Issue 144 National 401K August 16, 2013

What would happen if we created a national 401K? Would it help people to have a better financial safety net? Let us review the cost and benefits.

Benifits1: What is good about a national 401K is that it is an investment. Basically it is taking money and investing in businesses on the stock market. This allows for a high rate of return when it comes to investments (especially risky ones if done early on). A 401K type retirement system is already in place in Galveston Texas where they on average have a larger payout greater than if they would have been in the traditional Social Security system. Of course theirs is managed in such a way that they will almost never lose money on the market due to the use of safe investments like mutual funds and bonds. Of course riskier investments can be done early on before a certain age to maximize your financial investment in the short run. Then it would be converted at a certain age, such as 10 years before retirement, to avoid losing all the money. Here it is insured that you will get lots of money.

Benifits2: A second benefit is that by investing in the stock market through this approach you actually help businesses grow. Basically you now have an entire population investing in the market which in turn increases the amount of capitol a business has access to. As such the business grows and in turn raises the value of the stock, thus raising the amount of money an investor makes. As everyone would now be invested in the market that means everyone gets more money when the business expands and does well. It becomes a cyclical relationship. The more you invest, the better able a business can expand and thus make you more money.

Benifits3: Another great benefit is that your money is in an actual account and as such the government cannot take away your money like with the Social Security system in the United States. By the way, the money in the Social Security system does not actually belong to you, which is why they can do that (see Supreme Court case: Flemming versus Nester for details). Also, it does not take much to run this system as it would use the tax code to put a portion of your taxes into the 401K account and would be group managed with everyone else’s investments to insure finical security through a singe body of "experts." A very simple system indeed.

Costs 1: The investment can still fail. Even though the money to be invested will be divided up among a large group of investments, a market crash can still cause a lot of problems. Thankfully, such crashes usually occur twice in a person’s life time and if you are switched to a safe investment within the age window prior to retirement then you are less likely to be hurt, and also well in a position to recover. We as investors will also have to deal with poor performing businesses and bad management of a business, but with diverse investments, financial loses can be easily mitigated. Such financial collapses and bad CEO's can be hard to deal with and some money will be lost, but through stock diversification and changing over to safer investments as you get older help to reduce much of the risk involved our retirement money will be very safe.

Costs 2: We have one big issue however. It will be the government managing the system. As such it will be a compulsory system which you probably cannot opt out of. In addition, the experts needed to run the system may not be very good. Let us face it, politicians suck at picking people to run different aspects of government. Poor management can be mitigated by having strict standards for experience when finding people to run the system, but they are bound to make a mistake at some point, or face political pressure to invest in certain businesses that may riskier than what even private investors will not touch. As such it will need to be insulated from politics and that means full autonomy. Therefore the only possible true negative is that the government would make it a compulsory system to save. But if you are willing to live with that, then it should be a fairly safe system.

Conclusion: This idea is not entirely out of the realm of libertarian thought. But I am against it unless it is used to replace the current Social Security system along with those groups of people who are exempt like the rail road workers who have their own unique system. Government workers would also be forced to use this system as their sole retirement system as offered by the government so as to insure that their own self interest keeps our money safe both in the stock market and in business in general. They will not want anything to threaten their chances of a major payout at retirement. This may be the only viable replacement to any Social Security type programs as discussed repeatedly throughout multiple presidential elections in the U.S. So the question is do we switch to a system that costs almost nothing to run, with some risk for a high return, and run by government while the money belongs to us, or do we stick to the status quo? Your choice.

Issue 143 Moral Capitolism August 15, 2013

I have read Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments or at least a condensed version. It was designed to be the first book in a series of four with the Wealth of Nations being the remaining three. Basically it analyzed human behavior and conduct in such a way that it acted as a manual for how laissez-faire capitalism is supposed to function in a moral society, or at least one that is supposed to follow certain morals. I will now summarize those morals as best I can as it is the blue print for a moral and just society under capitalism.

True Self Interest: This true form of self interest is that of wanting to be admired and loved. Usually it is the path of least resistance and thus is generally immoral. A modern example would be the people on the show of the Jersey Shore who get drunk and sleep around for the entertainment of others. Another would be the likes of Paris Hilton and her ilk who get famous for sex videos. Those are the easy ways to become rich, but are ultimately soulless. True fortune comes from hard work and determination. True blood sweat and tears are shed in the creation of riches, and as such goes unnoticed and usually is never paid attention to. The true self interest to get rich is to benefit oneself without harming others. Instead your work is the basis for others to build upon and succeed such as inventions like the car and the factory system by Henry Ford and the light bulb and telephone by Thomas Alva Edison. Each invention was built upon to lead others to success. Variations of the car, telephone and more were used and improved upon. But few remember those humble origins or the inventors themselves save we choose to remember. Everyone benefits in a true self interested society where getting rich off of your own hard work leads to others building upon it and getting rich as well. As such, the poor in modern day America have an equivalent wealth to the kings and queens of the middle ages. That is what it means to have a true capitalistic society, where the poor do not starve and everyone is risen up through each new invention and improvement.

What not to do: Rules to follow in this system are simple. Do not do anything that would make you despised by your self, your family, your friends and society. Basically, be aware at all times you are being watched and that what you do reflects those who raised you, who you hang out with and the community you come from. You do not embarrass them ever. Sure you can challenge the social norms like Elvis Presley did with his rock'n roll, and even change how society does things despite resistance such as the internet. The goal is to benefit society through your work, not using people as stepping stones. As such fraud or any form of lying is abhorrent. It leads to people despising one another and even theft. If fraud is the norm, then honest business becomes impossible and everyone suffers the cost whether that is through the price of goods, or even the inability for business to even be productive. Next is theft. Unfair deals and out right bullying are an absolute negative. Again it harms business, productivity, and the people who would have benefited from your labor. How would it make you feel to be pushed out of the market place by a competitor, not because your product is inferior, but because your product was superior and you were crushed by a more powerful opponent with an inferior product? This is what happens in bad deals, especially when government supports one business over another. It destroys businesses, and puts people on the unemployment line. If there was no such bullying, then small business could grow with the sole reason for failing or extinction being that they had a poor business model, or they could not adapt. That is a true and fair system where you are free to fail or choose to be bought out. By following the moral rules of not wanting to be looked down upon by those you care about and society as a whole it becomes much harder to fall to the human condition known as greed. Basically factor into your business model how people will think of you when you and your business do something. There is a reason why businesses avoid firing workers unless it is absolutely necessary, and even then, they may very well try to hire those workers back if possible.

Conclusion: There is much more to Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. It discusses anger and revenge. How people want to punish those who wrong them, but are unsatisfied if they are punished for a different wrong. It discusses how society values justice, generosity and other aspects of admiration in contrast to those that society despises like fraud, falsehood and violence. It looks to understand the overall human condition to such a point that society can govern itself so long as morality is kept intact. Something that is arguably missing for people today. We think of what the consequences are before and after we act with a bias toward our own behavior, but never forget your moral code. If you do that, then capitalism will rarely turn back toward greed and envy, the human conditions that plague every society no matter what form it comes in.

Maybe if we taught morality in schools, those that we all share, our society may better than it is now.  Perhaps if people stopped to think how their actions would not just impact themselves, but how it would impact those around them they may be less likely to commit a foolish act.  Maybe it is wishful thinking, but surly it is better than allowing the status quo of selfishness and foolishness to continue.  Better than corruption being supported by a government that has helped to ruin fair play and equality in the market place.  And perhaps better than the false capitalism we have now.

Issue 142 The Payroll tax is bad August 14, 2013

For those who do not know, the Pay roll tax is actually two separate income taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Tax (FICA) for both Social Security and Medicare. Together they act as a flat tax to support the United State's Social Security and Medicare welfare programs. However, the tax itself harms the poor. It also hams businesses as well. So what can be done?

It Harms the poor: The payroll tax harms the poor in a couple of ways. For one it is an additional tax on their earnings. This means that on top of being taxed through the usual income tax, you are also taxed on your earnings again for Social Security and Medicare. As a result the poor are taxed more without any hope of reaching the yearly limit and thus having more of their income taken from them on a yearly bases. In contrast, the richest members of the United States pay off this yearly tax and thus have a chance to get a kind of tax break for the rest of the year. For those who don't know, the American Payroll tax has a cap so that after you are taxed up to a certain amount of money; you then will stop being taxed for the remainder of that year. Basically the poor are being kept in there place through a tax that is supposed to help them later in life for when they retire. Again there is a problem, the money that the poor get when they finally reach retirement age is minimal as they are taxed so many times that very little is contributed to the system (your welfare benefit at retirement is determined by how much of the tax you pay throughout your life time). Statistically speaking this hurts the Black and Hispanic members of the United States the most as they are usually the lowest income earners.

Harms Business/Poor together: What’s worse is that the payroll tax makes employers biased against the unskilled poor. An employer provides a matching amount of money toward a persons Medicare and Social Security taxation. So the employer will pay the same rate to the system on behalf of their employee. Thus, the problem. An employer is not going to dish out that money unless the person is very good or is highly skilled. The result is the employer skipping over many people who may be good workers for the most skilled ones or holding off on hiring all together. Therefore many of these poorer people lose the chance to acquire skills on the job due to this bias. Basically, if you are not worth the cost of training and later employment, then you are not worth hiring.

Businesses on their own are harmed because they have to comply with the paper work to pay this additional tax. It takes time and money which could have been reinvested into the business or even a new worker. Any expense causes businesses to make hard decisions so as to meet their bottom line. If a business does not get the necessary amount of profit they usually shut down making more unemployment. Because of these costs an employer may loose a chance to hire a new worker who may help his business grow and expand. Basically, when a business hires some one, they profit and the worker benefits through getting pay and acquiring new skills. Overall, employer, employee and the poor who may have gotten a job are harmed.

The fix: It is rather easy to fix this problem. You simply have to do away with the payroll tax in its current form. Instead use the current income tax code to provide the money necessary to fund Social Security and Medicare. To do this, a certain portion of your normal income tax would be marked off to go toward those programs. You do not have to change the current rate, but maybe eliminate certain deductions so as to ensure enough goes into the system. Basically you remove all current income taxes save the main one and have it so that a portion of that tax money goes toward Social Security and Medicare. No more double or triple taxation. Employers would not have to contribute the matching rate under this plan as all individuals would continue to pay in regardless of income. Basically there will be no more yearly caps on contributions, but at the same time everyone gets a tax cut. It would still probably need to be coupled with a means testing type system to insure only those who need it get the welfare benefits, but that is a small price to pay for a safety net.

Conclusion: Yes we harm the poor more through our tax code and keep them there because of it. Or at least it contributes to the problem. By eliminating this tax and using the existing code with this one minor addition it ultimately gives the poor more money in their pockets in the short term. As such they can afford a higher standard of living and maybe even not have to go on welfare. Due to this, those on the cusp of poverty may never fall into poverty and will have more money to invest in a better job and thus get a higher income which in turn creates a better safety net as higher pay equals a larger amount going into the system. Basically you encourage people to move up in income as it becomes in their best interest to earn more pay and thus have a better welfare benefit when they retire. No more double taxation, less poverty, and a simpler system that allows people to keep more of their income. Defiantly better than the status quo in my opinion.

Issue 141 Race in America August 13, 2013

Now that the Zimmerman trial is over, and for the most part the race baiters have put down their swords, I feel I can do a little retrospect on the whole issue at hand. That issue is that racism is alive in America, but it is being upheld by its victims more than its former oppressors.

Tragic: If you have been following the trial you will know that George Zimmerman shot and killed Travon Martin. Zimmerman was a member of his neighborhood watch in an area that has been victimized by buglers in the recent months leading up to that night when he would shoot Travon. Travon with his hoodie was walking close to the neighbor hood homes in the area to try to get out of the rain and thus looked like a thief casing houses for later. Zimmerman saw him and followed, all the while calling 911. Zimmerman was not supposed to follow Travon, but report suspicious activity to the police and then move on. The 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop following Travon and move on. Zimmerman as far as we can tell moved on. But then Travon would appear later on to apparently confront Zimmerman. Here is where everything gets hazy. Zimmerman testified that Travon asked him (I paraphrase) "do you have a problem" before attacking Zimmerman. Whether Zimmerman did anything to provoke Travon beyond following him moments before is questionable. At this point, Travon is onto of Zimmerman who wants to go for his cell to call for help. He perceives that Travon sees the gun he has and apparently they both go for it. I think it is possible that Travon thought Zimmerman was reaching for the gun in the first place and went after it in fear of his own life. But Zimmerman got it first and shot Travon once in the chest. There was never any question about whether Zimmerman shot Travon; it was the circumstances in which he did so. Thus, I believe they both thought they where in danger and both instinctively went for the gun to protect themselves with a tragic result. However, the media then taints the entire trial.

The Taint: Instead of waiting for the facts, the media looks at Zimmerman's skin color in comparison to that of Travon's and automatically concludes the shooting is based on race. However, Zimmerman is a white skinned Hispanic, not actually white. This gets the attention of the race baiters and activists who go off and start protests and make Travon a symbol that racism is not over in America complete with pictures of Travon from when he was around 13 or 15 wearing a hoodie. Travon was actually some where closer to 17 or 18. Travon was at the time when he was killed 6 feet tall and muscular. This guy was no weakling and certainly not a kid anymore, but a fully grown man. However, the younger photo stuck and was used to garner out rage, while Travon's photos with guns, when he was high, and with jewelry where ignored. Zimmerman's actual race and his accomplishments as a tooter for disadvantaged kids, along with his friendship to members of the black community was also ignored. What was wanted out of this tragedy was not justice or the truth, but a ratings hike for failing television news outlets. Even the President got involved, saying (paraphrased) "I could have been him" and "If I had a son, he would have looked just like Travon." Last I checked a President is not supposed to get involved with any such incidents due to how it could create an unfair trial. In fact the pressure by these race baiters, and media forced pressure on the local police to arrest Zimmerman and caused the State of Florida to rush to trial before all evidence could be properly collected and analyzed. Who knows what verdict would have come out of the court if these fools looking for money and power did not corrupt the trial. But we know the result, Zimmerman was declared innocent.

Conclusion: The reason why race issues live on in America is because stupid people in the media and race baiters want to keep the lens of race alive. They do not want hero's that preach true and lawful equality, or people who say it is time to work and show our kids the right way to live. A race baiter and the media that supports them want these people in squalor, and subject to things like welfare so as to manipulate them when the need arises. Sure race as an issue will continue to exist, but don't keep people as victims for the rest of their lives, and don't take the death of a young man and turn it into your symbol for another round of blame whitey for all my problems for if you do that, then you are the same as the KKK and the Neo Nazi's who blame blacks and other people for their troubles. Don't be like them, rise above and see things for what they are. And as far as I am concerned, the Zimmerman and Travon case is a tragedy brought about because of fear and misunderstandings. No one deserved to die that night.

Issue 140 Is there a culture war? August 12, 2013

I believe there is a culture war happening right now. Not just in America, but throughout the entire world. People are fighting (not literally) for their cultural norms, against what is counter to those norms. Let us look at what these cultural battles revolve around.

Treatment of Gays: Yes, one of the biggest battles in the culture war is how a society treats its homosexual populations. Many societies in general suppress these individuals or have a cultural norm that tolerates them, but then they are expected to marry and have children anyway. In America, the treatment of this community along with transgendered, and other groups who challenge the traditional male/female sexual roles has garnered many conflicts. At this point however, Gay members of American society, with their compatriots are not just tolerated, but have in many areas of the country become accepted. This is a good thing as they after all are people to and what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom. But there are still those who are squeamish when people of this community and their allies in the bisexual and transgender community challenge traditional forms of dress. In other words, some people don't like it when a guy tries to look too feminine or a girl too masculine. However, dress code battles are a non-issue and thus I personally do not care if that battle is lost. So long as you cover your privates and maintain decency (no sex in public, which includes straight people to) then I really do not have a problem.

Marriage: This is mainly an issue in countries that have traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Groups like the Gay community want to redefine marriage to allow gay marriage. There are also those who want polygamy and its associated forms such as one woman with a number of men, or even women and men being married to multiple other woman and men at the same time, even if not with each other. Legally, gay marriage is winning irrespective of the fact that marriage is a religious sacrament that the U.S. Constitution forbids by way of keeping government out of the faith based institutions. So this battle has yet to reach its ugly head when those who want government to return what belongs to faith and those who want all the governmental benefits of marriage collide. How it works out is anyone’s question as traditional faith and religion erode.

Religion: Religion is also apart of this culture war. People are in general faithful, but are not religious. They generally do not attend church, but will still believe in God. Even the non-believers categorize as being spiritual, but not faithful. The churches are trying to get their congregations back into the pews, but they are having trouble. Pope Francis has helped bring many Catholics back into the fold with his powers of persuasion and humility as he attempts to fix the wrongs in the church, but he faces an uphill battle. Other faiths are not so lucky and face more obstacles. Some institutions turn to preaching hatred about being disadvantaged and blame others for their plights to maintain a congregation, which of course contradicts Jesus’ and Gods teachings (Christian Churches in general). Faith based institutions want their congregations to come back and they are trying things like rock'n roll and other ideas to make church exciting and fresh whilst keeping the faith. But religion will still struggle on until it is needed once again.

Traditional Values: The values of hard work, thrift, compassion and love are also apart of the culture war. Certain values are timeless, but people who seek to change the world around them are rejecting these traditional norms in favor of whatever they deem more important socially. So compassion may give way to barbarism in respect to treating those who find themselves in the poor house. They may blame the person for being in the situation that their in as a stereotype over helping them out in their time of need. Hard work has taken a back seat to the quick fix, as people want short cuts to success of which there are none. People don't save their money so as to save it for when it is really needed, for they want self gratification. Even love has devolved in some instances to quick sex and pleasure as an escape from reality. However, these values while old help protect us and maintain us in our times of need and are compatible with any and every change society decides to make. If we followed these old school traditions which are really morals on how to be successful, be a good person and maintaining a successful relationship with the ones you love, then maybe we would have a few less problems than we do now.

Conclusion: A culture war does not discriminate, and every society is going through it. Some may be dealing with issues in their culture that confound outsiders, while others face cultural battles on a smaller scale with things that other people take for granted. I cannot hope to discuss them all here as I am only capable of looking at the larger scope of this usually non-violent war and mainly through an American lens. But if you feel your countries values are slipping away causing your fellow people to become unrecognizable, know that you are not alone. Everyone knows that change is inevitable, but what kind of change is really up to us and our fellow countrymen to decide.

Issue 139 Is there Global Warming? August 9, 2013

Count me as a skeptic. I am not sure if it is actually real, let alone a proven science. From my perspective based on some climatologist’s testimonies, this is the natural cycle of the planet. Here are the problems I have with this "science."

Climate Gate: This was what first got me thinking that this is a fluke. Two British scientists, the ones responsible for the hockey stick model that apparently "proved" global warming turned out to be to con-artists. Don't get me wrong, they are still professional scientists, but a hacker hacked into their accounts and found out (to the hackers delight) that they made up the entire model that "proved" global warming. They overlapped two separate graphs to create the model. These scientists as it turns out are funded by the British government along with other government entities who wanted proof that global warming existed. How else are you going to keep getting research funds in a science that is not exact?

Polar bears: There is a claim that their numbers are shrinking. It is claimed that because to northern ice cap is melting the polar bear is starving for a lack of means of finding and catching pray. One problem, the polar bear population is actually up and growing. This means there is plenty of food.

Faulty science: Scientist, out side of the ones in the climate gate scandal, have done tests themselves claiming that global warming exists. But their science is not yet complete as they took measurements at specific locations and those locations where not sufficiently measured over the course of time to get an accurate reading of the changes in climate. In other words, more locations need to be monitored and over a longer period of time to get the best and most accurate results.

Global Cooling?: Apparently in the 1940s they feared global cooling, then the 60s, it was global warming, then the 80s it was global cooling again. Now we got global warming once more. Every time, science backed the idea that the planet was warming or cooling. Is it any wonder that they started saying climate change rather than global warming?

Storms: The zealots claim that the horrible hurricanes, tornados and other crazy weather like Hurricane Sandy and its Nor'easter brother Nemo were all caused by climate change. One, the last time weather like Sandy hit New York and the upper eastern sea board was in the 1930s during the global cooling hype. If you talk to scientists like Joe Bastardi who study weather for a living, however that kind of weather is 100% natural when certain weather conditions are met. The tornado's, the hurricanes and the rest of that wicked weather happen in a sequence with the natural cycle of the planets weather cycle.

Final Nail: For me the last piece of evidence was when the spokesman for the climate change movement (former Vice President of the United States Al Gore) bought a beach house. Not just any beach house, but one in the so called 200 foot flood zone when the water level rises due to glo....excuse me climate change. If your own spokesman is buying a beach house in the same place that is supposed to flood, then a lot of red flags are going to begin to pop up saying something is wrong here.

Conclusion: There is a major lesson to be learned here. If the government is paying for proof of something, they will find it, especially if they are funding that research. Let us also not forget, they will not let a good crisis go to waste. Those in the climate change movement are supporting certain politicians and as such parts of the green agenda come through as policy. While I don't mind solar panels, wind farms, and other green technology, don't do it at the expense of people tax dollars. Also, don't lie to people about a problem that has been conjured up. Sure we should keep our planet clean, because no earth, no us. But convince us rationally and for those who aren't convinced, show them how to get rich being green.

Issue 138 Ryan Plan: the updates August 8, 2013

 
As promised I have read through the Ryan Plan, the conservative budget proposed by Republicans in the House of Representatives. Keep in mind, the U.S. still does not have a working budget. Paul Ryan had initially come up with his plan for the 2010 through 2012/13 time frame which I wrote about in issues 26, 27 and 28. So when I say it is the same as the previous plan, you can go to my summary in those three issues. Let’s get started.

The same: The idea to means test people’s income and finances to determine their benefits is the same. He seeks to reform Medicaid by block granting money to States which would give them flexibility on what benefits they provide especially when combined with the work requirements that would be re-instated under this plan. It is believed that by allowing this flexibility that it would support upward mobility by removing barriers (and certain benefits) to keep people poor or incentivize them not to work.

It would consolidate job programs and shut down failing job training institutions funded by or run by the federal government. With respect to taxation, the goal is still to remove taxation from a number of areas while creating a two tear tax program with the lowest rate being 10%, and the highest being 25%. In addition, spending caps would be put into place just like in the original.

What's different?: The plan deals with energy independence by opening up federal land and ocean to drilling for both oil and natural gas. However, it does not say if oil and gas will receive government subsidies and how many if any subsidies for "green tech" will be reduced. Also, the plan will block the Department of Interior from getting 70% of monies generated from the land being used for drilling and set it towards paying off the federal deficit, rather than allowing the money to be used to buy up more land in the United States.

Under this plan the military and the Veterans administration (VA) will be fully funded. The soldiers will get a budget in excess of $500 billion to develop technology to defend our nation from "threats" and redeploy where needed. As to the Veterans, well apparently the VA is underfunded, but I don't put much stock in that. I feel that it is more likely that the VA is inefficient due to government regulations on how to take care of veterans, aka, it lacks flexibility to both treat veterans with custom care, or to outsource to cheep but equally/more effective charities who may be able to do the same job for less.

Ryan want to eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the home mortgage giants that have a monopoly on the U.S. housing sector, while fixing flawed regulations. He also want to update accounting rules for programs and departments, cap pell grants while eliminating barriers to education that restrict innovation (like online teaching). This includes eliminating duplicate and failing programs in the Department of Education (currently 82 programs already are in operation). I would eliminate this department as it limits innovation (as Ryan pointed out) by preventing innovation. But the department exists to send out money to schools and students if they meet certain requirements (either through loans or grants) but only serves to restrict how that money is spent and placing conditions on schools that cause school taxes to rise unnecessarily.

In a move to save money, Ryan wants have all members of the federal government pay more toward retirement as their total compensation (an elected and unelected members pay, retirement and other perks) is 16% more than the private sector. It is estimated that it will save at least $132 billion.

Finally, a board will be created staffed by members of bi-partisan watch dog groups and government auditors who will decide where to cut and how to do it. This is Ryan's alternative to letting the heads of the federal agencies cut spending as part of reconciliation as they have been purposely not cutting waste such as their party budgets, but seem intent on cutting everything else. The board’s decision will be final and will be implemented.

Conclusion: I agree with getting government out of the way. In addition I want America to be prosperous, but I do not agree on spending more money. The federal government is too slow to adapt to the changing job situations and thus cannot successfully make any job program work properly. It should be cut, and given to the private sector who will after a period of time innovate to make job training quick and efficient. With respect to schooling, the government is equally as inept in its adapting to changing market trends. It will further stifle education even with reforms that try to slim the system down. In this situation it is better left to the local government and their welfare offices along with private scholarships to help children go to college. I agree, Fannie and Freddie's hold on the housing market must disappear, and I like the commission idea (so long as they are not paid to do it). I am troubled by how the plan still spends more that what we as a nation have financially despite all the cuts (not taking into account accelerations in economic growth). Overall, it is an "OK" plan, but it needs more government out of the way rather than trying to help but gumming up what works.