Posts
"Chief" George Mamanakis, USN, Ret.
My Grandfather.
Navy Seabee, Recruiter, and "go getter"...
Decorated War Hero from WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.
He passed away among family mambers Saturday the 26th of February, 2005.
He was 89, had been married 63 years, 5 children, 20 grand-children, and 6 great-grand-children.
He will be missed and remembered by many.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
The fun of Sci-Fi/Fantasy
There are many stories that deserve mention. They deserve mention because of their qualities to inspire us. Inspire us to greatness, inspire us to dream.
Many of these stories are real, most of them are imagined. Even an imaginary story can have qualities of reality in its characters and scenarios.
Just imagine what you would do in their place.
These stories are unique, they are interesting because their story is not a xerox of many other stories that have come before. Unique stories, unique characters, and unique views of life.
These stories fall into this category:
Farscape
Harry Potter
Alien
Nightmare on Elm Street
Babylon 5
Predator
Ender's Game
Thieves' World
Hobbit & LotR
Firefly/Serenity
Transformers
Back to the Future
Blade Runner
Dark City
5th Element
Galaxy Quest
The Island
ID4
Last Starfighter
Men in Black
Minority Report
Matrix
Stargate
Starman
Terminator
Star Wars
Star Trek
2001
War of the Worlds
There are many other movies that are great to see, and while I don't agree with everything on the following list, it has many of the great ones...
http://www.homevideos.com/
It would be nice if Hollywood would produce movies that meet these criteria and standards, but as it is, they produce so many movies that are duplicates of each other.
The names change, the way the scenario plays out is different, but the story is usually the same...how many times can you watch a psychopath kill everyone but the "hero" and come back time after time...
The original of each of these movies is the Unique one, while the others, if not careful, are the repeat...
Some of the different ones are
Aliens
I think horror movies are most at fault for xeroxing stories, but others follow the same trend...
Friday the 13th, Jaws, Jepers Creepers, The Ring, I know what you did, Saw, (etc)...
Just tell me, what is the real difference between all these movies...???
We should mention this to Hollywood, and often..."we want ORIGINAL Movies, with UNIQUE Stories...We want Inspiration!"
Something that isn't so far out there that we cannot believe it, but still enough of a stretch to excite the imagination!
Many of these stories are real, most of them are imagined. Even an imaginary story can have qualities of reality in its characters and scenarios.
Just imagine what you would do in their place.
These stories are unique, they are interesting because their story is not a xerox of many other stories that have come before. Unique stories, unique characters, and unique views of life.
These stories fall into this category:
Farscape
Harry Potter
Alien
Nightmare on Elm Street
Babylon 5
Predator
Ender's Game
Thieves' World
Hobbit & LotR
Firefly/Serenity
Transformers
Back to the Future
Blade Runner
Dark City
5th Element
Galaxy Quest
The Island
ID4
Last Starfighter
Men in Black
Minority Report
Matrix
Stargate
Starman
Terminator
Star Wars
Star Trek
2001
War of the Worlds
There are many other movies that are great to see, and while I don't agree with everything on the following list, it has many of the great ones...
http://www.homevideos.com/
It would be nice if Hollywood would produce movies that meet these criteria and standards, but as it is, they produce so many movies that are duplicates of each other.
The names change, the way the scenario plays out is different, but the story is usually the same...how many times can you watch a psychopath kill everyone but the "hero" and come back time after time...
The original of each of these movies is the Unique one, while the others, if not careful, are the repeat...
Some of the different ones are
Aliens
I think horror movies are most at fault for xeroxing stories, but others follow the same trend...
Friday the 13th, Jaws, Jepers Creepers, The Ring, I know what you did, Saw, (etc)...
Just tell me, what is the real difference between all these movies...???
We should mention this to Hollywood, and often..."we want ORIGINAL Movies, with UNIQUE Stories...We want Inspiration!"
Something that isn't so far out there that we cannot believe it, but still enough of a stretch to excite the imagination!
Friday, February 18, 2005
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Social Services
Social Services...
Has anyone ever wondered why Social Services are called Social Services, and how the name sounds amazingly like "socialist"...???
Well wonder no more. A socialist economy or a socialist country is based on the idea that those that earn share with those that do not earn money.
Sounds fair, right?
In just about every country that has implemented a socialist system it works for a little while, then it fails. People find out that they don't have to do anything and they can still benefit from it. Those that do all the work get tired of supporting everyone else and they find ways to reduce their burden. Services skyrocket (everything from purchasing goods to getting a plumber...). The Rick leave or find ways to avert the system, the politicians get fat on the benefits.
Yet, here we are, in the USA, implementing social services at a greater rate than ever before. Trying to find ways to help those "in need."
Social Security, Public Schools, Medicare, Mandatory Minimum Insurance, etc. And the politicians are always looking for more, like socialist health care...
Socialist programs are supposed to "spread the burden"...so, why not help "spread the burden" and create programs where people can choose their methods to "do their part"...? Put the responsibility back on the People, not on the Government. Move away from Socialism and toward Freedom.
First off, you wouldn't need social security. You simply require that people have a retirement plan. If they do not elect to have a 401K or IRA or other "retirement savings", THEN the Government can provide a "social security" program that people can put money. However, be aware, traditionally the Social Security program does very poorly in return where a 401K or IRA get much better returns. Tis means that it is basically a waste of money to invest in a Social Security program, when other programs are so much better.
Now, Retirement is taken care of.
Education used to be a privilege. People who went to school did so by the work of their parents. Their parents sacrificed so their children could get an education. This means that education meant something. Now that there are laws forcing education, and the burden of education is shared by the whole of society, not just those that are using the service, it has become meaningless. The illiteracy rate is climbing, fewer people are entering college, the drop-out rate is higher now. We won't have too many more years before people being elected into office are bone stupid (oh, wait...too late). If we are going to require education for minor children, then it should be the people with children in the system that are burdened. However, I believe it would still be better to make parents pay for their children's education fully. This way, they will have incentive to make sure that their child does well. It will be an investment.
Minimum Mandatory Insurance...this is insurance which is very cheap, covers only the minimum and basics, and you can not be denied. The only problem is, it has to be funded with public funds because it operates at a loss.
While this sounds great, the problem isn't the cost of insurance, the problem is the cost of health care. My wife takes pills for her problems. These pills cost $300 for a 30 day supply. Does it really cost that much to cover the cost? Or are they making money on the misfortune of people (if you have to have the medication to live, they can charge whatever they want and you will pay it or die).
It also doesn't need to be so expensive for necessary care at a hospital. A one week stay can cost $24000... I can stay at a nice hotel for $150 a night ($1050 a week), and hire a nurse at $15 an hour ($360 a day, $2520 a week), and if I pay a doctor $100 an hour for 8 hours of work and 8 hours of follow-up in that week, that is $1600. And with medications, food, and the renting of medical equipment...maybe another $2 or $3 thousand? The grand total? Maybe $8170; and a savings of $15830.
I could eat better, get specialized attention, live better, etc, doing things my way than at a hospital...for a lot less money.
Part of the problem is, hospitals also run a small socialist economy within their own walls...they provide for illegal immigrants at no cost, so they have to recover the costs from those that can pay. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They system does not work...
And if a pharmaceutical company would charge a more equalized rate for medications, they could still make money...aspirin costs about $0.02 each; raise the cost to $0.05, and do the same for every "common and highly used medication" and lower the cost for the "specialized and life saving" medications. I know it doesn't cost as much as they would like you to believe when you can go to Canada (with similar FDA requirements as we have) and get your medications at about 1/3rd the cost of those in the US. Our local Hospital buys its medications from Canada. Yes, you read that right.
Bad business practices and socialism has caused the troubles in the Medical Industry in the United States.
The only thing to worry about are those that fail to live up to their end of the bargain, or cannot live up to their end of the bargain...(doing their part, taking their responsibility)...
The inability to work, unemployment, sickness, etc, etc.
This is not a tough scenario to fix...
However, this isn't a federal level problem.
Just because I disagree with certain programs at the Federal Level does not mean that I disagree with them at the State Level. However, this is a bit more tricky, because you don't want to go to a socialist program, even at the State Level, but other programs could be provided for PRIVATELY and I believe that to be the answer. Keep the Government's involvement in out lives to a minimum.
Employers and employees could agree upon an Unemployment Insurance program that people could pay into to survive a layoff or furlough. Only those that pay in (like any insurance program) would be able to draw out, and you would have to "pick your plan" like a 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 month plan, and your premiums would reflect your choice. Your employer could elect to defray some of the cost as part of the benefits package.
Other issues, I believe, should be handled by "social service" providers. It used to be that Churches and Humanitarian Service providers were the ones that provided for people in need. A good example is the Relief Society of the LDS Church. Another good example from the LDS Church is the Welfare program (no "free lunch" there). People in society could elect to donate whatever they want to these programs and churches, and these organizations could solicit funds from the public to keep operating. The programs work. Look at many of the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks.
The other part of this is "responsibility". The LDS Church tells us the responsibility for our care first falls on ourselves. Then to our families/friends, then to our Church, and lastly, to the Government. So when Grandma gets old, and cannot pay for things, and has used up all her savings, retirement, etc. Then it falls to her family to provide care, in either $$ or in physical care. If she had 2 children, they could pay 50/50. If these children had 2 children each, and they are of age to work and bare some burden, then you have 1/6th the burden going to each individual (and so on, you get the idea).
There are also problems that outline the issues here, like how the free market system isn't free...
What I mean is, if there is no competition, there is no savings. There must be a way to encourage and maintain competition in all markets. People will not stand for sub-standard service, and will find a provider that gives the service they want/need at a price they can agree with. Government regulation and deregulation causes problems in this system. They should be concerned about monopoly and anti-competitive practices, and not what business operates in what area with what share of the market.
Then to put the icing on top of this cake...
We need to look at the Politicians themselves. They come up with all the social services, but NONE OF THEM USE THESE SERVICES. This does not mean that they are rich (most are) and don't need them (most won't) but that they are "special" in some way as to deserve services to a greater degree than the average citizen they serve.
Take away their salary. Give them a stipend for the time they actually spend working, and require them to prove it (like any other employee on the planet). Rent them a place in DC or in the State capitals where they work for the time they are working, and pay their government related expenses. For elections and campaigning funds, they are on their own. They can fund raise but not receive any "public funds" and anything raised for campaigning is not "theirs" but it belongs to "the people" and any money left over should be used in the General Fund (or some other, more appropriate way).
They should have the same requirements and programs to deal with as the average citizen. No special insurance or retirement programs, unless those programs are also available to the general public (this is one issue with socialism, the "royalty" (our politicians) end up with "more than their fare share"...)
Any increase in their stipend (salary) while serving the people should be brought to the vote of the people they serve.
There should be term limits on ALL government offices.
Any and all legislation should be brought to the attention of the people, and they should have a "comment period" for the legislation to help let their voices be heard.
Petitions, ballot measures, and other items should also follow this pattern, and once delivered to the politicians, should be given consideration, following this pattern.
This all puts the responsibility for everything directly back on the shoulders of the People, not the Government.
This also heps the politicians make damn sure they really want to pass a law, because that law will affect them equally as it affects us.
From Social Programs to Public Responsibility and from Speed Regulation to Health care, politicians would be equal to any average citizen.
Has anyone ever wondered why Social Services are called Social Services, and how the name sounds amazingly like "socialist"...???
Well wonder no more. A socialist economy or a socialist country is based on the idea that those that earn share with those that do not earn money.
Sounds fair, right?
In just about every country that has implemented a socialist system it works for a little while, then it fails. People find out that they don't have to do anything and they can still benefit from it. Those that do all the work get tired of supporting everyone else and they find ways to reduce their burden. Services skyrocket (everything from purchasing goods to getting a plumber...). The Rick leave or find ways to avert the system, the politicians get fat on the benefits.
Yet, here we are, in the USA, implementing social services at a greater rate than ever before. Trying to find ways to help those "in need."
Social Security, Public Schools, Medicare, Mandatory Minimum Insurance, etc. And the politicians are always looking for more, like socialist health care...
Socialist programs are supposed to "spread the burden"...so, why not help "spread the burden" and create programs where people can choose their methods to "do their part"...? Put the responsibility back on the People, not on the Government. Move away from Socialism and toward Freedom.
First off, you wouldn't need social security. You simply require that people have a retirement plan. If they do not elect to have a 401K or IRA or other "retirement savings", THEN the Government can provide a "social security" program that people can put money. However, be aware, traditionally the Social Security program does very poorly in return where a 401K or IRA get much better returns. Tis means that it is basically a waste of money to invest in a Social Security program, when other programs are so much better.
Now, Retirement is taken care of.
Education used to be a privilege. People who went to school did so by the work of their parents. Their parents sacrificed so their children could get an education. This means that education meant something. Now that there are laws forcing education, and the burden of education is shared by the whole of society, not just those that are using the service, it has become meaningless. The illiteracy rate is climbing, fewer people are entering college, the drop-out rate is higher now. We won't have too many more years before people being elected into office are bone stupid (oh, wait...too late). If we are going to require education for minor children, then it should be the people with children in the system that are burdened. However, I believe it would still be better to make parents pay for their children's education fully. This way, they will have incentive to make sure that their child does well. It will be an investment.
Minimum Mandatory Insurance...this is insurance which is very cheap, covers only the minimum and basics, and you can not be denied. The only problem is, it has to be funded with public funds because it operates at a loss.
While this sounds great, the problem isn't the cost of insurance, the problem is the cost of health care. My wife takes pills for her problems. These pills cost $300 for a 30 day supply. Does it really cost that much to cover the cost? Or are they making money on the misfortune of people (if you have to have the medication to live, they can charge whatever they want and you will pay it or die).
It also doesn't need to be so expensive for necessary care at a hospital. A one week stay can cost $24000... I can stay at a nice hotel for $150 a night ($1050 a week), and hire a nurse at $15 an hour ($360 a day, $2520 a week), and if I pay a doctor $100 an hour for 8 hours of work and 8 hours of follow-up in that week, that is $1600. And with medications, food, and the renting of medical equipment...maybe another $2 or $3 thousand? The grand total? Maybe $8170; and a savings of $15830.
I could eat better, get specialized attention, live better, etc, doing things my way than at a hospital...for a lot less money.
Part of the problem is, hospitals also run a small socialist economy within their own walls...they provide for illegal immigrants at no cost, so they have to recover the costs from those that can pay. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They system does not work...
And if a pharmaceutical company would charge a more equalized rate for medications, they could still make money...aspirin costs about $0.02 each; raise the cost to $0.05, and do the same for every "common and highly used medication" and lower the cost for the "specialized and life saving" medications. I know it doesn't cost as much as they would like you to believe when you can go to Canada (with similar FDA requirements as we have) and get your medications at about 1/3rd the cost of those in the US. Our local Hospital buys its medications from Canada. Yes, you read that right.
Bad business practices and socialism has caused the troubles in the Medical Industry in the United States.
The only thing to worry about are those that fail to live up to their end of the bargain, or cannot live up to their end of the bargain...(doing their part, taking their responsibility)...
The inability to work, unemployment, sickness, etc, etc.
This is not a tough scenario to fix...
However, this isn't a federal level problem.
Just because I disagree with certain programs at the Federal Level does not mean that I disagree with them at the State Level. However, this is a bit more tricky, because you don't want to go to a socialist program, even at the State Level, but other programs could be provided for PRIVATELY and I believe that to be the answer. Keep the Government's involvement in out lives to a minimum.
Employers and employees could agree upon an Unemployment Insurance program that people could pay into to survive a layoff or furlough. Only those that pay in (like any insurance program) would be able to draw out, and you would have to "pick your plan" like a 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 month plan, and your premiums would reflect your choice. Your employer could elect to defray some of the cost as part of the benefits package.
Other issues, I believe, should be handled by "social service" providers. It used to be that Churches and Humanitarian Service providers were the ones that provided for people in need. A good example is the Relief Society of the LDS Church. Another good example from the LDS Church is the Welfare program (no "free lunch" there). People in society could elect to donate whatever they want to these programs and churches, and these organizations could solicit funds from the public to keep operating. The programs work. Look at many of the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks.
The other part of this is "responsibility". The LDS Church tells us the responsibility for our care first falls on ourselves. Then to our families/friends, then to our Church, and lastly, to the Government. So when Grandma gets old, and cannot pay for things, and has used up all her savings, retirement, etc. Then it falls to her family to provide care, in either $$ or in physical care. If she had 2 children, they could pay 50/50. If these children had 2 children each, and they are of age to work and bare some burden, then you have 1/6th the burden going to each individual (and so on, you get the idea).
There are also problems that outline the issues here, like how the free market system isn't free...
What I mean is, if there is no competition, there is no savings. There must be a way to encourage and maintain competition in all markets. People will not stand for sub-standard service, and will find a provider that gives the service they want/need at a price they can agree with. Government regulation and deregulation causes problems in this system. They should be concerned about monopoly and anti-competitive practices, and not what business operates in what area with what share of the market.
Then to put the icing on top of this cake...
We need to look at the Politicians themselves. They come up with all the social services, but NONE OF THEM USE THESE SERVICES. This does not mean that they are rich (most are) and don't need them (most won't) but that they are "special" in some way as to deserve services to a greater degree than the average citizen they serve.
Take away their salary. Give them a stipend for the time they actually spend working, and require them to prove it (like any other employee on the planet). Rent them a place in DC or in the State capitals where they work for the time they are working, and pay their government related expenses. For elections and campaigning funds, they are on their own. They can fund raise but not receive any "public funds" and anything raised for campaigning is not "theirs" but it belongs to "the people" and any money left over should be used in the General Fund (or some other, more appropriate way).
They should have the same requirements and programs to deal with as the average citizen. No special insurance or retirement programs, unless those programs are also available to the general public (this is one issue with socialism, the "royalty" (our politicians) end up with "more than their fare share"...)
Any increase in their stipend (salary) while serving the people should be brought to the vote of the people they serve.
There should be term limits on ALL government offices.
Any and all legislation should be brought to the attention of the people, and they should have a "comment period" for the legislation to help let their voices be heard.
Petitions, ballot measures, and other items should also follow this pattern, and once delivered to the politicians, should be given consideration, following this pattern.
This all puts the responsibility for everything directly back on the shoulders of the People, not the Government.
This also heps the politicians make damn sure they really want to pass a law, because that law will affect them equally as it affects us.
From Social Programs to Public Responsibility and from Speed Regulation to Health care, politicians would be equal to any average citizen.
Taxes and the IRS
We all know about the IRS. Those dirty buggers that take 28% or more from our paycheck.
We also know that the IRS doesn't follow its own laws. The withholding process is "for our convenience" and paying or participating in the income tax is voluntary.
How, then, are we compelled to pay tax?
Well, the IRS is not abiding by the laws as set forth in their own code (IRSC), and we have allowed ourselves to be tricked. We simply believe everything we have been told by the government, which is foolish, and we never bother to check out things for ourselves (mostly because the laws are too complex for the average person to understand)
"...when human laws contradict or discountenance the means which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper ends of all laws, and so become null and void." Alexander Hamilton, "A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress", Dec. 15, 1774.
I used to have a quote, from one of the Founding Fathers (I believe) that basically stated that if the law becomes too complicated or complex that the common many cannot understand it, then it becomes null and void. (if anyone knows this quote, please send me it).
We could go along the lines of Mr. Shiff, although, it does not seem like that has worked out so well for him...
http://www.paynoincometax.com/
or we could learn a little something about the law:
26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
There are many other interesting places to learn about this law, but you have to wonder, wouldn't it just be easier to change the tax law to something more understandable and fair?
Sure, people will claim that the rich pay most of the taxes...but fair means that we "pay our fare share"...so if I am being taxed at 30%, and I am middle income, then the rich and poor should also be taxed at 30%. But as y'all may or may not know, people like Bill Gates pay like 4%, and the poor pay nothing.
So, what are we to do?
Well, we could levy a flat tax. This is where everyone pays 8% (or whatever, I like the numbers here)...
This is how it would break down...
Currently, I pay 30% in tax (it is actually something like 28% to 34%...so I will call it 30%)...
$75,000 = $22,500 in tax
Bill Gates, well, lets say he makes 1,000,000 a year(salary) (not unheard of, since he has a net worth of about 63 BILLION) and in investments earns $125 million. (latest figures I could find). And he pays about 4% in tax...
$126,000,000 = $5,040,000 in tax
The government now has $5,062,500 in tax revenue.
Now if we move to the 8% tax flat rate, here are what the numbers look like...
$75,000 = $6,000 ($16,500 in savings)
$126,000,000 = $10,080,000 ( $5,040,000 in expenses)
and the government has $10,086,000 or an increase of $5,022,500...
What this means is, the government needs about $5 million to operate, and now has a surplus.
The tax burden could be reduced from 8% to something more along 5%. Billy wouldn't notice, yet I would get an extra $18,750 in my pocket, or the price of a new car (which I could badly use)...
However, there are many problems with a flat tax...I have had several people explain the problems to me, I just cannot remember them right now...
But the argument always comes down to "the rich won't pay the extra..." and "the government/irs won't be willing to do away with status/jobs, etc..."
So, How about a sales tax?
This way, every individual and corporation pays a fair tax. This would also impact fewer people as those with money purchase more (pay more tax) and those without money purchase less (pay less tax).
I also believe the only way to fix the broken government system is to do a complete overhaul...figure out what offices really need to exist to run the country, staff those offices with the minimum number of necessary bodies, provide for the government employees and people's representatives in the same way that people (us regular people) are provided for (no special programs)...
Restructure the salaries for "public servants" at the state level to represent the average salary of that state, and at the federal level to represent the average salary of the US Citizen - for that time they are working. Force a vote of the people to raise those salaries and to create new positions in government. This would force the government to be honest about the programs, their need and their impact. This is called Open and Honest Government (so it won't happen, but it would be nice).
Reduce or eliminate federal social services...have the states take up that burden.
There are more ideas, but they are, as of now, not fully congealed in my mind...
Oh, and you would also have to really institute fair trade, and slap import tarrifs on EVERY product (foreign or "domestic" that is imported into this country - just like the Constitution says)...
We also know that the IRS doesn't follow its own laws. The withholding process is "for our convenience" and paying or participating in the income tax is voluntary.
How, then, are we compelled to pay tax?
Well, the IRS is not abiding by the laws as set forth in their own code (IRSC), and we have allowed ourselves to be tricked. We simply believe everything we have been told by the government, which is foolish, and we never bother to check out things for ourselves (mostly because the laws are too complex for the average person to understand)
"...when human laws contradict or discountenance the means which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper ends of all laws, and so become null and void." Alexander Hamilton, "A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress", Dec. 15, 1774.
I used to have a quote, from one of the Founding Fathers (I believe) that basically stated that if the law becomes too complicated or complex that the common many cannot understand it, then it becomes null and void. (if anyone knows this quote, please send me it).
We could go along the lines of Mr. Shiff, although, it does not seem like that has worked out so well for him...
http://www.paynoincometax.com/
or we could learn a little something about the law:
26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
There are many other interesting places to learn about this law, but you have to wonder, wouldn't it just be easier to change the tax law to something more understandable and fair?
Sure, people will claim that the rich pay most of the taxes...but fair means that we "pay our fare share"...so if I am being taxed at 30%, and I am middle income, then the rich and poor should also be taxed at 30%. But as y'all may or may not know, people like Bill Gates pay like 4%, and the poor pay nothing.
So, what are we to do?
Well, we could levy a flat tax. This is where everyone pays 8% (or whatever, I like the numbers here)...
This is how it would break down...
Currently, I pay 30% in tax (it is actually something like 28% to 34%...so I will call it 30%)...
$75,000 = $22,500 in tax
Bill Gates, well, lets say he makes 1,000,000 a year(salary) (not unheard of, since he has a net worth of about 63 BILLION) and in investments earns $125 million. (latest figures I could find). And he pays about 4% in tax...
$126,000,000 = $5,040,000 in tax
The government now has $5,062,500 in tax revenue.
Now if we move to the 8% tax flat rate, here are what the numbers look like...
$75,000 = $6,000 ($16,500 in savings)
$126,000,000 = $10,080,000 ( $5,040,000 in expenses)
and the government has $10,086,000 or an increase of $5,022,500...
What this means is, the government needs about $5 million to operate, and now has a surplus.
The tax burden could be reduced from 8% to something more along 5%. Billy wouldn't notice, yet I would get an extra $18,750 in my pocket, or the price of a new car (which I could badly use)...
However, there are many problems with a flat tax...I have had several people explain the problems to me, I just cannot remember them right now...
But the argument always comes down to "the rich won't pay the extra..." and "the government/irs won't be willing to do away with status/jobs, etc..."
So, How about a sales tax?
This way, every individual and corporation pays a fair tax. This would also impact fewer people as those with money purchase more (pay more tax) and those without money purchase less (pay less tax).
I also believe the only way to fix the broken government system is to do a complete overhaul...figure out what offices really need to exist to run the country, staff those offices with the minimum number of necessary bodies, provide for the government employees and people's representatives in the same way that people (us regular people) are provided for (no special programs)...
Restructure the salaries for "public servants" at the state level to represent the average salary of that state, and at the federal level to represent the average salary of the US Citizen - for that time they are working. Force a vote of the people to raise those salaries and to create new positions in government. This would force the government to be honest about the programs, their need and their impact. This is called Open and Honest Government (so it won't happen, but it would be nice).
Reduce or eliminate federal social services...have the states take up that burden.
There are more ideas, but they are, as of now, not fully congealed in my mind...
Oh, and you would also have to really institute fair trade, and slap import tarrifs on EVERY product (foreign or "domestic" that is imported into this country - just like the Constitution says)...
Government & Elections
For the longest time (200 years) we have been voting in the same way for major elections...we vote, the electors vote, and someone is elected.
4 or 5 times in our history the popular vote has not elected the president, the 2000 election wasn't the first time. However, never has this sparked such controversy as it did this time around.
The Democrats are calling for a "redo" and want us to get rid of the electors and go straight up with a vote of the people, "one person, one vote".
There is a grave problem with this kind of voting. The polulation centers of our country would elect the next president.
Why would this be a bad thing?
It would only take 9 total states to elect the next president. 9 out of 50 states. That isn't even close to a majority. Even if we compensate for "red" vs "blue" states, it would still fall on 13-14 of the 50 states to elect te next president. This means that 36 states would have no voice.
Yes, it is a government "of the people"...but the Federal Government is also to represent the interest of the States. States, not as entities in and of themselves, but States as in the grouping of people within sovereign boundaries called States.
The major population states would make all the decision in this country, which might not be the best decision for the states with lower populations. Most of these states are technology, industry, and tourist centers.
Places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, and Colorado would be completely ignored in the election process.
Ok, so how do we fix this?
Well, first off, we (that is, the United States) are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. The difference is, in a Democracy there is no need of "representation" via a senate, as all things are decided by the voice of the people. This works great in the States (smaller functioning communities) but not on the Federal level, because there are simply too many people in too few places.
A republic governs by taking representation of the states and using them to enact the "will of the people".
To facilitate this "representation" we must somehow garner the will of the people of the states by using what we call electors in the electoral college.
Electors are a good thing. They break down the populations into simple representations. It makes it harder for a single state to "carry the day"...HOWEVER, this can only happen if the electors are "unbound".
Currently we have 2 kinds of electors, "bound" and "unbound". Bound electors vote as a whole (the state "carrying the day") while unbound electors are free to divide their vote. Unbound electors, however, normally vote together anyway.
For instance, Washington has 11 electors. If 2/3rds of Washington's population votes democrat, then 2/3rds of the electors should vote democrat.
This way, the population is represented, which is what the electorate system was really designed to do.
This would force the politicians to go looking for votes whereever they could find them, because California would no longer be 55 votes, but some fraction of that number. Utah, Colorado, and the other "small" states would regain their voice.
This doesn't, however, fix everything...
We currently have a 2 party system, with a few other parties that represent other interests of some of the people.
Currently, our system won't support more than the two, because voting for the Libertarians takes votes away from the republicans, which ensures the Democrats will win, and the political philosophy of the Democrats is further from Libertarian than the Republican's philosophy is.
The solution to this is quite simple.
Allow people to vote for a primary candidate and a secondary candidate. This way, each person will "vote twice" but only one vote will count.
If their first vote (primary candidate) does not get enough votes, then the person's vote will move to the other (secondary) candidate.
i.e. If you vote for the Libertarian for your primary candidate, and the Republican for the secondary candidate, and the libertarian doesn't get enough votes to compete, then your vote for the republican will be counted.
In this way, your vote is protected, and you don't "help" elect someone you don't want into office by voting out of the two party system.
This would also help people be able to vote, with a free conscience. They could vote Libertarian, knowing that even if s/he fails, the Republican could still get elected. Our system would move from a 2 party system to a 5 party system (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Green).
All this is still a little moot, since, unlike in other countries like Greece, our political system doesn't change with the party elected. (when we vote a Democrat in, we don't move from a Republic to a Democracy, and when we vote a Republican in, we don't move from the Democracy to a Republic, etc).
Here is the fun part.
Using a new voting system that incorporates these two ideas, and applying that system to the 2000 election, the popular vote would still have "elected" the Democrat, but the electors, as representatives to the people, would have CLEARLY voted for the Republican, and there would have been no need for the courts to get involved.
Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy in the USA...we are a Republic...
The difference is :
Democracy - one person, one vote ON EVERY ISSUE
Republic - Representation and proxy voting by the representative
We should find the better way to operate within this structure, and I believe that this system is that better, less confusing, less ambiguous way.
4 or 5 times in our history the popular vote has not elected the president, the 2000 election wasn't the first time. However, never has this sparked such controversy as it did this time around.
The Democrats are calling for a "redo" and want us to get rid of the electors and go straight up with a vote of the people, "one person, one vote".
There is a grave problem with this kind of voting. The polulation centers of our country would elect the next president.
Why would this be a bad thing?
It would only take 9 total states to elect the next president. 9 out of 50 states. That isn't even close to a majority. Even if we compensate for "red" vs "blue" states, it would still fall on 13-14 of the 50 states to elect te next president. This means that 36 states would have no voice.
Yes, it is a government "of the people"...but the Federal Government is also to represent the interest of the States. States, not as entities in and of themselves, but States as in the grouping of people within sovereign boundaries called States.
The major population states would make all the decision in this country, which might not be the best decision for the states with lower populations. Most of these states are technology, industry, and tourist centers.
Places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, and Colorado would be completely ignored in the election process.
Ok, so how do we fix this?
Well, first off, we (that is, the United States) are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. The difference is, in a Democracy there is no need of "representation" via a senate, as all things are decided by the voice of the people. This works great in the States (smaller functioning communities) but not on the Federal level, because there are simply too many people in too few places.
A republic governs by taking representation of the states and using them to enact the "will of the people".
To facilitate this "representation" we must somehow garner the will of the people of the states by using what we call electors in the electoral college.
Electors are a good thing. They break down the populations into simple representations. It makes it harder for a single state to "carry the day"...HOWEVER, this can only happen if the electors are "unbound".
Currently we have 2 kinds of electors, "bound" and "unbound". Bound electors vote as a whole (the state "carrying the day") while unbound electors are free to divide their vote. Unbound electors, however, normally vote together anyway.
For instance, Washington has 11 electors. If 2/3rds of Washington's population votes democrat, then 2/3rds of the electors should vote democrat.
This way, the population is represented, which is what the electorate system was really designed to do.
This would force the politicians to go looking for votes whereever they could find them, because California would no longer be 55 votes, but some fraction of that number. Utah, Colorado, and the other "small" states would regain their voice.
This doesn't, however, fix everything...
We currently have a 2 party system, with a few other parties that represent other interests of some of the people.
Currently, our system won't support more than the two, because voting for the Libertarians takes votes away from the republicans, which ensures the Democrats will win, and the political philosophy of the Democrats is further from Libertarian than the Republican's philosophy is.
The solution to this is quite simple.
Allow people to vote for a primary candidate and a secondary candidate. This way, each person will "vote twice" but only one vote will count.
If their first vote (primary candidate) does not get enough votes, then the person's vote will move to the other (secondary) candidate.
i.e. If you vote for the Libertarian for your primary candidate, and the Republican for the secondary candidate, and the libertarian doesn't get enough votes to compete, then your vote for the republican will be counted.
In this way, your vote is protected, and you don't "help" elect someone you don't want into office by voting out of the two party system.
This would also help people be able to vote, with a free conscience. They could vote Libertarian, knowing that even if s/he fails, the Republican could still get elected. Our system would move from a 2 party system to a 5 party system (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Green).
All this is still a little moot, since, unlike in other countries like Greece, our political system doesn't change with the party elected. (when we vote a Democrat in, we don't move from a Republic to a Democracy, and when we vote a Republican in, we don't move from the Democracy to a Republic, etc).
Here is the fun part.
Using a new voting system that incorporates these two ideas, and applying that system to the 2000 election, the popular vote would still have "elected" the Democrat, but the electors, as representatives to the people, would have CLEARLY voted for the Republican, and there would have been no need for the courts to get involved.
Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy in the USA...we are a Republic...
The difference is :
Democracy - one person, one vote ON EVERY ISSUE
Republic - Representation and proxy voting by the representative
We should find the better way to operate within this structure, and I believe that this system is that better, less confusing, less ambiguous way.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Ideals of a Perfect (or more perfect Government)
For some time I have been thinking of what I would do, if I had all the power in the universe, and could fix what is wrong with our Government.
I think the following list tries to sum it up...
1. Public Servant's pay and benefits
One of the most egregious things we do wrong is the compensation for our public servants. Many of our Congress Critters(TM) are already very wealthy, yet the current salary for a Congress Critter(TM) is between $153k and $203k per year.
The average salary for someone living in the US is approx. $37 to $44 K.(depending on who's numbers you use)
While they pay taxes, they pay fewer taxes than average, because of the tax laws that shelter political activities, etc.
They have a great retirement, and free healthcare. Yes, they pay into and use Social Security, but they get a 401K type investment also, and it pays about 3% better than "the average joe" and is backed by the Federal Reserve so it is insured and guaranteed.
They can vote themselves a raise at any time, without public approval.
How do we fix it?
Congress Critters(TM) should be paid no more than the average salary of Average Joe Citizen.
This means, on the Federal level, it would be about $40 K per year. On the State level, it would vary from State to State, from $46K to $26K. This would only be paid to them while they are working, and they would be held accountable to show their hours worked, like any other employee.
We would provide them with living quarters, equal to their need - and only when needed. It wouldn't be the Hilton, but it would be adequate for their jobs.
We would provide them with transportation, security, medical, food, and other basic necessities, for as long at as they are in service.
They would also have access to a retirement plan, or social security (this will be discussed in another section), but nothing that isn't available to the Average Person.
When they finish their service, they could retire on their plan, or get another "civilian" job. But all extra benefits would be terminated at the end of their "employment" as a Public Servant. They are, after all, only a citizen like you or me. And that is how things work in "the real world".
We would put any pay raises up to a vote of the people. If the people are happy with their performance, they would get a small raise, otherwise, they will have to make due.
We would also put into place, term limits. There is no reason someone should serve for longer than 2 terms.
This would free up a lot of money and put the Military, Police, Fire, and EMS into this category and on equal footing with other public servants, but would receive other incentives, like hazard pay, better medical benefits, and other, better, insurance policies for their high risk jobs.
The savings, as you can see, would add up really quickly, and that from only ONE area of change.
2. Next, I would suspend all federal taxes. The Constitution is very clear as to where our money is supposed to come from. The states will have to figure their tax structures out, but as for Federal Taxes, we would have to build a list of what the Federal Government SHOULD be involved in doing, and what we should let the States deal with.
These things might include the Freeway System, and some other large projects, including the Military, but largely, the other programs (including all social programs) would be GONE from under Federal control.
Once we have the new tax structure in place, we would also disband the Federal Reserve, go back to the Gold Standard, pay the National Debt, and start our road to recovery.
There are a few reasons to do this:
First, taxing income is like taxing work. If I work 8 hours a day to grow veggies, raise meat, and build my own house, I do not earn an INCOME and there is nothing for the government to tax.
If I work for a corporation, and I make $10 an hour and I go buy my groceries, steaks, and pay my rent or house payment, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?
In fact, the IRSC (IRS Law) states that "INCOME" is defined as anything made from a FOREIGN source. "Foreign" meaning things like Investments, etc. Something that you don't WORK for but benefit from.
SO the Taxes would have to be analogous to what they are for: Gas Tax for maintaining and building roads, etc.
Second, all social services can be provided batter and more efficiently at the Community and State levels (in that order). For instance, if I could invest all that Social Security money into my 401K, I could retire at age 55 with a major bank roll. But, as it is today, I will have to work till I am 65 (or older) and I will have to have more than the SS Check each month, and then things will be TIGHT.
There is a reason to this madness, and it isn't because I hate to pay taxes...but it is because the Federal Government is the most inefficient, wasteful, and fraudulent organization when it comes to money.
(Of course, this also means that the physical size of the government would have to shrink. Many services would be relegated back to the States, and maybe even sold off to private industry. As you may know, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the country...but it wouldn't be after these changes.)
3. I would give the various countries, where our military is serving, 18 months notice to get their own programs into place. At the end of the 18 months, our troops would be coming home.
I like having a military, but in order to comply with the Constitution, we would have to shunt everything into the Navy (which already has ground troops "marines", and aviators "air force")
However, the funding to "do whatever they want" would not be there.
The preceding items are a good place to start. SO I will leave it there (for now)...
I think the following list tries to sum it up...
1. Public Servant's pay and benefits
One of the most egregious things we do wrong is the compensation for our public servants. Many of our Congress Critters(TM) are already very wealthy, yet the current salary for a Congress Critter(TM) is between $153k and $203k per year.
The average salary for someone living in the US is approx. $37 to $44 K.(depending on who's numbers you use)
While they pay taxes, they pay fewer taxes than average, because of the tax laws that shelter political activities, etc.
They have a great retirement, and free healthcare. Yes, they pay into and use Social Security, but they get a 401K type investment also, and it pays about 3% better than "the average joe" and is backed by the Federal Reserve so it is insured and guaranteed.
They can vote themselves a raise at any time, without public approval.
How do we fix it?
Congress Critters(TM) should be paid no more than the average salary of Average Joe Citizen.
This means, on the Federal level, it would be about $40 K per year. On the State level, it would vary from State to State, from $46K to $26K. This would only be paid to them while they are working, and they would be held accountable to show their hours worked, like any other employee.
We would provide them with living quarters, equal to their need - and only when needed. It wouldn't be the Hilton, but it would be adequate for their jobs.
We would provide them with transportation, security, medical, food, and other basic necessities, for as long at as they are in service.
They would also have access to a retirement plan, or social security (this will be discussed in another section), but nothing that isn't available to the Average Person.
When they finish their service, they could retire on their plan, or get another "civilian" job. But all extra benefits would be terminated at the end of their "employment" as a Public Servant. They are, after all, only a citizen like you or me. And that is how things work in "the real world".
We would put any pay raises up to a vote of the people. If the people are happy with their performance, they would get a small raise, otherwise, they will have to make due.
We would also put into place, term limits. There is no reason someone should serve for longer than 2 terms.
This would free up a lot of money and put the Military, Police, Fire, and EMS into this category and on equal footing with other public servants, but would receive other incentives, like hazard pay, better medical benefits, and other, better, insurance policies for their high risk jobs.
The savings, as you can see, would add up really quickly, and that from only ONE area of change.
2. Next, I would suspend all federal taxes. The Constitution is very clear as to where our money is supposed to come from. The states will have to figure their tax structures out, but as for Federal Taxes, we would have to build a list of what the Federal Government SHOULD be involved in doing, and what we should let the States deal with.
These things might include the Freeway System, and some other large projects, including the Military, but largely, the other programs (including all social programs) would be GONE from under Federal control.
Once we have the new tax structure in place, we would also disband the Federal Reserve, go back to the Gold Standard, pay the National Debt, and start our road to recovery.
There are a few reasons to do this:
First, taxing income is like taxing work. If I work 8 hours a day to grow veggies, raise meat, and build my own house, I do not earn an INCOME and there is nothing for the government to tax.
If I work for a corporation, and I make $10 an hour and I go buy my groceries, steaks, and pay my rent or house payment, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?
In fact, the IRSC (IRS Law) states that "INCOME" is defined as anything made from a FOREIGN source. "Foreign" meaning things like Investments, etc. Something that you don't WORK for but benefit from.
SO the Taxes would have to be analogous to what they are for: Gas Tax for maintaining and building roads, etc.
Second, all social services can be provided batter and more efficiently at the Community and State levels (in that order). For instance, if I could invest all that Social Security money into my 401K, I could retire at age 55 with a major bank roll. But, as it is today, I will have to work till I am 65 (or older) and I will have to have more than the SS Check each month, and then things will be TIGHT.
There is a reason to this madness, and it isn't because I hate to pay taxes...but it is because the Federal Government is the most inefficient, wasteful, and fraudulent organization when it comes to money.
(Of course, this also means that the physical size of the government would have to shrink. Many services would be relegated back to the States, and maybe even sold off to private industry. As you may know, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the country...but it wouldn't be after these changes.)
3. I would give the various countries, where our military is serving, 18 months notice to get their own programs into place. At the end of the 18 months, our troops would be coming home.
I like having a military, but in order to comply with the Constitution, we would have to shunt everything into the Navy (which already has ground troops "marines", and aviators "air force")
However, the funding to "do whatever they want" would not be there.
The preceding items are a good place to start. SO I will leave it there (for now)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)