Issue 34 cutting the military March 15,2013

This topic is sure to be slightly more controversial, but I'm going to do it anyway. In fact, I would like my readers to participate if they like by adding there critics, and their own suggestions below in the comments section. So let’s get started.

Top Heavy: Currently, the military is very top heavy when it comes to leadership. There are hundreds of officers and other military leaders, in addition to a large civilian staff, that delay the decision making process. The Military has made strides in reducing the time it takes to make decisions by implementing the special operations style of leadership. That style uses a series of directives (goals) and lets the soldiers figure out the best way to get the job done, and thus it empowers field commanders. However, the transition is slow and the Department of Defense (DOD) has too many redundancies. From my understanding there are more officers than command positions as well leading me to wonder, why promote someone to officer rank or higher if there are no positions available. So rather than cut soldiers who fight on the battlefield, we have to cut the fat from the top ranks of the pentagon. Also, no one should be promoted if there is no position available.

Idiocy: While the military has made strides in its decision making process thanks to changes in warfare and technology, it is still playing catch up in other areas like cook books. The Army's brownie making recipe is 26 pages. Last time I checked, a normal cook book only has a page for the recipe and another for maybe a picture. Then there is the thousand dollar wrenches for air craft maintenance, $55,000 party planner and the fact that we have to pay military contractors to fix and maintain our missile systems among other things. Basically, the military needs to be stream lined when it comes to paper work as well.

Contracts: Then there is the issue with military contracts. The businesses our boys in uniform buy from can't seem to keep costs down. We buy ultra high tech systems before they are proven to work and then fix the problem as it is used in the field which jeopardizes our soldier’s lives. In addition, some of these machines and technology are so complex that commanders are hesitant to use them in the first place. It is no wonder there are thousand dollar wrenches. The Pentagons procurement process is a joke and must be reformed in a way that punishes contractors from going over budget, while ensuring development targets are met. Also, the adage "if it is too expensive to use, then it is too expensive to buy" must be followed. A safer solution to avoid cost overruns is to use "off the shelf" civilian products, but they must be militarized to some extent, and I believe the Special Forces have been doing that for a while.

Controversial: A very controversial idea would be to eliminate overlaps between the branches of service. For instance, the Navy and the Marines have their own criminal investigative service (NCIS, yes its real) as does the army. Why have separate groups doing the same thing, it makes no sense. The military already has joint programs for Special Forces, transporting goods in its joint transport command, amongst others, so if they have different groups doing the same thing, then merge them. A really controversial idea would be to merge existing branches of the military into each other. Probably the Air Force (as it is the youngest branch) and the Navy (one of the oldest) as their capabilities are slowly overlapping further into each other. Both have fighters, and bombers, with very little separating them and thus they should merge. In fact, both branches are made to command and dominate what is known as the commons (the sea, the air, and now space and cyber space) so it makes sense. Likewise, the Air National Guard and Coast Guard would merge providing new capabilities and thinking when protecting our shores.

A second controversial idea would be to merge the various intelligence agencies together and make the head of this new body a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the intelligence groups in the U.S. are a hybrid civilian and military force with overlapping capabilities mimicking the Green Berets and strike missions like the air force, it makes sense. Plus, with terrorists and small enemy groups able to topple nations, the line between traditional army's and terrorists has shifted and will continue doing so. Basically, what the U.S. needs is an intelligence group that provides intelligence for both the active battle field and at home to protect our shores without the one-up-man-ship that some of the agencies have now. Still this is controversial, but while an army runs on its stomach, wars are won on who knows what first.

Eliminate Land Bases: The United States has a large number of bases overseas, and they are expensive. They are used as a form of power projection to basically say we control the area and don't you dare touch what we wish to protect. However, we have overstayed our welcome in some of these countries, while others may not let us establish a base to conduct military operations (as was the case with Turkey during our second war with Iraq that took down Saddam). A concept that would solve the expense and also decrease our vulnerability to reprisal attacks on our foreign bases (think the Beirut bombing in Lebanon) is sea basing. The concept is that all operations are conducted from ships far away enough to protect from enemy reprisal, but close enough to support land operations. It would solve the issue of having to pay rent to another nation (saving money) and having to protect the base from enemies and possibly dissidents in the country who don't want us there.

Conclusion: Our U.S. Military is changing. It is becoming faster and smarter, but the process is slow. Unfortunately, lives have been lost in obtaining the hard lessons learned by our men and women in uniform. Even now, the military is experimenting with technology that allows them to establish a small mobile base faster to ensure protection, technology that reduces the number of times troops need to be resupplied in the field, which protects those who have to bring those supplies to them and the troops from running out in a time of crises. I am not a member of the military, but I admire the men and women in uniform. I write this article, for one purpose, we don't have to waste money on junk and unnecessary expenses to have a strong military presence. The saved money can be better spent on our troops coming home, and give them the better the pay raise they deserve.

There is probably more things that can be cut, or changed, but I will leave it here for now as the DOD is a jumbeled mess along with the other agencies that defend our shores.  So please if you have any suggestions or critics, comment below.

Issue 33 Cutting Government March 14,2013

This issue is on what can be cut from the budget without any impacts on the rest of the American public save potential cost savings. All cuts listed here are my opinion and my opinion alone.

Unspent money: Did you know that money allocated to certain federal programs has not been spent yet. The President has either frozen spending on certain programs (depending on which administration you are looking at) or money set to be spent by law has not been paid out yet. Basically all this money is sitting there doing nothing. I say take that money by law and put it back in the U.S. Treasury or use it to pay off the debt.

Discretionary spending: There is a part of the Federal Government spending called discretionary spending. This spending is what as known as pork barrel spending (money from politicians to bribe voters to vote for them). Such spending includes studying the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes, Obese Lesbians, shrimp on treadmills and poetry reading cowboys in Nevada (this one sponsored by Senator Harry Reid). Spending of this nature takes up approximately 17% of the federal budget, and I say to cut it all. It does not matter how small the cuts are, but it does matter when it is contributing to the national debt.

Inter governmental loans: Did you know that a portion of the national debt is what the U.S. Government owes to itself. How you ask? Well when money is allocated by law, and Congress wants to spend surplus money from that program/department, they must borrow it. It is the same exact reason that the federal government owes Four and a half trillion dollars to Social Security and Medicare combined. It is unlikely that any of this domestic debt will ever be paid off, and as such I say remove ourselves of that debt. If it is to a program, department or agency that is dysfunctional or can be eliminated, then get rid of it. As to the debt owed to Social Security and Medicare, have congress mandate that the two agencies can only spend money collected from last year and that any money left over can then be put into the treasury for expenditures. At the same time, Congress with its power to modify the two programs can by legislation eliminate that debt entirely. Basically, they have to say money borrowed from one part of the government and given to another is not debt. That is almost $5 trillion dollars eliminated from the debt in one fell swoop.

Bureaucratic Spending: The government workers have been spending a bit too much money lately. There was the GSA with its conference in Nevada, and now a $55,000 party coordinator by the Department of Defense. These two examples are the tip of the iceberg, and there is sillier spending to come. Basically, the government workers are not saving us money and so their budgets must be cut. The Congress must do something about this, and fast. Make them use Skype or other teleconference devices. When a face to face is necessary, meet in a meeting room at the job.

Bad programs: Any spending on a program that does not show results should be eliminated. In short, a program that shows little to no benefits should either A: be integrated into another program where it may finally achieve results in combination with the merged program, or B: get rid of it entirely. One such program is Head Start, an education program designed to aid poor children in getting a literal head start in education. Results have been dismal, as after first grade the children show no marked improvements compared to their peers who are not in the program. So based on this, this program should be integrated into another education program which will pick up where "Head Start" leaves off after first grade. Another program that failed is the virtual fence on the boarder between the U.S. and Mexico. It does not keep a single illegal immigrant out, but does allow us to count them. As an utter failure, the program should be eliminated.

Foreign Aid: We spend money giving aid to countries like North Korea, Egypt, Somalia and China in the hopes that they will be more likely to vote our way in the United Nations, or support us in other international treaties and actions. Well, as that really does not work in reality and we are giving China money rather than paying back our debt to them, I say cut out that spending. There is no point throwing money away uselessly. America can be better served having trade relations with those countries to enrich both ours and their populations without having to spend a dime.

Conclusion: Will these minor cuts amount to much, probably not. Our Government owes over $16 trillion and counting. The United States spends $3 trillion a year, but only takes in $2 trillion (approximately). We cannot afford to borrow any more money for garbage. I did not address government overlap/redundancies here, or taxation for reform is necessary in those areas regardless. Also, I did not say which departments could be cut/merged for those are separate and require another post (expect one from me tomorrow talking about the military). Fiscally, the country is headed toward ruin as soon our government will be completely unable to pay off the interest on the national debt and thus result in bankruptcy for the nation. We must get our federal government spending in order if we wish to keep programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. America thankfully has time to fix itself, but that time is running out.

Issue 32 Space Politics March,13,2013

The final topic of the space series is the politics that will result from man kinds colonization of the stars. Let’s just say, I believe things could get messy.

Land Negotiation: As we venture out and colonize other worlds and space itself, Nations will attempt to create territorial boundaries. They would do this for one simple purpose; anything that is within that boundary is theirs for the picking. However, who gets to decide how much land on the moon belongs to the United States, as opposed to Russia, or China. Also, countries without a space program may be left out of these negotiations entirely unless they are generously given territory (if that land has a use is another question).

Land negotiation can be done by dividing up the moon or Mars once we get there, an equal share sort of deal. An alternative to that is where ever a flag is planted by human hands a certain amount of territory is granted to the nation that put it there (this is the same as Russia putting flags under the polar icecap to claim land if negotiations in the UN failed. Basically it will be a true space race. Get there first and claim your prize.

Internationalism: An alternative to the land negotiation model is having colonies run on a set of international law standards. Basically, the moon and Mars would be shared in the same way Antarctica is shared amongst the world. From there, negotiations on how much of each resource goes to each country may follow (assuming those resources can be brought back to Earth). You will find a distinct lack of a Free Market in this model as businesses will be forced to turn over their gains to the countries indicated in the treaty and not to customers of their choosing. Also, the laws established have to be agreed upon by the nations making them (they can't even agree on a definition on terrorism so good luck).

After Colonization: Once out there (literally), we will have to deal with how these colonies are to be run. However, I predict rebellion. It goes without question that colonies of a certain size and economic clout will resent their rulers from so many miles away. Some of these colonies will be abused by their countries of origin and even drained of everything they have, leaving them barren. So, some colonies may even band together to rebel, and the host nation(s) can do nothing to stop it save having a loyal force stationed nearby to keep order, or some way to get troops from Earth or another of their colonies inside to restore order. Basically we will have interplanetary rebellions in a similar fashion to the American Revolution.

Some countries will be different however. Less authoritarian countries will allow their colonies say in the goings on both within the colony and even at home in elections of national leaders. Basically, the United States could have its 51'st State on the moon. But, this is wholly dependant on treatment of the people in the colonies and how much loyalty they have to their mother country. Though, as generations are born in the colonies their loyalty may shift to each other as it will be a hard and difficult life for the initial settlers. With these difficulties colonies will most likely have to aid one another for survival. Though, the opposite of cooperation is equally true.  Small battles in space may be fought, ones that can spark wars here on Earth.

Conclusion: I think that man kinds violent nature will not be satiated. People with nationalism will seek glory for their mother country until that mother country stabs them in the back. Wars of Independence are inevitable, as to if they will be successful or not depends on how far technology progresses. My recommendation is for colonies to have self rule. By giving them self rule, they can establish laws that are suitable to their own situation. This also allows easy transition to become part of another county (like the U.S.) if they meet the criteria for becoming more than just another colony. Likewise, self rule ensures less chaos as host nations can nurture these colonies and use these local governments to prevent mistreatment and maintain a sense of loyalty to their country of origin. Basically it is a balancing act, mistreat them and they rebel causing war, treat them well and you gain access to natural resources that improve the quality of life for your people. Countries have already started negotiating with each other over territory, and this new space race has begun. My generation may be the first to see people actually living on the moon, Mars and space colonies, but hopefully my predictions do not come true.

Tomorrow it is back to politics with my cuts to the federal govenment.

Issue 31 NASA's future March,12,2013

As we all know, NASA is losing its place as the go to for space exploration. Private companies and their dreams of riches have taken the center roll. So what will happen to NASA? These are a couple of possibilities.

Extinction: The first possibility is that the agency will be divested. With the Air force becoming more and more important each passing year and its eventual expansion into space operations NASA may be swallowed whole. Most of its engineers will probably keep their jobs as the Air Force will use them to develop space based fighters, transports and spy satellites. But the remnants of NASA will not stop space exploration. The Air Force or another agency will be tasked with such research in the same way the Coast Guard has the storm chasers fly for the national weather service. So can you really say NASA is gone under this scenario.....no, as it has merely been transformed and replaced.

Expansion: Possibility number two is that NASA expands further. Using the technology developed by private corporations and businesses they will continue further into the stars. NASA astronauts will test this new equipment in the same way they test new engines and rockets for the Air Force. In other words NASA astronauts will be a safety inspection organization for products that are used for space travel. I can even see them developing safety procedures for untrained pioneers going into space and have a testing regiment like how the coast guard tests sailors to ensure they are up to the task if their boat ever sinks. Basically, NASA will become the Coast Guard of space.

After Colonization: Once we begin to colonize space, and other planets, objects and food being brought back and forth between those colonies will need to go through customs to ensure no nasty mutated bacteria from Mars gets on planet and wipes us out. So NASA will, if expanded, become like the TSA, FDA, boarders and customs, and Coast Guard rolled into one. They may even be directed to create new pathogens for the CDC to test and find a cure for. It will be a large expansion eclipsing most other agencies that should have been expanded instead for that task, but this is under the assumption that NASA has enough love by the politicians to be kept and expanded despite the overlap of responsibilities. Hello NASA inspectors, and headache.

International: Another distinct possibility is that NASA and other space agencies from around the world either A: become partners and have their own ambassadors for sharing scientific studies, B: a new United Nations is specifically developed for space exploration, or C: the most likely scenario is that a NATO esc body is created for having the same international standards and dealing with extra planetary issues, like terrorism, unknown space phenomenon, and research. Why is C the most likely scenario? That is because every nation wants credit for finding or doing something first. Basically, international street credit and a body mimicking NATO still allows for NASA to exist and even expand in a similar way to the two aforementioned possibilities.

Conclusion: Expansion and co-operation is the most likely scenario. It plays well politically as no politician, let alone a President wants to be known as the one who killed NASA. However, I would actually like its extinction. I surprised myself too when I found I was in favor of cutting up the agency and giving its parts to various other government entities. Why? Well that is easy; I don't want NASA to turn into some bureaucratic monstrosity. I want NASA to be remembered for getting us this far into space and not as another TSA, or other red tape making body that everyone loves to hate but feels we cannot do without. So if it's going to die, kill it quickly, and prevent the excessive redundancy and corruption that is sure to mar NASA's legacy.

 

Issue 30 A lunar Home March,11,2013

We discussed living in the vacuum of space, but what about on the moon or even Mars. Much of the technology will cross over to building homes on the surfaces of other planets and moons like radiation shielding, sanitation and the like. But the environments will require unique requirements to maintain human life.

Moon: On the moon, there is a desperate need for a water supply. If you have no water, then human life cannot be maintained on its surface (obvious right). So apart from shipping water from Earth to the moon or even Mars for that matter, we as humans would need to find some form of water source. Thankfully there is a source of water on the moon and Mars, though getting it may pose a problem. In respect to the moon, asteroids/meteorites have hit its surface on a number of occasions. Beneficially for us, some of those meteorites were made of ice and have settled at the bottom of some of the craters (albeit the water is frozen at 400 degrees below Celsius). The first lunar colonies will have to be made inside the craters with this frozen ice. A way to melt the ice, and possibly purify it will be needed, and a system of agriculture developed to maintain food supply without taking up all the water. In other words allot of work to create a self sustaining colony once established. Thankfully, the Green Movement has provided much of the impetus for cleaner, more efficient technology. Their push for lights that use little to no electricity, carbon capture technology and more ensures that the energy needed to produce and maintain a lunar colony (even a Mars Colony)is minimal and not a large drain on resources. Spin off technology from the military like micro smart grids and water recycling technology will be essential. It really comes down to bringing all this technology together in a compact form so it can be transported on the cheap (yea it's all about cost too).

Mars: Mars to has water, but like its Lunar counterpart, it is frozen. On Mars there is dry ice. Frozen water and CO2 that if melted can aid in heating up Mars enough to maintain plant life. But we have to melt it first. Ideas from nuclear bombs to dropping heaters from space have all been put on the table. However, those take time, and people want the abundance of natural resources Mars has to offer. In other words, why strip mine Earth where there is a natural environment with plant life when you can get those resources from Mars. Basically, outside of space tourism, mining for natural resources will be the key to tempting man kind into space and further spreading us out into the universe. Though, we will still need water to survive. So my guess is that at some point, we will be able to produce water by combining oxygen and hydrogen ourselves in a machine in the same way we do diamonds. Basically, get an initial sample in the machine H2O, and place it under the right conditions while injecting more oxygen and hydrogen and watch the water flow out. And who is to say we as humans will not raid nearby Moons orbiting Mars and Mars' polar ice caps. Why go through the cost to terraform a planet when it can be done piecemeal.

The Issues: There will be some issues, like with living in space, when it comes to living on these low gravity worlds. For one, just like space, the muscles and bones will become weaker as there is less strain on the human body. But, we may grow taller as that same gravity inhibits how tall we become. The biggest mountain in our solar system ever recorded is on Mars, and that is only the case of the lower amount of gravity. Basically, the higher the gravity, the more strain on an object which leads to that objects size being limited. So on Mars and the moon, we can build 4 mile high skyscrapers without fear. People with dwarfism may be able to grow taller due to less gravity; high people with gigantism may not suffer from bones that are too heavy for their bodies to support (though this is just theory). Likewise people may be able to live longer due to less stress on the human body. The cost though, is that people born on Mars or the moon after continuous generations probably may not be able to set foot on Earth. They would literally collapse from the higher gravity. We would have a new class of human, a space human, a lunar human, and a Martian human. Each different on the inside, and maybe even the outside due to their bodies adapting to the living conditions of the planet they are living on, but will at no time be any less human.

All, in all, to live in the stars, sacrifices will be made. Those sacrifices being, money, resources, and maybe even never having your grandchildren see Earth in person. However, the rewards are many; a civilization on another planet, natural resources to profit from, and other money making opportunities ripe for the picking. It is a choice, a choice that we as a people must make.

Tomorrow, I discuss NASA's new role in space exploration (my opinion on what it will evolve into).

Issue 29 Space Homes!? March,8,2013

Switching from politics for a bit, I thought it would be nice to discuss space and humanities future amongst the stars. One of the biggest eventualities is a space home....or at least a space hotel. Essentially another space station, but designed so people can live there in comfort.

First and for most, to get a space station into orbit requires light weight materials and equipment that can be transported into space on the cheap without overburdening the rocket which will bring it up there. Thus, some scientists and inventors have developed the inflatable space station. It is lighter, but from tests is more durable than a traditional metal space station. Using layers of materials like Kevlar allows for an inflatable space station the size of a football field to be brought up (in its compact size of course). So the hurdle of getting it to space is largely solved. Inflating it is a simple task of inflating it with a lightweight gas like nitrogen. From there it is all about putting in what you want and need for human habitation.

The problem with living in space however is that there is no gravity. Due to the lack of pressure on our bodies our digestive system does not work all to well. You can eat something, but it might not come out the other end for days. If such an event occurs, then you can't eat anything new either because you risk bursting your organs. NASA has use the equivalent of a human centrifuge to mitigate this problem, but it is no substitute. Thus, we need artificial gravity and there is but one other way to accomplish that. Have the space station rotate at a high enough speed that artificial gravity on the human body is produced. Literally a person would work on the hull of the station with less gravity the closer one gets to the center of the craft. This system will also help with preventing your bones from becoming too brittle and your muscles shrinking as in space; your body does not need to work as hard to accomplish movement. Actually if a person lived all their life in space, they may turn into the equivalent of the human blob. So you see why gravity is so essential.

A space station can be self sustaining. Waste can be recycled, and certain vegetables do not need soil. Basically, the station, (to keep costs down) will have a hydroponics garden with nutrient rich water running through the roots of the plant to aid in its growth....potatoes just need a spray once a day and they will grow just fine.

So the main hurdle to space living is gravity generation and cost. But where are you going to put the space station. When the first of this new bread of station goes up and is proven to be habitable for human life, they will be placed into orbit. So with your telescope you can see your neighbor hovering above you. There is an alternative place to place the stations, a Lagrange point. A Lagrange point is a spot between two celestial bodies with neutral pull. In other words, if you place an object there, it will not move as the two planets, stars, or whatever else is out there are pulling at the object in the "point" preventing movement. Interesting is it not?

The first groups of people in space will be the rich and those seeking fortune (by raiding space of whatever it has in value). Once the technology becomes cheaper, expect to see retirement homes in orbit as with less strain on the human body, the elderly will be able to get around without the need for a walker. So I can predict hotels, casinos, and retirement homes in space first before anything else. In other words money is the driving source of our future in space, and tourism is its key.

My next post is on lunar and interplanetary colonization, then the future of NASA, followed by the politics of space.

 

Issue 28 Paul Ryan Plan Part 3 March,7,2013

The Final part....read it and don't weep. ;)

The Ryan Plan part 3: Social Security and jobs

            America’s favorite government program is Social Security (SS).  It was established as a temporary program to aid the elderly who were discriminated against job wise during the great depression.  SS was also established as an incentive for the elderly who were working to retire and thus make way for younger workers.  Needless to say, the temporary program became permanent, but today SS is threatened with insolvency.  Congressman Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin and the current vice presidential hopeful) has proposed a reform to fix the problem once and for all; it’s been dubbed? Or it’s called “The Ryan Plan.”  Ryan has even added reforms to the Federal jobs program to help people have and keep their jobs no matter how the job environment may evolve.  This has the added benefit of ensuring that individual workers will have a job to contribute to SS and secure their own personal retirement.

            According to the Social Security Trustees, Social Security is going broke. Congress has raided the fund multiple times to fund their pet projects and meet cost overruns.  Also, more and more people are retiring with less and less people putting into the system resulting in a fiscal glut and causing seniors to have their benefits cut.  The rate of return for SS now is 1% to 2% but our children are expected to have a rate of return of less than 1%.  In short, SS will not be able to meet the demands placed on it for future generations rendering it a useless program that helps no one.

            There is an alternative to Social Security’s collapse, and that is Congressman Ryan’s SS reform.  First of all, people age 55 and over are unaffected, while all those under 55 will have a choice to go into the new system with the same guaranteed benefits as traditional SS or stick with the current program.  The new system calls for personal savings accounts with a guarantee that no matter the fiscal situation of the country (inflation, market down turns, etc) the recipients will get their money.  For those choosing the new system, the  personal account option will be phased in for easier transition with the first 10 years having 2% of the initial amount of $10,000 annual payroll tax going into the account and 1% for every dollar after that.  That initial amount of $10,000 is indexed for inflation to account for any changes in the value of the dollar.  After, the first 10 years of transition, the initial amount will have 4% taken out and 2% for every dollar after that.  Then in the next 10 years it goes to 6% and 3%, then finally 8% and 4% for an account averaging 5.1%.

            To ensure these accounts remain physically sound the money is invested in approved bonds and investments by the Social Security personal savings account board.  They administrate by choosing funds where contributions to personal accounts are deposited with the board being held responsible for all administrative expenses and all investment options offered by approved non-governmental firms.  The board will consist of five (5) members, each with a four (4) year term, and appointed by the president with two (2) appointees chosen after being recommended by the U.S. Congress.  As to qualifications, they must have “substantial experience, training, and expertise in the management of financial investment and pension benefit plans.”  The investment options are the same as provided to the members of Congress and Federal employees, but my question is, why not have the same money managers who insure Congress’ investment also govern the rest of the American peoples under this new plan?  Even better, why not just place us in system that Congress and the rest of the government uses?  These questions should be answered.

             Investment in this part of the plan works as follows: you start in Tier 1 where you invest in low risk instruments until a low threshold is reached upon which you enter Tier 2.  Tier 2 is when you are automatically enrolled in a “lifecycle” fund which adjusts your investment portfolio based on age.  A form of risk adjustment will be applied where accounting for your age your money will be invested in certain type of equities and bonds.  However, in Tier 2, you may also switch the “lifecycle” option to either a: 1. a government securities investment account; 2. a fixed income investment account; 3. common stock investment account; 4. small capitalization stock index investment account; or, 5. an international stock index investment account.  Once you have achieved a sum of $25,000 you enter Tier 3.  In Tier 3, you may choose to invest in additional non-government options that are pre-approved by the Social Security personal savings account board.  The best part of this plan is that the money in the account is 100% yours which is in stark contrast to the current Social Security program that allows the government to borrow against the fund—because by law the money in the current system is not really yours.  The money in the reformed program proposed by Ryan is your money and your property.  In addition, your earnings when you collect are not taxed, thanks to Ryan’s tax plan that prevents double taxation.  Also, because it’s your account, if and when you die you will be able to pass on your account to a beneficiary or estate from either your account or an annuity.  Yes, there is an annuity which must be purchased upon retirement to receive your benefits. 

            You purchase an annuity to provide your monthly payment, but only when your account has reached an amount where your payout is equal to of 150% of the poverty level or larger with any excess money provided to you in a lump sum.  To purchase an annuity, you must buy one from an office known as the Annuity Insurance Authority (AIA) (a government office to be created as part of the Ryan plan) which will provide all options for individuals to purchase their annuity.  However, I don’t understand why we have to pay to get our money.  Shouldn’t it be automatic for our accounts to automatically convert to an annuity upon our sending our notice of retirement once all the financial criteria for the account are met?  So it is a bit confusing when Ryan’s plan seeks to make sure that we finally own the money in Social Security, but still makes us pay the cost of converting to an annuity.  As a side note, but an important one, under the Ryan Plan, there is no change to the survivors and disabled benefits under SS.

            For those under 55, the Ryan plan will implement progressive price indexing (a mix of wage and price indexing) for initial SS benefits.  If you make less than $27,700 per year (adjusted for inflation) you will continue to get your benefits based on wage indexing which inflates the value of your money allowing poorer citizens to get more for their money.  If you make $27,700 to $149,900 a year, your benefits will be adjusted upward by a combination of wage and price indexing, with adjustments becoming oriented toward price indexing as you proceed up the income ladder.  For example, if you have an income equal to the halfway mark between $27,700- $149,900, 50% of your benefit will be wage indexed and 50% will be price indexed.  Individuals making over $149,900, after retirement, your benefit will be solely adjusted through price indexing.  All will see their benefits grow with inflation under the Ryan system and the progressive price indexing is more accurate and thus pegs the cost of living adjustment to a far more realistic measure. 

            Also under the Ryan plan, if receiving the personal account option, you may retire early if your account contains an annuity equal to 150% of the poverty level (those in the current system will be allowed to retire early if their payout equals 120% of the poverty level).  To stave off a fiscal glut, Ryan gradually raises the retirement age to meet with the growing life expectancy of Americans.  Again, only for those Americans under 55, the retirement age will ultimately be age 70 by advancing the current Reagan transition age of 67 by a year then increasing the retirement age by 1 month every 2 years.  However, those who wish to retire early are not affected by this age change, and neither are those who realize that under this plan, the longer you wait to retire, the higher payout you will receive.     

            Retirement means nothing if you don’t have a job to fund it, so Ryan tries to fix the federal jobs training program to make it more effective for those who use its services.  Originally, the program was adjusted under the workforce adjustment act (WIA) in 1998 to consolidate existing job programs, aid in job training and help workers become more marketable.  For the most part it helped, but failed to aid any workers who were laid off.  WIA did not end duplication and there is no way to measure the current programs success and failure rate because the existing 49 that are run by 8 different agencies have no standard way to measure success.  Ryan seeks to change this by creating a performance metric which requires every federal job program to track the following; 1 type of training provided and its cost per student; 2 employment status immediately after training and 1, 3, and 5 years after training; 3 whether or not the trainee is working in the field they trained for in order to determine if training led to employment; 4 participants income two (2) years before and five (5) years after training to see if training led to increased income; and 5. Participation level in Federal support programs like supplemental income and Temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) before and up to five (5) years after to see if training led to self sufficiency.  The plan does not prohibit programs from creating and adding additional measures of performance.  With this, the government and us the American people will know how effective the programs really are and when to call for a change.

            For the sake of transparency as well as to prevent wasteful spending, the Department of Labor (DOL) will provide publically annual performance and spending data for all federally subsidized job training programs on one centralized website.  Additionally, the site will include data on program administrator salaries, administrative expenses and expenses spent on the students.  The DOL will conduct periodic control group studies to compare participants (using the performance metric) who are using the subsidized training to individuals who did not receive the training but are in similar life and economic situations.  In addition, the Inspector General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and DOL will conduct a periodic audit to insure that outcomes are not due to trainees being selected because they are likely to succeed or have successfully completed the program.  The GAO will also conduct studies to report on successes and failures and any form of duplication to Congress within one year with a report every two years analyzing the results of the program.

            The job program also requires competitive bidding for all private contractors to receive job training grants (excluding block and formula grants) with the DOL giving priority to grant proposals that “leverage private sector investment.” If the private program fails to help participants succeed, renewal of job training grants will be denied.  Flexibility will also be offered by the new plan.  Currently those who are helping workers in the job program must go through a step by step process ignoring what the workers immediate needs, while the plan allows for steps to be skipped or to be done in a different order such as offering a training voucher first rather than as the last step in the process.  Ryan’s plan also tries to increase awareness of job training opportunities via public broadcasting by giving the broadcaster incentives (what these incentives are is not clear) and requires all job training programs who receive grant money to conduct lifelong awareness campaigns.  However, I question the idea of advertising what I can only see as a form of welfare, and another mandate that costs businesses money and ad space which could be better used to advertise for businesses seeking more customers.  What I do like though is that the plan allows for States to present to the DOL a three year plan to improve upon the existing outcomes with a three year waiver on existing regulations.  If successful, the waiver will continue to be issued with the new idea serving as the new model.  Of course failed ideas will result in the return to the established set of rules. 

            Overall, Ryan’s Social Security plan is a must.  As an American starting out in life, I do not expect to see any benefits from Social Security.  And thus have already made the commitment to not rely on it for my future retirement needs.  So I’m saving up early.  I do believe that Ryan’s idea will provide a greater payout for those who choose the new system and will relieve some of the burden on the existing monstrosity of the current system.  I also like how it uses investments to allow for a greater payout once seniors are eligible to collect and that those who normally would be financially incapable of investing (the poor) would finally have a chance to invest in the market.  Of course as a by product of this, the market will grow with all the new investors.  On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of the job portion of Ryan’s plan.  While I agree with the new performance metric and the multiple ways of finding waste and preserving transparency, I would much rather see all 49 programs either consolidated; all 8 agencies consolidated; or a return to where job training belongs, at the local and State level of government, with private industry saying what positions are available and/or paying for the training of said individuals.  Job training by government is the same as food stamps, a form of welfare, and any effort to reduce the role of welfare in our society and make Americans self sufficient is a must.  My biggest concern however has to do with the Social Security plan.  With all that new investment in the market driving growth, who is to say that the government will not have those who monitor our retirement investments work a little magic in an economic downturn or invest in a pet project like the failed Solar panel company Solyndra?  Some form of way to prevent this from occurring is needed.  Lucky for us, Ryan clearly states in his outline of his plan that it is subject to change, change that I believe will make the plan even better. 

I hope this helped those who wished to know more of the details that our politicians usually lack.  Though I did have to condense the Paul Ryan budget plan from 99 pages to these 3 posts which total 15 pages typed.  Thank you as always for reading and see you back soon for more interesting and hopefully fun articles for you to read.