Representing the Commonwealth

The concept of the commonwealth is not new, but it is revolutionary. The concept of the commonwealth was a deliberate novation of the risk (see the article, "Novation of the Risk") that pluralistically diffused the risk to facilitate the greatest expansion of economic wealth (and power) the world has ever known.

The Revolution continues, testing the practical concept of the commonwealth (deconsolidating the risk). Currently, the risk is so consolidated there is virtually none available unless extended from large, consolidated, too-big-to-fail, economy-of-scale, organizational entities, including government. Taking the risk (economic growth) is virtually not available except by extension of consolidated authority both public and private. Our current status fails the test of deconsolidating the risk that represents (confirms) the commonwealth.

The Obama administration, for example, is looking to pass a "jobs bill." Since the risk is being extended from the top down (hence the lack of credit extended to support it and thus the recurrent need for a bill), it does not represent the commonwealth (although it is being sold as making the wealth more common).

Nor do Republicans represent the commonwealth.
Republicans represent common expansion of the wealth as a zero-sum redistribution (a moral hazard). Making the wealth more common is identified (just like the king did) with a punitive retribution of the value accumulated that results in disfunctional, non-productive, class warfare. The etiology of what ails us is then reduced to an endless, ideological debate--a game, a polemic--to be won or lost in the political arena without risk the reward will be identified as a zero-sum detriment that prevents the commonwealth.

So, who represents the commonwealth?

After the American Revolution to deconsolidate the authoritative extension of the risk from the crown (from the top class down), the risk was to be "authored" (taken) from the bottom up, producing the state of the commonwealth.

Many states defined themselves as being a "commonwealth" following The Revolution. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, for example, represents freedom from tyranny and the risk it imposes (extends)--or does it?

Governor Beshear's administration has done nothing but extend the risk.

Following a Republican administration that engaged highly regressive tax increases to support the state's bond rating (its credit score), Beshear was elected on a no-tax-increase platform. He then proceeded to administer the biggest regressive tax increase in the history of the Commonwealth. In the private sector, such a sudden reversal is tantamount to a corruption of trust worthy of swift and decisive prosecution with punitive and compensatory damages--and the damage, heading into the Great Recession, was extensive.

Although Beshear, and the Legislative Research Commission, was advised well in advance of the recession that such a massive, regressive tax increase was extremely detrimental to the Commonwealth, they passed the measure anyway, magnifying the detriment extending from the recent financial crisis (which resists a good credit score, by the way).

Beshear has since engaged in massive tax expenditures with a budget that is every bit in dire financial crisis due to a huge regressive tax burden. That burden robbed consumers of much-needed "discretionary spending" and gave it to wealthy businesses to relieve their tax burden (putting pressure on both taxes and the rate of interest). The "discretion" was, rather, "taken" (usurped) and redistributed by a government authority representing anything but the commonwealth.

Massive, tax-incentive expenditures pressure taxes up. The larger return on this so-called investment is higher taxes to satisfy the demand--the expectation of the reward against the extended risk of unemployment. In a commonwealth, however, employment is not supposed to be a function of tax incentives that regresses the tax burden, keeping the wealthy rich at the expense of the common wealth.

No. Taking the risk does not extend from the upper class in a commonwealth. Managing the risk is not a function of a consolidated authority either public or private, but is freely consumed and labored into wealth with a reward (the profit) commensurate with the risk determined by discretionary income that must be commonplace to reward (verify) best practices, best prices, and best behaviors.

The commonwealth delimits the need for an intrusive governing authority. It governs what limits our freedom to an authoritative extension of the risk that always exceeds the reward in a crisis proportion.

Yes. The commonwealth is a place where a person can still get rich, but without having to plunge everyone else into the depths of depression. Raiding the treasury to prevent crises (budget deficits and tax expenditures) is a thing of the past. It would no longer be necessary to tolerate tax and fiscal policy that supports the probability of recurrent crises in the name of resisting it.

Beshear's open-wallet method for economic development, for example, is raiding an already depleted treasury, and shifts the burden to the least able to pay the accumulative debt. It is a classic over-extension of the risk that is completely antithetical to the practical concept of a commonwealth.

Hard to believe that after such a dizzying sudden and detrimental reversal of policy, and hooking-up with an even more notorious open-wallet spendthrift like Jerry Abramson, Beshear is actually going to run for re-election. Incredible!

While common sense can at times be as uncommon as the wealth, let's hope The People of The Commonwealth will have sense enough not to re-elect Beshear and the entire complicit cohort of complete incompetence.