The founding fathers of the USA wanted this country to be governed based on simple rules and laws. But with the passage of time, our country has lost that initial spark of simplicity. Therefore I, Charles Skelley, am declaring myself a candidate for the office of President in these United States in the 2008 election.
One of my guiding principles for this campaign is to say nothing negative about any specific candidate from either the Republican or Democratic parties. They all are trying to be good people.
But I distinguish my own campaign because I offer real solutions (that can get real results) by confronting problems which are really serious. The US needs a new Square Deal.
INTRODUCTION
Before getting into specific details for the Skelley 2008 Presidential campaign, I want to review some general background information about US politics, showing why the Republican party has not helped big US cities enough in recent decades. In this introduction, I will also sketch out a logical way to stop US politics from being counter-productive.
In US Presidential elections, the rural counties (with low population density) usually give their votes to Republicans. But the counties which contain large cities usually give their votes to Democrats. Here is a link which tabulates the recent power centers for Republicans (which are mapped in red).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
About 78% of all US counties vote Republican; and about 81% of the land area in the US votes Republican.
But about 45% of US voters consistently support the Democratic party, concentrated especially in the biggest US cities.
In the Civil War era, when the Republican party was young, 80% of all US voters lived in rural counties and produced food. The Republican party became the dominant political party during 1860-1932 by representing the rural regions of the USA. But today only 2% of the US population receives most of their income from producing food, which was the original power base of the Republican Party.
This radical change in demographics has also changed the political landscape. The Republican party continues to support the formation of capital for the purposes of US food production. Since the US exports a lot of food, the Republican party has traditionally favored free-trade —trying to get foreign countries to lower their import taxes on food, thus stimulating food exports from the rural regions of the US. Our politicians have tended to talk about ”eliminating corporate welfare” when the government wants to drain Working Capital out of the cities. For example, president Reagan eliminated the Investment Tax Credit in 1986, leading to a long round if “corporate downsizing” during 1986-1992, followed by a decline of manufacturing in most US cities during 1992-2007.
Population in the Democratic party’s traditional power base, big US cities, has grown continuously during the last two centuries. Around 1932, when the New Deal came into effect, city dwellers had increased to about 50% of the US population.
Ever since 1932, it is fair to say that the Democratic party should have been responsible for creating adequate Working Capital in their political strongholds, the large cities. Some Democratic presidents have done this: the names Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy come easily to mind, in regard to stimulating Capital formation in big US cities. But in general, the Democrat presidents after Kennedy have not appreciated the importance of stimulating Capital formation in their own powerbase, the US cities. For example President Bill Clinton made a half-hearted effort in 1993 to restore the Investment Tax Credit, but then abandoned this singly most effective economic policy in the US since World War II.
It is now time for the Republicans to reach out a helping hand to the cities, and to help Productive Workers all across the US, not just in the rural counties. Population will continue to grow faster in US cities than in rural areas. So the Republican party will continue to lose influence for US politics unless the Republicans gain more support in US cities. My presidential campaign aims to recapture more than 6% of the US city voters from the Democrats, thus giving the Republicans 60% support throughout the US as a whole.
Most of the Democratic and Republican economists say that income inequality was lowest in the US when we had an abundance of Working Capital in the cities, i.e. shortly after World War II. Presumably the experts mostly understand that now is the time to end “Corporate Badfare” in the US cities. Today US manufacturing is under-capitalized and is not competitive with other nations. So free-trade agreements now penalize a wide variety of Productive jobs in the US cities.
In recent decades, politicians in both major parties have been raising large amounts of campaign money. And those political campaign funds have been coming from people and voters who disagree with each other on most issues, but do agree that it would be nice if the Federal politicians could give their voters ”something for nothing”. A “something for nothing” mentality might have made sense when the US had huge Trade Surpluses shortly after World War II.
But after the US economy deteriorated into consistently worsening Trade Deficits, starting in the 1971 (reference: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt ), US politicians in both of the major political parties should have stopped trying to give away “something for nothing” to the US voters. Today the USA sincerely needs to stop taking things away from groups who are: a) too young to vote, or b) existing as corporations which never get to vote, or c) working in a US industry which competes with foreign manufacturers.
I aim to organize three Federal economic districts in the US, each with roughly 100 million US residents. One composed of the very largest Core Based Statistical Areas (reference data: http://www.charlottechamber.com/index.php?category=Demo_ecoProfile&ref=MSAsRankedbyTotalPopulation&src=gendocs&submenu=msa_ranked_population )
, where Democrat economics is likely to run the show. A second autonomous economic district with 100 million US residents will contain the underpopulated regions of the US, and Republican economics can be responsible for its destiny. My third economic district will also contain 100 million US residents and will exhibit bipartisan politics, presumably aligning with the viewpoints of the “Independent” US voters.
Each of these 3 new Federal economic regions should have its own banking system, replacing the currently single US Federal Reserve Bank. That way if one-third of the US continues to focus on unwise economic activities – it can bankrupt itself, while leaving 2/3 of the US unharmed.
