Inflation is the major force pulling this storm together.
Today, oil prices have hit more than $94 per barrel. This has lead
to significant increases in resource prices (i.e. cost-push
inflation) for companies throughout the United States. For example,
a major United States employer, Walmart, has reported financial
losses for the past two quarters because the cost of shipping large
volumes of products nationwide has spun out of control. The
increasing oil prices have crossed a threshold similar to that in
the 1970s.
At the same time, demand-pull inflation is starting to become a problem.
Demand pull inflation is when demand for products and services
outstrips available supply within the marketplace. The war in Iraq
will cost more than $1 trillion. With the war effort underway, the
government is competing (i.e. demanding) products and services with
consumers and businesses in the United States.
It is also true that the Bush administration has taken action to devalue
the American dollar. In 2002, the objective was to make American
goods and services cheaper to foreigners. However, the American
dollar has recently become worth less than the Canadian dollar. This
has the same effect as the war effort. There is increased demand for
products and that demand is starting to outstrip the nation’s supply
of goods and services.
To make matters worse, predatory lending in the mortgage industry has
led to significant foreclosures throughout the country and caused
the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. The mortgage industry was
permitted to leverage poor and middle-class Americans up to 40% of
their salaries in providing loans. A lot of predatory lenders
criminally targeted minorities and first-time home-buyers. The
decrease in interest rates to offset foreclosures will inevitably
encourage borrowing and further drive the demand for products and
services beyond available supply.
What does this all mean? It means that the United States is set up for
an impending economic collapse should a major terrorist attack occur
on American soil. Foreign investors own $4.4 trillion in United
States foreign debt. Shedock (2007) writes, “Even if they sell only
25% of that sum, the US would feel the pinch of hyper-inflation.”
Foreign investors are already starting to flee from America due to a
collapsing housing market. This is causing further devaluing of the
dollar (i.e. less dollars are demanded as investors reposition
assets in Europe). In the event of a terrorist attack, foreign
investors will be eager to flee from American investments and
transition their money to safe commodities such as gold. This will
undoubtedly lead to the collapse of the dollar.
What can be done?
As a Congressman, Michael would propose a two step plan to head off an
economic doomsday scenario. The clock is ticking, but if action is
taken now, it might be possible to lessen the impact of a potential
economic downturn.
First, resource costs such as oil must decline in the United States. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is at
maximum output and can no longer increase the production of oil
because of increased demand from China.
As a result, Michael proposes that the United States government start to
seriously consider providing grants to companies producing biodiesel,
ethanol, coal-to-liquid fuel, renewable diesel production, wind,
geothermal, syngas, and hydrogen power alternatives. Currently, the
federal and state governments spend more than $43 billion per year
on a failed war on drugs. Decriminalization of drugs would free up
billions of dollars which could potentially be shifted towards
research and development grants for alternative sources of energy.
For example, Michael supports grants for companies such as Changing
World Technologies (www.changingworldtech.com) to reduce American
reliance on oil. This company has invented technology to turn
garbage into oil by speeding up the chemical process by which
garbage naturally becomes oil.
Second, the government must engage in more prudent fiscal and monetary
policy. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve chairman is entrenched
and appointed by the president. Consequently, congress has no
authority over monetary policy. As a Congressman, Michael is mainly
limited to an oversight role and using the media to challenge
irresponsible monetary policy.
However, Michael is capable of influencing fiscal policy. As a
Congressman, he would call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which
would curtail demand for American goods and services from the
government. This would lessen the effect of demand-pull inflation.
Michael would also push for the United States to require China to trade
its currency, the renminbi, in the open market. Currently, China
fixes the value of its currency and does not permit it to trade on
the open market.
Trading the renminbi on the currency market would appreciate its value
and cause worldwide demand for American products and services to
increase. Worldwide consumer demand would not amount to a huge
problem if the Iraq war were to end. The increased demand for
American exports would increase the demand for American dollars and
appreciate its value to a level capable of offsetting long term
inflation pressures. It would also end the era of the United States
running extremely high trade deficits.
In conclusion, the status quo system of government has left the United
States economically worse off and vulnerable to collapse in the
event of a terrorist attack. We no longer need lawyers running
Washington. We need leaders like Michael who have a strong grounding
in economic theory.
Back to Top
The crime rate is soaring in Maryland’s fourth congressional
district. In 2007, murders in Prince George’s County are about to
surpass the record high of 164. The crime rate in Prince George’s
County is comparable to Baltimore, Maryland. Much of the crime rates
in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties stem from drug related
crime.
Of course, this type of crime is not new in American history. From 1920
to 1933, the United States banned the sale and consumption of
alcohol. During that period, the United States witnessed the rise of
Al Capone, the mafia, and numerous crimes involving theft and murder
in most metropolitan cities.
The United States spends approximately $600 per second on the war on
drugs. This year, the United States will arrest 1.6 million members
of its population for drug law enforcement violations. The war on
drugs has fueled the Columbia civil war, lead to the deaths of
thousands of Columbians, and displaced more than 2 million people.
Needless to say, the United States has lost the war on drugs.
The reality is that the government has no right to tell otherwise law
abiding citizens what types of substances they can consume. Many
expecting mothers addicted to drugs fear going to the hospital for
treatment because they will either be arrested or have their
children taken away.
Solution
Michael supports the legalization of drugs. He believes it is a
moral and economic issue and that the legalization of drugs would
significantly reduce violent crime and lead to peace in Columbia and
Latin America.
The economics behind the legalization of drugs is relative simple.
Cussen and Block (2000) argued:
When drugs are legalized, law-abiding businesspeople will no longer be deterred
by the illegality of drug commerce and will become willing to enter the market.
With this increase of supply, assuming a less than proportional increase in
demand, the price of narcotics will fall. Addicts who were formerly forced to
steal, murder, and engage in illegal employment to earn enough money for their
habits will be able to afford the lower prices.
It is important to remember that fifty years after the repeal of
Prohibition, the potency effect of alcohol had been reversed. During
prohibition, it was more profitable for cartels to carry more potent
forms of alcohol. Today, the average per capita consumption of
alcohol has fallen to its lowest level ever. The same would occur
with drug use.
The illegal cartels find it more profitable to ship hard drugs such as
cocaine and heroin rather than weaker drugs such as marijuana. In a
free market for drugs, the demand for marijuana would far exceed the
demand for hard drugs. This is because negative advertising
campaigns by groups opposed to drug use would educate people about
the effects of hardcore drugs on physical and mental health.
For current users, drugs are considered to be an inelastic product. This
means a change in price will not effect a huge change in
consumption. As a result, the legalization of drugs is not likely to
lead to an increase in usage among current users. Rather, the money
freed from falling prices would likely permit users who want to seek
treatment the ability to afford healthcare and treatment facilities
to fight their addiction.
In conclusion, incarcerating large segments of America’s youth
population for drug related crime will not advance society or help
Maryland’s fourth congressional district reduce crime levels. Dr.
Harry Harlow’s experiments indicated that once people are
incarcerated, it is very difficult to rehabilitate them.
Incarceration causes depression because people start to suffer from
feelings of loneliness, helplessness, and general cognitive
impairment. The common sense approach is to admit that the war on
drugs has been a colossal failure. Adopting a free market approach
would drastically reverse this failure and lead to eventual
reductions in drug consumption.
Back to Top
The productivity of the average American worker has been mostly
maximized. Without significant innovation in technology, the only
other way to improve the productive capacity of Americans is to
improve access to healthcare and education.
Improving access to healthcare would result in less time missed on the
job. It would also translate into less stress caused by employees
worrying about how to provide adequate health insurance for their
families.
Improving graduation rates from high school and access to higher
education would result in greater specialization among the
workforce, enhance employees’ skills, and significantly cut
production costs for American firms.
Healthcare Plan
Michael supports universal healthcare and the creation of better
subsidized healthcare for American citizens. Specifically, he
advocates adopting the French system of healthcare. The World Health
Organization (WHO) classified the French healthcare system as the
“best in the world” in 2000.
In France, more than 80% of French people have supplemental private
insurance, reducing the amount of taxes required from payrolls and
income tax for the public system. It is the poorest 20% of the
French population which are subsidized by the public system.
The public system of healthcare in France is funded from payroll tax
(60%), by taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and by a progressive tax on
income. Michael would push for Congress to adopt this mixture of
funding to pay for healthcare for the poor in America, while
maintaining a system of private supplemental healthcare for the rest
of the country.
By parity of reasoning, legalizing drugs would permit the creation of
taxes similar to taxes levied on alcohol and tobacco. For this
reason, legalizing drugs would further facilitate a system capable
of subsidizing healthcare for the poor without significantly
increasing income and payroll taxes.
Education Plan
As an educator, Michael believes the best method to improve
secondary education is to create a voucher system. A voucher is a
certificate, subsidized for the poor and middle class by the
government, to pay for the education of their children at the school
of their choice rather than the public school system.
Since the 1950s, American schools systems have not become overwhelmingly
desegregated. This is especially true in Prince George’s County,
Maryland. A voucher system would better enable citizens to choose
where to send their children, and in the process, better desegregate
the school systems.
To reiterate, a voucher system would create a free market for education
and promote competition among school systems. Outstanding schools
would attract students, while underperforming schools would go out
of business.
Supporters of school vouchers include economist Milton Friedman,
billionaire and philanthropist John Walton, and former Mayor of
Baltimore Kurt Schmoke.
In addition, America needs to enhance free access to education for
undergraduate and graduate students nationwide. Too many American
college students are going into debt to pay for education. Private
predatory lenders such as Sallie Mae target students with adjustable
rate student loans and wreck their credit when the students are
incapable of making repayment in inflationary periods.
Michael favors the creation of a national lottery to create free grants
for undergraduate and graduate students. Many state lotteries
already finance the public education system. It makes sense create a
national lottery to assist in financing higher education.
Moreover, during the Reagan administration, taxes were placed on PhD
studentships in the United States. PhD studentships are part-time
jobs which permit graduate students to act as assistants to
professors. Many PhD students only earn about $15,000 while creating
important innovations in the natural and social sciences. Michael
favors repealing these taxes to encourage an increase in PhD
candidates nationwide.
Back to Top
Currently, the Iraq war has cost the lives of 4000 service
members, severely injured more than 28,000 service members, and if
it continues, will cost more than $1 trillion.
From the start of the war, Michael had always taken the position of the
late Pope John Paul II. The former Pope stated, “When war, as in
these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more
urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only
peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united
society.”
One of the reasons Michael decided to run for Congress is because the
incumbent in the Maryland’s fourth congressional district betrayed
the Democratic Party and voted to authorize President Bush’s
invasion.
If elected, Michael will call for the immediate withdrawal of American
forces from Iraq. Immediate withdrawal means full redeployment of
troops to American soil as soon as is humanly possible.
As usual, American politicians failed to study Iraq before committing
troops to the crisis. Iraq is engaged in a war between Sunni and
Shiite factions. The Sunni insurgency is supported and funded by
Saudi Arabia. The Shiite insurgency is funded and supported by Iran.
In reality, the civil war is a proxy war between extremist elements
in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Bringing these totalitarian regimes to the bargaining table or throwing
money at them to stop the war would not help the situation. These
regimes are partaking in a proxy war in order to scapegoat and turn
the attention of their publics away from domestic economic failures.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have been successful because they manage to
create xenophobia (i.e. fear of out-groups) among their needs
frustrated populations.
There is no easy solution to end a religiously motivated war. Any
politician who says otherwise is lying. Great Britain was involved
in a 38 year war in Northern Ireland over religious differences.
Great Britain finally discovered peace by promoting democracy and
self-rule in Northern Ireland.
Michael believes the legislative and executive branches of government
should completely rethink Middle East policy. Democracy and free
enterprise go together. No two countries with McDonalds inside their
borders have ever gone to war against each other.
For this reason, the United States needs to stop financing military
equipment for the Saudi Arabian regime, and instead, shift financial
resources toward pro-democracy forces within these nations. In the
long run, promoting democracy will lead to free enterprise and put
an end to human needs frustration, xenophobia, and warfare
worldwide.
Back to Top
Ongoing racial, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination in
the United States is harming the country. The events in New Orleans
demonstrate that America is still far behind when it comes to
improving the economic well-being of its citizens.
Today, many women executives are not paid as much as men. And society
continues to unfairly judge monogamous gay and lesbian couples by
denying them tax benefits which are afforded to heterosexual
couples.
In the 21st Century, monogamous gay and lesbian couples are severely
discriminated against. Because civil unions do not exist, gay and
lesbian couples are left with significant disadvantages. In the
event of an accident, gay and lesbian couples can be separated at a
hospital emergency room. Life-partners are denied a role in making
end of life decisions. And, of course, gay and lesbian couples are
denied the same tax benefits and protections afforded to married
couples. Is current system fair or aligned with America’s values
system?
Solution
Because discrimination is rooted in socialization, it is
critically important to desegregate America’s school systems and to
encourage social interaction between every segment of society. The
country needs more interaction between every racial, ethnic, gender,
and sexual orientation group.
In his classic study, LePiere (1934) observed that there is a
significant difference between attitudes and behavior. In that
study, many hotel employees said that they would discriminate
against Asian Americans on a written questionnaire. However, after
the researcher took a Chinese couple to meet survey respondents,
only one out of 251 instances resulted in discrimination. This
proves that social interaction between groups reduces discriminatory
behavior.
Michael will work to support school vouchers to better desegregate the
school systems and to promote positive socialization. In addition,
Michael favors the creation of employment tribunals to ensure that
women receive the same pay as men.
Michael will also try to tackle the negative issues facing the gay and
lesbian community. He will work hard to support civil unions which
will afford the same tax benefits and protections to monogamous gay
and lesbian couples which are afforded to heterosexual couples.
Back to Top
Because demand pull and cost push inflation is starting to
become a significant problem in the United States, Michael supports
increasing the size of the labor force through immigration.
The extra supply of immigrant workers tends to reduce worker demands for
higher wages, preventing the United States economy from
over-heating. It does this by limiting the demand for products and
services relative to available supply levels. It has the effect of
keeping production costs down for American employers, leading to
increases in the available supply of goods and services generally.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan holds the same view as
Michael. He has repeatedly stated in congressional testimony that
immigration has mitigated the effect of inflationary pressures
throughout the mid to late 1990s.
Of course, in addition to economic reasons, Michael also supports
immigration because he is the grandson and husband of immigrants.
His grandfather came to the United States from Poland, served in the
United States army, and became a police officer in New Jersey. His
grandfather, like most immigrants, greatly contributed to America’s
society.
Michael’s grandfather was an example of the American Dream. The American
Dream is the belief that any immigrant, through hard work and
educational attainment can achieve a better life. While America’s
resources such as land, capital, and entrepreneurial activity
certainly enabled the country to succeed, it was the resource of
immigrant labor which made this country the greatest and most
productive nation in the world. It would be a shame to limit access
to the one resource (i.e. immigrant labor) which could continue to
propel economic growth well into the future.
Consequently, Michael supports legalizing the status of immigrants from
Latin America and Mexico who have entered the country illegally, but
have made efforts to become productive employees in American
society.
Back to Top
The worst human rights tragedy occurring in the United States is
partial birth abortion. In 2003, the United States signed into law a
rather weak ban on partial birth abortions. Partial birth abortion
is a procedure used for killing children after four months of
development in the womb. It is violent and vicious end to a child’s
life.
First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the baby is positioned for a
footling breech. Third, the baby is force extracted except for the
head. Fourth, the brain of the child is violently removed so that a
dead, but otherwise intact child is delivered.
According to a British Broadcasting Corporation’s documentary,
“…[American] government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have
said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are
still legal - which involves dismembering the foetus [child] in the
uterus.” The United States Supreme Court has stated that intact D&X
[dilation and extraction] remains legal as long as there is first an
“injection that kills the fetus [child].”
Michael’s opponents are pro-choice. For the first time in Maryland’s
fourth congressional district there is alternative candidate and it
is critically important that those opposed to partial birth abortion
procedures support Michael’s candidacy.
Michael’s position is shaped around the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.
The role of government, for Jefferson, is one that prohibits
individuals in society from harming the liberty of other people. The
murdering of fully developed children is totally unacceptable. Every
society which murdered defenseless citizens such as Nazi Germany or
the Soviet Union collapsed relatively quickly. The United States
must do more to stop the killing of children, especially those which
are fully formed in the womb.
As a scientist and PhD, Michael deplores the use of partial birth
abortion, in any form, and will vote to support future bans on the
procedure. He will also support the nomination of judges committed
to outlawing the procedure altogether. The only exception Michael
would make is if the life of the mother is in danger.
Back to Top
This is a very touchy subject within the United States. The
school shootings in the United States are tragic. However, school
shootings are occurring internationally, and especially, in nations
which have completely banned guns. Recent school shootings have
occurred in Canada, Scotland, Germany, Australia, Finland, and
Sweden.
Rushing to ban guns will create a nightmare scenario similar to the
criminalization of drugs. For example, Japan has the strictest laws
against buying guns in the world. Japan spends millions of yen
yearly to ban guns.
How is the ban on guns going in Japan? The answer is not well at all.
The Japanese have created large crime cartels similar to the drug
cartels. The numbers of shootings in Japan have increased. This is
because the criminalization of guns has caused the price of illegal
guns to skyrocket. The ban has made it profitable for gun cartels to
sell guns illegally to criminal elements within the society. For example,
Mayor Iccho Ito from Nagasaki, Japan was shot dead by Yakuza gang members.
The second amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits
infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It
is important to remember that Adolph Hitler immediately banned guns
upon seizing power in Germany. He did this to prevent German
citizens from being able to challenge his regime.
Banning guns is not the best method to tackle school shootings. Using
the Japan example, banning guns is likely to lead to an increase in
school shootings and gang related violence by
increasing economic
incentives for illegal cartels.
The problems relating to school shootings are related to socialization.
Many school shootings result from kids being bullied in the United
States. School systems need to better tackle bullying, otherwise
violence generally, including stabbings have the potential to
increase nationwide.
A lot of children also learn negative images about violent behavior from
watching violent movies. More parental supervision is needed in the
United States to curve violence. This is not something that can be
legislated. It is a matter of private citizens taking matters into
their own hands to stem the rise of violence.
Of course, Michael recognizes that there are reasonable limits for guns
already in place. For example, people suffering from mental illness,
minors, or those with criminal records are currently banned from
obtaining guns.
However, Michael also believes that hunting is a rewarding pastime and
that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to exercise their rights
under the second amendment of the United States Constitution.
Therefore, he believes the government should stay out of the lives
of private law-abiding citizens and promote educational alternatives
to prevent school violence.
Back to Top
Let's
get the campaign going!
Spread
the Word
Volunteer
Call
Talk Radio