Chiến thuật chiến lược (12)

The main goal this essay is to provide some economic and historical facts for providing a possible solution to our current economic policy dilemma, thus improving the welfare of all citizens. The ultimate goal is to enhance our nation's capacity to deal with internal and foreign threats today. The bottom line of solving the problem is: we need a bipartisan concept with compromise and mutual respect with compassion. Tax reform, determination of which spending is productive and which is wasteful, trade negotiations, heath care reform, ... are essential economic issues needed to be solved by our Congress and the President.

As an independent voter I appreciate the efforts of our government and our Congress to come up with a feasible solution for our debt and the welfare of all citizens. However, due to the lack of bipartisan compromise, much time was wasted last summer on unfeasible solutions such as "Cut, Cap, Balance".
The feasible solution can only be achieved if both sides are honest and transparent. In fact, we can do better than what our Congress wants.

There is a solution satisfying Congress's goal of cutting 230 billion US$/year, but it requires both sides to look at feasible mathematical solutions such as increasing taxes for wealthy people, cutting wasteful spending, raising the retirement age, eliminating tax loopholes, eliminating earmarks, cutting unnecessary subsidies, reducing fraud, intelligent regulations, moderately cutting the entitlement program, lowering benefits for higher retirees,...
It is believed that fraud costs the government between 60 billion US$ and 90 billion US$ each year. Fraud prevention will be key to paying for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Did the president have the plan from the time he assumed the presidency? "When President Obama took office he asked Attorney General Holder and me to make fraud prevention a cabinet-level priority," Sebelius commented on May 2, 2012. On this day of a nationwide bust of scams, 107 doctors, nurses, and social workers were charged with Medicare fraud which swindled 452 million US$ from the program.
Voters are facing with two schools of thought, balance the budget by cutting federal budget versus protecting the entitlement program. This dilemma is a complex issue in many aspects as many great politicians has foreseen many years ago. President Franklin D.Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935 . In 1979, President Carter issued an Executive Order to conduct a two-year study of the national pension system. Then President Reagan adapted President Carter's initiative to increase the retirement age gradually from 65 to 67 over 25 years.
President George W. Bush attempted to privatizing the social program but failed to persuade the Congress and people in 2005, Obama Care Program with an ambitious universal care. Nevertheless Obama Care still has to face with cost increasing and legal issue of individual right.
There are some advantages of the entitlement program that may justify the existence of the entitlement program in political, economic and cost aspects.
The self-destruction of capitalism as seen by Karl Marx would occur when a large gap forms between the very rich and the poor working class, a catalyst for social unrest and a revolution; the entitlement program is a remedy for our system of free enterprise.
People on the entitlement program are main sources of consuming; a matter of demand-supply and its beneficial consequences in economic principle. Food stamp Program in the short range is a weight between the real cost and the benefit. The benefits of stimulating the economy by job creation- demand and supply of the free market- and social safety-reducing the crimes, heavy cost for legal trial and prisoners. How to reduce the burden of food stamp program in the long range? What are feasible measures to make them more productive in the skilled working force?

Some indicators show that the economy is gradually recovering.
During three years and a half the economy has shown both positive and negative signs. Our economy has begun to recover gradually after three years of a severe recession. We were faced with an unemployment rate of 12.5% on Dec 2008 at 11 PM due to many reasons such as house bubbles, an escalating foreclosure rate, banks refusing to loan, a 700 billion US$ bail out in 2007 to rescue Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae, Washington Mutual, Indy Mac Bank, ....
In 2009, the government continued the economic stimulus plan with about 185 billion US$. Consequently, it halted the economic free fall and ended the recession. However, we still have a moderate reduction of the unemployment rate from 12.5% in Dec 2008, to about 10% from 2010-2011, and to about 8.1% on May, 2012.
In 2012, many positive economic indicators prove the stimuli of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have worked.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was around 8,550 at the end of 2008 but has risen above 13,000 on May 02, 2012.
The rate of unemployment has dropped to about 8.2% on April and 8.1% on May, 2012. Private companies added 228,000 jobs in February 2012, 201,000 jobs in March, and 119,000 jobs in April. Personal income rose 0.4%.
Starting in 2010, we have had annual net Growth in "Made In America" manufacturing jobs in contrast to the annual net losses we had every single year many years before. More than 210,000 "Made In America" manufacturing were created in 2010, more than 233,000 in 2011, and more than 120,000 in the first 3 months of 2012.
The National Domestic Product has gradually increased from 2009 to 2011.
It appears that during these 3 or 4 years the speed of economic recovery is slow because unemployment is still high... but it is a good question to ask "Why?".
Many economists have felt disappointed when they compared the historical rate of economic recovery under the Obama Administration with that under the Reagan Administration and that after the Great Depression to justify their point of view. As a matter of fact, they forgot many more critical factors which explain the sluggish recovery, such as the cost of funding wars and anti-terror operations, the burden of debt interest-about 300 billion US$ per year-, the international financial crisis, 100 billion US$ per year from Bush tax cuts, the top tax rate is low -35%- compared with high tax rates during the first five years of Reagan's Administration -from 69.13% to 50%-, Reagan's spending rose 10.2% in the first two years and a half while Obama's spending only rose 2.6% (that is almost 4 times less than Reagan's spending), and finally the current extreme partisan ideology of Congress (President Reagan did not have problems with his Congress),...
The true fact is the Reagan Administration and the administrations following the Great Depression did not deal with current complex economic situations. Specifically, it is a logical fallacy to use historical facts to make a negative judgement about the current slow economic recovery; each case is unique. This assertion also somewhat justifies increasing the debt about 5.4 trillion US$ from 2009 to 2012; perhaps the cost of war would be close to 3 trillion US$ during 4 years. It also may imply that more spending and a higher top tax rate are factors which contribute to a fast economic recovery.

Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops is one of many indicators to be considered; perhaps saving trillions of US$ during the next 4 years. Future indicators may contribute to our optimistic hope:
The agenda of balancing the budget and reducing the debt is a feasible combination of many policies in such way that the solution is a balanced one (not harmful to economic growth): Raising or eliminating the social security tax cap, raising additional Medicare taxes for single and married couples with higher income, substantial reduction of social security retirement benefits for those with a very high income, tax reform, raising the top tax bracket for the top 10%, moderate cutting of the entitlement program, fraud prevention, increasing production of "Made in America" goods, trade negotiation, a moderate rise in the retirement age and early retirement age, eliminating waste by a balance between management costs and the effectiveness of program achievement, reducing earmarks, tax reform, ... Combining the Bush tax cut expiration with this agenda, the government may have an addition revenue of at least 600 billion US$ which may used to pay the debt interest -about 300 billion US$- and 300 billion US$ for additional government spending.

Are Austerity and not Raising Tax Rates Alternatives to Speed up Economic Growth?

Some negative aspects are needed to be addressed:
The IMF's Christine Lagarde, the World Bank's Robert Zoellick, and the WTO's Pascal Lamy have the same economic viewpoint: Focus on policies which strengthen growth, employment, and the quality of life in every part of the world. Extreme austerity leads to a lack of demand and hence less supply; consequently more unemployment and slow growth. Austerity also means less quality of life. The economic austerity in Greece is a good lesson.
Recently in Europe, spending is now preferred to austerity.
The greatest concern of austerity is a reversal on the current trend of economic recovery, which could result in an economic "Armageddon."
Therefore, there are many reasons to be hopeful and patient with the current economic policies rather than take a heavy economic risk by implementing extreme austerity policies.

Nevertheless our economy still faces many uncertain years ahead. U.S. factory orders dropped 1.5% in March 2012, the biggest drop since March 2009, but still less than the 1.6% expected. U.S. personal spending rose 0.3% in March, below estimates of a 0.4% gain. Private companies' rate of adding more jobs slowed down since February 2012. The annual average government budget deficit is about 1.3 trillion US$.
President Barack Obama’s recent statement about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US is a good start to reducing our trade deficit problem; "Made in America" is one concrete example. Nevertheless, an overall plan needs to be followed up with effective actions to force real change from trading partners like China. The fact is the US has imported more from Europe -382 billion US$- than China -365 billion US$- but the difference is that Europe also buys a substantial amount from the US -286 billion US$- whereas China does not -92 billion US$-. Moreover we import 4 times as much from China than we export to China. The main way to deal with our debt with China is to reduce our demand for Chinese products by increasing "Made in America" products. As a matter of fact, China still has leverage by selling our US Treasuries. Is it time for our patriot investors to buy more US Treasuries in the future to eliminate the Chinese economic threat and also reduce our demand for Chinese products.

Dealing effectively with our trade balance with China is the first step to reduce our deficit. Due to our severe economic recession at the end of 2008 our annual deficit is an average of 1.3 trillion US$ from 2009 to now. The bottom line is we need a bipartisan cooperation between our Congress and the President to come up with a feasible annual budget; a reasonable compromise is a must between the two parties.

Providing the most feasible government budget is a critical task to boost our economy, reduce the deficit, and pay off the debt in the long range. It is necessary that people put their country over their partisan political views. This will happen when both sides together look at a feasible solution based on economic experience from the last 20 years and follow the positive results and avoid the negative ones.

The basic principles for a balanced budget and the gradual repayment of debt are that the government's revenue must be greater than its expenditures and we must have a strategy for economic growth.

We must consider the dilemma of tax cuts for the top 10%. One side of the argument is: A tax cut would boost the economy because the top 10% are job creators. The problem of that argument is: It's only effective for a short time and it's counter productive in the long range. Historical facts show that lower taxes have not resulted in economic growth: According to the Census Bureau median household incomes declined from 2001 to 2008. Moreover, the debt grew at an average of about 389 billion US$ per year, and created more national debt; the public debt rose from 26.1% of GDP in 1980 to 41.0% of GDP by 1988 In dollar terms, the public debt rose from 712 billion US$ in 1980 to 2,052 billion US$ in 1988.
Increasing taxes on wealthy people and profitable corporations has reduced national debt in the past; here is another piece of historical evidence, the rate of debt growth under Bill Clinton was only about 174 billion US$ per year.

The basis of our tax system is Progressive Tax Theory; the more one earns, the higher their tax bracket is. The basic concept of Laffer Curve Theory is if the tax bracket is too high or too low, then government revenue will be two low . Therefore the optimum tax bracket is simply the maximum of the Laffer curve. Unfortunately the Laffer Curve cannot define the optimum point. Indeed the Laffer Curve is a very poor and undefined mathematical model - it would never stand up to serious mathematical analysis. Therefore it is very controversial. For instance, people have come up with many different curves, and many different optimal points.
Actually Reagan, Bushes and current Republican Congressmen have used this theory to try to boost the economy when they thought that the optimum tax rate is about 30% or 35%. In fact, the Laffer Curve may have the optimum point at 50% if the Laffer curve is a parabola. President Dwight Eisenhower's highest tax rate is 91% and the economy did not stop growing. From 1954 to 1963, the top tax rate is 91%, then it was reduced from 77% to 70% from 1964 to 1980. President Reagan reduced it further from 50% in 1982 to the lowest tax rate of 28%.
Today the US has the lowest top tax rate -35%- compared with many developed countries where the top tax rate varies from 40% to Denmark's 62.28%. Perhaps the top rate of the world is France's 75%; Hollande proposed the following during his campaign.

History of national debt may prove that the optimum tax bracket is higher than 50%. Consequently, President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) inherited roughly 908 billion US$ in debt and took it up to 2.6 trillion US$ after 8 years; an increase of 186%. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001): Took Bush’s 4.2 trillion US$ up to 5.7 trillion US$, a 36% increase. President George W. Bush (2001-2009) inherited Clinton’s 5.7 trillion US$ and ended with 10.6 trillion US$, an 86% increase. Recently, President Barack Obama (2009-2010): So far, has taken Bush’s 10.6 trillion US$ up to 16.2 trillion US$, an increase of 53%.
The Buffet Rule's purpose is to find the optimum point of the Laffer Curve by increasing the top bracket, based on the historical facts mentioned above.

Considering inflation as one factor, a top tax bracket of 90% is not feasible for today. Perhaps considering many other factors as well, the feasible top tax bracket is between 40% and 50%. The top tax bracket percentage (40% - 50%) applies only to the amount of income exceeding 1 million US$. The remaining 1 million US$ is taxed according to the current progressive tax rate of 35%.

The agenda of balancing the budget and reducing the debt is a feasible combination of many policies in such a way that the solution is a balance one ( not harmful to economic growth): Raising or eliminating the social security tax cap, raising additional Medicare taxes for single and married couples with higher income, substantial reduction of social security retirement benefits for those with a very high income, tax reform, raising the top tax bracket for the top 10%, moderate cutting of the entitlement program, fraud prevention, increasing production of "Made in America" goods, trade negotiation, a moderate rise in the retirement age and early retirement age, eliminating waste by a balance between management costs and the effectiveness of program achievement, reducing earmarks, tax reform, ... Combining the Bush tax cut expiration with this agenda, the government may have an addition revenue of at least 600 billion US$ which may used to pay the debt interest -about 300 billion US$- and 300 billion US$ for additional government spending.

There is no silver bullet to achieve the national objective in the very short term. A long term strategy will minimize our citizens' suffering and the possibility of an economic downturn. The detailed plan is the most critical task to solving our national problem. The first step is a mutual agreement between Congress and the President about each policy in theory. The second step is a detailed plan which the two parties must agree on. The third step is a mutual responsibility between the executive and legislative branches in execution, control, and transparency.
Perhaps removing the social security tax cap and raising additional Medicare taxes for single and married couples with higher income are the most effective approaches. Let's consider a hypothetical scenario:
The US has approximately 236,882 millionaires and billionaires. Assume that their average gross income on the pay roll check is 20 million US$, and that together they may contribute up to 560 billion US$ to the social security and Medicare fund. This number is completely not accurate because the accurate number depends on many factors: The number of millionaires and billionaires on the pay roll check, individual amount for each pay roll check, the amount of tax cap or no cap,....

This approach may pave the way to balancing the budget and gradual repayment of debt, boosting the economy by substantially reducing capitol gains, and lowering the corporate tax bracket.
This approach would need a concept of a very low progressive benefit at a certain feasible maximum limit, and an amendment of social security laws. Specifically, a legal question is: Can the government borrow from the social security trust to pay off the foreign debt and federal budget as needed? An answer of "Yes" will enhance our leverage for trade negotiation with China; a possible strategy of raising US NDP (Net Domestic Product) and a balance between imports and exports. This may address three critical concerns: More "Made In America" products, we import 4 times as much from China than we export to China, and the possibility of reaching the current borrowing limit of 16.4 trillion US$ at the end of 2012.

There has been a misconception that raising the tax bracket for millionaires essentially amounts to a redistribution of wealth. Indeed the Buffet Rule is not a redistribution of wealth. This negative and misleading political statement has indeed created a state of panic and paranoia among uneducated and rich voters because they are confusing the usage of “redistribution of wealth” in the sense of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 with Senator Obama’s usage of “redistribution of wealth” in the sense of free enterprise and American democracy. A politician's negative remarks in 2008 have triggered conservative talk show hosts to mislead the American people by labelling Senator Obama’s economic policy as a “socialist” policy. They went further and labelled Senator Obama as a communist in 2008. The truth is that the Bolshevik redistribution of wealth is the confiscation of all private property of affluent people and the redistribution of this property to poorer people, based on the historical facts of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The Russian communist government used literature as propaganda – describing political and economic change only in a positive light. Nevertheless, during the 1950’s and 1960’s many Russian liberal authors such as Boris Pasternak, who wrote a masterpiece “Doctor Zhivago” in 1957, attacked the doctrine of communism. A solid example of a Bolshevik redistribution in recent history is the action of the Vietnamese communist government in confiscating the property of rich and middle class Vietnamese in 1975 after conquering South Vietnam. On the contrary, Senator Obama’s meaning of the term “redistribution of wealth” for positive change is merely a change in the rate of income tax. Specifically, Senator Obama’s economic policy is to reduce the income tax for at least 90% of Americans, who have an income of less than 250,000 US$, and a proportional income tax increase for the wealthy people.
it is not true that 'Increasing the income tax rate on millionaires would hurt the economy because they are job creators'.
The fact is millionaires freezed billions of dollars in banks from 2008 to now, but the economy has recovered gradually and the rate of national unemployment has been reduced significantly from 12.5% on Dec, 2008 to 8.1% today.

Do we need tax reform to eliminate many loopholes based on the following facts?
In 2009, of the 236,883 taxpayers with 1 million US$ or more in adjusted gross income, 1,470 (0.62 percent) paid no federal income taxes. in 2007, before the Great Recession, there were more millionaires, but fewer escaped paying federal income taxes - just 961 (0.25 percent) paid no federal income taxes in this year.

The goal of raising the tax bracket for the top 10% and tax reform is to raise government revenue, a critical agenda to boost the economy; as long as the economy strengthens, there is a chance to balance the budget, pay off the debt gradually, reduce unemployment, protect our national security, and continue to maintain our position in the world.

America desperately needs a real centralized Medicare system for all citizens. Healthcare varies around the world but thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health health care except the United States.

Almost all wealthy nations provide universal health care except the US. Although we are the best developed country, our ranking in healthcare is about 37th world wide. This is a complex issue due to many aspects, such as freedom of choice, individual rights, constitutional disputes, the costs versus the benefits, its economic impact, the welfare and security of all citizens, national security considerations,...

One interesting individual right is that the government has no right to impose on an individual the payment of an insurance premium. "I am healthy at this time, therefore I don't need such a wasteful premium." The main problem with this statement is that nobody knows his or her future health condition. The fact is that health care costs are very high and the sick person will soon run out of all assets if there is no health insurance . Finally, they have to apply for the Medicaid program. That will trickle down into the economy due to the financial burden on the government. About 20 million Americans without medical insurance will apply to the program even though they have pre-conditions.
This is a second critical issue needing a solution from both Congress and the President after knowing the Supreme Court's verdict on its legality or a balanced solution weighing the following factors: individual rights, national interest, the welfare of all citizens, social security, compassion,....It's too early to know, but the health care plan can be modified around the parts that the Supreme Court rejects.

House Speaker Boehner's aide revealed that "I am not going to allow a debt ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt".
Then the White House press secretary Jay Carney responded "It's simply not acceptable to hold the American and global economy hostage." It is believed that a mixture of revenue increases and spending cuts is President Obama's policy and "it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that America pays its bills" said Carney.
Therefore, there is a high chance that a budget standoff will occur this summer before August 2, 2012.

If Congress decides to put a cap on the current debt ceiling of 14.3 trillion US$, then the possible US default would occur after August 2, 2012. Many experts have foreseen severe consequences nationally and internationally. Panicked bondholders will sell their treasury holdings; consequently, the collateral value of Treasury securities will be temporarily impaired.
There is a possibility that checks would not be sent to almost 27 million recipients of the Social Security program, as Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke suggested. "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," said President Obama in an interview with CBS. This will result in real suffering for retirees and those with low income.
A chain of negative reactions may occur: stockholders will sell in a panic and the Down Jones will sink deeply and consumption will decrease. Since less demand results in less supply, this will pave the way to common economic consequences such as massive layoffs, more unemployment, more crime, social unrest, lowering value of the US dollar, national security risk, ....

Moreover, it may be a disaster for the global economy, as IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned if a default occurs.
The default would not only hurt the low income citizens, but also the entire US population; the potential financial losses of wealthy people may range from 20% to 50% of their portfolios as well as the loss of future profits.
As matter of fact, increasing the tax bracket for the top 10% is not sufficient to balance the budget and repay the debt. It requires a feasible combination of many policies: raising or eliminating the social security tax cap, substantial reduction of social security retirement benefits for those with a very high income, tax reform, raising the top tax bracket for the top 10% income, moderate cutting of the entitlement program, fraud prevention, increasing production of "Made in America" goods, trade negotiation, a moderate rise in the retirement age and early retirement age, eliminating waste by a balance between management costs and the effectiveness of program achievement, reducing earmarks, ...

A Real Feasible Solution, the Responsibility and Motivation for a Bipartisan Concept

It is the responsibility of voters, the media, the President, and the Congress to choose the feasible solution for avoiding a possible economic Armageddon. Perhaps the catalyst of patriotism is motivation for a new chapter of bipartisan cooperation.

There is a possibility that the rate of current unemployment may reduced more substantially in the neighborhood of 7% if Obama Administration has had at least six factors to impede Obama's economic agenda: It took almost three years to stop the free falling of the severe economic recession in 2008, the economic and political ideology of Congress, the economic turmoil in Europe - the largest economic domain in the world- economic competition with the second economic power, China, American Jobs Act - on the table of Congress- and the limitations of presidential economic budget power due to Article I, section 9, clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States and Article I, section 5, clause 2: Congress is the authority to determine the rules governing its procedures.

According to the Labor Department, U.S. employers added only 80,000 jobs in June, a third straight month of weak hiring. Perhaps this fact justifies that consumption and intelligent spending are two essential factors to boost the economy in general and in particular create jobs. The number of job added is not sufficient to judge the total performance of the economy when one overlooks some more essential factors to judge the total performance:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/11/fox-ignores-private-sector-job-gains-to-push-cl/155108

Consumers are catalysts to create jobs. What's hurting consumers most is that Obama cut spending in 2011 to the bone - spending has been very low compared with the last decade .

If the Obama Administration cuts spending more, as Congress demands, then the economy may get worse than it is currently.

The historical economic evidence shows:
-Increasing taxes did not slow down the economy.
-Spending and increasing taxes in a balanced way decreased the deficit and boosted the economy.

Actually, the evidence from the Clinton administration would suggest that spending cuts are not necessary to reduce a federal deficit.
It suggests that we could gradually reduce the federal deficit by keeping spending the same (or perhaps even a small increase) and balancing the spending by a proportional increase in taxes. Ideally, these taxes could be targeted to very wealthy households and very large corporations. So such taxes would not affect the middle class at all. In fact, tax breaks on wealthy people will not help the economy. It's simple mathematics: There are more poor and middle class people than wealthy people; thus money will be spent quicker in the poor and middle class hands. This is why cutting entitlements is a bad idea and hence there could be economic consequences as evidenced by demand and supply theory in economic theory; 90 percentage of consumers are the poor people and middle class.

As the many referenced charts and graphs show, the trickle-down economic theory of tax cuts has never reduced the debt.
Indeed, the real world result of Republicans' "tax cut" strategy is already known: when Reagan became president -- and began to cut taxes -- the federal deficit was 2.5 percent of the national economy. When his term ended eight years later, the deficit increased to 5 percent of the economy. The interest payment on the debt in 1988 was $169 billion - compare this to $69 billion in 1981. Looks like "Reaganomics" didn't work so well!
(source: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/20/presidents-and-their-debts-fdr-to-bush/reagans-deficit-dreamscape)
That is the reason the unemployment rate is decreasing slowly; a justification for Obama's stance that further spending cuts without steps to increase tax revenues will hurt consumers. Moreover, the 2011 Budget Control Act which includes across-the-board spending cuts, to all federal departments in 2013 is a possible national economic disaster if Congress can’t design and pass a budget that more specifically outlines spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

Thanks to Obama economic policy, today, October 3rd, 2014 the unemployment is reduced to 5.9%.

1- Triệt hạ tất cả những cá nhân đang giữ trọng trách cấp cao trong các tổ chức cộng đồng, đoàn thể phản động bằng cách – stop -

a. Đánh phá uy tín cá nhân bẳng tung tin tức giả, chứng cứ bịa đặt, tin thất thiệt bội lọ những tên phản động đầu sỏ, tránh khỏi bị thưa kiện.- stop -

b. Dùng thủ đoạn ly gián giữa các đoàn thể, cá nhân, giữa tôn giáo với tôn giáo.., đặc biệt phải đánh gục bọn Công Giáo cực kỳ phản động không đội trời chung với cncs chúng ta; Giáo Hội Phật Giáo Việt Nam Thống Nhất đang làm nguy hại cho chế độ ta, Phật Giáo Hòa hảo, Cao đài, Tin lành… đều là những thành phần cực kỳ phản động cần phải triệt tiêu. – stop -

c. Cần đánh phá những tên đầu sỏ đang thực hiện cái gọi là “tranh đấu nhân quyền”, thực ra bọn này đang ra sức tuyên truyền sai lạc tình trạng nhân quyền tại nước ta. – stop -

d. Làm nhụt chí những tên còn hăng hái chống phá Cách Mạng và Nhà Nước ta – stop -

e. Lợi dụng các diễn đàn tự do trên mạng ảo thi hành những công tác ở trên. Dùng những nick name không kiểm tra được, nhưng nghe có vẻ thuộc phe “quốc gia”, để triển khai công tác phá hoại. – stop -

f. Cho cán bộ mạng kịch liệt phản bác những luận điệu vu khống chống phá Đảng và Nhà Nước XHCN. – stop -

2- Làm suy yếu các tổ chức phản động cộng đồng bằng cách tung tin thất thiệt, bịa đặt, như đã kể trên, hoặc bé xé ra to, tạo nghi ngờ, làm cho Việt kiều không còn tin tưởng, không ủng hộ, lánh xa bọn này. – stop -

3- Cho cán bộ xâm nhập vào các ban đại diện cộng đồng, tổ chức, các tôn giáo, chờ cơ hội gây chia rẽ nội bộ, gây xáo trộn, tạo nghi ngờ các tên lãnh đạo, làm mất uy tín của tổ chức, nhưng tuyệt đối không để lộ tông tích.. – stop -

4- Cần móc nối với các thành phần cựu quân đội ngụy từng làm điểm chỉ cho chúng ta (mà ngụy gọi là “ăng ten”) trong các trại cải tạo, nhà tù, đã đi nước ngoài bằng con đường h.o., đoàn tụ, vượt biên… tiếp tục làm công tác phá hoại nói trên. Nếu chúng cưỡng lại, ta tố cáo những việc làm trong tù của chúng. – stop -

5- Hợp tác với các công ty gởi tiền về Việt Nam để gữi nhiều kiều hối về cho Đảng và Nhà Nước. Khuyến khích bà con đến các trung tâm chuyển tiền do nhà nước ta tổ chức. – stop -

6- Vận động bà con về thăm quê hương xứ sở thường xuyên, mang về nhiều kiều hối, bằng những tuyên truyền nước nhà hoàn toàn có tự do, tự do thờ phượng, tự do đi lại, không bị xét hỏi, cấm cản.., phản bác những luận điệu phản động của các phần tử phản động chống phá nhà nước. – stop -

(4) Phải chăng CSVN chỉ công bố 6 điều hiển nhiên- ai cũng biết- nhưng lại cố tình dấu diếm những nhược điểm của phe ta cũng như những thắng lợi của NQ 36 CSVN vì lỗi lầm của phe ta?

Vì vậy, đi tìm những lỗi lầm của phe ta, rồi cùng nhau thay đổi để cứu quốc, là nhiệm vụ chủ yếu của chúng ta.

Thứ nhất, hiện tượng kỳ thị tôn giáo và độc quyền chống chủ nghĩa cộng sản là hai chất xúc tác, làm CĐVNHN phân hoá và góp sức vào đại hoạ mất nước, cũng như tiếp tay cho NQ 36 CSVN thành công trong nhiều năm nay.

Hiện tượng phân chia phe đảng trên các diễn đàn, như cùng nhau họp thành nhóm cùng tôn giáo rồi khen nhau, kẻ tung người hứng, trông thật bỉ ổi.

Đánh phá những người chống cộng bất vụ lợi không cùng tôn giáo với mình hay chỉ vì họ chống cộng theo cách riêng của họ. Nên nhớ, chống cộng có nhiều phương cách, và tuỳ theo vấn đề chiến thuật và chiến lược để chọn lựa một con đường riêng thích hợp cho hoàn cảnh của mình; hiện tượng Điếu Cày là một thí dụ điển hình.

Thứ hai, người Việt HN rất khôn ngoan có nhiều khuynh hướng chọn lựa đảng phái chính trị để đi bầu, nhưng không nên quá cuồng tín đảng phái để chia rẽ hay chửi bới nhau thậm tệ, có hại cho đại cuộc giải thể chế độ cộng sản và vô hiệu hoá nạn Đại Hán.

Thứ ba, phải chăng những dữ kiện dưới đây là điều chúng ta phải quan tâm?