Pro-Positive Public Policy

			Pro-Positive Public Policy

		The U.S. Government's lack of vision, loss of communications with the American public, unrepresented populations on Capitol Hill, and a disintegration of human healthcare and educational systems in a faltering economy influenced the development of a fundamental set of principles and planning practices by which public policy can be constructed. Pro-Positive Politics describes an effort in development to ensure the inclusion of all people in manifesting public policy. It was devised in 2006 and revised in 2009 when it became apparent that regardless of civil rights, there are some minority groups that continue to face prejudice and lack any representation in society. They range from the homeless, the destitute, drug users, drug dealers, rape victims, those accused of victimless crimes, wrongfully convicted citizens, the poor, the sick and disabled, those with mental disorders, kidnapped victims, members of the LGBT Community, victims of HIV/AIDS, anyone who has difficulty getting medical care for any reason, and those who are lost and unwanted. Pro-Positive Public Policy Principles (P5) was created as a set of guidelines, ensuring equal representation in the creation of public policy. It sets forth a foundation of proper strategies addressing the barriers that fragment the American society. P5 lists the failures of government and corporations that has exacerbated the economic recession. It provides the groundwork for solutions while maintaining flexibility for new and future causes. The idea behind P5 is to give government officials a glimpse of the nation and the world that they have not seen. The goal is to protect the rights of those who have been cast to the wind and to minimize the influence of corporate America in making policy. P5 is not intended to draw favor to any specific group. It was written to bring common sense to such issues as same-sex marriage. As an example, it asserts that opposing parties should be brought together to deliver a statement that addresses how a change of law will affect them, their family, and why the law should or should not be permitted. A panel of judges is required to weigh the statements. If a law such as allowing same-sex marriage will interfere directly with an opposing group, such as the Mormons, it must be demonstrated. Evidence is critical. If the Mormons fail to provide sufficient evidence, it requests the supporters of same-sex marriage to identify how they might be impacted by the Mormons. If neither group can identify impacts, then a recommendation for same-sex marriage to pass into law is prepared and the Mormons are allowed to continue practicing their faith. If, however, it is shown that the the Mormons have directly impacted members of the LGBT community, for example, then the rights of Mormons to practice their religion will be suspended until they are able to demonstrate mutual equality. The idea is to bring both same-sex marriage and the cause of the group contending it into question. The reason for this is simple. Very often an opposing organization or group is driven by the need to harm the group they protest. If members of the Mormon religion are opposing same-sex marriage, it is likely that their intention is to bring about harm. By bringing the Mormon religion into question, it can be decided whether or not there is good enough reason to suspend Mormons from practicing it.	Pro-Positive Public Policy Planning Practices (P6) is a document that contains specific guidelines that are exclusive to a specific project or Commission. Only one P6 document has been devised thus far. That P6 set of planning practices was devised for drug policy and contains information about the various aspects of planning the Pro-Positive drug policy. That document is called the Pro-Positive Public Policy Planning Practices for Drug Policy (P6-Drug Policy or P6-DP) that document outlines the size of the Commission and provides specific requirements of the Commission that must be equally represented. P6-DP must adhere to the guidelines written into P5. If at any time there is a conflict between P6-DP and P5, the conflict must be resolved by the author(s) of the P6-DP. Failure to provide a resolution will disengage the principles which will lead to an automatic failure. For example, in the Drug Use Education Process Paradigm, the 10th segment or step entails downsizing law enforcement, including the DEA. If a government official suggests that the DEA does not need to be downsized and that the budget will be able to handle the current staff for an extended 5-year period, that introduces not only a funding issue but also effects retraining, restaffing, and a migration from one set of job functions to another. In order to proceed, all these issues must be addressed. The failure to do so could create a budgeting error that will carry over to other tasks and the project will fall behind schedule. If however, another source of funding emerges, this can be added into the Project Financial Plan (PFP) once a Change Request is approved and signed by all appropriate parties. Pro-Positive Public Policy assures the delivery of a project that takes everyone into consideration. The documentation effort is electronically driven with program software that allows for a smooth transition for all changes to appear across all documents. Negligent adherence to traceability between P6-DP and P5 could lead to serious funding issues that would prevent this former member of the DEA from assuming his new role as a Drug Use Education instructor in a local school. By following the guidelines, every discrepancy will have an easy resolution. In a trial exercise during 2010, P5 and P6-DP were always synchronized.
		There was a time when political leaders had vision. The forefathers, for example, were crystal clear about the type of nation they wanted. They expressed this in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. As time passed, those with vision began to dwindle in number. Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson were presidents who made important contributions that did not allow the vision of the future to escape. Ever since Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal, American presidents have been pressured by their political parties to conform. Note how the ranking of today's leaders has been accelerated, yet they maintain a lack of vision, particularly in the areas of healthcare, drug policy, the economy, future technology, anthropomorphic robotica, space exploration, foreign markets, human rights, same-sex marriage, population expansion, education, and the future of tomorrow's children. Just glancing at the table on the left, it can be seen how the original architects of the U.S. dominated the presidency during the formative years. Then, before and after the Civil War, American presidents failed to deliver any stellar performance except for Abraham Lincoln who gained his reputation through his eloquence in writing. FDR is easily the greatest president, however. FDR left behind a thriving nation that persisted until the reign of Richard Nixon.
		Copyright 2011 Gicomeng
		For further information about Pro-Positive Public Policy, contact Richard Gicomeng at 760-799-8366.