Reasons for passing Omnibus Constitutional Amendment and PIPECCAA

 The changes to the House of Representatives, Senate and Presidency entailed in this amendment are designed specifically to mitigate the problems of the pro-demagogue anti-establishment vote. In the MIT study entitled "When the 'lying demagogue' is the Authentic Candidate" by Brian Eastwood April 17, 2018, it was found that people who perceive themselves as consistently not having their interests represented, particularly if they are of a group who has been historically favored and are losing privileges, or can see that some established interest group is being favored at their perceived expense, then they will choose candidate options designed to poison the system where if the establishment criticisms someone, regardless of the validity of the criticism, those of the perceived marginalized community will back that person as "my pariah."

With the new system for the House of Representatives, instead of marginalized people simply voting for the most poisonous of two candidates, they can instead vote for the candidate of 10000 on their ballot of the 10 to 12 parties that best represents that person's desire to specifically take away public support for the interest group within the establishment that is making that person feel like a pariah; and furthermore all influencers can easily put forward themselves and their beliefs to see if they stick with even 143 thousand people because the job of a Representative is nearly costless as they can quickly outsource the job of membership on a committee to someone in the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office and make policy quickly by simply faxing their bills to every member to sign wherever they may be.

What will then happen is most of the pariah candidate in the 10 to 12 parties will divide up enough of their pariah votes due to the low cost barrier to entry that the voters who care about running the country well can back the most constructive member of the party that has reasonable name recognition who will thus have the vast majority of the seats the party is entitled to as the pariah candidates crack the pariah vote and some may get less than the 143 thousand necessary to qualify for a seat.

Specifically, Matt from Demolition Ranch will become the head of the Gun Rights party with 42 to 41 percent of the vote for the party overall, with the strict libertarians who join him necessarily not being able to centralize among one of their own, thus giving Matt the leadership of the party such that cool government programs in his eye could still be funded, while appeasing his back benchers by making sure what he does regularly on his YouTube channel remains legal.

On the other side of the anti-establishment wave that wants to do cool stuff while preventing defense contractors from getting the goodies we will see the Space Party headed by Scott Manley who will be able to achieve the dream of a rapidly reusable first stage that consists of a molten salt thorium reactor with antimatter pumped fusion that is built entirely in-house by NASA and the department of Energy as he bleeds off enough votes from Elon Musk, Mark Rober and Neil DeGrasse Tyson to be the head of the party while the rest get one seat each by being antiestablishment for that very desire.

There will otherwise be anti-establishment parties like the Communist Party, the Black Lives Matter Party, and the anti-feminists party, but it is likely that they will not beat the 4% threshold as their supporters get bled off into the more reasonable Social Justice and Anti-Abortion Parties, as well as the Oprah Party, the Ellen DeGeneres Party, the Stephen Colbert Party, the Tom Hanks Party, the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Party, the Hollywood Party, and the Anti-Hollywood Party.

This way, people can decide which party to support based on what that party's name implies that party as supporting. This then gets rid of the less sensible tribalism inherent in using the Democrat and Republican terms, and replacing it with tribalism around what kinds of policies are consistent with a "good" society, which is what public discourse was supposed to be about anyways.

The Senate, like all other elected positions throughout the United States will still use the two party labels for convenience, and will expand to accommodate the other party in non-voting seats within seats where say, since Mitch McConnel won Kentucky with more than 60% of the vote, he would get 4 while his opponent gets 1 starting 6 years from now, of which 3 seats within a seat are necessary to exercise that seat's one vote in the Senate, but all 5 seats must be exercised in order to speak on the floor.

Demagogery is prevented in the opposite way with respect to the House, where demonizing politicians of the other party is mutually assured destruction as, in a close race, voters from both parties will be willing to vote for nationalizing the vote of the state thereby removing the power of that Senate seat for purposes other than confirming or rejecting appointments, placing the rest of that power into national referendums and petitions introducing legislation where funding bills become a line-item passage via the median of the percentages of revenue that voters put in, thus allowing them to get rid of the programs their Senate candidates have told them to demonize about the other candidate's intentions, and conversely increase funding for things that do cool stuff or that cut down on establishment corruption, or so forth. You will still have your guaranteed income, but the prestige of being a Senator can be more obviously decreased.

The way this amendment protects the Presidency from demagogues is with the understanding that (1) the government can continue to function without a President, (2) a President should only be in office when enough people believe in their ability to use it for good, and (3) that anti-establishment folk can be satisfied with the appearance of less people intervening in their lives, regardless of the accuracy of that perception, and (4) impeachment and conviction will never be able to hold a President accountable because the forced compromise entailed by the process of electing a President can't convey to members of Congress that the people might actually want the President removed.

Therefore, the solution to this is with two steps; the first step is having the people vote for all the candidates they like with approval voting, where the Democrats will choose all the Democrats, the Republicans will choose all the Republicans, and the independents will choose some combination of the two, of which the top four candidates by vote totals become the only options the House and Senate can choose from, with the default being that the current President or two stay in office until 10 time 365 times 24 hours have passed, disqualifying themselves and their Vice President successors (recursively downward except where such wins another election and goes through the same process) from holding the Presidency.

When it is clear that the only options are demagogues, this process prevents forced competition thus giving the potentially best option of no President. This will probably entail passing a law that removes people resolved against by the House of Representatives, and replacement by another cabinet-level person who chooses someone from those deemed qualified by some civil service board, where the choice of which Secretary making that decision is done by the same resolution removing someone from the executive branch.

If such legislation is made 10 years from now and no President is chosen by you before Biden steps down, then this effectively turns the Speaker of the House into a semi-Prime Minister, who can only order things to happen via suggestion within the powers already granted to secretaries and other officers. Of course, without this legislation the Speaker of the House would be a quasi-Prime Minister, executing his authority by a suggestion of a suggestion depending on the extent to which Senators are willing to pass legislation to, on a case-by-case basis, disestablish an office and reestablish it with a replacement chosen by someone else in the executive branch heads of departments. It is likely that Senators will pass the former legislation only when it is clear that their voters have replaced them with referendums, which will correspond to the 10 year mark from the passage of this amendment just prior to when Joe Biden will no longer be in office, being replaced by no one and thus starting a new age of Parliamentary governance that gets explicit support for policies by the will of the people, rather than by relative fear mongering of "which policies will hurt me the least."

The first section of the Omnibus amendment deals with the well-known problem of how a country gradually moves toward fascism by hollowing out the independent institutions, or in this case as considered by the executive committee on stacking the courts, filling them up with yes-men, which is worse since this entails an exponential growth in the number of judges, which means that the system will collapse as there won't be enough non-judges left after 10 doubling times.

The amendment otherwise deals with the problems of judicial elections, since those necessarily will have people consider things like your ability to purchase advertising time instead of your ability to interpret laws fairly. There's also the well-known fact that Presidents have substantially more constructive media criticism of their appointments, with people everywhere knowing more about what the President is doing than what their state government is doing, so, in the absence of popular support in a state for getting rid of judicial elections, we have their replacements chosen by the President, not counting against their maximum number of appointments in a term, starting 5 years from the passage of this amendment.

This gives 5 years for Joe Biden to appoint their replacements to be there for good behavior as well as to develop the life-extension technology necessary to make sure the courts continue to exist in the absence of the President, should the House and Senate not coalesce around someone before then.

The section on monotonically decreasing restrictions on someone convicted of a crime are such that https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/mar/10/to-get-thrown-back-in-jail-its-cruel-the-legal-nightmare-of-actor-amy-locane does not happen. This is a matter of making sure that someone actually has a reason to celebrate and be reintegrated into society once the person gets any sort of decrease in the restrictions imposed (such as in being granted parole (which could still mean going back to prison if another crime is committed by the person)).

The second division of the omnibus amendment is all about making the United States more competitive and fair in every respect. In some ways, this does accomplish what Bernie Sanders says he wants, while making sure it is as opposed to his heart's desire of what the economy should look like as possible. Specifically, businesses can now lay off all their tax attorneys other than for figuring out state taxes, with a tax on income and profits of any entity in the United States based on income time the arctangent of the natural logarithm o income, close parenthesis on the the natural logarithm multiplied by 3 divided by 50 close parenthesis on the arctangent divided by pi, and then a tax on land property of total value of all property owned by an entity times the arctangent  of the natural logarithm of land property value close parenthesis on the natural logarithm divided by lambda close parenthesis on the arctangent divided by pi where lambda starts at 1000 in the first year and gradually decreases by one each year until it reaches 50. There are then 5 exemptions total that don't require interpretation really. This tax is progressive with someone who earns 100k paying 19k and Apple paying a tax rate of 30.9%.

The progressive nature of the land taxes means that homeownership will increase as landlords realize they can make more money while keeping rent the same on paper by giving tenants an indefinite mortgage that has them pay the rent they are currently paying as interest, because the division of a piece of property to more owners, provided they own independent slices, reduces the overall tax burden. 

This also fights gentrification and inflation of house prices by forcing Wall Street out of the rental property business, especially with the understanding that taxes will increase every time someone pays a higher price and every year that passes.

This tax bill also destroys zoning laws as they currently exist by forcing local government to be liable for a tax equal to the property tax on all private property in their jurisdiction that they prevent from being developed other than rules that require not to code buildings be built with 1 foot thick concrete walls reinforced with high nickel steel with doors made out of 6 inch thick high nickel steel with biometric and unpick able mechanical locks, a sink, toilet, a couple of 120V outlets, good heating, and good A/C.

This gives developers a clear standard to pursue the housing projects that are needed everywhere to hold the 500,000 homeless people and growing, and they can sue people who prevent this on the paradigm of mutually assured destruction that those entities have to pay vast taxes to Uncle Sam.

To prevent Congress from undermining this necessary feature, bills reducing someone's tax liability by appropriating money to them can only be in bills that eliminate themselves after 2 years, and there's a specific prohibition on giving more money to local governments that impose zoning laws than they received in 2016. There's also a prohibition on imposing any other kinds of taxes except duties and excises which are not themselves in contravention of free trade treaties going forward, and only imposed on particular types of goods.

The new framework for calculating state and local taxes with federal taxes which goes into effect 365 days from division B going into effect is such that no one in an area that just uses property taxes and income/profits taxes will ever have to pay more than 50% of their net income after property taxes are accounted for; and that property taxes are strictly limited relative to the money that can be derived from rent in the same area (both legal and illegal rental contracts), accounting for the property tax (meaning that no more than 50% of the possible rent could ever be paid as taxes on the property (a necessary feature given that the federal property tax rate will increase over time)). This tax is thus calculated on the property value, assessed downwards according to how much possible rent would have to be spent on taxes (and assessed upwards whenever the free market of mortgages decreases the interest rate of mortgages.

The 4th division is all about making sure that online platforms like YouTube protect fair use, and that, if Google no longer sees it profitable or useful to continue supporting its intellectual side and political criticism that the Treasury shall maintain that into perpetuity. The other part of it is in making sure that no trade secrets or intellectual property may last more than 80 years without being placed in the public domain, with the destruction of valuable source code to prevent this from happening being illegal.

The 5th division may be as important as the 2nd and 3rd division (reforms the voting systems of the federal government). What the 5th division does is prohibit local governments from raising revenue except from uniform taxation methods, such as an income tax or property tax, and which taxes can only increase via a referendum. All other sources of revenue, such as fines are taxed at 100% by the federal government except fees approved by referendum (fines for noise violations in highly populated areas are allowed to be kept by local governments because noise pollution is damaging to people's health in rather insidious ways (and that fines over noise violations can be used to reduce the number of gasoline-powered cars in city centers, thus making them more walkable and less polluted)). Civil asset forfeiture by local police where they take cash or precious metal coins is considered as though the police officer in question is a highway robber without any title to a governmental position. This means the United States becomes a great place to do business as businesses can know well beforehand what they are getting into and everyone can have a say in the most important part of politics, which imo, is not the name of the person in office, but is how the money gets spent and where it comes from. Reducing fines and fees and getting rid of civil asset forfeiture of cash gets rid of what can clearly be seen as a de facto regressive tax. Of course, fines could be imposed on things that are in everyone's interest to get rid of, but now there will no longer be an incentive for local government leaders to find things to criminalize to fill the budget deficits.

The 6th division is important as a matter of fairness, but it could be accomplished by passing normal legislation. Enshrining it here means that future business leaders who get into power do not try to give themselves an easier time going bankrupt than the poorest people. Currently, bankruptcy law is such that you ironically need money in order to declare bankruptcy, which should not be the case. The way that this amendment is set out, all bankruptcy judges will have the responsibility and the authority to reinterpret bankruptcy law and assign their dockets in order that the poorest people can come in, explain their issues and provide evidence of their hardship under the relevant sections of bankruptcy code (of which they can use any currently enforced bankruptcy law that best benefits them (even if the law states out requirements for a particular kind of corporation, the poor person can basically say "I'm something of a corporation myself", as well as not needing to pay any filing fee)). The deference bankruptcy court judges will give to the poorest debtors is a legal term corresponding to the Chevron Decision by the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court gave deference to executive agencies for figuring out what the laws that control the agency's conduct means. In other words, the poorest debtors themselves are necessarily considered like the executive agencies in how the debtor can reasonably interpret the bankruptcy laws that are protecting them from creditors in a way that gets them the best possible result that Congress was willing to allow anyone to have. If Congress were to incentivize a particular industry by providing it with very broad bankruptcy protections, the poorest debtors will not have the authority to reinterpret those provisions to provide themselves with the same bankruptcy protections (minus any part of the provision that would require any sort of fee). This effectively reigns in Congress back to their original mandate to have "uniform bankruptcy laws" under Article I, Section 8, where the poor can get the same treatment (or better treatment given how the U.S. has historically made it very expensive to be poor) as the rich. There's also the other feature that it is likely that the Senate (while elected as people to exercise its power) will be unlikely to ever make things easier for poor debtors given how they rely on corporations to get their special projects done, who are in turn more influenced by creditors on other policy matters. Even if the people vest themselves with the power of the Senate via referendums, it is likely that creditors will be able to run scare campaigns to stop measures that would protect the poor during bankruptcy, and it is equally likely that all that may ever get passed in any year will just consist of whatever can be put in an appropriations bill or accomplishes some cool project in space flight or stops an existential threat that the richest can get behind. John Oliver has a great video on the inequities of bankruptcy law here: https://youtu.be/GzFG0Cdh8D8

The 7th section of the Amendment (division I) is all about carrying out the revised maxim "If it sounds like a soldier, hurts like a soldier, gets trained to think like a soldier, then treat it like a soldier." Basically, anyone who wishes to be a part of a government monopoly on violence, or paramilitary force, will now have to face an extremely tough crowd when trying to justify the force used to kill unarmed civilians, and face extremely long prison sentences or other punishments that civil courts do not oversee. This amendment also has the feature of increasing people's awareness about different voting systems that can be substantially fairer than first past the post, and allow the people who feel marginalized (all the members of the lower house of a legislature that are not on chairs of committees) or who have a strong interest in a fairer voting system (the voters themselves, by ballot initiative) to cause states to have fair voting systems. This also allows people to more readily express their policy preferences over time as a proportionally elected lower chamber can use the votes of the people in a referendum to turn the state into a Parliamentary-style democracy, with the Speaker replacing the governor's powers, or to simply use the lower chamber as a jumping-off point to make the upper chamber represent more diverse viewpoints, specifically via the globally ranked-choice voting system where the minority voices in the state can strategically vote in such a way to stop different programs that may be hurting the people in ways that are unclear (as things go in economics w.r.t. politics). It really all comes down to the way in which the people of a state view the answer to the question of "who shall watch the watchers." Electing a proportionally representative lower chamber that then chooses to make a more democratic (in some respects potentially less democratic in non-trivial ways (if using global ranked choice) that represent legitimate differences in opinion) upper chamber then allows a state to get rid of state court judges chosen by the U.S. President (literally the only way for the state to get rid of the person save for petitioning the U.S. House and Senate to impeach and convict the judge) by a 2/3rds vote of the newly representative upper chamber. I made a few changes within this amendment so as to prevent the possibility of simply turning the upper house of a state legislature into a one-party grouping. The way I did this was to make sure that the approval-voting systems were such that someone voting for multiple candidates has, on average, just one vote, so someone who knows they are in the minority party can just vote for one person in the hope that every other member of their party will vote for the same person to make sure they have some say in what goes on. The best system for minority representation in the upper chamber is probably the global ranked-choice voting without a lower limit of votes, because that basically guarantees that every party will get exactly one vote, unless there are major intra-party disagreements which result in two members of a major party getting seats (effectively the reverse of the "don't split the vote" mantra). If there are multiple classes within the upper chamber elected by global ranked choice voting (separated by 2 year increments), then a state will likely see a gradual expansion in the number of viable political parties up to the number of seats there exist in a class, which will then be seen in the gradual changes to the number of parties in the lower chamber of the state legislature as donations or other political support for smaller parties increases. The election system that is best designed to get rid of political corruption (assuming that people in a state actually listen to news about what a state party is doing, and assuming that media organizations are actually able to get the funding necessary to curate that news) is probably section 9 option 3 of division I, wherein people will be able to put a -1 next to one candidate, presumably the most controversial, or hopefully the least qualified, forcing the candidate out. Using the same section 9 option 3 in a coordinated fashion (potentially without putting any (or just a few small numbers for marginally less bad candidates) positive numbers on the ballots) allows voters to impose a real cost on corruption by kicking out an establishment without needing all that many remaining members in the upper chamber. If voters did not since approve an amendment to the state constitution to eliminate judicial elections, and the President started appointing state court judges (and assuming that it remains the case that judges appointed by Presidents are fairer than judges a state government would choose), the voters using the section 9 option 3 system can, with a lot of effort and known expectation of corrupt practices, remove the proportionally elected upper chamber in order to protect the fairer judges.

It is likely that the U.S. Attorney General, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House will avoid pre-empting the civil court system away from trying police officers and militia members as a matter of optics in pushing for fairness in one way which reduces fairness to their victims. It is also likely that a jury will not be told by the prosecutor that the jury has the right to move the case to a military tribunal in order to let the prosecutor feel like the prosecutor is doing his or her job, and similarly with the judge. The defense counsel will also try to object to anyone saying that the jury can move the case to a military tribunal as a matter of avoiding that guarantee of reducing the defendant's rights. Thus, this will leave a substantial pressure among the civil rights community in a state to force the state legislature to move towards having a proportional representation system in the lower chamber, since that will allow someone (presumably a member of the civil rights community) to have the position of Speaker, or at least be able to pressure the Speaker to send these cases to military tribunals in order to set a precedent of strong police accountability (as well as to fire police officers who may have injured bystanders even if the police officer didn't kill someone and thus couldn't be court martialled). Once the lower chamber is proportionally elected, it will suddenly have an incentive to, when it is being stalled by the upper chamber, pass an amendment on its own, which, when ratified by the people, results in the upper chamber temporarily cease to exist until the people inevitably choose in the next election to have an upper chamber. Once the 6 class, 12-year term "Senate" is made, the people will suddenly experience every type of mostly-proportional election system, which will itself have many abilities to stop corruption as far as stopping the spending programs that Parliamentary-style systems are known for, and stopping the lower house from committing financial suicide with getting rid of profitable programs (unless there is broad support of course that is committed over long periods of time), especially since the extremely long 12-year terms will drive politicians to think in the long-term. The requirement that if multiple classes start being up for re-election in the same year due to resignations, that each class be elected with a different system is to make sure that each election represents a chance for voters to express themselves in a unique way: voters will express themselves differently automatically between elections in different years, and voters will express themselves differently when faced with fractional approval voting versus ranked choice voting vs fractional approval/disapproval voting vs voting where the party label is the largest determinant, which will work to clarify what it is that voters actually want (provided they are not lazy in determining who to vote for).

The division H is there because there are many states which are close to bankruptcy. This is a problem because every state is guaranteed a representative form of government by the Constitution, which means that provision effectively closes off the only way to solve a state's problem with debt. The way to solve a government's problem with debt and wanton spending generally comes down to a lack of knowledge in (or lack of a desire to understand) economics in the political sphere; therefore such a problem government needs to have economists take the reigns of a government, and have the power to get rid of different white elephant programs of the state (which are generally protected through all manners of hurdles generally). Technically, the people of a state would have had a say in putting these economists into power by virtue of voting in favor of state constitutional amendments to turn the Speaker of the lower chamber into the Prime Minister and to get rid of the upper chamber. The people then get a say in what the economists come up with for revising the form of government instead of the next legislative election. The economists have it in their best interests to come up with a form of government that the people will generally like in this amendment by virtue of the fact that if the amendment does not pass the referendum, they immediately get replaced with new economists (unless they were successful in reducing the cost of living in the state, and did much to protect freedom of speech), while if it passes they get to stay an additional 2 years, then gradually some random portion of them get to keep the salary in increments of 2 years until all of them have again been replaced with elected officials (which also provides them a measure of control if their provisions might not have been enough otherwise to stop prolific spending until politicians realize its virtue). Getting rid of pensions is a matter of course for saving a state by virtue of that money being spent in a way that doesn't incentivize investment into capital goods that provide consumer products (as much as say, building a factory and selling its produce at cost, or building affordable housing with fast automated 3D printers, or building molten salt thorium reactors and providing free electricity, or building a hospital, hiring doctors, and providing free ER care for residents). If the things in parentheses are done instead of spending on pensions, the people who were on pensions could theoretically be able to buy everything they need with savings (such is the reality of a commitment to a post-scarcity society). They won't like it, but that is why economists need to be used.

The second section of the Division H is all about avoiding democratic backsliding. The Supreme Court has recently been far more reliable in determining that the policies put forward within governments are not in line with what is generally a good idea for the people at large. However, the Supreme Court has been quite limited as far as being able to stop state courts from working in an overly partisan manner to undermine popular control of the government, especially where California courts struck down a ban on affirmative action for having race be a deciding factor for college admissions passed by a direct ballot initiative as (ironically) harming the cause of equal protection under the laws. This happened even though the Supreme Court had many cases to try to limit the extent to which affirmative action can be used in order to preserve equal protection under the law. That state court effectively also decided that the will of the people in a Republican form of government didn't matter, which is something that forms the opposite of the responsibility of the federal government to guarantee to every state a republican form of government (which has so far best been responsibly protected by the Supreme Court being that it has been the most visibly relied upon to make those guarantees). This section also clarifies section 1 of division J with respect to the fact that replacing politicians in a state legislature with economists is a temporary suspension of having a Republican form of government.

The bankruptcy protections which have the amount of funds to pay to creditors be based on an interest rate equal to the amount the federal government pays in interest (and be based on the amount of funds the person actually receives) is based on the thought experiment of some creditor "John" giving Charlie a $5000 loan at 1% annual interest to start a business. Charlie then needs $5000 6 months later to pay for a medical procedure for his child, and has to accept the first offer given to him, which is a $5000 payday loan at 20% annualized interest (payday loans often go as high as 50% interest, but let's say they were trying to match his credit card), the next year, his business goes bust and he declares bankruptcy with $5200 from the first loan and $6572 from the second loan, and does not have enough money to pay back both. If he was to pay back a percentage based purely on what he owed, the payday lender would get more money than the first creditor even though the first creditor gave out the same amount of money for a longer period of time. It is not hard to see how a scheme could be set up with such a model where Charlie has friends establish a payday lender taking in 1000% annualized interest on a loan they give to him right before he goes bankrupt, and thus will be given most of Charlie's assets by the bankruptcy court, eschewing the earlier creditors Charlie had (Charlie could theoretically be allowed by his friends to continue living in his own home that they "took" from him). To avoid this situation, and be fair to creditors who gave money while someone's credit score was good at low interest rates, the situation of bankruptcy must establish what could reasonably be given to each creditor based on the actual amounts of principle received, which will make it far easier to spot irregularities such as where someone took on debt to some friends, paid into a charity they owned in a cycle in order to have bankruptcy courts move assets to their friends (which, while doing the same thing as was seen in the previous thought experiment (for eschewing other creditors), would make it far easier for auditors to spot the fraud). Similar thought experiments apply to states, wherein the concern is far more about fairness to debtors than anything else in making sure that states cannot abuse the creditors who gave them debt when the state's credit rating was high by giving more dollars per dollar of original principle to later creditors who gave out debt when the credit score was low (when higher interest rates were requested). There is the other feature that every dollar spent by a state to its creditors is a dollar not being spent on services for their constituents, which is why a fair bankruptcy law for them is important, as they will theoretically pay back everyone's principle amounts of debt, thus avoiding the consideration that someone will have to write off major losses (except to the extent that Wall Street makes it easy to resell state debt for more than it is worth, which itself should never be much of a concern as that was also money that would be arbitraged from the system by speculators (not going to help anyone)).

The integral of payments multiplied by the same (1+x)^years over the course of a loan's duration are meant to make sure that there exists an equal incentive for a debtor (whether a state or an individual) to pay back loans as early as possible, even when declaring bankruptcy later. This integral means that if the debtor was (in the event that the U.S. government pays 2% annualized interest on its own debt) to pay back the principle amount of a loan 1 month after it was given along with .16% interest, then, when declaring bankruptcy on the loan later, the debtor will face an outstanding loan amount remaining of $0. This interest rate on loan payments (which is the same as the interest rate on the loan amount remaining) corresponds directly to the true value of the money given at any time given that money generally loses value over time to inflation (if no inflation was happening, it is likely that the U.S. government's loan interest would be very close to 0%, which keeps the loan payments and loan amount in line with each other just as well).

The prohibition on bankrupt state governments reducing taxes below the national average is such that the idea of a "race to the bottom" on tax levels can be inhibited, and to make sure that politicians and more Austrian Economists won't be able to necessarily use the fact of a state's bankruptcy to skimp on the very things necessary to build back the state, particularly infrastructure and education expenditures. The effective prohibition on reducing the efficiency of state-owned enterprises that are currently profitable is such to make sure that the debts of the state can be repaid in good faith and to protect the people operating those state-owned enterprises from the inevitable cronyism of politics (with the carrot and stick method of making sure they know they have to keep the enterprise profitable (and that they can work with the bankruptcy court to keep some of the bankrupted debt going indefinitely so as to (ironically) maintain their ability to be so independent (provided the enterprise is still profitable (with the profits being continuously reinvested except as to pay the interest on the debt outstanding)))).

The part about taxes and fines with respect to bankruptcy are such as to allow someone to have the Jeffersonian dream: own a farm outright (with no debt against the person), be entirely self-sufficient by growing your own food, making your own clothes, making your own toilet, treating your own water, and having your family with you not trading (economics-wise) with anyone else. Specifically, the way this works is, when the person does not pay property tax on his farm, a fine gets levied against the person on account of non-payment, which can then easily be contested by the person showing that he has no money because he is not engaged in any sort of trade outside of his family (which itself is not engaged in trade), and thus that money to pay the tax was not available in the first place. To avoid this being abused by someone using bearer shares and anonymous corporations acting on behalf of the person, the definition of assets with respect to money being made available by them can be broadly construed for imposing taxes on someone (except of course, that a piece of land not engaged economically in trade is not an asset making money available to pay a tax). If, on the other hand, the person is still engaged with the economy simply by virtue of having a loan (along with the property), then the Jeffersonian dream with respect to avoiding property taxes is dependent on a few factors: (1) if Congress prohibits declaring bankruptcy on fines, then when the person does not pay property taxes, the person can argue to the jury for decreasing the corresponding fine (upon the person declaring bankruptcy on the underlying loans on account of having no money (which, if the person just happens to have enough money on hand to pay exactly the amount of the loan that is left in bankruptcy without selling off property)) based on not having any money available (it is likely that the jury will require the person to pay the fine using the crops the person grows on the farm (over the objections of the government collecting the fine not wanting to deal with crops)) and otherwise the person can "wait to pay the fine until the person has money available" (i.e. never when not engaged in the economy), (2) if Congress allows declaring bankruptcy on fines, then the person not paying the property tax who is fined accordingly can declare bankruptcy on the property tax, which may entail that Congress's law on bankruptcy in this case would likely lead to a forced sale of the property. These considerations would likely more apply to when someone dies on their property (since a dead person is not engaged in trade) and does not have any loans outstanding and does not officially leave the property to an heir, which would entail that the only payment of property tax that a government could get would be the literal hard currency the person had left (potentially searching (nondestructively) for it on the property following a warrant), otherwise leaving the property truly abandoned until eminent domain is used to purchase it (would require that there either exist some non-official heir of the person to still be alive, or otherwise require that the state in which the property exists have property laws that have some (probably long-term) method of establishing property rights for squatters (who would only then have the right to sell the property in eminent domain, or to sell to anyone else)). The nature of this limbo period is such as to stop the pursuance of death penalties for trumped-up crimes against large landowners, because the state would not be able to get the land anyways for a long time (and if bankruptcy is not allowed for fines (and any seizure of property as part of punishment for a crime is necessarily a fine), then the property could not actually be taken from someone who committed any crime if the person had the chance to successfully  argue to a jury (by virtue of being alive) that payment of a fine in the form of property is "excessive").

PIPECCAA

This bill needs to be passed because it provides for a gradual increase in the quantity of care available to Americans, and the enforcement of the 5% tax on incomes and profits to support it, and the way in which new hospitals are built and only new doctors are hired prevents the further massive inflation in this sector that we have seen with having some of the worst healthcare outcomes in the developed world while paying more for that care than any other country. Gradually, new people can be attracted into becoming doctors to have a flexible and fulfilling career where managers specifically arrange everything so that doctors can maximize their 40 hours per week in actually treating patients as opposed to going through vast quantities of paperwork, and being able to make sure, before an experimental treatment is tried, that the people who have authority over any malpractice case regarding it agree that it is moral, or otherwise have a fair and relatively cheap way to defend the way in which treatment was provided, with all of the judges and juries deciding these things being doctors at the same hospitals. 

Inflation in the healthcare sector is further limited with the ability of the new public hospitals to buy medical equipment and pharmaceuticals from whatever country can provide them at least 10% cheaper than the U.S., including in the shipping costs their "emissaries" will have. The emissaries will likely just be CIA agents hired out due to the high likelihood of the people 8 years later reducing the appropriations for the agency via their referendums. Such things will only be used within the hospitals, with the FDA only having the ability to test the things received, the test results, if available, are made available to patients if those patients are given the option of taking such pharmaceuticals or medical devices.

The provision on specifying that the doctors at a hospital under this Act can use jury nullification to find themselves not guilty or not liable for the things they do at the hospitals with juries of doctors from the same hospital is there specifically to prevent decisions of those doctor-juries being overturned on appeal by higher courts or forced to be retried because the specific nature of the legality (and guarantee) of that avenue can no longer be questioned in court when used in this specific way. The provision has to be hardened for the inevitable future scenario where rioters get massacred by the doctors they are trying to kill, but those putting forward this law have to be mindful that the specification of a scenario that no one wants to consider (outside of a bunch of people at the State Department and Department of Defense who come up with these scenarios every day) may turn off pacifists from becoming doctors and may attract people with homicidal tendencies to the job, so it has to be immediately tempered with a statement describing its low likelihood to be normal in any way given that doctors are literally there to save lives as the big driver to get through medical school in the first place. The reason for having this provision should be clear enough with the fact that doctors, while helping someone, should not have to second-guess what they are doing relative to the imminent danger (that can be proven again and again to exist) of courts that are antagonistic to the modern methods of doctors (especially given how many judges (who have massive influence on juries) are chosen specifically for their religious convictions (besides the base requirement of knowing what the law says)).