While there have been doubtless wrongful actions here, such as attempts to violently (and illegally) crush what amounts to a public speaking up against a system that has been set up against them, I find many people voicing comments that advocate violence against them.  That is unacceptable.  Both OWS and TP are using their First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.  And regardless of how the media spin either (or fail to comment at all), it's important for your elected leaders to listen to their grievances so that the underlying problems can be addressed.  And while there is the occasional person that goes too far (who the media tend to focus on), the reality is that there are hundreds and even thousands of others that are protesting and organizing peacefully, who have legitimate, workable grievances and occasionally, bright ideas for how we can make things better.

The fact is that the Tea Partiers, at their core, do not feel that their money paid into taxes is being used in a matter that is accountable and in a method that benefits them.  They feel that the taxes that they pay greatly exceed what they get out of it.  I understand this, and would like to add that there are many ways that we can, and should reduce the taxpayer burden.  

Occupy has the same issue from another angle.  Many OWS supporters feel that businesses--and I will be very explicit here that I am referring to multinational corporations--are favored by our government more than citizens are, and enjoy special rights and statuses that lone citizens and small to medium businesses simply do not enjoy.  From what I have seen myself, I do agree.  In a nation that is said to be of the People, for the People, and by the People, concentrating authority in the hands of a wealthy few is reckless and wrongful.

While there has been a lot of argument on Capitol Hill--such as the argument on whether deregulation is the answer, the fears of raising taxes on "job creators" out of fear that they will run away to more exploitable pastures, and over what role the government has in maintaining the economy, the answers are pretty simple.   Whatever we were doing--we should stop doing that.

I do believe that regulation is important.  The 2008 crash was not due to failings in the process of regulation in and of itself--which had kept us safe from repeats since the end of the Great Depression (which was, itself, caused by fiscal irresponsibility)--but because these regulations have been steadily undermined by politicians of both major parties that had either the naivete/hubris to believe that such a travesty could not happen on their watch and campaigns that needed funding.  Palms were greased, campaigns were funded, regulations were lifted, and the inevitable happened. Now they are calling for even more leeway for their recklessness, and even want to "privatize" (another word for steal) public resources in order to fill their irresponsible lust for money.   

That is why I firmly stand with the need to regulate big businesses.  Small to medium businesses and lone taxpayers should not have to fund multinational corporations.  As many of us working-class persons are having to resort to revolving credit to make ends meet, we can't afford to keep paying for their mistakes.

That said, let me get on with my plan for economic sustainability.  And it all starts with a mythical race that we hear time and time in the news, the "Job Creators".

The problem with the phrase is that it's pointed at the wrong people.  The vast majority of employers are not multinational corporations and high-profile stock traders.  They are small to medium businesses and government.  As the government is there to serve the people, that means that small to medium businesses are the true job creators, as they create a much higher number of jobs than multinationals (who are more prone to ship overseas and/or hire black market labor as it's "more cost effective").  It is these sole proprietorships, small businesses, and medium businesses that put more Arkansans to work.  It is they who we should work to reduce any burdens on.

We should work to institute a statewide, single-payor healthcare plan that all citizens may enjoy if they do not already have medical insurance.  This would reduce a significant burden on small to medium businesses who struggle to provide medical benefits to employees--benefits that can greatly influence an employee to stay at a company or leave for greener pastures (taking talent and experience with them.)  Those that already have medical insurance or choose to purchase independent insurance will not be obligated to utilize this plan, and would receive a reimbursement for their "premium" of the statewide plan in lieu of the benefit.  This is no different than any other insurance plan, except in payment method (deducted through state payroll taxes) and the buying power that comes with so large a pool of participants.  As crushing medical debt is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy, this system would also safeguard the family against unexpected tragedy.

The next step is to increase wages.  While the wages of the upper echelons of society have soared, those of the working-class have stagnated.  The average adult male earns wages that are lower (when adjusted for inflation) than they were 30 years ago.  It is for that reason that we should first discover a liveable wage--enough for 1 1/2 person to make a respectable living on--then fix the minimum wage at that rate, adjusting every year for inflation or deflation.

Many raise a red flag here saying that increasing wages will lead only to businesses moving out of state or overseas.  This is possible, but if you look around at the sheer number of closed factories in our state, you will see that this has been happening anyway.  Any given city can point to several factories that were brought into the state, often subsidized by the taxpayers'  money, then abandoned for cheaper labor.  It is happening even without raising wages, and is leaving our communities devastated.  Which is why I propose also that we work toward revitalizing local economies: any factory that is out of production for over one year, which was partially subsidized by taxpayers' funds, should be claimed under Eminent Domain and turned over to the workers so that it can be run as an employee-owned and employee-managed workers' cooperative.  This would help to create a sustainable local economy and jobs, and the workers' direct governance of these businesses will encourage responsibility to the community, workers' safety from job flight, and create a sense of pride in our products once again.  And as more people are able to make a living through these newfound jobs, we can expect the economy to pick up rapidly, with a more equitable (though not completely equal) distribution of wealth.

To sum this up, here is the essence of my plan:  The true job creators are small to medium businesses, not big banks that stockpile profits.  A progressive tax as well as taxing credit swaps and trades is necessary to keeping the wealth from being stockpiled, allowing it to be circulated.  Much of the burden to small and medium businesses lies in the costs of employee healthcare benefits, which we can alleviate with a statewide, single-payor healthcare system, and in maintaining a customer base in a shrinking local economy.  Local economies can, in turn, be revitalized by reclaiming taxpayer-subsidized closed factories and developing employee-managed workers' cooperatives to run them, providing steady employment and true generation of wealth.