It’s time for black Americans to take the next step to unleash the shackles of racial victimization and group mentality and truly assimilate as individuals into American society. The United States has been blacks’ worst nightmare, but it is also their best hope.

Slavery was eliminated after the Civil War, but blacks faced another hundred years of segregation, discrimination and racism. They responded appropriately during this time by coming together through the development of cultural bonds and black organizations (e.g. NAACP). Because of the efforts and sacrifice of leaders like Martin Luther King and the black organizations, institutional discrimination was removed through the civil rights acts that were first initiated in the 1960s.

Despite the legislation and court decisions that opened the doors for blacks, Democrat politicians and self-appointed civil rights leaders have held them back from taking the next step to full assimilation in American society. While having good intentions, they kept blacks polarized in a separate black society that continued to preach victim mentality and government solutions. Most blacks followed dutifully.

Fortunately, many did not and they were able to reach great heights in business, industry, science, arts, sports and politics. Many also brought themselves out of poverty and are part of a growing middle class. They achieved success by fully assimilating themselves into American society and making their way through the doors of opportunity that are now available to all. In doing this, they also had to break away from a separate black society where they were led to believe that they were permanent victims of racism, solely dependant on government funding, programs (e.g. affirmative action, diversity training) and lawsuits to survive.

The enlightenment shown by the black successes has demonstrated a model by which other blacks can prosper in society. The model first recognizes that victimization thinking only hinders the chances of moving forward and that existing racism is a hurdle to overcome – not a closed door that can’t be unlocked. Secondly, pursuit of the American dream can only be accomplished within the American society and that American society is not a “white society”. Other races and ethnicities have successfully jumped into the melting pot to assimilate into, and enhance, American society. This assimilation has also been the key to knocking over many of the racism hurdles that they faced when first immigrating to this country.

Racism stems from seeing only the differences in another person. It is natural to think that someone is not like you when you see their different skin color and maybe associate them with negative stereotypes. A racist attitude melts away when a person gets to know someone of another race and realizes that skin color is really the only real difference between them. How many people do you know who have close relationships with other races and continue to exhibit a racist view? When individuals of differing races come together in close relationships such as neighbors, friends, work colleagues, students, families, organization members and teammates, they can observe first-hand the similarities among them. That is why assimilation, via these relationships, is the key to overcoming much of the remaining racism and moving more blacks forward in American society.

While the idea is simple, it will be difficult to achieve and the burden of making it happen will require the dismantling of some black organizations and artifacts of black separatism. Some of these were important and beneficial during the civil rights struggle, but they have outlasted their usefulness. Continuing to have them around will only hinder this new era of black assimilation. The following need to be ended, dismantled or phased-out:

While most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion, they are fearful that any legislation (parental notification, prohibiting partial birth abortion, etc.) will become a stepping stone towards making abortion illegal. On the other side, there is the belief that abortion is the killing of a human life and that all abortions are morally and legally wrong.

The solution to the abortion battle relies on a compromise between the pro-choice and pro-life positions. The common ground is that neither side sees abortion as a good thing, and the less abortions that happen, the better. The basis for this change is to set up a situation where most women choose to not have an abortion. This won’t eliminate abortions totally, but should dramatically reduce them over time.

The compromise solution is what I call the National Abortion Reconciliation Act. This federal legislation will provide a way to resolve the current abortion battle in a way that should satisfy both sides, with the exception of the extremists. What it provides is strong incentives for a woman to see her pregnancy to term and put the child up for adoption, but ultimately gives her the final choice without any legal consequences.

For pro-lifers, this act establishes the following:

- A national adoption agency that that focuses only on pregnant women who do not want to keep the expected child. Other existing private agencies will still remain to handle other children and international adoptions. This federal program will establish fees, rules, criteria, etc. for potential parents who are looking to adopt newborn babies of U.S. citizens. The women choosing adoption will be ensured of quality health care, counseling and supplemental income as necessary during their pregnancies. Registered married couples (see #10 Marriage Vow) will be the primary source for matching with the adoptee candidates. Singles and other couples (e.g. same-sex) will be a secondary source and only used if there are not enough qualified married couples to meet the demand. This act will also prohibit any future claims and contact by the natural mother or father of the child, except in special situations where the adoptee parents die or are determined by law to be no longer competent to raise the child. There will be ongoing national marketing and all hospitals, clinics and doctor’s offices will have program materials that can be provided to pregnant women. It will partner with pro-life organizations to assist with information distribution and counseling.

- A pregnant woman must sign an acknowledgement that she received information on the adoption program from the agency before she can choose an abortion.

- Pregnant women under 18 will need to inform their parents or guardians and the father before deciding on an abortion.

- Partial birth abortions cannot be performed, except when they are the only choice to save a mother’s life.

For the pro-choicers, this act provides the following:

- No federal or state law may be established that prohibits, or penalizes, a woman choosing to have an abortion performed by a qualified physician.

With the significant financial incentives and societal support for adoption, women should be less likely to choose abortion.

The change for this step is to get the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) adopted. The proposed amendment states the following:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Marriage is currently considered a state issue. A number of states have passed laws protecting traditional (man-woman only) marriage, but judges in other states are giving legal support for same-sex marriages. States should not be deciding this on an individual basis because it is a fundamental societal institution and has significant inter-state impacts.

The main reason for preserving traditional marriage is because it is the best arrangement for raising future generations of Americans. Research overwhelmingly shows that children are most well-adjusted and successful in life when they are raised by a mother and father who are married. Despite the fact that there are single parents and same-sex couples who provide tremendous love, care and support for children, there is no real substitute for having both a mother and a father role model. Traditional marriage is too important of a building block in the foundation of a healthy society to allow it to be redefined by state governments and judges.

Having states pass legislation that allows marriage for same-sex couples is also problematic in a couple of ways. First, what if a married same-sex couple wants or needs to move to a state where legislation has been passed that only supports a man-woman marriage? Their marriage would not be recognized in the state and you can just imagine all the lawsuits that would ensue. Secondly, once a state has allowed same-sex marriage, it will likely be challenged to also allow other relationships (e.g. polygamy). How can a state rationally defend itself by saying that two men, or two women, can marry, but a man and multiple wives cannot? It is easy to think that changing marriage to allow same-sex couples will be the end of it, but it will only start us down a slippery slope where marriages can be any relationship people can imagine (two sisters, plutonic brother-sister relationship, a guy and his pet, etc.).

One thing to remember is that all the benefits bestowed on married couples within the income tax code are gone (see #3 Tax Revolt). Therefore, there are no longer any tax benefits that same-sex couples lose out on by not being married. Additionally, this amendment would not take away any legal rights from same-sex couples. If they want to commit to their relationship, they can develop contracts that provide joint ownership of their possessions and bank accounts, define beneficiaries for insurance, develop wills and estate plans, etc. While they can’t obtain a marriage certificate, they can still have a ceremony of their choosing to announce and recognize their relationship with family and friends.

This amendment really boils down to providing what is best for our country’s children. It is not meant at all to disparage gay relationships. Raising as many children as we can in traditional families will provide the best hope for future generations of Americans. The adoption program I discuss in the next step (see #11 Abortion No-Demand) also plays a part in strengthening the family in our society.

The election reforms proposed here involve the presidential nomination process, campaign financing and voting regulations. Implementation of these reforms would require coordination between the Federal Election Commission, national and state party leadership and the state governments.

Presidential Nomination Process

Every state would have a presidential primary. There would be only four primary dates for the entire country and all parties, including third parties and independents, would vote on one of those four dates. The country would be divided into four groups representing sets of 12-13 states. States in each group would be scattered across different regions of the country and have combined delegate counts that totaled up to approximately 25% of the total delegates. The primary dates would occur in March, April, May and June and the four sets of states would be rotated so they would all change order from one election to the next.

Each state primary would be a winner-take-all for the delegates apportioned to that state by the two major parties. The candidate in each party getting the most votes would be pledged all of the delegates. There would continue to be a threshold (60%) of pledged delegates that would be needed to lock in a candidate as the nominee. Also, a party may decide to use Super-Delegates. If they do, they would be used upfront to pledge themselves to a candidate before the first set of primaries. That way, these veteran political insiders would provide direction to the party rank-and-file on who they think are the best candidates. The rank-and-file could then decide to follow the Supers’ lead or go their own way. If, after the four sets of primaries, no one has achieved the required threshold, then the decision would be made during the July conventions. Each of the parties would need to establish their own process on how to decide the nominee during the convention (highest vote total or delegate count, runoff voting, back-room negotiations, Super Delegates decide, etc.).

As referenced above, third party or independent candidates are also included in these primaries. When voters get to their polling places, they will be able to request one of three ballots. One of the ballots will have the Republican candidates, one will have the Democratic candidates and the other will have all of the third party and independent candidates. Party registration would not be required to take a Republican or Democratic ballot. A qualified voter can select any ballot, regardless of whether they are, or are not, registered with a political party.

Only the vote totals will be tracked for the third parties and independents since they involve multiple parties and don’t have a process set up for apportioning delegates. After the primaries are done, only those candidates that receive 15% or more of the total vote count will get the opportunity to appear on the general election ballot. For example, let’s say that 100 million people vote in the primaries with the Republican candidates getting 40 million of that total the Democrat candidates getting 40 million. That means that a single candidate from the third party ballot would need to get at least 15 million of the votes from the remaining 20 million to appear on the general election ballot. This will ensure that only viable candidates will be able to compete with the Republican and Democratic candidates in the general election.

All these changes in the nomination process would ensure a consistent process for all parties and ensure that all states/voters get a fair chance to influence the outcome. With 60% of the delegates needed to secure the nomination, at least three of the four sets of primaries will be needed to decide the nominee. These changes also provide an opportunity for a third party or independent candidate to compete with the major parties, but candidates must achieve a high primary vote total to demonstrate their viability in a general election.

Campaign Financing & Disclosures

All current campaign financing legislation will need to be repealed. Going forward, all candidates who pay the presidential election fee and are listed on the primary ballots will be required to provide full disclosures on a Federal Election Commission (FEC) web site. The disclosures will include:

- Personal Information (marital status, family members, residences, education, affiliated organizations, employment, military service, age, religious affiliations, criminal history, health report, etc.)

- Policy views on the top 15-20 issues of the day (developed for each election cycle). They would include such issues as the Economy, Foreign Policy, National Security, Taxes, Federal Budget, Defense, Welfare, Abortion, Capital Punishment, Energy Policy, Environmental Protection, Space Exploration, Trade, Gay Rights, etc.

- A listing of all official endorsements from individuals and organizations.

- A listing of all financial donors and their contribution amounts.

There will be no more limits on the amount of money that can be donated to presidential candidates. This is essentially a free speech issue and citizens have the right to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to who they want for President. However, there will still be some rules regarding these contributions:

- The contributions must come directly from an individual (no groups or organizations or “bundling”).

- Contributions can only be accepted from those individuals with exclusive U.S. citizenship (those with dual/multiple citizenship cannot contribute).

- Contributors must provide their full name, current address, phone number and SSN (only name, city and state will be published on the web site).

- The FEC will frequently audit the list of contributors and notify the campaign if it has accepted an illegal donation, which requires an immediate refund. Also, the FEC will list all the illegal donations that the candidates received to provide full disclosure to the public.

This financing reform makes it so that only individuals can donate, they can donate as much as they want, but they need to do so publicly for everyone to see. The other disclosures will also provide voters with key information about the candidates to help them make an informed choice.

Voting Regulations

For both the primary and general elections, the voting process will include the additional regulations as follows:

- A photo ID with address will be required to vote. It will be matched against voter registration data. If someone has not previously registered, then they will also need to bring a utility bill with an address matching the ID card to get registered.

- A voter must be registered to request an absentee ballot.

- All ballots and instructions will be printed in English only.

This will help reduce voter fraud and provides an incentive for new citizens to know the national language if they plan on participating in the election process.

Federal spending is out of control and the national debt has reached $9.2 trillion. The reasons for the excessive spending are that federal government is funding things they have no business being involved in and once the funding is in place, it becomes an entitlement that never goes away. Additionally, if we don’t spend more on entitlements each year, then people complain that their programs are being cut. Also, there is no law to limit Congress from spending more than it receives in revenues. Legislators, in there unending focus on reelection, add billions in funding that is earmarked for pet projects in their states. These earmarks are literally slipped into legitimate funding bills at the last minute with little chance for review. Once the bill hits the President’s desk, there is no opportunity for these individual items to be vetoed without vetoing the entire bill.

The changes we need to make are for Congress to approve only balanced budgets, to significantly reduce the amount of annual spending and to reduce the federal debt.

First, a Balanced Budget Amendment or some similar type of legislation needs to be implemented that doesn’t allow Congress to approve one penny more in annual spending than the amount of revenue received over the previous 12 months. This will force Congress to make tradeoff decisions among competing funding requests. Also, the balanced budget legislation will eliminate entitlements by not allowing any automatic carryover of spending from year to year. All spending items in the budget start at $0 and legislation must be introduced and approved for those items to receive any funding. I should also note the Congress will have the authority to adjust the FairTax rate (see #3 Tax Revolution) as necessary to achieve desired revenue levels.

Federal spending will be reduced significantly from current levels through the following items:

- Elimination all business/corporate/farm subsidies and grants (let them compete in a free market)

- Elimination of current welfare programs and Medicaid (see #5 Working with Welfare)

- Elimination of Medicare (see #2 Healthy Choices)

- Phase out of Social Security (see #4 Social Security R.I.P.)

- Elimination of the Department of Education (see #14 Rethinking Education)

- Reduced funding for many other departments (Labor, Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Housing & Urban Development, etc.)

The following are the priority budget items that need to be funded:

- Interest payments on the national debt

- Pay-down of the national debt

- Executive, Legislative & Judicial branches

- Departments (Homeland Security, Defense, Energy, Commerce, Justice, State, Interior, Treasury, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, etc.)

- Agencies (CIA, FCC, NASA, NTSB, OSHA, SEC, USPS, etc.)

- Welfare Safety Net and Unemployment Support (see #4 Working with Welfare)

- Supplemental Disaster/War Fund (“extra” money for natural disasters or military actions)

- International Assistance (a.k.a. foreign aid)

If the actual revenue does not meet total spending amount budgeted, then the pay-down of the national debt, supplemental disaster/war fund and international assistance will be the first candidates for funding cuts to make up the difference. Extra pay-down of the national debt will be made with any revenues that exceed the total spending.

The final part of this change will be to provide the President with line-item veto authority. That will allow the President to cross-out those unrelated pet projects without rejecting the entire bill. Any vetoed items would need to go back to Congress and receive a two-thirds majority to have the veto overridden. It provides the President with more fiscal responsibility and a necessary check and balance against wasteful spending by Congress.

The reelection rate for members of Congress is over 90%. An increasing number of them are serving 30 years or more. It has become a life-long career for many of them, which is antithetical to what the Founding Fathers intended. The Founders expected citizens to put down the tools of their trade, come to Washington to serve their country and then return to their homes to live with the legislation they enacted.

Congress has established for itself lucrative pay, benefits and perks. This, along with the power it gives the members, is very enticing to candidates and they don’t want to give it up once they get in. But, to stay there, an incumbent’s main focus needs to be on the next election. Instead of making decisions for what is best for the country, they must satisfy voters and contributors who will provide them with the money and votes for their reelection.

We need to get rid of the career legislators and provide the opportunity for more citizens to serve in Congress and contribute fresh ideas. Career politicians quickly lose touch with the average American and their needs. Also, they are more susceptible to abuses of power involving money, special favors and sex.

If term limits make sense for the Executive branch, then they also make sense for the Legislative branch.

What I propose here is a constitutional amendment with the following term limits:

- Representatives can serve up to five 2-year terms for a total of 10 years and

- Senators can serve up to two 6-year terms for a total of 12 years.

Additionally, legislator’s pay would be linked to military pay scales. Legislators will be paid a salary that is tied to the average pay of mid-level officers in the four branches of the military. This makes it so that they cannot vote themselves any pay increase without corresponding increases in military pay. The point is that they understand that they don’t deserve more compensation for their service to the country than those who defend it.

Members of Congress would continue to have additional funds for key expenses, including lodging and travel while in session. They would also have a limited expense account to hire several aides to assist them in their work. They would not receive any other benefits when in office (see #1 Union Makeover) and would not receive a pension upon leaving (see #4 Social Security RIP).

What this change ensures is that Congress gets regular turnover to bring in new faces and fresh ideas. It will no longer be a magnet for people who are mainly seeking the position for the money and power. On the other hand, it will entice those individuals who truly want to serve their country. Because of the term limits, most legislators will leave office needing to return to a normal job. They know that they will have to live under the legislation they passed, just like any other citizen. We should get a much better quality of legislative decisions coming out of Washington than we have gotten previously when their votes were overly influenced by a reelection focus.

I also believe you will see much more interest and participation in the elections with this change. As the 2008 presidential race is demonstrating, voters get excited to vote when there is no shoe-in incumbent in the mix.

All existing welfare programs would be eliminated. A program would be established for those, and their children, who are unable to work due to physical or mental handicaps (Safety Net). They would have a reload-able debit/ID card to handle their living expenses. There would be a set annual amount based on the current cost of living (including minimum insurance coverages) in that location and the number of family members. For example, let’s say that in a particular city the set amount is $20,000 to support an individual with the basic necessities to live. An additional $5,000 may be the amount set for each child of that person.

Those who are able to work, but are currently unemployed, would be put into a different program (Unemployment Support). This program would provide temporary unemployment funds until the person gets employed again. It would also be based on a set amount for the area the person lives in, but not an amount that would cover the minimum living expenses. In the same city as the previous example, the unemployment program may only provide $10,000 annually to cover expenses between jobs. However, even if the individual gets a low paying job for $15,000, that person will still receive $5,000 of the unemployment funds so that they at least can maintain an annual income at the Safety Net level ($20,000) when they are working. Since these are people who can work, they would also be members of unions that would provide benefits, such as health insurance, during times of unemployment (see #1 Union Makeover).

Both the people in the Safety Net and Unemployment Support programs would be able to accept any amounts of charity (food, clothing, shelter, money, etc.) without impacting the funds they are receiving from the government. Since there are no longer any tax deductions for charitable contributions (see #3 Tax Revolution), those that truly want to help the needy will have the opportunity to provide their time and money directly to those individuals, or through organizations such a food shelves, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, religious outreach programs, Goodwill Industries, etc.

While there were certainly good intentions with the Social Security program, it was based on a questionable concept where current workers would pay to support workers who were now retired. At the time it was set up, there were many more workers than retirees, so each individual didn’t have to contribute all that much. Along the way, the money coming in for Social Security was not saved for that use, but was distributed out in the general funding pool and replaced with I-O-Us. Also, with the size of the Baby Boomer generation, the number of retirees will soon exceed the number of those in the work force. The Social Security system can be nursed along for a while longer, but that would mean increasing the contributions from workers and/or reducing the retiree benefits. Neither option is a viable solution.

Instead, Social Security will be phased out and replaced with legislation requiring a secured retirement account (SRA) for all working individuals. The account would be set up with an individual’s first job after reaching the age of 18. There would be any number of options for companies who could set up the account and administer it. The rules of the account would be very similar to those of existing IRAs, including setting a retirement age for withdrawals and providing for some loan and hardship provisions.

The key difference with an IRA is that the account is funded directly out of the wages paid by the employer. Five percent of all wages paid to an individual will be directed into their SRA account. For example, a worker with a weekly salary of $1,000 will get a check for $950 and $50 will be deposited in the SRA account. Also, these SRAs will require the investments to be made in “safe” government-backed securities, such as treasury bonds, for the first $50,000 in the account. Above $50,000, the individual owning the account can invest the money in any allowable investment vehicle and can self-manage the money or hire an investment professional. Also, individuals can authorize any amount over the five percent to be taken out of their wages and deposited to the account. IRAs, 401k accounts, etc. would no longer be needed since there are no tax advantages any more (see #3 Tax Revolution) and the SRA will accommodate all the retirement funding needs.

Essentially, this change forces all workers to have, and fund, their own retirement accounts. Anyone that works most years from 18 to their retirement age will have a nice nest egg and not need government assistance to support them. Compound interest and dollar cost averaging should produce significant gains in the five percent contributions being made during the working years. Couple the SRA with the health insurance and other benefits provided by the unions through retirement, and retirees will be able to keep a high quality of life throughout their lives.

A few other things to note…when a man and woman get married, they are automatically given joint ownership of each other’s SRA account. If one spouse had not worked and does not plan to, then there will be only one account between them. If a divorce occurs, the funds in the account, or accounts, will be split up equally based on all the contributions made during the time they were married. Upon the death of an owner of an SRA account, the money in the account is passed on to a beneficiary’s SRA account, unless it is needed to provide child support for beneficiaries under age 18.

The only problem now with health care is that it is a big expense for most people and it causes many people decide to roll the dice and not buy health insurance. It is a good deal for those working for employers would subsidize most of it, but it becomes a problem when they lose their jobs or retire. The solution is not to provide a government-controlled, taxpayer-funded system (a.k.a. single payer, universal, etc.), but to drive price reductions in health insurance through pooled risk and competition. At such time when nearly everyone has become a member of a union (see #1 Union Makeover), these unions will be the risk pools that negotiate affordable health insurance contracts for their members.

Most of the unions will contain a mix of individuals who span from low-cost, healthy to the high-cost, unhealthy. Overall, the risk is balanced out and the unions should be able to negotiate reasonable rates with insurance companies, based on their numbers and risk assessment. Also, smaller unions may choose to partner with others to increase their numbers and bargaining power. Another option is for unions to underwrite their own health insurance plan, where the union itself would provide insurance to its members (receiving the premiums and paying out the claims).

Members would still have the incentive to use medical services wisely, due to co-pay requirements, etc. and the possibility that rates would increase if the pool moves into a higher risk category. Doctors could leverage their unions to negotiate better malpractice insurance and, in turn, set their rates more competitively.

The main benefit is that having affordable health insurance is no longer dependant on having a job where an employer provides it. Workers can belong to unions for their entire adult life and continue to have reasonably priced benefits, like health insurance, during their working years and throughout retirement. Medicare would no longer be needed once all workers were unionized and would eventually be phased out.

The first thing that must change is union involvement in wage contracts. These contracts stifle productivity and reward poor performance and seniority. Workers have set wages based on their years of experience, so potential top performers have no incentive to produce more and poor performers get paid more than they are worth. It’s time for union labor to compete for jobs in the market place like most other workers. The top-performing union workers will now have the opportunity to leverage their skills for higher wages. Companies can offer the higher wages to them because they will be paying lower wages to others who are not as skilled. Now here is where the union can really add value for the lower performing and novice worker. Various types of training can be offered by the union, including classroom sessions, self-study and tutoring by their highly-skilled union brethren. Workers who are between jobs can sign up for classes to brush up on their skills. The new union would also be able to arrange for development of new skills for individuals who initially chose a line of work that they maybe weren’t very suited for. Also, if jobs are taken over by offshore competition or become obsolete due to technology, the unions could take the lead on training their members with new skills to compete successfully for other jobs. Companies will demand, and pay a premium for, highly trained union workers. Along with this, the Minimum Wage Law needs to be repealed. Companies should be able to offer wages based on supply and demand of the workforce and not be forced to pay a minimum wage determined by Congress. If a company has a job worth $5 an hour and there are workers who want it, more power to them.

The next change for the new union is to provide member benefit packages that they currently negotiate for with the companies. Unions with significant membership volumes should be able to negotiate very reasonable prices for health, dental, auto, life, disability and any other types of insurance that the members might need. The largest unions may even want to underwrite the insurance themselves. On top of that, they could negotiate fees with money managers to set up retirement savings accounts for all members. This eventually will remove the need for companies to provide these benefits to their employees and they can redirect that money towards wages, bonuses and retirement contributions.

Union members may also decide to use their membership fees to offer other types of member benefits such as:

- Education loans or scholarships

- Affiliated credit cards

- Memorial fund for families of deceased members

- Eliminated or reduced membership fees during times of unemployment

- Various types of insurance programs

- Discounted gym memberships

- Day care

- Subsidized transit passes

With this makeover, unions become attractive for all types of workers, including white-collar management and those in professional positions. The objective is f