T

H

E

M

O

V

E

M

E

N

T

2016 INITIATIVE

A Movement to Reclaim and Restore American Government

Executive Summary
The 2016 Initiative The Movement is an aboveground effort to formulate and offer electoral alternatives to the two mainstream political parties. Our goal is to have a national organization in place for the 2016 elections, with ground operations in all 50 states for the 2016 Presidential primaries. There is a vacuum in the current electoral market, with many Americans disconnected and disillusioned with the current system of government and political activism. Political parties are like any other product: they need to be marketed effectively in order to succeed. However, like any other product, they depend on delivery of satisfaction to their consumers in order for their consumers to transition from one time buyers to repeat customers. The simple truth is that the two major political parties in America simply don’t have a winning model. The reason that they succeed is that they have effectively monopolized the electoral process. Challengers have emerged from time to time, but their success is usually confined to one election. They are short term phenomenons. The Movement is intended to become a long term success in American electoral politics, and the 2016 Initiative is intended to be a road map to the establishment of a viable third party which can eventually displace one or both of the two current mainstream political parties. Our goal is permanence. Principles and Mission Statement The first and foremost principle of The Movement is that property rights are sacrosanct. Any wealth redistribution schemes which seek to appropriate property or wealth from one group in order to enrich another group are wrong and constitute a clear encroachment against the equal application of the laws and the Constitution. The use of eminent domain to confiscate property from private landowners for the purposes of transferring that property to private developers is wrong. We are further opposed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in their current forms, as we recognize that the government is being utilized as a proxy for the purposes of confiscating the wages of the current generation of workers and taxpayers in order to enrich senior citizens and other interests. We hold that a republican democracy, while respectful of the wishes and prerogatives of majoritarian rule, holds certain protections for individual rights which cannot be infringed on by a tyrannical majority. Chief among those rights is the right to your own property and wealth, and the principle that the government should only be able to tax wealth for common purposes like national defense, infrastructure, and the enforcement mechanisms of federal regulatory agencies which enforce contracts, prevent and prosecute fraud, and ensure that competition is the ultimate arbiter of success in the marketplace. Our mission is the restoration of constitutionally proper government at the local, state, and federal level. We believe that in order to achieve this, in order to restore property rights to their sacrosanct place, we must lead an effort to turn out every incumbent from elected office at the federal level. It is our position that neither of the mainstream parties respects property rights, and that their key agendas involve gigantic wealth transfer and redistribution schemes from one segment of society to another. On the liberal or Democratic side, we see an increasing effort to erect and cement entitlements programs which tax the current generation of workers and taxpayers in order to enrich key constituencies and demographics like seniors and minorities. On the conservative or Republican side, we see increasing efforts to use taxes in order to fund increased defense appropriations and omnibus spending bills that transfer wealth from taxpayers to private corporations in the form of no-bid or cost-plus contracts. Both parties have resorted to the use of fuzzy accounting and they have erected a central banking regime that obfuscates any attempt to reveal its inner workings to the taxpayers and citizens whose money is routinely devalued by Federal Reserve monetary policy.
The Movement 2016 Initiative

1

Through the expansion of the monetary supply, both Republicans and Democrats have attempted to hide the cost of their programs by devaluing the existing supply of money. In this way they avoid making politically difficult decisions where tax hikes to offset spending increases are concerned. They deprive not only U.S. citizens of the full values of their earnings and assets, they also deprive foreign creditors who hold U.S. debt of a full repayment of that debt. It is antithetical to the idea of sacrosanct property and honest contracts that they would do such a thing. It is contrary to the national interest that such practices should continue. A government that does not respect contracts, property rights, or individual rights is a tyranny. Rights are sacred and fixed, and the government does not possess the authority or the liberty to set those rights aside unilaterally for the sake of convenience. The Movement is intended to press this very message so that when 2016 arrives, we will be positioned with an alternative message to the message promulgated by the dominant two mainstream political parties.

The Capitol Building

The Supreme Court

The White House

What’s Involved: A Path to Electoral Victory The 2016 Initiative will require a substantial upfront investment in order to begin operations. Key sub-initiatives are as follows: A. Web and Internet Marketing-we will require a webpage, replete with cutting edge design and RSS feeds. We must also begin immediate development of viral video presentations which can be dispersed throughout the Internet at popular sites like Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook. The social networking sites will also be key to getting our message out. We want to recruit on college campuses, through blogs, and various news sites. Moreover, when it comes to the younger demographic, we want to recruit through slickly produced mini ads and documentaries that can distributed through Youtube and social networking sites, but also through our own website and Itunes. Everything should be convertible, downloadable, and easily disseminated so that maximum recruitment is possible. B. Brochure publication-for the middle aged and senior generations, traditional methods like brochures will be vital and necessary to communicate our ideals and platforms so that we can recruit. C. Branding materials-bumper stickers, T-shirts and other apparel, hats, coffee mugs, posters and the like will need to be up and ready to go ASAP. D. Candidate development-marketing a political candidate needs to be no different than marketing a political campaign. What we should look for in a potential candidate is someone who is attractive but not threatening, articulate but not glib, and ultimately manageable. We want to avoid legacy or dynasty candidates with ties to local or state political families, as our cachet should center on our outsider and anti status quo stance. We also want to
The Movement 2016 Initiative

2

avoid candidates with long standing ties to local, state, or national political parties who have run previously and failed. We are not a second option, and we shouldn’t be doing second run redemption. Candidate development is precisely that: we take someone who is amendable to our views and ideals, and we teach them how to communicate those ideals and views deftly. We need to know that when we put our candidate in front of a microphone bank, he or she will be prepared to deal with the media and acquit themselves well. In particular, we want to avoid candidates who are strongly opinionated on social issues. Social issues are the big ticket item of the other two parties. Our focus should be on universal concerns shared across all demographics: namely, economic issues like wages, prices, and jobs. In the past, the two major parties have used social wedge issues as a distraction from their abysmal record on the economy and on fiscal management. That record is what we want to debate, because it is their critical weakness. We’ve had two New Deals, a New Frontier, a Great Society, and a Contract with America. Are we better for having had any of these initiatives? Our opponents will want to talk about gays in the military, gay marriage, gay adoption, and abortion precisely because they don’t want to talk about their critical failures economically speaking. 20 recessionary cycles in less than a century speaks to their utter ineptitude, and that’s what we need to hammer. It doesn’t matter if you’re white, yellow, red, black, or purple, you want certain things in life: a better salary, a nice house, financial security, a good life for yourself and for your family. We’re making the argument that the market, when driven by competition and consumer choice rather than regulation and monopolistic and anti-competitive practices, can deliver greater prosperity to the greater number of people. The opposition is making the argument that more laws are needed, and greater amounts of bureaucracy are required, even though we’ve had both for eight decades and the economy still isn’t delivering for the vast majority of Americans. By stressing universal concerns and desires through economics, we can transcend race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and any other classification around. Despite the fact that the government could provide $13,333.00 for every man, woman, and child in this country given what it spends in a year, most of us are seeing declining wages, benefits, and battered retirement accounts. Clearly, the answer isn’t more money for the government or greater amounts of spending to combat our ills. It is instead a change of government. Our key is to drive this reality home to the American electorate over and over and over again. Taxes for the status quo represent a monumentally stupid investment for the average taxpayer. They can do better than a government that pushes them around, takes from them against their consent, and fails to deliver a better result time and time again. Our candidates will have to stay on message in order to do this. Media training will be critical. No matter the question, our candidates should be prepared to bring their answer back to economic or capital concerns. Everything should be tied to the economy. The media will attempt to undermine or distract our candidates, because the mainstream media in America is an auxiliary of the political status quo. However, there are ways to defeat the media in their efforts. Take abortion, for example: “What is your position on abortion, Candidate A?” “My position on abortion is that it is the natural extension of an economic system that has failed women. What woman, if she had the independence that comes with capital and personal wealth, would choose to terminate a pregnancy? For that matter, how many women who possessed capital independence and the self-determination which accompanies it would lack access to proper gynecological care and prophylactics? In our society, the most damning indictment of our economic failings where women are concerned is that pregnancy places a woman at a material or economic disadvantage.” Everything must be skillfully brought back to matters of economics and capital.

The Movement

2016 Initiative

3

Our candidates must be schooled in how to seize control of interviews and settings in which they may face unwelcome or inconvenient questions. Proper preparation eliminates poor performance. Candidate development will likely be the most expensive and resource intensive part of our program in the initial phase. We will be systematically grooming candidates at the state and local levels for 2016 and beyond. Our success depends on their preparation and the performance thereof. Anything less than the total and skillful obliteration of hostile questioners within the media ought to be considered a failure. We want our candidates prepared to dominate, not to deflect or to duck. E. Administrative and Hierarchical Establishment-We need to establish an administrative model where there is a national and regional emphasis initially, and as we build our organization in states and localities, we can build a local and state organization as well. It is vital to hold administrative costs to an absolute minimum. We need a three person team initially: an administrator who possesses a record of organizational success; another individual whose sole purpose is to refine the message and principles associated with our movement and to train candidates and personnel at the lower levels in the program; and a fundraiser whose full time job shall be recruiting financial support and establishing a network of financial donors. The bulk of the grunt work ought to be done through internships offered to college and graduate students which will fund their education for the semesters during which they work with us. The idea man shall work exclusively on candidate recruitment and on recruitment in general. All other consultants and contractors shall be independent of the hierarchy and organization. They shall be retained for specific tasks like IT support, website and graphic design, local precinct organization and strategy, and various advisory roles. We want them external to the organization, but they should be required to sign binding Non Disclosure Agreements. Message control and discipline are critical to our success, and we should have a virtual monopoly on the flow of information about our initiatives and efforts. We cannot ensure candid and frank discussion of strategies and tactics if we have to worry about unwarranted public disclosures.

The initial and upfront investment necessary to get the organization up and running during the first two years of its existence should be $100 million. In the election cycle, we will require at least that much for our local and statewide races, as well as any funding we might give to federal candidates running under our banner. A presidential campaign and a coinciding national election campaign with a slate of candidates running under one banner to displace incumbents will cost well over $500 million dollars. With that said, the cost of tax compliance in any given year in this country is some $140 billion or more. Regulatory compliance and licensing requirements involve billions in fees and filings. Taxes represent another significant drain on resources for investors and traders, as well as the average Americans we hope to recruit. Let’s review a listing of the taxes you face as an average individual in America: there are licensing taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, state taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, hotel and lodging taxes, luxury taxes, custom duties and tariffs. Even with the upfront taxes, you still face the hidden cost of the corporate income tax, of which 71% is passed on to consumers and laborers. There are the additional hidden taxes of regulatory regimes like distributorships, which, the case of alcohol distilleries and breweries, pass on an additional 20% price premium to consumers. There are local and regional cartels in healthcare, wholesaling, and various other institutions which are the sole creation of regulatory requirements, and each of these results in an additional cost to consumers. The question is not how you can afford to invest in an alternative to the political status quo. It is instead how can you afford not to invest in an alternative? The two dominant political parties have been promising change in one
The Movement 2016 Initiative

4

form or another for their entire existence. Regardless of whatever initiatives they have instituted, one dominant trend has stayed constant: they require ever greater amounts of money to govern, and they take it regardless of what you or I think about their agendas or programs. The Republicans and Democrats are not going to improve. They are not going to change. They have no incentive to change. The existing and dominant political paradigm in this country is lucrative to the two political parties who currently dominate it and owe their continued prosperity to its continued existence. $500 million is a pittance compared to what you’ll lose if they succeed. The 2016 Initiative is designed to mount a challenge to their dominance that is successful and long term. The reforms instituted in the event of our electoral success will be hard to reverse. What’s Possible There are many areas that can be pared from our existing government. We must begin with Executive Agencies. Specifically, I believe that we must abolish the following departments for our beginning round: the Department of Education; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and the Department of Homeland Security. The first three departments should present a minimal challenge. Drug Enforcement, indeed, criminal enforcement is best left to the states. Educational funding is best left to state and local governments as well, given that it is administered by the state Boards of Education and various local school boards. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can easily be done away with, as all states have an existing regulatory apparatus in place to confront the areas and issues handled by such an agency. The Department of Homeland Security will present a challenge politically. It is an appropriations cash cow. The corporations who contract business with Homeland Security will fight hard to mount a campaign in the public domain to oppose its abolition. We need to be prepared for this. When we get our candidates elected, we must recognize that the fight is only beginning. Sufficient funds need to be kept on hand to fight the public relations battle which will most certainly occur in the event we attempt to abolish specific departments. Where entitlements are concerned several key realities must be noted: a repeal of entitlements programs will require a long term program to gradually undo the specific programs. For instance, where Social Security is concerned, we will require at least two decades of preparation to completely repeal the program. Ideally, any individual 45 and over would receive Social Security as per usual. Individuals under 45 years of age by a certain cut off date could be enrolled in private retirement accounts. They could elect to place their withholdings in either a Roth IRA or 401(k) style account, and we could sweeten the deal by making their contributions tax free both at the time of the initial contribution and upon retirement. People shouldn’t be penalized for planning ahead for retirement through taxes on their retirement earnings so that the government can sustain itself. The individuals who were scheduled to receive Social Security would receive it on certain conditions: they would have no outside income in excess of a certain amount, and if married, their combined household incomes could not exceed a certain amount without their eligibility being effected. Social Security as a program ought to be a safety net for those retirees who actually need a safety net. For those who don’t, Social Security should be removed because it functions as nothing more than a subsidy to their already ample retirement. This would have the benefit of lessening the budgetary amount needed to fund Social Security benefits, and it would enable us to gradually phase out the program itself with a minimum of pain to the recipients. The total time for the program to dissolve should be no longer than 50 years overall. However, the eligible pool of beneficiaries will be greatly reduced by our reforms and the corresponding expense would be minimized by this and by their increasing mortality over time.
The Movement 2016 Initiative

5

Medicare would be privatized and spun off as a stand alone program funded by the premiums of enrollees. Seniors need medical insurance, and the likelihood that they can get the insurance they require from private insurers who rightly view them as an undue risk would be unrealistic. Medicare would be self-sustaining from the premiums of enrollees. We want to spin Medicare off and provide a model whereby the enrollees’ premiums are used to fund Medicare as a whole. The net effect of privatization is that Medicare enrollees would seek only the care that they need rather than viewing healthcare as a luxury afforded them by a government subsidy which they can exploit to a maximum degree as they prefer. For those of limited means, Medicaid would be available, but in greatly reduced form. Ability to pay would be a factor in both copays and patient maximums. Medicaid would require some form of patient contribution in the form of a copay or percentage liability. In Social Security and Medicare reform and privatization, we will have greatly cut nearly 40% of our annual expenditures. In defense spending, we currently maintain a stockpile of some 5,700 warheads. Strategically speaking, we could maintain a deterrent and defensive effect with just 300. Moreover, we could lead the world in nuclear nonproliferation efforts and set a powerful precedent by beginning the unilateral destruction of some 5,400 warheads of our own volition apart from international accords or negotiations. The savings would likely be significant, and the geopolitical and diplomatic ramifications would be positive. We spend some 8 times what our nearest competitor spends in overall defense spending. We could cut our defense expenditure by half and greatly reduce our presence abroad in order to cut spending overall. The truth is that we would still be spending some 3 to 4 times what China spends in overall defense funding. Our major strategic rival is China, and their emphasis is on building a navy to challenge our hegemony in the Pacific. We need to look at ways of addressing their naval buildup that are not cost intensive, such as a sonar array to detect fleet and craft movements. With all of the cuts that are possible, what is also possible is a streamlining of the regulatory process. Simply put, regulatory compliance is in the 19th century, with mountains of paper forms that are labor intensive to fill out. While this is ideal for the army of attorneys and accountants who have grown fatter and fatter with each new round of government regulation and reform, it is a drain on our industry and on investors. Modernization must take place. The emphasis in regulatory oversight should center on two key areas: the prevention of fraud and the defense of contracts. Everything else is extraneous. We want to ensure fiscal transparency on the part of our publicly traded corporations in order to enable investors to know exactly what they are investing in when they purchase stock. Fraud prevention entails streamlining corporate reporting to simplify the process involved and make it easier to measure whether a company’s books match its performance. At the heart of our economy is the contract. Without honest contracting and the trust that develops out of such contracting, we can have no orderly or legal regimes sprouting forth. In the past, various investors and hedge funds have viewed themselves as pirates seeking the plunder. If the company in question is legitimately ripe for the plunder due to underlying instability in its balance sheets, so be it. We must regard hedge funds as fulfilling a vital role within the economic food chain akin to that of vultures and hyenas. They eat the carrion and clean up the mess. It is far better that they should perform such tasks than the government, which inevitably has to commit the taxpayer’s money for bailouts. However, in the event that underlying instability arises as the result of contractual
The Movement 2016 Initiative

6

malfeasance, the government has a vested interest in defending the company from undue dissolution. We will have the rule of law and contracts in our markets. The government’s chief purpose is the preservation of its elector’s property, life, and liberty. The government’s proper role where the breaking or undermining of contracts is concerned is as a defender of contracts, and by extension, property. We cannot expect to attract steady and solid capital to our markets if our regulatory regime produces an environment akin to the Wild West. That’s what we’ve had, and as a result, we’ve had boom and bust cycles for the past century. We can stabilize the national and global economy through reform of the regulatory regime that is sensible and simplified down to the aforementioned two areas of fraud prevention and contract defense. What’s more, we do not require the proliferation of various alphabet agencies to deal with these two areas. Conclusion Change is possible, but only if you entertain the possibility first. The Movement and the 2016 Initiative are a way towards change. The two dominant political parties of the mainstream represent and indeed embody the failed policies and programs of the past. They will not change. They know no other way than the way that they have always done things in the past. With proper investment, and the determination of individuals committed to change, we can affect change that will irreversibly reorder the course of our nation for years to come. Change is necessary if we are to maintain our place in the world and affect wider change globally along the lines outlined in the preceding paragraphs. We can bring broader prosperity through a free market to the electorate, and we can once and for all dispel any false notions held within that electorate about the efficacy of the free market and capitalism. In doing so, we will also thoroughly discredit competing ideologies. However, for this to happen, the Movement and the 2016 Initiative require support in order to move from the abstract to concrete reality. The investment required is significant, but no more significant than the sacrifices you most certainly will face at the hands of a government which increasingly holds the property rights of its citizens in low regard. For our government, the means justifies the end. No right is sacrosanct or beyond the reach of their power to intrude or confiscate. It is time to fund alternatives to the existing dominant paradigm. As noted above, the investment is significant, but the payoff is liberating and lucrative.

The Movement

2016 Initiative

7

The Movement

2016 Initiative

8