is particularly necessary for John Edwards who lacks the network and financial base of Hillary Clinton and the star aura of Barack Obama.

One way to stand out (admittedly a risky one) is to address the Elephants in the Room, those so-far intractable issues which are blocking major needed initiatives. Howard Dean addressed some of these in his 2004 campaign. Washington State Governor Gregoire is successfully implementing this Confronting Elephants strategy. But most politicians fear the risk, with the result that these elephants are scarcely mentioned.

The successful candidate must begin with a clear statement of his or her values and then proceed with narratives that indicate major blocks to the realization of these values and some possibilities for removing these blocks. Like FDR, candidates should show a determination to solve the problems, to experiment until solutions are found. Candidates should not get bogged down in specific policy suggestions. But they should have policies in mind and should say enough to indicate they will deal with the big issues that others are afraid to confront. Here are only a few of many possible examples of elephants that John Edwards might confront.

Electoral Reforms to Increase Our Democracy
Increasing our democracy is crucial to empowering our voters and enacting much mainstream liberal legislation. We must establish electoral procedures which provide fair voter representation and reduce the undue influence of powerful and wealthy businesses and individuals. We need a powerful Electoral commission which is independent of our congress, either part of our judiciary or an independent 4th branch of government. This commission should increase our democracy through such actions as:

redistricting after our censuses
allowing Washington D.C. residents to vote
establishing voting systems such as eliminating winner-take-all election of presidential and vice presidential electors and adopting instant run-off voting so that voters can vote for their favorite candidate without helping their less favored candidate
regulating primary elections and caucuses including their timing
regulating debates
requiring media to provide affordable time for candidates
providing public and limit private campaign funding
regulating lobbying activities
establishing and enforcing ethics policies for elected and appointed officials

Many powerful interests would resist these reforms, but the candidate who supports them (not necessarily in all the above described details) will receive strong voter approval.

Fairer Taxes through Tax Shifting
Our present taxes are extremely unfair, especially since the Bush administration tax cuts. Changes might include:

Altering our income tax to a flat tax with a deductable equal to our medium income. Only half of us with incomes above the medium would pay taxes, at an increasing rate for those with higher incomes. The rate could be set to bring in the same revenue (20% of gross product) which has mostly prevailed since World War II. This tax corrects for market tendencies to over reward high income recipients.

Substituting a VAT (Value Added Tax) for our FICA tax to support our social security and other social services. Our FICA tax is a tax on jobs, which reduces the creation of jobs, especially by new and small firms. A VAT tax recovers the returns on production which should be paid for our social institutions and capital created by previous generations. It is no more regressive than FICA tax, especially when coupled with the flat income tax described above.

While the VAT tax is not necessarily progressive, it is no less progressive than the FICA tax it should replace, and when coupled with a strongly progressive high deductible income tax, can produce a combination which is much more progressive than our present income and FICA tax combination, and which doesn’t discourage job creation.

It may not be politically popular to point to the success of measures adopted successfully almost universally by the rest of our developed countries, but can they all be wrong? And note that the reason we haven’t adopted many of these measures is because we are much less democratic than these other countries. That is, the interests of our wealthy and powerful corruptly block the public interests of the great majority of Americans. Wouldn’t it be lovely to have the quick clean elections that Canada, European countries, Japan and many other countries have?

Universal Health Care Insurance
Implementing universal health coverage (Medicare-for-All) requires reducing costs by (1) eliminating private employer paid private health insurance and (2) introducing cost controls. Both of these characterize the successful universal health coverage of all other developed nations.

Fearing the opposition of private health insurers, most proponents of universal health care coverage include maintaining private health insurance. Even so, their efforts are opposed by private health insurance companies. Due to rising costs, employers and employees are now ready to change to a system which eliminates an employer role in providing health care coverage. With large majorities in congress after 2008, it will finally be time to confront the private insurers.

Two types of cost controls are necessary. Like other countries, we must bargain with health care providers (physicians, hospitals and pharmaceuticals) to lower their prices. Our Veterans health care programs already do this.

Secondly, we must use cost benefit criteria to eliminate coverage of inordinately expensive treatments, including especially end-of-life care. It is difficult to tell our grandparents that we will not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong their lives by a few months. But unless we do, we cannot afford to cover younger people whose benefits will be much greater.

Federal Funding for Education
To ensure that all Americans receive quality education, most funding must be federal. This could provide a certain amount per student, adjusted perhaps for variable costs among school districts and by the numbers of students who require more extensive resources. As federal funding increased, state and local funding could decrease, although to achieve the needed educational quality, the overall expenditures would be more.

Strengthening Our International Governance
We must empower a democratic international governance system (probably by modifying the United Nations to (1) deal with genocide and oppression between and within countries (such as Darfur) and (2) to regulate multinational business abuse of workers, consumers and environment. This would include democratization, funding and creation of necessary military and police forces.

Israeli Settlements in Occupied Palestine Territory
The Israeli democratic system weights heavily the influence of small extremist religious parties. A result is that Israel continues to create settlements in Palestine in violation of international law and numerous United Nations resolutions. These settlements do not help to protect Israeli existence. Instead they inflame the passions of Israeli enemies. As the supporter of Israel in spite of its settlement policy, Israeli enemies become also our enemies.

Much of the anti-United States sentiment in the Middle East would diminish if we made our support for Israel dependent upon Israel forsaking these settlements, preferably giving them to Palestinians. Beyond that, we should lead an effort to establish a United Nations force to guard all Israeli borders against cross border violence from either Israel or its neighbors. While this would not eliminate all anti-Israeli sentiment and attempted acts of violence by its enemies, they can be expected to greatly reduce them.

John Edwards, Elephant Tamer
Such proposals as the above are essential to provide for our security and opportunity. Such straight talking by Jesse Ventura, John McCain and Howard Dean led to their political successes. These proposals are compatible with the thrust of John Edwards thinking. They would certainly separate him from the pack, since their other advantages would inhibit Hillary Clinton and probably Barack Obama from adopting them.
Confronting elephants should certainly be considered by John Edwards and his supporters.