United States of Alexander Economic Reform Backseat Driver Package 2012

So many people are running for president without a tangible history of results. People like to say this about President Obama, by way of demoting his community activist efforts, ignoring his teaching of young people, and generally disregarding every successful legislative effort. His most vibrant critics continue this process now that he is president by ignoring quite a large list of accomplishments. They refuse to acknowledge what they don't like, or what could be made better, by obstinately clinging to the delusion that he has done nothing at all. The majority of people--via tax cuts, via stimulus that prolonged or saved a job, via new voices on the Supreme Court, via a still functioning bank branch--have benefited in some fashion.

What is most striking with a few candidates, like Michelle Bachmann, is that there is little legislative achievement at all. The vast majority of the Republican candidates have not articulated any vision that extends beyond tax cuts, social cuts, and attitudinal/patriotic sounding platitudes, under assumption that all problems can be solved with an appealing cookie cutter answer.

Fixing a damaged economy takes work, and the requisite question for everyone should be, "What steps would you take to repair the economy, restore jobs, and protect the general welfare of all Americans?"  A government's role is arguably limited, and government divided against itself can do very little at all.  There is no magic by which to concoct an amazing economy.

That said, this is our voodoo:

• Stimulus 2.0: Obama had one chance to do stimulus, and it was distorted by GOP opposition, then unsupported by the GOP on rollout. The tax cut component should have been minimal. From the start the money should have all gone to the states, and we would dedicate ourselves, after election, to helping states get their books balanced. A kind of freeze and bail, where states must hold spending, and then receive cash incentives to use selectively.

• Affordable Care Act 2.0: We would push through a government provider option and create incentives to strip healthcare from employment and employers. How this gets done is the hard part. If it could be done, the economic and geographical freedom such a process  provides would spur amazing growth. One method might be to give every American a health account, and each account would have certain basic services covered: maternity, child needs, regular check ups for female and male issues, medicines. Most of that would be funded off of income taxes and the national sales tax (see tax reform).  People could also add funds to their account and get matched dollar for dollar, thus encouraging saving for their own care. Additional features and services could be added to the accounts, and in some kind of partnership with the private sector. Most care would be managed by current insurance and medical institutions who would be encouraged to pursue cost benefits through size. 

• Doctor Debt Relief: As part of improving the Affordable Care Act, we would create incentives to increase doctor support for reform by offering some package of scholarships and debt caps (for new students) and debt forgiveness (for existing practitioners). The greatest resistance among doctors due to their income concerns (when not worrying about some mythical heavy government hand), and removing that keeps an important group focused on the big picture.

• Federal Sovereign Funds: Like Norway's Oil Fund and Alaska's Permanent fund, we would form a pair of Federal funds that would be used to benefit Americans. The first would be for natural disasters and relief, and would accept donations from the private sector and be quasi independent, and funded off of taxes and fines from industries that pollute. The second fund would be based off of a small tax, perhaps some sort of broad value added tax, and would be designated toward education, healthcare, and veterans. Each fund would be seeded by about $250 billion dollars, and phased into action. The healthcare component might be paid out to individuals in the form of a dividend, which they could put in their health account (and get matched) or use toward private additional coverage.

• Tax reform: Broad and clear tax mandates are important. We would raise taxes on the top 10% of earners much like President Obama intends, but we would combine this with lowering and flattening rates on lower incomes. We would also cut capital gains taxes as well, while removing most tax loopholes. Part of the tax adjustments would include a national tax for a Federal sovereign fund. 

• Normalize Military Activity: We would begin to repatriate most American troops including those in Afghanistan, leaving just a stub of 20,000 or so. We would focus our efforts on the capital, Kabul, and immediate surrounding area, creating a safe, vibrant example of what life could be. The remainder of the country could maintain resistance, but they would be fighting Afghani troops, not Americans.  A portion of those troops brought home would be used along the border to thwart illegal immigration. Broad cuts in the military budget would be sought, while maintaining a vigorous projection capability (carriers, subs, aircraft). 

• Illegal Immigration Package: We are at a standstill now because those supporting illegal immigration are really not happy with any deal that A) punishes those now here or that B) restricts more from coming. On the flip side, those against illegal immigration take a similar all or nothing approach, wanting a wall on the border and the deportation of every illegal back to Mexico. Neither approach is logical, feasible or compatible. Our simple ABC plan would be called "Accept, Build and Control". 

1. Build: We would begin by building a wall and processing/relief stations on the border. At these stations, people could get information about the United States and applications to begin the process, essentially turning the border into a type of consulate. 
2. Accept: At the same time, we would resolve to accept all workers currently here in a multi-step legalization process that would include English language instruction, classes on the Constitution and American living, the paying over time of a levy or fine, and the completion of one or several "good citizen" tasks, like getting a degree, buying a home, or holding a job. 
3. Control: Under the control portion, we would change the requirements for who is allowed to become a citizen.  There would be incentives for those with businesses or money, and who are willing to invest in the American economy. There would be a continued priority for those coming from oppressive lands. All would still have to pay a fee, adjusted for income, and go through requisite classes and instruction when necessary. While we think citizenship should be offered to those with at least one parent who is a citizen, and not based on being born on American soil, making such a change might be near impossible. 

• Home Relief: Finally, and using the government's jackboot capabilities, which can be enormous, we would mandate that the major financial firms that received Federal aid in 2008 help the homeowners they do business with. Those that are servicing mortgages would be required to allow every homeowner who purchased a home after a certain cutoff (maybe 2006?) to convert their loan to a flat, affordable rate based on their last three years of salary. The debt would not be erased to the extent they maintain ownership. They would also be able to convert to renter status, handing over ownership rights, and in contract with the holder of the mortgage, and with a manageable fee ($7000) that could be paid over time. The idea here being to remove pressure on people so they can focus on work and opportunity. Do people deserve to have pressure removed? We honestly think not. But we are being practical and forward thinking.

We have not advocated for Medicare reform or fixing social security. We tend to view the latter as a long term problem and the former is addressed in part through the Affordable Care Act improvements. We were thinking primarily of actions that would normalize people's pressures and concerns, free people to pursue work and create jobs, and allow for more geographical freedom.

We don't expect any of this would instantly turn the economy around in the same way that we didn't instantly stumble upon the mortgage collapse that got us here. Everything is a process that involves time and compromise. The above steps are the type steps we should be seeking in candidates for president. If they are not offering something new, then there should be questions. If they are not offering major structural changes or finding ways to compromise, then the candidate is suspect.