Saving the USA through a Fair Share
Initiative
It has become abundantly clear that the Good Ole� USA is in financial trouble.
The way I see it is that it has come to a time to do things differently
than we have in the past. Or in the
words of our President, it�s time for change. A
couple other quotes come to mind.
�If you keep on doing what you�ve been doing, you will keep on getting what
you�ve been getting.� And �the definition of insanity is to do things the same
way, and expect different results.� Another
point that our President makes is that there are people in our country that just
aren�t paying their fair share.
Well I agree with him 100%. Too
long there have been those who have been fortunate enough to live amongst us and
have not really paid their fair share.
Well that has to stop if we ever want our country to be the great Super
Power that we used to be. We have
become known all over this planet as the country that has always been there to
help when another country needed. Whether it was during a time when some bigger
stronger more aggressive country wanted to take over another country and rule
them in order to be more powerful or when a natural disaster struck and
devastated people�s lands with destruction from Mother Nature�s force.
The US has come to the aid of others.
This has not come cheap though.
Whether it was with financial aid, volunteers to help rebuild, bringing
food, machines, supplies and technology or even the greatest sacrifice, their
own life. Americans have been known for their generosity and caring all over.
Granted, sometimes we may not have been asked for help and some people
resented our �Butting in� but it was usually always with good intentions that we
got involved. Our citizens have
shown on too many occasions that they exude compassion for their fellow man.
Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy and our elected leaders
continue to fight each other. Well
just as our President has said, it is time to put our country ahead of the
political bickering. Our elected leaders should take a step back and put every
action they do to the �Smell Test� If it stinks, don�t even think of forcing it
on our people. If they wouldn�t
want it for themselves and their loved ones, forget about forcing it on our
families. It is time to become a
nation of fairness to all. Yes we
have a difference in our classes.
There are rich people and poor people.
We are a melting pot of different races, nationalities, colors, creeds
and religions. But there is one
thing and one thing alone that we all share in common.
Whether or not you believe all people are created equal or your personal
prejudices believe some people should be allowed to do certain things. The one
common denominator is this, we all live in the USA.
It doesn�t matter if you believe in God, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, or even
in evolution without the belief of creationism.
We are all living in the same country.
We are a nation of laws; even if some of them are nuts or you don�t
happen to agree with them, the law is the law. If you don�t like it you have
choices. Try to get laws changed,
but only if they will be fair to everyone.
Move to another country, or break the law and be prepared to suffer the
consequences. In our modern day,
too many people do not want to be responsible for their own actions.
That is just not right. Like
they say, if you can�t do the time, don�t do the crime.
People should not expect special treatment because they want it, they
should expect it because they deserve and earn it.
Like our President has said.
We have to take care of the less fortunate.
Unfortunately it has become to mean �Give them money and then we can
forget about them.� I once heard a
saying, �Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him
for a lifetime.� In other words you
can take the easy way, just give him the fish. Problem is you have to keep
giving him the fish. We need to
start teaching people how to take care of themselves so we can end the
dependency system which has overtaken our country and created people that can�t
take care of themselves because they haven�t had to, because it has always been
given to them. After all, who
wouldn�t really want someone else to go to work and earn the money then give it
to you? But in reality, that is not
really a fair system. Like it says
in an old paper that was drafted by our forefathers, Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of happiness. Happiness is
not guaranteed, it�s just made available.
Each of us needs to get it in our own way.
As far as I�m concerned, as long as it doesn�t affect others, they can do
what they want. Practice your
religion or not. Say your prayer or
not. If I don�t want to hear it, I
won�t listen. I am extremely happy
with my life�s partner but just because I choose to be with someone of the
opposite sex; it doesn�t mean I have to force that on you.
If I wanted to take a drug, as long as it in no way effects someone else,
it should be okay. For the record,
I don�t want to take drugs, but I�m just saying, if it doesn�t harm or affect
someone else, what the heck does it really matter anyway.
I was raised saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school every morning; I
don�t think it made me grow up to be better or worse than anyone else.
The Pledge is our country�s pledge and in a public school, it should be
said. If you have a personal
disbelief of God, then don�t say that word.
But it is our right to say it, just as it is your right not to say it.
Personally I feel if you don�t like our country, leave.
I don�t believe they say it in Iran or Russia or for that matter,
anywhere else. Our forefathers
thought that God was important in their lives, so it was penned that way.
I think the separation between Church and State was meant not to let any
one religion have too much power and control over peoples� lives.
Religion should guide lives, not control them.
But to get to my ideas for saving our country, here they are.
Like I said Fairness should be paramount.
So let�s start with one of the big problems where fairness does not
presently exist.
Taxes are necessary to pay for
administering the Government and its military.
The more we need to spend, dictates the amount we need to take in.
So therefore, if we simply spent less, we wouldn�t need to take in as
much. How can ANY reasonable individual think that it is fair to penalize anyone
for earning money? Oh wait a
minute; they only want to penalize those who earn money over the amount of� And
they really want to penalize people who work really hard and sacrifice and take
chances the most. Then lets see, oh
yeah, how about not having the people who earn a lower amount contribute or
especially those who simply don�t report what they earn help out at all.
They say that someone who goes to work and puts in overtime and strives
to better themselves to the point that they earn let�s say $60,000 in a year has
to pay, but if you deal drugs or are involved in prostitution and earn millions
of dollars in a year, you don�t have to contribute anything.
Who thinks that is fair?
I don�t. I am not what I
would consider to be one of the smartest individuals walking around.
I never attended college or earned any degree.
But I tell you what, that just doesn�t sound right. Some people think
that the rich and successful people should pay 70% of the tax burden for the
entire country while others get to not only not pay into the system, but take
money out. Who thought this up?
You would think it was a poor person since they would be the ones to
benefit the most. But in reality it
was probably thought of by some of the more well off people like Warren Buffet
who will tell you he feels he should pay more taxes because he is rich.
All the while he is actually taking advantage of loopholes that rich
lobbyists were able to get installed in the tax code for the ability to NOT pay
as much taxes. Then people like
Warren under pay what they are supposed to, according to the code, and tell the
IRS that they will just keep it tied up in the courts while the IRS is trying to
get the money, UNLESS they want to strike a deal.
It is said that Warrens Company actually has a tax liability for over the
last ten years of about 1 Billion dollars.
Sounds strange for someone to say they think they should pay more taxes,
but then not even pay what they are supposed to.
Can you say Hypocrite? Oh yeah
Warren, I think if you wrote the government a check to allow you to sleep better
so you could feel that you paid your FAIR SHARE, they would probably take it. So
now that we have determined that taxing income is NOT fair, what would be?
A consumption tax. It would
be simple enough. Just as most
places have some type of sale tax in place already, just add a flat national
sales tax to each sale. People that
have more money to spend will end up paying more.
Sounds fair to me. Now if
you really want to stick it to the really rich folks, then just have an
additional tax for lavish purchases.
First of all, no one pays taxes on the bare necessities needed for
existence. Your PRIMARY residence that you will live in will not be taxed unless
it is over a certain dollar amount.
You see, we all need shelter, a place to live.
But if you want an exceptionally nice place and can afford a Million
dollar home, then by all means, kick a little more into the kitty.
Even though we don�t need transportation to live, in this day in age it
is almost a necessity. So if you
buy a car, a very modest tax will be applied. But if you want the $100,000
whatever, since you can afford it, kick in a little more.
But if you are a business that let�s say needs vehicle to conduct
business, the lavish tax would not apply for those purchases such as a semi
tractor to earn a living transporting goods across our great country.
Clothing, while we actually don�t need it, unless you live in colder
areas, society really doesn�t need to see your business hanging out.
But if you choose to buy suits for $1000 or evening gowns for several
thousand, well you can obviously afford to help a brother out.
Jewelry, same thing, if it�s lavish, kick in some extra.
How about entertainment?
Well we don�t need it to live, but if you add $.50 to each movie ticket and a
$1.00 here or there you would not miss it.
If you can afford the ring side $5,000 seat, well then another $100
should not be a burden on you. I think you see where I�m going here.
People that can�t afford something shouldn�t get it simply because they
want it. And those that can afford
it should have no problem paying for what they want.
Food of course which you buy in the grocery store for your daily meals,
well no tax on that just like it is now.
After all we all got to eat.
The numbers that I am putting out here are simply ideas to get people thinking
about how restructuring where the tax revenue comes from could certainly be made
to be a lot more fair. Also, as you
can see, we would receive tax revenue from people who visit our great country
from all over the world. I think we
could probably have sufficient revenue to take care of our debts if we couple
that with saving a lot of money which is currently being wasted.
That�s where cutting spending and reigning in fraud waste and abuse comes
in. IBM told our leaders that they
had a way of cutting almost a trillion dollars of spending on Medicare and
Medicaid per year back in the first part of 2010.
The administration declined their offer, probably because IBM wanted to
GIVE the government the system.
Maybe the government couldn�t be happy unless they overpaid for it.
NOW they are TALKING about looking into reducing fraud waste and abuse.
What are these people thinking?
Now that we�ve touched on the income portion, let�s look at the expenses.
Governments by virtue of having so many departments have grown to quite a few
employees. All of which have to be
paid for by the revenues from taxes.
They are not a business so they are not run like a business.
Businesses are generally run with profitability in mind. Time and time
again, there are reviews and reports indicating that there is so much
duplication in efforts and throughout the government, you have to know there is
a lot of wasted wages being covered.
Heck, just since President Obama took office there has been more than
150,000 new government jobs. Each of them being paid usually higher than
civilian counterpart jobs with better benefits.
Another thing that adds insult to injury is a report that many of the
government employees haven�t paid their income taxes.
Where is the fairness there?
Especially since it should be pretty simple to collect it, just don�t include it
in their paycheck until they are square.
So first thing is to determine which people will join the ranks of the
unemployed by virtue of their job simply being obsolete.
Let�s start with entire departments which have a track record of being
ineffective. Okay, the Department
of Energy was formed to keep us from being dependant on foreign energy.
How�s that been working out?
The Department of Education, well
let�s see, what was the dropout rate, the literacy rate and the test scores
BEFORE it was formed and compare it to today�s numbers.
I think this would prove to be another area of savings.
I think the FDA should be looked at pretty closely too since our
television sets are filled with advertisement from lawyers trying to help people
who have been injured from a drug they passed.
I�m not saying they are totally to blame and I�m sure some of this stuff
could not be prevented, but I feel it should be looked at.
Maybe somebody had their life enriched by looking the other way. I�m sure
there are departments that we are not even aware of that we could do without.
So here is another way of needing less revenue.
Now, a biggy. Special
interest interests. Who is lobbying
who to get money for what? There a
tons of subsidies and grants for things that probably shouldn�t get a cent, let
alone some of the hard earned taxpayer money.
If your idea is good enough, you could probably find an investor who
would like an opportunity to grow his wealth.
But let them investigate and take the risk.
Why dump some lame study off onto the taxpayer to fund. A perfect example
of a waste of tax dollars is a private for Profit Company was given a loan for
$535 million for �Green Energy�.
Now this was not some little startup company it was the largest Solar Company in
the country. Now, less than 2 years
later they lay off 1100 people and file bankruptcy. How is that fair to the tax
payers who laid out the money and now not only will they not get their money
back, they have less people in the work force.
People who make the decisions to shell out money like this are
unmotivated to ensure it is a wise investment.
After all, it�s no skin off their nose.
The government should not be in the market to pick winners and losers in
business. So now we have discussed
a couple of money savers right off the top.
The House republicans last year put up a website called YOUCUT.COM.
On it they would list a few places where the government is throwing away
the taxpayers money and asked people to vote on which one should be cut.
Then they would bring it up for a simple up or down vote to try and
reduce wasteful spending. Well as
you can imagine, since the Democrats were in the majority, nothing was cut.
Billions upon Billions of taxpayer dollars were offered up to save this
struggling economy, but some people just couldn�t see their way to saving money.
It�s like an alcoholic or a gambler.
They seem to have a disease which goes against common sense and rational
thought. Personally, I was not
aware that any of my tax dollars were going to a lot of these stupid things.
If it were up to me, they would all be cut and save trillions in a very
short time. Spending on projects
simply because somebody knows somebody in office is NOT FAIR.
Warren Buffet is one of the Presidents mouthpieces saying the rich should pay
more taxes. But when he dies since he can�t take it with him, he decided to give
it to another Billionaire to manage without the bother of having to pay taxes on
it. I don�t know, if he wants to
pay more taxes, why doesn�t he just do that instead of using �Loopholes� so he
doesn�t have to. Would Warren give
as much to charities if he didn�t get to deduct it from his taxes?
Has anyone ever thought to ask him?
Any way, it�s his money; he should be able to do with it what he wants. I
think that instead of the Government being in the charity business, they should
let the organizations which have done it for many years be in charge.
Let the Churches take care of the needy people.
They spend their time organizing fundraisings and benefits to help people
on a daily basis. Then there is a
group like the Red Cross who gets donations from all over and renders aid
whenever there is a need, no matter where it is.
As far as Medical assistance, well since so many physicians have received
the benefit of government funded education so they could earn a living.
Well I don�t think there would be anything wrong with asking them to give
back. But the Health care is an
issue I will get into in a bit. For
now we are talking about two main things, bringing in money and paying it out.
I think a long hard look needs to be taken to figure out just exactly
what is the Federal Governments responsibility. Just what should they be doing,
according to the Constitution? I
know the people who want to abolish our Constitution don�t like anybody who
wants it to be followed. Well here
is what I say to you. If you don�t
want to be subject to our Constitution, LEAVE.
Go somewhere else, anywhere else and leave us alone.
Like it says in our guiding documents, you have certain inalienable
rights. One of which is that you have the right to go to any other country that
will have you. Because if you don�t
like the country our forefathers fought for and you don�t appreciate the
freedoms our Constitutions grants, take it on the arches.
I�m sure that if you think that a Government should provide totally for
all its citizens equally, then you would be happy in one of those countries
where it is working out so well.
Government in the US needs to get out of its citizens way and let them live
their lives. As an individual I have to look at my paycheck. That is my source
of income. Then I have to add up all the bills, mortgage or rent, utilities,
food, gas, clothing or whatever I must pay to survive.
Then if I have some leftover I have to decide if I want to just spend the
balance, if any, or stick some away for a �Rainey Day�. That is what I must do.
If I find I have some that I can afford to give to any charity or worthy
organization, then I give what I can when I can.
But if I don�t have any money left, I certainly wouldn�t dream of
borrowing money to give to someone else.
That would be irresponsible.
So if over the years I earned more money so I could afford to buy more things, I
would make the decision to buy them with my money.
If on the other hand I decided that I wanted something but I couldn�t
afford it and I charged it on a credit card and then made payments to pay it
off. That would come out of my earnings.
If I was irresponsible enough to go out and continue to buy things that I could
not pay for out of my earnings and continued to charge them on a card, then
eventually I would be at my spending limit.
At that point a sensible person would probably simply realize they had
made some poor decisions and do everything they could to pay off the card so
they would not have the additional debt of the interest.
Let�s face it. How many of
you would want that $1000 television if they told you that the $1000 television
was going to cost you $2000? Only
the people who really didn�t plan on paying for it in the first place.
So here we are. The only way
we can hope to save anything for a retirement is to spend less than what we
earn. If there is any economist who
disagrees with that, he should turn in his degree and quit working for the
Government right now. As most
sensible, logical individuals would agree, the only way to be able to have
something in the future is to save for it today.
So that leads us back to the need to spend less than we earn and don�t
waste money on interest just so we can have it sooner.
Anything worth having is worth waiting for. Our Government should learn
this lesson on the first day of employment by its citizens.
You know, a Government for the people, by the people.
Let private industry take the chances on all the new technology.
If it works out, they are the ones who took the risk, let them reap the
rewards. It just isn�t fair for
somebody in Washington to take my money, give it to somebody else so they can
TRY to succeed. Because let�s face
it, would I get anything in return for my investment if it succeeds?
No, but I would then be allowed the opportunity to buy whatever that
company made, giving them a profit.
But what if the company failed? I
am out all my investment. Which by
the way I didn�t want to make in the first place.
The point is, the Government doesn�t know how to run a business.
They apparently don�t know how to run a country either.
But you look at business men or women.
They may or may not be successful but I guarantee you one thing, they
will work hard towards success since their future depends on it.
The Government on the other hand obviously feels that no matter how bad
any of their �investments� are, it will not affect their paycheck so why bother
doing due diligence.
Here is another way we can start to correct our country. What I mean by this is
this. We hear about people whining
about who contributed how much to which persons or party�s campaign.
Then we hear about how people or companies will game the system to give
even more than they are �legally allowed� to contribute.
The reason for this is to try and prevent people from being politically
obliged to someone who donated a lot to the campaign to get them in a position
of influence in order to curry favor.
Then you have lobbyists who make the monetary contributions to a
politician in order to get a tax break or law passed to advantage their
industry. They say that it doesn�t
happen, but how stupid do they really think we are?
Another ill effect is that a political seat can be �bought� by simply
being able to outspend the competition.
Here is a plain and simple and FAIR solution to this problem.
Politicians or I should say, our elected officials should be above
reproach and have the utmost in integrity.
Anybody or organization can donate however much they want to donate to
the election fund. All money
contributed even at the $10,000 a plate dinners for which ever candidate will go
into the same election fund. Then
each vetted candidate will only be able to spend money they have in the election
fund which will be distributed equally between all candidates.
No one candidate would then have a financial advantage over the other and
they could not use any outside resources or they would suffer immediate
disqualification. After all, if
they can�t play fair trying to get into office, what makes you think they would
play fair if they got elected. Then
it would be forbidden for any elected official to have any contact with any
lobby group. This way we could be
sure there would be no improprieties or special favors handed out.
Anyone caught, immediate ousting.
Then the person who had placed second in the race for that position would
take over, provided they still wanted the job.
We should expect anyone representing us to be of the highest integrity.
Think about it, would you really want some known scumbag sleaze ball
representing you? Then we have to
install a type of term limit. We
have one for the Presidency, why not all the rest.
Let�s say no individual can serve more than 12 consecutive years in an
elected capacity. That isn�t to say
that he could not be in position for twelve years, get out then run again after
the next cycle. If he did that good
of a job when he was in before, well he should have no problem being put back in
after the break in Government service.
I think this would allow us to get some people who would then be in it
for the country, not just for themselves and their buddies.
Another biggie is this.
Congress cannot pass any law that they are not subject to and they cannot pass
anything for themselves that others could not have.
Like this last huge fiasco with the Healthcare bill where they don�t even
have to participate in it. Also,
why should they get a special retirement without having to contribute into it
just because they served one term?
Stuff like that is just not FAIR.
I�m sure just like the stars have the paparazzi following their every move; you
would have people who would keep a watch on the politician to keep them honest.
I think that would solve most of the political problems we currently
face. In fact, why do we even have
to have party identifiers attached to any individual anyway?
Why couldn�t the candidates simply tell people their own thoughts and
ideas without being attached to a party which is considered either Liberal or
Conservative? Just look at what
ends up happening now. People vote
for a candidate simply because he is a Democrat or a Republican.
Most people aren�t even aware what the individual says.
Strict party lines would not be an issue if they were all simply
Americans serving their country and its citizens.
Then, we have to stop the inserting people into important positions
simply because he�s my friend. If
everybody had to be vetted by Congress, we may be able to avoid ideology from
being inserted into places where it just doesn�t belong.
Also, once they are in an appointed position, they must have regular
performance reviews, just like in any successful company.
This ensures that they don�t get lackadaisical in their performance and
start to install their own personal objectives into departments. With technology
being what it is today, there should be website where every citizen could go to
see just what issues are being discussed, what bills are being proposed and read
the summarized pros and cons of them so they can make up their own minds about
an issue. Just like on the YOUCUT
website, common people can have a say.
Of course, the vote of the elected official is what matters just as it
does now. But instead of all these
stupid polls of 600 people or 1500 people being asked a question in whichever
slanted way whoever wants to in order to get whatever result they are looking to
achieve, how about getting input from potentially millions of people?
Imagine what it would have looked like if we had a system in place like
that during the healthcare debate.
What if after millions of concerned citizens logged on and voted with an outcome
of 60% not wanting it while 30% were for it with the other 10% undecided?
Then the politicians reviewed those findings, do you still think they
would have voted for it? Everyone
knows that was a strictly party vote and some of those votes were bought and
paid for. I don�t think we would be
having all the discussion of appeal and spending how much of the money that we
don�t have tying it up in the courts. Also
those same politicians would have to answer for their decision which was
obviously unpopular with the masses. I hope you can see how making things FAIR
can make things better.
The bottom line is this, if we remove the opportunity for any incentives to be
used in political games to favor one individual or company over another because
of campaign contributions, it would end.
Face it, how much weight would it pull with any one candidate if someone
donated $100,000 to the campaign fund if it was split evenly between the
participants? Obama wouldn�t and
couldn�t be beholden to Solyndra because of their contributions because he did
not gain any advantage over anyone else.
That would then be a fair race.
No one could buy an election.
Everyone would be on equal grounds, financially.
Then it would simply be up to the message they give and the way they
carry themselves and the confidence they instill.
Also, nobody would be expecting a job because of the amount of money they
were able to bundle for any one candidate.
Taken another step, by ending any special interests without pork barrel
spending to bring home the bacon to any candidates� state, there would be no
opportunity to bribe anyone to vote in a particular manner.
The bills would have to be passed or failed on their own merits.
Wow, wouldn�t that be novel.
The country would win in so many ways simply because only stuff that is truly
fair would be allowed to pass because no Senator could bring a couple million to
their state to placate the voters.
They would have to rely on their track record and performance to become
re-elected. By allowing an easy access and informative breakdown available to
the masses without any bias spin by some particular media organization which
would be either for or against, citizens could make better educated decisions.
The next thing is to help people help themselves and better the country at the
same time. Welfare, food stamps and unemployment.
Here is an area that really gets me going.
We give people money and expect nothing in return.
Many years ago I heard an interview with a woman who was on welfare who
had been raised in a family on welfare and was perfectly content with being on
welfare. But that was at a time
when they were trying to reform welfare to make it into a temporary assistance
program instead of a way of life.
Well the interviewer asked this woman, �What will you do when you can no longer
receive welfare?� She answered flat
out without a bit of hesitation, �I�ll get a job!�
I was floored. Why doesn�t
she go out and get a job now? Then
I realized, as long as someone was willing to give her money without expecting
anything in return, she would oblige them by taking it.
So in other words, if they didn�t have somebody giving them the money,
they would simply go out and earn it.
This could also be carried over to the unemployment compensation.
As long as somebody is willing to give somebody money for doing nothing,
they will take it. I have heard
from people who were on unemployment that they turned down job offers because
they could receive more money on unemployment and they didn�t have to work.
So here is my idea on this.
If you are getting a check from the government, you need to show up and do
whatever job they assign you to do.
Of course the government SHOULD give people with a painting background something
to paint, instead of hiring a private contractor to paint it at a much higher
rate. Now that would be fair.
Who would even think about going into a store and giving the clerk $50.00
and not walk out with any food? Who
would go to the mechanic and give him $100 and then take their car to another
mechanic and give him $100 to fix the car?
These things just don�t make sense yet that�s the kind of stuff going on
here. Of course, if you are getting
the government check and don�t like the work, then you certainly have the option
of looking for work on your own and saving the government the cost.
Now that would be fair. I
don�t want you to get the idea that I am not a compassionate person.
I have no problem helping people.
But I think I should be the one to determine who I�m going to help and
how much I can afford to give and for how long I would give it.
It has gotten so bad that it has come to something like this. I go to
work, earn $800 per week. Then I
give away $700 to help somebody else and then I only have $100 left to take care
of my family. Well it obviously
costs me more than $100 so I have to charge money on my credit card so I can
afford to keep the roof over our head and some food in the belly.
Then next week I still have to give away the $700, but now I don�t even
have the full $100 because I have the payment I need to make on my credit card.
Now since I ended up with less money, my needs didn�t decline so I have
to charge even more. After a while,
I reach my limit on the card. So I
have to get another card to borrow against since each week I ended up with less
since my minimum payment kept growing. Eventually I max out that card.
Now I need to get another card or see if I can just raise the limit
myself. Then I start having my
neighbor borrow money to give to me and then he has the burden of repaying it,
not me. The problem here is doing any of this will never allow me to save for my
retirement now will it. So this
means I will have to work until I�m dead.
That is just not fair. Well
what if I had the control over who I gave how much to and how often I gave it?
Then I could have averted this crisis by simply not getting into debt
since I earned enough in the first place to satisfy my needs and put a little
away for a rainy day and retirement.
Then when I had some extra I could give what I could afford to give to
whoever I felt deserved it. There
comes a point when you just have to say no.
Guess what, the person I was giving all the money to finally went out and
got a job after I told him I had no more money to give him.
Go figure that. I hope you
understand what I�m getting at.
Instead of expecting someone to give money to someone else, it should be their
choice. Warren Buffet gives a lot
of money to charity. Good for him. We need to get our citizens back to where
they were years before where they were proud to be able to provide and grateful
for an opportunity. For too long
now our society has taught people that all they have to do is stand in a line
and fill out a form and magically money will appear for them.
Just as Welfare had become a way of life instead of a temporary means of
assistance, long term unemployment benefits hurt the individual receiving them
because it teaches them they don�t have to be responsible hard working people to
get by. By requiring everyone who
receives a check from the Government, be it State or Federal, to work for it, I
am sure we would see a decline in the number of checks being cut. That in turn
would reduce costs. Plus it will
cause those people to obtain gainful employment which raises their self esteem
which has been lost. Now I am not
saying it is a magic pill. It will
take a while to wean people off the Government teat.
But I can guarantee you one thing, if you don�t ever start, you will
never get there. Sure there will be resistance, but if there is no choice, then
what choice do they have. I think
about the movies portraying life during the Depression.
There were many people wanting to work for the few jobs which were
available. Most had to come back
daily for a shot at a chance of earning some money to take care of their family.
I guarantee you one thing, if a man got up at 4:00am to get in line to
work to be able to feed his family, if he got the opportunity to work, he would
work. And he would work hard just
to show the boss that he should be selected to come back tomorrow.
What employer would pick a lazy person over a hard worker?
No successful employer would.
Having hard working employees is how the company grows.
Back in those times there was a lot less work available, and sure there
were some abuses by some employers.
So the unions got people to band together to force business to be fair.
In their day they did a lot of good.
The problem is that they became so powerful and influential that they
started to abuse their powers.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Businesses had to give in to
the Unions to keep their doors open.
It wasn�t because they couldn�t find people to do the work; it�s that the
Unions would get physical with any non-union worker to discourage them. Our
country has gotten to the point where there are entire states which require
people to join Unions just to be able to work.
As we have seen recently in So. Carolina when a major company wanted to
expand, not move, their company and employ people in a state where they weren�t
burdened by the restrictions and controls of the Union, the Unions have actually
kept people from getting a job.
Just because they weren�t going to get their share.
I say if people want to join a union and give somebody their money for
the chance to work at a job, they should be allowed to.
But certainly not forced to.
If the Government wants to do something positive for the country they should
pass a Federal Right to Work bill.
You see another thing that the Unions caused is a lack of competition.
The Governments have also contributed to the decline in work habits by
mandating minimum wages. They have
also effectively served to de-motivate people and remove incentives to excel in
the workplace. Here�s what I mean.
If there was no minimum wage or Union controlling things, this is the way
I see things occurring. A person
gets a job doing what they know how to do because of education or experience.
They start at the company working for an agreed upon wage.
After all, if the company doesn�t want to pay someone a certain wage
without knowing what they can really bring to the table, they should not be
obliged to. If you don�t want to
work for that starting wage then you can look to be employed elsewhere.
Nobody can force you to work for a price you don�t think you deserve.
That�s fair, both parties have a choice.
After you start working and show how good of a job you can do, then you
have the opportunity to renegotiate the wage.
If the employer won�t budge and you�re a good worker, move on.
It would be their loss. I
think that you would see that any intelligent employer would want to keep a good
employee just like they would be happy to let a bad one go.
The problem with Unions is it doesn�t work that way.
If an employer needs 4 people to do a job, they all get the same wage.
And if one employee works really hard while 2 others do a so-so job and
the other one is a real slacker, they still have to pay them each the same wage.
This cause�s the person who does a better job to resent the fact that he
works harder but gets paid the same, so eventually, he tones down his work ethic
to match the others because after all, why should I work harder for the same
money. The slacker sees no reason
to bring up his game because he still gets paid the same as if he were doing
more. While the other 2 remain
content where they are. Then they
all tell the employer that they want more money just because or they will cause
the employer to lose business if he doesn�t give in.
So the employers give in and then simply charge more for his product to
offset the cost. Now without the
Union, those same 4 guys get the job.
The guy that works really hard gets a raise independent of the others.
The slacker gets let go and replaced so any new guy finds out that
slacking will not be tolerated. The
other 2 so-so workers figure out that the only way to earn more is to work
harder. Now the employer is more successful so he is able to reward his hard
working faithful workers individually as they deserve.
I personally would not prefer my pay based on the efforts of someone
else. I can only be responsible for
me and shouldn�t expect to carry someone else who won�t put forth an effort.
The employer wins because he only has to raise the wage of the deserving
people. If employees start to quit
and the employer has to retrain people and take his chances with new people,
then he is the one gambling with his own business.
If we get rid of the Government manipulating business to the point where
they find it easier and cheaper to avoid all the regulations and taxes by going
to another country, we can keep our jobs here and help our economy.
As far as helping other countries, why should we do much more than
provide a good example of a system which can work and be successful for its own
citizens? By forcing companies
overseas, those countries get the benefit of having jobs for their citizens.
We should do everything to keep our jobs here and allow them to be able
to be competitive with the rest of the world. I
am not saying not to provide aid to other countries.
I am saying the aid should be in the form of showing them how they too
can achieve a better way of life by following our example.
Giving other countries money to help their people only feed the ones who
get it and don�t spread it around.
We especially should not borrow money to give to some other country.
Send our volunteers and organizations over to help them build an
infrastructure with money which id donated by the generous successful
individuals and businesses in the US. If we show people what works instead of
trying to force people into our way of life, I think we would be less resented
throughout the world. By having
more jobs here, more people would be employed and then we could keep costs down
by having completion which can compete with the rest of the world.
Think about it, instead of giving taxpayer money to a farmer NOT to grow
food jus t to keep the price up, we could bring the costs down while employing
more people and not creating a society which has to have lots of money to live
comfortably. Much of the expense of
things here is due to the inflated cost to provide something due to higher wages
mandated by Unions and Government minimum wages.
It is human nature to want more. If they want it, work for it.
Don�t expect someone to give you something just because you want it. Our
country with a capitalist society allows people the opportunity to get more.
As long as they are willing to earn it.
Look at it this way. The
Government wants to give people things for nothing.
So in order to be able to afford those things, they have to tax people
more to pay for it. So then the
business has to charge more to be able to cover the increased expense.
Then the people who work there need more money to buy the stuff so they
need to get paid more. Then the business has to increase the cost to cover that
loss and the cycle continues. Then the people who have not been doing anything
but getting the free money for doing nothing, has to spend more as well because
everything is costing more. So then the Government gives them more to adjust for
the cost of living increase. Then
the Government has to raise the taxes on the business to cover its new loss.
So again the business raises its price and we see a never ending spiral.
But if there is plenty of competition, the employer can get the best
worker for his money. They produce
a better product because the workers want to keep earning and having a good
living. Competition keeps prices
down so we don�t have to keep raising prices to keep up with inflation which we
created in the first place. Because the government won�t have to keep taxing
more because eventually people would figure out that they could make more money
working than getting the check which they have to work for anyway from the
Government. Government workers
shouldn�t be paid more because they work for the government.
They should be paid more because they individually earned it by working
harder and being more conscientious.
I see that as building a better work force.
As far as the Food Stamp program, this is a system which started out with good
intentions, but quickly went awry.
The program has been abused by the people who wanted to game it since the first
book of stamps was handed out with its restrictions on what they could buy.
It went like this. The
person got there $400 worth of food stamps. They found that they could sell $50
worth of stamps for $40 in cash.
Then they could spend that money on tobacco, alcohol or even drugs.
So once that became a widespread epidemic, they decided to try a credit
card style system thinking they could then not be able to simply sell the pieces
of paper. Well it didn�t take long
for that to be abused either. A
woman goes to the local deli market, gives her card to the business owner who
rings up $75 onto the card. Then he
gives the woman $50 in cash. She
gets to spend it where she wants and he makes $25 for a quick transaction.
It is also abused in this manner.
Person gets a shopping list from the neighbor.
Goes to the store and buys $100 worth of groceries.
Gives the neighbor the food and gets the $100 in cash. Or another one
that I recently read about. Person
goes into the store where there is a bottle deposit for the plastic water
bottle. Buys cases of water, card
is charged for the redemption value.
Then they go outside, empty the bottles and go back in the store and
redeem the bottles for cash. This
is called water dumping. Someone
said why on earth they even allow them to buy water since they can turn on a tap
and get their water. Let alone the
people who question the nutritional value of the foods which they purchase. Now
you�re starting to get into the Nanny State argument.
Here is the solution. So you
don�t think I am against feeding people I want you to understand that I feel we
should not let people starve in our country where we have an abundance of food
available. After all it�s not like
in places where they can�t grow food.
Our society wastes so much food on a daily basis that I think all the
hungry people in America could be fed of what is wasted daily.
Here it is. No more food
stamp programs. We simply setup
�Soup Kitchen� type operations all over town.
The larger the population, the more locations.
Then, food can be prepared cafeteria style where the quality and
nutritional controls can be monitored.
Each person who will be on the program for the free food will then have
their biometric identity installed into the system to ensure that we aren�t just
feeding everyone, even those with the means of taking care of themselves.
Right now, not everyone qualifies for food stamps, so similar guidelines
that they have in place now. Maybe
people who currently make $50 a month too much in income could be allowed to
partake of 1 meal a day instead of 3.
The most economical way to prepare food is in volume.
This way they would also cut down on waste since they would always have
someone to consume the food. It would be
much harder to game the system like that.
And we would be able to feed our hungry showing that we have compassion
for our less fortunate. As far as
who would work at these locations, well the people who are already getting the
Government check, of course. How
about that, we killed two birds with one stone.
Sounds like a Win-Win situation to me.
For those who don�t want to be bothered with having to go somewhere to
eat I say this, don�t go, it�s your choice.
Now that�s fair. This could
also serve as the commissary for the Meals on Wheel systems which are in place
all over as well. Instead of
facilities which end up throwing out tons of food each year, it could be sent to
the locations to be consumed instead of wasted.
Of course, we would have to make Government get out of the way to make
this happen. Too many regulations,
even though many are introduced with god intentions, hinder our ability to help
each other. Since we would also
have a tax system which no longer penalized people for earning money, more
people would have more money to donate at their will to help out these
organizations which help people. If
you want there to be less produce on the market so it doesn�t cause the prices
to drop too much, then a portion of the foods grown can simply be given to the
food providers to minimize their costs as well.
Things could certainly be figured out, it only people would allow it.
After all, another benefit to this type of feeding program is energy
conservation. Individuals would not
have to prepare all those individual meals.
Plus, it would be like they get to go out to eat, all the time.
How many people wouldn�t think that was a big advantage.
No cooking, no cleaning.
Sounds fair to me. The bottom line is this, if you keep on doing what you�ve
been doing, you will keep on getting what you�ve been getting.
Education of our children is important because they are our future.
But allowing teachers who have lost their passion for the opportunity and
responsibility of molding our children�s minds just because they have been doing
it a while is ridiculous. When I
hear of a state that has a high dropout rate and kids producing low test scores
that signals me that some teachers are not doing their job.
Then when I hear that they are paying teachers NOT to teach students
because they have become awful teachers and can�t be left to interact with
students I get upset. Then when I
hear that they have to hire more teachers because they don�t have enough to
teach all the kids, even though they are paying for more teachers I get mad.
But what really frosts my jewels is to hear that because they don�t have
enough money, they have to let teachers go.
But the ones who get let go are not the ones who are being paid to do
nothing, but the new ones who really want to make a difference.
All the while still paying the bad ones NOT to teach.
Who in their right mind can even try to argue that this is fair?
The only way you can expect better performance is to have the threat of
losing their job on the line. When
a student sees this kind of stuff going on, what do you think they are learning?
Is that really what we want to teach them?
But once again, we see that the teachers Union is the reason for this
kind of unacceptable behavior. I
watched a special by John Stossel that he did about students in America.
What he found was that Charter schools which did not have Government and
Union intervention had better teachers and they produced students that were more
excited about going to school and they also received higher test scores.
They also did it on less money than public schools.
This again shows that if you can just get Government out of the way and
let private industry set the course, you will end up in a better place.
Nobody can argue that we don�t need better educated students. Charter
schools are also in competition with each other so they work harder to be
successful. After all, the proof is
in the numbers, test scores that is.
Healthcare is another area that needs reform. Not in the manner which they just
tried by making people buy insurance, but by making a system less susceptible to
abuse. People try to get easy money
by lawsuits, which cause the doctors to spend more on insurance which in turn
raises costs. Having systems in
place to help people can be accomplished by simply restructuring things.
First of all, if the insurance companies did not have to lay out such
large amounts of money, premiums could be reduced.
By having more members in a group, premiums can be reduced. By educating,
not forcing, people to develop better lifestyles, costs could be reduced since
people would tend to be healthier.
Mandating this and that only makes people more resentful and rebellious.
But if they could have lower premiums because they attend a fitness club
and have a healthier lifestyle, they would receive motivation for that.
By allowing different levels of plans which don�t cover the small stuff
but take care of catastrophic situations can reduce expenses and thereby
lowering premiums. When it comes to Medicare/Medicaid, well here is the thing.
I have talked with EMT�s who drive an ambulance and they say that the
majority of their calls are from the same people calling because they have
Medicaid and don�t have to be the ones to pay.
They respond to calls which are not life threatening, costing the
taxpayer money. They could have called a cab and been taken to a clinic to see
someone instead of calling out an ambulance which is not only costly, but it
takes them out of play for someone who really does need emergency assistance.
It�s like the people in the Government mentality, it�s not my money so
what do I care. Here are some ideas. The amount of money that is taken out of my
check each week is not really that much when you think about all the good it
does. I could probably go either
way on keeping it or getting rid of it.
But the people receiving the money should be held to some restrictions.
First of all, they should have to see certain doctors at certain clinics
for their care. This can control
costs since doctors would not be forced to receive relatively small compensation
for their time. However, physicians
should have to work on performance based ideals like other people.
I appreciate them going to school and becoming a doctor, but it should be
for the reason of helping people, not becoming filthy rich at the expense of the
patient. I do feel they should be
compensated appropriately. If they can get away with charging a lot to those
that have a lot and want to pay for it, either out of their pocket or the
insurance companies� pocket, more power to them.
I�m sure the insurance companies can work it out with the doctors and the
premiums. Doctors still have to be
accountable for their actions, but I don�t think they should have to live in
fear of a frivolous lawsuit and pay obnoxious premiums for malpractice insurance
all at the expense of the patients who have no problems.
Tort reform could probably go a long way to cutting health care costs.
The fraud waste and abuse by patients and doctors alike accounts for an
astronomical part of the overall expenses I�m sure.
Investigation and prosecution should curtail a lot of that, saving lots
of money. Many countries produce
doctors and nurses and I�m sure if we had a system in place where they could
come to advance their education while serving our citizens, it could be a
win-win situation for us all. We
could build dorms by the care facilities to cut down on the expenses of the care
givers so they would not require as much pay, which would save money in the long
run. But mainly, it needs to be run
by private companies since the Government is a total failure at running any kind
of business since they consider turning a profit as important.
The Government has shown time and time again that they don�t care about
saving any money.
Here is something that many feel strongly about, one way or the other.
First of all, let�s remember that we are a nation of immigrants.
Most of our population has roots from some other part of the world.
The thing that comes into play right now with all the debating about
illegal immigrants essentially boils down to one thing.
We have an immigration law.
It is either followed or it is broken.
If you break the law, then you are breaking the law.
Unlike when President Obama said, I am on the side of every law abiding
citizen, even if you are an illegal alien.
Makes you wonder what they taught in the school he attended.
In the schools I went to, illegal meant breaking the law.
Simply put, if you are here illegally, it means you did not either come
here or stay here by legal means.
In either case, if you are breaking the law, you should not be afforded the same
rights and freedoms as someone who is obeying the law.
We actually put people in jail who choose to break our laws. So why on
earth do we treat people who are considered illegal aliens with such kit gloves?
If you are a child and your parents put you in a car and then proceed to
rob a bank, do we let the parents go because the child was only along for the
ride and we wouldn�t want to break up a family?
Or do we take the child and give them to a relative to take care of so we
can send the parents to jail for their crime.
Then why do we use the rationale that since the child had no active part
in committing the crime of coming here illegally we should let the parents go
free when it comes to the immigration issue.
Wouldn�t we rather have a society that has citizens who follow the law
instead of breaking it? Our
citizenship status should be reconsidered when it comes to the status of a child
who was brought here by people who chose to break our law.
We have some of the most lax immigration laws in the world, and they are
not even enforced. I�m sorry, but
if your parents came here illegally, your ability to be a natural born citizen
should be taken away. It�s kind of
like when we take a criminal to trial.
If evidence is obtained illegally, then it cannot be used against the bad
guy. I think by this day in age everyone knows that if they are arrested in the
US that they have the right to remain silent.
So why then if someone does get their Miranda rights read to them,
everything is basically null and void against them?
Here is the thing. We have
people all over this world for whatever reason they choose to use, don�t like
us. Many would like to kill us
simply because of where we live.
Radicals exist all over the world and they have made no bones of stating that
they want to kill Americans, simply because we are Americans.
This is probably the number one reason we need to protect and secure our
borders. Unlike what Congressman
Paul said, they can also be used to keep us in; we simply say that anyone who
wants to leave can leave. Unless of
course you are running from the law.
But if we protected our borders, we could minimize the opportunity for
attacks against us. That is a role
of Government. To protect its
citizens. That is what our military
is for. So how do we secure our
border? A fence certainly won�t do
it. They have proved time and time
again that if you build a 20 foot fence, you only need a 22 foot ladder.
Heck, there have been people who have been able to climb the fences in
less than a minute. So the answer
is definitely not a fence. After
all, a fence must be engineered and built to very rigorous standards due to our
governments� tough fence building regulations.
Not to mention the expense.
My solution would be much simpler.
One thing we do it put the word out that if you are here illegally, we will find
you and punish you. No longer will
our society be charged with the responsibility of providing you healthcare,
welfare, education and housing at the expense and suffering of our citizens.
So then we let them have 6 months from the date of announcement to report
to the facility to turn themselves in and go on record that they are in fact
here illegally. They will then be
given the option to return to their homeland on their own and avoid any fines or
punishments. They will also be
allowed to re-enter the country legally if they fill out the proper papers and
pay the fees which all legal immigrants must do if they wish to come here
legally. Then once they are allowed
entry they can pay a fine for having previously broken our law.
They have to learn that we are a nation of laws and they must abide by
the laws if they want the benefits of living amongst us.
After the 6 month grace period lapses, anyone caught here illegally will
be first imprisoned where we will put them to work on the work detail of digging
a big ditch along our border. We
really won�t need to watch them too closely.
Because if they choose to run to the south, let them go.
One less person to watch and feed.
After they have served their sentence they will then be deported back to
their homeland, be it Mexico or wherever else.
I�ll bet you it�s cheaper to dig a ditch than build a fence since you
don�t need to use materials, only move earth around.
If the ditch was dug 20 foot deep and 20 foot wide and the material
removed was put up on the US side, it would provide a formidable wall.
We simply need to take care of our law abiding citizens and punish those
who choose to not play by the rules. When
you think about the fact that we spend something like $50,000 to take care of a
prisoner annually, it is mind boggling as to why.
These are people who made their own decision to break our laws, yet we
spend more to take care of them than many people earn in a year and take care of
an entire family and are law abiding citizens.
That is just not fair. I
think Sherriff Joe in Arizona has the right idea.
He should be in charge of all the prisons.
I think criminals would think twice before going back to the life of
crime.
This idea is not necessarily something which will be received by the lawbreakers
too well, but I think it would add a different level of fairness to our society
that does not presently exist. When
it comes to prisons and prisoners few can dispute the fact that we have some of
the nicer prisons in our country.
As well as the care for our prisoners is on a different level than most places.
Let�s keep in mind that the occupants are people who made conscious
decisions to not play by the rules.
If prison life was less pleasant for the really bad elements in our society it
might serve as a bit of a deterrent.
Prison should not be a place for the bad elements to hone their skills as
bad guys so they can continue their life of crime with a better criminal
education. I have seen plenty of
shows that were showing about the rampant problems they have in prisons with the
prisoner population. Many steps
could be taken to eliminate a lot of the inmate problems.
Give them fewer freedoms, so they will appreciate the freedoms they are
given even more. People, who have
been placed on death row and given ample opportunities to have their case
appealed, should not be left there indefinitely.
Some people consider putting someone to death cruel and unusual
punishment, but to me locking someone up for the rest of their life with no
possibility of parole is worse.
Since it is very expensive to house somebody in our institutions of corrections
and we have so many people who would not like to put people to death, I have a
solution. For those who have been
tried and convicted and sentenced to death, they should be placed in a single
location. This location will be
sole funded by those people who are against the death penalty.
Since they will have more of the money they earned for themselves and
have the freedom to donate to which ever cause they choose to help whoever they
choose, they can relieve the long term burden and expense to the others who are
for the death penalty. I think that
is fair. If they want to take care
of them for the rest of their lives, let them.
I myself would rather donate my money to helping someone whose life has
been devastated by a natural disaster that they had no control over.
People who commit murder by choice deserve no special consideration in my
book. This would allow those who
are opposed to the death penalty to have their way.
Of course, they need to be responsible for their actions as well. It
would not be fair for someone who feels that an individual should pay for their
crime to be saddled and burdened with the responsibility of caring for the scum
of our society. I have other ideas
on how the prison system could be improved to cut down on the prison violence,
but for that you can visit my website to read about those thoughts.
Summary
So just in these few pages we have explored things like working towards making
government less corrupt and more accountable and reducing the costs of
Government we can reduce the need for as much taxes being paid in.
If there are less taxes being paid in, people have more for themselves.
By getting Government out of the way, competition can come back into our
market place allowing it to flourish.
By getting people to accept responsibility for their own lives and
expecting then to help themselves we end up with a better class of citizen.
By setting a good example and not forcing ourselves on others in the
world we may not be as resented. If
they don�t like us because we don�t just give them pocketfuls of money, oh well.
If we can work towards people being able to live on less money by making
food and products more affordable, we can be more competitive with the rest of
the world in the market. Other
countries can�t afford to buy our product because they don�t make as much money.
So how can we expect to sell them the goods we produce to get the opportunity to
show them we make a better product?
So then if we grow our world market, we take away others.
Our citizens are the most compassionate in the world and if they have
more of their own money they will freely give it to help others.
The businesses' will then be more successful and generate more money and
they in turn will give more to help others.
So just by being FAIR, we can see a lot of positive changes.
By developing a health care system which can provide more and better
services we can serve more people. I
have also touched on ways to make our citizens more responsible which would give
us a better class of citizenry.
I thank you for your time of reading my ideas and would welcome all criticisms
and comments. I am also not opposed
to friendly debate but only when all participants have the ability to use logic
and reason instead of ideology.
Respectfully,
Kevin Whitesides
Kevin@areyoufeduptoo.com