Blog on Haley2024 the Movement

The Core of the Reforms

10/13/2026

COMPETITIVE GOVERNANCE

Competitive Governance within every geographic jurisdiction
The following are significant changes. Some programs move entirely to the free enterprise system, while others are taxed and spent in a much more free-enterprise way. Elected representation is greatly diversified with far less power. Representation moves from elections in geographic districts to each person selecting representative agencies in every area of government. Read, understand, and do not judge too early; the structure of CRAs, ratings, and other reforms deals with most concerns.

The following are sectors of the Budget and the economy (GDP) that Haley2024 proposes to transition to the private sector. I fully realize that these numbers can be confusing. First, what is included in GDP and what is left out? I use combined federal, state, and local; many statistics separate them. When separated, many overlap, since money flows from the federal government to states and localities. Are education credits part of education spending? Are taxes collected listed before credits or after? Are total taxes collected listed before refundable tax credits, and are they included in welfare? Are health care deductions counted as government spending? Is funding counted twice as federal and local education spending if the federal government funds the local?

The never-ending list of reasons why government statistics are so confusing is because so much "spending" is in the tax code, and welfare is in health care and education spending, just to name a few. The amount of mandated spending in regulations is also significant. Most voters find this system difficult to comprehend, and plenty of evidence suggests most elected officials and bureaucrats also lack a clear view of it. Other complications include groups calculating statistics to match their policy preferences and arguments, such as quoting operating budgets but not capital spending, or leaving out sections that don't support their point.

Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA's)
Competitive Regulatory Agencies are the basis of all Haley2024 reforms and structure the private sector. CRAs replace government bureaucracies and regulations by allowing multiple private regulatory agencies to emerge in each business sector, and businesses can choose which agency regulates them. This structure generates better regulations and higher standards. Businesses and CRAs must prominently display ratings, motivating them to protect their brand and improve standards. A better regulatory system will increase GDP, jobs, and average incomes by eliminating counter-productive and ineffective regulations.

REALTOR® and the BBB are current examples of business owners accepting higher standards for increased business. This innovative idea of CRAs replaces the DOL, EPA, DMV, SEC, VA, DOE, FDA, OSHA, DOT, FAA, HUD, FCC, TSA, and the ADA, to name a few.

Many competing rating agencies that you and millions of others trust do in-depth research on each business and on the CRAs and then rate them. Since the government will no longer regulate to ensure standards, it will be vital for rating agencies to fully inform the public with mandatory signs. Ratings provide incentive for companies to improve their standards because consumers will partly determine where they shop by rating levels.

Returning Welfare back to Charity
Over ten years, all city, state, and federal government welfare programs will transition to Charitable Distribution Associations (CDAs). As a replacement for taxes that pay for welfare, citizens will be required to make a personal charitable contribution equal to 5% of their income to one of about a dozen CDAs. CDA's would then fund charities according to their philosophy of helping the poor. This plan has the benefit of allowing Americans to help in the way they believe does the most good. CDAs would be rated and helps those truly in need far greater than government’s poverty inducing welfare.

Health Care
Health care and Health insurance are currently greatly controlled by Government spending and regulations with huge bureaucracies. Reforms of welfare to charity and Competitive Regulatory Agencies will significantly take monopolized government control away from the health care and health insurance industries. This structure will ensure the poor will receive health care far superior to government control.

Education
We currently have an education system that is greatly controlled by the government. From birth through college, the government has a very heavy hand, which greatly compromises parental and constitutional rights. Free enterprise is far superior. In my plan, every child will increase their chance of attaining a quality education. It is wrong to fund the education of 85% of the children and not the other 15%. It is fundamentally wrong for government to offer to fund a child's education only if they are enrolled in public schools, thus controlled by government bureaucrats. This is not a war on public schools, as most teachers do great jobs. Parents have the right and obligation to direct the education of their children.

Social Security
The government will convert federal promises of retirement funds and health insurance into debt and deposit savings bonds into IRAs, guaranteeing funds for those on, or soon to be on, S.S. and Medicaid. Yes, there will be a tax to pay the bonds. This does not add to the tax burden; it just shifts a current tax to repaying bonds. Thereafter, using CRA's and ratings, government requiring a certain amount of retirement planning would be appropriate and sufficient.

Roads and Transportation
The government’s monopoly on roads lacks free market benefits. Haley2024 transitions roads to a structured free enterprise system that brings free market benefits of lower prices and higher quality.

Military Policy
The goal of reforming the military would be to combine free-market principles with total control of the use of force in the hands of elected government officials. Currently, 535 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate determine the military budget, largely based on the individual benefits of each state or district represented and special interests. This results in a large, sporadic budget that is not entirely based on capabilities and skills or on finding the best personnel at the most effective expense.

The Spread of Power
Haley2024 is all about spreading power as wide as possible; concentrated power corrupts.
Power is spread by allowing businesses to choose who regulates the rules affecting them, consumers choosing where to shop, and information from the rating agencies you trust. Returning these major programs from the control of a few politicians back to individuals in the free enterprise system returns power to the people.

The Main page of Haley2024 the Movement

10/7/2026

Competitive Governance within every geographic jurisdiction

Haley2024 the Movement is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating Americans on how the free enterprise system can better accomplish the goals that most government programs attempt to accomplish. A broad structure of new reforms optimizes individuals' liberty through free enterprise, significantly reducing politicians' control over the people.

Competitive Governance is often understood as different cities or states competing with one another for businesses through tax and regulatory policies. Under this current model, a business would have to relocate to effect a change in government.

Here, COMPETITIVE GOVERNANCE means that within the same geographic jurisdiction, such as a city or a state, and across all of America, there are roughly a dozen governments. Every citizen and business select their government, and each government governs only its members without having to move.

The major manifestations of competitive Governance are
Competitive School Boards
Competitive Charity: government welfare ends
Competitive Family Law Competitive Police
Competitive Prisons Competitive Military
Competitive Social Security Competitive Roads
Competitive Currencies
Competitive Healthcare Systems
Authorization Agencies from representatives
Pockets of Freedom: Foreign Policy and Immigration
Competitive Representative Agencies:

Haley2024 uses several new and innovative reforms that allow individuals, families, businesses, and organizations to much more aptly attain, in the free enterprise system, the goals of government. Most governance comes from one of the many competitively selected governing agencies. Representative control is limited to a few narrow, absolutely necessary areas. Many of these reforms can stand alone; however, they are more powerful when joined together.

Haley2024 proposes shifting government representation from elections of individuals to selection of governing agencies. Haley2024 proposes dividing governmental responsibility into thirty Sectors, each with separate governance and representative oversight.

Haley2024 proposes that most regulations, programs, and laws affect only those within each chosen governance agency. These reforms shift governance from governing everyone in a geographic area to having everyone select one agency from a dozen per Sector, with agencies governing only their members.

Haley2024 proposes unique ways to reward or punish positive and negative externalities. Most people can come up with thousands of reasons why the government must tax and spend to have control over the people and thousands more reasons why capitalism does not work. Those reasons are misguided and logically flawed.

Whether one is socialist-minded or mostly capitalist, do not jump to conclusions of "that cannot work" until you read all the new structures and many new reforms.   Haley2024 does not leave it to a "wish and a prayer" that many things will get done. The new structure positively mitigates many negative externalities, resulting in improved results.

The motivation and passion behind these reforms are to stop bad government policies from harming so many. Free enterprise has proven to yield better results for every citizen. While the maximum benefits come from implementing all these reforms, each reform done separately yields improvements. Taxes will still play a role; however, decreased by over 75%.

Just to make sure there is no confusion, all government authority will be separated into thirty near-equal sectors. Distinct leadership means distinct elected offices for police and distinct elected offices for environmental control. Education will have different elected leaders compared to those elected to govern the military. The full set of thirty Sectors will have distinct elected federal, state, and local level components.

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 free enterprise system works better when high-quality information is readily available. Most laws aim to reduce negative externalities. With quality information on how businesses mitigate negative externalities, consumers would naturally reward positive externalities and punish negative ones. This Rating System reduces the need for laws.

For over sixty years, the government has been responsible for alleviating poverty. Tens of trillions of dollars have been redistributed. The results, however, do not reflect the potential held by these resources. The current structure of government welfare entraps people in the system. There is a great need for an individual subjective determination that cannot come from legislation.

Many conservatives and Libertarians often want to differentiate themselves from liberals by saying that the government should ONLY help someone AFTER they have gone to family, friends, the church, and charities. Only then, if those people and groups cannot solve the issue, does the government need to step up and address unmet needs. This ‘government help as a last resort’ is simply not possible; the law does not work that way.

The education sector in America has a high level of socialism. Government spending, administration, subsidies, laws, tax codes, certificates, and regulations create avenues of significant government control. Government requirements to legally work in certain professions create monopolistic adverse effects around that profession’s educational requirements. From birth through college, the government’s massive role affects the lives of our infants, toddlers, young children, pre-teens, teens, young adults, and adults.

The government’s control dramatically compromises parental, religious, and constitutional rights. It is wrong for the government to fund the education of 85% of the children and not the other 15% while taxing everyone. It is fundamentally wrong for the government to fund education only for children enrolled in the public school system.

Law enforcement has negative externalities under government control or in the free enterprise system. History has proven many problems of corruption and civil rights abuses by police under government control. However, government-controlled police also offer many good examples. History shows that political control does not always stop negative externalities.

The Haley2024 law enforcement plan combines the benefits of free enterprise with the robust oversight of representatives of all citizens. The vital role of prices allows trillions of decisions by billions of people to determine the correct level of funding for police. Politicians simply do not have the knowledge needed to determine funding levels correctly.

Violent crime mitigation has five essential parts. Setting the law, enforcing the law, judging the accused, punishing the guilty, and authorizing police powers are all critical in reducing crime. Current politicians oversee all these significant tasks.

These Haley2024 reforms separate these tasks into five Sectors. Each Sector has a representative body concentrating all its efforts on improving its Sector. Free enterprise in law enforcement, courts, and prisons will spur experimentation and improvement.

A study of history from around the world shows a sizable percentage of military leaders taking control from elected leadership. Many militaries use force against their people. The US military is the strongest in world history by orders of magnitude. The US Constitution wisely established a balance of power between Congress and the President. However, America is not immune to problems. The military may well attempt to decide the legitimacy of elections in a real dispute.

It is time to build in many safeguards while there is no conflict. This Haley2024 military structure divides power and authority into five Sectors. Each Sector has two full representative bodies, thus ten representative bodies with very well-defined authorities and responsibilities. There are multiple checks on every concern. This structure brings free-enterprise benefits, the role of prices, and a reliable funding source for the military.

Too many people just assume that government must control the currency. Too many people cannot wrap their heads around the idea of free-enterprise money. The government has controlled it for a long time, and since it already took over education, it teaches that the government must control money. Too often, they teach that all free market attempts at currency were failures. They promote only the good of the Federal Reserve without explaining the harms. Even the top business, finance, and monetary schools teach with flawed fundamentals.

The free enterprise system and the role of prices will improve transportation infrastructure. There is a natural demand for the use of roads by individuals, businesses, government, and the military to travel from one place to another. Whenever there is a natural demand, businesses if not prohibited by the government, will serve that demand.

The Movement Haley2024 calls for all roads to transition from government-owned and controlled to citizen-owned through publicly traded corporations. This change will bring free-enterprise benefits: lower costs, higher quality, better supply, and reduced crony capitalism.

The goals of Social Security and Medicare are to provide the elderly with a steady income and medical care. These are both excellent ambitions. Any alternative plan should work to uphold these objectives. The question is: What is the best method of achieving these goals?

The main stated reason for Social Security and Medicare is that some people do not properly plan for their retirement; thus, when they are elderly and lose their earning potential, they become a burden on society. Because a few did not plan well, the government overreached, resulting in a disastrous plan for everyone.

While everyone is harmed by this current system, the poor are most disadvantaged. Haley2024's plan greatly improves everyone's retirement planning and results.

An Idea to Improve Police Encounters

2/8/2024

When Government law enforcement encounters a person or people they suspect of illegal wrongdoing, it is essential to have excellent protocols. Those protocols should be taught to every citizen in an effort to have police encounters go more smoothly and without breaking into violence or the citizens’ actions putting themselves in greater legal peril. Yes, there are protocols. However, they could be improved and are not taught to the citizens well enough.

The idea is to gather full-time, high-quality police, prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys into one office to review video, evidence, and reports of police encounters. About half of these people will be exclusively in this role, and other people will do a rotation one day a month in this office.

All four vocations examine police encounters from a different perspective. The four people discuss and write reports for all involved in the actual trial. These reports from the four vocations are easily publicly available online and used for the police academy and ongoing police training. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges would also rely heavily on these reports for ongoing knowledge to do their respective jobs properly.

Given that technology allows for dashcams, police body-worn cameras, and real-time video chat, these four people from different occupations would be allowed to be at the police encounter in real-time. If a police official, prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney were to be dialed up during an encounter that met specific criteria, they could all evaluate, have a quick discussion, and then come with a unified voice to speak to the person being detained and give the police on the scene, clear instructions.

This four-occupation office has four distinct roles in creating justice. The police are the muscle that physically apprehends criminals and actively protects the public with weapons and manpower. Prosecutors protect the general citizens or society and are the lawyers who make legal cases presented in a court of law. The defense attorney protects the arrested citizen’s rights and interests in court. The judge oversees the whole operation and has essential powers.

I have watched hundreds of hours of police encounters on the internet. Often, the people stopped by the police are under a false understanding of how they are to act, their rights, and their obligations to obey lawful police commands, among other issues. Often, the person detained says they want a supervisor. Many arrested people would be more cooperative if a police supervisor, defense attorney, judge, and prosecutor gave the detained or arrested person clear instructions. This extra review curtails the police abusing their powers.

These high-quality police, prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys would be government officials with real power relative to their official role. High quality would mean people in the top 10% of their profession in experience and accomplishments. One office means about four teams of four per office and several offices around the state. Each officer in all four professions would have one quality staff person and the necessary tech support. The rotating officials would pull from a greater pool from each occupation but still from the top 50% of their profession.

Legislative Aids from all legislators would be given many hours at these offices to explore proper legislation to address concerns and set protocols. Legislators need to write clear protocols in legislation, and these offices would be a great resource to understand the issues that need to be addressed. Of course, every elected official would be encouraged to spend quality time in these offices.

High schools should have considerable teaching on police encounters, such as an hour per month from various police, defense attorneys, judges, and prosecutors. While high schoolers will have instruction in their schools, these new offices should also have classroom space. Adults who need additional instruction because of how they behaved at police encounters might be ordered by a judge to take additional classes.

It would be wise for every police officer to have a desk cop in every police encounter doing real-time video chats with the law enforcement officer on the scene. They would use earbuds, body cameras, dashboard cameras, and GPS and have full computer access. The desk cop would be able to record and document everything in real time; they would be able to run background checks and license plates, among other tools.

The desk cop looking at the body cam and dash cams might pick up on threats quicker because they can rewind and pause the video, plus the dashcam is a different video. The desk cop could see multiple dash and body cams from different cops. The desk cop can do the background in real-time when the cop at the scene has other pressing matters. The desk cop would have a protocol on when to bring in the four-occupation office to assist.

The four-occupation office would have a significant role in the first 72 hours after an arrest dealing with bail and detainment. The judge, police, prosecutor, and defense attorney would all protect their role in creating justice.

This four-occupation office can be under the current government structure or under the Competitive Governance Structure. In both systems, there are the same four occupations. Under competitive governance, you will have additional personnel, such as Rating Agencies and Law Enforcement Authorization personnel. Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA’s) would staff offices based on their percentage of members. The detained or arrested citizen would have their defense attorney CRA to supply an official.

In some cases, if protocols are sufficient, other issues are not at play, and all parties agree, these reports from the four occupations and the judge’s rulings could be thorough enough to be the actual legal proceedings.

Transitioning Away from Government to Societal Oversight

7/7/2019

By Bill Haley
The first thing is to define terms and realize that there are grey areas, overlaps, and many issues that will not clearly fall neatly into categories. The government here is defined as the state, the city or by the country that has sovereign control, authority and responsibility for a geographic area and the people and businesses within that area. This definition of government, at this point, does not mean self-governance, corporate-governance, or other freely chosen organizational governance. Societal oversight is citizens within a geographic area that has oversight of private actions that go too far outside of societal norms and has negative externalities.

Indeed, government control has societal oversight functions. Societal oversight is a subset of government. Government control is the micromanaging regulations, the taxing, and spending by government. It is essential to note this advocacy is about an 85% move in that direction, and each Sector of current government control has many different aspects to consider.

Government control in the area of helping the poor has government taxing every household on an average of $10,000 per year or roughly 5% of GDP. Societal oversight means society insisting as a condition of living in this geographic area, that everyone must help the poor the way they see fit with 5% of their income. Haley2024 developed a Charity Structure that meets the definition of societal oversight.

The current government welfare system and the Haley2024 Charity System both mandates that everyone helps the poor; however, the government system is a one size fits all structure that allows the poor to demand benefits when they meet the qualifications of politicians. The Haley2024 Charity System allows everyone over a dozen options to donate, (yes, mandatory donations) their 5%. The Charity System option uses subjective determinations.

The Current government control of education taxes citizens roughly $10,000 per year or approximately 5% of GDP. Societal oversight means that society mandates that everyone educates their own children. The level of socialism in government schools is profound. If people want to stay with the current system, they should be allowed. However, the people that want to be out of government schools currently can only take themselves out of the benefit side of the socialism of education.

The Haley2024 plan is to allow people to take themselves out of the funding (lifetime taxing) side when they forgo the benefit side. Haley2024 education reforms set an excellent framework for education. The Haley2024 Education plan fulfills the societal oversight role without the politician and bureaucrat control issues.

Society needs family law, labor law, contract law, banking regulations, insurance regulations, safety laws, and health care laws. The government currently fulfills that area of law; however, these laws do not need a one size fits all approach. Yes, different states have different laws dealing with these issues. People living a mile apart near the state border are living under different sets of laws. These laws deal with interactions of people or businesses.

Currently, the government sets a one size fits all for its state or city. The Haley2024 plan allows roughly a dozen Competitive Regulatory Agencies to operate in each of these Sectors of regulations and within each geographic area. Societal oversight means that every person and every business must be regulated; however, they have many options of what set of laws that they wish to live under. There are only a few areas, such as violent crime, where one standard is required. This move to societal oversight ensures a set of regulations; however, without a one size fits all government control.

In the foreign policy and military parts of government, there needs to remain one commander in chief and speaking with one voice to other countries. The Haley2024 Foreign Protection System profoundly divides the power to ensure better checks and balances. The Haley2024 reform for the military brings in the free enterprise system and the role of prices to the greatest extent possible. Many Haley2024 reforms enhance true representation of citizens in profound ways when government control is required.

In the area of policing, currently, the government has control. The Haley2024 Violent Crime Mitigation System overwhelmingly moves to a societal oversight role. While the oversight is more robust than banking, food safety, or manufacturing oversight; the Haley2024 moves to a profoundly competitive free enterprise system.

The robust oversight requires that everyone and every business purchase police services sufficient for the job and starting at current police funding levels. The Societal oversight requires police training and societal oversight on who has police authority. This robust societal oversight deals with the court system and prisons as well. Please read the full plan at Private Law Enforcement and Violent Crime Mitigation pages on Haley2024.org

The Haley2024 Rating System is a secondary system of societal oversight with real power to restrict negative externalities. The Rating System is also competitive in providing the best information possible to the citizens. The benefits of great information are immense.

America became great because Americans were willing to fight for our freedom from foreign foes, created a great rule of law, and assist those with serious unmet needs. America’s separation of power, respect for civil liberties, and free enterprise system also played a vast role in increasing the standard of living of Americans. We should all be careful about changing a system that is the envy of the world. It is with great care and consideration that we entertain these changes. Each Haley2024 reform enhances the positives and mitigates the negatives.

High-Level Federal Employee Investigations

5/18/2019

By Bill Haley 5-18-2019
There are currently many legal proceedings that lengthen an investigation into many years. There needs to be a greater focus on the importance of a speedy investigation and trial. It is not wise to hamper a federal employee because they have important work to do. It is not wise to have a questionable federal employee stay on the job because they may do more significant harm with the power inherent in their government position. There is always a balance in the value of attaining the correct legal outcome with the value of a quick resolution.

The President of the United States was under a cloud of suspicion from 2017 to 2019. The president was questioned and accused every time he communicated with the Attorney General or FBI. Many legislative endeavors were greatly hampered. Many Americans lost faith in federal leadership on both sides of the political divide.

The 2016 election was called into doubt, and there is potential for uncertainty in future elections. If there is ever enough evidence to start an investigation, and a threshold really needs to be set; dozens of investigators with significant authority should quickly take action and within weeks come to a conclusion.

Senator Stevens lost a US Senate race because he was under a lengthy investigation. The Supreme Court gave a 9-0 opinion stating the investigators abused their authority. The investigators significantly affected the balance of power in the US Senate. Momentous legislation was passed because of the Senator that won that race. There was lasting damage or progress, depending on one’s policy preference. The issue here is that an extended investigation had a monumental impact.

Giving an increased level of authority to dozens of highly qualified investigators and prosecutors with the ability for quick action is better than a long drawn out investigation. To be able to start an investigation of this kind, 70% of twenty State Attorneys General from both parties should have complete knowledge and sign-off that there is enough evidence to proceed with a complete investigation.

If that threshold is met, the person under investigation is relieved of his or her duties for the duration of the investigation, and 70% of the same Attorneys General will need to sign off every three days to continue. On day 21, they need to start a trial or stop the investigation. After the 21-day investigation, 70% of the Attorneys General should have the ability to require another Senate confirmation.

Higher level federal employees, maybe the top 200, will need 70% of all 50 state Attorney Generals to sign off on the investigation. The person being investigated will get high-level public defenders, thus much higher reimbursement rates than the average public defender. We have seen federal employees financially ruined by needing an attorney for years. The ability of a prosecutor to bankrupt the person they are investigating with legal bills stretching out for years is a significant issue.

The 70% sign off on an investigation means that there is significant evidence and that a high percentage of signoff creates a substantial level of warrant authority. A judge should be assigned full-time to the case with unhampered ability to see all information and examine investigators tactics.

In the Russia Investigation, there are significant questions regarding investigator and prosecutor tactics. The Attorneys General and the judge would embed investigators loyal to the AG’s and judge to 100% examine the investigation. The current system often can give investigators and prosecutors substantial unchecked power. There is often, a need for that power; however, there is a need for constant unfettered oversight of that power.

This reform is dealing with the current system. Under the full CRA Structure, the Haley2024 Rating System will play a vital role by having the ability to have unfettered access to all police and prosecutor information. The Law Enforcement Authorization (LEA) would authorize all people with law enforcement authority. This LEA Sector would have ample authority to examine every aspect of police, judges, and prosecutors’ actions and pull their power if abuse is found.

Another significant improvement of the CRA Structure is the ability of a CRA or a CRA Sector Board to quickly replace a questionable leader with another person with the same governing values. Currently, there is a need to wait until the next election. That delay can often create a desire for party loyalty of keeping a questionable person in power, so the other party does not take over control.

This reform would also apply to candidates for elected offices. A campaign is often short, with significant time and resource constraints. Voters perceive candidates under investigations as likely guilty, and their support is diminished. The need for a speedy investigation is profound before an election. Each major political party should assign several lawyers that have 100% visibility of all data collected from investigators and prosecutors so that they can ensure a witch-hunt is not conducted to harm a candidate.

The Black Population: A History of Five Types of Oppression; Now Let Us Try Liberty, Freedom, and Rights

4/24/2019

Slavery

The black population was enslaved for hundreds of years, and that oppression hampered their thriving.

Second Class Citizens

For a century, the black population was considered second class citizens under Jim-Crow where their opportunities were significantly curtailed. In the 1960s, the civil rights movement changed many hearts and mindsets. Most bigotry was pushed underground and diminished as prejudice became taboo.

The Welfare State

For the last sixty years, a new type of oppression became popular. Most people sold the welfare-state as ‘helping’ and a good thing. The misconception of the ‘helping aspect’ of the welfare state was pushed and gained wide acceptance. Every election the stakes were raised, and the welfare state grew. While helping the poor is a noble endeavor; how the help is structured is vitally important.

It made sense to only help those people in bad situations. Therefore, the welfare state gave benefits to people in bad situations. The result was, unfortunately, the incentivization of the people to put themselves in bad situations. As people became reliant on welfare benefits, they could not easily escape the welfare state.

A mother with a sick child on Medicaid does not risk her child’s health insurance by getting a job. The government politicians clearly determined that a fatherless home was a bad situation and made a fatherless home a qualification of welfare benefits. As the welfare benefits grew, the incentive to stay unemployed or under-employed grew. The fatherless homes rate increased.

The missing ingredient of the government welfare state as compared to charity is the subjective determination. Charities always have the ability to say ‘NO’ when they see someone going down the wrong path. The welfare state is controlled by hard and fast laws regarding qualifications of benefits. Often, working a few more hours a week can put someone in a much worse financial situation.

While the welfare state affects both the black and white populations; the black community was influenced at a higher percentage rate because of the century of racial discrimination. The black population did not have the time to financially catch up with the white population as the welfare state grew significantly in the same decade (the 60s) as the civil rights movement. Given that low-income was an essential qualification for benefits, the black population qualified at much higher rates.

While the black population enjoyed a low percentage of fatherless homes in the 1950s, the fatherless rate grows from roughly 20% to approximately 70%. Society can handle a few snags (fatherless homes) in the social fabric; however, the social fabric becomes shredded at 70%. The welfare state expanded the problem by grouping the fatherless homes in neighborhoods of over 95% fatherless homes.

Several generations in some areas have now had the misfortune of very little interaction, exposure, or experience of a loving husband and wife relationship. The role of fathers and good marriages are vital in society. The primary and overwhelming reason for the low education rate, low-income rate, high crime rate, high incarceration rate, low wealth rate, and other significant disparities is how much children are exposed to fathers and good marriages.

The white and black populations have vastly different rates of welfare use. The US Census states (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html) that in 2012; 41.6 percent of the black population participate in government assistance programs in an average month compared to 13.2% of the white population. This three-times greater percentage is amplified by government policies that tend to group much of the 41.6% together in neighborhoods of much higher concentrations of children with low exposure to fathers and good marriages. This same US Census page documents that 50% of (Female-householder families) participated in major means-tested programs, compared to 14.7% of married families.

Public Education

The Public-School System was purported to help educate everyone. Indeed, many Public-School supporters have the best of intentions. An educated populace is a true and valuable public good. How the system is structured is vitally important. If structured well, the system could be highly beneficial. However, if structured poorly, the government can genuinely oppress the people. The current structure of the Public-School System is truly oppressive.

The structure of the Public-School System is socialism. Government officials teach our children. There are no free enterprise benefits within the government-run schools. All the negatives of socialism are seen within the system. The lack of choice and parental rights is profound.

For many reasons, the black population is faring very poorly under the oppressive Public-School System structure. Because many neighborhoods have a high percentage of children without fathers or many good examples of healthy marriages and Public Schools admissions are based on geography; some schools have a high percentage of these disadvantaged children.

The Infringement of Religion

The church has a long history of academically educating its members. The church has also been highly involved in helping the poor. Since the government has taken over education and the task of helping the poor; the church has taken a significant step back. The government must educate and assist the poor in a secular manner. The government has significantly reduced the level of religion in the peoples’ lives. Religion has been a significant civilizing force in human history, and the infringement of religion has proven to be an exceptionally oppressive force.

The Best Reparations

The best reparation is full liberty. Every person should have freedom until they start infringing on another person’s freedom. Rights need to be understood as being left alone. A right is something that government does not infringe. The freedom of speech or of religion is not given to individuals by the government; it is a right inherent in every person, and society established a government that forbids politicians from sending police to stop you from speaking or practicing your religion. The police also must stop individuals from infringing another person’s rights.

The Second Best

3/14/2019

While Haley2024 the Movement proposes most government programs returning to free enterprise, the second best is that all programs are financially segregated with a dedicated tax and spending only coming from that tax. This will tie the services to the tax so people can better understand the tax and its needs/services. This will significantly reduce or eliminate the general fund. This could lead to creating laws that exempt people from a tax if they ‘Take Care’ of the need/services on their own.
This would work better under the reform ‘Fighting Federal Control’ where every program is funded and controlled only by one level of government.

In education, many school choice plans would be far better than the current massive government control. Anything that would reduce the financial burden of losing the government funded education if parents want to maintain their control of their children’s education is welcome. Some important principals are equal funding as compared to the public schools, do not tie curriculum controls, do not mandate secularism, do not forbid a religious environment, do not have ‘Must Accept Payment in Full’ provisions on private schools and if extra, allow funds to roll into future years. Currently, private schools are held by law in an education model of six hours per day, 180 days, for 12 years. The law also encourages the old model of a teacher in front of students which limits the great business/educational models one could envision with technology. Allow many models to emerge.

School choice is for every child, not just those failing, disabled or other special classes of children. Since the current Public School System is morally reprehensible and very socialist in nature, most reforms allowing freedom are welcome. Here is another education system reform that should be given consideration. Parents need to be given choices, and new business/ educational models need to be tried.

Remember that an educated child is the goal.

The numerous and ever-improving Individual retirement plans in the free enterprise system are so superior to government control; however, if the political system does not allow that change, there are ways to limit the damage. Limit spending to the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax. Set a hard upper limit. Segregate them away from the general fund. Then politicians would be forced to make choices on benefits to match the money collected. Often this is claimed in the current system; however, not the reality. Change the agreement that Social Security and Medicare do not start until the age of life expectancy or even 10% higher, meaning it is insurance not meant for everyone. Private sector annuities could manage this type of externality better than the government.

Elections

3/14/2019

This is not part of Haley2024’s CRA Structure. This was a precursor to the CRA Structure. This was a page created in 2014, and I am switching this to a blog post in 2019. I keep this page to show a good idea; however, the full CRA Structure creates a healthier system and better representation.

How to make third parties grow without an effective vote for the opposition party:

Most elections have more than half of the races uncontested or were far from close. Anyone in a district without a close race has the sense that his or her vote is not meaningful, and that district has a lower voting turnout. In addition, the third-party participation is reduced because it is hard to get a majority as a third party in a two-party system. If a party can muster ten percent in all the races across the state or country, they end up with zero delegates or congressmen, even though they represent ten percent of the people. This fact also keeps people from voting their first choice in fear of “wasting” their vote.

The Haley2024 Plan

The Haley2024 plan is to have fifty percent of the delegates or congressmen from districts and fifty percent from “proportional” voting. Everyone gets one vote for his or her district and one vote for “proportional.” Proportional here, meaning people vote statewide for state offices, or countrywide for federal offices for a party with pre-selected and ordered representatives. Each party wins the percentage of delegates or congressmen based on their percentage of the vote.

Fifty delegates in “proportional” results in any third party that can get up to two percent will get one seat. For Congress, 217 congressmen in proportional means a party needs about 0.5% or 1 of every 217 voters to gain one seat in Congress. Bigger districts would mean races that are more competitive, and every vote would count in proportional thus raising voter turnout.

This will also allow a balance between delegates looking out for their districts and those that represent their voters throughout the whole state or country. Nearly everyone would be represented by their first choice.

Preselected and ordered representatives means real men and women who are otherwise eligible to serve that office and selected from a qualified party will run as a ticket. If 217 seats of Congress are up for proportional election and a party receives 10% of the proportional vote, they would have their first 21 people on their list become congressmen. At that point, they are legally fully independent congressmen. However, morally they owe their allegiances to the people who voted for them and on the policies with which they ran for office.

A popular politician could start his or her own party or factions could go their separate ways on one issue and not lose the majority on the other issues. There are many people who have the skills to be great congressmen; however, they might not be the best campaigners. This system would allow some leaders of the movement to do the campaigning and others with exceptional qualities to be on the ballot with them. Everyone would have a congressman with their values and policies representing them.

Bubble up

If 217 seats of Congress are up for proportional election, a party would need 0.46% of the vote to elect each congressman. If they only got 0.4% or 0.8%, they would be wasting votes, and the voters’ true intentions would not have an effect. The solution is that any votes over what is needed for congressmen would bubble up to a preselected party. So, if party A receives 0.7%, they would use the 0.46% for a congressman and bubble up the remaining 0.24% to a like-minded party that might push them up another congressman. This will allow people to feel confident that their vote is not wasted.

Currently, a large percentage of voters are not represented by someone with their views. Under this new reform, the vast majority of people will be.

Presidential Elections
A Better Primary System

Presidential races should have two parts, two sets of primaries and only the winners of two primaries in the general election. These two primaries will be taken out of the hands of the parties, and all third parties will be required to go through the primaries with the two main parties. The primaries will start by law on Tuesday nine days after Easter. The primaries will take place every Tuesday for a period of ten weeks. The weeks will be evenly split by population, with roughly five states each week. The states will have to rotate their order every presidential cycle.

The primaries will have two parts. The first part will have many candidates and will have the purpose of getting down to two candidates per primary. The second part will have those two candidates compete for the rest of the weeks (for each primary). For the first week, all the candidates that qualify get on the ballots (qualifying standards will be set federally). Candidates that achieve more than three percent on the first week, qualify for the second week.

Candidates who achieve 8% qualify for the third week. Candidates who achieve 15% qualify for the fourth week. Candidates who achieve 25% qualify for the fifth week. Only the top two move on from there. Then the second half begins. If only two candidates qualify before the fifth week, the second half starts at that point. The top two candidates must move on, even if one or both do not make the percentages listed for that week.

The second part is a popular vote total of all the weeks, starting when the primary race becomes a two-person race. Every week additional states add their vote totals and the primary finishes the tenth week with a winner.

The two primary winners run in the general election in November. The electoral college and popular vote, both have their pros and cons. With the electoral college, very little campaigning happens in the three largest states. Currently, the bulk of campaigning occurs in less than a fourth of the states. If America simply used the popular vote, the largest cities would see the candidates the most.
The merger between the two maximizes the pros and minimizes the cons. The purpose is to incentivize campaigning importance everywhere.

The Haley2024 plan is to continue with the current Electoral College while adding extra Electoral College votes for winning the popular vote. For every tenth of one percent of the popular vote differential that one candidate receives, they earn an extra Electoral College vote. Therefore, a win in the popular vote by 2.8% would yield an additional 28 Electoral College votes.

These are the main points of the plan, and many details will be negotiable.

Campaign Finance Laws

All candidates will have to join a Campaign Finance Competitive Regulatory Agencies (known as CRAs) and will be bound by the regulations in that association. All these CRA’s will be rated. Voters will look very poorly on candidates that are not required to be open and honest about their contributors, resulting in low ratings. However, the First Amendment's free speech clause had this kind of free speech in mind.

Money in Politics

The more the government does, the more people will try to influence the candidates and politicians. If you take away 72% of what government does, the money will not flow to the candidates because their views on health care, roads, education, welfare, social security, and regulations would be dispersed in the private sector. Corruption will decrease because power will be spread wide rather than put in the hands of the few.

Protecting People

3/14/2019

The government's attempt to protect people (excluding police and military) has often been more harmful than helpful. It is essential to have a stable rule of law, police enforcement, and a robust military to protect from outside forces.
The government's attempts to protect people are oppressive when they require them to limit the liberties of, control or hinder self-governance. It is also harmful in any scenario where the government attempts to stop the discrimination of, decide for, or provide for an individual.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao killed millions ultimately because they thought their version of statism was the best way to protect their people from want, greed, and capitalists. They had a misguided vision of utopia in which you must oppress people in order for them to have the best life possible.
While the United States does not have this level of "protection," any level of statism always causes oppression. Haley2024 recognizes the family unit is the smallest governmental system and is undermined by the government trying to protect or provide for families.

The individual should have the most power, followed by the family unit, followed by an extended family, followed by voluntary private organizations, whether business or not for profit.

Communist and socialist governments try to provide for people. The government will tell the people where to work, what they may learn, how much they get, and when they may do things. This simply is not liberty, but it has been the norm for over ninety percent of the people over history.

Only when America was founded on liberty and had the will to defend it against outside forces, did standards of living dramatically improve. Most improvements were in the United States; however, other countries have followed suit to a certain degree, andAmerica's rising water helped others in more oppressed nations rise as well.
When the government gives aid, families are weakened, organizations pull back, and society deteriorates. Many examples of this are unfortunate and revealing. In the first half of the 1900s, the African American family was strong. Two-parent families were the norm, and black children were encouraged to learn and achieve a good standard of education.

The black family taught patriotism and respect to others. They had organizations that helped when the need grew more substantial than the family's abilities. Yes, racism and discrimination harmed the black family. It was entirely morally wrong and needed to end; however, ending discrimination did not cause the breakdown of the black family.
The civil rights movement happened at the same time as the great society. Blacks at this time had a significantly lower income and thus was disproportionally “provided for” through the great society. This is a great side by side comparison of two groups that had significant differences in the percentage of their populations eligible to be “provided for.”

In fact, ENDA might even make it more difficult for gay individuals to get hired. The law would create many false positives of discrimination. These would be cases where the employer was not bigoted, but for some reason chose not to hire a gay person and was then legally penalized for it. The threat of legal trouble will make all employers a little less eager to supply jobs, making it more difficult for everyone to get hired.
(Source: article on the right).

When the government provides for someone, that individual no longer has the responsibility. This weakens the need for strong families and organizations. While people of all races suffered from family breakdown, they did so on proportions of those populations eligible to be ‘provided for.’ A closer look would show a high percentage of those African American families not ‘provided for’ still enjoying a strong family.

Protection against discrimination, whether by race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or a host of other protected classes have had adverse effects on society. Without a doubt, discrimination based on these things is immoral, but the government's intolerance of discrimination harms more than it helps.

People in protected classes have a higher chance of causing the company legal problems even if discrimination is not intended. Companies legal department forces the company to make decisions based on race and gender, so they do not have legally problematic disparities from laws meant to stop decisions being made on race and gender. Many HR people see a lawsuit stapled to a protected person’s job application and will try to ovoid problems if possible.

Campaign Finance Reform

3/14/2019

There is often an assumption that money in politics is a bad thing. As with everything, there is a balance, and some money appears corrupt while other donations look admirable. The question that needs to be asked is “why do people donate?” In the free enterprise system, people ‘vote’ with their dollars and acquire what they purchase.

If the item is provided by the government, politicians tax everyone and decide what everyone gets. Quite simply, if politicians want larger campaign accounts, they need to take over more control of what taxpayers are provided with or control people through regulations. Naturally, if politicians decide, then people will try to influence that decision. The simple answer is that we allow everyone to decide for themselves within the free enterprise system.

There are politicians trying to find new ways of taking money out of politics. Limits, bans, full disclosure, and even government funded campaigns have been proposed and tried. It is like taking a small raft and pushing the water down in the pool, the water will just come up everywhere else. There are clear limits to donating to candidates for president; however, whenever donations are reported they also include ‘their super-PAC’s’ contributions, which are without limits.

Clearly, lawmakers pushed down the donations to candidates with limits, and the money is still raised to support those candidates through PAC’s. If one looks at campaign reporting, it is incredible how much money passes from one candidate to another which is another way to funnel money. Political parties and PAC’s are often without limits and can benefit a candidate in many ways that are not direct contributions. PAC’s are known for the negative, and the positive ad buys or just getting out volunteers for phone banks or walking, knocking and talking.

There are hundreds of organizations that will inform their members of the preferences of candidates. A simple email to a thousand gun rights or gun control advocates could have significant impacts on individual races. This type of involvement is excellent; however, if they are in opposition to your point of view or your interests, it is easy to fall into thinking that this way is fundamentally wrong.

Churches have restrictions on engaging in politics in order to receive significant tax benefits. This financial benefit allows the government to control the church in profound ways. The ‘gay rights’ issues and the ACA (Obama-care) are two recent cases (2014-2015) among others that have great dangers of government controlling the church in profound ways. Church leaders must keep in mind the great power of government control when they decide to speak on matters that could damage a politician’s reputation.

Special interests are often maligned as having too much power and buying politicians. While all systems can be abused, special interests are mostly funded by many activists in that area. For example, environmentally concerned citizens group together to have a more focused impact on legislation. The comparative advantage is evident in that one lobbyist who has knowledge of the laws, legislators, procedures, and strategies can be more effective and less costly then hundreds of citizens taking their time and money to study and then travel to their state or federal capital to talk to their legislator about the issues.

Until the full transition to the CRA structure, the Haley2024 plan is to allow Campaign Finance Competitive Regulatory Agencies to be formed and every candidate must choose by what CRA they are regulated. These campaign CRA’s would be rated and must be disclosed widely. Voters would likely demand high standards of campaign donations and campaign spending to have a chance at their vote.

Utilities and Natural Monopolies

3/11/2019

I created this Utilities Page in 2015 and switching it to a blog post in 2019. The thought pattern is roughly the same; however, the CRA Structure has been more refined. The primary issue is that politicians have too much control over these very complex corporations. Many people point to the monopoly issue and suggest that it is essential to have government control.

Those people do not understand or unappreciated the severe downside of politicians controlling a large corporation. This oversight has resulted in political decisions being made rather than business decisions. Two prime examples are that both electrical power and water companies advertise how to use less of their product. Many utilities are significant campaign contributors creating vast conflicts of interests.

The CRA Structure has many checks and balances to address the issue of a natural monopoly. The Rating System is a large check. The Rating Floor requires a corporation with a natural monopoly to meet a standard. Many natural monopolies will be required to be publicly traded companies so the users of the services of water, electricity, stormwater, sewage, roads, and others can own these corporations. Ownership rights come with the ability to vote on the CEO and the Board of Directors. The Haley2024 reform of Corporate Proxy Groups will significantly improve stock ownership rights. Corporations would be regulated by a CRA in Sector 25: Personal and Business.

Knowledge and Corruption

3/10/2019

This Knowledge and Corruption Page was created in 2015. I am transferring this page to a blog post and updating it in 2019.

Corruption happens when unchecked power is given to one person or just a few people.

A building inspector could be given a bribe to look the other way only because that inspector is the only person with the power to hold up a job.

Politicians routinely put up bills to get public interest PAC’s’ campaign money to pull the bill.

Contractors collude with the bureaucrats to overbill and give kickbacks only because those bureaucrats have the government money to spend.

They are out in the open. Legal ways to be corrupt, such as congressman trading on a stock with inside information or trading on a stock when their power as a congressman has a profound influence on that stock price.

The cure is spreading the power wide. Competition is where corruption struggles to exist. This is why it is far better for control to be in the free market and if necessary, in the lower levels of government.

The city is better than the state and state better than federal; however, the free market is optimal. Competition has proven to reduce corruption because power is more spread out and people can freely decide with who they do their business.

Knowledge

The President is responsible for roughly 23% of spending in the USA.

While he has assistance from federal workers, the knowledge, time, and dedication he and his administration have are not close to the 316 million peoples' brains, intelligence, time, experience, or level of caring.

People looking after their own lives and businesses are much more dedicated than a distant bureaucrat will ever be.

‘Pay for play’ is done often and becoming so brazen. The public and the media become numb to this pay for play attitude.

This story about bank PAC's is just one of the hundreds of stories about the very enormous power placed in such a few hands and how much money is thrown around trying to elect and influence those few.

Money in Politics

Often money in politics can look like corruption. Corruption at this point can all be pure motivation. One could honestly believe in the candidate and issues, and the donations could look legitimate; however, someone could offer a substantial contribution if the candidate changes their position on an issue.

If the candidate takes the money and changes position, was it because they were legitimately convinced of the other policy position or were they doing it for the money? One must also look at where the money originated.

If the money came from many in small amounts, it represents many people’s views and more legitimate for a politician to consider; however, if the money comes from one large donor, it looks as if a millionaire is buying the politician.

If the Millionaire donates big and it changes policy that enables a large employer to keep a business open, does it become more legitimate? Lastly, most of the answers to the above question will depend on if the politician changes to or stays with the reader’s position on the issues.

All this being said, the more government does, the more people will try to influence the candidates and politicians. If you take away 72% of what government does, the money will not flow to the candidates because their views on health care, roads, education, welfare, Social Security, and regulations would be dispersed in the private sector? Corruption will go down because the power will not be in the hands of the few, rather, spread wide.

All of Haley2024 is spreading the power as wide as possible and giving the people the ability to vote with their feet and their dollars.

Dominion Power donates Millions of dollars to political campaigns. While this can be problematic for any company, it is very questionable for a utility that is heavily regulated by the politicians they are donating to. State lawmakers very flush campaign funds ward off challengers to their elected office, giving great concern whether lawmakers regulatory power over Dominion results in these donations.

Haley2024 Introduces Several New Ideas Into the Arena of Government Reforms

11/24/2018

The mind cannot foresee its own advance - Hayak

1,000 years ago, the people had all the raw materials to make an F-22 Raptor. However, they lacked two key ingredients. First, they lacked the envisionment of most elements in an advanced fighter jet and much less the overall product. Second, the people lacked the knowledge of how to build most of the thousands of pieces needed in the construction of the jet.

Haley2024 envisions a transition from electing individuals to selecting governing agencies.

Haley2024 envisions a country with most governance deriving from Competing Governing Agencies.
These Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA’s) are not geographical but comprise of their freely chosen members.

Haley2024 envisions a Rating System comprised of multiple Rating Agencies that will accurately provide quality information to reward and punish positive and negative externalities, thus reducing the need for most laws.

Haley2024 envisions governance split into thirty sectors, each with different CRA’s and leadership.

Haley2024 lays out the structure in which the free enterprise system can fully thrive to serve the entire population the best. The complexity of the free enterprise system should always stay with individuals, businesses, and private organizations, never in representative control.

About 500 years ago, people started envisioning democracy and constitutional republican forms of government. In 1787 America was the first to try out this new concept to great success.

Maintaining and in-fact enhancing the representative nature of government, Haley2024 switches most representation to competitive governing organizations leaving the representative control of all to a very narrow and necessary few items.

The Haley2024 reforms on helping the poor and education will curtail the great harm the government is currently doing. The Haley2024 reforms on criminal justice and the military will enhance efficiencies and professionalism.

Diversified Representation: Haley2024 increases true representation and maximizes liberty

11/18/2018

Haley2024 increases true representation and maximizes liberty

In the current system, a representative represents all the people in a geographic region. There are roughly 700,000 people for a US Congressmen and 80,000 in the Virginia House of Delegates. All these citizens have wide differences of opinion regarding public policy. As a result, Congressmen and Delegates represent people and not the people’s opinions or their interests. A citizen’s opinions and interests are the major issues in need of being represented.

How often does a lawyer represent both the plaintiff and the defendant? If a citizen wants the country to go to war, is that citizen represented if their Congressmen votes no on the war authorization? If a citizen wants a $2 trillion federal budget; is that citizen represented when the congressmen votes for a $4 trillion federal budget? If a citizen wants socialism, is that citizen represented when their Delegate votes for liberty? If a citizen wants increased respect for parental control of education, are they represented when their Delegate votes to amplify government’s power over education?

Many people will point to elections and how they reflect the ‘opinion of the majority.’ First, every citizen deserves representation. Second, an election often has one or two viable candidates and rarely does the one, or either of the candidates have the stated position platform likable to a sizable minority of voters. Third, a large percentage of citizens do not vote on a regular basis. The ‘none of the above’ or ‘hold your nose’ voting is significant. A voter might like a candidate's welfare policy; however, not their warfare policy. The ‘opinion of the majority’ is rarely on the full policy platform

Citizens do not know the candidate's positions well. It takes a long time to study the position paper of candidates fully. Most candidate's websites are very weak on quality policy positions. Short nonspecific quotes are normal. Media reports of candidate’s positions are problematic at best and prone to bias. The opposing campaign often misleads and takes out of context, a candidate’s position on many issues. The very rational ignorance of the voter’s knowledge of candidates is profound. Even after 18 months of intense media attention and campaigning from presidential campaigns; the vast majority of citizens do not know the real stated positions of the candidates. Often the candidate's stated positions do not reflect past or future voting.

Members of Congress and Delegates have too much on their plate. They have control of a $4 trillion federal budget or a $54 billion state budget. There are hundreds of departments that these representatives create, oversee, regulate and fund. There is not the time to fully investigate each department to make wise decisions. People spend years studying tax policy, education policy, police policy, prison policy, foreign affairs, welfare policy, road policy, military policy among many others. It is hard work over many years trying to master one segment of public policy; it is impossible to master all of the sectors of the economy controlled by the government

Campaigning requires skills that are different from governing. Campaigning necessitates great communication skill, asking for donations, personal appearances, interview skills, among other campaigning skills. Even with good campaign staff, the candidate must spend much of their time campaigning. Members of Congress and House of Delegate Members hold two-year terms, and research shows that fundraisers never have an off year.

The skills of governing or legislating are different. To govern well; one must read many reports, go to many seminars, seek opinions from a wide variety of people, and dig deep to understand the current legislation and proposal for new legislation. One should have the experience to understand possible negative side-effects and seek out those with that experience. Campaigning and governing/legislating are two different full-time jobs with different skill sets. It is hard to get elected without dedicating most of one’s time for campaigning, thus elected officials do not have the time to do the job they were elected to do. The job of a House of Delegate member is a part-time position with part-time compensation.

The Haley2024 Solution

The Haley2024 solution is to split all regulations into 30 sectors; thus, having a great division of labor and responsibilities. Each representative will govern/legislate only within their sector. Furthermore, each sector has two representative systems, the Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA’s), and the Rating Agencies (RA’s); one has regulatory duties and the other, oversight. Moreover, every citizen chooses an agency that represents their views in every sector. This choice is not like a winner governs all election; every citizen’s chosen CRA and RA represents or governs only their members. A 70% vote of representatives in their sector forces governing to representative control. Every citizen wins every vote with roughly a dozen well-defined choices. That choice brings greater power to the chosen agencies.

Unless there are negative externalities, a CRA governs only their members. A citizen cannot force their opinions, regulations or controls on others. Every agency needs to compete for the business or trust of every person and business; therefore, must compete to legislate/govern better than their competition. Most people in the agencies will focus their full-time attention on the best legislation/governance because the rating agencies will focus on informing the citizens; however, it is likely agencies will have a public relations team as well.

Switching Representation from Electing Individuals to Selecting Governing Agencies

11/18/2018

Haley2024 proposes switching representation from electing individuals to selecting governing agencies. Every citizen selects a governing agency that closely resembles their governing philosophy. The members of each agency elect their own leaders. Governing agencies are called Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA’s). CRA’s need to have at least 5% of the citizens/businesses select them, and if they grow over 20% of citizen/businesses, the CRA must split. Given that percentage range, a dozen CRA’s are likely.

In most cases, CRA’s will only govern their members. For example, the financial sector would have roughly a dozen CRA’s. Every financial CRA would set their full slate of banking regulations. Every bank MUST pick one of the financial CRA’s. Every citizen/business would decide what bank they would like to use based on many factors; however, regulations are one of the top concerns. Each financial CRA would have their own judicial system.

Regulations that slant too far towards the bank would repel customers. Regulations that slant too far towards the customers would repel banks. Free enterprise and the role of prices will force most banking regulations into a nice balance that is fair to the bank and the customers. At the same time, other banks that are under other financial CRA’s will compete for business.

In a few cases, CRA’s will send representatives to a representative body proportional to their percentage of members. When there are negative externalities, the necessity to have one standard, or the need to speak with one voice, a representative body is desirable. For example, there is a need to limit the negative externalities of pollution, the need to have one standard on the definition of violent crimes, or the need to speak with one voice to other nations.

A 70% proportional vote by CRA’s to move authority from CRA’s to representative governance helps ensure that representative governance is limited to the protection of individual sovereignty.

In a time of war, it is important to have one Commander in Chief. All the agencies will have their philosophy about the qualities of a good Commander in Chief. Every citizen will select an agency that they think is best. Every agency will have a proportional vote to elect a Commander in Chief. Every citizen's selection of an agency increases their agency’s proportional vote.

The selectable agencies will grow long-term policy positions and reputations that citizens can trust. A wide variety of positions from roughly a dozen agencies gives every citizen many choices. The millions of citizens relying on an agency create the necessity to overcome the rational ignorance problem of an individual voter. Thus, agencies will have expertise and experience in all the segments of public policy.

The policy of ‘one person-one vote’ does not change by switching to selecting agencies. When selecting agencies, every vote WINS. Agencies represent every citizen that selected them. An agency attaining a citizen’s trust/membership gains proportional strength in voting as representatives.

When voters elect individuals as representatives, the voter has two choices compared to about a dozen. Most candidates do not come with experience and expertise in all the segments of public policy. Most candidates do not come with long-term policy positions and reputations that citizens can trust. Separating all the regulations, programs, and laws into thirty sectors and separately selecting agencies per sector allows every citizen to have their interests and opinions represented more fully.

How Will the Haley2024 Reforms Affect Government’s Share of GDP?

5/5/2018

Total government spending at all three levels is roughly $7.13 trillion (2018). The GDP is roughly $20 trillion, thus there is a 38.4% government spending to GDP. That 38.4% is the best estimation of the overall effective tax rate. I am using USGovernmentspending.com numbers. There is significant spending/welfare included in the tax code that is not counted here, however will be eliminated by going to flat taxes without deductions, exemptions nor credits.

This was created in 2013. Percentages change slightly with time. Many of these categories overlap and for many reasons become confusing.

Haley2024 calls for tax collections to fall to roughly 7% of GDP with an additional 5% of GDP mandated to go to charities. The plan is not to reduce all the line items by 72%, the plan is to move whole line items to the free enterprise system. The 7% left in government will also be done with more free market principals. The mandate to contribute 5% to charity is a tax, however not taken, touched, nor controlled by government. The Charity System has significant representation and checks and balances.

Education will move to free enterprise; however, parents and students will be given the option to stay with their public school/ in a totally segregated budget, funded by those in that system. Public schools will transition to statist education CRA’s. Given that it will be a user fee and people needing to opt-in; education will not be a general tax. $1.1 trillion or 5% of GDP will be taken from government.
Income from the selling of education assets will be used to pay-off part of the debt.

Health care government spending is roughly $1.57 trillion, which is roughly 8% of GDP. Some of that will be moved to charities. Some of that will be moved to mandated retirement accounts. Military spending or government employee’s spending on health care is not part of this $1.57 trillion. This $1.57 Trillion or 8% of GDP will taken from government.

Social Security requires roughly $1.37 Trillion or 7% of GDP. That will transition to individuals mandated to save for their own retirement. This mandate includes both income and medical insurance.
After a responsible transition, $1.37 Trillion or 7% of GDP will be taken from government.

Welfare requires roughly $0.444 trillion or 2% of GDP. That will be moved entirely to charities with a 5% income mandated contribution to Charitable Distribution Associations. Health care (Medicaid not Medicare) is also moved to charities making up the perceived difference. $0.444 trillion or 2% of GDP will be taken from government.
The Charity System will have a charity economy where those being helped, will give labor to help others. This additional labor from roughly 30-50 million people will tremendously increase the standard of living of the poor.

Transportation spending from government will move entirely to the free enterprise system with some mandates that certain assets are in stockholder owned publicly traded companies. $0.318 Trillion or 1.6% of GDP will be taken from government.
Income from the selling of transportation assets will be used to pay-off part of the debt.

Police, fire, prisons and protection related services requires roughly $0.29 trillion or 1.5% of GDP. About 75% of this can be transitioned to the free market. Other reforms will bring savings to the 25% staying within government. Roughly $0.22 trillion or 1.1% of GDP will be taken from government.

Government bureaucracies will be mostly moved to free enterprise. Roughly $0.14 trillion or 0.7% of GDP will be taken by government. Haley2024 calls for many of the above programs to be moved to free enterprise. These programs have significant assets. The standard transition is to create stockholder owned publicly traded corporations.

As the stock is sold off at a one percent a month rate, that money will pay off debt. The current interest payments of $0.416 trillion or 2.2% of GDP will be reduced. With a more stable monetary system and roughly half the debt paid off, roughly $0.2 trillion worth of interest payments or 1% of GDP will be removed from government. These percentages are very rough, because the interest rate is not knowable, and the value of the stocks are just a guesstimation.

The programs left for government provision will be the military at $0.893 Trillion or 4.5% of GDP. Interest on the debt will require about $0.2 trillion or 1% of GDP. Protection from first responders and prisons will require about $0.07 trillion or 0.35% of GDP. Other general government functions will require a few more percentage points of GDP. The Haley2024 reforms will result in government controlling roughly 7% of GDP, which is down from roughly 38% of GDP.

Roughly 28% to 33% of GDP will be removed from government control. Looking at the Haley2024’s Laffer Curve chart, a 40% GDP tax rate results in a $60x GDP. A 7% GDP tax rate results in a $93x GDP. Over time, these reforms should result in roughly a 50% higher GDP, just from the tax code. Much of these funds will be needed to fulfill the same functions in the free enterprise system, however it will not be in the tax code.

Additional benefits will be realized by a superior way of helping the poor. A free market in education will yield a more educated citizenry. A better regulation and bureaucracy system will lower the drag on economic growth. The switch to private retirement accounts will yield a larger pool of capital. A better prison system will lower the amount of unproductive people. These and other reforms will be in the free enterprise system thus have superior results compared to government control.

Given that Haley2024 calls on government to collect 7% of GDP, it is important to get the tax system right. The federal government will not have a tax code nor collect taxes; however, a US constitutional amendment will call on every state to contribute 6% of their states GDP to the federal government.

4.5% of GDP of the 6% of GDP will fund the military corporations directly. 1% of GDP of that 6% of GDP will be saved for military action only after a declaration of war has been declared. 0.5% of GDP or about $100 billion is all the federal government will have for their non-military actions such as the State Department.

A check on Federal Government Power Overreach

3/4/2018

0 Comments

Haley2024 the Movement’s 9th proposed amendment to the US Constitution: If the majority of all the state's highest court justices, declare a subject matter to not arise under the U.S. Constitution nor otherwise a federal question, the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal inferior court’s ruling on that matter will be moot and void. The same majority has the power to enforce the Tenth Amendment by declaring a federal government law, program, spending, executive action among other Federal actions to be beyond the powers authorized by the constitution.

Note on the 9th: Every branch of government needs checks and balances. Every state will have nine state justices (every state is a little different, but all states will get nine as defined by each state’s legislation). There will not need to be a case arising, governors or state legislators could summit proposals to their justices. Once thirty percent of state justices request the exact wording of a proposal, all the justices will have six months to make their declaration.

Example 1: Marriage law is outside the powers authorized in the constitution.
Example 2: Retirement planning is outside the powers authorized in the constitution.
States Have Allowed the Feds to Squat on Their Rights for a Century, Time to Kick Them Off!
States need a way to tell the federal government that they are outside the bounds of the US Constitution!

The Federal Supreme Court’s job is to protect the US Constitution by ruling on the constitutionality of federal legislation and to ensure states are not infringing on individual rights listed in the Federal Constitution. Haley2024 the Movement proposes a US constitutional amendment giving state supreme court justices the authority to declare federal legislation, executive action or judicial rulings outside of US Constitutional limitations.

The US Supreme Court currently decides if the subject matter is within the bound of the constitution. The proposal here is to change the group that determines if the subject matter arises under the US Constitution, in other words, federal justiciability. Every state would choose nine of their top justices to have an additional duty. Nine per state times fifty states would create a 450-justice panel.

Any state lawmaker or governor can post on an open government website created for this panel. These posts will be judicial questions regarding whether a subject matter arises under the US Constitution. These 450 justices look over the posts and if 30% or 135 justices declare a question valid or similar to granting a Writ of Certiorari, then all 450 people in this panel must rule on the issue within six months. There might need to be a limit of the top ten a year.

If 50.1% or 226 justices rule the subject matter does not arise under the constitution, then federal action on that subject matter within all three branches must come to an end. This 450-justice panel cannot stop bad federal judicial rulings just because they are bad. If it clearly deals with the Bill of Rights or a listed constitutional power, the panel would rule the subject matter falls under listed constitutional authority or protecting listed natural rights.

Marriage is not in the US Federal Constitution; however, it is in most state constitutions. That subject matter does not arise, and the 450-justice panel should rule such. Before the 1930’s, the justices on the supreme court did not see federal authority for Social Security listed in the US Constitution. FDR replaced many justices and receive ‘permission’ to start a truly disastrous program.

The states never signed on to a constitution with a pension plan listed as an authority, thus it would be ripe to be declared to not arise under the US Constitution. Yes, there is a responsible transition. It would likely be ruled that the subject matter of education does not arise under the US Constitution and education spending and policies would have to stop at the federal level.

On the other hand, the First Amendment still arises, and state government would not be allowed to infringe on religious liberties when conducting education policies. Regulations, welfare among others would be ripe for being declared federally nonjusticiable. Currency arises under the constitution yet is done in an unconstitutional manner. The 450-justice panel could not rule the Federal Reserve nonjusticiable; all three federal branches need to exert their power to fix that issue.

The simply language of the constitution gave very specific authorities to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment put an exclamation point on the specific and limited nature of federal governmental powers. The founding fathers wrote on the subject that the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough, however gave a very measured increase of powers to the federal government.

For the first 150 years, except for the civil war and World War One, federal spending did not top 5% of GDP, About 100 years ago, federal spending quickly climbed to about 20% of GDP and stayed there. The increased spending meant very real increases in control and power over areas the constitution did not delegated to the federal government.

In 1919, the congress KNEW they did have the constitutional authority to ban or restrict alcohol. For 130 years, the federal congress did not regulate commerce. Congressmen know if they wanted to ban alcohol, they needed a constitutional amendment. However, soon after congress passed, the courts allowed, and the president implemented regulations.

States give up their power to push back on federal over-reach in 1913 with the 17th amendment. The federal government squatted on states rights and over time the authority became established. There were legal fights, but the US Constitution was effectively amended without Article 5.

The federal government also taxed the people of the states to bribe the state governments to give up control. A prime example of current day (2018) abuse is Medicaid Expansion. The federal government is offering states money equivalent to roughly 3% of their state’s budget if they agree to go further into healthcare socialism.

State lawmakers see that their citizens are being federally taxed regardless if money is coming back to their state. The price of taking the money is a greater loss of control by the state and by citizens of their state in their health care. The founders, nor anyone within the first 200 years of this republic ever contemplated that the US Constitution give power to the congress, the president, nor the federal courts the authority to define marriage.

Marriage is not found in the US Constitution therefore, it is not justiciable to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court defining marriage is a very legislative endeavor. Since the US Constitution states that ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States’, the court went beyond their Authority. Even more egregious, they legislated at the state level.

If the prohibition of the ‘it is mean’ clause of the US Constitution really did exist and applied, the only remedy is voiding the marriage laws and allowing the states to write new marriage laws or staying without a marriage law. In the last several decades, many people challenged the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, within recent history, many states restated the definition of marriage as between one man and one women with ballot initiatives, resolutions, legislations and state constitutional amendments.

All these, at different strengths, gives non-severability to the law. The citizens and lawmakers showed great importance of the definition of marriage. A court cannot change the central point of a law. The court did not just cut an unconstitutional part of the law out, it WROTE in words to the law. When referring to marriage law, the definition is the most important aspect of the law.

Nowhere in our US Constitution does it limit states in protecting their citizen’s lives. The justices of the US Supreme Court ruled that states CANNOT protect their citizens lives until a they reach a certain age. Regardless of your opinion on abortion, the federal government simply was not given that power. If the power was given, it would be the legislative branch deciding, not the US Supreme Court.

In fact, the US Constitution was created to ‘establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” the constitution was amended to state: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. These words were overshadowed by an unstated right in 1973 by 5 justices that unjustly, but effectively wrote it in the constitution.

The constitution gives “ALL legislative powers to congress”, however the court will often rule in a way that creates or changes legislation. Certain justices or judges take a certain phrase such as equal protection from the constitution and stretches it incredible out of context or clear meaning to disallow anything they consider mean or unfair. Is the next president constitutionally allowed to follow the law as written and not give subsidies to people if their state did not set up an exchange?

For the longest time, each branch of government tried to protect their turf by fighting back encroachments. However, for the last several decades, the strategy has changed to allow the encroachments if it furthers your policy positions. If President Obama pushed DECA for illegal immigrants against very clear legislation, many legislators that wanted legislation changed, however could not get it passed, just cheered when current legislation was stomped-on and illegally ignored.

President Obama and president Trump both were/are disobeying very clear immigration laws and even totally usurping legislative power by proactively implementing policies that are clearly forbidden. Judges are even ruling that because Obama, not only ignored law, but gave benefits in direct violation of law, that Trump also must follow suit and proactively violate the law.
We Should Stop the Funding of Programs and Setting of Policies Through Lawsuit Settlements

This blog could go on and on. Over 75% of the federal budget is spent on items not listed in the US Constitution. Moreover, much of this money is used to bribe states to control regulations and to increase the level of socialism. The federal government takes/taxes from everyone and then tells states they can have some of the money if they have more government control. The federal responsibility should be mainly dealing with foreign policy with the military being ready as the last resort.

0 Comments

We Should Stop the Funding of Programs and Setting of Policies Through Lawsuit Settlements

11/18/2017

0 Comments

Government officials are people just like everyone else. Many people want to control others. Some take the power of government to exert their control. They use powers from all three branches of government. This blog concentrates on the executive branch using the judiciary branch. Of course, the other branches and advocacy groups play a very big role in using the courts for their control.

I will start with the new deceptive practice and then fill in some old but still concerning techniques. I have started to notice that governments are settling lawsuits in a way that matches their legislative agenda that they cannot get through Congress. I believe they, the Left, in the Executive branch, are not getting certain funding and policies through Congress.

So they are inviting, behind the scenes, groups to sue them, the state or federal government. The executive department then ‘settles’ the case in a manner they always wanted. The federal government’s budget has a lawsuit settlement budget that is now used often as a slush fund for certain desired programs desired by the Left by ‘claiming’ they ‘have to’ because of the court settlement.

For example, "Attorney General Eric Holder agreed to pay the plaintiffs $3.4 billion, $2 billion of which would be set aside for a land consolidation scholarship program to benefit Native American investments." Congress did not pass this, it is just a sneaky way to fund a program they wanted.

Another technique is that government sues a company and gets awarded a lot of money. Then government officials state that if they ‘voluntarily’ give to an advocacy group dealing with the issue, they will get a 200% credit for the donation. Meaning if they give $1 million to a group that helps the poor get housing, the guilty of discriminating bank would have $2 million taken off their judgement. Of course, these groups are made up of the Left.

We see the same when it comes to drug companies. The government bureaucrats know they can extract any concession from pharmaceutical companies when they hold the keys to FDA approval. The number of FDA rules are very concerning. Some are vague and others contradictory. This is a lawsuit haven.

When tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, concessions and settlements are easily extracted. The drug companies end up ‘voluntarily’ funding programs outside of government that the executive bureaucrats wanted and could not get through Congress.

Many people claim that they need government to ‘protect’ people from greedy companies. That is an ill-informed judgement of free enterprise. The greatest protection is being able to switch companies if someone or a company treats you badly. My idea of a ratings system within free enterprise regulatory reform could help protect people with knowledge. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

There is a common argument that laws against price gouging, predatory pricing, and collusion can always be threatened. One is pricing too high, one too low, and collusion is when you match prices with competitors. Many companies have been threatened and usually give in to government’s or politician’s demands.

We saw Microsoft not playing ball with politicians concerning campaign donations, slapped with a major monopoly lawsuit. This company and industry is in a constant flux with any appearance of monopoly vanishing in months. Almost everything Microsoft had in the late nineties was obsolete by the time when they settled a few years later.

The 25-year, $246 billion tobacco settlement should be viewed more like a tax then a lawsuit win. The purchaser of cigarettes is paying higher prices and then government collects it from the stores. It is put in the general budget and spent on general budget items. Some states have built programs with this settlement money as its main funding source.

Government makes an insane claim that government is responsible for medical care and then states tobacco is harming health so they should pay. WOW, that is ripe for abuse and major government’s control. Banks were forced by regulators and the Justice Dept. to predatory lend. Very heavy pressure came from the justice department to increase minority lending.

They were denied branches, mergers, and other necessary business practices until they had higher lending to the black population. They had to lower standards for black populations, which is a big part of predatory lending. This greatly harmed many black families because higher standards protect BOTH the lender and the home owner.

The Left then sued the banks for predatory lending. Similar to the pricing issue above, the banks are sued either way and sometimes literally both at the same time. Sorry, but if the average black family has dramatically different net worth, income, and credit history, they will have different lending rates if the banks use the same standards for everyone.

The disparity between whites and blacks is true, however, the reasons for the disparity is a different blog. The point here is that you do not help black people by lowering standards. The greater point for this blog is the “damned if I do and damned if I don’t” regulations.

Civil asset forfeiture is a little different, however still very concerning. Some police departments' budget have a certain amounts of money coming in from forfeitures. This creates a situation that the policemen’s job is threatened if they don’t steal from citizens to fund their paychecks. Yes, civil asset forfeiture is theft.

Please remember that consumers ALWAYS pay for the high cost of defending lawsuits and the cost of the judgments. Consumers are the ONLY place where companies get their money. However, these millions and billions of dollars also negatively impact payroll and investments in future growth or existence of these companies.

While necessary in certain circumstances, let’s always be aware that these judgments take money away from employees and future employees up and down the pay range. Often, after certain large judgments, major company budget cuts are announced to cover the costs. Also ‘sticking it’ to publicly traded companies means harming retirement plans that invest capital in those companies.

Social policy has been set by the court as well. The congress or state legislative branch does not have the votes to pass a leftist social policy, so they find a leftist to bring suit, citing the nonexistent ‘fairness clause’. Leftist judges then unconstitutionally ‘makes law’ and mandates leftist policy.

Too often conservatives unwisely try to pass a law reversing the new policy, instead of claiming the courts overstepped their authority and forcing the subject back to the norm. Gay marriage and trans-gendered locker rooms are two recent manifestations of this plan. Abortion is a forty-year-old example. The examples are numerous.

The EPA is harassing this farmer to give $20-$30 million to a wetland mitigation bank. The EPA has the government power to make his life miserable and bankrupt his company. This money would not be appropriated by Congress. It does not appear that this fund is controlled by the Government. EPA officials want funding to make something happen that they can not get through Congress. This is their work-around.

0 Comments

Disaster Relief in A Haley2024 World

9/6/2017

0 Comments

After a natural or man-made disaster, the government increases its footprint in a big way. Whether a hurricane, blizzard, flood, tornado or the 9-11 twin towers collapse, the government at all levels really steps up. Too many people think that it is a good thing. Indeed, people need to step up; however, is government the best way to make things happen? Can and should free enterprise, charity, and individuals take over?

This is not making the claim that the government does not have a role; however, can we create a structure where the government is not needed as much because the private sector steps up? Yes, government crowds out private action now; however, free enterprise, charity, and individuals are still the primary force housing, feeding, and taking care of those most affected.

The government is starting to do more after every disaster and building expectations from too many to wait for and rely on the government. Government is creating perverse incentives that crowd-out private action. If the government is going to pay to rebuild a home that was not insured because they ‘need-it,’ and not any to the insured homeowner because they don’t ‘need-it,’ then people will quickly stop buying insurance.

In the Haley2024 world, the government would have a smaller footprint to begin with. Thus, they would have less of a role, not zero, but much less. Currently, the government is forcing out private endeavors and creating many moral hazards. People wait for hours in a parking lot of a grocery store waiting for food and water from government even when the store is open and stocked.

This is the time and place for the Rating Agencies to really shine. What charities are being the most effective? What road CRA plans proved the most helpful. What military corporations should get more of the money? How are extra labor hours utilized within CDA’s or first responders? How many people were rescued and how much damage was limited? How fast were vital services up and how efficient was the team?

This Rating System brings together people with a healthy desire to help people with the self-interest of extra profits that flows indirectly with better ratings. Most CRA’s will require additional hours of work to those within their control and the money and/or service will go to the relief efforts. After a disaster, too many people are sitting around being taken care of instead of going out to help. People have been and always will be the most significant asset.

Bringing People into your home would likely rate high with CDA’s and would probably fulfill volunteer hours requirements and very much needed after a disaster. CDA’s, Identification CRA’s, companies and others will be able to vouch for reputations. While certain people will ‘do the right thing’ without compensation, many more will if they are given credit and consideration.

Competitive Regulatory Agencies-CRA’s will promote and require their businesses to be part of the system to help in a disaster. Multiple Rating Agencies will examine and rate. Charitable Distribution Associations will become very dynamic and will implement their policies, looking for the best ratings. The government could pass additional labor hours or payment requirements for charities and first responders to intensify the efforts.

The Military Capabilities System could release extra funds for military corporations that are designated for relief efforts. Utility corporations will have insurance or other risk pool agreements and systems for a fast response. Statism Organizations will have plans to help those in their organizations. Financial and Insurance CRA’s will be seeking ways to improve their ratings in this regard and play a significant role in moving capital to the highest needs. Road CRA’s would implement their plans.

CRA Organizations will organize CRA’s from every sector and will coordinate all the relevant CRA activities to a certain degree. All the CRA Organizations will experiment with the best models, and multiple trials will quickly eliminate ineffective practices and make others better. There will likely be coordination between organizations to put everyone’s assets to their best uses. The Rating System will sort out where the help came from.

Teams of construction workers that are well vetted and rated high will likely be formed with inputs from home insurance companies to have a quick response team to limit the damage by quickly patching holes that would likely lead to more considerable damage. Other rapid response teams might be contracted to clear roads, repair cell towers, and other vital services needed to continue the relief effort. CRA organizations would be the likely command centers. Many of these teams will have access to the pool of extra labor hours with known skills.

CDA’s could set up risk pools where everyone within their system that wants to be involved could add more money or labor hours in exchange for more significant consideration and help, regarding when they are hit by a disaster. All sorts of systems would be tried, and the best would be improved. CDA’s would likely have policies where they hold in reserve or allow people to work their labor hours ahead, to have plenty of labor hours to be used in a disaster.

The government should fully get out of the flood insurance business because the government is inferior at assessing risk, partly because they bring politics into the equation. Subsidized flood insurance or even paying for homes that did not have insurance encourages people building in riskier areas. We need to allow people to take their own risks and pay the extra amounts for insurance within the free enterprise system.

The government should tell everyone that storm systems often have high storm surges, or that concentrated rain could create floods. The government should include in the statement that taxpayers are not going to pay. Private insurance can and should handle these issues. If the insurance is too expensive in low lying areas, then put your home on higher ground.

Every Insurance CRA will set up their own requirements for the insurance companies that pick them. They will be rated on many aspects of business and how they deal with disaster relief would be an essential aspect of the Rating System. Building codes would likely be shifted to insurance CRA’s with Rating Floors.

Unemployment insurers should have in contracts that those receiving benefits, train, prepare and if needed, go to the affected areas. Training with search and rescue teams will allow local teams to quickly bloom to the size required to get the job done. CRA Organizations will coordinate food, supplies, currency, and personnel to get the job done.

Some teams will bring in tarps and plywood to secure houses, so they are not damaged further. Cell phone companies, among other critical supply companies, will also be able to access these volunteers as part of their plans. Most people will still be needed at their regular job after a disaster; however, others are more flexible and will be able to quickly turn their labor and talents where they are most needed. This will all be part of a company’s plan.

School bus drivers will be trained to go to threatened areas. They will evacuate, bring supplies in, and transport people out. Financial institutions will implement plans to quickly make cash available. The extra labor hours to help in an emergency is all part of A Citizens Responsibility. In recent substantial flood events, we have seen ‘the Cajun Navy,’ just ordinary people with boats, use those boats for rescue, sometimes against the orders of government officials.

These efforts could be more efficient if there were coordination to fill their boats with gas or to drive the trucks with rescued people to safety. There could be plans to have police officials hop on the boats to bring law and order, to supply people with energy bars, or to have EMT’s accompany them. The good ideas will derive from the hundreds of thoughts that comes with competition to get the best ratings. The goal is to make their labor count and become the most efficient, thus matching peoples’ natural desires.

There are many computer app’s that are helping, and the coordination could become so much better. Managers around the country could be on their computers developing teams, ensuring supplies are where they are needed. School bus drivers will be part of this, and managers a thousand miles away update the coordination. A trained housewife in Alaska could synchronize where boats are dropping off people on dry land and buses to finish the transportation. Hopefully, enough people will have their skills taught and verified well in advance, but the system will be able to identify and put all these rescued people to work rapidly within their skill level.

Trusted and previously vetted childcare professionals will be in high demand. Every teenaged girl could quickly be paired with a trusted mom or childcare professional. ID companies and Rating Agencies will have good records on peoples’ reputations so, in a disaster, people can quickly put their trust in others. People with needed skills might need others to watch their children so parents can be put to work or secure their home without small children in tow.

Haley2024 starts CDA and First Responders contributions at age 13. This contribution of 3 hours of work a week will likely be training skills during the first few years. Many talents and skills will be learned and perfected during the first few years. These skills and experience will be put to good use during times of disaster relief, thus turning most people in a disaster from victims to be taken care of to people that immediately start helping. They will learn protocols to quickly be put on a team. Lessons from the military might come in handy as many lost soldiers had to swiftly fit into a new squad.

Coast Guard choppers, among other military equipment, is often useful after a significant flood event. Extra law enforcement is needed. Depending on the situation, the Military Capabilities System will have the authority to tap into additional funding dedicated towards disaster relief. They will evaluate what military corporations do the work and get the best result, and they will be compensated.

Many military corporations will also have contracts with cities, states, rMany military corporations will also have contracts with cities, states, road corporations, insurance, first responders, and others to utilize their equipment, personnel, and services. Military corporations will be able to call up those they trained within the mandatory labor hours system. This will be very dynamic with everyone chasing the best rating.
oad corporations, insurance, first responders, and others to utilize their equipment, personnel, and services. Military corporations will be able to call up those they trained within the mandatory labor hours system. This will be very dynamic with everyone chasing the best rating.

Everyone chooses who their mandatory help goes to, and most will choose the corporations that have the best results, and those results are shown in The Rating System. Nobody wants to be underutilized. They want their labor hours to matter. The Military and First Responder CRA’s will be competing for the best people and their labor hours. The organizations that don’t show results will not be able to command as many labor hours.

Identity companies will all have protocols in place to identify victims; however, also to have a person’s creditworthiness, skills, abilities among others so they can quickly be put into an ever-changing relief effort plan. ID companies will have all credit card and bank account information that can be verified by pictures, usernames, and passwords, so someone losing their wallet in a disaster is not without their money. Online medical records could be vital for quick response teams.

Too often, the government passes bills that pay for significant events and not small ones. Victims of 9-11, Sandy, Katrina, Floyd, and others received billions of taxpayer dollars. However, a simple house fire, a random murder, or small tornado affecting just a few people receive nothing extra from the government. If you are the only person taking a significant loss or part of a large group taking that same loss each, you should be treated the same.

The government should treat everyone the same, and that treatment should be minimal. Relatives of the victims of 9-11 received a considerable dollar amount from the government. However, the relative of the ‘normal’ murder victim does not get any money. Surviving family members suffer the same, whether thousands died the same day or not. The criteria for releasing benefits from the government often make no sense because they are motivated by political considerations. Contracts, CRA’s, CDA’s, and insurance within the free enterprise system can better address compensation.

0 Comments

Transitioning the Post Office to the Free Enterprise System

7/4/2016

The question is not, if we should, but how, we should transition the Post Office to the free enterprise system. The demand is there and corporations can do the job. Haley2024 proposes the standard transition to free enterprise. I will reiterate here and give some specific post office issues.

The post office has many assets. Planes, trucks, equipment, buildings, land, intellectual property, personal among many others. All the assets will be divided up in to hundreds of for-profit publicly traded corporations. There should be much debate and studies on how asset are divided and the size of each.

Once divided all the corporations would need to work together to make the system work. The Federal government would own all the stocks of every corporation. All legislators would have a percentage of voting rights for stocks held by the Federal government. By law, the stocks of all the hundreds of corporations would need to be sold off to the public at a one percent a month, thus less than 9 years, they would be totally owned by individuals.

Legislators would be need to go through Corporate Proxy Groups to insulate them from too much control and possible corruption. Individuals would likely use the Corporate Proxy Groups as well. The revenue of selling the stocks would first go to unfunded liabilities of the post office such as retirement. The rest would be used to pay down the debt.

The universal stamp would likely still be used, however this would likely be for the bare bones of service and that stamp price would be reduced. Many business models would develop. People could pay extra to get home delivery and even more if you wanted 6 days a week service. To keep the price down, some people would opt for a once a week service, while others see value in daily.

Some people would save money by opting to pick up mail at ‘cluster boxes’ or likely there would be small strip mall stores with P.O. Boxes for regular mail. Many models would emerge to save money or people would pay for extra services. Advertising mail would likely try out many models, and even have a service where people could opt out of all or certain types of advertisement.

New contracts would be drawn up. New competition would emerge. All laws regarding the US post office monopoly would be repealed. UPS, FED EX among others would likely be players within the system. With emails and more efficient ways of delivering information to people, the mail has seen large declines and free enterprise deals with restructure much better than politicians and bureaucrats.

In conclusion the bill to transition to privatization needs to be very short and allow the free enterprise system to handle the details. Competitive Regulatory Agencies and the Rating System would be implemented. There might be need to have a temporary floor on ratings of cooperation, however it would most likely not be needed.

Should Government Mandate?

4/18/2016

The conservative mantra is that government should not be able to mandate that the citizens buy anything. I, Bill Haley, generally agree with this; however, everything needs balance. Let’s first realize that if the government taxes citizens and then uses those funds to buy things, then that is government forcing people to buy things, although with a lot less individual control.

Are these same conservatives stating that government should not tax and fund Social Security, education, welfare, regulations, protecting the country (military), roads, police, health care, the courts among others that are funded by the government? There is no big push back stating that the government should not force people to buy these things. Again, if government taxes and then provides (funds) these current government functions, they are forcing people to purchase these services; however, under politician control.

Under Haley2024 reforms and on the page A Citizen's Responsibility, Haley2024 calls for many of these programs to be done in the free enterprise system. To ensure that people do not become burdens on society; however, to gain control over these areas in their lives, Haley2024 mandates for the individual and businesses to take care of what the government currently provides. Haley2024 does not add or expand the mandate, over what the government currently provides, in fact, reduces and allows considerable latitude in how the needs are satisfied.

Regulations

Regulations and bureaucracies are vital to society; however, the government’s monopoly on these services stifles innovation and progress. Government taxes to provide these ‘services’ thus mandating you buy these services through government.

Haley2024 calls for the taxes to be reduced and the businesses mandated to pay for their own private regulatory agencies that they choose. This reform does not increase or add mandates, it just allows people and businesses more options.

Education

Government mandates people pay high taxes in order to fund education, thus mandating people buy education. This requires parents to turn over control of how their child is educated, resulting in less liberty.

Haley2024 segregates education taxes to just pay for education, thus taking it away from the general budget. Haley2024 allows parents or teens to opt out of the benefit of a government-funded education and out of the taxes. Haley2024 agrees with a parent’s obligation that children receive an education and have a plan with the Education Rating System to ensure educational neglect is addressed.

Social Security and Medicare

Social Security and Medicare are government mandating that people ‘save’ for retirement, regular income and healthcare. Haley2024 proposes to responsibly end these two programs and mandate that people reach a specific rating on not becoming a burden to society in their elderly years.

Social safety net

Government taxing and providing welfare is government mandating that everyone help the poor. Haley2024 proposes that ALL welfare is moved away from government, both taxes and spending. Haley2024 proposes mandating that every individual help the poor through charity within a new Charity System structure.

Roads

Government mandates that taxpayers pay for roads. Haley2024 proposes moving roads to free enterprise. While there is no mandate within the free enterprise system to pay for roads, the cost of roads will be part of the traveling expenses and part of the costs of most goods and services.

Police and Military

Currently, the government mandates that people buy police and military services by way of government taxes and government provision. Haley2024 also mandates that people buy these police and military services; however, under a more free enterprise system with representative oversight.

If you look at each Haley2024 proposed ‘mandate,’ you will see that the mandate is far less than what the government is currently mandating. Furthermore, Haley2024 proposals allow significant flexibility and individual choice. As compassionate people, the people do not want to see great personal needs going unmet. These mandates are mostly policies to stop people from becoming a burden on society.

In Conclusion

If you look at each Haley2024 proposed ‘mandate’, you will see that the mandate is far less than what government is currently mandating. Furthermore, Haley2024 proposals allows great flexibility and individual choice. As a compassionate people, the people do not want to see great personal needs going unmet. These mandates are mostly policies to stop people from becoming a burden on society.

Why is government involved in the first place?

4/14/2016

Why is government involved in the first place? Free enterprise is not perfect and never claimed to be. Often those desiring heavy government control creates a false narrative that any perceived imperfection needs to be fixed by government. If a product is unsafe, a child goes uneducated, a doctor makes a mistake, a bank fails, a basic personal need goes unmet, an old person is without income among others, government thinks they need to get involved .

Government often over steps and takes over too much. Certain sectors of the economy are so controlled that, that sector can be considered socialism. One needs to examine whether government action is helping or doing harm. Did they overreach and control everyone in a sector of the economy where only a small percentage was in need?

Did government regulation forbid better options and standards? Did government force out free enterprise in a section of the economy because government started to supply that item with tax money?

Is it wise for government to supply a need that has a long history of being supplied by the church, especially when morality and spirituality are an integral part of that need and supply? When government is forced to supply the needs in a secular and amoral way, great harm is done. The founders believed that liberty can only work when the people are moral and religious.

Regulations

Politicians saw poor standards in some products and thought that they knew better and started to regulate. What they missed is that standards improve when people get wealthier and can afford the safer items. Often government decides standards need to be above a certain point that people are not ready for yet.

Some people are priced out of the market of that item altogether and actually live with much lower standards. If a person can afford to increase quality from a 3 to a 5, but the new standard is 7, then they stay at 3. Almost every trade makes both sides of the trade better off than before. Often government regulations forbid better standards. Government way over reached on regulations.

Education

Politicians saw some children not being educated. Instead of some small measure to give this small percentage of children an opportunity for an education, the government way over reached and turned education into total socialism. The worst result, is the children are being educated in the shadow of the great wall of separation of church and state, creating great problems. Government way over reached on education

Government takeover of education also greatly inhibits innovation. Schools resemble schools from many decades in the past, whereas technology has greatly improved. Cost of education has sky rocketed, where information technology has improved greatly with major price reductions. Education regulations, even on private schools greatly inhibit business model experimentation or improvements.

Social Safety Net

Serious personal needs went unmet in a small percentage of cases. Government involvement necessarily pushed aside charity. Government is mandated to conduct welfare in the shadow of the wall of separation of church and state, where charity was often religiously based. Religion is an integral part of caring for the poor.

How and whether to help is very important. Providing for the poor can be enabling dependency or empowering. Government strict rules often creates a situation where people endeavor to meet the requirements to be on welfare and start to feel entitled and thus entrapped. Charities have the ability to assess the situation to ensure empowerment.

Roads

Roads are something that most people just assume government must provide. There are challenges for the free market and places that government must get involved, however there is a natural demand for the services of roads and businesses have proven they can supply roads. With a small structure and a little government involvement, free enterprise would provide better road services at a better value.

Retirement planning

Social Security and Medicare were established to take care of a few people that did not plan for their own retirement and became a burden to society. Government way over reached and socialized a large portion of retirement planning. A simple mandate that people have a certain level of planning is far superior to a total government takeover of everyone’s retirement. Annuities and long term health insurance are available in the free enterprise system.

Look at the other reforms within this website to see how free enterprise can accomplish most government functions.

Education, Tax, and Social Security

12/17/2015

Government fronts the money for the education of 90% of the citizens.

Government offers everyone, that is willing to accept government control of their child’s education, a government funded education. Roughly 90% accept that funding and control. Everyone, whether funded or not, pays back that investment in taxes the rest of their lives.

Government collects taxes during the productive earning years of all citizens. A big part of taxes is paying for the education they already had and then paying taxes for the future in the form of government retirement, which is socialism for the elderly.

Haley2024’s reforms will have similar investments, payments and retirement, however in the free enterprise system. Investment houses could help fund education during a child’s education years with long term repayment terms during a citizen’s productive earning years. During those earning years, they save for their own retirement.

During the Haley2024's reform transition, state government will have to issue debt bonds to fulfill promised Social Security and Medicare promises. General Government taxation will also stop funding education and the limited time education tax will transition to funding these retirement debt bonds.

Since 90% of people were educated by government, thus had the money invested in their education, they still need to payback the investors, in the form of taxes. The 10% of those that did not have government funded education, should be excluded from that repayment tax because because government did not invest in them.

Haley2024 the Movement: Superior DNA

11/5/2015

How to structure society.
Knowledge and Result

Just like DNA orders proteins in certain ways, so does government incentivize or disincentives people in fulling their potential. The structure of protein is highly important, likewise government.

Poorly structured protein dies or is significantly inhibited from the protein’s full potential, harming the body. Likewise, people living under a poorly structured government are inhibited. People living under freedom and liberty are fundamentally no better than the people living under statism. Their God-given potential is the same!

History of governments has proven that socialism among other substantial government-controlled systems, inhibits people thriving, thus resulting in a much lower standard of living. Freedom and liberty, however, is an exception to the historical rule of tyranny. America has thrived and has been a shining city on the hill of what free people can accomplish when not inhibited by massive government control.

Over the last several decades, increased government regulations, higher tax burdens, and government providing for more of the peoples’ needs have taken responsibility away from the people and hampered them from thriving. Removing government control and allowing those needs to be met in the free enterprise system, unleashes the peoples’ potential for their greatest thriving.

If you have explosive material and you put a flame to it, you can release tremendous energy. Most of the time that energy does harm, however with the right structure of a well-built engine, that energy can propel a vehicle. It is also imperative where that vehicle is headed.

Our bodies are similar, in that proteins, carbohydrates among others are directed by our DNA to make specific skin, blood, heart, lung, muscles among many other tissues and cells. God truly made us complex. Looking at how many millions of things need to go just right to stay alive is amazing. Bad DNA often causes handicaps or death.

Every human being has enormous potential to create value and worth to themselves and to others. Government policies, the DNA of our society, can inhibit or can allow every person to thrive to their highest potential depending on the structure. Government policies that limit people from mutually agreeable trade, such as regulations, do great harm by not allowing those that would be better off in the trade from trading.

While regulations are an essential service, a monopoly of those regulations by politicians creates enormous problems. First, there is a knowledge problem. The amount and scope of what government regulates are overwhelmingly more than what a politician could conceivably know or care about. Second, the immeasurable power of MONOPOLY in regulations creates boundless incentives for corruption.

Haley2024’s Competitive Regulatory Agencies allows for the free enterprise system to provide the service of regulations. Correctly structured, with ratings and people wanting higher standards, free enterprise will increasingly improve regulations and allow for people to thrive. Bad laws will be driven out by proper regulation when they can be freely chosen.

Self-governance, which is every person providing for themselves through the interdependence of free enterprise is a far better system than a few politicians in government, providing specific NEEDS for the people. When the government provides a need, people do not provide that for themselves. This makes people dependent on the government for particular needs. Government provision inhibits the advancements in that product.

Government provision for education has significantly inhibited educational advancements and has massive government control versus parental control. Government provision of roads results in higher cost, lower quality, and less supply. Government provision of retirement has had disastrous results. Government provision of health care has resulted in a higher cost, lower quality, and less supply.

Government provision in ‘helping the poor’ has been disastrous to the poor in countless ways; however, the greatest harm is destroying the family. Government’s control of utilities has led to higher cost, lower quality, and less supply. Government control of our money has resulted in massive monetary taxes, reduces people’s incentives to save and significantly distorts capital which inhibits capitalism.

The taxes needed for government provision of needs increase the tax rates, which disincentivizes people from earning in the first instant. Business owners who hire employees are disproportionately affected by higher tax rates, thus resulting in fewer jobs. Fewer jobs drive wages down, harming the poor the most with either no job or less pay.

The Article five Convention (COS) Of the States

10/1/2015

Conservatives and many Libertarians agree on many of the goals of limiting the federal government, and there are many varieties of proposed amendments out there to do such. They do not agree however on if a convention of the state (COS) is the best way to accomplish this goal. Some very smart people have legitimate concerns and other very smart people recognize the concerns, however believe the laws are on their side and that the benefits outweigh the risk.

Read the Haley2024 proposed amendments

I believe this fight on the ‘right’ between people with mostly the same goals is harming the conservative/liberty movement. I believe the pro-COS people need to appreciate the concerns, put in safe guards and speak to those issues as to bring in the anti-COS people. Having only half of the ‘Right’ will not achieve the goal of reining in the federal government.

Let’s address the concerns about a ‘runaway convention’. Although, I believe the law is on the side limiting the ability of a ‘runaway convention’, we see many lawless things happening now so, yes, that is always a concern. However, the left could propose a COS and it could ‘runaway’ with them in the driver’s seat. Also, every time congress meets, they could propose ANY amendment to the Constitution.

The amendment process is protected by a two-step process. First, the congress or the states (COS) propose an amendment, either way is a difficult process. Second, 3/4 for the states need to adopt the amendment which is even a larger hurdle. A COS is just one method of achieving the first step. Legislations from the states calling for an Article Five Convention should come with exact wording of the proposed amendment with strict rules to only entertain and only vote for the amendment proposed.

While I agree with the direction compared to the current status-quo, this gives power to regulate where the original Constitution did not. I agree with Randy E. Barnett in THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. We, the states, need to go much further in limiting federal control.
I propose stronger language:

I am not opposed to this; however, I do not think it will have great effect. We need to limit government control over so many areas.
I do not have a current proposal for this, however, I believe this Commonwealth and nation needs to start talking about proportional representation.

I like this one proposed amendment a lot. I would lower the percentage from 60% to 50%. I would also like to see language that allows clear rules for state nullification of federal law for just their state. If there is state nullification, that state will receive either an exemption of taxes or a block grant for all funding related to that nullified law or program. I proposed a similar amendment called Governor’s Repeal:

While Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2 is better than the current system, and I do not want the good to be the enemy of the best. I believe if we are going to go through with an amendment, we should go all the way and take the federal government’s taxing authority away and allow the states to take over.

Definitely in the right direction. I think they need to go further. This amendment ‘effectively justifies’ their current involvement in too many aspects of the economy and our lives. Haley2024 propose the following: Congress will be limited to collecting 6% percent of GDP.

<<Previous

Slavery

Second Class Citizens

The Welfare State

Public Education

The Infringement of Religion

The Best Reparations

How to make third parties grow without an effective vote for the opposition party:

The Haley2024 Plan

Bubble up

Presidential ElectionsA Better Primary System

Campaign Finance Laws

Money in Politics

The mind cannot foresee its own advance - Hayak

Haley2024 increases true representation and maximizes liberty

The Haley2024 Solution

Police and Military

In Conclusion

Presidential Elections
A Better Primary System