First, one of the criticisms leveled against me especially in my critique of Ron Paul, is that I call for more regulation because deregulation was the primary cause of the financial meltdown. Let me address this issue completely. The Ron Paul supporters would have us believe two things. The crushing burden of regulation limits the "free market" (which I contend is a fiction since there is always advantage, sometimes structural, sometimes absolute) and prevents businesses from doing their best to hire people and expand. They also contend that the big businesses own the government and then write the laws and regulations that they then have to follow. This is really strange. They write the laws but then they are under a burden of the laws they write. Oh, you might say, this is the big boys keeping others out, thus if we get rid of regulation and or the departments that make them then we can have competition. This is fantasy. Removing the agencies of control and or the regulations just guarantees that the largest and wealthiest corporations will continue to dominate the market and actually expand and keep others out by virtue of their size and market position.
When I say that we need new regulation it presupposes the removal of corporate influence from government policy. Remove the corporations from the government. No revolving door in either direction. No corporate lobbyists. No money or any gifts of any kind from corporations to elected officials. If elected officials cannot gain favor and money from corporations they have no incentive to do what they want. Also if they have no ability to go into private business if they lose their elected office, which I would ban for elected officials that would move into private sector jobs that benefited by legislation that they were involved with while in office they have nowhere to go after they are booted from office so they have a direct incentive to listen to the PEOPLE they represent.
Here is a real plan for immediate growth and for private sector jobs as well. In World War II the US government had a program called GOCO, government owned corporate operated. My proposal is similar. The government actually starts new businesses, builds factories or supplies equipment for construction companies, or builds new power plants and staffs them with workers and start working to repair necessary infrastructure programs in this country. This could be expanded to any productive purpose, making products, building things, etc. The jobs will be living wage jobs with benefits. Now instead of having corporations run this government owned business like World War II GOCO facilities the government will actually run these businesses. However what will happen is this. If a corporation or business wants to take over the running of this business they can do so by meeting certain criteria. They have to keep the current level of employment or higher, they have to keep the living wage and benefits programs and this has to be contractual between the government and the business. If they meet economic criteria, having enough capital to continue the business and allow for growth the company will be given the business free. If they fail to fulfill the contractual obligations they forfeit the business and they pay the full amount of what the business would cost at market value. That would be paid back to the Treasury of the US, and the business will be offered to another company that wants to step in. This has many advantages since companies that want to get started can do so without the start up costs and assume the business that is fully running. Thus the businesses will become private sector jobs and expand the economy into production and construction. This would be a win win situation. More later...
