Hi Byron Hathaway, thanks for your reply. Here are some responses to your questions (in italics)

You mention reclaiming Judeo-Christian values without including the third pillar of the family of Abraham; Muslims. Why is that? Why did you not include the values of Sikh families, or Buddhists, or Shinto, or atheists?

Two reasons — 1) Quantitatively, Christians make up the bulk of the US population and vast majority of the traditional Rupublican base. So it would only be fitting to build on that. I could easily have dropped the “Judeo” part, I suppose. 2) There is no reason not to extend modern conservatism to all faiths or a-theists, but there’s are elements of other belief systems that are incompatible with American values. Sharia is one big example. According to Pew Research Center, it’s still a widely held belief system across the Muslim world. That said, I don’t think the new conservative platform should have any religious elements. There should be separation of “church and state”. Merely, that it should draw on some of those values.

Does framing your quest for a return to J-C values mean you support our continued crusade(s) against “others”?

Not at all. No crusades.

You mention conservatives used to “make the numbers work”, but fail to mention, the most prosperous time in American history, when the country was led by a conservative, when the numbers worked, and when tax policy paid for a sane and civilized America, was when Eisenhower held office.

Is that because it takes tax contributions from everyone to make the numbers work and asking for higher taxes is verboten?

This wasn’t a comprehensive piece in that regard. Ike dealt with a very different and considerably smaller country. Modern-day leaders need to master global trade, geopolitics, and internal administrative & infrastructure complexity in ways that didn’t come to light until Reagan and possibly, Clinton. That said, both cost management and taxation must remain on the table to stabilize our finances. Even this last tax bill didn’t hesitate to raise taxes on all the groups Republicans don’t like, mostly in blue states.

You mention father-mother, two parent households as an optimum configuration for the running of America. Can those two roles be filled by two men, or two women, or mixed-race couples?

Sure.

The first consideration; all citizens must have equal access to adequate nutrition.

This is possible and we’re well on our way to this. Question is at which level should this be done? I don’t think this should be a right or obligation at the federal level. It’s fundamentally a local issue and should be handled by cities or states.

The second; all citizens must have adequate shelter.

Same as above.

The third; all citizens must have cradle to grave health care without fear of bankruptcy.

I generally agree. I’m doing my next podcast episode (1st week of Jan) on creating viable universal care. My math shows it’s only possible at the Federal level.

And last; all citizens must have access to life-long learning opportunities.

Yes. But not sure if this should be a right dictated top-down. I do think funds should be available to get people re-tooled as the economy shifts. But ownership of those tools should remain in the private sector, which is more responsive to market needs. Again, strong arguments exist for keeping this at state/local levels since regional economies vary dramatically. May be a block grant to states.

The above four considerations, the cornerstones of the conservative-socialist’s agenda, underpin the socialist side of my beliefs. The conservative side, requires a complete rewriting of our tax code.

I wrote an extensive piece on revamping our tax code called “How Taxes Steal Dreams”

First, we need to do away with social-security. We need to replace it with a forced, national savings account.

Ten percent of all income, from employment or from passive investment gains, goes to a form of US savings certificates. One cannot borrow against it, but if one dies before the age of 62, the account goes to surviving family members accounts.

If a saver makes it to age 62, then the account pays a monthly amount based on actuarial tables that are mathematically sound and used at that time. If a survivor outlives that amount, then, and only then, will they become a ward of their family, or of the state, if there is no family.

Your proposal is not that different from Social Security. Mainly differs in investment allocation and distribution rules. Could be done within the existing construct. Without doing the math, I ave no way of knowing how the numbers would compare.

Second, there is no income tax. This form of enslavement is abolished once and for all and replaced with a consumption tax.

In the tax piece linked above, I propose a consumption tax + a tax on assets. I agree w/shifting away from income tax. Creates a bad incentive.

Government needs, State Department, defense, justice, NIH, and so on, will be paid for from a form of resource replacement-value added tax. This does two things which benefit all of us.

It gives nothing away. If you want to drive to work on a moped, you pay a fixed tax. If you want to fly to work in a Gulfstream jet, you pay a fixed tax. Both percentages are identical.

It conserves the environment. By configuring the tax code in such a way as to make restoring resources a priority (you cut a tree down, you plant a tree), it stops the unbridled pillaging of our planet (at least in the 50 states and territories).

A consumption tax + asset tax would accomplish much of this. Doesn’t need to go down to the activity level.

The absolute bull-shit being perpetrated by all sides, including me, needs to answer two questions with truth. Are we going to face our future together and are we going to pay to get there with fiscally sound policy?

If you want to exclude classes of people or send “them” back, say so. If you want to conquer the world, say so. Nothing breeds contempt or foments disaffection faster than half-truths.

The time for a return to sane discussions and honest discourse is upon us.

We need a new constitutional convention to decide what our national values are. Until then, it doesn’t matter what the ideas are or how good they are. If there’s no will to execute them, they may as well not exist.