Alternative Energy, Recycling, and Politics

Ethiopia

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Thu, 26 May 2011 23:14:00 +0000

Watch Ethiopia. This may be the most important news you won't hear. Nobody really understands this nations full importance. If it goes the way of the other nations in the region, we have a real possibility of trouble.

The Possibility of a Double Dip Recession

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Thu, 26 May 2011 23:13:00 +0000

I keep hearing that the nation is recovering. Slow job growth numbers have given many people a small measure of confidence. I’m not one of them. I want to believe it, but my depleting checkbook is telling me a different story. Who am I to refute all these political experts, all these media men, etc. I’m the guy who’s unconvinced. Maybe it’s my Missouri upbringing; but experts can TELL me all they want, I need you to SHOW me. All that I have been shown are new regulations, increasing prices, and political unrest all over the country and the world.

So will there be a double dip? I have to say yes. I will even go so far as to say it will occur in this year. What’s my evidence? That would be precedents in recent history. The last recession (we are told) was due to the collapse of the housing bubble. There is truth to that, but it is not the full educated answer. It’s a sound bite, an answer with no meaning. The answer is that government regulation forced banks to give loans to people who had no business receiving loans. The people who received these loans were barely able to make the payments and were only one crisis away from default. The crisis came in the form of huge oil costs. Oil costs rising did not just impact the gas to drive to work; it impacts the cost of transporting goods. Rising transportation costs led to businesses that were on the edge to close, creating layoffs. Others were forced into layoffs just to stay afloat. Food and energy prices went up, and in order to buy food or stay warm through the winter months; people had to push off house payments. When you have a large group of people with loans they could never pay default, you get a housing bubble and an economic crash.

Now where are we as a nation? Those people most severely affected are now essentially pushed into the poverty class. The people who were once fairly secure financially are now on the line where a crisis can destroy them. Banks that do not want to loan are now being scolded or regulated by the government into giving loans again. Small businesses and middle class groups are forced to pay more for food and energy and depleting their reserves of credit. Many of these people are finding it harder to make the house payments and one hard push can destroy them.

Gas has just risen to $3.88 a gallon and is projected to rise as high as $5.00 or more.

Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who don’t study RECENT history are either worse than stupid or repeating it on purpose. Whichever one these people are, they should not be leading this nation.

Maybe I’m wrong, but my track record has held up pretty well on here. Am I a terrible person for saying you should consider the possibility? How much longer will people be content to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the possibility that something can go wrong, and then have the audacity to be surprised when it does?

Confidence is the single defining factor to a stable economy. That confidence has to be based in truth. The media and the politicians seem to be trying to restore confidence based on lies, then wonder why it isn’t working. Don’t trust what they say. Don’t trust what I say. Trust what your eyes and heart are telling you. Preparation has never hurt anyone, lack of it has.

Job Impact on the Deficit (Public and Private)

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:43:00 +0000

With the protests in Wisconsin and other states going, now is a good time to talk about what we need to do to get jobs into balance. This should be THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY for our White House, Congress, Senate, State officials, and the public. I am thoroughly irritated that this complete no-brainer is not discussed more.

Private sector job creation brings new tax revenue. People receiving a paycheck pay taxes. People receiving a paycheck buy things and circulate money, which provide more jobs. The people employed are people who are no longer on welfare rolls, no longer strain the Medicaid system, no longer receive unemployment checks, and take their families off these programs as well. That means real private sector job creation is absolutely essential to helping our economic stability.

Public sector jobs are different. These groups paychecks are our taxpayer dollars, their benefits the same, pensions the same. The items they buy may help the economy, but it is mostly just circulating existing money around. Federal public sector groups (not always state, but there are cases) also tend to make better pay and benefits than their private sector counterparts (especially in this economy.)

Supporting public sector jobs requires a substantially larger private sector to pay them. We do not have that now. We have large unemployment in the private sector, people that are paying fewer taxes and going onto government systems, which requires hiring more people into the public sector to process them. It’s another dangerous cycle. This leads me to only one conclusion.

We need fewer public sector jobs and a lot more private sector ones..

This one sentence stirs the arguments, the pro-government officials immediately cry, “He wants to fire teachers, police and firefighters!” So before that tirade starts let me reply, “Shut up and grow up!” Those three groups are the very last I would want to touch; but it may have to come to that. Bear in mind, I am talking about Federal and to a smaller extent local solutions. State governments will do what they do, without interference from Federal government. The voters of those states will be the ultimate deciders on those decisions.

The first order of business for our Federal government should be to go through its Departments and privatize those areas that can be privatized. Amtrak immediately comes to mind; it’s losing money which the taxpayer subsidizes. Give it to the private sector and let them make it profitable or fail. The Post Office is another one. Fed-Ex, UPS, and e-mail are rendering it obsolete. It’s time to give it over to us to make it work. There are dozens of programs in NASA as well. The Dept. of Labor’s Drug Free Workplace Program can go. I’m pretty confident businesses don’t need this incentive anymore; it’s in their interests to keep the workplace drug free. There are so many more like this.

Secondly, our Congressman and Senators need to TALK with us. What regulations are impacting our job growth? What regulations are preventing us from building small businesses? These regulations need to be revised or removed.

With the ongoing protests in the Middle East it is crucial that we begin getting our energy costs under control. We must begin giving permits to drill for oil, we need to do more to promote natural gas (one of our largest US resources), and we need to push the limits on renewable energy. We do not need the Federal government involved, their brand of beaurocracy will only slow us down and give them opportunities to pick winners and losers. Haven’t we had enough of that already? We all know big oil gets preferential treatment, and lesser known is the new green favoritism shown to GE and others. The American people can pick our own winners. Large sections of the Dept. of Energy need to go private.

We must throw out the existing tax code system. It is thousands of pages filled with contradictions, favoritism to certain businesses, and costs the American people billions of dollars to process. Replace it with a simple, easy to understand set of progressive rates and exemptions for people; and then do the same for business. Two sets of easy rules which cater to our needs. People get exemptions for children, charity contributions, and medical. Businesses get exemptions for exporting goods, providing benefits to employees, and keeping jobs in our country. I’ll outline this better in a later note.

These changes begin to remove public sector jobs to the private sector along with trained people from the public sector which can provide some initial experience. The tax code changes will reduce the manpower requirements on the IRS, freeing some public sector employees from the rolls. Hopefully they can pick up jobs accounting in new small businesses. This also means these people will generate tax revenue rather than consume it.

So what about the Union impact on these jobs? Well, if I’m going to be honest; I don’t much care. If these areas go private and wish to unionize, that’s between them and their employers. These groups will have to leave the public sector unions though.

This brings me to the big three: teachers, police, and firefighters. Teachers are already losing their jobs in droves. What really irritates me about this is that many of the bureaucratic administrators are keeping their jobs. These are the people who I have a true problem with in education. Why do I push defunding the Dept. of Education and putting it back in the interior? Because it’s a bureaucratic mess. States send the education money to Washington, they remove 11% to pay the department, and send the rest back again. How many teachers would that 11% pay? What benefits have the D.o.Ed. provided? There is a growing concern among parents that their children are not graduating with the knowledge they need to have. This frustration is vented onto the teachers but never the administrators in government who push these policies. Granted there are some bad teachers, there are bad employees everywhere, but in general teachers are just a convenient scapegoat for our irritation.

What alternative do these fired teachers have? Not much else is out there for them.

I’m a proponent of school choice; but there is not much of a choice. If a low-income mom wants to transport her children to a safer school environment and pays her school revenues; I don’t see a problem. What about if we don’t want our kids exposed to certain things in the middle income sector? Should our only option be public schools or expensive private ones? Many parents would love to homeschool their children but are prevented by regulations or lack of expertise. Couldn’t we start a combination small classroom grade equivalent option? Allow teachers in the private sector to teach small groups of kids without the nonsense? Begin some new pilot programs for education in the private sector which can provide trained teachers with jobs.

These programs can incorporate new innovations as they are discovered. Example: the Kindle program could save schools untold costs and space from school textbooks by placing the books onto a mainframe and downloading them to a child’s Kindle. These ideas need room to run, and a Federal Department of Education will only provide a roadblock.

How many people know about Patrol Specials? Take the time to look it up if you don't. This kind of program might provide needed jobs to police who may be laid off, but it is a semi-private enterprise nonetheless. We can find solutions if we just go out of the standard ways of thinking.

So now we need to do them. We are going to go nowhere if we sit back and wait for our federal leaders to work this out. Communities need to begin outlining plans, and push their officials to get on the stick. Question them, push new ideas, and let them know we can be ready to do these things.

Spending cuts are our only option, but there are consequences to those cuts. However, if the government cuts these costs only to leave a still largely unemployed people in it’s wake; it’s useless.

Stuck in the Middle with You

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:40:00 +0000

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right; is it any wonder the rest of the world is laughing at us? While under Bush’s administration, many polls showed Americans thought unfavorably of the Republican policies. Under Obama’s current administration, many polls show Americans think unfavorably of the Democratic policies. The media and the politicians would have you think the American people are fickle, stupid, and don’t really know what we want. I think it is really the opposite; that the media and the political parties are fickle, stupid, and don’t really know (or care, depending on the people) what the American people want.
Polls reflect the views of the American people, not just the parties. The diehard partisan voters, the base; only reflect 30% of the voters, per party. That leaves 40% of independent and moderates who influence the vote. The rub is that most of these voters don’t show up. Why? Apathy? Maybe, in some cases. I think in many cases though it is because they don’t believe in any of them anymore. I get that, really I do. But look at the consequences, every term now puts partisan extremes behind the wheel of our country. The best we can get under those circumstances is stagnation, each side repealing the past administration policies, which will destroy us slowly. At worst, one group destroys the other and we ALL go down a road which will destroy us.
I guess I’m talking about bipartisanship. The lack of it is sending us on a first class ticket on the non-stop to nowhere (keeping the musical theme going). It’s gone, and we need it back. Now we hear we need it during campaigns, and we hear the parties talk about the lack of it from the other side. That is true, both sides suffer from partisanship. Now we need to understand why.
Money and power. It can’t be that simple, can it? I’m afraid so. There are those politicians who I truly believe ran for office to help their country. These people had good ideas and a sense of reaching out across the aisle in hopes of not necessarily “winning” their view, but moving the country forward in the best way they could. What happened to them? Political party leaders are partisans, they decide who gets on the Committees, they decide who gets maximum funding for re-elections; they have the ability to influence others against them or to influence them into a hard-line stance against something they might have compromised on to get a favorable result.
Another reason is the political outsiders and lobbyists: AFL-CIO, Focus on the Family, Planned Parenthood, the 700 club, the NRA, Center for American Progress, etc. These are the guys who shell out big money and influence during campaigns. They are also hard core partisan groups who will NOT condone a compromise on their issue. (I believe some of these groups would stall any attempt to achieve a real victory either, that would make them unnecessary and how do you make any money that way?) These are the people who run the attack ads on the other party, (which helps a candidate but doesn’t get his/her hands dirty) but they will not hesitate to turn that around. That means they call the shots on how our lives are run after the election. Even if you believe in one of these causes, this should scare you. These activists are also the suppliers of campaign staff and support and the primary source of “early” campaign money, crucial elements of primary election strength.
Most Media and blogs also have an agenda (including me, I can only hope our agenda’s agree.) They are owned by companies that have or want influence, or belong to groups of the same, or need the divisiveness to get ratings or attention. FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Media Matters, even the AP have to earn their money.
So what do you get when you combine these factors? Usually you get a poor choice of political candidates to vote for in the first place. To quote Lewis Black, “You have a choice between two big bowls of $&%#, the only difference is the smell.”
Not only are the extremes calling the shots, they slam and insult anyone who disagrees or tries to find common ground. The Democratic Parties treatment of Joe Lieberman comes to mind when he disagreed about Iraq. The right even coined a cute little insult, R.I.N.O.’s (Republican in Name Only).
We are being trained to believe that we can’t find common ground on anything; we are a nation of red and blue states, blah blah blah. Is it any wonder this country is losing its preeminent position in the world? How can we be a world leader when we can’t lead our nation?
I think the silent majority can’t stay silent much longer. If the squeaky wheels are getting all the grease, maybe we need to kick the wheels off and replace them.

There is common ground we can agree to without losing our principles:

Abortion: It shouldn’t matter that it’s legal if it’s unnecessary. What could happen if pro-life and pro-choice groups quit spending millions on the law and spent it on the problems.
Funding medical research to stop birth defects, to provide for mothers health, outreach programs to educate against and help prevent rape and incest. Programs to provide for young people to have child care access and continue school. These wouldn’t need to be government programs either. I have to think we are better than this and that we just haven’t looked at this from the right angle.

Affirmative Action: Same thing, make it unnecessary. If we quit arguing about this and focus on bringing jobs back here in big numbers, this problem will go a long way towards fixing itself. Will it be perfect? No, but it IS a start towards it. If wide selections of jobs are in this country and studies show that minorities are still being passed over for lesser qualified white people, then all the speculation has to end and we know as a nation that we have to keep this program.

Welfare/Medicaid/Food stamps: Democrats claim that people have to have this help. I agree. Republicans say this system is misused and abused. I agree. See how easy that is? Now fix it. CREATE JOBS! The people who can get off it usually will. Rather than firing all government staff who used to process that paperwork, keep half of them to begin investigating the ones who are on it for signs of abuse and mistreatment and then deal with it.

Social Security: Why do I like Congressman Ryan’s plan? You get a choice. If you want to partially privatize, you can. If not, you can stay in the system. Maybe this argument shouldn’t be about “right and wrong”, maybe it should be about which system YOU prefer and be a part of it.

Religion and School/Government/etc.: 3 minutes of silence at the beginning of the day. It can be used to pray, gather your thoughts, whatever. Nobody gets offended, nobody even needs to know what the other person believes or don’t. Then move on together through the day.

These are some of my thoughts on just a few topics. I don’t think these ideas make me a R.I.N.O. I think they make me an American who wants to keep us moving forward. What do you think?
Now how do we get there? I would love to see an election year where the majority of Americans just voted “No Confidence”. The politicians would say you just wasted your vote, but is it? Yes, someone would have to win. Those same people would also have to recognize that a large portion of Americans have lost faith in the two party system. If everyone who could vote would, and voted for people they believed in, over a handful of choices picked for us instead of by us, we could get this country moving again. Lobbyists and special interests would have to take notice too.
I like to see some real debates as well. Not these three minute answer, rebuttal, return debates. I know it can’t work for TV, but what about online? Divide it by issues on Youtube and have some real back and forth discussion? Do the same with town halls or community. Give us a chance to see who is qualified, not who has the best spin for three minutes. Look up the Lincoln/Douglas debates sometime. People brought picnics with them to see those debates. That would be a rather long sit, but with today’s technology this could be split into issues and watched by your preference.
I’ve said before that we the people need to have more of a hand in who runs for office. Don’t just let someone stand up and say, “I’m going to run as your Republican/Democrat choice.” Look for people you trust and ask them to consider it, they may say no or they may say, “That’s not for me. You should talk to so-and so. He/She helped me reach these ideas. They would be perfect.” It will take some work in the beginning, but look what doing nothing has gotten us.

Till next time.

The Issue of Declining Morality

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:39:00 +0000

Here is another term thrown around a lot; “Moral Decline”. Are we as a nation suffering from it? When did it start? Does it even matter?

For me, the question is; “How is morality being defined, and by whom?”

So I’ll give my personal thoughts on these questions, not so you will agree with me, but so you can answer yourself on these questions and develop your own opinions. This isn’t a quiz and there is no right or wrong here.

Are we as a nation suffering from moral decline? I believe so; I think a large portion of American society (myself included) had been infected by what I call the “I deserve this” mentality. I deserve this so I’m going to have it, by God; and nobody will stop me! Someone has the job you deserve, screw them over. Someone has a nicer home, I deserve it and if I have to go into enormous debt to get it, I will. I want it, these people, programs, etc. will help me get it, and if I can get it; well, I deserve it. Wait for it? No way. Work harder to earn it? So and so didn’t, why should I? Other’s suffering because of what we did? It’s the “me” generation and they’re not me.

It was a similar thought mode in the roaring 20’s, where did it get them? Where has it gotten us? Media, economists, and politicians point to it as an economic mindset, but aren’t pride, greed, and envy a moral mindset? Isn’t that what we were doing?

When did it start? Which time? Greed and pride drove this nation to slavery, a moral decline we broke free of in the Civil War. The roaring 20’s was powered by greed and envy. The Great Depression and WWII broke us of that. I think another decline began in the 60’s, one that I’m not sure we have really broken free of. We’ve had moral breakthroughs in those times, but it feels to me as if we have been going through a very slow slide down. It seems that maybe, ONLY a maybe, we are beginning to break from it.

I think this is a generational decline, people from the past who went through the rough patch learned from it, and kept a moral framework with them the rest of their lives, and try to pass it on to their children and grandchildren. Those kids and grandkids however did not LIVE through those times and can’t understand. As parents we want our kids to have a better life than us. Our kids also tend to rebel against us and decide they WILL have a better life than their parents had. It’s a natural response for us as parents and them as children to act this way. Over generations, I feel the drive always stays but the responsibility, the self-regulation, the morality fades.

Does it matter? It does to me. As I said above, I was one of those “I deserve it” people. I was wrong; I had to hit the wall in my personal life to learn that, years ago. I consider myself lucky though, things could have been worse. I know what matters to me, and I am a pretty happy person now. I think a lot of people are going through their own personal hells now in order to get there. I don’t know if this is some big awakening or if it will fade in a few years, that’s for us to decide.

How is morality being defined, and by whom? Well right now, morality still seems to be defined by churches. Well that’s their job, but attendance is low and scandals are rife. I’m afraid if they don’t get their house in order, they may not be any help.

What about the government and morality? Well, attendance is low and scandals are rife. I don’t expect guidance there.

Really, it’s up to you, again. Nobody will have the same moral guidebook, religion, code of honor, whatever; but I think we all should have something.

Job Creation

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:34:00 +0000

This whole situation begins with NAFTA. Paraphrasing Ross Perot, "When this passes, the giant sucking sound you here will be our jobs flushing away." During this time a decision was made that we will become a society of consumers. As manufacturing would go away, we would deal with the management and financial. There was a bit of hope though, Mexican labor was cheap but the country could only accommodate so much space and security was (and is) an issue.

Enter China; NAFTA had set the precedent and with China's resettlement of Hong Kong a new player had emerged. They took no time getting the lay of the land and gave American business a better offer. Cheap labor, space, and security were all available. So NAFTA essentially became a non-issue. (It still exists as many companies were already in place there, but it has not exploded in growth like China.

One other convenient service offered was nearness to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Management and Financial services are now on the table. The jobs left in droves and we are in financial decline. As if this situation weren't bad enough, we are borrowing money by the hundreds of billions at a time to the same country that we are giving our jobs to.

They have us in a weird style of financial stranglehold, our debt prevents us from being more stringent with their policies and our means of paying off our debt are on their shores!

Now our consumer based society is based off one thing; our continued purchase of goods. If we can't pay, they extend credit to us. They continually bombard us with advertising and such to promote our buying. In the time immediately following 9/11, when we asked what can we do? We were all united, ready to pay any price. What did President Bush say? "Go shopping, spend, don't let the fear keep you from living your life." I thought it was a bad thing to say then, but as I studied our economy, I realized it was even worse. This was a chance, I didn't realize it then. I don't think anyone did.

We have another now; I think what may be our last, best chance. What's the catch? We ALL have to make it happen. Anything else will be a temporary solution at best. A strange thing is happening; some businessmen are beginning to realize they made a mistake. It was one thing to go to China, get rich, but live in the States; it's another to become China, be broke, with nowhere to go. Business for a time has to put Patriotism before profit. Stockholders have to go from short term immediate gain to long term security. Unions have to balance worker wants from worker needs. We the people need to buckle down and pull together for a time. This is the transition. Transitions are hard, but we are going to go through one. You have to decide whether you want it to be good or bad.

First off, Government MUST cut spending and cut taxes evenly to the people; rich, middle class, and poor. Business will get a different cut, a substantial one to the payroll tax. Why? Businesses make jobs, not the rich that own them. Payroll taxes create an incentive to reduce the payroll. Cut the tax, hiring will improve. It's common sense. The cuts to us will give us the confidence to begin buying again which will create job demand.

This tax cut will only be extended to those businesses which have 50% or more of their employee base in the U.S! Why not more? Because we have to maintain a stable relationship with China. If we pull out to fast, their economy falters. They will want to collect on our debt before we are able to pay and we will falter too. This also prevents any accusations by other countries that we intentionally collapsed the system. I want to get our economy straight, not start a war.

I can hearthe overseas businesses now, "That's not fair, we should be treated equally on taxes!" You haven't been treated equally for decades! You bought tax breaks, bought political favor, and squeezed competitors with lobbying all this time. That's why you are operating overseas now.The way I see it, you pitched the ball at the American people's head, don't act surprised if we charge the mound.

Next, a real bank loan business plan for small business will be developed, again with a monetary increase from spending cuts. No exceptions. Sorry Democrats, women and minorities will need to have a viable business plan based on a unified standard, adjusted for state to state income. This is a major thorn in my side on the Financial Reform.

All businesses must be on equal footing, to succeed or fail on their merit, not on government preferences to a special interest. This was why Fannie and Freddie, Lehman Bros., and Goldman Sachs got so far before it fell, and the fall was magnified.

Big businesses need to ascertain its position in all of this. The small business loan plan has a long term goal; to create new options for Americans should large businesses not return. Places that we can invest in and see grow. A condition of the new loans will be that businesses paying off that loan STAY HERE! Now smart money, tax breaks, and a fair bit of competition should bring other jobs back here, but I never put all my eggs in one basket.

We the people will need to commit to helping small business grow and be selective about the businesses that could come. Example: State and local governments have a choice of bringing some businesses, but limited space will only allow for one. The selections are a strip mall, a Wal-Mart, or a manufacturing job. This is within a half-mile of residential property. Conflict is brewing. Strip malls bring in tidy revenue for the state and local governments. A Wal-Mart has the (rather annoying)tendency to raise property values of the residential homes. A manufacturing building can devalue nearby residential property and has a limiting tax option for government, but it can provide jobs, good jobs. Where do you fall? I can't give you the answer.

Another thing to watch for is state and local incentives for bringing in businesses. This is why we have Wal-Marts and Walgreen's everywhere. They offer them space to collect tax revenue, but they use taxpayer money to help them build parking lots, roads to and from, drainage, utilities, and so on. We know good and well these companies can afford these things but they hold out for them. Welfare for the Wealthy! Is the convenience of a Wal-Mart ½ mile away as opposed to 2 or 3 worth those tax dollars? Are they really providing the jobs that we as Americans need right now?

Unions have to get straight, explain to workers how the short-term gains they fight for sometimes can destroy the long-term goals. Push for profit sharing! This is the single greatest thing you can do to create productivity for a business and will help with the blasé attitude of those employees that destroy worker morale. The workers will help to monitor themselves.

This does not mean I've given up on tax reform or the other things I've discussed in earlier notes. Those things are important to me, but I realize the challenges getting them through. If this is what we have to work with, we'll do it.

The Unions

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:33:00 +0000

Hey, another topic those politicians tear each other to pieces over! I know I promised a job creation article, but unions are an important part of that equation and I feel needs to be addressed in a full topic. Republicans seem to loathe them, Democrats love them. I think unions, much like politicians, can be good for the country if they have proper leadership and common sense.

Looking from a historical standpoint; I believe Unions have done a lot for the creation of the middle class. Without them, we may never have achieved fair pay, retirements, benefits and so on. The things they fought for carried over to non-union workplaces as well and established some overall expectations we all look for in full time employment.

That being said, I feel something has changed; and I think it happened in the leadership.

When I was in the Teamsters, (about 16 years ago) the biggest rule among the workers was "Buy American". They resented American jobs going away and discouraged buying anything that wasn't made here. Now it is "Buy Union" for many. OK, so if Toyota unionized and kept manufacturing cars in the U.S. I can get along with that; what if they unionize but send the jobs to Mexico or China? Where does that leave you?

SEIU is currently trying to create union footholds overseas. Does this mean if a plant in China making cheap toys for cheap pay unionizes, you can go into Wal-Mart and buy it? The AFL-CIO organized and bussed in members to Arizona to protest the illegal immigration law there. When did the Unions start believing it was OK to allow illegal immigrants to come in and potentially take your job at less money? Granted, not all unions approve of this and quite a few left the AFL-CIO for reasons like this. I thank them, they are getting it.

For groups like these, I feel that it isn't about fairness for workers, it's about collecting dues. Why does that employee who should be fired for doing nothing get to keep his job and discourage the hard workers from ever getting ahead? Union Dues. If SEIU gets to unionize overseas, they collect dues from a huge stockpile of people. These people make less than you, will settle for less, and are in direct competition with your business. Is it easier for your leadership to make their wages comparable to yours, or to bring yours down to theirs? They'll probably go halfway, but you will lose, they will win, and union leadership gets rich.

My other issue comes from public service unions and the federal and state pensions. This is heading for disaster. These systems are going to fail at some point. Greece's did and there were riots. The E.U. and U.S. chipped in hundreds of billions to stabilize their economy. Who's going to do that for us? The other governments have the same problem and it will hit them sooner. If it hits here, it will be far worse than there. What if police, firefighter, teachers just stop because there is no more money for pensions and the unions encourage them to quit working?

I have family and friends who are police, teachers, and firefighters. I love and respect them all for what they do and I want their happiness and security. Having to say this knowing they will resent me stinks. I feel like the guy that shows up drunk to the summer party and urinates in the pool.

So if you are a union member on the road to pension, the first argument is "We negotiated it, if they are stupid enough to agree to it, tough!" You're right. It won't change a damn thing. The second reaction is "The governments going to screw us!" You're right again. The people in power offered you this knowing they will either be dead or out of power before the bill came due. It won't change a damn thing. In both cases, that argument is a two-way street. Your negotiators should have seen this coming, and has any of them talked about it?

I see the critical moment happening in one of two ways, but there could be others. Option One: The Pension Tax. Government can't pay, so they will institute a new tax on the pensions of state and federal workers. This is in addition to the others, not instead of. Option Two: Government Bankruptcy, the situation escalates to the point of Greece; America goes to the International Monetary Fund and they take over the financial regulation of the country till the bill is paid, the pensions go away. The Government has no choice, you're broke, but you paid your dues and those guys are long gone.

Or we can get our act together, all of us.

We acknowledge the problem and we work to a solution. Profit sharing doesn't work for public service (no profit), but we can start working toward something similar. Individual 401K's and more can be on the table. It won't be everything you were promised, but it will be more than nothing. Make no mistake, you might be lucky to get out in time, but others won't, and they will resent you. That could cost you more than money.

We quit watching our politicians and we are paying for it. We have to hold them accountable for their actions. Union members have the task of pulling double duty. You have to hold your leadership and politicians accountable. Do you attend your meetings? Do you raise the questions or sit quietly, afraid the others will turn on you? It's not a good situation for you to be in. You have to be informed on two fronts and you have to bring others along with your questioning.

Or you can write me off as someone who just hates unions and ignore it. I want YOU to fix it. How do you think the Republicans will fix it? America has a proud legacy that we let down of late, Unions the same. Let's get to work getting the legacy back.

Their Up to Their Old Tricks

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:33:00 +0000

So I was watching C-SPAN tonight. (Yes, I am THAT boring.) They were airing Michael Steele and the RNC summer committee in Kansas City. I listened as he spoke of getting back to principles, listening to the people, and they will not sleep until after Election Day in November. First off Steele, if you really believed what you were saying; you would know the people don’t want you to rest then either. How about getting this country off the ledge, then you can rest?

Secondly, I’m listening to these old school Republicans talking about and quoting the Founders of our Nation. Bear in mind, most of these guys weren’t doing this until the last year or so. I also seem to remember prominent Republican Senator Trent Lott saying “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples, as soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

Hmmmm….. I smell a rat. These guys are latching on to the new and sexy thing people. Get your hip waders on; it’s going to get deep. Isn’t it amazing how, now that the American people are beginning to look back on our history to our periods of prosperity in order to get some perspective, the Republican party is right there with us? I’m a major history buff, particularly American History; I don’t walk around quoting Washington and Franklin. Standing up there quoting a statement by Thomas Jefferson does not make a politician a restorer. (Oooohhh, I like that word.) It probably means they had someone in their staff look up something for them to use to get your votes.

So Republican “leaders” are following the latest trend. Shouldn’t they have been creating one instead?

Jim DeMint disciples? Really? So I can’t come to any kind of conclusion about our government after hours devoted each day, every day to that subject without someone else “converting” me? Senator Lott, you don’t know me and you don’t care; so don’t presume to act like you know what I’m about, let alone anyone else.

So obviously, this article is directed to the Tea Party; but it could just as easily apply to anyone in any party. I am noticing something the more I watch these things though. I’m no expert on detecting bull by any means, but have you ever heard ANYONE (not just a politician, but life in general) say something you just KNEW was true? I mean deep down in your gut, gave you shivers, felt in your heart true? I’ve heard it a few times lately in politics. I’ve seen the false outrage posed by Senators during hearings. I’ve listened to the speeches given by elective hopefuls. I’m pretty jaded about these things but I have felt it. Maybe its passion, maybe its genuine sincerity, but it has happened. I FELT McCaskill’s outrage at the Arlington hearings. I don’t believe her on almost everything she says, but what she said there FELT true. I remember President Bush speaking at the mass funeral/memorial for those killed in 9/11 (some four or five days after I believe), and I remember it as a moment when I was inspired to achieve greatness, because it felt TRUE. (Again, not a Bush fan in particular.)

I’m telling you this because this is what we need to look for; not policy, not a Harvard or Yale degree, just some passion, sincerity, and truth. If you’re not sure what it feels like, here are some clues. If a person inspires you to do more than you thought was possible, encourages you to speak even when it’s easier to be silent, and asks you to walk alongside him/her rather than drag you; you’re in pretty good hands.

Truth and Lies about Tax Cuts and Stimulus in the Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:32:00 +0000

Well, they’re at it again. Both sides talking about the Bush tax cuts and the economy. Par for the course, both sides are taking a grain of truth and heaping a big lie on top. Republicans say that letting them expire will create a drag on the economy. Democrats say they need to recover this money as it will create a bigger deficit. These statements are both true. This is true of all tax cuts.
Tax cuts also have a moralizing effect on the people. When APPLIED CORRECTLY, it gives people a sense of security that things will be better. Here’s the catch, people know what’s happening in the gov’t right now and tax cuts will not have the desired effect.
The trick to fixing the economy is a combination of three things: stimulus (the Democrat favorite), tax breaks (the Republican choice), and spending cuts (they always want to leave that one out). The trick is for the first two to work, the third has to be twice as large or you create a deficit.
Tax cuts for one group in this economy will create a group that is resented by the rest. Tax cuts need to be applied to everyone across the board to create faith things will be alright. It will not be believed for one second if the people do not see how it is being paid for, with interest.
Stimulus applies the same way. You need some stimulus to cover state and federal unemployment and give job loans. The rest of it is only keeping us plugging along until it bottoms out. Again people know this and we will not recover just using stimulus.
So it really comes down to this; if they won’t cut spending, we won’t recover. As I stated in an earlier article, this does not mean just cutting the other parties issues. Assume some leadership and cut across the board on all of it. When groups come crying, call them out. What makes any department better than anyone else’s that they should be exempt?
Cut the spending, take the money you save, provide an across the board tax cut while keeping enough to get through the unemployment.
Get us some real jobs; this country has to stop being consumer based. We need manufacturing. People are going to be left behind if we keep this up. Even if, by the grace of God, everyone gets a college degree; they will still all be competing for minimum wage retail and service jobs and never getting out of personal debt. We need our manufacturing jobs back! I will go into ways to try to make this happen in a future article. It might get nasty.

The Consolidation of Executive Power

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:31:00 +0000

As we move to another set of elections, I find myself asking those pesky questions. Top among them is “Will it change anything?” People are thinking that voting Republican will stop this administrations insanity. Putting aside the fact that I don’t trust them either, I still think this administration will go forward at full speed. Why? The Legislative Branch has legislated itself into a corner.
Example: Cap and Trade. We know it will be fought harder than almost anything else the administration has done. It will be the nail in our coffin as a country if it passes. My guess is that it will not pass. There is no chance of it being voted on before the midterm elections and with projected Republican wins in many areas, it won’t get the votes. Sounds like politics as usual, right? Wrong. The administration has already stated if it does not pass, it will use existing EPA regulations to create a “Pollution Cap.” These regulations never really had any backing or enforcement to them and were all but forgotten. Now the President will shake the dust off the old existing rules and get his way while bypassing the rule of the people. Surprise! The House and Senate probably never even realized the regulations existed; but at one time, some administration approved it.
Now let’s look at the Czars, appointed by the President to oversee the various tasks and duties at hand. We didn’t always have them, we had Cabinet Secretaries. Cabinet Secretaries needed approval by Senate confirmation and can be subpoenaed in order to testify. Now granted some of these Czars still receive Senate confirmation, but they have the ability to hide behind Executive Privilege, which means the President can choose to cover their backside on any issue he chooses. This has not been abused by the current administration to my knowledge but it does not excuse the fact that it COULD! So Obama chooses not to hide his Czars from testimony, what about the next President, or the one after him. I feel it is a dangerous line we are walking.
The Executive branch already has the arm of the military, no small thing. It needs to be held accountable. Whether intentional or not, the Czars and the ability to run roughshod over the will of the people and our elected representatives by twisting regulations needs to be addressed and curtailed. So our President may choose not to exercise this, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
Just once I would love to hear politicians say, “I’m not running to create laws, I’m running because a few need to be repealed.” I’m not talking about just Healthcare or Financial Regulation. I mean a full overhaul of old, outdated, ignored, unenforceable, or abused laws and regulations. We need more of this and less of the other. Let’s make sure the system can’t be twisted. Oh and Mr. President, the Czars will be held accountable; we can find loopholes in the rules too.

More on renewable energy

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:31:00 +0000

Anyone who reads my notes would get the impression that I’m against green energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m against a green energy government policy. I wasn’t at one time, but my opinion has changed. I had hoped a green energy initiative would create cheap, clean energy for people who participated through mass-production and innovation. I no longer believe that will be the end result of government interference.

Here’s an example, meet Konarka; a real green business. Konarka is doing incredible things with “solar ink”, a discovery that creates solar energy that is more efficient than solar panels and will be considerably cheaper once mass production begins (purchase price estimated at about $1 a foot.) It will come out on flexible rolls of plastic to fit any roof and will even generate power under other light sources beside the sun.

Question: When can we expect to see this in our lives?
Answer: Probably never.

Why? I don’t believe it will ever enter into the consumer mainstream. I think if this is perfected, it will be blocked by energy regulation, or bought by groups that will never release it (My guess is that Shell Oil or GE will buy out the company and the patent.)

It’s common knowledge that if anyone creates a better engine on a vehicle, the big auto manufacturers buy the patent and sit on it. I think we are beginning to see and will continue to see this in green energy. It’s a struggle as old as Tesla and Edison, free or cheap energy is not profitable and therefore not an option to them.

If they use the old solar panels for personal use, it’s expensive and will be expensive fixes. If the government uses green energy to power your home, they can charge you on a month to month basis. Either way, you are beholden to them. (By the way, don’t expect those energy bills to be cheaper. Current use solar and wind require a lot more equipment than coal burning. Repair costs and equipment fees will cost a nice penny.)

Housing developers can expect to deal with the same issues. There are ways to design homes that will save money for the contractor and energy costs for you. They also require permits and are hampered by regulation.

As I have said before, I don’t know if global warming is real or not. There is probably truth to it according to scientists I respect. These same scientists also say all this green energy will do nothing to reverse it. They also do not believe the doomsday scenario painted by Al Gore. If the oceans going to rise 20 ft in the next few years, then why did he just buy a $12 million home on the beach?

I’ve mentioned before that I think the Department of Energy should be privatized. I believe only through doing this can we achieve cheap, clean energy. With the regulations out of the way, a business like Konarka could look to outside backers and other ways to protect itself and make a difference.

As I’ve said, this is common practice in the auto industry. Why wouldn’t we think it applies elsewhere? I think of all the times I see this promising green science in an article or program and then one day it’s just gone. I’m sure some were failures, but all of them?
If I’ve learned anything following politics all these years, it’s that nothing is what it seems.

Unemployment benefits

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:30:00 +0000

The story goes like this; the Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits. The Republicans want them to pay for it rather than add to the deficit. I do not want people to lose their homes, cars, credit rating, etc. because of political bickering. This could have been solved quickly and to the Republicans favor if they had stood on two platforms, conservatism and bipartisanship.
If I were in the GOP’s shoes I would have approached the situation in a different way. I believe the extension was $34 billion over 6 months. Conservatism does not just mean tax cuts, it means spending cuts even if the issue is important to you. So create savings from your issues: military, agriculture, etc. One set to equal $17 billion, another at $68 billion. First present the $17 billion stating, “We are willing to meet you halfway in the interest of bipartisanship. We will cut this from the areas we treasure most. Will you match it?” Then see if they do, they would look foolish if they didn’t. They would be turning down a sincere offer of bi-partisanship in front of their voters.
For the sake of argument, let’s say they reject the offer. Present the $68 billion offer to them stating “We know this is important to the American people, we are willing to cover this with a year sum. This will allow us to pay the benefits indefinitely as it comes from spending cuts on the issues we fight to defend. We ask only that if you agree, as employment returns the leftover money not used for unemployment be used to pay down the deficit.”
What do they do? If they reject this, they now have proven they are only interested in bankrupting the government. That would be all the ammunition Republicans would need for the elections. If they accept, the Republicans are heroes. They stood on principle and provided clear leadership to the people.
This is why I cannot call myself a Republican, even though on paper we see eye to eye on almost everything. I hear them say they will cut spending; but does this mean just on Democratic issues? Leadership involves sacrifice, if you can’t do that then you don’t deserve the authority either.

Race

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:28:00 +0000

(Disclaimer: the following is not neccessarily the opinion of others on this blog.)

It’s all over the news, racism in the Tea Party, Senator Byrd and his KKK connections, the voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, the first black president, the Arizona immigration law and its racism. Everyone wants to talk about the subject, but they are really talking around it. So, because everyone’s doing it (and because nobody asked me to) I’m going to talk about it.

Racism exists, and it’s not just in the Tea Party and the Panthers. Republicans have them, Democrats have them, Independents, Libertarians, Green Party, etc; bigots exist everywhere. That being said, they do not have near the power and authority that the politicians and news like to portray. Once again, this is nothing more than a way to divide us. Take something with a grain of truth and then blow it up to become the biggest of lies.

America has its problems with racism, more than a lot of countries. I feel we have done more to address those problems than any other country however. Segregation was not so very long ago in our countries mind. My parents were alive, so were many of yours. It is still fresh to generations who lived it and are passing on their beliefs to a generation who weren’t. Mine seems to be torn between the generation of the politically correct, who don’t want to talk about it; or the groups that won’t shut up about it. The truth again probably lies in the middle.

Why does this divide us so much? I suspect some of it is unintentional. We tend to be products of our time. “Back in the good old days….” Well, many of the big guys in government and media now were there during the civil rights movement, some in power already (such as Robert Byrd (D) who opposed civil rights, and Ted Kennedy (D) who supported it. Both only recently passed.) Others were there and came into power later (Hillary Clinton), that are still in positions of government. These experiences formed who they are, good and bad. In many ways, this fight will never be over for them. They will tell you as much and that’s a good thing. I think they need to acknowledge one thing however that can bring hope to this.

Our kids, they never grew up with this and a lot of them simply do not comprehend racism (God bless them). These were the new voters who helped put the first black man in the Oval Office because he was judged by the content of his character. These are the kids; black, white, Asian, Hispanic, etc that go to school together, play together, and are growing up and getting married to each other.

We tend to forget about one of our greatest strengths as a nation; the melting pot. Inter-racial marriage was finally allowed in all 50 states in 1967. It was happening earlier but it has taken off within the last two generations and will only grow. Children of inter-racial unions are growing as well. They will marry and have kids, over and over. This happened with Christian and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Irish and Italian. We grew stronger and more united over time, not separated.

We live in a different time, and racism is very different than it was 50 years ago. What will it be like 50 years from now? We should learn from the past, but look to the future. I think we’ll be OK.

Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:25:00 +0000

You’d think, for someone considering a political career, I would avoid the hot button issues. That would defeat the whole purpose of getting involved in the first place. So here’s where I stand on the abortion issue and why.
I hate it and I wish it had never been created, but it exists and it is dividing us and providing ammunition for politicians to use. Those who know me know this is a personal issue for me and one I will not go into in these notes (and neither should anyone else, other lives are involved so keep the comment bar clean.) But I will not lie and be considered a hypocrite on this.
My problem with this issue comes from two serious moral beliefs I have. I believe in the sanctity of life for the unborn, but I also believe I should never force my beliefs on others. This is the heart of the issue, but it is never really considered in the discussion. It’s always pro-life or pro-choice, and the only gray is in rape, health of mother or child, or incest. But is it the only gray? Couldn’t we create other options or incentives that would allow women to choose life willingly?
I do not believe overturning Roe vs. Wade will end abortion. It will just get people killed in illegal and dangerous procedures. I also do not believe that we should finance other abortions as it is laid out in the Health Care law. Rather than arguing over this position, I think we need to readjust our conversation to other avenues that may help all involved.
Incentives that change behavior come from three fronts: moral, social, and economic. Let’s look at these to see if we can create a change.

First comes the moral, this is where most pro-life supporters fuel their arguments from. The problem is that it just doesn’t work so well. For some people, this is an unflappable belief, but a lot of people do not come from this place. These same people can argue that they are moral however and it is probably true. A lot of people are pro-choice who are extremely moral in areas where a pro-lifer MAY not be (blowing up clinics and killing doctors for example.)
So putting aside the irrational behavior of the few, we’ll look at the main moral standpoint: religion. I’m not criticizing, religion is important; so much so we included its protection in the constitution. I think religion can do things with this issue that the government should not do. For one, preach against abortion and birth control if you want. You have a responsibility to do so. Just recognize that people are flawed, especially kids. If they become pregnant and feel they will be ostracized and shunned by the pulpit and congregation, they may make the wrong decisions in your eyes. Talk about this, maybe set aside a special congregation for parents on teen pregnancy. Perhaps set up programs and scholarships to help single mothers who chose life to go to school. In short; forgive their mistakes and be charitable.

Social incentives are another option. We had one 50+ years ago. It was ostracizing and scorn. It wasn’t a good option but it was there. Celibacy was maintained because the shame of unwanted pregnancy was pervasive. It still exists, but in a world of contraception it holds little strength of social stigma (except in the case of pro-choice parents, this is a significant reason for their choice). Criminalization is another, but it fails to stand up to the realities.
The ones we currently use are birth control and adoption. Both are socially acceptable (though not always religiously acceptable). I have no personal problem with either as long as the federal government stays out of it.

And now the economic incentives, this is another reason why abortions tend to happen in the first place. Social stigma and a fear that one cannot handle the responsibility for a child whether due to money, immaturity, and drug use, etc. It is expensive and time consuming to raise a child. Unwed, single mothers have an especially hard time providing. We need charitable organizations that can help with this (not long term welfare, which does nothing to empower mother and child.)
(Disclaimer: The following should not be considered the opinion of the blog as a whole, this is mine alone.)
Talking about pregnancy before it ever occurs would be a good idea as well. I’m a father, and my daughter is everything. Sure I can puff out my chest and say my daughters a good girl, and she is. Good girls can still get pregnant, good girls and boys can make mistakes. How would you as a parent deal with it? Where do your values lie? I know I don’t want to think about that but I would rather consider my choices now and have it never happen, than vice-versa.

Is there a case to allow abortion? Maybe? I do not care for the “morning after” pill, but if a women was raped or a victim of incest? I might be able to live with this as a preventative in an immediate hospital situation. I’m not claiming to know what’s right for everyone, I’m not God. I’m more conflicted than most politicians claim to be on every “gray” nuance of this. I think a lot of us are, and that’s why we need to go outside the box on this. Things are never going to change if we only address this as Roe vs. Wade, there have to be other ways. Let’s look for them.

Social Security

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:15:00 +0000

Ooooh! The sacred cow that is Social Security. The scourge of politicians everywhere. Everyone knows it has problems; ask anybody under 30 years old if they think they will have this when they retire. No. Ask anyone between 30 and 50 and it’s a coin toss. So if it’s a problem, let’s address it.

This was signed in 1935 under the title S.S.I. or Social Security Insurance. It allowed a retirement age of 65. The lifespan at the time was 55 for men and 60 for women, hence the word INSURANCE. This was a protection designed for people who lived longer than the average to prevent them from going into poverty. The lifespan now is 75 for men and 82 for women and the program has evolved from an insurance program to a federal subsidy.

I’m telling you this for two reasons. First, it gives a perfect example why programs need to be reviewed every 5 to 10 years in order to see if they are doing what they are supposed to do. Second, because the original purpose was insurance the government COULD conceivably dial this back to an age of 85! Hostile reactions from senior voters have prevented this so far, but if this program goes too far in the red what might they have to do? Just because you don’t hear it from the politicians doesn’t mean SOME aren’t considering it.

So being the fiscal minded guy, where do I stand? A little bit for and a lot against. Longevity of life is not the same as longevity of health. Everyone can tell you an injury at 40 is different from an injury at 20. At 65+ it is even harder to recover, not to mention the regular everyday issues that come with aging. Trying to make people work till 85 at this point will result in greater work insurance liabilities for the rest of us and cause employee firings of those past 65, with no help forthcoming. As medicine improves we can slowly move this number upwards which can help costs.

Full privatization is not the answer either. Those who are nearest retirement will have nothing and given our fluctuating economy, it could hurt the rest of us as well. We need to balance personal responsibility with a hand up (I use that word a lot, don’t I?) from the government.

The existing system did have some potential to keep going the way it was a little longer; but the government decided that rather than let any additional money from Social Security stay where it was, it would use it to pay for other aspects of government. This pay as you go system has escalated the program towards the red when we could have had potential money to buy time if nothing else.

So my solution? Well, fortunately a lot of better minds than mine have been working on this and I feel the best answer (as usual) tends to be somewhere between. So here we go

1.Account funding: 6.2% of FICA will be diverted into personal retirement accounts of participating workers. They will be funded with after tax dollars like a Roth IRA, but there will be no taxes on earnings or withdrawals. You may voluntarily contribute up to 10% of wages into the accounts.

2.Older Worker Protection: Existing workers 55 and older will not be affected and will not have benefits cut.

3.Voluntary Choice: Existing Workers may opt out and stay in the current system; with the understanding they will receive less benefit than those currently being promised but at a level sustainable under projected tax revenues. Benefits for those who do so will be determined by price indexing instead of wage indexing. New workers will be enrolled in the personal account system when they start.

4.Investment Options: Deposits in personal accounts will fund a default portfolio of 60% equities and 40% bonds. Upon reaching $10,000 you become available for broader investment options to invest into.

5.Recognition: Workers who opt into personal accounts will receive a “recognition bond”, reflecting the accrued value of past contributions to Social Security. These bonds can be redeemed at age 67 to fund a portion of their retirement benefits.

6.Benefits: At retirement, individuals would take an annuity or programmed withdrawal of their account. Anything in excess of those needed to provide a minimum annuity may be withdrawn. For average workers; between recognition bonds and personal accounts, benefits will be higher than the current system can afford to pay, (but possibly not as much as they are promising). The plan guarantees no workers retirement income falls below 120% of the poverty level at worst.

7.Solvency: The Social Security Administration has confirmed this will create long-term solvency in the system.

This is H.R.530 (the Johnson-Flake bill). It will work, but it has a downside. It will cost an estimated $6.7 trillion to put into effect. As I have said, I don’t trust government projection numbers so I am figuring about $9.3 just to be overly precautious. But it will remove almost $13 trillion in unfunded liability over 10 years, saving us $4 trillion at least. I would vote for this as it stands, but I think it can be improved a little to save initial deficit cost and improve our benefits. So I say keep the plan above but add this to it.

1.Put the “lock” back on Social Security. Any extra money accrued in the following years can not be removed. Place it into savings accounts and use it to offset transition costs.

2.Do a small and incremental roll back of the retirement age to 67 years. This will be done at a rate of 2 months per year (age 64 will retire at 65 and two months, 63 at 65 and 4 months, etc). These small increments will begin putting billions of dollars back into Social Security (which is now “locked” to cover the transition). This will take 12 years to reach its limit, however every 10 years this will be reviewed and possibly adjusted higher, based on longevity of HEALTH as I discussed above. This will give younger workers time to place additional money to their personal accounts for greater benefits and the recognition bonds will be available immediately at their retirement age. This is also two years that we are not using Medicare/Medicaid as well as they will be on employer coverage. We will need this time in order to address those two issues.

3.If the tax system I discussed in Phase I were to go into effect; FICA would be eliminated. This would require us to remove the 6.2% ourselves or through employers, but the additional money we would have as a result of less taxation should allow us to do this with money to spare. I wouldn’t call it a tax break per se, but it does put you in charge of the money before the government.

4.Any existing after tax IRA’s should be allowed to “rollover” to the personal account to allow more initial money at first. This will help to gain better interest and more quickly reach the $10,000 dollar mark for those who wish to broaden investment options. This should remain voluntary.

All right, I went out on the limb for this. Again, not everyone will like this and someone may improve on it. Give me feedback.

Putting It All Together

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:14:00 +0000

Let’s look at all the stories in the news at one time and see where we are headed. The oil crisis has caused a moratorium on drilling (it has been overturned, but is being fought). Every day we cannot drill, Americans are out of work. To make matters worse, the longer we go without drilling, the better the chances these rigs will pack up and go away to other countries to drill. Once these rigs accept new contracts, they will probably be gone for years. This WILL raise gas prices and put anywhere from 6000+ people out of work in Louisiana alone. Am I to believe our “recovering” economy can take a hit like that?

Some environmentalists think this is great as we will be forced to allocate more resources to alternative energy. Resources from where? Last time I checked, we were already spending money we don’t have. Spain has a “green” energy policy; they also have an over 20% unemployment rate. Is this the answer? I have to believe the government knows this, so why?

We have a $13 trillion dollar debt and a newly revised $130 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. This averages about $42,000 per citizen (but near $119,000 per TAXPAYER) and growing on the debt alone. This is the legacy we leave our kids, to be born into debt.

We have a crisis in healthcare due to escalating prices and panic over the Healthcare bill. We have American soldiers fighting in two nations and growing hostilities from at least two more. Out of control Federal pensioning is poised to collapse in this country just as it has in Greece. In 2020, retirees drawing social security will have increased at a faster rate than the workforce that pays its benefits. Medicaid will be even worse. Illegal immigration only adds to the burden in healthcare, education, and job loss.

The Fanny and Freddie disaster has now put over 90% of existing mortgages in the Federal government’s pocket. These are our homes and businesses, owned by a government in HUGE debt; what are the potential consequences of that?

I’m not telling you all of this to scare or depress you. I’m telling you this because the government and the media talk about this as if it is separate and therefore we tend to think of it that way. People tend to compartmentalize their thinking and only look at one or two things at a time. The government can deal with a couple of things, right? Look at all of it at once and what do you think?

I think the people in government (Note: not the SYSTEM, the people) are failing us. I also think we are failing ourselves by ignoring it. I can’t ignore it anymore. I don’t want my daughter’s future to be destroyed because I would rather watch Idol or the NFL. I don’t think anybody does, but isn’t that what we are doing? How many of us just set aside an hour of their time a few days a week to look at and learn about government and world affairs? Sure it’s not fun, but neither is paying bills. We pay them because we have to. It’s about taking our responsibility seriously before we lose something we love or need.

Again, this is not a Democrat or Republican thing alone. Both groups are responsible. I’m responsible for it too. That being said, I do NOT agree with the current administration saying that we need to follow the lead of others, that we are a nation in decline, and that we can’t be best at everything. That is a defeatist attitude and we are better than that. If they cannot or will not fix these problems, we have to. So to Obama,Biden, Hillary, Steele, Boehner, Pelosi, McConnell and everyone else I can only say this. “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of our way.”

State governments

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:13:00 +0000

A lot of people forget that the United States is almost a version of the U.N. in miniature. We are actually composed of 50 smaller, very similar state governments (and Guam, Puerto Rico, etc), that are united under one Federal government. These state governments tend to be forgotten about but they are crucial to the freedom of our nation. They all have different problems and different politics, but they are all finding their individuality co-opted by the federal politicians. Why? Well because the Federal government should be bigger, right? No, that is not what we were built on; that’s just what we’ve become used to.
This really hit home for me during the beginning of the oil spill. Governor Bobby Jindal was speaking about wanting to protect the Louisiana marshes but needed Federal approval to initiate the Emergency Powers Act in order to do something. The President is saying he has not heard from the Army Corps of Engineers whether this would be an effective use of resources. Meanwhile the boats were sitting docked doing nothing. Maybe berm building would not have worked to save the marshes, maybe people just need to DO something regardless. Its one thing for the Federal government to want to make the most effective use of their resources, I support that completely. That is what they need to do. It is another thing to force a state that is hurting to do nothing and I do not support that.
It would be easy to chalk this up to Republican and Democrat cattiness. I’m sure that is part of it, but it is endemic of more. State governments are losing (and in some cases giving away) their own authority to the Federal government. The Texas textbook and Arizona immigration battles are proof of this as well.
Why did this happen? Well, if you are a Representative or Senator and you wanted more power than you currently have, where else would you try to get it? At the same time, if you are a Governor and you want to keep from making the hard decisions at budget time, wouldn’t you want Federal money to subsidize you?
Every state has its own uniqueness; it could be political, agricultural, tourism, etc. This means they also have different and unique problems. But rather than deal with these problems for themselves they go to their federal representatives and try to get the money from all taxpayers to solve it. This is not how it should work. As I’ve said before, state government is more effective when they CHOOSE to solve their own problems. They will make mistakes, but it won’t affect everybody’s tax dollars. Other states will try something different and they will work out what best deals with a problem. Better yet, other states will see this example and do it themselves, making the whole system better.

The Federal government solution tends to be, we need to address this and will throw this much money at it. States who do not have this problem will engineer an excuse to get some of this money for themselves. Different governmental departments will make special programs to get some of this money. Pretty soon, everyone’s grabbing at the money and nobody is really addressing the problem. Then it blows up, and everyone points to everyone else who has their hands in the money pot.
Dept. of Education Title 1 is a perfect example of this. Every school wanted this money, so they created special education classes for every school, school lunch programs, and such. Has the poorest schools and the special need problems really been addressed? The drug program, did the Department of Labor need this money? No, but to get it they created the “drug free workplace program”. Couldn’t we have done this on our own without a Federal department’s involvement? Not according to them. They got money.
One state, in order to collect $43 million dollars from Federal welfare; issued 250,000 $1 food stamps in the mail to it’s residents in order to count them on it’s rolls. The federal government encourages this in order to feed its own ego, basically.
Now the oil spill; Homeland Security is involved, Army Corps of Engineers, Governors, Coast Guard as a separate entity and part of DHS, BP, and Lord knows who else. What are they doing? Nothing. Whose fault is it? Those guys over there, not us. Isn’t it all getting a little ridiculous? If the problems we’re facing weren’t so scary, I’d be laughing like crazy at it.
I’ve said it before; the Federal government does not have the resources to deal with all the problems it is trying to take on. It needs to shed the policies and programs it does not need to deal with and give them back to the states. Then it needs to focus on what it has left. State governments need to communicate with the people of their state and other state leaders to address these problems. Democrats will try solutions, Republicans will try solutions. Some will work, some won’t. They will learn, adapt, and grow.
So what do we do? We need to ask our representatives where they stand on state rights. Will your candidate for Governor fight for his states rights? Will your Federal Representative fight to let your state keep its rights? What do they believe those rights to be? What do YOU believe those rights to be?
Do you want to keep Federal subsidies rolling in, knowing they are just going to go away later, when it will hurt so much more? Will you elect to give up the special treatment, stand on your own, and know in the end; you did what was hard because it was right? This WILL be hard; many of us will be relearning what our great-grandparents always knew. Nothing good in life is free, and a hand up is preferable to a handout. State governments will never have the money to fix everything and we will be picking up where they have to leave off. That’s fine with me; in the end, I trust us to handle it better.

Term Limits

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:13:00 +0000

I’ve mentioned term limits being imposed on politicians on a few of my notes. I have never really stated why. If someone is doing a good job, why would you want to remove them? It’s a valid question so I’ll explain my reasoning.

Most Americans talk about the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in campaign financing. If you impose term limits this would hinder this process. Why would a group invest MILLIONS of dollars in someone running for Congress to have to start all over again in two or four years? They are investing for the long term influence. This will not stop the influence but it will help.

Secondly, Washington has an effect on politicians over time. I’m sure you can find plenty of newly elected Representatives and Senators who in their first and second terms pushed for great things. Over time that pushing tends to stop. They get comfortable and it’s easier to play nice with others to get support for the next campaign. Term limits give politicians a limited time to try to get their positions out there. They MAY also be more inclined to do what’s right over what is popular since they have nothing to lose.

Now do I believe politicians will ever vote for this? No, probably not. I also say, “So what?” They don’t need to. We vote for them and we can decide the terms. Tell them, “We are not giving you a third term.” They’ll say that there is still so much to do and so on. Great, help us pick a successor for your seat and we’ll consider it but your time is up. If you want to pursue a political career, run for something else. We’ll give you two terms.

We are as responsible for this going on as they are. I believe we are more inclined to stop it, however. If we do this, eventually it will become a rule. There will be no point in them not doing it. We will have spoken. The government only has the power we give them. Remind them of that, but more importantly; prove it.

My Plan Phase III

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:12:00 +0000

Time for Phase III, regulations placed on the government. Too many times the gov’t has sought to regulate everything that we do while ignoring itself. You can blame Wall Street for the current crisis, and the gov’t does, but the crisis that is coming is the governments own doing. Their out of control spending proves to me that the greed in Washington is far more dangerous than anything in the private sector. We need to bring in people who will address it; and better yet, will call out the ones doing it so the whole world can see.
Now some of these men and women truly believe they are doing well; and in the eyes of the small groups whose policies they support, this is true. These people are constantly bombarded by this group or that, asking for their support. They also feel empowered when these groups begin handing them their “most prestigious honor” or such; and sometimes they just believe any problem can be fixed if they throw more money at it. Any Congressional hearings on these programs are usually one sided, with interviews with program heads, witnesses who benefit by the program and so on. Where are the people to represent the cons? Who is the one saying “Your project spends this much of everyone’s tax money and only performs for this small group.”? These are people who you can explain these things too. Others just want to spend our money to improve their personal profit, they have to go.

So the first regulation needs to be a cap on government spending. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has created one such bill. His SAFE Act would limit annual growth in the budget to inflation plus population growth.
To quote Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute: “Smith’s bill, which has 34 co-sponsors, would cap growth in all spending including defense, non-defense, and entitlements. If spending this year was $3.70 trillion, inflation was 2 percent, and population growth was 1 percent, then federal spending next year would be limited to $3.81 trillion. If Congress failed to get spending under the limit by the end of the year, the president’s budget office would be required to apply an across-the-board cut, or sequester.” and “The idea is simply that the government’s budget shouldn’t grow faster than the average family’s budget.” I think we could do better, but it is a start.

Another regulation concerns defense spending. Spending on Defense is controlled by Congress. This results in Congress continually keeping projects open that the Pentagon does not want or need in order to keep money going into their districts. The Pentagon does not help as they tend to knowingly “flub” cost estimates on their projects. When these costs skyrocket past projections they say it is too important and too far along to stop. They tend to do this in order to keep jobs open for them in the private sector when they leave the military. This doesn’t work.
I propose that Congress sets a yearly spending limit on Defense contracts. This money is to be under the control of the Pentagon, they have full discretion to keep or eliminate projects as they see fit. Congress will have a second, much smaller, budget for contracts. If Pentagon spending on any project exceeds its promise price by 20%, this project freezes and a Congressional hearing will be called to determine if this project is important enough to support with their secondary funding. This will help to remove Congressional district favoritism while allowing our military to do its job and be more forthright about costs.

Every government department needs to have yearly performance reviews. This is already done but there are no defining criteria to determine how well they do. Therefore, each department needs a set of yearly benchmark goals, just like a business. There performance will be rated on how well those goals are accomplished. This will help determine whether the benefits of a program outweigh the cost.

I truly believe that passing on our gov’t debt to our children is a violation to the spirit of “no taxation without representation”, if not the technical rule. We need to pass a constitutional amendment that requires the gov’t to maintain a balanced budget and not pass the debt on. Our next generation will have enough hurdles to climb without inheriting our financial burdens.

Set up a commission to find waste, fraud, and abuse in the budget. They will make recommendations to Congress who will vote to keep or eliminate them AS A WHOLE. They can make no amendments or provisions to this. This will keep Congressman from feeling as if they are singled out on their spending alone and will be more inclined to vote out their “pork” if it removes others.

In order to sanction any spending that is over-budget should require a supermajority vote in the House and Senate.

I almost forgot one of the most important ones; TERM LIMITS. No more entrenched politicians. Two terms and move on or up.

These are just a few suggested by myself and others. This can help keep spending down and relieve the taxpayer burden. Feel free to suggest more. I’m all ears.

My Plan Phase II

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:11:00 +0000

Oh my, what have I started here? I began this project with a lot of optimism and faith. The more I dig in to this the more disgusted and outraged I get. The behavior of many of these politicians is, if not technically illegal, definitely criminal. I cannot even begin to convey the scope of this corruption and greed, poor management, and waste. It has its hands in near everything the federal government touches and shows a lack of leadership in both parties and caring for their citizens. I’m not surprised about the leadership; criminal behavior lends itself to not trust anyone to take charge

I wanted to outline this with explanations of why these programs should be cut and still will if I can keep it short and less reader intensive. To save some time, and your sanity, I will divide a lot of these into different categories to explain my reasoning: waste, duplication, privatization, state and local jurisdiction, special interests, damaging, and common sense. Ready? Here come the numbers; in no particular order:

Agriculture: Remove ALL agricultural and rural subsidies. They are wasteful, damaging, over 70% serve large agribusiness and special interest. Secondly repeal all trade barriers to agriculture. New Zealand did these actions and their farmers screamed bloody murder; then they went on to supplant the U.S. in agriculture while saving billions in dollars.
Food subsidy programs (school lunch, food stamps, WIC) should be relegated to state governments. This federal money is being placed into areas where it is not needed and weakening the areas where it is. States can decide on these programs worthiness for their area, and different states will provide new and innovative solutions which will benefit all.
Remove all State and Forestry grants. These are state functions.
USDA will still control animal and plant health inspections, food safety, grain and packing inspections, and conservation activities. They will manage better with fewer things on their plate.
Total Savings: $131 billion ($1100 per household)

Education: Remove the Dept. of Education and place it back to the Dept. of Interior. I wrote my reasoning for this in my education notes. It retards innovation, shows no improvement on performance and the federal grant system is horribly mismanaged and riddled with fraud. Canada has never had a federal education dept. and they do consistently better on their education scoring.
Total Savings: $107 billion ($900 per household)

Commerce: abolish business subsidies and eliminate the International Trade Administration. I have seen a lot of departments whose policies conflict with one another. This Departments policies conflict inside itself; any decision a business makes could break some type of regulation from this department. It is only by the grace of their managerial incompetence that this countries economy is not in worse shape.
Total Savings: $2 billion

Energy: The Dept. of Energy should be removed. Most of it is defense related; put that into the Dept. of Defense so we can accurately gauge that Dept’s budget. Privatize the rest immediately and remove all subsidies. The BP fiasco aside, private business tends to do better than the gov’t. They will at least hire competent people or fire incompetent ones. Plus we will get real innovation in renewable energy R&D and such. My concerns here are nuclear energy and the Strategic Petroleum reserve. These need real oversight which I don’t trust private business with. Come to think of it, I don’t trust the federal gov’t with it either.
Total Savings: $17 billion

HUD: For a department designed to help the poor; the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development does a poor job. Waste, fraud, and scandals riddle this dept. and they seem far more interested in giving a hand out, rather than a hand up to the impoverished. Section 8 housing creates concentrations of the poor and disenfranchised, which leads to concentrations of crime. Their housing subsidies encouraged the poor to buy homes they could not afford, and helped lead to the housing bubble. Close down this dept. and remove the regulation barriers that prevent states from financing their own low-income home projects. Before this group became so pervasive, many of these low-income homes were temporary residences; because people wanted to better themselves. Now many of these groups don’t want to improve their lot because they may lose their “free” money.
Total Savings: $63 billion

Transportation: State gov’t and the private sectors can fund highways, rail, urban transit, etc more efficiently without subsidies and regulations.
Total Savings: $85 billion

NASA: NASA once did great things for this country, I’ll admit that. I will not use that as an excuse to keep the program going. It is a defunct dinosaur and commercial enterprise can do things with the space program for this country that NASA couldn’t dream of. The Obama administration has said that the U.S. cannot be #1 at everything and space is one of these areas. Wrong. Remove the regulations on space and give the private sector a chance to make us the best again. I will not accept China beating us at this. It would be only a matter of time before they would develop orbital missile platforms and such. Our gov’t as it stands cannot do this but we the people can. Give it to us. Once again take the projects that are defense related and place them in the Defense Dept.
Total Savings: at LEAST $15 billion

Defense: We spend over $750 billion a year on defense. This is nearly 3 times more than the second largest spender, which is the entire European Union. China only spends about 108 billion. They don’t want to beat us militarily; they want to beat us economically. I still want to be the strongest military force on the planet, but we lose hundreds of billions of dollars to this program in waste and defense contracts. I will discuss in Phase III how strong regulation in this area alongside the things listed here can shave a huge sum of money while making us a more efficient fighting force. We need to reduce our troop levels in Europe/Asia by at least half; we are not these countries policemen. They need to pay for their own defense. Japan is the second richest nation in the world, Germany is not far behind. Neither group is likely to start another world war. Let them provide and PAY for their own protection from their federal spending. We need to consolidate and close excessive foreign military bases in these countries. We also need to stop foreign military financing. If they want to be trained by our troops or learn to use American equipment, they can PAY us for the instruction. We do not build other democratic countries by force; we build them by our example. (Read my foreign relations notes for more on this.)
Total Savings: at least $220 billion

Dept of Health and Human Services: We need a program that makes adoption easier for the American people. We are so thick with red tape that we have taken to overseas adoption to raise a family. These children need loving parents, not wealthy ones. The gov’t treats these potential parents as a way to get back the money that was spent taking care of these children. The problem with that is these parents don’t qualify financially or go another route and the government still ends up paying for them. This program I would gladly keep despite its losses in revenue annually. There are just some things that we do because it is right. Period. But we can be smarter.
We lose about 60 billion annually in Medicare and Medicaid fraud. This is disgusting. This is what items like the Health Care Bill should have been addressing. Instead with the number of displaced people who lost out in the financial crisis and the public option plan that WILL kick in on the health care bill; this price will probably increase to 100+ billion. This needs to be stopped. Medicaid needs to be changed to a block grant with a cap of 4% on spending. Reagan wanted this and couldn’t pull it off. George W. Busch wanted this as well. (He did have some good ideas.) This would save about $65 billion annually. Medical savings accounts should be added to Medicare to help costs. There are many programs in this branch which need to be privatized or terminated altogether.
Total Savings: at least $63 billion (if we can eliminate the fraud mentioned above: at least $110 billion) Medicaid block grant added: $175 billion.

Army Corps of Engineers: Another group that consistently does more harm than good. Their policies are wasteful, they are poorly managed, and their projects consistently go over budget. The oil spill did a lot to show us many of these things; but it has been going on for years. The projects they do can be done in the private sector.
Total Saving: about $5 billion

Bureau of Indian Affairs: This is a “sexy issue” for many politicians. This was created to help bring many of the Native Americans out of poverty. It has been decades and many of them still live in poverty. Money gets distributed to tribes that do not need it, and takes away what could help impoverished tribes. State and local gov’t can handle this better as they know what the real issues of each tribe are and can better direct resources to those problems.
Total savings: about $3 billion

Federal Workers: Federal workers earn an average $120,000 a year in wages and benefits. This is nearly twice what is earned in the corporate sector. I feel it should be brought more in line with the corporate sector. These employees should also have to choose between HMO’s and have it come out of their salaries. (congress!) This will do miracles for all of our health care as these people will actually have an incentive to fix it. As Chris Wooldridge said, “I have to pay deductibles for my family, why do I have to pay for theirs?” Well said, Chris.
Total savings: Slash federal wages 10% = $20 billion, Bring it in line with the corporate sector= $30 billion +

Did you know the gov’t spends $25 billion a year MAINTAINING unused and vacant federal properties? Sell these off, save the $25 billion a year and pay down the deficit with the $ from the property sales.
Total Savings: $25 billion

Elimination of the Health Care “Reform” Law will lower our deficit. It is “projected” at $1 trillion over 10 years. NO GOV’T PROGRAM COSTS WHAT THEY PROJECT!
Expect $1 ½ trillion or more likely $2 trillion. This has to be repealed and replaced with something that addresses cost for everyone; not just the uninsured.
Total Savings: $1 trillion divided over 10 years = $100 billion or more. (Technically some could say this doesn’t qualify as the program is not in operation yet. I say that’s bull, it is already affecting medical policy for the rest of us. Just ask your doctor.)

International Assistance programs Economic and Multilateral & The Agency for International Development: Terminate this spending. This is the one area that about 70% of Americans say we should cut. Foreign Aid does not promote or hinder how countries view us. Much of this money does not make it past the corrupt officials in these countries. If a country needs serious help; I promise some actor or singer will make a fund-raiser for it. The money spent through that group will probably be used more efficiently since a lot of federal workers pay won’t need to be removed from it first.
Total Savings: around $10 billion or more

Dept. of Homeland Security: This is another one of G.W.’s policies that I agree with. That being said; there are heavy mismanagement and fund allocation issues to deal with. Buying haz-mat equipment is a good idea; buying them for areas that do not have, or will ever need a haz-mat team is wasteful. Their airport security is ineffective, as the near escape of the attempted Times Square bomber proved. They need to improve their own communications within the federal branches and less within the state and local. I only propose a few modest cuts to this branch; but this is an area that needs to be watched. It is too new to begin getting so entrenched into the bad habits of Washington.
Total Savings: about $6 Billion

The Bureau of Reclamation: This needs to be devolved to state control and certain sections privatized. They have a history of overspending and waste, they are damaging all of us through their policies; particularly to agriculture.
Total Savings: about $2 billion

EPA State Grants: remove this one function and save billions.
Total Savings: about $4 billion

There is at least a trillion dollars here without even looking at the Depts. of Labor, Justice, U.S. Postal service, Peace Corps, National Endowments, etc, and SOCIAL SECURITY!
I told you all you would not like it! I guarantee there is at least on thing in this list that you just cannot conceive removing. That is why none of them do. Let’s look at hard facts. I haven’t even listed every Dept and problem, and this is pretty big. There is simply not enough gov’t to handle all of this effectively. They want it, but they do not want the responsibility when it goes wrong. We are actually doing ourselves a favor by removing these things and more and having the federal gov’t narrow and focus themselves to the issues that affect ALL Americans and not select groups of them.

Sources: “Downsizing the Federal Government” by Chris Edwards, downsizinggovernment.org, 50 examples of government waste by the Heritage Foundation, The 2010 congressional Pig Book, Freakonomics & Superfreakonomcis by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner and a score of informational television that nobody in their right mind wants to watch. CSPAN has three channels that can be purely mind-numbing by themselves!

My Plan Phase I

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:10:00 +0000

In my earlier article on the budget I discussed the Fair Tax and pointed out some of the positives. I still like this tax and would support it, but I came to a conclusion; a 30% tax on anything you buy scares the hell out of people. The federal gov’t is really good at hiding taxes where the common person doesn’t realize they exist. One side effect is that a large percentile on any tax draws outcry. Also as this tax only applies to new goods, used goods purchase will increase but new would decrease.

I’ve heard a lot of talk of the flat tax; one tax across the board for people and business that comes out of their income. The problem with this comes from the people who are paid “under the table”; illegal immigrants, drug dealers and other criminals become free and clear of any taxpaying. Many businesses would probably resort to this “under table” business as well.

The problem with the current tax system is that too few are paying too much. It divides us into groups on an issue where unity is needed. Studies show that the more you tax the wealthiest of us, the less money the government receives. Businesses close or leave the country, taxes are deferred, and employees lose jobs to cover taxes. Businesses are punished by being taxed on the amount of employees they have and a second tax on employee benefits. It creates a system where employment brings punishment by more taxes.

The answer is not higher taxes; but to generate higher REVENUES. Increase the overall amount of people and businesses that pay taxes. In short, create jobs and less tax percentage over a broader range of people. Right now over 50% of Americans pay no income tax or do not pay enough; the rest of us pay more to subsidize them.

So using the two examples above, which system is better? Both of them are better than the current system but neither one is really better than the other. How about a little of both solutions? Using both together will not solve these systems problems but they will offset each other a little. Some of the economists state that an 11% flat rate would offset most federal spending; 13% to 15% would start impacting the deficit. Slovakia has a flat tax of 18% on business and taxpayers and because of this, Germany has moved a large bulk of its auto manufacturing there. I propose a flat tax of 13% to 18% coupled with a consumption tax of 3% to 5%. The sales tax is significantly smaller than the Fair Tax (which is 30%), but will still get many of these “underground” money makers to pay at least some taxes. These two taxes will now replace income, FICA, capital gains, and every other tax we currently have in place (excepting state taxes; a problem I feel will address itself as we get the federal under control.)

There will be one tax exemption status with this system; taxable businesses which have 50% or more of their business overseas will pay a rate of 23%. This will close up the 1 ½ billion dollars in tax lobbying every year. With this major block of lobbyists removed, we will have made a major achievement to campaign reform. (I believe many businesses would come back and I would waive the higher Flat Tax if I feel the gov’t would use it as an excuse to create more “tax breaks”.)

For those who make $15,000 a year or less the Flat tax portion MAY (see above for my reasoning) be revised slightly, but the elimination of FICA will offset the take home pay of these people anyway. The Flat Tax portion will be covered under the IRS, (making their job MUCH easier, ours too actually.) The Sales Tax will be paid through the State tax offices and forwarded. For their trouble they will get $.25 of every dollar to help with state expenses (this will also give individual states incentive to bring new jobs to their state, in order to collect more of this revenue. Competition IS good.)

Jobs will come back alongside other countries business, employing more Americans who will pay taxes. Add the incentive of removing unfair tax breaks for some businesses over others and a REAL free market competition will ensue, lowering prices on goods. The taxes businesses pay will still be factored into their products; but if their taxes are less, the price of goods will go down. We will pay a Sales Tax on these goods, but at worst it will be no change in prices, at best those prices will drop.

I left a margin in the percentiles deliberately for these two taxes due to the fact that current spending is so out of control we may need a higher percentage to fix the problem. I do not trust any one economist to give me a completely accurate percentile to make this work so I am leaving as much margin for error as I dare.

Sources for my facts: The Cato Institute, “The Fair Tax Solution” by Ken Hoagland, the Laffer curve (any search on the Internet will find tons of sites about this), and probably a bunch more I cannot think of right now.

My Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:09:00 +0000

A few months back I wrote a small article about the economy. I looked back on it and realized that I was guilty of the sins of a lot of politicians. I talked about it like it was so important, but really did not give a lot of concrete solutions. We need a plan; actually we need a lot of plans. I was holding back on a lot of information for fear that if I ran for a future office I would be called out on these ideas. I may still run in the future, but I really feel time is crucial on this topic. I was selfish. There are people running now who need to be hammered with this stuff. No more holding back on my end.

At our current spending rate, our gov’t spending will take up over 100% of our GDP. The gov’t is already borrowing enormous sums of money as we stand. This will all explode within 10 years tops; probably sooner. In this time, we will still have to deal with the threats to our country and its citizens. Katrina, the oil spill, 9/11, were all unseen, unprepared for, and drained our resources even further. We cannot predict the next crisis, but we should have been preparing emergency funds for this purpose. We are at a financial tipping point and we need to get off the ledge. So I will outline my ideas to get our country back into financial shape with explanations and examples when I can.

This will be BIG and it will hurt some of us. None of this is set in stone and if I get new information or better ideas I will consider them all. But it’s time to get people discussing REAL POLICY, not vague ideas. The people you will be voting for need to give you concrete facts and plans; not vague talk with little action. Come at them prepared, and don’t take anything I say as fact. Check the facts yourself, get involved. This is our and more importantly our kids future.

Secondly, if you agree with any of this; share it. Put it and other ideas out there. We tried to ignore the oil crisis and it bit us in the butt. We ignored the housing bubble and it bit us. This next disaster will cripple us if we ignore it till it’s too late. We can do this in an ordered and responsible manner or in total chaos when our debt is even larger and the debtors are calling. If you declare bankruptcy, the gov’t all but take over your finances. Who takes over when the gov’t declares bankruptcy and what will they do to us? My guess is they will tax us out the rear and reduce our paychecks and benefits down to the rest of the world’s levels. When this occurs, our rights will be gone and so will everything that made us great. A decade away or sooner, it goes by quicker than we think. Act now.

A lot of politicians like to scare people to push an agenda. We are on to that trick, it's the issues they won't talk about that you should worry about. They always brush this issue away because it won't win votes. I don't want to scare anyone, I want you to understand it's urgent and has to be addressed before it ever comes to that.

This is far too big to cover in one article, so it will be an ongoing series as follows:
Plan Phase I: Taxes (pay attention to this, this may surprise you)
Plan Phase II: Reducing the budget (I will be listing a list of potential areas we should cut from, how much we will save, with a goal of meeting or exceeding 1 TRILLION dollars worth of spending from the gov’t books. Some will make you scream, some will make you wonder why this wasn’t being done in the first place. If we can do even half of these cuts, we are on our way.)
Plan Phase III: Some ways to introduce ways to regulate the spending in the federal gov’t. They like to do it to everyone else, it’s their turn.

I’ll apologize for being a buzz kill in advance. Sorry

Crime and Punishment

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:08:00 +0000

I was reading on Sheriff Joe Arpaio today and some of his prison programs. I do not like him personally, but I am forced to admit that at least some of his ideas have a place in the prison system at large. I do feel we have been far too soft on criminals. Crime rates in this country are unacceptable and we need a better means to enforce and punish those who are guilty.

We let these prisoners have time in the prison yard together, where many of them gather in gangs for protection and to share ideas to be a better criminal when they get out. We provide them with gyms in order to be better able to overpower a citizen when they get out, and in many cases we give them entertainment (TV, cable, and such). We put a roof over their heads, 3 square meals, and clothing. I know this is simplifying their condition and it is dangerous in many of these prisons, but come on! Criminals are in there to be punished!

I feel first and foremost we need to put prisoners to work, not work release. Bust their humps 5-6 days a week in clean up programs, road-gangs, or whatever. As my friend Tony says; make them too tired to scheme and cause trouble. If they need downtime for recreation, fine; but use common sense! No gyms, strict regulation on television, etc. and put access to the prison yard on a random rotation to help control the assembly of gangs and escape plans.

Terrorists captured in the course of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan DO NOT get civilian trials. If the terrorist is an American citizen, that’s one thing; but it DOES NOT apply to other countries citizens. Our rule of law was founded for our countrymen, no one else’s. What do you think would have been the result if the equivalent of Robert Kardashian or Johnnie Cochran had been lawyers at the Nuremberg trials? Military trials work for this situation, let them do it. We have enough problems with civilian criminals.

I do believe public humiliation has a place in the justice system. I’m not saying to bring back the stocks and pillory. However, if a man who was drinking and driving killed someone, I have no problem with them having to wear a sandwich board with their crime on it and being forced to parade around in public a few times a year for whatever term the judge decides. I still think that landfill cleanup would make a great community service punishment as opposed to many of the softer ones out there.

Somebody will ask so, for the record, I do support capital punishment. I also like the law in Texas that states if you committed the crime in the presence of multiple witnesses, you don’t spend a lifetime on Death Row. You go first. It won’t help the victim but it can be a warning to the next criminal. I can make peace with that.

All I’m saying is that there are ways to improve criminal punishment that do not violate the rules, but may make a criminal think about the consequences.

We need to do more on the state and local levels to help law-enforcement. I know the budgets are tight and it’s not financially sound right now; which is why the federal gov’t needs to cut its spending and enact a tax policy that will help create jobs. Again, with jobs come money, with money comes tax REVENUES. Relieve unemployment burden and move a share to law-enforcement.

I am tired of hearing on the news about how the big, bad policeman shot some poor woman’s 20 something yr. old son, who had a gun, who was in the middle of committing a crime. I’m sorry, tough break, but it’s not the policeman’s fault. They have a job to do and they have a responsibility to come home to their families. For every “corrupt” officer that makes the news, there are 100 or more good ones. That’s a better average than politicians in my book. They put their lives on the line. They have horrible insurance in many cases, terrible pay, and they deserve far more respect than they get.

It’s easy to get mad at getting a speeding ticket, imagine being the policeman who has to tell a parent they lost a child from a car accident. You can stand around and tell them to quit bothering you and go after the “real” criminals; or you can remember the enormous courage they displayed on 9/11, when they took leaves of absence and used vacation to go to New York and help. That is a brotherhood, and those of us who are not police, military, firefighters, or their spouses can’t always understand it, but we should support it.

Current Events

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Fri, 07 May 2010 01:13:00 +0000

Let’s look at the three big stories going on right now; the oil spill, the Times Square bomber, and the Arizona immigration law. I’m hearing a lot of opinions and theories and the political blame game is in full swing. So I figure I should put in my two cents on it too.

First off, the oil rig explosion and the spill in the gulf. After Obama announced his plans to go ahead with the drilling, I was pleased. I still am, even in the event of what happened. Yes it’s a tragic accident, but it is not a reason to quit drilling. One reason is because we have fewer accidents with rigs on record than we do oil tanker spills. And if anyone has looked at the specifications on a super tanker, they spill a lot more oil in a given year. If we stop drilling, we will just buy more from overseas which will arrive in tankers. And for those people who say stop oil usage all together; GET REAL! It can’t happen yet. I wish it could, but wishing don’t make the real world go away. Green tech is not there yet and won’t be for some time. Yes, this spill is going to cripple the fishing industry, and impact tourism. And BP has agreed to pay those damages, (translation: gas prices will go up and we will pay for it).
Some people say the government should have responded sooner and they are right, but not for the reasons you may think. In 1994, regulations were passed stating these rigs were to have an emergency shut-off installed. It was never enforced. In the event of a spill, gov’t contingency calls for specialized equipment to collect and burn off as much excess oil as possible. The equipment was never bought, and we were sent scrambling around, asking if any other country had some we could buy from them! I’m curious, if money was set aside for this, where was it spent? Once again, we will foot the bill for their failure. Side note: this isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing either, both of these groups were “in charge” at some point in the years building to this.

Now on to the Times Square incident, the New York police on duty did an amazing job with noticing a potential threat and responding quickly and decisively. I wish they had stayed in charge of the follow-up. The suspect was tagged, and put under surveillance; then he evaded surveillance and nearly escaped the country. Granted he was caught, and I’m not accusing any one group of individuals on the mistakes, but there are real issues here that need to be addressed to prevent this repeating. First off, work with the airlines and get the terrorist watch list and no fly lists to be more efficient. Secondly, quit screaming about whether this was a success or a failure for law enforcement, learn from it, and move on. This time nobody got hurt, be thankful and improve on it. God gave us a pass; he wants us to be ready for the real deal.
Secondly, I have been hearing a lot of talk about throwing this guy to Gitmo, water boarding him, etc and so on. Look, the Iraqi, and Taliban prisoners in Gitmo are involved in a war against us; they should have a military trial. The Fort Hood culprit was a soldier who spit on his oath to serve and as a soldier he has a military trial. The Times Square suspect is a legalized American; he went through the system, and he has the rights to a trial of his peers just like you and me. This is a test of our character, people. It’s easy to pay lip service to the American system when it works for us; the true test is when it doesn’t. He’s a citizen, entirely legal and our problem. Membership has its privileges.
If we throw his rights away, will ours be next? Who will be the next group or individual who has their rights revoked? I think we can handle this the right way. Don’t let the anger make you sell out the principles good people have died for.

The Arizona law, I have to support it for now. I read it, it is fair. They can not just stop people on the street and make them prove their status, regardless of what some people are spitting out on TV. That being said, I have two issues with the law. It needs to punish the companies that hire illegal workers, HARD!
Second, this is really the one area that belongs to the federal level of government. This is in their mandate. This is what they were always supposed to do. Everything else they do is secondary to this task, keeping us secure. They refuse to do it, they have turned it into another political ball to throw around and score points with. How can I tell Arizona that this is not in your jurisdiction when your state is suffering? Maybe if the government would quit taking away state rights and do the job it was created for, Arizona wouldn’t have had to. If the federal boys can’t do this job right, why in the world would I want them doing all the other programs they’ve snatched over the decades?

We take our citizenship for granted. We don’t see the horrors that some of these other countries do and we think that everywhere is just like America. We are NOT “citizens of the world”. We’re Americans. We have something truly special here and we are in very real danger of losing it. That something is why immigrants come here, that something is why other countries hate us and want us to play by their rules. We need to remember that and make the time to appreciate it. Believe me; you’ll miss it when it’s gone.

Education

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon) — Wed, 05 May 2010 21:30:00 +0000

Education is the cornerstone of what makes us great. So why are we destroying it? State budget cuts, federal grabs of grant money, No Child Left Behind, and monumental mismanagement within the Dept. of Education are ruining the future of our children. Dumping money into the education system is not fixing it either. I think it’s time for an overhaul.

For a department only created 30 years ago, the Dept. Of Education has swollen nearly 10 times over in money given to it. It began with 12 billion in 1965 when education was in the Dept. of the Interior and is now at 108 billion as a separate executive branch. In this time there has been no noticeable difference in scores of reading and math in students upon graduation. To be fair there has been some improvement in the younger age brackets, but it always levels out by the 17 year old mark. Note: this trend data goes to 1971 and 1973, 8 and 6 years prior to the formation of the Dept. of Ed.

My SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics and Reading Assessments.

So while we are improving with our younger students, they are not appearing to graduate with any more or less knowledge than they did 35 years ago. Canada has no Federal Dept. on education and consistently ranks higher than the U.S. in test scores. Now get this; we pay our taxes on education, that money goes to Washington, then they send it back to us again (redundant), but it’s minus about 11%. Then there is Title 1, the main reason the DoE was established; to help the poor and disadvantaged. Money was to be directed to these areas to improve conditions. Now we have bussing, special education, and such which now allow EVERY school to gain Title 1 money. The money doesn’t go as far as it was meant to because everyone wants a piece of it. Removing the department seems pretty radical at first glance but the DoE is fairly new by gov’t standards, (only established in 1979), and it does not provide bang for the buck.
The final piece of the puzzle for me is I truly believe the federal gov’t should NOT involve itself in anything that can be handled by state and local gov’t. At these levels of control; teachers have the liberty to get creative and find new and better ways to teach as opposed to a federally mandated curriculum. This also allows states to decide on questionable topics like sex-ed, creation vs evolution and such; where some states may decide what is best and what works for them and will also allow parents to have more say on what their kids are taught. It's easier to deal with governors and state boards than a faceless federal machine where one voice gets lost.

My second problem is with the teacher’s union. Don’t flip out on me now; I don’t hate unions. I do believe that union leadership has lost sight of their original purpose in order to pursue a bottom line. Every good teacher says it is teacher skill, not money or class size that is the biggest asset to a school. These are usually the same teachers who have to contend with deadwood, a common union problem. This is where good, innovative, hard working employees have to compete with lackluster, uncaring, (sometimes tenured in teachers cases) employees who draw the same pay and hold the others back. A few bad teachers however, don’t just affect the other teachers; it can affect student morale and once a kid is disheartened, it is very difficult to bring them back to the fold. I’m all for fairness in the workplace, but this doesn’t strike me as fair. I don’t want to see unions abolished; I would like for the teachers to address this to their leadership and MAKE them provide solutions.

This would be a good time to thank my choir teacher in school, Mr. Raspberry. I was one of those kids who had given up and probably would have dropped if not for him. Who would have thought a choir teacher would make you think or question or want to learn? Kudos’ to him.

On to college, the great money pit for many. Has anyone noticed the HUGE rocketing prices for tuition? Chalk it up to two things, public demand and grants. I’m sure some of you are saying, “What is he talking about?”, so I’ll explain.

First off it has become expected that you have to go to college to get anywhere in life. No pressure there. If you HAVE to go, why wouldn’t colleges make the most of that? They can raise tuition because you dare not go to college. Now bear in mind I have met a few of these college grads who do not have sense enough to get out of the rain. I daresay I would feel pretty confident putting my personal self-education against most liberal arts grads.

Second, with all the federal grants available; most colleges will raise rates for that (free?) government money. It’s pretty easy to get a grant nowadays, so why not milk it for all it’s worth?

Now we get to my latest problem with the current administration. The “You work for us, we’ll pay your college” garbage. The administration wants to offset tuition in exchange for putting in a few years for “public service”. Let me get this right; you’ll give me a government job out of college, (they average $70,000.00 a year and $20-$40,000.00 in benefits), and pay off my college debt. Any kid would be a fool not to do it, and we would be bigger fools to pay for it. I’m all for the GI bill, let’s face it, those young men and women earn every cent of that. But this spits in the face of a good program like the GI bill. Why join the military and work when they have this?

I would really like to hear from more teachers and faculty on this and give me input on ideas to solve this or correct me if there is anything I am overlooking.