<![CDATA[Haley2024 the Movement - Blog on Competitive Regulatory Agencies]]>

<![CDATA[Haley2024 the Movement - Blog on Competitive Regulatory Agencies]]>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:42:23 -0400Weebly<![CDATA[The Transition to the CRA Structure]]>Wed, 22 Apr 2020 00:50:55 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/the-transition-to-the-cra-structure

This is a major reform of the foundations of government. I have considered many issues; however, many people will point out thousands of more issues. While timelines adjustments can be addressed, it is important that this 24 month GO-LIVE date is met. This is obviously a limited explanation and a broad overview. Many volumes of books could be written for each Sector. The in-depth explanations will be written by representatives of CRA’s and Sector Boards.

This is started with an Amendment to the US Constitution under the Article Five terms.

Amendments to state Constitutions could also create this plan just for the state.

The first step to create the CRA Structure is to establish the Identity Sector at the state level.

This will mostly refer to CRA’s; however, this exact plan is establishing Rating Agencies on the same time schedule and the same method.

Starting month 1.

Any US Citizen, think tank, or political party may start an Identity Business.

An Identity Business is not the same thing as an Identity CRA.

Identity businesses must meet specific criteria.

Identity Businesses must be regulated by an Identity CRA.

Month 4: As an obligation of a citizen of America, every citizen and every business must sign up with an Identity business.

Signing up means that you are paying monthly fees to your selected Identity business to support the endeavors.

Every Identity business must join with other Identity Businesses to start an Identity CRA.

Every Identity business may change Identity CRA’s at their will.

Every citizen and business may change their Identity business at will.

The funding will follow any switch.

Every Identity CRA must merge to meet the following thresholds.

Month 6: Identity CRA’s must have at least 1% of the citizens/businesses of the state.

Month 7: All state-level CRA’s, from all states, join to create a generic set of bylaws for meeting and voting until CRA’s create their own bylaws at month 10.

Month 8: Identity CRA’s must have at least 3% of the citizens/businesses of the state.

Month 10: Identity CRA’s must have at least 5% of the citizens/businesses of the state.

A CRA may not have more than 20% of the citizens of the state. Large CRA’s may split or just limit new memberships.

Month 10, there is roughly a dozen state-level Identity CRA’s in every state.

At any time, if any CRA drops below 5% because people switch CRA’s, the people or the CRA must merge with another CRA.

These Identity CRA’s will be the base of everything going forward until month 15 when the Parent Sector Board is established.

Month 10: All CRA’s must finalize their governing bylaws. These governing bylaws will likely change as CRA’s merge and new members join. The bylaws must have a method of changing bylaws on a monthly basis.

Identity CRA’s

Identity CRA’s are in charge of CRA memberships, voting, and collecting fees.

Identity CRA’s may bring everything ‘inhouse’ within their Identity CRA or work through the Identity Businesses that are regulated by their Identity CRA. Many CRA models will develop.

Identity CRA’s must ensure every citizen and every business is a member of a CRA and RA in every Sector and at all three levels of government.

Identity CRA’s are in charge of all elections of all CRA’s from all Sectors.

Identity CRA’s are in charge of collecting CRA fees from all Sectors.

A person’s Identity Business will have a consolidated monthly fee of all 90 CRA’s and all 90 RA’s. There are 30 Sectors at all three levels of government.

A person’s Identity Business will have a secure online method of selecting or switching CRA’s and RA’s.

A person’s Identity Business will have a secure online method of allowing a member to vote on legislative, judicial, and executive leadership at the CRA level, the Sector Board level, and the Parent Sector Board level.

Identity CRA’s have other responsibilities as well, but the CRA membership is relevant to this transition.

Identity Businesses will also handle business identity, citizenship, birth certificates, ownership issues, identification, criminal records, medical records, credit reports, education records, among other issues.

Drawing the Lines of Jurisdiction of all 30 Sectors

Month 6: all Identity CRA’s across all the states and territories will have six months to draw the lines between the 30 Sectors.

The representatives have the right to change the number of Sectors.

About a dozen Identity CRA’s times fifty states mean there are roughly 600 CRA’s sending representatives creating the jurisdictional lines.

Every representative goes with proportional strength based on the number of citizens they are representing.

The representation will change as the CRA’s are merging; however, the work may begin with a real representation of the citizens.

Month 11: The Identity CRA sets rules on preliminary Sectors, so CRA’s and Sector Boards can start to form.

Month 12: there will be a timeline of threshold votes of representatives with the top five plan proposals submitted to the American people one year after the start of the transition.

Identity CRA’s will inform their members of their intentions, and the American people can change Identity CRA’s at their will.

Every switch of CRA’s will change the weighted vote of each CRA, extending decimal places as far as necessary.

Month 14: all Identity CRA representatives proportionally vote one proposal to be removed, leaving four proposals.

Although all the Sectors are not totally finalized, real CRA’s are started within the 30 Sectors in Month 10. Look below at section, Setting up all the Sectors.

Month 15: The Parent Sector Board and Sector Boards are established from CRA’s in all Sectors. This is done distinctly at the state, federal, and local levels of government.

The state-level Parent Sector Board representatives take over all voting on the jurisdiction of the 30 Sectors.

Every state-level CRA from all Sectors and from every state sends one representative with a voting strength of their membership.

Month 16: The Parent Sector Board representatives proportionally vote one proposal to be removed, leaving three proposals.

Month 18: The Parent Sector Board representatives proportionally vote one proposal to be removed, leaving two proposals.

Month 20: The Parent Sector Board representatives proportionally vote from the remaining two proposals to become the official Jurisdictional boundaries of the 30 Sectors.

CRA’s and Sector Board adjust to the official jurisdictional boundaries.

This extensive representative body establishes the new American Social Contract under a new Constitution set up by an Amendment passed according to Article Five of the current US Constitution.

Drawing the Lines of Jurisdiction of Federal, State, and Local Control in all 30 Sectors

Using the same timeline and same method, these state-level Identity CRA representatives and starting in month 15, the Parent Sector Board will draw the lines between federal, state, and local jurisdiction per Sector.

The state level representatives will decide federal jurisdiction within each Sector.

The representatives within each state decide their own local control compared to state control within their state.

Setting up all the Sectors

Month 8: using preliminary Sector categories, Identity CRA’s will start to create CRA’s within each Sector.

These Identity CRA’s will set these Sectors up at the federal, state, and local governmental levels.

These Identity CRA representatives will select people to start developing the mission statements, writing policy papers, and generally state how they will regulate and govern their members in their Sector.

Month 10: formal CRA’s are started per Sector at all three levels of government even though the Sectors are not finalized. This is strictly a planning stage until they go live at month 24.

Month 12: Every citizen and business must join a CRA in every Sector and begin paying fees. These are just start-up fees for planning for now.

By month 14, all CRA’s from all Sectors need to be at least 3% of citizens.

Month 15: Sector Boards are established with real votes from CRA’s.

By month 16, all CRA’s from all Sectors need to be at least 5% of citizens.

From month 12 until month 20, all Sectors at all three levels are developing their plans and getting set up.

Many citizens will likely change CRA’s as they learn more.

Citizens and businesses always have the right to change CRA’s at their will, during the setup phase and after the GO-LIVE date.

Month 20: the final plan is adopted regarding the jurisdictions of all 30 Sectors and the jurisdictions of federal, state, and local levels.

Voting on Governing Leadership Starts

All previous voting was for the planning stages. All future voting is for leaders with governing authority after the GO-LIVE date

Month 22: All members of CRA’s elect their leaders at the CRA level in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of their CRA.

Month 23: Elections of top executives of the Sector Board occur in all Sectors. Each CRA, as described in its bylaws, will exercise their percentage vote.

Month 23: CRA’s send legislative representatives to their Sector Board proportional to their membership.

CRA’s start staffing up their Sector Board proportional to their membership.

Month 24: All current governmental officials totally lose all authority. The new CRA Structure leaders take over authority.

Month 24 is GO-LIVE in all Sectors.

All preliminary Sectors will be created in month 10. Their primary job is to plan their transition to the new CRA Structure so they can be ready to fully take on their responsibilities on the month 24 GO-Live date.

While the new CRA legislative and executive leadership are in full charge on month 24, some Sectors are likely going to keep the current system going while they transition.

Giving More Time to Transition

All CRA’s have the right to take on their responsibilities on the GO-LIVE date; however, for a proper and responsible transition, some CRA’s might keep certain items at the Sector Board level as they slowly take on their responsibilities.

It is likely the military will be a 12 to 24-month full transition with carefully laid out plans.

For example, the entire officer corps in the Commander in Chief Sector will probably stay the same while the CIC’s start offering officers employment contracts.

The funding mechanism for the military might require a complete 12-month long transition. Military Corporations are multi-billion dollar endeavors.

Law Enforcement, the courts, and prisons are likely going to have a 12 to 24-month transition as business deals are created and implemented.

Current Government Assets

A blog named: ‘A Standard Transition from Government Control and Ownership to Free Enterprise,’ goes through how government assets will be transitioned to new ownership.

Several pages such as Debt, Education, Social Security, Roads, Military, Monetary Policy, and others all touch on the transition of their Sectors.

Basically, all assets will be put into thousands of newly created corporations.

In the beginning, the relevant Sector Board would own 100% of the stocks.

The Sector Boards would have to sell off 1% of the shares of stocks per month.

The corporations would lease out their assets, creating a revenue stream.

After 50% of their stocks are sold (50 Months), these corporations can sell assets.

All revenue collected by the Sector Boards would eventually pay off government debt.

Using Haley2024’s Monetary Policy, these share stock assets, and revenue streams can become assets in the Monetary-Currency Asset Portfolios (M-CAP’s) to back up debt obligation owed to the lenders.

]]><![CDATA[Imagine If Two States Allowed Its Citizens to Sign on With the Other State’s Set of Family Law]]>Sun, 23 Jun 2019 04:06:46 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/imagine-if-two-states-allow-its-citizens-to-sign-on-with-the-others-states-set-of-family-law

Let us suppose that liberals and conservatives were battling it out every legislative session to make family law more conservative or more liberal. Many people were unhappy having to live under laws that they did not agree with. Tensions ran high, and millions of dollars were donated to ‘buy’ votes and legislative action.

Let us say that this constant state of animosity was occurring in South Carolina as well as North Carolina. Some smart legislators in both states came up with a plan. Similar legislation was proposed in both states that allowed citizens of either state to sign up to be governed under the other state’s set of family law. South Carolina allowed its state’s family law to go more conservative and North Carolina allowed its family law to go more liberal.

Liberals in South Carolina agreed to be governed by North Carolina Family law and Conservatives in North Carolina signed on with South Carolina family law. Both states gave mandates that husbands and wives, along with minor children, must stay with one or the other. Most big arguments were dealt with, and only minor issues remained. Courtrooms had switch-over days so that judges from each state switched to service their members in the other state.

Neighbors in these two states had less animosity with each other because winners of elections did not have a monopoly on issues of family law. The legislatures in Tennessee and Kentucky were also seeing significant disagreements and a demand from their citizens to have the same rights as the citizens of the Carolinas. They passed similar legislation, and a cascade of other states joined in. Every state allowed its set of family laws to fill a niche of the demand of citizens. Within a couple of years, each state started playing games with budgets surrounding courts and family law. The social services departments dealing with foster care, and social workers were affected.

Legislatures from all the linked states agreed to tax and fund only the people and families that they govern. This means that South Carolina taxed 22% of the people in South Carolina, 26% of the people of Tennessee, 17% of Virginians, 33% of the people of Kentucky, and 18% of the people in North Carolina. This was a very specific and segregated tax for family law. All the funding went directly to cover the expenses to service those same members that were taxed.

Each state legislature was tired of trying to fine tune their family law within their legislative process. The next logical step was to allow the members across all the linked states to create a separate family law legislative body to just govern their members. The six states agreed to pass similar legislation creating six separate family law governing bodies. Each one of the six governing bodies had their own executive and judicial branches. All six states mandated that every citizen must become a member of one of the six.

Each of the six started to have its own reputation. Bad reputations experienced a loss of memberships, and good reputations experienced membership growth. Some liberals experienced that liberal family law was not the best and some conservatives rethought certain parts of conservative family law as too confining. Many people changed membership when they saw bad examples in their governing body or better results in another.

Every governing body was in open competition for memberships. More memberships meant a higher budget and bragging rights. In order to attract members, family law governing bodies became very diligent in servicing their members productively, efficiently, professionally, and justly. Reputations became highly important. Scandals needed to be reduced. Unjust removal of children from their parents was balanced with the risk of keeping kids in an unsafe home. Each family law governing body competed to get the balance right.

New models of handling divorces were attempted to gain new members. Every governing body needed to perfect their elder-care laws to attract members. New ways of handling adoptions were proposed. Failures on different aspects of foster care saw lost memberships and a quick change back from the bad policies. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are tried in a variety of ways. A variety of methods dealing with spousal abuse are tried. Visitation, custody, and alimony can all be addressed differently.

Some family law governance will bring the church and religious principals into the philosophy of family law governance. Other family law governance would stay strictly secular. As long as every citizen has non-religious options, there would be no restrictions on bringing the church and religion into the mix. Some people might want high church involvement; however, most governance would likely stay with 30% to 70% religious’ involvement. The key here is that every person and every family make that decision for themselves.

You get what you pay for. If your primary concern is paying the lowest ‘tax’ to your family law governing body, you are likely going to be unhappy with the service you receive. That ‘tax’ pays for the services, and if they do not have the money, the services would be inadequate. If you cannot offer enough money for a quality judge or pay for court staffing, you will likely ‘pay’ with long court delays and unjust rulings. Social workers are expensive, but the lack of them is more costly.

Some family law governing bodies will experiment with mandated charitable hours to assist fellow members in need. Big brother and big sister programs are likely examples as well as trading nanny services so single mothers can work. The need for a father figure is highly essential. Examples of good marriages in a child's life teach profound lessons. Members might sign up for elder care swaps in cases where adult children agree to house and care for another family’s elderly parent that outlived their own children in exchange of the knowledge and agreement that your parents will be housed and cared for if you pass on before your parents. The contract terms would have numerous variations.

]]><![CDATA[Separating All Government Power Into 30 Sectors with Distinct Leadership Per Sector : Part Two]]>Mon, 20 May 2019 01:21:37 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/separating-all-government-power-into-30-sectors-with-distinct-leadership-per-sector2178207

By Bill Haley
Most Haley2024 reforms can be taken on their own and do not need the full CRA Structure or other Haley2024 reforms. This reform could easily be taken alone. This article will first discuss this reform as a stand-alone reform and then in the complete CRA Structure. Just to make sure there is no confusion, all government authority will be separated into thirty near equal Sectors. Distinct leadership means that in a federal, state, and local level, there will be a different US Congress, a different State Legislative Branch and a different City/town council for each of the thirty Sectors. Each legislative, executive, and judicial branch only has the authority given to that Sector. That means thirty Governors, thirty Presidents, and thirty Mayors.

That also means thirty complete sets of congressmen, thirty complete sets of state legislatures and thirty complete sets of city councils. There is a separate judicial branch for each of the thirty Sectors. The governor in the education Sector just administrates education. The judicial branch in the Human Resources Sector will only rule on issues of labor law. The president of the Banking Sector oversees the banking authority given to the Federal government. The federal level Commander in Chief will only have command over the military and not environmental or insurance matters. The elected leaders of the Family Law Sector would only control family law questions and not authority over food safety.

A member of Congress in the military Sector only decides military issues. A member of the house of representatives in the Charity Sector only decides issues of helping the poor. A member of the city council in the Roads Sector only makes decisions regarding local roads. The state representative in the Prison Sector controls state prison policy. The local member of the city council in the Land and Water Sector makes zoning laws just for the localities. The fact that there is overlap means that there would need to be cooperation and coordination between leaders of different Sectors.

This separation of authority into thirty Sectors is a significant check and balance issue. The leaders of the Environmental Sector would often come into conflicts with the leaders of the land and water Sector. The leaders of the Law Enforcement Sector will check the leaders of the Judicial Sector. Health Care regulations often overlap the separate Sector of Insurance. Every Sector will have very clear lines of authority and responsibilities; however, there is an enormous need for cooperation. Families are often the first line of helping the poor and needy; thus, there is overlap in the Family Law Sector and the Charity Sector.

Under this Haley2024 reform, candidates for elected office in the legislative branch or executive branch would likely have experience in their chosen Sector. The vast majority of the current members of Congress have little knowledge of banking yet are in charge of regulating them. Current members of Congress had the skill of campaigning, thus gained the authority to make environmental laws and establish prison policy with little to no knowledge of either. A Congressmen on the board overseeing NASA once asked if the Mars Rover was going to go over to where the astronauts planted the flag! A congresswoman that heads the banking committee asked banking executives in a Congressional hearing, what are they doing about the student loan crisis, not understanding that the federal government took over all student loans ten years before.

Creating thirty Sectors means that people with experience and knowledge of a Sector would be more likely to seek leadership in that Sector. Voters would be able to concentrate their decision on the options of candidates based strictly on their views within each Sector. It is often stated that ‘I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate’ or many other combinations of viewpoints. This reform allows a voter to vote for small government in spending and a relaxed standard of the definition of marriage. A voter might want harsher sentences for criminals and a more significant welfare state. Under the current system, a voter has to pick one person to control laws and regulation on all governmental issues.

If a governor in the current system, spent one full day learning about the issues regarding each of these Sectors, it would take 30 working days to complete one day on each Sector. After this reform, the governor would spend every day just on their Sector. This greater focus would create much more informed laws and regulations. The unintended results of bad laws would have much greater attention when a legislator is not busy learning about the other 29 Sectors.

Some people will claim that this would give legislators more time to meddle and pass more bad laws, which is undoubtedly a risk. Some people will argue that people already do not pay attention to elections and rarely know their candidate's position, and we cannot handle 30 times the elections. That is also undoubtedly true; however, political parties and think tanks can play a significant role in vetting candidates. This negative externality is curtailed significantly with other Haley2024 reforms in the CRA Structure.

It is essential to realize that this reform does not expand or shrink government. There are other reforms to address the size of government. This 30 Sector reform idea is strictly on separating power and authority so politicians and voters can have a division of labor, responsibility, and votes. The Haley2024 CRA Structure goes further to allow competing governing agencies to compete for the service of governance. Roughly a dozen Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA) will compete for the service of regulations in every Sector.

The greater CRA Structure allows everyone to select their governing agency. Thus, their chosen candidates win their election and governs them in the manner of their choosing. With about a dozen CRA’s, everyone will get very close to their preferred policies and allow all their neighbors to also be governed within their values. A more complete understanding of the Rating System for each Sector will give citizens the knowledge and understanding that society can function with a lower level of regulations.

]]><![CDATA[180 Associations]]>Sun, 19 May 2019 14:29:16 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/180-associations

By Bill Haley
Under the CRA Structure, every citizen will have 90 associations with CRA’s and 90 additional associations with RA’s. On top of that, every entity such as a business, non-profit, or club will need to pick their 180 associations. Many people will initially be astonished and opposed to the mandate to be associated with so many CRA’s and RA’s. Everyone and every entity must, as a condition of being a citizen owner of America, their state and their locality, join a CRA and an RA in all 30 Sectors. City, state, and Federal CRA’s have distinct CRA’s per Sector.

To the person shocked at the number of associations they must engage in, please realize that you are currently in an association with your city, state, and the federal government. This reform replaces the current power of government with many dozens of departments with governance by CRA’s that every citizen can pick for themselves. You are governed by the CRA you choose, and your neighbor is governed by the CRA they pick. With roughly a dozen CRA’s per Sector, it is likely you will find a CRA very close to your values. Some people will elect to join CRA’s with higher controls, and other people will pick CRA’s with lower authorities compared to the current system.

CRA and RA Organizations are likely to develop to group CRA’s and RA’s across many Sectors for convenience and branding. The Republican and Democrat Party are likely the first to organize CRA’s across all the Sectors. Many think tanks such as the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Brookings Institute are likely to break off and start their own CRA organizations. CRA Organizations are a good option of finding CRA’s and RA’s that match your philosophy. Over time, it is likely that people will start to pick CRA’s outside their core CRA organizations as reputations are developed and the Rating System is understood.

All Sectors will have specific local, state, and federal responsibilities. Every Sector is different. Some Sectors will have the predominant power in the national CRA’s such as the five Sectors in the Foreign Protection System. Most of the Sectors will have dominant power at the state and local level CRA’s. It is likely that most people will pick closely affiliated CRA’s across different Sectors and in the different levels of government.

Most people will choose closely affiliated CRA’s in the five Sectors in the Charity System because they would likely have better working relationships. Charity CRA’s, Charitable Distribution Associations (CDA), and Charity Assessor Organizations (AO’s) will need to work closely to coordinate the care for the poor. While some CRA’s might require its members to belong to their CRA Organization affiliated CRA’s, other CRA’s would not have those requirements. All CRA and RA associations require two-sided agreements.

Looking through the Sectors, many CRA’s would have little authority, while other CRA’s would have significant power and significance. It is not likely that the local level banking CRA’s would have much power; however, substantial authority will be given to local Law Enforcement. The state-level Commander in Chief would likely only have minimal power because it is a federal issue. Most charity would have significant local actions and only move up to state and national levels in limited ways.

Every Association comes with a membership fee. That might sound daunting. People could picture writing out 180 checks every month. There is no need to think that will be the case. Many systems would likely emerge to merge many if not all these payments together for convenience. Every Identity: Personal and Business CRA is tasked with ensuring every person, and every entity belongs to a CRA and RA in every Sector and at all three levels. It is likely that every person’s Identity CRAs would collect the monthly membership fees and distribute the funds to the proper CRA’s.

It is also important to note that most membership fees are for the regulations and not necessarily the service. You pay the small membership fee for your law Enforcement CRA and a much larger payment for your law enforcement company services. Some CRA’s would do the services as well as the regulations such as environmental regulations. Every person pays for the road services they use through the transponder system; however, the regulations of roads are likely trivial. The regulation of education should be much lower than the classroom cost of education; however, some people might pick an Education CRA that is all-inclusive.

Many Sectors CRA’s will be predominately paid for by businesses such as Banking CRA’s and Health Care CRA’s. The Military Capabilities System (MCS’s) will be funded by sales and income taxes collected by the Human Resources and Sales Sector CRA’s. Since everyone is mandated to support their chosen Charitable Distribution Associations (CDA’s) with 5% of their income, it is likely that will be handled in most people’s paychecks.

If a person wants a single-payer healthcare system, they can join a Statist healthcare CRA that is all-inclusive, meaning the regulations and health care providers are at the CRA level. All Statist CRA’s can only tax its members and give services to its members.

Every Charity Sector CRA is mandated to create its Charity Economy, and the Charity Sector Board must establish a combined Charity Economy. There will likely be a robust system of people paying their membership fees and even the charges of services by working in the Charity Economy. This system will be very dynamic and with creative business and charity models.

It is essential to separate government power into thirty Sectors and also wise to have city, state, and federal responsibilities in each Sector. This creates many checks and balances to the system; however, CRA Organizations foster much-needed cooperation and coordination.

The beginning assumption of the total cost of all the Rating Systems is a total of 0.5% of GDP or roughly $100 billion per year. The number of entities would likely total approximately 500 million across America. Every person’s and every entity’s total RA membership fees will probably be $200 per year, thus an average of a little over a $2 membership fee per RA per year for all 90 of your chosen RA’s. If $25 billion went to the federal level Rating Systems, each Rating System would receive an average of $833 million. With roughly a dozen RA’s per Rating System, each federal RA would average a $70 million budget. $70 million would employ approximately 1,000 full and part-time employees and their expense accounts.

State and local RA’s would have much lower budgets depending on their populations. Several small localities are likely to share employees. RA Organizations would likely share employees across the city, state, and federal RA’s as well as across different Sectors. Current rating organizations rely on business model funding, and that would likely occur as well with RA’s. Although employees might be shared, it is essential to realize that elected leadership in RA’s and Rating System representatives have real power and responsibilities in the checks and balances of the CRA Structure and must keep their independence.

]]><![CDATA[How Are Representatives and Leaders Chosen or Elected?]]>Sun, 14 Apr 2019 02:10:36 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/how-are-representatives-and-leaders-chosen-or-elected

Every CRA must set up bylaws to govern their association. There is wide latitude in the limitations of those bylaws. Every citizen and business will look at many factors when deciding on what CRA they wish to join. The most significant factors are their policies and governance. However, how the CRA picks their leadership and representatives are factors as well.

Most Sectors will have most of the power at the CRA level; therefore, the leadership of the CRA is highly relevant. Some Sectors will have significant influence at the Sector Board level; therefore, the representatives are highly relevant. Every CRA has legislative, executive, and judicial authority for just its members. Every CRA also sends representatives to its Sector Board to decide what must be done across the entire Sector. CRA’s also send representatives to the Parent Sector Board.

It is likely with about a dozen CRA’s, that like-minded people will already be joined together in each CRA. With thirty different Sectors, that like-mindedness increases. CRA’s will put out their laws, philosophy, history, and ratings to attract members. When selecting leadership, laws, regulations, representatives, and policies, it is likely that decisions would be just fine-tuning issues because the big issues are agreed upon.

Some CRA’s may set their bylaws to have long-term established leaders with minimal power by the membership. That could be attractive to some people because they place tremendous trust in their current leadership and representatives. This CRA with established leadership may have long tested policy viewpoints and a history of excellent governance. The members still have the power to switch CRA’s if they do not feel their opinions are represented, or the governance becomes poor. This type of CRA would be difficult to be taken over by a lot of new members with different viewpoints.

Some CRA’s would have bylaws to give members moderate powers. Members could be given the power to elect leaders and representatives on four-year terms. Powers of members to change the party platform could be attractive to some people. The moderate member directed CRA’s just vote on the big issues and leave the day to day issues for their chosen leaders. Personnel is policy and changing personnel could push the CRA in certain directions. Members could always change CRA’s if the CRA goes in a direction they do not like.

Some CRA’s will be member directed in very significant ways. The member directed CRA’s could vote on all CRA legislation and even vote to direct the representatives at the Sector Board level. These CRA’s could have ‘at will’ leaders that can be voted out when the members decide. The member directed CRA’s can have the highest form of democracy where every decision is put to the members for a vote.

A CRA with 8.9245463022% of the citizens sends representatives with an 8.9245463022% weighted vote. Every citizen moves the needle as many decimal points as necessary. The CRA’s could have a thousand leaders or just a few. A CRA could send one representative to represent all of their 8.9245463022% in the Sector Board or 100 representatives to have 0.089245463022% each. The critical issue is that each citizen adds their societal weight behind making societal decisions.

]]><![CDATA[Separating All Government Power Into 30 Sectors with Distinct Leadership Per Sector: Part one]]>Sun, 07 Apr 2019 01:25:34 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/separating-all-government-power-into-30-sectors-with-distinct-leadership-per-sector

Separating government powers is one of the substantial Haley2024 reforms. Every Sector has its own separate legislative, judicial, and executive branches. This reform has three significant benefits.

First, candidates for elected office within each Sector would likely have education, work experience, and interest in the Sector they wish to represent. It is impossible for any candidate to have 30 years of education and full-time work experience in all thirty Sectors of government. There is simply too much knowledge for any one person to know. People can only work and learn one fulltime job at once.

If you worked in the prison industry for 30 years, you did not put in 30 years as a welfare caseworker, overseeing a foreign embassy, serving on the police force, litigating labor law, or 30 years studying EPA regulations. America currently has the same people making laws regarding banking, labor-law, family law, healthcare, and space exploration. Not one congressman could have possibly worked 30 years in each of these very different disciplines.

Second, under this Haley2024 reform, when campaigning, the candidates would put out a full policy position on just their Sector’s issues. Currently, it is rare to find even a slight mention on a candidate's website of policies in over half the thirty Sectors in which a congressman would be responsible. Separating government authorities allows voters to concentrate on their opinions regarding just one Sector of power in each of the thirty Sectors.

Currently, a voter might like a candidate’s military policy, but not the candidate's road policy. A candidate’s healthcare policy might be problematic, yet their education policy is sound. Currently, a voter must select one candidate with their full array of policy positions. Under this reform, the voter can choose candidates per Sector that match the voter’s positions as much as possible

Third, under this reform, the elected leaders would have the time to thoroughly dig into every piece of legislation. These leaders would not be spread too thin, just giving one day per major Sector of government authority every other month. Currently, most congressmen spend half their time fundraising and campaigning; they do not have the time to fully understand the majority of the bills in which they are voting.

Judges, lawyers, and businessmen analyze every word, every comma, and every clause to try to determine the intent of the legislature. If the judge called congressmen to testify without preparation to find out their intention of a provision; 90% of the congressmen would have no clue. This does not demonstrate stupidity, just ignorance that is unavoidable due to the immense number of regulations, laws, and programs. Talking points and briefs of legislation are often very misleading. It takes decades of experience in the area of law in question to know the ramifications of the changes in laws. A person with 30 years of experience knows why most fences were put up and will not tear them down with ignorance.

One drawback of this reform is obviously having thirty times more elections. Without a doubt, this is a big concern. Other Haley2024 reforms would mitigate this problem such as the Rating Systems and changing how we pick our representatives. However, standing on its own, one could see political parties and other trusted organizations vouching for candidates.

Another significant drawback is thirty times the number of politicians having more time to mess things up by doing more legislation. The Haley2024 reform of moving to a 70% representative vote to make legislation could curb this concern. The Haley2024 reform of switching to CRA’s only governing its members also mitigates this concern.

]]><![CDATA[Video Chat A Lawyer into A Courtroom]]>Wed, 07 Nov 2018 21:15:58 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/video-chat-a-lawyer-into-a-courtroom

Most people do not realize how government regulations inhibit specific business models. On the most part, lawyers by law must be present in a courtroom during a trial or hearing. This fact significantly reduces the productivity of a lawyer, thus drives up costs. The increased cost often puts the price out of reach of many people. Most people do not attain a lawyer for traffic court on simple tickets. The cost of the lawyer is more than a speeding ticket.

However, what if a law firm had dozens of real lawyers sitting behind computer screens ready to video chat representation into traffic court. Most hearings are only a few minutes, and a lawyer would likely be able to handle five to ten hearings an hour. This law-firm would take their client’s case with a quick call. The law-firm would ensure the police crossed their T’s and dotted their I’s. This law-firm would have files on traffic cops to profile possible abuses. The cost per client would drop significantly.

The law-firm would likely have real street views from Google Earth for most roads. The law-firm would keep weather and traffic data to present a clear picture. This law-firm would know efficient ways to attain police dashboard video and have access to radar testing company’s data to determine reliable information.

Under Haley2024 judicial reforms, every judicial CRA would set up regulations. The ability to video chat a real lawyer among other police accountability efforts would likely be in high demand. Some judicial models might have instant online lawyers, prosecutors, and judges within minutes of the traffic stop. The final resolution of the case could be finalized before the traffic stop ends.

Uploading the video and other data takes only seconds, and the driver’s law-business ensures all the data is valid; they have a quick conversation; and the judge joins the video chat with the officer, prosecutor, defendant’s lawyer, and the driver. The fee is charged on the driver’s credit or debit card on file with their lawyer if the driver is found guilty.

Another reform would be certifications for particular lawyer skills. Currently, lawyers need to go through a complete bachelor’s degree, three-year law school and pass the bar. The lawyer must learn many aspects of the law. Most law schools do not have a full year on just traffic law. There should be specialized law degrees that focus on one aspect of the law. This specialized certificate could allow a person to practice within that specified and well-defined scope of knowledge.

These specialized law-degrees could apply in many aspects of the law. Writing out wills, real-estate, shoplifting, DWI, home invasion, contracts, labor-law among many other segments of law could qualify for specialized law-degrees. A one-year intensive specialized education is less expensive in both time and money.

Lawyer fees would come down when the investment to become a lawyer is significantly reduced. The barrier to entry is further reduced in three-year contracts when the education is built into the compensation contract; meaning, the student/employee, agrees to work at a reduced pay rate for several years in exchange for the education.

When Competitive Regulatory Agencies exist in education and business, unnecessarily expensive and ineffective regulations are driven out and replaced with necessary and efficient regulations. Very few people will want to deal with low rated businesses, so businesses will seek better ratings yielding from better standards, because they know that will increase their business.

Specialized certificates could also apply to the healthcare industry. Currently, the barrier to entry is very high to become a doctor or registered nurse. With the same logic as in the law, one-year intensive certificates in well-defined segments of health care could allow many people to enter the healthcare industry with quality education. The Healthcare Rating System would rate the quality of training and certificates so the public will know the quality of a person’s education.

THE 80% TAX ON LEGAL HELP

How to Regulate Legal Services to Improve Access, Innovation, and the Quality of Lawyering
Hastings Law Journal (2016) Gillian K Hadfield and Deborah L. Rhode

The Cost of Law: Promoting Access to Justice Through the (Un)Corporate Practice of Law
International Review of Law and Economics (2014) Gillian K Hadfield, University of Southern California Law

]]><![CDATA[Separating Employment from Benefits]]>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:54:34 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/separating-employment-from-benefits

Whether someone is working in the gig economy or transitioning between many jobs over time, they should not be forced to switch health insurance and possibly their network of doctors every time they change jobs. Pensions among other retirement plans should be transitioned to extra pay or just paying into private retirement plans. It is vital that employees control these crucial issues of retirement and health care planning.

Too often, when someone searches for a job, they also must consider health insurance that is provided as a benefit. Having those two issues tied together because of the tax law is highly unfortunate. Life insurance has solved the preexisting condition problem with guaranteed renewal surcharges because it is separate from employment other than a basic one-year salary plan.

That is a popular add-on so you cannot get dropped after a fatal disease diagnosis. Free enterprise works best when you pick the company and the plan that fits you the best. Having the company select a one size meets all plan for all its employees hampers free enterprise. Some people get a plan that is too restrictive, too small of a network of doctors or does not cover items that you want insurance for.

Other employers spend a more substantial portion of the employee’s compensation plan on insurance then the employee would have decided, thus lowering salary levels. Some people have real problems contributing to insurance that covers certain items such as abortions. They should be making the choice of insurers without it being tied to the job, so their religious and conscience rights are not infringed.

It is vital that we separate most employee benefits from the workplace. Work should transition all the benefits to direct dollars. Pensions should transition to contributions to an employee’s private retirement plan. Health benefits should transition to contributions to the premium of individual employee picked and controlled health insurance with the remainder if any to a health saving account.

Many companies become self-insured and just use the insurance company as a facilitator; thus there are real incentive issues regarding laying off or firing employees when they or a covered family member are medically costly. Often when employees or their covered dependents develop a preexisting condition, they feel ‘stuck’ in that job in fear of switching jobs and not being covered by the new company.

Unemployment Insurance Should be Privatized

There are many who want very long time limits for eligibility and those that want very short to zero limits. Every employee should buy the policy they wish. The private sector could come up with different qualifications.

Moreover, different insurers could have different mandates once receiving benefits. Many would experiment with new business models. One suggestion would be to have in house temp agencies where people collecting benefits would have to put in certain hours per week as a temp, others could mandate certain volunteer hours in charities.

The possibilities are endless, and many would be tried out if the government would step aside and allow the private sector to take over.

Human Resources companies could emerge where an employee contracts with this new business and just informs their employer to send the benefits portion of the employee compensation to the new HR Company.

Many HR Companies will compete for employee’s business and give many different options. This way, the employer is ensured that their employees are covered on many fronts and the employee is given much more control of the nature of the benefits.

Employers being in charge of all these benefits also mean that they are getting way too far into the employee’s life. To guard against higher health care cost, the employers direct employees’ decisions on food, smoking, and lifestyle choices. With pensions, they have perverse incentives on life expectancy and retirement health benefits.

Most people clearly know the value of benefits when going from having to not having them. 1099 employees and employers know employees need 30-40% more pay to compensate for the lack of health insurance, SSI taxes, unemployment insurance, and retirement funding among others.

1099 employees also lack some employment protections and have to factor all that into whether to take the job. Employers also know that employee protections often result in better employees that stick around. Ratings on HR CRA’s will be valuable when searching for employment.

]]><![CDATA[Three Main Things Will Cause Competitive Regulatory Agencies to Work]]>Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:06:39 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/there-are-three-main-things-that-will-cause-competitive-regulatory-agencies-to-work

First, the structure was built to create the right balances and to spread the power around. The size, the Sector Boards, the Organizations, the control of patents, the authority within the Judicial CRA’s, the professional licenses, and among others, solves many issues of many common complaints.

Second, competition solves a lot of issues created by politician controlled regulations. The free market is allowing the businesses to have the choice on which CRA to choose from and for consumers to have the option on which business receive their purchases. The competition that is not distorted by cronyism, rather true free markets, solves many issues and answers many complaints. If you do not like a specific CRA, simply do not buy from a business regulated by them. Bad business practices must change when businesses lose sales.

Third, ratings completely understood with its structure of competing Rating Agencies solve many issues and could clear many misunderstandings. Consumers will care about many of the items that are rated and will pay a premium for better-rated products. Buying products and services with better ratings mean that you are getting better products and you are supporting better business practices.

]]><![CDATA[CRAs and RA’s Leadership as Representatives]]>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:24:33 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-competitive-regulatory-agencies/cras-and-rating-leadership-as-representatives Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA's) and Rating Agencies (RA’s) as Representatives

Currently, our representatives and executive officials are expected to know and manage or direct far too many activities of which they are not knowledgeable. Moreover, when they do have the knowledge, there is too often a one-way solution that everyone must accept.

Under CRA's and ratings, which have real power, the leadership of your CRA and your RA will be your representatives. On the most part, a CRA’s authority only affects those that voluntarily choose to be ‘governed’ by them. These are not geographic areas, but rather about a dozen CRA's that either cover the state or the entire country. Each business or individual would pick the CRA's that would govern them and the RA they trust.

Standards would rise as ratings clearly show levels of standards each business has and the business’s desire to maintain high reputations and protect their brand. Consumers would trust certain rating agencies, which would derive power and authority with that trust.

CRA representatives would earn their power because of the businesses that voluntarily hire that CRA for their services. The businesses within a CRA would elect the leaders of their CRA. Leaders of CRA's would have expertise within that Sector because there would be many CRA's competing for the administrative and regulatory services offered to business. Poorly regulated CRA's would lose business, thus their power.

The more people who trust a particular RA, the more influence that agency will have in overall ratings. While some would be only concerned with their chosen RA, the overall number (the weighted average of all the RA’s) would be posted.

The weighted average is the number used in rating floors, which are government floors for transactions that harm those outside of the transactions, such as pollution. RA’s would have some power dealing with different CRA's.

]]>