By Dave Leach – America’s debt solution (beyond remedies you already propose) is simple, but shrouded in so much misunderstanding that it is impossible without a dialog solution, which I will propose first.
(This video is a narration of this article by the author – without links, of course)
Our problem: “all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” We need a way to change what is politically possible that doesn’t require so much suffering.
The Republican Party held a contest. The contestant with the best explanation of how to solve America’s debt problem gets a trip to Washington to have dinner with Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Paul Ryan, and Republican national chairman Rence Priebus, to go over the plan. The contest deadline passed earlier today, July 16, at noon. Except it didn’t use the word “noon”: it said 12pm, which I typically confuse with midnight. Especially since most deadlines are at midnight. So after working 20 hours on it and thinking I was submitting it 6 hours early, I missed it by 6 hours. So I submit it here. Senator Rand’s website accepts email from out of state, although most out of state communication is ignored. Ryan’s website makes no such pretense; it tells people from outside his district how to contact their own Congressman. Priebus’ site has an email system that allows 300 characters, just enough to give the link to here. This experience illustrates what I mean when I say “this contest is the first opportunity in decades for ordinary activists to compete for the attention of guys like you three.” And I missed it. Glory be to God, Who promises to use us with all our human failings; Who promises that with our eyes, we will see victory. (Psalm 91)
I propose more initiatives like this contest. This contest is the first opportunity in decades for ordinary activists to compete for the attention of guys like you three. It is a way for a “multitude of counsellors” to ensure that your “purposes will be established”, as God promises in Proverbs 15:22. But if you do this right, you won’t throw away the ideas that don’t get your first prize. You will post them online and allow them to interact with each other, to sharpen each other, to educate each other.
Republicans who disagree have too little opportunity to reason with each other where good ideas have some hope of making a difference. We need something like ongoing moderated Platform discussions, possibly online, but where consensus-killing, fact-obscuring devices like anonymous gossip and personal attacks on alleged motives, so common in social media, are blocked as quickly as profanity, along with those fact-obscuring simplistic labels designed to identify opponents as unfit for interaction.
(Example: “amnesty”, a pejorative apparently meaning, like the word “cult”, “the other guy’s idea”. Solutions are foreclosed when the first sign that someone thinks differently is taken as evidence that he is “on the other side”. Solutions require thinking differently.)
Face to face debate tests assumptions, educates both sides about the evidence they have been avoiding or had not noticed, provides the experience of reasoning with those who disagree, develops mastery of facts and arguments, and sharpens one’s ability to form clear, persuasive thoughts.
If average Republicans had access to such forums – which you can initiate with more contests – the dirty work of scrubbing the slime off Reality would be shared by many. Leaders like yourselves would be freer to focus on facts and solutions rather than dodge mud and soundbite attacks. It would allow us, together, as a party, to get in touch with reality, instead of being limited to that hostile “political reality” a world away.
I don’t see a solution requiring 10 years just to wipe out the deficit, that requires full Republican control of the government, no war, and no collapse of our precarious dollar for those 10 years, as capable of inspiring confidence in our dollar, or in the future existence of our nation.
America’s debt problem is too many entitlement recipients and too few taxpayers. We have 115 million private sector full time jobs. If we had another 40-50 million young working taxpayers, that would be enough to wipe out our deficit. You know where that many young wannabe taxpayers are waiting: at our borders.
You know the objections.
More immigrants will make our population unsustainable; or is it the size of a brain pool living in peace and freedom that determines how much technology a nation can maintain and create, which is what provides basic needs, national security, and luxuries?
Immigrants don’t “assimilate”. Or would they the more, if we rewarded early mastery of English and civics with speedy processing of immigration applications?
Immigrants bleed our welfare budgets. Or would they pay their emergency room debts in return for faster applications processing? Would even refugees waive welfare, if that were our condition for allowing their non-citizen family members , living here legally, to sponsor them?
Economists like Nowrasteh and Oakford say the more legal immigration, the better for our economy, our debt, and our jobs. FAIR and CIS, which employ no economists, say the opposite. But the two sides don’t face each other in the same arena. If both sides were responsive to facts, a win-win solution, that blesses citizens and immigrants alike, wouldn’t be that complicated.
How about a series of contests:
“How would you make immigration policy better than current law for both citizens and immigrants?”
“How can immigration be made economically beneficial to Americans?”
“How can we accommodate immigrants without overcrowding?”
You don’t need to pay for air fare to Washington for each contest. Skype calls wouldn’t have the same sparkle, but would still be a tremendous opportunity for we who pray for America.