Issue 105 the entitlements part 1 June 24, 2013

Executive summary: 

Social Security is the most popular Federal program offered to the American people.  It provides various benefits to the elderly, unemployed, assistance to needy families as well as Medicare, Medicaid and more which is incorporated into the 20,000 plus page document.  Each aspect of the legislation is run in separate bureaucracies and agencies with old age insurance, what we call social security, in one, Medicare in another, unemployment managed some where else etc.  Our contributions which come in the form of the payroll tax go to pay for the retirement fund, and Medicare part A.  The payroll tax itself is six percent of our income and six percent comes from your employer (which is probably deducted from the pay you could be receiving).  All else in the Social Security legislation is paid out of the General Revenue of the United States.  In other words Congress decides how much money goes into the other programs. 

 The key problem:  The problem with Social Security today is that it is bogged down by new rules and benefits, in addition to Congress raiding its funds resulting in fiscal instability which could collapse Social Security as we know it.  In fact, Congress has borrowed against the Social Security fund and Medicare’s fund that the Federal Government owes approximately four trillion plus dollars and growing to both Social Security and Medicare combined.  All in all, Social Security has become unsustainable thanks to Congress’s combination of irresponsibility with the system and tacking on new benefits without regard to the costs.  So what are we to do to fix this dilemma?

 

Fixing the situation:  Well for one, Congress must not be allowed to borrow from within the federal government ever again.  This will not only prevent Social Security and Medicare from being raided but also prevent other important programs from having money taken and prevent increases to the national debt.  It is because of this problem as to why Social Security and Medicare are going broke, which is estimated to be around 2032.  So stopping the borrowing is a stop gap measure other steps will have to be taken. 

 

Other Steps:  Many of you have heard of Congressmen Paul Ryan and his "Ryan budget plan."

He provided an alternative for Medicare featuring Health care Savings accounts, Social Security with an investment style model so that your money going in is actually your own money, and block granting States to provide money to States to implement Medicaid and other similar programs.  You can find my summary of the Ryan budget in Issue's 26, 27 and 28.  I did like many of his ideas and thought they would give the nation the boost it needed to save the entitlements while making them stronger and at the same time jump start the American economy.

Conclusion:  Paul Ryan was not the only person to want to save the entitlements and as such my next few issues will deal with each one followed by a conclusion that lists the best options that I believe will secure the entitlements for a long time to come.  Stay tuned tomorrow for the first one.

Issue 104 designer baby June 21, 2013

Did you know that science has progressed to the point where we may actually be able to manipulate a baby in the womb? Manipulate is the best word for this as we may be able to choose the sex, skin color, hair color, and even eye color of the baby before the child is ever born. Strange isn’t it, the ability to make a baby to your own specifications and then give birth to a child that appeals most to you. Well I'm against such a dangerous ability.

Advantages: Yes the technology should be perused, but its application limited. This technology can help a child who is diagnosed with severe disfigurement and if they are not fully developed. But these sorts of situations are if and only if these maladies are diagnosed in the womb. So this can help babies who would suffer and offer an alternative to people who would use abortion rather than live with a disabled child (something I am also against for scientific, moral, and religious reasons). Thus, I'm fine with curing Down syndrome before the child is ever born.

Danger 1: The first danger of this technology is that if we cure someone of say dyslexia while in the womb, does this mean they will be prone to another genetic disorder, or even cancer. By putting in a preventative measure say against Alzheimer’s, does this destroy the Childs ability to feel certain emotions. We really don't know what the costs will be to "heal" some one before they ever leave the womb. How can we know how severe a person's autism is until we can physically interact with them? There are major risks to even the changing of a person’s eye color in the womb as we could make them prone to eye cancer for all we know, or some new and unforgiving disease. Changing anything could also make us even more susceptible to diseases that otherwise would not have ever been a problem before like some random strain of flue virus that affects a chicken. Sounds weird, but these genetic changes may allow a disease that only affects one type of species to infect and possibly be lethal to another.

Danger 2: Parents who want designer children are also the problem. What if the majority of parents want boys? What do you think will happen to the overall population? We obviously will have fewer girls and thus less children being born in later generations. There is also the possibility that we may all look too much alike such as all of us having blond hair and blue eyes. How can we know how this will affect the gene pool? For all we know, we can be making us all so genetically similar to the point it is like marrying a relative, you are almost guaranteed to have an increase in genetic disorders. All these are possibilities and may in fact be a worst case scenario, but we could end up using science to actually cause our own extinction simply because we want an ideal child rather than giving birth to what our genes naturally put together.

Conclusion: I am in favor of further study. But I want the application of such technology to be as limited as possible when put into practice. It should only be used in the most severe cases in which we know for a fact the child will be completely unable to live a normal life. For cases that don't meet the standards for this form of genetic manipulation, we have adult stem cell technology which is quickly progressing which should also solve some if not most of the lesser cases of things like autism and aspergers. As to designing the perfect "looking" child, I will now and forever be totally against manipulating a child’s sex and things like eye and skin color. The risks are too great for this technology to be wasted on such things and I believe is a fool’s errand. There is a danger to every new technology and an even greater responsibility to use it responsibly.

Issue 103 IRS Scandal June 20, 2013

Have you heard about the recent scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)? For those who don't know, the IRS is America's tax collector. The scandal consists of the IRS targeting pro-Israel groups, conservative and libertarian groups and individuals who support those causes. This is very disturbing but it demonstrates how the income tax can be used as a weapon against the people.

What we know: The IRS target these groups and individuals with their auditing arm. Individuals were audited simply because they donated to the Republican Party or a pro-Israel group. Conservative and libertarian organizations applying for tax exempt status as a non-profit were asked questions about their donors, how much they get from those donors, how big their facilities were and even their member lists. These kinds of questions are normally not asked when applying for such status in the tax code. Normally it is what your goals are and how do you spend your money. We know for a fact that these groups and individuals were specifically targeted because almost all those who applied with key words in their groups name like "patriot", "liberty" or "tea party" were subject to this unusual form of scrutiny. So some of these groups changed their name to be more neutral or sound more ideologically progressive and they received their tax exempt status in about 3 months, the usual time it takes for such approvals to happen. Not to mention that they did not have to answer the same questions that their fellow groups did. The final nail in the coffin for this breach of trust is that the information was handed off to opposition groups. Those opposition groups then proceeded to harass and target members of these organizations and counter there pro-conservative and libertarian advocacy and support for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Donors were also subject to ridicule by opposition news papers and publications harming their reputations. Companies like Gibson guitar were targeted by the IRS for their open support for Republicans, while their competitors escaped such harassment due to the fact that they support the Democrats party.

What we don't know: We don't know how far up the chain of command this goes. It could have been ordered by the President himself or just a rouge staffer high enough in the White House to order such things while allowing the President plausible deniability. Either way, it was done by someone high up in the chain of command. Thankfully all those who are in the IRS who were involved are talking because they were literally thrown under the bus by the administration as scapegoats. So we may find out soon who was the real perpetrator behind this grievous display of abuse.

Conclusion: This behavior is not just indicative to a Democratic White Houses we have famously seen it during the Nixon administration with the Watergate scandal. But, every president has used the tax code in one form or another to put down certain groups who oppose them, and when the tax code could not be used other methods of intimidation followed like wire tapping (another growing scandal where the White House listened in on reporter’s conversations). So political party does not matter here at all for all Presidents are guilty of this in some way or another. The founding fathers of the United States originally did not want an income tax as collecting revenue from each individual would be so costly that the government would break itself trying. But they also new it could be used as a weapon, as it was used by the British government in a similar manner as it is being used in the current scandal, to impose fear and intimidate. Money to the founders was a form of property which could not be seized by the federal government, but now we have the 16th amendment to the Constitution which allows this weapon to be employed on the American public. This type of behavior will not stop if we simply get rid of the IRS (as some have called for), but by getting rid of the 16th amendment to the Constitution. We cannot allow our governments such tools of abuse for all governments no matter how benevolent are corrupt and even more corruptible. So I say let us end this weapon known as the Income tax once and for all.

Issue 102 Spys, they see you June 19, 2013

As I'm sure most of you are aware of the scandal going on with respect to the NSA and its data collection. I did not address this issue when it first broke because I knew there would be even more information leaking out. And as a matter of fact more information is still coming out. But for those who don't know, the NSA is an intelligence asset used by the United States to conduct electronic surveillance such as through computers and telephones and they thanks to a "leaker" were found to be spying on the rest of the United States population.

How this is bad: It is bad because this violates the fourth amendment to the United States constitution which prevents unreasonable searches and seizures by government without the rule of law. Aka, they should not do this without a warrant given by a Judge which is only supposed to be given out if evidence suggests that the alleged person in the warrant is a suspect in a crime and the initial evidence leads one to believe that suspect committed the crime with evidence to be obtained through the warrant leading to an arrest. Sorry for the long sentence, but in short, if it means you can arrest the suspect after the search is complete because the evidence says they are the bad guy, then and only then is the warrant given. With respect to intelligence collection, it works in much the same way, just that the justification is that the suspect is believed to have or is plotting to aid and maybe carry out a terrorist plot.

What they did: In the case of the recent events however, there was no warrants issued. The collection of data was handed over by companies like Verizon, Facebook and others simply by the government asking. Why did they hand over phone records, search history data, and other types of information? Well when the government can tax you into oblivion and even force you to comply by other more unethical means then of course you would. So I don't blame them. But, the collection also was carried out by simply taking data by covert means as well and now the government has a bunch of pentagon sized buildings holding all this data on everyone in the United States. Let it be known that no conversations or emails were taken without an official warrant (that we know of). Also, it is unclear if that data was given to political opponents like in the case of the IRS (internal revenue service...the tax collector) targeting Tea Party groups, pro Israel groups and others that run counter to the current administration. But there is more information to come and things look about as bad as it did with President Nixon with Water Gate.

Conclusion: It is unacceptable for any government to take such information without following the rule of law. No President (that is if President Obama actually had a hand in the decision) should be allowed to carry out such an obscene act. The national defense is not a justification to destroy our right to privacy. Some of you may be saying that this is ok, especially as phone companies, and search engines store this data anyway to be used to sell ads and provide for better content and services. But this is our private information being used without our consent by government, we know that Verizon collects our data, but we did not know government had access to it. While in the United States all people are protected by the constitution, both citizen and non-citizen alike, due to tacit consent. Those outside the United States have no such luxury and as such are not subject to the United State's constitutional protections (as such we can listen to whatever we want from a caller over seas again due to tacit consent). This issue will not go away anytime soon and is a disturbing trend. Our society may end up as a panopticon (envisioned as the ultimate prison) but it is up to us the people to keep the government in check.

 

Issue 101 Over licensed part 2 June 18, 2013

Many of you are already familiar with my previous issue concerning licensing which keeps prices high for general services, plays into crony capitalism, and limits who can get what job and where. But did you know that licensing was only the beginning of the problem. There are other hurdles that most be overcome.

They got you: What if I told you that if you want to teach how to put on costume makeup that you will need a beautician license just to teach, even if it has nothing to do with what you will be teaching. This was briefly gone over in the previous issue, but this is demonstrating how pervasive and corrupt government has become. You need a license from a field that has nothing to do with your occupation, and thus it prevents you from holding that job. In order to get the license you need to spend large amounts of time, effort and money going toward a State institution (usually staffed by those already in the industry) and all for the sake of information that you probably will never use.

It gets worse: Lets say because the same aforementioned person wanting to teach costume makeup really is going to teach what they know. Problem, they cannot teach it with out a teaching license on top of the previous license. Thus, that same person has to go and get licensed in a completely different area and spend even more money going toward the State to be certified by "her peers” even though they are not really her "peers" in the first place as she will not be teaching the same things that the license dictates that she is allowed to teach.

Insult to injury: Now the government decides to get ridiculous. The person in question gets all the licenses that they need to finally be qualified to teach. Problem, she is not allowed to teach without a proper facility. In other words where ever she decides to teach costume makeup it has to be of a certain size, hold a certain number of people, have specific equipment they deem appropriate and so on. These regulations prevent upstarts from ever getting into the field in the first place as they spend enormous amounts of money just to qualify. That cost inhibits there ability to function.

Let’s take another example of government regulations. We have a farmer, and he has a sink that he uses to wash equipment, his hands and the workers use it too. Problem, that one sink is not good enough for the government so he is forced to add another sink just for him and his workers to wash there hands. If he did not install the sink, then the farmer would have been fined and his small business would have been shut down. By the way, the sink was installed right next to the original one. Stupid isn’t it. But why do this you ask? Why the extra sink? Well local, State and Federal personnel need to (or at least feel the need to) justify their continued existence and thus continually make new laws and regulations which nets them money, allows for their expansion and they get rich off of it. This is especially true when lobbyists lobby government, but they lobby the government personnel more because our elected officials have passed off their law making powers to these corruptible unelected idiots.

Conclusion: The system is stacked against everyone. No one is an exception until you reach the top, which in turn makes you join the enemy in corrupting the system further. They who survive the mess of regulations and licenses make it worse because they know that they may not survive if regulations and licenses are reduced or eliminated. So they justify their struggle and grip their position of power with what little strength they have left hoping beyond hope that their efforts will not be in vain. Well I say too bad, so sad. The fact that you struggled and won is admirable but it does not justify making the system worse and pushing down the little guy (a position you yourself once held). So what can we do? Well every single regulation regarding employment must be abolished and then only the essentials for a safe work environment will be put back in. Specific licenses will be given out for only a few select job titles, like doctors and lawyers, but how they achieve those licenses will be changed. They should become undergraduate degrees so as to make it easier to afford the type of job you want rather than waste money on a masters degree that you may never use (as the system is always against you). Finally, the elected officials cannot pass on their law making powers to anyone, if a regulation is to be passed, they must pass it themselves and have it signed into law. This makes the regulators enforces and not victimizers who serve their true masters the lobbyist. So can we clean up this mess of government abuse and crony capitalism? Yes we can, but only if we all stand up and shout the bad guys in government down.

Issue 100 It’s A Commitment (voting) June 17, 2013

When you vote, you are carrying out your civic duty to bring about positive change to your life and your country.  However, we must remember that your vote, everyone’s vote carries with it the weight of an entire nation.  The moment you cast your ballot, you hope that the person you are voting for is the right one.  Then what happens next is up to fate.  It is your vote, everyone’s vote that can bring about success or failure to this country.  With this in mind, you the voter not only have to go out and vote, but know who and what you’re voting for.  It is our commitment as citizens to know who the person we are voting for, their motivations, upbringing, associations, and most of all what they stand for and their ability to accomplish their goals while in office.  The very same goals you are voting for them to achieve.

 Question them:  At all times we voters must look at politics and the politicians and scrutinize them.  If a program does not work, or a politician is ineffective, then upon the next election you vote for change.  These elected officials know you’re watching as you are their source of power.  Without your support, they can do nothing to exact change. But, is it the change you voted them in for.  Politicians gear their campaigns to make themselves look good around election season.  The political parties and their organizations act as the funding arm for their chosen political leaders and act as umbrellas to the true nature of the politicians seeking election.  In other words, just because they may have the label of Republican or Democrat does not mean they actually follow the same ideology espoused by the party itself.  But, in most cases, these politicians cannot stray from the party line out of fear of losing support from the party.  Therefore it is very hard to say what that politician will do in office.  Thus it is our commitment to find out who and what the candidates stand for.  So we must look into their background which includes their past commitments, religious motivations, ideology, prejudices, work and political experience, success rate in business and politics, their friends and other relationships and anything else that shapes the person into who they are.  With this background information we can begin to make a chart for ourselves on the best and worst qualities of a candidate.  Then you do the same for the candidate running against them.  From here it is a simple decision, pick the lesser of two evils or abstain from voting.  I personally vote for the lesser of to evils because it sends a message to the party leaders that we voters want more candidates with particular qualities.  A better way of saying it is that if you want a more conservative candidate in the future, vote only for them.  If you want more liberal candidates, vote for more liberals.  If you want a blend of ideologies, such as small government, fiscally conservative, but are pro union and pro stimulus, then you vote for candidates with those qualities. You can’t do that though if you don’t look and find out who the candidates are and what they stand for.  The background information on candidates guides you to figuring out who they are despite the party rhetoric and how capable they are going into office.  It’s tough though.  We voters have to take the time out of our work schedules and family life just to try and scour through the information and even then that might not be enough. 

 Who are they?:  It does get easier to find out about the candidates.  All you have to do is take one to two hours to watch/read the news, or go to the various home pages of those for and against the candidates.  Generally that is more than enough to know who you’re voting for, but you must start as soon as campaign season starts.  The reason is that some important information on the candidates may be presented, but because it has been addressed earlier on, it may become a non-issue later in the campaign.  However, that does not make it a non-issue for you.  So you must make a commitment to pay attention to all the details before they disappear.  Most of all though is you cannot stop looking into the candidates until the day of the election.  Yes it can be hard, but that is why it is a commitment.

 It's not just about people:  You have the same commitment when it comes to voting in a referendum.  A referendum is when the populace is allowed to vote on a government action or law. Basically, we are allowed a form of direct democracy and we thus vote to pass a law, not our representatives.   In this case, we the voters are looking at how the law or action affects us and those we care about.  We must look at both the positive and negative affects the law or action will bring about.  Some of these affects are not straight forward so we voters must analyze any possibility for a negative to occur and is it worth the trade off to pass such legislation.  Also, we voters must avoid being selfish.  We cannot vote simply because one particular group will be affected, such as the rich or businesses.  Nor can we afford to vote based on skin color, religion, or ideology alone.  To vote that way is to skirt your commitment as a voter and you fail your nation by degrading the integrity of the vote in this manner.  Not to mention, voting in any way based on skin color is racist, and voting based on gender or sex is sexist.  Thus, if you do consider such things in making your decision, I kindly ask you not to vote because you are ruining the voting process by voting on something that is irrelevant to who the candidates are as people.  Discrimination based on non-factors like race, ethnicity, sex, gender and even age should not affect your decision to vote.  Vote on capability, and who the person is on the inside where it truly counts.     

 Conclusion:  We voters have a commitment to vote for the individual.  As voters, we must commit ourselves to find out who the candidates are as individuals so as to make an informed vote.  Superficial things like race and sex should not enter our minds when voting for the best candidate.  It takes time, effort and sacrifice to exercise our privilege to vote, a privilege denied to people in some countries. It is our commitment to the success of the nation to be informed voters.  If a person should tell you otherwise, tell them that no matter what, every vote counts.  

Issue 99 Your right to work! June 14, 2013

   When is a union good and when are they bad?  Unions are good when they protect labor and represent workers and employees at the bargaining table.  Not to mention the right to be in a union is an expression of freedom protected under the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution, peaceable assembly which allows for the freedom of association.  Unions become, emphasis on become, bad when they represent people who do not wish to be in a union, do things that don’t have anything to do with employment like political campaigns and dealing with an entire industry rather than an employer to employee bases which jeopardizes that industry risking its shutdown.  The result is anti-union sentiments and workers that they are trying to protect loose their job.

 So when is a union good?:  Only when it operates under these three principles, one, association with the union is 100% voluntary.  Two, union activities are limited to collective bargaining.  And finally three, bargaining is confined to the employer and the workers concerned.  It does not span an entire industry, but is the factory worker and the boss of that factory negotiating.

So how do we keep unions within proper bounds?:  The first is to forbid any contracts that make union membership mandatory for employment.  That means union shop agreements must go as under that agreement a union is recognized as a bargainer and the employee is forced to have that union represent them.  This violates the first amendment right of the freedom of association through the peaceable assembly clause.  As a result of this freedom of choice it aids the employee in keeping the union boss responsible to you.  If you feel that the union is no longer representing you, you can switch to another union or abstain from union membership altogether.  In other words the union boss and leadership will fear loosing membership and will do whatever it takes to keep their membership up.

 They must work for you:  Another way to keep unions responsible to their members is to forbid both unions along with corporations from making any kind of financial contribution to political campaigns.  The reason is to protect against union dues going to candidates or causes that go against any of the members’ values, ideology or moral choices.  This though is a bit controversial as it limits the freedom of speech, but is supported by proponents who believe this form of speech is individually based and not collectively based in a union or corporation.  It’s a debate that must be had, though I hope the unions will do this voluntarily or its members force the leadership to do so to protect their union dues from being used in ways that do not fit their values nor protect their fellow members.

 Placing limits:  The final way to keep unions good is to limit collective bargaining to the employer and the employee within a specific business.  An example of this is Ford employees will only negotiate with Fords owner and Chrysler employees will negotiate with Chrysler’s owner.  This is opposed to the current situation where the entire auto industry negotiates with all of their workers, with Ford and the other motor companies on one side while all the motor companies workers on the other.  This universal scale of negotiation is detrimental for the companies involved.  The economic conditions of each company differ so one overlapping deal will financially burden some of these auto companies.  In some cases they can adapt, in others they be forced to fire the very workers that the union was trying to protect.  In the worst case scenario the entire company collapses resulting in union workers loosing their job.  Also, the contracts that are being negotiated at this universal scale become limited because there are so many varying interests that have to be met.  If it was an employer to employee contract negotiation then it would allow for better deals. 

 Direct negotiations:   An even better situation would be if employees negotiated directly with the factory boss rather than the entire company itself.  For example, say Ford motor company has a factory in New York and another factory in Alabama.  Because taxes and the economic conditions in Alabama are less burdensome the Alabama plant is more profitable allowing for a better deal for its workers.  On the other hand the economic conditions and taxes in New York are higher, so a deal that accommodates these harsher working conditions must be made that is mutually beneficial to both factory owner and worker involved.  In other words, a union member can get customized benefits based on living and economic conditions.  With this customized negotiation, factories stay open, maintain profits and the workers get the custom benefits based on the needs of the area they live and work in.  Not to mention it lessons the chance that workers will be fired to keep costs down.  The logic is that not all agreements are good at the national or even State level, so we need customization to get the best deal per employer to employee.

 Conclusion:  Unions by nature are good and are generally responsible by way of union elections.  However, the lack of union member freedom and customization of benefits inhibits them.  It is time unions update themselves for the 21^st century with these changes.  It is time to ensure the American peoples right to work.