GOOOH Exclusions

We’re continuing to gather input on whether or not we should exclude any group from GOOOH. If you have not taken the survey, please spend a few minutes and do so. It can be found here. Note that you must be a member to participate.

To date, roughly two thirds of members have voted in favor of exclusions as originally defined (no politicians, no lawyers, and no person with more than $11.5 million in assets). The exclusion of ACLU donors is the only area where we are getting significantly different results: well over 80% of members do not believe they should be allowed to participate.

We’ll allow the survey to continue for a few more weeks, and then the Question Committee and the GOOOH Board will determine how to proceed. Since GOOOH was first launched the most consistent message we have received is that we should not exclude any group or individual, only those who are constitutionally ineligible. Instead, it is suggested, we should require each participant to declare whether or not they meet any of the exclusion criteria and then each individual, during their selection session, can determine for themselves who should be excluded. It's difficult to argue with the logic of this approach and it does also encourage those who are excluded today to help us recruit new members – our initial goal.

We definitely want to hear what you have to say. Post a reply to this blog, comment in our forums, or send an email to goooh@goooh.com. Together, we will reclaim our government!

A simple Democracy

Politicians and the two parties seem to have forgotten that we are a Republic, not a simple Democracy, and unfortunately, far too many Americans no longer seem to care. The difference is extremely important, but you wouldn’t know it by the way our country is being run.

Our founders were very well aware that simple Democracies are doomed to fail because of a flaw so simple a 6th grader understands: in a simple Democracy the majority can vote to TAKE whatever they want from those in the minority.

For example, the 95% of the population that is employed could vote that those who are unemployed must pay a $5,000 fine. It doesn’t matter that the unemployed probably don’t have $5,000 to pay and will struggle for a long time once they are finally employed to be able to pay the fee; in a simple democracy, the majority makes the laws and the rest must comply. Does that seem fair or make sense? Do you see why simple Democracies do not survive?

Our founders fully understood the problem and had the foresight to create a Republic. The Declaration of Independence told us, “all men are created equal” and Article 14 of the Constitution promised equal rights for all, yet our legislators and the judiciary have chosen to ignore these fundamentally critical concepts.

Having just completed my taxes, and with the deficit escalating at a mind-numbing rate, I am once again reminded of this major problem we are facing. Take a look at the table and see if you see the conflict. If we paid taxes equally, each man, woman and child in the country would owe $31,000 as their share of the deficit. Do you have $31,000 to pay your share? For a family of four, do you have $124,000? Most of us do not, but there’s a bigger problem: taxes are not paid equally. Take a look at the following table.


Click on table to enlarge - Compiled from various sources – not perfectly accurate, but makes the point

Consider those in the top 10%, a family of four making $75,000 per year or more, their share of the national debt averages $756,000. For those in the top 5% making over $110,000 a year, the average bill for a family of four is $1,200,000. Those in the top 1% owe almost 30% of the debt, or $3.6 million for a family of four.

Are the days of equality in America gone? Are the majority of Americans about to vote that the top 10% must not only pay for the debt of the other 90%, but also for whatever they decide they want the government to "give" them? Will they next demand a free car and free rent? At what point will those making the most money decide it isn’t worth the effort? How many will follow in the footsteps of John Galt?

Every simple Democracy that has ever existed has failed. Have we become a simple Democracy? Are we on the brink of failure?

Class-Action Lawsuits (by Tim Cox)

I generally don’t watch much television, but I always make an exception during the NCAA tournament: I truly enjoy watching the West Virginia’s and Davidson’s knocking off the Duke’s and Georgetown’s while rooting for my Longhorns. On the down side, while watching, I am once again shocked and dismayed at not only the advertisements of ambulance chasing lawyers but also the ridiculous disclaimers that are now required in our society.

The little blue pill advertisement warns us of almost every ailment known to man, including the risk of going blind. A law firm (Lieff Cabraser) actually addressed an advertisement to those who have suffered or died from bleeding after heart surgery. A quick look at their site listed dozens of other class-action lawsuits including those against chain saw, nail gun, power drill and power saw manufacturers, as well as lawsuits against scores of others. The Reclast ad took ten seconds to talk about the benefits and twenty to warn you about side effects. Who really wins in all these lawsuits?

Alita Ditkowsky was part of a class-action suit against a company that made faulty televisions. When the case was settled in Madison County, Illinois, Alita's lawyer took home $22 million while she got a $50 rebate on another TV, built by the same company that had ruined the first TV. That is a small class-action suit.

Cobell v. Kempthorne is a big one, and you and I are going to pay for it. “Lawmakers are proposing an $8 billion conclusion to a decade-long class-action lawsuit that pits an estimated half-million American Indians against the federal government (i.e. you and me)… who allege longstanding Interior Department mismanagement of royalties collected from oil, coal and timber operations on Indian-owned lands the government holds in trust.” Lawyers representing the plaintiffs were seeking $27.5 billion. In 2002 it was estimated there were about 4.3 million American Indians and Alaskan Natives. I’m not sure which tribes are included in this particular lawsuit, but if it is anywhere close to all of them, then each native will get about $1,000. If it only applies to the 500,000 that have signed up so far, they’ll each get $8,000. Assuming they settle for $8 billion, the lawyers will take home just under $3 billion. Who really wins?

Ruiz v. Estelle was one of the longest running class-action lawsuits in Texas. It was filed on behalf of the prisoners in the Texas system for the way they were being treated. A prisoner suing the State for improper treatment feels oxymoronic to me. That is not the way I want to spend my tax dollars. I recently received an invitation in the mail to a join a class-action lawsuit against Honda, maker of my recently sold four-door Civic. I was promised the opportunity to have my warranty extended by up to 5,000 miles on a car that was already 16,000 miles past the limit. The lawyers stand to make tens of millions of dollars on this case.

President Bush, in a February 2005 speech said, “Class-actions can also be manipulated for personal gain. Lawyers who represent plaintiffs from multiple states can shop around for the state court where they expect to win the most money. A few weeks ago, I visited Madison County, Illinois, where juries have earned a reputation for awarding large verdicts. The number of class-actions filed in Madison County has gone from two in 1998 to 82 in 2004… Trial lawyers have already filed 24 class-actions in Madison County this year. We're in February, including 20 in the past week -- after Congress made it clear their chance to exploit the class-action system would soon be gone.”

The results: Two years later, in 2007, Madison County had risen from last to 4th from last according to the Judicial Hellhole report from the American Tort Reform Association. Looks like our government really showed them. Or did they just push the cases to a different locale?

If that’s not bad enough, look at the law suits brought by our own government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established to enforce provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Anyone who feels that he or she has suffered workplace discrimination because of his or her race, age, physical disability, religion, sex, or national origin is eligible to file a complaint with the EEOC… and they manage over 75,000 charges annually.” “Approximately, one out of every three lawsuits filed by the EEOC is a class action. In 2004, the EEOC filed 143 class suits on behalf of multiple alleged victims of discrimination. One such high profile lawsuit that settled in 2004 was against one of Wall Street’s premier investment banking and brokerage firms for $54 million…”

People often wonder why I have such a dislike for lawyers and the legal system. Has the American way become a synonym for the legal way? Is this what we want our country to be?

Politicians Calling the Kettle Black (by Tim Cox)

We’ve all heard the idiom about the pot calling the kettle black, but isn’t it embarrassing how often it applies to our congressmen? Consider the recent investigation into CEO pay by our esteemed House Oversight and Investigations Committee. Now that they have resolved the problem with Roger Clemens, steroids and baseball, I suppose they did need something new to work on. Heaven knows there is nothing for them to do regarding the deficit, earmarks, immigration, education, or the environment.

I’ll let others debate whether or not CEO pay is excessive, but take a look at a few of the quotes from the hearing. I replaced the word “executives” with a _______. Fill in the blank with the word "politicians" and see how true it reads. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or perhaps more appropriately, congressman calling the turd brown?

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, “There seem to be two economic realities operating in our country today. Most Americans live in a world where economic security is precarious and there are real economic consequences for failure. But our nation’s top ______ seem to live by a different set of rules.” He then added, “It seems like everyone is hurting except for ______.” He further offered, "Any reasonable relation between ______ compensation and the interests of shareholders appears to have broken down." Mr. Politiican, look in the mirror, please.

Waxman, on a downhill roll, went on to say, "It seems that ______ hit the lottery as their companies collapse," and “When companies fail to perform, should they give millions of dollars to their ______?” Perhaps he should read these with “our government” in place of “companies.”

I don’t mean to pick solely on Waxman; most politicians are guilty. Consider Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) who complained, “We’ve got ______ drifting off to the golf course but have people I see every day who are losing their homes and wondering where their kids will do their homework.” This was said while Waxman and his colleagues went on vacation instead of voting on the Terrorism Surveillance issue. Almost 30% of our kids fail to graduate from high school yet Cummings et.al. debate steroids and CEO pay. What color is that kettle?

Our representatives need to worry about their own job. Shareholders could do a better job of managing their Board of Directors and CEOs, and the baseball union should do a lot more to control steroids and such, but Congress has far bigger and immensely more important problems to worry about, like the future of our country.

I would support GOOOH but ______ (by Tim Cox)

We have heard from thousands of people who say they love GOOOH, but we are also hearing from a few who say, "I would support GOOOH, but __________." This article is for those who have filled in the blank.

We don’t claim the system is perfect and we hope you won’t allow an issue or two prevent you from supporting a system that addresses more than a hundred others. Recognize the challenge of trying to get every person to agree with every item, particularly when politics are involved: it's not likely.

Some have said they don’t agree with term limits. Others don't like that we have proposed excluding practicing lawyers and men of "excessive" wealth. A few don't like our exclusion of ACLU supporters. I have yet to hear anybody voice a concern that we are excluding politicians…

There are those who don't like that we ask questions about amending the Constitution, wonder why we ask about the FairTax instead of a flat tax, or don’t believe the Commitment Agreement is viable. A few even say the agreement is a bad idea. Some have complained I am shamelessly trying to sell books. And of course there are those who can’t believe we would be doing this for the right reason and go as far as falsely accusing us of running a get-rich-quick scheme.

There are those who, without even understanding how the system works, feel obligated to explain why it will fail, what should be done differently, why they don't like it, or the most incredulous of all, that they can't support the system because it also opposes Ron Paul’s single seat. Some say they don’t want “everyday” Americans in office, not recognizing that the people who rise to the top of this process will be anything but a “common” man. Others have already concluded that our newly elected representatives will be no better than the politicians in power today. And then there are those who simply ignore what we are doing because they don’t care about their children or the future of our country.

I can only sigh. Long and loud. As an aside, I laughed out loud when a member suggested we also exclude those whose more appropriate blogging name would be Eyeore, but I truly appreciate the sentiment of her thought.

But what I haven’t heard is a question about the need for what we are doing. We take with a grain of salt those who complain, accuse, or fail to offer alternatives, but we continue to listen and search for ways to improve. We are confident we have built a system that will achieve its stated goal: to put accountable representatives of the people in office without the influence of special interest groups or political parties.

To those who do not understand how the system works, please recognize that we are not proposing to change the Constitution just because we ask questions about changing it. We are not saying a FairTax is better than a flat tax, or even that either is preferred, simply because we ask if you support the FairTax. We are not saying that there should be a limit on the money a person can inherit because we ask such a question. The goal is for each candidate to declare what they believe so their peers can determine who they favor. Taken together, the questions will provide a thorough voting profile of each participant.

To those who object to the Commitment Agreement, or argue it won't hold up in court, look at it from a different perspective. Do you not want your representative to vote as he said he would? Consider the impact such an agreement will have on a candidate who says he'll vote one way, in writing, and then votes the other. The point is not merely can we legally force a candidate to resign from office (and we think we can), it is whether or not we can get candidates to do what they promise. There are also a few who have called the $1,000 “liar fee” silly or unenforceable, but I wonder who would intentionally lie knowing they would be in the wrong in small claims court.

We are not saying the wealthy or lawyers are bad people, but we are saying they are over-represented today, or in some cases, have a clear conflict of interest. These groups make up less than 1/2 of 1% of the population, yet they hold 50% of the seats. We want change, and if we continue to elect nothing but lawyers, multi-millionaires and members of political families, we fear we will get the exact same results we get today. That is not what we are after. Further, how many times do we have to watch Representatives like Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, a lawyer, slide a pharmaceutical bill through Congress at 2 a.m. then go to work for the very lobbyist or law firm that benefitted from the legislation? Here’s a link to the story if you haven't read it before. We’re not saying these people can’t run for office, we’re simply suggesting we give others a chance.

We do ask that every American compare the existing system with GOOOH. Consider the results of the current system. Would GOOOH change things? Absolutely!

GOOOH is not a perfect system, on that we can agree. But it has a chance to take the money out of politics and put accountability back in. It has a chance to fix some very important things the politicians can or will not. For those who want to support us but find something they dislike about the system, we hope you will look at the bigger picture. Offer suggestions for improving where you can, and give thought to how your words will impact others. Ask yourself, “Do I want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?”

Bad Politicians (by Tim Cox)

Half of all Americans believe most members of Congress are corrupt… and more than a third think their own representative is crooked, according to a 2006 CNN poll. An August, 2007 Gallup poll showed that only 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing—I’m surprised the number isn’t 1.8%. The problem reaches deep into both parties.

Consider the transgressions of some of our recently departed or departing congressmen. Mark Foley (R-FL) was found to have a fetish for teenage pages. James Traficant (D-OH) was convicted of bribery, tax evasion and fraud. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) was sentenced to 8 years for accepting over $2.4 million in bribes. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) was caught with $90,000 in cash “bribe money” hidden in his freezer, and has allegedly accepted much more. He has also been charged in a global campaign to solicit bribes, obstruct justice and engage in racketeering. His brother-in-law, Alan Green, a former state judge, was convicted of mail fraud in a bail bond corruption case in suburban New Orleans.

Year after year, career politicians like Rostenkowski (D-IL) and Delay (R-TX) only strengthen our negative attitude. Current House members seemingly wait in line, determined to degrade our trust even further. Bill Frist (R-TE) is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for his sale of HCA Inc. stock, and has been accused of violating federal campaign finance laws. Harold Rogers (R-KY) is accused of repeatedly steering government contracts to companies in his district (e.g. NucSafe, Accenture, and Identification Card Industry), in one case securing a job for his son. Roy Blunt (R-MO) has been accused of trying to insert provisions into bills that would have benefited a client of his lobbyist son and the employer of his lobbyist girlfriend, who is now his wife. Richard Pombo (R-CA) reportedly paid his wife and brother $357,325 in campaign funds over the last four years. He also supported the wind-power industry before the Department of Interior without disclosing that his parents received hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from wind-power turbines on their ranch.

Alcee Hastings (D-FL) was impeached and removed from his federal judgeship in 1989 for conspiring to take a $150,000 bribe and give light sentences to two convicted swindlers. He now serves us in the House, with new accusations being made. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has been accused of funneling more than $1 million to family members through illicit deals. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) is accused of directing $250 million via earmarks to five nonprofit organizations that he created and are staffed by his friends. The Department of Justice is investigating. David Scott’s (D-GA) committee has reportedly disbursed $715,330 to his family, business, and himself. He is facing tax evasion charges and has been accused of misusing official resources for political campaign activity.

Charles Taylor (R-NC) is under scrutiny concerning a savings and loan he is involved with in his home state, as well as his personal business interests in Russia. Bob Ney (R-OH), John Doolittle (R-CA) and Tom Feeney (R-FL) have been linked to the Abramoff scandal and accused of other questionable activities; Doolittle for his ties to a convicted military contractor and his wife’s fundraising efforts, and Feeney for a real estate deal and vote-rigging software. Pete Sessions (R-TX), the former SBC executive who owns $500,000 in SBC stock options and received more than $75,000 from SBC and its employees, is under fire for agreeing to sponsor legislation that benefitted “nobody in this country except for the telecom and cable giants.” Jerry Lewis (R-CA) could be the next indicted Congressman given his relationship with lobbyist/friend Bill Lowery. Rolling Stone said, “Lowery and his clients made more than $480,000 in contributions to Lewis… Lowery's firm, in turn, tripled its revenue to $5 million—and his clients pocketed hundreds of millions in federal pork projects...” They even describe how past employees and even their wives have been hired by Lowery’s firm.

Even the leaders of both parties diminish our trust. John Murtha (D-PA), who was narrowly defeated as House Majority Leader, along with Jim Moran (D-VA) and Peter Visclosky (D-IN), have reportedly accepted $1,333,074 in campaign contributions from the PMA Group. PMA, a firm founded by a former Murtha worker, is believed to have walked away with $100.5 million in defense earmarks for their clients. Controversy is not new to Murtha; he was linked, but not indicted, in the 1980 Abscam scandal, which resulted in the convictions of a senator and six congressmen. He is currently facing ethics violations stemming from threats to block earmarks of other members for political purposes.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has not been accused of criminal behavior, but her efforts to undermine U.S. foreign policy and the President have struck a nerve with Republicans. First, she visited Syria, giving legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad and his systematic murder of pro-Western Lebanese members of parliament. Then she was accused of aiding and abetting opponents of a very important free-trade agreement with the United States by sending a letter to Costa Rica's ambassador just nine days before a national referendum. Those efforts earned the ire of her critics, but her latest effort, an attempt to push a resolution denouncing Armenian genocide that occurred over 90 years ago as a way to cut off supplies for our troops, has lowered her stock with many in her own party. Her actions are not illegal, but is it any wonder our representatives are held in such low esteem?

Dennis Hastert (R-IL), House Minority Leader, despicably ignored the behavior of Foley and now is involved in a highly questionable real estate deal close to the Prairie Parkway, which of course he helped obtain funding for. Long-time Representative Don Young (R-AK), chief architect of the “Bridge to Nowhere” and master of earmarks, is reportedly involved in four separate federal investigations.

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) has stepped down from the House Intelligence Committee after his wife’s insurance agency was raided by the FBI and has just been handed a 35-count indictment that charges the congressman with wire fraud, extortion, money laundering and looting $400,000 from the trust account of a Renzi family business. Joe Baca (D-CA) is in hot water for allegedly calling Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez a whore. Bob Filner (D-CA) has been charged for allegedly pushing an airline employee. Jerry Weller (R-IL) will not seek reelection while under increasing pressure for alleged ethics violations.

I started this article intending to create a list of our worst ten representatives, but where do you start? We seem to have a new indictment or resignation before the proverbial ink has a chance to dry. Is it time to start over?

If we had a chance to hit the reset button and begin anew, would we? If we could elect an entirely new set of representatives, just as we did when our country was first formed, would we be better off? Most believe we would. Is it time to put our energy behind GOOOH (pronounced go), the non-partisan plan to evict all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and replace them with everyday Americans? I think it is.

Liberal or Conservative? (by Tim Cox)

Is Tim Cox a liberal or a conservative? It's a common question, and I've actually been called both, but the answer is not a simple one.

Many of my views will become very clear if you read my book, Get Out Of Our House: Revolution! But, the most important point to this question is that my views do not matter. Each person will define their own platform by the way they answer the questionnaire, and each pool of ten will determine which person and whose answers can best represent that pool. What I or any other person in America believe, beside the ten people in each pool, is completely irrelevant.

I believe our founders intended exactly this when they created the House of Representatives. Their stated objective was to allow the people of each district choose a single person who could represent their views when laws were being debated.

To get back to the question, which I am about to answer, please recognize that I am not asking anyone to support my beliefs, nor am I attempting to change yours. To those who disagree with me personally on any issue, but are not able to understand that our differing views are irrelevant, this system is not for you.

I am generally conservative and have voted for Republicans more than I have voted for Democrats, but I would never consider myself a Republican. I believe the concept of two parties is fundamentally flawed, and that views vary by issue not by candidate or party.

Let me give a few examples. I favor the smallest government and fewest regulations possible. I believe strongly in the right to bear arms. I am a Christian and believe we have the right to say a prayer before a football game or hang the Ten Commandments on any wall we choose. I favor lower tax rates. I do not want open borders. I believe school vouchers and a completely private school system would be better than a government controlled education system. I despise the Endangered Species Act and the way it is manipulated to prevent growth and progress. My core belief is that government tends to mess up just about everything it gets involved with. Does that make me a conservative or a Republican? Perhaps, but consider my liberal side.

I support use of the birth control pill, which are abortifacients, and therefore by definition must say I support abortion for the first couple of months. I believe we should end our dependence on foreign oil and invest significantly more than we do on cleaner fuels and the environment. I believe we should spend more on welfare and help teenage unwed mothers get their life in order, though I don't like the way it is handled by the government today. I believe we should limit the amount of money a person can inherit in a lifetime to $11.5 million, and that the rest of a billionaire's estate should be returned to their favorite charity or the government at time of death - large inheritances have led to an out-of-control aristocracy in America. While I favor having a strong military, I do not believe we should spend more money on it than the rest of the world combined. I do not think it our duty to police the world or to nation-build like we are doing in Iraq; that money is needed in America. I support the government providing health care vouchers to all Americans, but not running the health care system.

There are many other issues. On some I lean left and others right, but I think you can agree that I do not fall into either the Republican or the Democratic camp. I further believe that most of you are the same way. One of the premises of GOOOH is that you must consider each issue individually, and if you can get enough people to define their own platform, those who best represent the views of their district will bubble to the top of the system, assuming they have the communication, interpersonal, leadership and other skills they need. In issues where the chosen person's views do not align with the desires of his district, he can use the Override capability to change his answer to support the desires of the people he represents.

At the risk of being redundant, let me point out one last time that my personal views are not relevant in the system. I have inherent trust in the goodness of mankind, and believe by building an unbiased process the right people will be sent to Washington to represent we the people.