The Affordable Care Act Includes an Unconstitutional, Discriminatory Tax (resulting in a 116% rate increase for self-paying Arizonians)

The following discussion is lengthy because it lays out the absurd scheme of manipulating health care premiums for one, small group of citizens to provide benefits to all Americans. The small group of citizens that are getting the short end of the stick are those that pay for their own health insurance. Health insurance premiums for self-payers are rising an average of 25% across the United States in 2017. However, if you live in Phoenix, Arizona, your premium is rising 146% in 2017. All self-paying health insurance Americans, but particularly Arizonians, should read this to understand why your premiums are skyrocketing. You will not be happy to learn that the law singles you (a self-payer) out to bear the cost of socializing health care. Employers that provide health insurance to their employees are not seeing astronomical rate increases because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was written to keep health care affordable for employers by shifting costs to the individual health care consumer.

A “tort” is a legal term that refers to bodily, emotional and/or financial injury. This complaint attests that the ACA has caused a financial tort to millions of Americans and that the ACA is therefore unconstitutional. The law establishes a hidden tax that only applies to those individuals that pay for their own health insurance. The tax is then used to benefit all Americans. This is known as a discriminatory tax and it does not conform to the uniform tax clause of Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

When the ACA came into force, my insurance provider informed me that my plan was not compliant with the ACA and that I had to purchase another plan. The cost of my premium immediately went up 100%. At the same time, my “out-of-pocket” deductible skyrocketed to a combined $13,000 for my wife and myself. However, the new plan did include pediatric dental care and free birth control. I was 57 and my wife was 55 at the time we were provided with pediatric dental care and birth control. Needless to say, we were thrilled with our new benefits that were of no value to us.

The ACA has been challenged in the courts on the basis that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was constitutional. It has also been challenged in our courts as unconstitutional because it required employers with contrary religious views to provide birth control benefits to their employees. The Supreme Court ruled that this provision could be managed to not trample upon Americans’ right of religious freedom. Therefore, again, the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was constitutional.

The description of this tort affirms that the ACA is unconstitutional based on the operation of the law itself. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts used the operation of the law concept to rule that the “shared responsibility penalty” of the ACA was a tax and not a penalty. The “operation of the law” door has been opened and this complaint is going through it.

My tort is that the government has taken away my right to purchase health insurance as an individual. I must purchase a health insurance plan that is ACA compliant as a member of a risk-pool of all individual health care consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I live in Pennsylvania, if you live in another state and you pay for your own health insurance you must purchase health insurance as a member of your state’s risk-pool of individual health care consumers (the “State Group”). By taking away my right to purchase individual health care coverage based on my needs, my fitness and my well-being, I was required to pay twice as much for less coverage than I had prior to the ACA. That is my tort and I am not alone. This is a class-action lawsuit against the United States of America.

My tort was created by enactment of the ACA that our elected officials either knew or should have known would violate our constitution in two ways: 1) it violates the uniform tax clause of Section 8 of the constitution, and 2) it uses regulation to compel indirect taxation. In fact, it creates a hidden tax that most people do not even know exists. Hiding taxes from people may not violate the words of our Constitution, but it certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution.

In furtherance of the following discussion, I describe the following major classes of health insurance consumers:

Medicare	Individuals that have paid the Medicare wage tax throughout their working life and are now receiving federal government funded health insurance.
Medicaid	Our government provides free health insurance to individuals whose income is too low to afford purchasing their own healthcare, and do not receive healthcare from an employer.
Employer-Self-Insured	Individuals that get their health insurance from their employer as a fringe benefit. The distinction between this group and the following group is that rather than purchasing insurance for its employees, employers that “self-insure” pay for all their employees heath care costs. Typically, they hire an insurance company to handle the administration of defining benefits, enrolling employees, contracting with doctors and processing claims. The insurance company is paid a fee for its administration service, but the employer pays ALL the healthcare costs.
Employer-Provided	Individuals that get their health insurance from their employer as a fringe benefit. Unlike the “Employer-Self-Insured”, the employers in this class purchase insurance. If the costs of their employees’ health care are higher than was expected in determining the premiums, the insurance company must pay the additional costs. Insurance companies spread the risk of loss from one employer by insuring many employers.
Individuals	People that do not get health insurance as a member of any of the above classes. They pay for their own health insurance based on their health status. This class was eliminated by the ACA. Individuals can no longer purchase the insurance that they want, based on their health status. All people that purchase their own health insurance are now included in the State Group class defined below.
State Group	All individuals that purchase their own health insurance under the ACA. Individuals are assigned to a risk-pool on a state by state basis (because of state specific insurance regulations). Because preexisting conditions cannot be used to determine premiums, a 58-year-old that weighs 800 pounds pays the same as a 58-year-old in top physical condition. This is the “shared responsibility” intent of the ACA.

Prior to the ACA, individuals were charged health insurance premiums based on the coverage they needed and based on their risk factors. Just as car insurance is based on an individual’s driving record, age, gender, etc., health insurance was based on an individual’s preexisting conditions, age, weight, smoking status, etc. People that were healthy (usually because they worked on their fitness) paid less than those who were unhealthy. This is not meant to infer that unhealthy people do not work at being healthy, many do.

The ACA imposed new regulations that fundamentally changed how individuals purchase health insurance. An individual can no longer purchase the insurance they want; nor can they negotiate premiums based on their own health and well-being. They have been forced into a risk-pool of all other individuals within their state of residence (the State Group). As I stated above, this has created my tort. By being a member of this new State Group, I must pay a higher premium for less benefits. I must pay for the socialization of health care within my State Group. In fact, the socialism of health care in my State Group is the socialization of heath care in all of America (discussed later). Social programs in the United States of America are paid for by taxation of all Americans, not by imposing higher fees on the products sold to one individual to enable a lower fee for another citizen. Yet this is one way that the ACA pays for socialized health care. This is regulation that compels a hidden, discriminatory tax and it is unconstitutional.

The proof that health insurance premiums include a hidden tax for the socialization of health care is provided by the title of the “penalty” included in the ACA for not purchasing health insurance: “the shared responsibility penalty.” The Supreme Court has ruled that the shared responsibility penalty is a tax. If you do not purchase health insurance, you are not “sharing your responsibility” of helping keep premiums lower for others. That means that purchasing health insurance as an individual includes a tax that is redistributed to other citizens whose health insurance premiums would otherwise be higher. Yes, you are paying a tax and you were not only not told of the tax, but you were not given an income-tax deduction for said tax. Further proof is the spirit of the entirety of the law.

If all Americans were in the same risk-pool, the hidden tax would apply to all Americans and be constitutional. However, the benefits of the State Groups are realized by all Americans (more on this later) while all the hidden taxes (premium averaging) are extracted from the healthy people within the State Group. Yes, someday the healthy people may become the unhealthy people and therefore they are not being penalized. If all Americans were included in this scheme, I would agree. But they are not. In fact, as I will discuss later, almost all the sick people are forced into the State Group class of health care consumers.

Now that insurance premiums are established as a means of taxation; we must look at the legalities of such a tax. Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States of America states: “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the “uniform tax clause” relates to the geographical impact of the taxes and that taxes must have a uniform impact among the several states. However, the Court has ruled on the legality of discriminatory tax practices that were not geographically based. Such a case involved the taxation of interest paid on tax-free municipal bonds. By not taxing the interest paid on municipal bonds, the bond-holder is receiving a special tax exemption that is not available to citizens that purchase other bonds. The Court ruled that such tax-free statuses were constitutional. The tax-free nature of the bonds encourage investment in projects for the common good. Furthermore, all citizens are similarly impacted by the lack of taxes paid by the few bond holders. Lawyers refer to matters such as the municipal bond case as “tax discrimination” cases. Therefore, the Court has in the past considered that the uniform tax clause of Section 8 of the Constitution may be broadened to more than a geographical test to determine if tax discrimination exists.

Note that in the tax-free municipal bond case, a few acquire benefits that are paid by all taxpayers. Under the ACA, all receive benefits but only a few pay the cost of these benefits.

The above table described all the classes of individuals that purchase or otherwise acquire health insurance. Of all the individuals represented in that table, approximately 8% reside in the last class of “State Group.” And it is only this group of citizens that pays a hidden tax (premium manipulations) for the socialization of health care that has been enacted by the ACA. This is tax discrimination.

Employer-Self-Insured (see the table above) individuals may or may not receive the required benefits of pediatric dental care, birth control, free preventive care and other ACA mandated benefits. Employers that self-insure their employees’ health care are exempt from the ACA requirements. This is a huge tax loop-hole for the rich – but they get a bigger one (more later).

Employer-Provided (see the table above) individuals receive all the ACA required benefits. But their premium costs are based on their own risk-pool of fellow employees. All individuals (Employer-Self-Insured and Employer-Provided) that get their health insurance from their employer have lower premiums because they are in healthy risk pools. The risk of working people is much lower than non-working people who are all included in the State Group class. Employers cannot discriminate based on disabilities, but they have the right to hire only healthy workers. Furthermore, if an employee suffers a catastrophic illness or accident, the employee can no longer work and falls into the State Group class of health insurance consumers. This is the largest tax loop-hole provided by the ACA – and it goes to the richest among us, whereas, the tax burden goes mostly to the least wealthy among us. This “operation of the law” results in all sick citizens residing in the State Group class of health care consumers. By socializing this class, all of America’s health care is socialized.

The individuals in the Medicare, Medicaid, Employer-Self-Insured, and Employer-Provided class do not pay the “shared responsibility tax.” Only the State Group (8% of the total population) pays the extra, hidden tax for the socialization of heath care provided for in the ACA. This is why health insurance premiums are rising, on average, 25% for self-paying health insurance consumers but not for the rest of America. Our government has stated that this is not a big deal because 85% of the State Group receives subsidies to help them pay for their health insurance premiums. As the unfortunate individual within the 15% of the 8%, it is a big deal to me. However, it should be a big deal to the 85% of the 8% also. Many of them are receiving subsidies to help them pay for an artificially higher premium. Do our elected officials not think that they would take pride in paying for their own health insurance at its true cost?

There are three primary benefits that individuals in the State Groups receive from the ACA: 1) subsidies to help lower-income people afford the premiums, 2) the prohibition of insurance denial due to preexisting conditions, and 3) premiums discounted for the unhealthy. These are benefits to all Americans whether they receive their health insurance from their employer or if they purchase it themselves. As noted above, if you become so disabled that you can no longer work, you will no longer receive health insurance from your employer. You will drop into the State Group class. You will then receive the benefit of an artificially lowered health insurance premium because healthy people are paying an artificially higher premium. On top of that, the government will provide subsidies to help you pay your premium.  The direct subsidies paid by the government on behalf of the low-income individuals is paid for by all Americas. However, the averaging of premiums within the State Group class is paid for by the healthy for the unhealthy. And the unhealthy come from both the self-paying and employer provided populations of health care consumers. This premium averaging is socialized health care for the entire population paid for by a fraction of the total population. Have I beaten this dead horse enough already? Again, if all Americans subjected to the same treatment it would be constitutional.

The healthy pay more than the unhealthy, but even the unhealthy within the State Group pay more than they should because ALL the unhealthy people are in the State Group class of health insurance consumers. The Employer-Self-Insured and the Employer-Provided classes are shielded from the costs of the unhealthy. Have I mentioned discriminatory taxes before? If the risk were spread across all Americans, the State Groups would pay less and the Employer classes would pay more.

The ACA provides a fourth benefit to individuals that receive health insurance from their employer. You pay lower premiums because the State Groups take on all the risk of any catastrophic illness or accidental injury. In addition to the non-uniformity of taxation, there is this non-uniformity of the “general Welfare,” or benefits derived from the ACA. And again, it benefits the rich and paid for by the poor.

It should be noted that those self-paying individuals in the State Group do not receive an income tax deduction for the money spent on their more expensive health insurance, but the employers that receive the benefits of lower premiums do get a tax deduction. Furthermore, the employees receive their health insurance on a income-tax-free basis. Bernie Sanders really should have exposed this ACA scheme.

When our elected officials stated numerous times that we need the young and healthy to purchase health insurance to help pay for the old and sick, they were admitting to a social program that they unconstitutionally designed and unconstitutionally required the poorest among us to pay for.

All citizens receive the benefits of the ACA but a good portion of it is paid for by 8% of the citizenry. This does not stand up to the uniform taxation clause of our constitution. Furthermore, the scheme to utilize regulations to redistribute wealth should be ridden from our society. If as a society, we decide to provide socialized health care (or any other product/service) we must legally declare it and legally pay for it. Regulation that artificially raises and/or lowers prices paid for things to redistribute wealth is something our founding fathers could have never imagined.

The ACA is not unconstitutional because of the individual mandate; it is unconstitutional because it indiscriminately taxes a few to provide benefits to all. I also contend it is unconstitutional because it removes our individual freedoms. The freedom to assemble and associate is also the freedom to not assemble and to not associate. The ACA forces certain individuals (but not all) to associate with all other individual health care consumers in their state of residence. Unless an individual chooses to associate with their State Group, they cannot purchase health insurance. An employee that does not like their employer provided health insurance is free to move to another employer. Sadly, this option is not available to self-paying citizens.

______________________________________________________________

Note 1: I have done enough legal research on this complaint to realize that I need a lawyer (pro bono of course). My tort is real in that I have suffered damages. Therefore, my case has standing. However, I am only looking to recoup $1 from the government to rectify my tort. What I want is to have the law fixed. I think a careful read of this complaint can identify an obvious solution to fix the ACA. Like Donald Trump, I am keeping you in suspense on the fix. This article/complaint is too long already and I need the material for another article.

Note 2: The ACA was a huge tax increase on the middle-class. So much for President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on them. He even created hidden taxes on the middle-class.

Note 3: ...... the system is rigged!

Does Trump Have a Secret Sauce?

Could Mr. Trump be intentionally throwing the election? Maybe he will trick enough rational people into believing that he has no chance to win. This would quell the anti-Trump voters from going to the polls. There is a good percentage of people planning to vote for Secretary Clinton only to prevent Mr. Trump from winning. If these people are convinced that their vote is not required to prevent a Trump presidency, they will not vote. There are millions of people that would prefer to disengage from this horrible campaign. If these people do not think their vote is needed, they will tune out and turn off (not vote).

Mr. Trump’s claim that he may not accept the election results may be the tactical maneuver that pulls this strategy off. The main stream media is playing it up as a total disqualifier. Watch the news and all you hear is how Mr. Trump has no chance to win. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s supporters have been put on notice that the system is rigged. These Trump supporters will vote in droves in an attempt to overcome the “rigged system.” Many of these supporters may also be willing to rush into the streets of America if Mr. Trump declares that he does not accept the results (assuming he loses). It could be ugly. Let us all hope that Mr. Trump does not allow this to happen.

Short and simple, Mr. Trump could be creating the appearance of a certain, devastating loss to quell Secretary Clinton’s anti-Trump voters. If that is only 7% of Secretary Clinton’s supporters, then Mr. Trump is in a dead-heat. By creating a visceral sense of unfairness, Mr. Trump maintains the enthusiasm of his ardent supporters. Here are the numbers:

	Full Voter Participation	Suppressed Voter Participation	Tallies recalculated to a full 100%
Trump	42%	42%	45.2%
Clinton -          For Clinton     42% -          Anti-Trump      7%	49%	42%	45.2%
Others	9%	9%	9.6%
	100%	90%	100%

Note: The Anti-Trump 7% of Secretary Clinton’s total of 49% is actually 14% of her total (7 divided by 49). Could 14% of Secretary Clinton’s supporters be voting purely to prevent a Trump Presidency? Maybe. Secretary Clinton has some voter distrust issues of her own.

If there are more Trump supporters than are reporting to pollsters, Mr. Trump wins. If not, we may have a repeat of the Bush/Gore election.

The Trump Train is a Wreck in Progress with DOOFUS the Engineer

Mr. Trump failed to deliver a convincing apology during Sunday's debate. Locker room talk? Really? In fact, he proved that he is both a bigot AND that he lacks the required intelligence to be President of the United States (POTUS - see previous article below for background). Nobody was surprised. However, there is surprise at the lack of intelligence being displayed by the majority of Republicans. It appeared over the weekend that most of them were starting to wake up and smell the coffee. There must be nothing like a whiff of Trump cologne in the locker room to lull you back to sleep.

Mr. Trump's performance (although horrible by normal standards) was a minor improvement over his previous, disastrous performance. Although improved, it was still embarrassing to watch. However, because of some, minuscule improvement, Republicans have decided to keep the Trump Train moving. The question is; to where is the train moving? There has been a lot of real train wrecks in New York recently and Mr. Trump and his supporters are the definition of a metaphorical train wreck in progress. At least Speaker Ryan has realized the danger of staying hooked to that train. It is sad that all Republicans cannot see the sudden-stop at the end of the ride. Unknown women will certainly come forward with new, true and untrue horror stories (and they will match Mr. Trump's own words), more audio and video tapes will be released, and Mr. Trump will continue to act as if he were running for Dictator of the Oligarchs’ Federation of the United States (DOOFUS).

Note to Mr. Trump: Bill Clinton's past indiscretions do not give you a get-out-of-jail free card. On the other hand, your shenanigans over the past week have given Secretary Clinton a get-out-of-jail free card on the Wiki Leaks materials regarding her public and private policies, her open border preference, and her Western hemisphere free trade dream. A "fit for the office" candidate would have been able to coast into the White House.

Governor Pence has put himself in a precarious position. He (or his wife) had the common sense to take a break from the ticket while he figured out if his character would allow himself to associate with a bigot. Then after the normalization of the Trump Reality Show by merely being seen in public during the debate (not by a sincere apology), he and most other Republicans have hopped back on the Trump Train. Governor Pence has to be thinking of 2020 when he runs for the top of the ticket. He has to balance between retaining his dignity, not alienating the Trump Army and not alienating the Republican establishment. Good luck Governor.

Free consulting from Fairway Frank: Let the Trump Army go. Rid the party of the Alt-Right and the ultra-conservatives. Invite the center to center-right moderate independents to join the party. Figure out how to govern with a Democrat President and Senate; compromise and fertilize. The party could very well attract center to center-right Democrats. The Ds have the same problem with their socialists that the Rs have with their Alt-Right, but the Rs have now been exposed and should take the opportunity (while licking wounds) to rebuild even stronger. The socialists will eventually bring the Democrats down as the Alt-Right has the Republicans. The only blessing of being first wounded is the opportunity to be first healed. Do not waste the opportunity to be first healed!

Do not look to Secretary Clinton to become Abraham Lincoln. She will not practice “with malice toward none and charity for all.” She will be more of a General Sherman on his march to the sea. In the wake of this undoing, Republicans have to be the statesmen. Republicans have to make democracy work. Republicans have to become the party of humility and the party of partnership. Elections have consequences and this election has already been fumbled on an unforced turnover by conducting an absurd primary. Accept defeat now. The sooner defeat is accepted, the sooner the healing can begin.

More free consulting: Implement Mr. Trump’s “extreme vetting” on your candidates. Any person interested in the job must sign a contract that allows the RNC to hire private investigators to scrutinize the candidate, their families, their associates, their friends, their past lives, their businesses and who the hell they go to church with. If I have missed anything, scrutinize that too! Releasing tax returns must be another requirement. All “dirt” should be aired as soon as found. Let the Republican primary voter have the same information that will be available in the general election. Had that happened this year, Mr. Trump would not be the nominee. The RNC is culpable of malpractice for not doing that this year. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but with Mr. Trump in the race did this not seem obvious? To his credit, Ted Cruz predicted our current state of the train wreck in progress. That proves it was predictable and that the RNC is culpable of malpractice. BTW, Ted Cruz is someone to whom the Party should say goodbye. He is the definition of ultra-conservative and no compromise.

As soon as the election is over, the respected party elders (Romney, McCain, Ryan - okay, Ryan is a young elder, but it is hard to find adult supervision these days) should come together and make a joint statement apologizing to the country for what the Republican Party has perpetrated. This statement should congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victory and promise to work in good faith with her in governing the United States. This statement should also outline the future of the Republican Party as a center-right entity that is willing to compromise for the good of the country. A loud statement of good-faith will be needed as the first step toward healing the Party.

Does Trump Lack the Required Intellect or is He a Bigot?

A while back, I wrote that I was scared that Mr. Trump could actually win. That fear is gone. I do not believe that he has any chance. America is too great a country to elect someone like Mr. Trump. Yes, Americans want change, but they do not want to have a bigot representing the greatest nation on earth. Mr. Trump may or may not be a bigot, but his behavior is telling America that something is amiss. His behavior is a big blinking red billboard telling us that he is either a bigot or not intelligent enough to be President of the United States (POTUS).

Did the reference to Mr. Trump’s lack of required intelligence or to being a bigot surprise you? Pick which one offends you the most and I will concede that I was wrong on that point, but state that the other is proven by conceding the first. That is, if Mr. Trump has the required intelligence to be POTUS, then he is a bigot. If he is not a bigot, then he does not have the required intelligence to be POTUS. Pick one: lack of required intelligence or bigot. There is only one other logical option to explain Mr. Trump’s behavior; that he lacks the required intelligence AND he is a bigot.

 Mr. Trump and his surrogates claim that, although he says racist, sexist, xenophobic things, he is really a good guy that is just not used to being a politician. He is, they say, a brilliant businessman. When I think of great businessmen, I think of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jack Welch, Mitt Romney, Steve Forbes, and Lee Iacocca. This list proves that you can be a great businessman and still have class. In fact, I do not understand how Mr. Trump has had any success with his lack of class. I would love to see his tax returns.

To concede that Mr. Trump is a good-hearted man that just sometimes says things the wrong way, would be believable if it happened a few times. It has happened more times than anyone could have ever imagined by a candidate for President of the United States. If he is a good-hearted man, then he lacks the required intelligence to correct his speech. Therefore, he lacks the required intelligence be POTUS. Would his IQ suddenly rise if he won the election? Do we want someone not intellectually equipped to handle the job in the White House?

Maybe, I am wrong. Mr. Trump is brilliant. He is a genius. A genius that cannot accurately state his true values and beliefs. But, for argument's sake, I concede that he is brilliant. All that brilliance should enable him to correct his speech. Yet, he has not changed his ways. Therefore, he is a bigot. Would you prefer a bigot or someone lacking the requisite intelligence in the White House? Do not worry, if Trump wins you may get both.

Do not think I am happy with Secretary Clinton either. I believe that she has committed crimes in the way she mishandled our state secrets (see my article below on how our “Espionage Act Does Not Protect our State Secrets”) and I have strong suspicions that she and her husband monetized her position as Secretary of State. The question of how two lifelong civil servants went from “flat broke” in January, 2001 to being worth a quarter of a billion dollars today bothers me. The intersection of her private email server and her Clinton Foundation side-job makes me wish that I could see all the deleted emails.

Secretary Clinton’s campaign conduct also bothers me. Last night’s vice-presidential debate just pushed me over the edge. A decent man (Senator Kaine) decided to lower himself to Trump/Clinton levels of absurdity. However, just as I cannot blame Mr. Trump for taking every tax deduction for which he is eligible, I cannot blame Secretary Clinton for baiting Mr. Trump into self-destructing (but brilliant) behavior at every opportunity. However, I am disappointed that the best America has to offer is a candidate that is “not Trump;” a candidate that offers no bright vision for America; a candidate that promises four more year of Obama; a candidate who has stated that among those she is proud to call an enemy are the Republicans.

America is tired of it all.

Mr. Trump excited a base of Americans that were sick and tired of being sick and tired. People were disgusted with the partisan gridlock of Washington and thought that an outsider could make things better – get things done that needed getting done. Now things are so much worse. Both candidates have further polarized America at a time when no one would have believed that it could be anymore polarized than it already was.

Whoever wins no longer matters. Nothing will get done in Washington for the next 4 years. We will be suffering a 4-year, campaign hangover at a time when the world is falling apart around us; our enemies are gaining strength, our economy is flailing and racial tensions are about to boil over to anarchy. As a result, America will further retreat from its once-upon-a-time position as world leader. What the hell is going on and where do you think it will lead us?

There is no leadership showing how we move forward. In this state of affairs, the leaders in Congress from both parties should learn how to work together and start passing some bi-partisan bills that will show America that we can still function. Do it now.

Fairway Frank’s Ideas for Our Inner-cities

There are four things necessary for every area in the world to build and maintain a vibrant environment/society; 1) family structure, 2) supporting neighbors, 3) safety, and 4) economic opportunity.

Our inner-cities are suffering from not having enough of these four essentials. We must all take responsibility for this problem. We have all looked the other way and allowed the current situation in the inner-cities to fester. After all, most of us avoid these areas because they are just too dangerous. Most people do not feel responsible for the current condition because they believe that they have nothing to do with the problem. But, yes, we are responsible. We allow our government to continually do the same thing over and over with no results in improving the situation in the inner-cities.

We should all be thinking of ways to improve the situation and request our elected officials to take in our ideas, work with the people in the inner-cities, and develop a new way. We should demand that a new way be implemented. Otherwise, our government will continue doing things that cost a lot of money but do nothing for the people they claim to be helping. In that spirit, the following are my ideas for consideration.

Most economists and even politicians believe that some fiscal stimulus is needed to kick-start our flailing economy. This is an opportunity that an inner-city redevelopment planner should seize. I am a business man and believe that sustainable plans should be implemented. That means that they can be self-sustaining once the government kick-start funding has disappeared.

Project Number 1, Rebuild Homes: Inner-cities are plagued with abandoned homes that cause problems. A rebuilding plan would purchase abandoned homes (usually at sheriff’s sales for pennies on the dollar) and then rebuild them for a profit. The profits would be used to purchase more homes and repeat the rebuilding process. This would help the neighborhood. But more can be done with this project. The individual homes being rebuilt should be managed by a construction management company with professional tradesmen that work alongside people from the local area. This would provide jobs and job training for inner-city residents. Simultaneous with rebuilding these homes, our existing government sponsored training programs should provide evening, classroom training for the apprentices working on the home rebuilding.

To attract businesses to this project, some of the profits would have to be retained by the construction management company. However, there are ways to make the profits large enough to attract businesses and to also follow through on the plan of recycling some of the profits to purchasing additional abandoned homes. One idea is to allow the involved business to hire people currently receiving public assistance for tax-exempt, low wages (e.g.: $10 per hour). The apprentices should be allowed to continue to receive their public assistance for as long as they work on the abandoned home rebuilding project. This should really excite people to get a job, learn a skill and eventually move on to an even higher paying job when they have the required skills.  The businesses are getting cheap labor at $10 per hour with tax exemptions. That is, the employer has to pay no payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment taxes) on qualifying employees.

Project Number 2, Build Community Centers: If project number 1 is strategically planned, a cluster of abandoned homes could be purchased and instead of rebuilding individual homes, a community center could be built. Even if a cluster is not a continuous row of homes, an existing neighbor may be willing to relocate to a newly rebuilt home (at no cost) to provide the area required for a community center. Ideally, community centers should be located close to a vibrant church that serves the community. Once built, community centers would be staffed by people from the neighborhood. Services that are lacking in the community would be provided in the community center; mostly by volunteer neighbors. Those services will be determined by each area’s need but could include: life skill training for all ages, homework help, job training, assistance with social services, children’s play areas/gymnasiums, and other items that I am sure are needed but for which I have no knowledge. These community centers should foster community by having neighbors helping neighbors. Parents could take turns watching everyone’s children to allow for work, job training or errands. Grandparents could give parenting classes and help with children’s homework. Neighbors with specific skills could provide the aforementioned job training. Big Brother and Big Sister organizations could help too.

Community centers need to be built to have low operating costs. For example, they should all be super insulated, and be powered by on-site solar panels. Property taxes should be waived for community centers. Maybe some of the Solyndra solar panels we paid for in the last stimulus plan could be installed here. That last sentence was a bit of levity, but solar power is an economically viable means to help sustain community centers. To help keep costs down, job training could also be provided by local businesses that need skilled labor but have a difficult time finding it. I know for a fact that in the Philadelphia area, welders cannot be found. The company that purchased the Philadelphia Navy Yard established a training center to train welders and other tradesmen.

Local governments should look at their existing functions and staffing and determine which, if any, could be relocated to community centers. Moving services closer to where people live is always a good idea. Moving jobs from city hall to a neighborhood is also a good idea.

Other means of keeping costs down is to involve local businesses. Comcast (or whoever is the area’s dominant service provider) should provide free internet service, the local water company (except if it is a small privately owned water company) should provide free water and sewer, the local library should establish a kiosk presence with weekly drop-off and pick-up service. Finally, neighbors should take turns mowing the lawn and performing other routine maintenance. A point scheme could be developed to have neighbors barter their labor for other services (such as baby sitting, job training, etc.). People need to be provided free job training, but it is also a good idea to let them know that it is not really free and provide ways that they can repay (and help the community). Ditto for all the other services they provide and receive at the community center.

Having a local business sponsor each community center should also be considered. Most large companies have community volunteer programs and this would be an ideal way of giving back. The sponsor could and should have bragging rights if it has uplifted an entire neighborhood's social-economic status (which can be measured in terms of income per household and intact families).

Involving a local church with a community center is a means of leveraging some of the existing strengths within our inner-city communities. The community center would amplify the churches ability to help their community. The local church should be willing to manage the operation free of charge. If it is not, find another church. I believe in the separation of church and state, but the church can balance between the two lines.

Project Number 3, Start New Businesses: Anyone (local residents preferred) that wants to start a business should be given access to a low-cost, rebuilt building (by expanding Project Number 1 to include rebuilding abandoned businesses). Lending programs should be established to target such businesses with preferential lending terms. Again, local residents could be hired with favorable terms to both the new business and the employee (keep receiving public assistance and wages are tax exempt for both employee and employer for a year). Restaurants, grocery stores, delivery services, day care, clothing stores, department stores and more are all needed in our inner-cities.

Local residents that have developed their job skills should be given some of the construction management contracts of the rebuilding projects discussed above. Again, preferential lending programs can help. These new construction contractors should be taught how to bid on private industry jobs and helped with financing in that area also.

Project Number 4, Bring in Big Businesses: We should encourage large corporations to build manufacturing plants in our inner-cities. For example, Apple should be allowed to bring their hundreds of billions of dollars back to the United States with no taxes due if they use the money to build manufacturing facilities in an economically depressed area. To really sweeten the deal, they should also be given tax credits for every dollar they spend on such an endeavor to reduce future income taxes. With today’s robotic technologies, there is no reason to rely on cheap overseas labor. Build a robotic factory in the inner-city and we will help pay for it. Tax incentives for employing local residents should also be provided. Even if every employee Apple hires is from outside the local neighborhood, those employees will still buy lunch, get haircuts, and have their cars repaired at a local business.

Project Number 5, Safety: No community can thrive if people are afraid to go outside of their home. For this reason, law and order that best suits each locality must be established. That means that the community must be involved in how police conduct their business. Each locality must determine if and how stop and frisk should be used. The New York use of stop and frisk may have gotten out of hand in that it was overused to the point that every young black man was subjected to being stopped. There are better ways of implementing stop and frisk. One is to establish a known association with criminals. If you regularly associate with criminals, the police know. They should document that they suspect criminal association because of one, two and three…. Then they should have the right to randomly stop and frisk the individual. Our inner-city residents want law and order but they also want respect. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually dependent on one another. By the way, the residents know who the criminals are too and they want them gone.

Whatever the right solution is, the police have to work it out with representatives of the local community. All the locally elected officials should be involved and they should hold town hall meetings to solicit input into how the residents want policing conducted and they should provide leadership on what should and should not be done.

A safe community also encourages people from outside the community to visit the businesses inside the community and to start businesses inside the community. This further adds to jobs and economic growth in the area.

The above ideas go to building economic centers in our inner-cities, training and employing inner-city residents, building communities of support, and establishing a safe environment. It is beyond my skill set to address the problem of the break down in family structure. However, it is my hope that the establishment of a vibrant community will have a positive effect on families. One of the services that I listed in my community center discussion was life skill training for all ages. If people know that there is a simple secret to success and provided with the help they need to implement that simple secret, the world would be a better place. The secret is this: finish high school and get a job before you get married and get married before you have a child. Statistics show that 95% of people that follow this simple rule do not live in poverty.

Okay, I am open to any other ideas. If you do not want to share them with me, share them somewhere so that our government can find them and consider using them. To make things better, we must change what we do. What we have been doing since forever, has never worked.