Radical Gardeners Wanted, Part 2

Amar Patel is the Vice Chair of the American Solidarity Party and director of Social Media.

Americans don’t want more politicians. Over 100 million adults did not vote in the 2016 presidential election. “None of the Above” could have won by a landslide. Too many people have to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils in election after election all around the country. The American Solidarity Party has run several candidates for local offices, and the Mike Maturen/Juan Muñoz presidential ticket in 2016 garnered a lot of interest in Christian democracy, but we have not been able to create a stable pool of people consistently willing to run for office. This has caused some in the party to become frustrated and impatient, but I ask why?

Why should we think that, out of fewer than a thousand registered members, we should have many candidates? Out of 250 million US adults, there are around 500 thousand elected officials. That is an approximate ratio of 500 to 1. Though it isn’t wrong to pine for more, we should consider ourselves lucky that we have had so many people run or consider running for office. So how do we recruit more of these brave souls, and how do we create leaders to help guide the party through the troubling political landscape?

The answer is a culture, within the party, of service that is so radical, so extreme, so unmatched that people have to take notice. Genuine heroic sacrifice coupled with our principles, platform, and sound policy proposals offer us the only route to breaking through the barriers the political duopoly places in our way. Those who thrive on the coordination and execution of these ubiquitous service projects will be gaining the skills necessary to lead in a political setting. Organization, public speaking, committee work—these will all be required for our internal leaders to move people away from their televisions and out into their communities making a difference.

Studies show more and more Americans are becoming “nones” when it comes to religious affiliation. Why might this be happening? Christian democracy cannot thrive unless it offers an alternative that elevates the human spirit. We can’t just be a centrist political organization; we have to be super-centrist, which is to say, above the center. We cannot be on the same plane as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens; we have to transcend the normal political experience.

Imagine a Congress in which members wake up early, put on jeans, T-shirts, and aprons and serve breakfast to the poor and homeless of Washington, D.C., before addressing a funding bill at the Capitol. How would a president who stops by hospitals every few days to visit with the sick and dying or with new parents view issues like universal health care and abortion? How would your own life change if it were ordered around a social network of friends that look forward to community service as much as going out to a movie or a ball game?

I believe that if the American Solidarity Party can establish a public-service-to-public-servant system of growth toward leadership and candidacy, we can change the political culture in the United States in general. Apart from this, I don’t see any other path to success. G. K. Chesterton wrote, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” Let us not say this about Christian democracy and a radical ASP.

Radical Gardeners Wanted: Part 1

Amar Patel is the Vice Chair of the American Solidarity party and Director of Social Media.

Have you ever felt passionate about a cause and jumped in with both feet, only to wonder why none of your friends or family dared to take the plunge with you?

I find this to be a specific stumbling block for the American Solidarity Party. Those of us who felt abandoned by the major parties and fell in love with the ASP at first sight can’t fathom why others with ostensibly similar backgrounds don’t feel the sting of Cupid’s arrow.

For years, many party members have believed that the perfect platform and principled policies coupled with active discussion groups on Facebook would eventually go viral and hordes of whole-life distributists would flood our database with new members. While I am reasonably certain there are a good number of political romantics still left in the U.S. who pine for Christian democracy but just haven’t heard of us yet, I doubt that those numbers are in the millions or even the tens of thousands.

Currently, the ASP is a quaint bed of flowers tucked away in a corner of the political landscape, walled off by aggressive major parties who poison the soil around us so we can’t extend our roots into their territories. Their monetary, legislative, and media control over the system ensure that we can’t win by playing the game in a traditional manner.

We must utilize alternative gambits that require us to go well beyond our comfort zones. The main parties rely on extreme voters to drive their selected candidates through primaries and perpetuate the duopoly each November election season. They confidently assume that the average American will check out of politics between elections. This is when we must strike.

I believe one mistake we keep making is assuming our rank and file members will engage readily in political activism. If we want a party of grassroots, we need gardeners who are willing to do some “cultivating.” I propose we task our members with the work they do best and that a Christian democratic party is naturally inclined toward: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, giving shelter to the homeless, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and the imprisoned.

Most Americans sympathetic to our cause will not come to us via convincing arguments or flashy social-media activity. They will come because we give them something to believe in. We have to walk the walk while we talk the talk. Can we show a yearning people that public service breeds public servants?

I challenge the members of the American Solidarity Party to change the way the political game is played by integrating the community service you are called to do with a mindset that we can change the world from the dirt up. If we sweat together, cry together, and bleed together, we will create a radical image that can resonate with millions of people of good will. Then, as political actors, we will have the moral heft or “street cred” to run politicians who can advocate for policies that pass by supermajorities.

Who is ready to get dirty with us?

Member Perspectives: The Need for Healthcare Reform

The strength of the American Solidarity Party will always be our passionate defense of our four principles of respect for life, social justice, environmental stewardship, and a more peaceful world. However, it can also come from how we respectfully argue our positions on other issues that challenge our communities. Here, ASP member Maria Reynolds-Weir offers some thoughts on the need for healthcare reform.

by Maria Reynolds-Weir

Naomi’s Story: The Case for Single-Payer Health Care

Naomi almost made it to her thirty-third birthday. On the day she died, her sister Leah set up a memorial “Medicare for All” fund in her honor because Naomi had spent too many of her precious few days figuring out how her health care would be paid for.

In the fifty-seven months that Naomi lived with colorectal cancer, she’d counted the songs and stories sung to her two children, the trips taken with her husband, and those taken to visit family and friends. She’d counted her surgeries, but not the troubles she faced in order to leave her husband with as little debt as possible, because she was grateful. Her health care had been mostly paid for thanks to the Affordable Care Act, imperfect as it is. Love, a strong support system, and reliable health providers help cancer patients—and other patients—stay stronger to fight their diseases longer. Naomi might not have lived as long if she had taken the advice of the social worker on her treatment team.

“You could consider divorce.”

Her social worker had advised her and her husband, Andy, in seriousness, to consider divorce. Ever the dark humorist, Naomi joked that she should get thrown in jail instead. “I could also find some fentanyl and sell it. They have to treat me in prison,” she said. Fentanyl wasn’t hard to find in Jackson, Michigan, where she lived when the ten-centimeter tumor nearly killed her. The year was 2013. A gastroenterologist diagnosed her on Valentine’s Day. She took short-term disability after two “shrinkage” chemotherapy sessions over the next few months. Once the surgical phase began, when she lost the primary tumor and added an ostomy, she realized she had less than ten years left, none of them as a full-time long-term wage earner in her home.

Naomi and Andy’s economic outlook had only begun to brighten in 2012, when she finally landed a job with benefits that included health insurance for the family. They’d been struggling with college debt (“Go to college! It will pay for itself!”) and a clunker that got her a mile down the road to work and back, but not much further. Not long after her first surgery, while living with an ostomy, Naomi realized she’d never be able to work full-time again. She rode out short-term disability and was fired for health-related reasons just as the January 1, 2014, open enrollment of the ACA kicked in. Already swimming in tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, she spent her waking hours between chemo and radiation trying to sign up for a plan on the overloaded ACA websites.

Naomi discovered that there would be no ACA plan that was affordable, because of Michigan’s implementation of the plan. Conservative leaders across the US had thrown sticks into the spokes of the plan as it rolled out. The only help came from her social worker, who had said, “You could divorce Andy on paper. He’d probably need to move out for a while, in case your situation were investigated. You could keep the kids to show your need. Later, maybe he could move back in.” It was advice she gave to a number of couples, a common strategy because prison, where she could sue for complete treatment, was hardly practical for a church-going mother of two preschoolers.

“At least they have to cover a pre-existing condition now.”

After months of fighting for a solid plan, the hospital’s financial staff found a Medicaid program in Michigan that would cover her. So, Naomi signed up. While her kids ate lunches of Pop-Tarts while watching Blue’s Clues and jumping on the couch, she spent hours trying to sign herself and her kids up for care. Some days (like when she discovered her four-year-old son’s Social Security number and identity had been assigned to another child) felt like full-time administrative days.

“Bankruptcy. That’s what I think when I hear cancer.”

Naomi’s father, husband, mother, kids, siblings, and Naomi herself all worked for two years to remodel the bottom half of a sprawling Frederick, Maryland, home where Naomi, Andy, and the kids would soon live. The week Naomi went on hospice, they moved into the three-bedroom apartment. They’d relocated from Michigan to Maryland, where Andy would find viable employment—a job with future growth and real benefits, which Jackson could never offer—and where Naomi’s family could do more than schedule trips to cook, clean, and help with kids while Naomi slept through the ravages of radiation and chemo.

In the nearly five years Naomi lived with cancer, she had dozens of tumors removed, an ostomy put in, a reconstruction on the end of her colon, then the ostomy reinstated because she was nearing death weekly due to dehydration. Even with Andy’s benefits, Naomi had to stay on Medicaid. When she was well enough, she was expected to work. She couldn’t keep a job. Even with her six siblings and parents donating time, money, and child care, the bills piled up. Even with the ACA, Naomi spent precious days—when she had the energy—calling her provider to find out why her doctor’s chemotherapy regimen was “experimental and not covered” even though she was using standard drugs, just in alternative combinations.

In the living room while discussing the recent diagnosis of a fellow church member, Naomi’s father pinched his forehead, tears in his eyes, and answered the question, What do you hear when you hear the word cancer? with: “Bankruptcy. That’s what I think.” But he also heard socialized medicine when his kids enthusiastically supported the ACA, and even when his other daughters marched in the Women’s March with signs in rainbow letters that said, “The ACA saved my sister’s a——.”

A mainstream conversation?

On the day she died, Naomi’s father stayed silent while Naomi’s sister Leah sat cross-legged on the couch, calling out progress as she set up her “Medicare for All” fund. In the 2016 election, Naomi’s father had sworn off anything linked to Bernie Sanders. As a transplant to the East Coast and a Rust Belt Republican, he sweats the word socialism while his kids insist, “We need a single-payer plan.” After the funeral, the “Medicare for All” fund raised a chunk of change. Now, his children promote universal health care and debate which iteration will inspire the masses and shift the national opinion. Andy makes appearances advocating for “Medicare for All.” The siblings sport T-shirts for the brand.

In 2018, Naomi’s father nearly lost his job when his long-time employer, Sears Holdings (which owns both Sears and Kmart), filed for bankruptcy. He mentioned longingly how he’d like to retire promptly but had to wait. “Maybe when we get universal health care,” he let slip. He’s been subject to the willy-nilly labor-related dealings of his company and tied by necessity to the paternalism of employer-based health care for his entire life. He’s got the résumé and smarts to join a startup, but he and his wife are aging. Naomi’s disease, colorectal cancer, is ordinarily an older person’s disease, as are hypertension, diabetes, and the other cancers that lurk in their family histories. They, like so many American workers, can’t shell out the money for an individual health insurance plan. What’s affordable is not viable unless you’re a healthy twenty-something with a high risk tolerance.

Paternalism.

Senator Mike Braun of Indiana, where Naomi was born and raised, recently called out the paternalism of insurance companies and health-care providers. He proposed a solution that will hold these entities responsible for opaque cost sheets and prioritizing profit margins before people.

Health-care providers need to offset the unpaid bills of those who are either underinsured or uninsured, so they often charge patients two or three times the cost of goods or services. The average worker with insurance gets a few negotiated breaks, but the costs of emergency-room visits remain obscenely high because it’s the only place where the poor can get health care. The poor often don’t have access to clinics or offices in their area. The poor often don’t have access to employer-based health insurance if they do work, and most do. The poor don’t have sufficient, if any, coverage even if they work. The system reeks of inefficiency.

Braun says it is the paternalism of the system that is causing problems, but which part of the system is most at fault? Insurance companies? Employers? The working class and mid-level professionals are overwhelmed but skeptical. When they bear testimony to the favors and trinkets that drug and device companies hand out to court hospitals and physicians, they sense their own skepticism and feel questions prick the backs of their necks. It stinks of paternalism at best, and sycophantism of the powerful at worst.

The land of confusion.

We live in a culture of conspiracy and implication. Causation and correlation get confused. Too many commentators fill the airwaves with too little information. On the perimeters, gluts of raw data and information presented in academic jargon obfuscate the issues. No wonder we succumb to the idea that our little voice doesn’t matter. We can’t change the system, we think. It’s too big. But we can, if we give ourselves permission, if we speak our concerns, if we ask our questions, if we call our representatives.

Since the inception of employer-based health insurance (during World War II, when companies courting employees from a tight labor force realized that for a few dollars, folks could visit a doctor a certain number of times, arranged by your employer, thank you very much), Americans have also fretted over socialism and communism. We conflate the two, treating them as synonyms. While post-WWII Great Britain exchanged the paternalism of company-based health insurance for a national health system (the National Health Service), American workers trusted that they’d mostly get good jobs with benefits. We trusted companies to value people as an asset worth honest, fair investments like pensions and health insurance. People over profit, we thought. We trusted that to be the American way.

It’s not working out.

If a worker has the education or opportunity to work full-time for a company that offers benefits, she is seeing the loss of or a higher cost for those benefits. According to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, health-insurance deductibles have gone up over 200% since 2008, with premiums up 55%, but wages are only up 26%, and inflation is far lower, at 17%. Furthermore, plenty of people work multiple jobs without benefits, or are caregivers for kids or the elderly, or don’t have a local employer who offers health insurance. With the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in 1986, the United States government decided that health care is a kind of right. If a person shows up at an emergency room, she can’t be turned away if she needs services. The outcome is that a whole class of citizens has nowhere to go for health care except the most expensive place in town. If they can’t pay, the hospital will have to shift the costs somehow to those who can. Hence, we have an inequitable, inefficient, opaque system. It’s ripe for profiteers to trade shiny favors for overpriced goods. It’s a network full of holes and gaps.

Why can’t it work out?

Companies and government-based employers can no longer afford pensions. They can’t afford insurance. Annually, they negotiate plans in which deductibles rise, contributions rise, and services and providers are limited. Spouses are dropped. Individuals place their children in Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) for coverage. They forego care, stress out, avoid preventative self-care options, and can’t find the time or information to count their own costs. Even with the ACA covering more people, the coverage may not be better or affordable. It depends on the state and its politicians who hold the power to make the options viable or prohibitive.

Who’s being paternalistic?

If Senator Braun says that it is health-care providers in the system who are being paternalistic, we might push back on that. He also points out that he, as a business owner, set up a program that worked for him, rather than for his employees. That’s a form of paternalism. He and other leaders decry a national health care, single-payer, or universal system as governmental paternalism. When that critique falls on deaf ears, they trot out the word “socialism” to besmirch the idea. It could be as easily framed as good citizenship, a civic duty, a humane part of our national identity and unity that we the people create a system that has fewer gaps, fewer profiteers, and acknowledges what we already practice, albeit poorly.

Providing access to health care is right. Letting people die between emergency-room visits is no more humane than leaving them in poorhouses untreated for acute diseases—the option of the pre-industrial era.

Also, providing universal health care is just fiscally smart in the long run. We are already paying for medical care for our poor brothers and sisters, but not as fellow citizens united. Single-payer health care will cost more in taxes, but these can be investigated and negotiated. The provision of some procedures will raise moral dilemmas, but other nations have found a way.

The United States prides itself on its leadership and innovation. In the area of health care, we have some housekeeping and catching up to do. The health and welfare section of the American Solidarity Party platform calls for “[d]iverse efforts across this country to secure universal health care access, affordability and outcomes, including single-payer health initiatives, healthcare cooperatives, and hybrid systems at the state and national level.” Naomi’s family would agree.

Naomi is a real person. Everyone in this country probably knows a “Naomi”; the particular circumstances might be somewhat different, but her reality is universal.

Maria Reynolds-Weir writes, teaches high school, lives near Indianapolis, Indiana, and is a clergy wife passionate about serving the least of these in word and deed. She serves on the board of Raise and Restore, an urban ministry, and Achaius Ranch, which ministers to youth. She’s contributed to Relevant Magazine, The Handmaiden (an Orthodox journal for women), the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library’s So It Goes, and the anthology Enduring Love. Her poetry has won the Laurie Mansell Reich Poetry Prize and has appeared in Poetry South.

mariareynoldsweir@gmail.com

Member Perspectives: The Economics of Poverty

The strength of the American Solidarity Party will always be our passionate defense of our four principles of respect for life, social justice, environmental stewardship, and a more peaceful world. However, it can also come from how we respectfully argue our positions on other issues that challenge our communities. Here, ASP member Sarah Field offers some thoughts on the economics of poverty.

By Sarah Field

Why is poverty so widespread in a country as wealthy as the USA? Why don’t the poor just get better jobs? Have government programs encouraged laziness? Do we need better incentives to get people off the public dole? Or are people trapped in a system they are powerless to escape?

I’m not an economist or an expert, but I’ve been following the topic for a few years now, and I’ve come to a few conclusions. Hear me out, and then let me know what you think!

People Don’t Stay Poor Because It’s Easy

Every now and then, a well-meaning friend will post a meme or an article describing the dangers of government supporting the poor. Poor people are social parasites, getting free food, free housing, free college, and free healthcare, all at the expense of their hardworking, more responsible counterparts! It’s not uncommon for someone to chime in with some corroborating anecdote. I know someone like that—living off the government and begging for handouts, but I notice she’s got a cell phone, eats good food, wears nice clothes, drives a nice car, and keeps having kids. These people clearly don’t know what it really means to be poor [insert comparison made to a developing nation or the Great Depression], and certainly don’t know how to practice frugality. At the very least, if they had any self-control whatsoever, they wouldn’t have all those kids! But this is what we get when the government offers handouts to anyone who doesn’t have the gumption to make it on their own. It’s just too good a deal for these freeloaders to pass up!

A whole framework of blame is difficult to take apart piece by piece. But a few thoughts are important to keep in mind:

  • The government doesn’t just give free money to anyone who doesn’t want to work. While the rules vary from state to state, generally speaking, getting assistance is contingent on things like being functionally broke (say, no more than about $2,000 in assets), having a net income at or below the current poverty level for the size of your household, and having a job, actively seeking employment, being a caregiver (in certain situations), or being disabled. And you can’t just say you fit the qualifications; you have to be able to prove it. In some states, you must also pass a drug test in order to qualify.
  • Disability is particularly difficult to qualify for. Conventional wisdom says that getting approved for benefits typically requires the assistance of a lawyer, who of course gets a cut for his or her services. There are plenty of conditions which could hinder you from getting a good job, but are not considered severe enough for you to qualify for disability benefits.
  • Higher education is often a requirement to get a better job. But going to college on the government dime comes with high expectations. If your grades, attendance, or class completion rates are not up to standards, you could very easily end up with a nasty debt and nothing to show for it. Scraping by with barely passing grades won’t cut it; you have to be a good student, which is hardly the image depicted in these memes.
  • Cell phones and cars may be luxury items in certain places and circumstances, but try getting a job without some mode of transportation or contact number before you judge others for having them. Also, loan companies don’t want to help you buy an older, less expensive car, and may charge higher interest rates or outright refuse the loan. Understandably, they want to make sure the vehicle has a decent chance of outliving the loan. In short, the line between luxury and necessity is not always where it seems to be at first glance.
  • Perhaps frugality is a lost art. But the occasional special meal or nice second-hand outfit is not terribly expensive compared to non-negotiables like housing, utilities, and transportation. You may not even be allowed to keep your kids if you don’t maintain a certain basic standard of living determined by the government.
  • Speaking of kids, they are a natural part of life, one of the most basic elements of being human—dare I say, a part of God’s expressed plan for mankind. The idea that they are a luxury item is a relatively new one, promoted by Planned Parenthood and other organizations that may or may not draw a line between preventing pregnancy and providing abortions, between assisting those in need and promoting eugenics. Do we really want to be part of a movement that either despises life at its most vulnerable or discourages the poor from something as basic as a normal marriage?

In reality, nobody lives a life of ease at the expense of the government. People get government assistance because they need it in order to survive. They may be surviving at a higher standard of living than their counterparts in Uganda or Haiti, but they could still be precariously close to going bankrupt, living on the streets, suffering from a preventable (and potentially contagious) disease, losing their kids, or being unable to pay a fine, which could result in jail time.

Poverty Hurts Everyone—Not Just the Poor

A common theme among anti-poverty memes is the role of government. Typically, the assumption seems to be that the less we help the poor, the better—unless you’re a politician running for election. If only the government would stop encouraging these behaviors with so many support programs, we wouldn’t have this problem! If you want to get rid of animal pests, you quit feeding them. How hard is that to figure out? But of course, we are stuck with this horrible blight on our economy because all these freeloaders keep voting for the politicians who support them, and politicians only care about getting votes.

Aside from the dubious claims that the poor vote only for politicians who promise handouts, what these memes don’t take into account is the fact that poverty hurts everyone. Think about this: What happens when the poor go bankrupt? Lose their homes? Catch communicable diseases? What happens when they end up in jail? Or when their kids end up in foster care? What happens to the next generation when they grow up without stable homes and families? Every one of these “personal” crises ultimately costs society as a whole.

Therefore, to suggest that the only reason the government supports assistance programs is in order to get votes is to ignore real problems that affect everyone. Programs that keep the poor more or less afloat are cheaper, in the long run, than programs to rescue them from circumstances far more dire.

But they could at least work hard like everybody else and get a better job! Of course they can’t expect to start out as managers. But that’s how the system works. You save your money, work your way up the ladder, and eventually you have a healthy middle-class income. Unemployment rates aren’t even all that high right now. Surely there is no excuse for anyone to live in chronic poverty. We’re just giving people the wrong incentives!

I’ll address these concerns in the next two sections.

Means-Based Welfare Discourages Incremental Improvements

Suppose you are a currently making $2,000 per month before taxes. In addition to your income from whatever job(s) you have, you get $200 per month in food stamps, and your family healthcare needs are covered by Medicaid. Now, suppose you get a better job or a nice raise and start making $2,500 per month. You go home rejoicing that, finally, things are looking up! Unfortunately, this pushes you right over the limit for assistance. Gone are the food stamps, and you have to go to another form of health insurance, with a regular monthly payment and a hefty deductible. Your tax rate also goes up, so you bring home less of what you make. Oh, and maybe your new position requires new clothes (employees often have to pay for their own uniforms), more expensive transportation, or some other up-front investment on your part. All of a sudden, the extra money has completely evaporated! You were actually more financially stable before you got the better job.

Though these numbers are hypothetical, they illustrate what many people in the grip of poverty face. All too often, an incremental improvement in income is going to hurt them, rather than help them. (And this can even be a problem when a child in the household gets his or her first job.)

But suppose you anticipate this and start scrimping and pinching pennies so as to have a rainy-day fund before you take the plunge. Or maybe you just want to save up for a car so as to avoid exorbitant financing rates. Smart move, right? Well, you have to be careful about doing this, too. If you have too much in your bank account at the next evaluation, you could lose your welfare benefits on that basis as well!

Long story short, you may not like being on government assistance, but you have to do what you can to survive. There’s simply no point in quixotically refusing assistance, only to end up on the streets or going bankrupt.

The Poor Do Not Control Poverty Rates

It’s true that the unemployment rate is not what it was ten years ago. But having a job and not needing assistance are two very different things. Indeed, a good portion of the jobs currently available pay barely enough to support a single adult, let alone a family. Let’s take a look at some statistics to get an idea of just how many jobs do not provide a living wage.

Take the $15 per hour threshold that many suggest should be the new minimum wage. One source reports that 42.4% of American workers make less than this level per hour. Even at forty hours per week (with no days off), that’s equivalent to an annual income of less than $31,500 before taxes. At thirty-five hours per week (still considered full-time work) the worker gets less than $27,500 per year. For a couple with three kids, an annual income of $27,500 is below the federal poverty threshold. Further, of the 42.4% making less than $15 per hour, only about 12.4% make significantly more than minimum wage. There aren’t too many folks who can survive on $7.25 per hour without assistance. Even with two incomes, it’s going to be tough.

In recent years, more than 15% of American workers have been employed part-time, meaning they work fewer than thirty-five hours per week. Since many job-related benefits are tied to being a full-time worker, part-time workers are less likely to get paid sick time, let alone health insurance through their employer. While working more than one part-time job seems like it ought to be doable, many such jobs require a level of flexibility that is difficult to achieve while holding another job. And you still don’t get benefits or overtime by virtue of working two or more part-time jobs.

In light of the above, we see that a huge chunk of the population can only rise above the poverty threshold by either working ridiculously long hours, or having two incomes, or both. If they have children, this means farming their kids out to daycare, which in turn means they have to earn more money just to break even. There are other options, of course. If the parents work opposite shifts, they can watch their own kids, although they may get very little time to build a healthy relationship with each other. And if they live near family or other willing helpers, or qualify for some kind of assistance, the costs can be lowered, but that doesn’t solve the “social parasite” stigma.

Microeconomics tells us that any one of these people could work extra hard, maybe get a degree or develop some new skill, and eventually get a better job. But macroeconomics tells us that, for a better job to open up, someone else must die, retire, get fired, or quit. As a general rule, for any person who goes up the ladder, someone else must go down.

Of course, there are ways this can be shifted: through businesses creating more jobs, or making lousy jobs into better jobs, and so forth. Better matching of training to available good jobs would also be legitimately helpful, if only we could better predict the future! Some people can even break out of the cycle by successfully creating their own businesses—but that generally requires some kind of starting capital, and success rates are notoriously low. In short, the average person in poverty hasn’t the slightest control over real shifts in the number of available good jobs.

Simply giving the poor better “incentives” to get off the government dole is not going to solve this problem.

So, What Can We Do to Get People out of Poverty?

First, let’s stop treating poverty like a moral failure. Most of the poor are working very hard to provide essential services for society. They answer telephones and provide food service and hospitality. They are cashiers, nurse aides, and janitors. Some of them work in local government, keeping your taxes low, and some serve in our military. Don’t want to pay more for these services? Then have the grace not to complain when the government subsidizes these (and many other) industries in the form of welfare!

But we must do more than merely acknowledge that we need these people and that we benefit from their hardship. We must do more than accept that our present economy relies on working beggars. Justice demands that we ensure people get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

Again, I’m not an economic expert, but there are political actions that could help. Let’s take a look at a few of them.

One popular option is to raise the minimum wage. This should greatly increase the self-sufficiency of the poor, reducing the amount the government must spend on welfare assistance. But it could put a considerable burden on businesses and institutions that can’t actually afford to pay higher wages—which could lead to fewer total jobs as owners and managers either take drastic measures to stay afloat or go under. And it eliminates lower-paying options, even for basic entry-level positions that may be ideal for those who are just learning the ropes and don’t need to support themselves yet, let alone a family. Ultimately, many fear that raising the minimum wage will hasten a higher cost of living for everyone, as higher costs of production eventually get passed on to consumers. It’s only a matter of time until $15 per hour in the dollars of the future is no better than $8 per hour in today’s dollars. Perhaps one way to mitigate some of these concerns would be to generally raise minimum wage but permit companies to have a certain percentage of designated entry-level positions or employees at any given time. This would allow for some jobs to still pay lower wages, but in fewer numbers.

Another option might be for the government to incentivize smaller ratios between the highest and lowest paying jobs within a company. In this system, CEOs would make less, while line workers would make more. But how much real difference would it make? Would companies struggle to find talent for top positions? Would they find loopholes in the form of more disparate benefits? Are CEOs really the problem, or is it shareholders?

Perhaps the government could subsidize certain types of industries with tax breaks and credits for paying higher wages so that workers could receive fair compensation without overburdening companies, raising prices, or bearing the brunt of the stigma of “living off of handouts.” Of course, that assumes, perhaps naively, that such subsidies would in fact be passed along to workers. It also leaves open the question of who would decide which industries would be subsidized, and on what basis.

​Another option that has been gaining momentum is a universal basic income (UBI) or a citizen’s dividend. This is an amount the government would simply pay to everybody, regardless of need. In theory, if the amount were set high enough, it could replace other assistance programs, cutting out much of the overhead needed to determine who is or isn’t eligible for them, and mitigating concerns about lost benefits linked to pay increases. It would allow businesses to continue to pay people what they can afford, while giving individuals more choices in what kind of job to work (or whether to have one parent stay home with the children in lieu of sending them to daycare). Hopefully, it would help to alleviate animosity from those who don’t get assistance towards those who do. But for those whose greatest concern is that government assistance promotes lazy habits, it is anathema. There are also concerns about how it would be funded. And finally, it is unclear what other unintended consequences could result.

We could also tweak our means-based system to be phased out more gradually. In particular, why would we encourage middle-class workers to save upwards of $10,000 for a rainy day (let alone for retirement) but kick people off Medicaid and food stamps for having a fraction of that amount? It’s almost as if the goal is to keep people as vulnerable as possible so they have to keep coming back for more help. Low asset ceilings are especially risky for people with frequent, chronic, or life-threatening health problems, among whom universal affordable health care would be extremely helpful—for maintaining not only health, but also financial stability.

Conclusion

We may not have all the answers yet. But we must recognize that no government program makes it easy to be poor. We must acknowledge that poverty is as harmful for society collectively as it is for poor people individually. We must stop blaming the poor for a lack of sufficient jobs, and we must stop penalizing them for planning ahead and getting better jobs. Most importantly of all, we must get serious about ensuring that all people who are willing to work can support themselves and their families.


An older version of this article was previously published at https://www.imagodeipolitics.org/2018/03/02/some-thoughts-on-the-economics-of-poverty/.

Announcing My Candidacy for Mayor of Bowdon, Georgia

by Logan Jackson

I have been a member of the American Solidarity Party since August of 2016, and I am currently the vice chairman of the Georgia chapter of the ASP. What inspired me to join the ASP is that I love that we are looking for the common good and that we use common sense when it comes to the way that we approach issues. I have been a member of both the Democratic and Republican parties. They both left me; one moved too far to the left and the other moved too far to the right. The ASP is, for me, the happy medium.

I have been communicating with the city council for years, but nothing gets done. I have been asking the same questions for over fifteen years and I get the same answers. It was early in January, when I was sitting at my desk writing yet another email that I knew would not get answered, that I decided not to send the email, but instead to run for mayor. I decided at that moment to speak about things that the sitting mayor and city council would not. We are losing our tax base here in the city and the mayor and council will not do anything but raise taxes. The only problem is that my city’s median income is just $25,000.
Below are the areas that I will focus on as mayor in order to make sure that the city grows and improves. Emphasizing these areas will help to bring in businesses as well as new residents.

Community Identity

For years, Bowdon was known for its textile industry. There were between two and three thousand people in the workforce here, which does not include the rubber plant that at one time had three shifts. Sadly, all the textiles plants have closed except for Bremen-Bowdon Investments (BBI), and the rubber plant burned down. As a result, for the last fifteen to twenty years, Bowdon has lost much of its identity. It is very important that the citizens of Bowdon hold to who we have been historically as we move forward. After we have restored our community identity, then Bowdon can start to move toward the future.

Action

We cannot continue to kick the can down the road and ignore vital services, such as water and sewer facilities and the police department, that are needed. We need someone that will be bold in fixing the things that are important and able to say “No” to those things that are not vital. The mayor and city council must have good communication with the public, and must prioritize the future while making policy decisions, rather than only considering the present impact.

Transparency

We must ensure that the residents of Bowdon know what is going on with their local government. If we all expect state and federal governments to be transparent, then why wouldn’t we want our local governments to do the same? If I have the honor of being elected, I will hold town hall meetings quarterly. I will also give an annual State of the City address to let the public know what actions the city has taken during the past year, and to inform them about any actions that are planned for the upcoming year. I also plan to have a weekly “Coffee with the Mayor,” which would be a time for me to hold office hours for appointments or walk-ins.

I look forward to the opportunity to work side-by-side with the residents of Bowdon, creating a local government that helps to restore our community identity, prioritizes vital services, and provides exceptional transparency. So, Bowdon residents, remember when you go to vote on November 5th: “Want Action? Vote Jackson!”

Religious Freedom and Public Service

Those for whom the dogma speaks loudest are also those most qualified to serve.

By Tai-Chi Kuo, JD, CSM, CSPO

American Solidarity Party National Committee, Vice-Treasurer

American Solidarity Party–Illinois, Vice-Chairman

In February of this year, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America penned a letter to Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), in their capacities as ranking members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, conveying the organization’s “grave concern” over an unconstitutional “religious test” whereby a nominee’s fitness for a federal judgeship was considered on the basis of the nominee’s religious faith or membership in a particular religious organization. The Orthodox Union’s letter was in reference to questions posed by Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) during committee proceedings inquiring whether federal judicial nominee Brian Buescher would renounce his membership in the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic men’s organization) owing to the organization’s traditional views on sexuality and life, should he be confirmed for the position. This letter is significant not only because the Orthodox Union’s concern crossed Jewish-Christian religious lines, but also because the Buescher nomination was not an isolated incident, and efforts to restrict Americans with deeply-held faith convictions from participating in American public service and public life are on the rise.

Attempting to disqualify Americans from public participation on religious grounds is certainly “nothing new under the sun.” In the modern era, John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism, Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and Barack Obama’s Christianity have all been cruelly scrutinized during their presidential campaigns. However, over the past several years, these once-rare occurrences have increased at an alarming rate. From Texas Republican Dorrie O’Brien’s unsuccessful coup to remove Dr. Shahid Shafi (R-TX) from his Texas GOP position on account of his Islamic faith, to the aforementioned Democratic Senator Feinstein’s challenge of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to a federal appellate court position because her Catholic “dogma live[d] loudly within” her, to Senator Bernie Sanders’s (Ind-VT) attempted rejection of Russell Vought’s appointment as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget over his Christian beliefs on salvation, attempts to discourage people of faith from public life have arisen across seemingly the entire gamut of the American political spectrum—and show no signs of de-escalation as preparations for the 2020 presidential campaign season begin in earnest.

With a contentious and pivotal election looming on the horizon, Judge-Designate Neomi Rao has already been attacked by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) during her District of Columbia Circuit Court nomination hearing over her personal beliefs regarding sexuality and whether they have ever influenced her hiring decisions. Meanwhile, the West Virginia Republican Party has created propaganda smearing U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), a Muslim, by accusing her of links to the 9/11 attacks. Separately, Representative Omar has also faced spurious accusations of anti-Semitism from Democrats and Republicans alike, leading to a U.S. House Resolution which broadly condemned bigotry and discrimination.

This increase in attacks against people of faith in government should indeed cause “grave concern.” The attacks are also unconstitutional. Religious freedom has been enshrined under the First Amendment, and Article VI of the United States Constitution guarantees that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So, while the United States is not a theocracy, people of faith have been intentionally empowered to live out their faith, both in their private lives and as public servants. It is the faith of many of our American public servants that has brought some measure of redemption to their otherwise flawed legacies.

Faith has inspired Americans in high office towards excellence, towards tolerance, and towards caring for “the least of these.” Indeed, as former Governor Mitt Romney said in his famous “Faith Speech,” the American values of “equality of humankind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty . . . are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.” Faith has influenced American leaders as far back as the Revolutionary War, when the signatories to the Declaration of Independence included notable clergymen like John Witherspoon, and in the war’s aftermath, when George Washington assured the Jewish congregants of the Touro Synagogue that America would give “to bigotry no sanction,” and when James Madison pushed to enshrine religious freedom in the Bill of Rights. In more recent times, former President Jimmy Carter strove for universal healthcare and human rights while in office and afterwards at the Carter Center, and he also built homes with Habitat for Humanity—all on account of his faith. Former President George W. Bush cited the importance of faith and faith-based organizations in the fight against HIV/AIDS>, to which he contributed by pledging $15B towards a global fund. Former President Barack Obama partnered with churches to fight unemployment and to feed needy children.

The American Solidarity Party champions religious freedom, both by supporting religious institutions in their refusal to perform activities contrary to their beliefs, and by affirming laws which protect the right of people of faith to practice and live out their religion without intimidation in the public square. It maintains that religious freedom transcends the “freedom of worship” afforded inside the walls of a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other place of worship. Today, the religious freedom of public servants is increasingly under fire. When President Kennedy’s suitability to become our nation’s leader was being challenged because of his Catholicism, he warned: “Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.” Our current situation renders his words prophetic. So, as disparate as our dogmas can be, let’s continue to fight the good fight for religious freedom in order to perpetuate the redeeming legacy of those that have come before us: that those Americans for whom dogma speaks loudest are often those most qualified to serve.

About the Author

Tai-Chi Kuo currently serves as Vice-Treasurer on the National Committee of the American Solidarity Party and as Vice-Chairman of the American Solidarity Party of Illinois. He is a first-generation Asian-American immigrant who began pursuing his American Dream at the tender age of four when his family emigrated from the Republic of China (Taiwan) and settled in the Chicagoland area. Tai-Chi is an Evangelical Christian who attends a historically Chinese-American church and who began his journey into politics after hearing a message on the subject of “Public Faith” exhorting Christians not to withdraw from public service, but to engage deeply with American society on the pressing issues of our times. He joined the American Solidarity Party in the summer of 2017 and has been active as an officer in its Illinois chapter since that time. Tai-Chi is passionate about religious freedom, faith in the public square, Asian-American issues, and Greater China issues.

Professionally, Tai-Chi has worked in roles related to project management and business analysis for over ten years on numerous financial services, technology, and legal projects. Tai-Chi holds a Juris Doctor from Loyola University Chicago and is currently pursuing his Master of Business Administration (online) from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, which is also his undergraduate alma mater where he majored in Advertising and minored in East Asian Languages and Cultures. Tai-Chi is engaged to be married in 2019 and has family in Illinois, Hawaii, Taipei, Beijing, and Fuzhou. During his free time, Tai-Chi enjoys reading, playing board games, listening to opera, and practicing martial arts.

Civil Asset Forfeiture: When Law Enforcement Agencies Become Highway Robbers

By Eric Anton, National Committee Member

There is a general perception in the United States that the law enforcement community exists to protect and serve the general population. Indeed, this reputation is largely deserved; I contrast this with the experiences of many in other countries where the police are largely seen as dishonorable pests to deal with. In my time in Afghanistan, a large number of the locals I interacted with saw the police as being in the same category as locusts or any other natural disaster that could never be avoided, but only endured. Sadly, many of our fellow citizens find their interactions with the police to be fraught with peril, violence, and outright oppression, and thus view law enforcement in much the same way as the Afghans do. The causes of their negative experiences are myriad and vexing, but at least one of these outrages can be traced to greed; its corrupting influence is a pestilence which threatens many of the basic provisions of justice that most of us take for granted in this nation.

Here I am speaking of “civil asset forfeiture,” which is a legal tool by which the law enforcement community can seize property that they allege to have been involved in a certain criminal activity. This property can include everything from cash, to cars, to real estate. Law enforcement may employ this process without charging the property owner with a crime, because they are bringing the charges of criminal wrongdoing against the property itself, rather than against its owner. The legal test in such cases is generally “the preponderance of evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and there is a presumption of guilt rather than of innocence. Thus, the property owner must prove innocence to contest the seizure after the fact, while the state does not need to prove guilt prior to seizing the assets. In consequence, the stories of completely innocent persons having their property seized and being driven into grinding poverty without so much as a criminal charge, let alone a criminal conviction, have grown too numerous to count.

Now, imagine this: you are a young black male driving at night and you get pulled over by the cops. You’re concerned because you have a criminal record for some minor crimes in the past, but you’ve turned your life around. In fact, you are now a small business owner; you’ve just closed up for the night and are on your way home. Without warning, the cops take you out of your car, handcuff you, and detain you without reading you your rights or telling you what was wrong. They search your car and find the day’s take from your restaurant: over seventeen thousand dollars. After two hours of this abuse, you’re released, but your car has been impounded and the cash that you were going to use to buy supplies and equipment for your business has been confiscated. You have not been charged with a crime. This actually happened to a man named Mandrel Stuart in 2014, and his is not the only example out there. Civil asset forfeiture is a distressingly common occurrence during traffic stops and is tainted with the stench of racial profiling. Furthermore, it is incredibly difficult for people to get their property back, especially for racial minorities, who are already looked upon with suspicion by the justice system. In many cases, law enforcement has pressured property owners to renounce ownership of their property in order to avoid facing criminal charges, as happened to Javier Gonzalez, whom Texas police threatened in 2008 with a money laundering charge if he didn’t give them a briefcase of ten thousand dollars in cash that he was carrying.

So, why do the police do this? In most states, the police are allowed to keep the assets and use them to fund their own departments, or can get around state restrictions on this practice by teaming up with federal agencies through the “equitable sharing” system, in which the federal and local agencies divide the spoils amongst themselves. It can reasonably be surmised that greed has infected the whole process and that some police departments have taken on the role of brigands who steal from the poor and racial minorities—people without the political or economic power to challenge these outrages. A recent report in South Carolina found that black males represent thirteen percent of the population, yet accounted for sixty-five percent of those whose assets were confiscated. This same report found that fifty-five percent of the seizures that involved cash were of amounts less than a thousand dollars. In other words, the police in South Carolina are focusing their brigandage on those who do not have the means to fight back.

The American Solidarity Party should become an advocate to help the poor and disenfranchised by overturning this monumentally unjust practice. We champion the rights of the poor, minorities, and those who face oppression from our criminal justice system. Ending civil asset forfeiture should be a key component in our drive to reform the system and to correct the historic injustices inflicted on the most vulnerable people in our society.

Against Leeroy Jenkins-ism: Solidarity and Subsidiarity on the World Stage

By Patrick Harris
American Solidarity Party National Committee, Secretary

Subsidiarity is one of the concepts that gets thrown around a lot in discussions of Christian democratic politics—for good reason, to be sure. Different forms and levels of governance exist for different purposes, and higher levels should support, not supplant, lower forms. Ordinarily, this principle is used (and sometimes abused) in discussions about whether or how the state should intervene in a particular economic or social issue. But there’s really no issue in which the logic of subsidiarity is clearer and more obvious than in foreign policy.

Put simply, it’s good that there are different countries. They exist for a reason. That doesn’t mean nationalism is an unmixed good, of course; untempered by an acknowledgement of human dignity that is borderless, it can be quite dangerous. Yet, it remains true that people are best able to govern themselves in community with others with whom they share interests, values, traditions, and institutions. Likewise, the people best qualified to decide the internal arrangements of a country are the people who will live with the consequences.

Consequently, there is, or ought to be, a very high bar to clear for one country to meddle in the internal politics of another. The capacity to intervene is not the same thing as the competence or the right to do so, even in the service of a good cause. We understand this in domestic politics when, say, the state government makes it impossible for a town to change its property taxes or zoning laws. We understand this in private life when your Aunt Helen won’t shut up about how you should really change your tacky drapes and keeps telling your kids they can come live with her if you won’t let them keep a golden retriever in your walk-up apartment.

The current US foreign-policy establishment is a bit of an Aunt Helen—if Aunt Helen had eleven aircraft-carrier strike groups and a recurring habit of cluster-bombing the houses of people with bad drapes.

Admittedly, the comparison is a tad frivolous. There are a lot of terrible rulers in the world today, with terrible crimes to their names. Until a few years ago, Muammar Gaddafi, the former leader of Libya, was one of them. Despite decades of not posing a tangible threat to the United States and voluntarily giving up its nuclear program, it’s safe to say Gaddafi’s regime was not a Jeffersonian democracy. Gaddafi massacred Libyan citizens in an attempt to hang on to power, and threatened to massacre more. So, as a noted American stateswoman put it gleefully, “We came, we saw, he died.”

These days, Libya has open-air slave markets and a dangerous ISIS affiliate, and has been in (another) civil war for the past five years.

Outcomes like those in Libya are why American politics needs a party with a commitment to just war principles. They show why it’s important for the American Solidarity Party to offer a credible and coherent alternative to the two-party duopoly in foreign policy, not only in terms of condemning unjust wars, but also in taking a critical view of the mindset that makes them possible in the first place. Part of that mindset is the assumption that the interests of the United States are essentially boundless, that there is no place in the world where we do not have the right—even the duty—to intervene. Part of it is the belief that, in any given crisis, doing something is always better than doing nothing, since American “credibility” is at stake. Part of it is the hope against hope that there are always readily-identifiable “good guys” in every situation, and that American attempts to tip the scales on their behalf will never backfire.

A countervailing force for realism and restraint is desperately needed. That’s true not just in the case of the wars we fight directly; it’s also true of conflicts we facilitate through proxies and clients. (I’ve written about the disaster that is Yemen here, and things have gotten worse since then.) It’s true of our efforts to coerce foreign governments through sanctions and to dictate the outcomes of foreign elections or political crises through ostensibly peaceful means, which have a peculiar way of escalating.

Late last month, Marco Rubio provided a great case in point, as he often does. The senior senator from Florida appeared to taunt Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by tweeting a series of pictures of deposed foreign dictators, including an image of Muammar Gaddafi when he was in power juxtaposed with his bloody visage while he was being tortured and killed by an angry mob during the Libyan Civil War (the one in 2011). Aside from proving that borderline sociopathy is a bipartisan condition when it comes to foreign affairs, Rubio’s tweet makes clear that the most diehard hawks are happy to piggyback off the more limited steps the US has taken to intervene in Venezuela.

Make no mistake: in recognizing the opposition leaders and attempting to assist them in ousting the Maduro government, the US has already committed itself to a policy of regime change. If the situation there worsens further, it is entirely possible that we will find out what President Trump’s assertion that “all options are on the table” really means. The potential slide toward more drastic measures is precisely why a party committed to just war principles should seek to promote a broader strategic posture of restraint. As one of the great cultural touchstones for Millennials reminds us, fools rush in.

You might ask, “What about solidarity?” Shouldn’t we care about people suffering under corrupt governments? Far be it from me to suggest that solidarity stops at the water’s edge. International cooperation should be part of any Solidarist platform. We should seek peace among nations and common effort on questions of common concern. None of that makes the United States an effective or disinterested arbiter in the affairs of every nation on the globe.

National sovereignty is not an absolute good, nor is restraint the same thing as isolation. But the overwhelming tendency in American foreign policy for decades has been toward attempts to expand American hegemony, with disasters like the Iraq War brushed aside as mere aberrations. Meanwhile, a huge swath of the electorate, cutting across party lines, is looking for an alternative to an interventionist consensus that does a disservice to both our interests and our values. The American Solidarity Party can be that alternative, if it is willing to look beyond the stale and destructive clichés that have shaped our foreign policy debates for far too long.

Presidential Candidate Spotlight – Joe Schriner

It started in 1990. I felt a spiritual calling to leave my profession, my home—I was a mental health counselor in private practice in suburban Cleveland—and go on the road. I did.

This was the start of an eight-year, 150,000 mile research journey across America. From town to town, and quite serendipitously, I would meet these amazing people who had developed phenomenal local models to help women in crisis pregnancy, save the environment, heal families, curb crime, promote peace, bring social justice to the poor, and so on.

It was as if God, below the surface of the “cacophony of dysfunction” going on in the country, was developing these models as building blocks to, ultimately, dramatically shift America—when the time was right.
I took a lot of notes.

Prior to being a counselor, I’d been a journalist. I met Liz on a research trip through Alaska. We got married, started having kids, and kept traveling. After the eight years, we settled for a short period. During this time, through more considered spiritual discernment, we were inspired to take the notes, draft them into position papers, establish an overarching platform based on the research—and start the run for President.

Funny though, the resulting platform didn’t match up, across the board, with any party’s platform. Pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, yes, but also pro-environment and pro-social justice. What our platform did match up with was Catholic social teaching. I knew something about that because I am a strong Catholic versed in those teachings.

We launched on the presidential quest in April of 1999. Since then, it has been: six successive election cycles, 100,000 miles of campaign traveling, some 1,000 newspaper articles, some 200 regional network TV news shows, hundreds of radio shows, a good number of college talks, and a whole lot of street corner stumping.

We’ve reached millions. And we’ve used various strategies from our previous research to plant seeds that then ripple out into the wider community from there. This has spanned 20 years now, and counting.

In 2012, I was contacted by the Christian Democratic Party (now the American Solidarity Party). They wanted to “endorse” me in that campaign. When I checked out the website, I was astounded! It matched our platform, almost exactly. I accepted the endorsement. During the 2016 campaign, I was approached about considering vying for the ASP nomination. I declined because, at the time, I had decided to focus my energy more on internal campaign work. That’s done.

Our campaign, we believe, now stands at a “tipping point.” What’s more, the ASP now seems to have more of a nationwide structure in place (albeit kind of a “Gideon’s Army” numbers wise). The synergy, with God’s grace, should surprise everyone!

So . . . my “passion” is to see the models we’ve researched inspire people in every town across the country, and what better way to mobilize that than through the Presidency? Concurrently, I want to see the ASP become a quite formidable mainstream Party in this country, soon!
What a wild ride this combination could be!

Skip to toolbar