My Mission Statement and Statement of Values and Beliefs (Updated)

Mission Statement

And

Statement of Values and Beliefs

by Chris Stanley Ossman

Mission Statement

I believe that the country in which we live currently is not the one the founders of this nation sought or proposed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.  I believe that our Democracy has been undermined and over-taken by plutocrats who have been reshaping America based on an ideology that only seeks to; further the fortunes of the few, eliminate the will of the majority and segregate us all by the standards that they set regarding an individual’s status.

I refuse to allow what has happened, over the past twenty five to thirty years, represent the next few decades.  In this regard, I will fight to usurp the authority of any person group or organization that seeks to do harm, purposefully or accidentally to the United States of America. I am of the belief that those who lead a sovereign nation should hold, above all else, the desire to lead the masses to prosperity and happiness and foster a sense of loyalty one’s own country specifically and all of humankind in general.

In this desire, my goals pertaining to public service have become clear as I have become resolute to attain them.  Whether the elected office I seek be one of a local, regional, state or national level, my main intention is to reverse the economy of influence that has over-thrown the mandate of our constitution that all men (and women) are created equal and endowed with the inalienable rights granted by one’s Creator.  It is this seemingly insurmountable task, which seeks to eliminate inordinate supply of money that represents the greatest barrier to a system of government in which the vote of one individual is weighted as heavily as the vote of any other individual.  It is the pursuit of campaign donations that monopolizes too much time of our legislators, forcing them to choose acquiescing to the voices of their largest benefactors over listening to the needs of their most needy constituents.

In summary, I will fight for the will of the masses with the knowledge that this is not merely a selfless act, but one that benefits us all, my species, my race, my friends, my family, myself. 

Statement of Values and Beliefs

Disclaimer: My views are not set in stone, and their evolution could be brought about by debate and any compelling evidence that suggests a viable alternative.  You do not need to read the anecdotes to understand my values and beliefs, as listed here.  They simply provide further insight and rationale into my values and beliefs, they can be skipped for brevity.

Abortion:               I have no stance on abortion and I will never take a stance on this matter.  It is too inflammatory and I believe that people make poor decisions on leadership based on this issue and the issue of faith in general.  I also believe that the underlying issue which is a determinant in an individual’s choice about abortion is the economic situation of the individual.  Whether a person is opposed or in favor of abortion, their final choice will be influenced in large part by personal factors such as employment, savings, prospects and hope as they relate to the future.

Accountability:  Mistakes are made and lessons should be learned from those mistakes, but the first step to learner from one’s mistakes is admitting that the mistake was made in the first place.  Those who are unwilling to be held accountable for their decisions, have no place in a leadership capacity.  I believe that, whether the war in Iraq was caused by faulty intelligence or not, the fact remains that it was a mistake that has cost over a trillion dollars, the stability of the U.S. economy (and the world’s economy to a certain extent) and worse still, thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi, yet no one seems to be responsible for this war:  Someone started it, but no one has apologized for it to date, except maybe Colin Powell (who has stated that he was against it from the outset).  Without delving too deeply into my own beliefs about the war, I will simply state that, at the very least, an apology is owed to all of those service men and women who lost their limbs, their sight, their sanity, their sense of security, and their lives in this struggle to force democracy on a country that might have taken their own steps towards freedom, had they been given the opportunity.  It is to these individuals and their families that the greatest debt is owed and the most heart-felt apology is warranted.

Accountability Anecdotal:     I, personally, was appalled when George W. Bush came out to proclaim that the lowest point of his presidency was when a rapper (Kanye West) said that he (Bush) didn’t like black people.  If our “God Fearing” leaders cannot even concede to the fact that sending young men and women into harms way for no justifiable reason, then what hope do we have as a nation?  Lies and denial have taken too great of a toll on our society.  It is time to hold some feet to the fire and avoid the complacency that has become far too prevalent in this country and to promote common sense.

I believe that people can tell when something being said is not right.  We can’t always tell what it is that is wrong about what is being said, but common sense tells us that something is definitely out or place.  Things like the idea that taking money from the poor, elderly, middleclass, teachers, students, fire fighters, policemen, and nurses to give to wealthy individuals and mega corporations (in the form of tax cuts) in hopes that they will in turn give back to the former (in the form of labor) just doesn’t sound right.  This is especially the case when it is that group of poor, elderly, middleclass who won’t be able to buy those goods provided by companies, because of the lack of money.  Perhaps a better plan would be to give the money to the poor, middleclass and elderly who have to buy the products sold by companies to survive.  This, in turn would create a greater demand for products, which leads to the need to hire more people to make the products, or grow the food that they can now afford because they are working.

I know that I might have gone off topic in that last paragraph, but this shows the interrelatedness that exists between all facets of our society.  Accountability leads to correcting for past mistakes.  Correcting past mistakes leads to a change in ideology that currently supposes that the rich should get all of the money to dowel out as they see fit.  A reversal of this train of thought leads to this country helping out those individuals most in need of help, which leads to lifting up the nation from the bottom up.  With greater demand for products, companies hire more and have more to put into education.  Education leads to innovation, which helps fix the problems of the world.

We’ve tried it the other way:  Most of the means in the hands of the few and it seems that every time this route is taken, the world gets thrown into despair.  Maybe it’s time to try something new.

Campaign Finance Reform:          Since campaign contribution are perceived to have too great of an influence over legislation (if only in the sense that legislators cannot perform their public duties due to the excessive time requirements of raising campaign contributions), there should be the inception of legislation does one or more of the following:

1)         Limit campaign contributions by limiting how much can be spent.

2)         All spending should be documented and any suspect spending should be fined while all parties involved will have  to pay fines that match or exceed the contribution.  Any offending parties should not be allowed to contribute or partake in any political activities for a set period of time.

a.         There should be requirements that advertisers will have to meet to insure that a advertising company isn’t simply created for the express purpose of manipulating the rules of whatever legislation comes about through this plan.

b.         All individuals will be held accountable for the actions of any advertising company breaking the rules that govern this requirement.  They will be fined for any time they spend on activities that are deemed to circumvent the law.  And, if no parties are willing to be held accountable, the entire staff of any advertising firm in question will be held accountable:  This will prompt reporting (whistle blowing) of any illicit activity.

3)         Eliminate SuperPacs

4)         Require all contributions to be allocated to the political parties only, no direct contributions that can be attributed to any company or individual.

5)         Eliminate certain aspects of “Citizens United”

6)         Work towards eliminating the requirement of favors by any corporate or private entity:  Take away the reason for lobbyist to court the politicians and you take away their influence

7)         Facilitate the inception of a viable third party that will be designed and voted upon by a popular vote only.

I know that the idea of a third party option may seem counter-intuitive to the goals of the Democratic Party, but I believe it will provide a useful resource for any political group that seeks to re-invigorate the disillusioned voters who believe that their votes count for naught.  It is also a tactic that has been used quite effectively by people such as the Koch Brothers who created the astroturf movement called the TEA Party.  In the hands of the people whoever, a third party would represent a means holding elected officials accountable that does not currently exist because, like the TEA Party, third party members could push for the discussions and debates that the people wanted and that Washington D.C. seems to avoid all too often these days.

The People’s Party    Should have as a minimum, the following characteristics:

1)                  It should be and continue to be based on popular vote:  Though the electoral system may be something that many want to cling to, even though it has out-served its usefulness, this third party should always be representative of the people.

2)                  Any contributions to this party should be transparent.

Education:                        Simply put, education is “key” to the economy.  A less educated population is one in which advancement stagnates.  Civilization has moved forward, due to innovation and innovation has come about, due in large part to education.  Instead of rediscovering the wheel, subsequent generations have been told of the wheels existence and been given the opportunity to not only improve upon its design, but to put a chassis on top of it so the masses could move about more easily.  There are of course those who needed no fore knowledge of ideas, equations and theories.  They’re called geniuses and even their existence mandates that the pursuit of education continue.  The rationale for this viewpoint is as follows:  A genius has a great idea on how to desalinate sea water, but is uncertain of the costs and the logistics of implementing such a system.  It is at this point that the expertise of people with knowledge of what is truly required to bring a product to market comes into play:  It is this peripheral group of accountants, logistic professionals and technicians who know how to assemble equipment to bring the dream of desalinization to fruition.  Besides all of this ancillary work, there is the simple matter of the genius being able to communicate their ideas to the rest of us.  Perhaps the genius’ assistant is not as smart as the genius, but he or she knows how to convey the genius’ thoughts in a manner that is easily understood by the accountants and fabricators of the project.  Perhaps without this educated mediator/translator, the project would not have gone past the genius’ imagination, and the world’s drinking water dilemma would continue to plague mankind.

Education Anecdotal: As another example of the usefulness of an educated population, let’s consider the bind in which most states find themselves financially, these days.  In a country, where jobs are scarce, those states that can attract the most businesses will succeed, but those successes must be judged not only on the quantity of jobs, but also on the quality of jobs created due to legislative policies.  If the state deems hacking funding for education as a means to allow for tax cuts for corporations, than they must only be aspiring to attract companies that only have needs for workers.  With an uneducated population, companies need only supply the managerial staff to oversee those who would spend their days performing menial tasks that require little, if any, thought.  This is not to say that these types of jobs aren’t necessary, quite the contrary, they are of utmost importance to our economy, but they represent a limit on the diversity of companies willing to move into states that only offer people with limited education.  Inversely, those states that support education and offer citizens with higher degrees of learning represent the possibility of innovation.  Companies that hope to grow through innovation and competitiveness will flock to those states that offer a greater percentage of individuals with the base knowledge, acquired in colleges and universities that could lead to the “Next Big Idea”.  In the state that promotes education, the range of prospective companies is greater than in those that only offer one type of workforce.

U.S. Economy:   Stop giving money to banks, and corporations, they know nothing of putting it back into circulation.  To save the economy a wiser choice would be to create consumers, so the companies will have someone to sell their products and services to, instead of giving bigger bonuses to executives who seem to have to real sense of what to do with these government handouts.  I am not saying that consumers will know what to do with a government windfall such as the ones that big banks, automobile companies and other corporations knew, but they will do one thing that neither the banks, nor any of the corporations did:  Consumers will spend that money and part of this spending will be guaranteed, because it will be out of necessity.  Those with less to spend have to spend more, if only to survive than those with excess.

U.S Economy Anecdotal:       If only 1% of the economy has half the money, what would they spend that money on?  Well, everyone has to eat, including that 1%, but they’re not eating the same amount as the 150 million people who they are wealthier than.  Simply put, the 400 richest individuals will eat three meals a day . . . No let’s take it to an extreme.  The wealthiest 400 individuals eat ten meals a day, which comes to a grand total of 4000 meals per day.  That’s 4000 proteins, 4000 carbs, 4000 fats per day.  Now, let’s compare that to the 150 million who have the same amount of money as those 400 wealthiest individuals and let’s even be reasonable on the portions as a way in which to honor the First Lady’s agenda for healthy living.  So 150 million people eating three meals a day (not ten) equals 1,500,000,000 meals.  That’s 450 million meals; 450 million proteins, 450 million carbs, and 450 million fats.  Now, maybe the rich are eating higher priced foods, like the cream of the crop of creamed corned, or carrots encrusted with karats, but it would still take a lot to narrow the gap between 4000 meals and 450,000,000, which amounts to 112,500 times as many meals consumed daily.  And that’s with the rich eating more than three times as much as the remaining half of this nation.  This concept applies to every single facet of life, because just like the middleclass and the poor, the rich are human beings and human beings all need food, water and shelter to survive.

So, the next time that the government has 700 billion dollars lying around, why not give every individual (including the wealthy) $2000 dollars and let’s see what happens.  We already know what happens when we give it to banks and corporations.

Unemployment: To counter arguments of "job creators", I would propose a series of changes to unemployment compensation that would benefit both employer and employee alike, while saving the government and taxpayer money.

First:  Do not give the "job creators" money up front for jobs that they have yet to create in the form of tax breaks.  Instead, provide a subsidy to those employers who have created jobs and put those subsidies on a graduated scale to entice employers to consider hiring the long and longer term unemployed.

1.      For those who have been unemployed for six to 12 months, the subsidy would be a certain percentage (TBD), while those who have been unemployed for more than 12 months the percentage would be greater (TBD).  The reason for the higher subsidy would be due to the greater risk that an employer would perceive in hiring an individual who's been out of the workforce for such a long period.

2.      These subsidies would expire for an individual and to avoid abuse measures would have to be taken to determine when an employer is simply laying off one of these individuals so they could hire another individual who makes them eligible for the subsidy again.  One requirement could be that they retain all current employees unless a justifiable reason for termination could be provided.

Benefit to Society:

1.      Our consumer driven economy does better when there are consumers consuming and when those consumers actually have jobs they consume more than when they don't.

2.      That money which is current going out as tax breaks to "job creators" could be cut tremendously.  As an example, take 100 unemployed individuals.  If we give "job creators" taxes breaks for all 100 of these unemployed individuals that amounts to 100%.  If these jobs aren't created, as has been the case for far too many years, that's money that basically goes into the pockets of these employers "job creators", but no jobs have been created.  Under the plan outlined above, only those employers who actually create jobs would receive money for those jobs that they actually have created, so if only 20 jobs are created than only 20% of the funds that would have gone to tax breaks for "job creators" would go to those companies that did in fact create jobs.  The remaining 80% could be utilized in other ways.

Benefits to employees (or unemployed):  A job is created and the resume will reflect this work, lessening the impact that the gaps so many people currently have on their resumes.

Benefits to the employers:  They get the subsidies that help their business lower overhead.

Second:  Require that all recipients of unemployment who have been receiving the benefit for more than a specified amount of time (3 months, possibly) should be required to work 10 hours per week to maintain their benefits.  At the current rate of $275 per week, that would amount to each individual in this program making $27.50 per hour.  The remainder of the 30 hours that would amount to a 40 hour week could be utilized to continue to seek out work and all current requirements pertaining to seeking work while receiving unemployment would remain in place:  for example, 5 job inquires are required weekly to maintain benefits.

Benefits to society:

1. One way in which this man power could benefit the "People" is to require that the 10 hours of work be done at government offices, initially.  As government has had to scale back its workforce, those who are still employed have found it more difficult to meet the demand of the public for certain services necessary for life these days.
2. This money is being paid out currently (thanks for this point David), so if people are required to do some work for these funds, especially work as described earlier (county, city, state, federal) it is less likely that opponents of these funds can claim that this money is being wasted on lazy people who have no intention of working.

Benefits to the individual:

1. Those who are sitting at home or going to the library to fulfill the unemployment benefits online and those who have to go to the unemployment office get discouraged by the jobs offered in both instances.  An actual job gives the individual purpose and keeps them involved in society.
2. Given the diversity of jobs offered by municipal, state or federal agencies, the positions filled by the unemployed could prove to be a suitable (if not exact) replacement for the type of job they lost.  The benefits here are:

                  1.  The individual keeps their skills honed:  no lag due to continually updating software and any knowledge gained over the years is retained as it is continually put to use at these part time positions.

                        2.  As these individuals continue to seek out permanent opportunities, they can avoid the problem that listing one's self as unemployed has caused in the recent past.  Employers can conform that these individuals are currently employed, so any concerns of these individuals not have current skill or have skills that have waned due to under utilization are negated.

Global Economy:         Global corporations do not benefit any particular country in the long term.  The reason for my belief in this matter is that corporations, no matter where they originate do not serve their country of origin.  Perhaps to those who are short-sighted, this may seem untrue, but what country truly controls corporations such as General Electric, Siemens, Carnival Cruise Lines, and Halliburton?  All of these companies have countries of origin, and while they profit in the year 2011, their countries of origin flounder on the brink of financial ruin, which has lead to the ruination of the masses in those countries of with which these corporations are supposedly aligned. 

While bank executives post record bonuses in the United States, the people of this country go bankrupt.  While three wars are waged, the profits of these wars benefit no one except those corporations that sell these, high tech, high dollar weapons.

Is it so beneficial to the United States to have so many manufactured goods, built in other countries by “American” companies only to be shipped to the US to be sold for a profit:  A profit that does not garner any taxes from these same corporations?  And worse still is the fact that as these companies outsource their jobs to the lowest bidders, wages worldwide are affected:  If India builds computers for 10 cents on the dollar, India’s workers make what is possibly a better wage, but one that is less than the amount an American could survive on.  The problem arises when there simply are no jobs in America, because they have all gone to India.  In this instance, people who have been out of work for one or two years will fight for lower paying jobs, as we saw when McDonald’s announced that it would be hiring 50,000 people nationally.  Now, while this is great for McDonalds, it doe not help the recent college grad who is facing years of student loan repayment.  It send a signal that college is a waste of time and money, ‘because the only people hiring only require a high school diploma and they’re only paying minimum wage.

So, with the population of the United States desperate to get back to work and willing to take jobs that, not only pay less, but to take them without the promise of health benefits or paid vacation even the ability to pay basic necessities such as rent or mortgages, utility bills, or food.  And still, the mantra that these companies want the masses to repeat is “Be happy you’re working.”

In my opinion, at least in America, we should spend a little more on those items that can be bought locally.  Avoid the cheap imports when possible, because their long term cost is far greater than their overall value.  Let’s not allow the corporations play such a big part in our lives and let’s stop giving them all of our money, because totalitarianism does not sound like anything that we should be a party to, but it does sound like the direction in which this country is heading.  Instead of Hilter or Stalin, we are getting corporations, which write most of our legislature these days.

Environment:    When our elected officials will not recognize that we have a disaster, such as the one created in the Gulf of Mexico by BP, which demands more attention than it has received, then how are we ever to recognize Climate Change as inevitability?  One of the greatest arguments against Climate Change naysayer is the tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico and the fact that yet another corporation (BP) is getting away with “murder”.  Perhaps murder is too strong of a word to describe the increased number of animal deaths that have occurred in the wake of the Deep Horizon catastrophe.  Maybe the livelihoods that have been irrevocably diminished or eliminated don’t have any grave implications for neither the families directly effected by these losses, nor the country that now has to bear the burden of supporting these families that people like, the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott would claim chose poverty.  To stay on topic however, let’s examine the world objectively.

Environment Anecdotal:        For humanity, planet Earth is mostly a closed system.  What we have on this planet right now is, more than likely, what we had on this planet one hundred, two hundred, a thousand and maybe even 100 thousand years ago.  As, I heard, every drop of water we drink had at some point been filtered through some dinosaurs kidneys and every drop our descendants drink will have met the same fate as well as having been filtered through our kidneys.  Disgusting as this may sound it it true, because Earth does not get a fresh source of water, delivered by Evian from Pluto or any of the ice planets.  All of the water on Earth has been here for millennia and will be here for many more millennia.  The only thing that will change about the water of planet Earth is its quality, which simply put, means, that the more we pollute the less we’ll have to drink.  This whole closed system thing holds true for the air we breathe, so the more air we pollute, the less clean air we’ll have for things such as breathing.  Now, mankind is quite adaptable, but there is a limit to our adaptability.  Perhaps some day, our bodies will be able to utilize carbon dioxide as opposed to oxygen, but maybe that change will take 30 thousand years, while we are changing the atmosphere to match this adaptation in 10 thousand years.  We better be able to hold our breath for a long, long time to clear that gap.

Religion:    I will never divulge my faith, but this does not mean that I don’t believe in any particular religion or that I believe in any particular religion.  It simply is my way of re-establishing the separation of church and state that I believe is necessary to avoid any persecution or promotion of any particular religion.  I feel that one’s religion has blinded people to an individual’s true intent:  Case in point would be how politicians have invoked the name of God, while proclaiming that the poor should not receive assistance, while the rich and wealthy companies should.  Religion, in my opinion, serves to misdirect and should therefore be a private matter that one must reconcile with one’s self, not something to boast about with the public.  A politicians legislation and voting policy should be indicator enough of what they believe.  How they belief structure dictates their actions should not be made cloudy by proclamations of faith.