Issue 36 Going Postal on the Post Office March 19,2013

Another way of cutting is gaining efficiency out of current government programs...in this case the post office.

Going Postal on the Post Office

            No, I am not going to say eliminate the post office.  As much as I agree it can be privatized, it will solve nothing.  Instead I would like to change what role the post office plays in America.

            The first thing I would do is merge the census bureau with the post office.  When the census takes place or other such important information needs to be handed out and then retrieved the postal worker stops at every door.  To collect the census, the postal worker only has to collect it from your mail box once it is complete.  This allows for a more accurate tally of the population of the United States without the need to hire temporary workers to distribute and collect census data.

            Change number two is any mail going to government offices or officials will be handled exclusively by the post office.  I am sure we can agree that government officials and offices are tempting terrorist targets.  This will allow all packages to be screened for bombs, anthrax and other goodies the terrorists would like to throw at us.  Any United States agency that already conducts such screenings will be merged with this new function of the post office or be eliminated so as to increase efficiency and effectiveness.

            A third change would be any mail or documents coming from government agencies or politicians to the people will be handled by the post office.  This means if you get your welfare check or some other government package it will be coming from a postal worker who double checks to see if you live where you say you live.  It also allows the government to track how much mail politicians send to constituents to track costs and aid in transparency. 

            The fourth change is meant to stop pandemics.  If a pandemic should occur, the cure will be delivered right to your door.  With the only negative being if you are allergic to the cure, the benefits out weigh the cost.  Make sure you take the cure with someone present though.

            For the fifth change, I would have the post office take care of all military correspondence between bases.  Rather than have the military handle this themselves, we can free up soldiers to fight by the post office mailing out the checks, and other documents too and from bases.  This also aids in screening for terrorist threats by having the post office screen the packages.  Obviously redactors will still be needed to prevent sensitive information from being leaked out.  The postal worker will obviously not deliver mail to combat zones due to the obvious danger and lack of training.

            Post Offices already handle passports, so why not all forms of photo ID and government paperwork.  By having one location for all these governmental needs, logistics will be simplified.  In this respect the Post Office and its workers will work on behalf of all governments in the United States.

            A responsibility I would spread out that the post office currently handles is the delivery of all forms of magazines, advertisements, and traditional correspondence like letters.  By spreading this responsibility out to companies like DHL, UPS and their ilk it will do two things.  One is allow the post office focus on its new roll as a true government institution and two to give a boost to shipping companies’ profits and secure them financially.  The post office will be a fall back in case one of the private suppliers fails to ensure whatever mail is already in transit reaches its destination. 

            Yes, some of these ideas will take away money from the Post Office while others will secure its place in America as an institution.  But, it is just that, ideas.  My primary goal is efficiency in the government and the Post Office is an institution already ready to take on additional roles.  I am sure others can think of other institutions or government functions that can be shuffled around to increase the efficiency of the government while reducing waste and redundancy.  We should all be concerned with slimming down the government, by doing such things as putting all forms of welfare into a single agency, or eliminating duplicate functions.  Remember, a more efficient government is a less expensive and easier to understand government.

Issue 35 The Church March 18,2013

Taking a break from politics today so I can address what I want from the new Pope. Yes I am Catholic, and I want some changes from the Church to make it better in "shepherding the flock."

1) Priests should be able to marry. The sacrament of marriage is to show love for one another and hopefully to usher new life into the world under the eyes of God. While I understand the commitment that the Priests make to the Priesthood is to demonstrate their commitment, are there not other ways of showing it? Are there not other ways to show your dedication toward God? Also, how can a priest aid a couple in marriage if he does not understand marriage himself? Likewise nuns should be allowed to marry if they fall in love. A shepherd cannot be a shepherd if he/she does not know the reasons why the flock moves in the way it does.

2) There should be women priests. I argue the same argument with marriage, a priest (man) cannot hope to understand the mind of a woman. Also, are not women just as capable and dedicated toward their commitment to God? In the past, we were a male dominated society, but now the domination of men has eroded and women are taking control of their own lives. So, let them become priests and let them too shepherd the flock.

3) Priests should have jobs too. So that a priest may understand the daily pressures of the flock a priest, nun, monk, or other member of the clergy should be able to have a part-time job. It will allow them to gain spending money to use for themselves and for the church and its parishioners. They can work on specific days or hours and then come to preach in the church. If a priest is married, this will also help to ease the burden of the Catholic Church in supporting the family.

4) Clean up the church. We have heard of many scandals of priests molesting young children, and to make it worse, covering it up. Part of the reason the new Pope was elected was to root out those who would cover up such a heinous act and those perpetrators who make victims of children. Thus, I propose anyone wishing to become part of the clergy have a background check to identify if they are a potential problem. Likewise, prosecute all those who the church finds to have harmed their fellow man.

I hope our new Pope serves the faith well and continues what his predecessors started. The church should still support scientific study as it did under Pope John Paul II, and reach out to Africa as under Pope Benedict. I want every one of the clergy to know basic medicine to aid the sick and infirm, healthy eating habits to teach them to parishioners who need help getting healthy, exercise techniques to preserve the body, and know how to seek out information through things like the Internet and in the written word to teach the flock how to seek and ascertain information. A member of the clergy is first and foremost a teacher that should follow the lesson passed to us by Jesus "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." In short, teach useful skills and impart useful knowledge to parishioners to help them become self reliant in life.

The church has much work to do and has much to change to improve itself and its image. What I say here is what I personally seek from my church, my Catholicism. There can always be a better church that aids mankind in improving themselves so that we may be worthy of entering Heaven and God's embrace, even if the church must forever remain on Earth.

 

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).