Issue 180 Unfaire Government October 9, 2013

Have you ever wondered why politicians are paid so much more than or soldiers or even the average every day citizen. Well I think it is time for a pay cut.

The Soldiers pay: The average starting salary excluding benefits for a soldier is about $20-30 thousand. They go into harms way whenever Congress and the President see fit. But is it fair to give them such a low starting salary. I say no. They should be paid much more.

Average Citizen Income: We the people on average receive an average income of about $40 to $50 thousand a year. But this is just the average income. Only 10% of our nation has an income greater than $250,000. Also, almost 50% of the populace is on some form of government assistance (welfare). So we are left to struggle. According to the "wall Street Journal" Americans will not reach financial independence of $30,000+ until they are in their 30s. Back in the 1980s that age was around 24.

Congress: Here is the unfair part. The U.S. Congress gets $175,000 a year excluding perks. With perks this extends to well over the $200,000 mark. On top of this, Congress is exempt from things like Obama Care. They have special government organizations which build them custom desks, give them hair cuts and even a tailor. All this on the tax payer dime.

Now that you see the unfairness: So what should be done? At current the 27th amendment dictates how pay changes to members of congress shall occur. Basically, any and all changes occur after an election. So they can vote to increase their pay, but must wait till after an election to see that pay rise. So they can indefinitely increase their salaries while we have to try and get by with a ridiculous tax code that benefits the rich (which includes congress) more than the poor.

Conclusion: Let us make it so that a member of Congress can only receive pay equivalent to the current national average each year. If it increases then their pay increases, but if the national average decreases then their pay decreases. That means (if that law were in effect) that Congresses pay this year would be $57,000. A big pay cut that they deserve don't you think. This will give them incentive to keep the economy booming (which may also increase the buying power of the dollar which makes everything more affordable and thus decreases the number of the poor). An idea like this uses a Congressional members own selfishness to make them want a stronger economy. So they would be more inclined to fix the tax code and remove negative and unnecessary legislation and regulations that do nothing but become a hindrance. To insure no funny business, the national income will have to be measured in after tax dollars kept by individuals (this includes not just federal, but State and local income taxes as well). Also, the treasury will decide how the national average should be measured, not Congress to help insure that no accounting gimmicks are added in. They will have to do it through a select committee chosen in secret by the leading members of the treasury department. That select committee will decide any and all formulas in regards to this pay scheme for Congress. Thus it will be insulated from politics for the most part and thus prevent a good amount of corruption. Yes the military should be paid more, but I have another idea for that which you will see tomorrow.

Issue 179 Entrenched Politicians October 8, 2013

Entrenched Politicians are a special breed. They think they are essential to the government and people and as such they do not ever want to leave. But what truly categorizes an entrenched politician.

The run for office forever: It is true that these individuals just keep running for political office. They will always try to be re-elected because they think that they must hold onto that seat of office and the power it contains (unless of course they can achieve a higher office). Here is the reason that we have people like Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chuck Schumer in office. In order to keep their positions they will give kick backs to their constituents to bribe the populace to continuously re-elect them. Meanwhile the populace is none the wiser that the challenger with fresh ideas was probably a better pick. In other words the population chooses free stuff (which they actually pay for with their tax dollars) over true change.

Positions of power: Almost all the politicians who are entrenched hold some sort of seniority in their political organizations or are in select positions. Examples of such people are Republican John McCain who has a post on select committees that govern national security or Democrat Charles Rangel who sits on the committee that governs changes to the tax code. Men like these think they are needed to keep these organizations running smoothly. Unfortunately it is these same men who stagnate thought and debate. John McCain is set on his Neo Conservative views of exporting democracy to the rest of the world (a fool’s errand). Rangel on the other hand is a progressive that inaccurately believes that by maintaining a progressive income tax and making it even more progressive to the point where the rich just up and leave. As a result we middle class and lower tax payers are forced to pay off these stupid government programs. Basically, all we have are these political flops. McCain seems to actually want to go to war and Rangel drive out the countries bread winners that pay over 75% of the total income tax revenue that goes into the Federal government. Despite these obvious failings in logic, they are supported by the party leadership and all those who go against them are attacked.

When they finally leave: Well most leave (from my point of view) when they want to finally retire or die. But sadly this is not the case (well the retiring part, not the dead part). Many of these politicians, who leave office, whether by being unelected, or choosing to leave, typically end up richer still. This is because they end up as lobbyists at various political organizations and businesses. In short they become part of the crony capitalist support system. OK, they were always part of that structure, but now they get a chance to receive a larger paycheck beyond their current $175,000 a year salary. These politicians who leave office may not even leave Washington D.C. As once they become highly paid lobbyists they will need "access" to their former colleagues as they grant their new bosses “access” to various people in power in the government.

Conclusion: These men and women never leave. In D.C. they constantly lobby for one issue or another. I would not even be surprised to find that they will literally represent anyone so long as they are the highest bidder. So what is an answer to all this? Well it is the same answer that people have been asking for, for years. That answer is term limits, and in some cases the elimination of the 17th amendment to the Constitution as well. We cannot predict if this will eliminate all forms of lobbying, but it will at least make a dent in the entrenched ideologues that make up the party leadership. Yes, we can all agree (except the politicians) to wanting to kick the bums out.

Issue 178 Political Party Fakes October 7, 2013

The political parties of any country are tools for getting candidates they choose elected. But, the parties themselves are fictitious. They do not represent a singular ideology, but a coalition of ideologies that find mutual agreement on certain issues. As such they are a bunch of fakes who pass themselves off as something more than they truly are.

The puppet masters: Those who control the parties are the ones who decide who runs in each election. These men and women use their power and authority to control which candidates are acceptable to the public at large so as not to appear too radical. Yes, some parties have votes to decide who will represent them, but those in the election are carefully selected by the party leadership. Did you notice that Ron Paul in the Republican Party primaries back in 2012 was ostracized by the party? The leadership did not like his brand of libertarianism or the fact that he was not as "progressive" as the leadership desired. As such his own Republican party (as libertarians, his true party, are still a fast growing minority) attacked him. So if you do not stick to the party line then you are predisposed to fail or at the very least be attacked from all sides.

The ideologies: A great number of people make up the members of each political party. America is no exception to there being a vast number of varying views and ideas with respect to political parties. But these groups tend to pool themselves into groups who they can either leech off of or at the very least share a similar goal. As such in the Democrat party you have the Communists, Socialists, Some Fascists, Some religious fascist on the most extreme end. Then you have moderates which include members of the Green Party, the Climate change groups, Lawyers, advocacy groups, Unions and the like. For the Republicans you have Unions as well, but you also add religious rights groups, and other progressives that you would find in the middle of the road Democrats party. In other words Progressives in the middle who want to advance the country in the way they see fit. Finally, there is the small government crowd, Tea Party groups and the Libertarians. If you look at it closely enough you will see that the Democrats have the most radical groups which they keep a tight leash on. This is accomplished through effective leadership and careful messaging which gives them what they want to hear or parts of legislation they want in order to keep them voting Democrat. The moderate Democrats and the middle of the road Republicans are the progressive group. Here, these groups tend to contain the party leadership. These people sound the most reasonable and generally stay in power the longest. Everyone else, like libertarians, are the third portion. Libertarians exist on both sides of the isle depending on which party will make their goals come true first. That really is what it is. It is these ideological groups joining together to get their agendas passed using these fake labels like Republican and Democrat.

Conclusion: I was no fool. I new the parties would not represent me at all. As such, when I registered to vote I checked the undecided mark when it came to deciding on a political party. The undecided mark is not even a political party like an Independent. It is a complete divestment from the party machine. So I can vote in an election, but I just surrendered my authority in choosing a candidate for either side. Let us face it, no one likes to be used and by being a member of the political party you let yourself become their puppet. Parties are nothing but Umbrella organizations that can disappear and no one will miss them. My goal writing to you my dear readers today is to remind you of that. The only essential component of government is a strong foundation through a Constitution and the people who support it. Parties can be tossed out with the trash.

 

Issue 177 The debt ceiling October 4,2013

The debt ceiling is coming. Currently, the debt "ceiling" as it is called is set at around $18 trillion. If it exceeds that amount of money, then the government will be forbidden from borrowing any more money. Many of you are saying good as they know that our current debt is $17 trillion and is going to reach that $18 trillion very shortly. But not everyone agrees.

Those who want to borrow more: The President wants the debt ceiling raised. I do not know if it is because he wants to keep borrowing to support certain programs, or he feels that more debt is the key to paying off what America owes. He just wants it raised. President Obama has even erroneously said in speeches that if the debt ceiling is not raised then the United States will not be able to pay off its debts. It is funny logic to pay off debt with debt. Does that not just increase your debt burden in the long run? What ever the case, the fools in D.C. consider borrowed money as a form of income. This money is always spent on whatever they "feel" is needed to help the country. This includes money to universities to study a shrimp running on a treadmill, studying drunken Chinese prostitutes, money to successful businesses, and even money to China which is not even being used to pay off our debt to them. Basically, the borrowed money is used to support the status quo currently going on in D.C.

What would happen if they could not borrow?: Well, then they would have allot of unfunded mandates. The government will be forced to either pay up or let things go bust. Yes there is a potential for bankruptcy at the federal level, but what most people do not know is that the treasury can prioritize paying off the national debt and as such all money will go towards that save the essentials. Thus, we will be safe from bankruptcy so long as the politicians don't get in the way. Also, the federal government will be forced to sustain itself on the money taken in rather than borrowed. As such Congress will have to pass much smaller spending bills that do more with less. So the government will finally be living within its means.

Conclusion: People like me are exhausted by the elaborate spending, and trash that the politicians put out. There are people who actually need help and yet 75% of welfare ends up helping the richest and most elite in this country. And you know what, many of that elite work in Washington D.C. When the market crashed, the only city to not be affected was D.C. They barely suffered at all, and in fact experienced growth. The more power that gets concentrated there the more corrupt it becomes. We do not want that beast fed any longer. It must be starved of its financial means that is being used to bankrupt our nation. I want the debt ceiling reached and the government to be forbidden from borrowing. We all should want to have the government live within its own means by rooting out corruption, eliminating overlap and reducing laws and regulations that serve no purpose. It is time the government goes back to being responsible. I hope it is time that the government understands that its spending spree should end.

If you agree with this, then contact your Senators and Congressmen and tell them "let us live within our means."

Issue 176 Another Shutdown!? October 3, 2013

Well another government shut down has occurred. The Republicans who control the House of Representatives will not comply with the demands of the Democrat dominated Senate and President Obama. The republicans are going to use this chance to do their best to get rid of bad government programs (or parts of them) like Obama care. In other words this is another game of chicken sponsored by the Republican Party. You know what? I say this is great!

Why is it a good thing?: The reason why a government shut down is good is because it will block Obama cares final initialization. Congress has yet to allocate funding for programs that require money to be authorized each year. As such, it is not just Obama care, but other programs and agencies that will not be able to function. This is great for libertarians like me as it blocks spending that could have been better spent in the hands of individual Americans.

What it does not do: A government shut down has no affect on entitlement programs or the military. Those programs are not discretionary, and as such they get the budgets they need before all other spending takes place. So seniors do not have to worry about not getting their Social Security money or being covered by Medicare and Medicaid (Medicaid is also partly run at the State level). Our soldiers will also be there to protect us along with all the other defense related agencies like the CIA. So only the essentials are unaffected by a shut down.  Also, those personnel sent home are those who have been deemed non-essential.  But do not worry as they will be paid once they return to their jobs (including back pay).  However, I would love to make it so that these non-essential people move on to other jobs outside of government as they are unneeded.

Is it bad to shut the government down?: Not really. It just means they are spending less money. Only people who need to be on Capitol Hill will actually be there. Everyone else just stays home. So the government is saving money through a shut down. The only real time you will not like it is if you are part of a government pet project as you will not be given any money at all. It is basically the same as when Newt Gingrich shut down the government when President Clinton was still in office and when it was shut down during the Obama administration during the last "budget crisis." From a libertarian’s perspective, money that is better spent elsewhere is just going to sit for a while. If there is any negatives to a shut down then it is with the political reputations of the individuals involved. The Republicans and Democrats, depending on how well they handle the situation will either look better or worse in the eyes of the American people. President Obama is already loosing popularity and if he comes out on the bottom of this, then he will become toxic to the Democrats in the next election cycle.

Conclusion: Depending on your perspective, a government shut down can be good, or it can be bad. Libertarians and conservatives will see it as good. Conservatives may see it as good for the same reason that libertarians do, the government is not spending our money on smut. But they may see it as good because liberals are their antithesis and thus are happy to see them squirm a bit. Liberals will see it as bad because they cannot get their agenda's passed. Nothing moves and as such nothing that they value can get done. Although it is unfair to place labels on people like liberal and conservative as the lines between them have blurred. So if you see the government as an answer to your problems, them a shut down is bad. If you see government as the problem, then a shut down is good. Well I think it is good as I do not want more government smut intruding on mine or anyone’s life. We are taxed to the limits of reason and beyond. Our options limited by government bureaucracy and corruption. A shut down thankfully gets the government monkey off our back at least for a short while. So Republicans!!!! Shut the darn thing down!!!!

Issue 175 Company College October 2, 2013

College is expensive here in the United States. I have to say I was lucky to have my parents as I paid a year of college myself with the remaining three being paid off by my parents. As such I graduated with zero debt. But my fellow students at Hofstra and other universities were not so lucky. They owe in excess anywhere between $30,000 and $180,000. On top of this, colleges are not training students in the skills they need for the work place environment. Students often get retrained by their work place in the skills they need for them to be successful in the company. As such, companies want to cut out the middle man.

What Businesses are doing: Due to the lack of job skills coming out of colleges, companies are offering their own online degrees in the courses that they feel best prepare a person for a job. Well, the course prepares the person for work in their own company primarily. However, many of those skills transfer over to other related business disciplines and as such make an individual just as marketable as if they went through another company’s online college course. Yes that is correct; the courses offered are college level equivalent. As such you take a course online in the same way you would if you were taking an online college course. Plus the course is recognized to be at the college level. So it looks just as good on a resume as if you went to a traditional college. The only difference is that a company offered the course as opposed to a college who offering the course.

Advantages: For one, the primary advantage is that it is cheap. The cost of these company level courses is smaller in general to the traditional college courses offered. In addition, it is a company offering a course that is geared mainly for preparing you in skills to work in the field that the company is in. So a tech company will offer relevant tech courses based on what they need and projected future needs. This is the same for all disciplines of business who want people prepared to do the job as opposed to them having to waste their money retraining people with the skills they require. So there is less need to worry about no being able to do a job as the course has trained you to do it already. Also, the training helps you to prep to work in other businesses in the same field and as such you are not restricted to working for the business who originally offered the course.

Disadvantages: The main disadvantage is the lack of traditional networking that occurs on campus. Brick and mortar colleges allow for you to meet strangers who could possibly one day land you a job. No, your normal social life will not suffer as you create your own from home. But your networking, unless you use various forms of social networking, will be limited. As to other disadvantages, there are certain courses that can only be accomplished in person. Some interdisciplinary courses like art, literature and such may require an actual school. So you will need to seek one of those out to acquire such forms of study.

Conclusion: Online courses are the wave of the future. They will not remove the traditional schools from their position with respect to certain forms of study (like being a doctor), but schooling will most likely get cheaper. Businesses offering such courses though will mean more competition which will force colleges to either offer better courses or lower their prices to compete. This of course is a win for everyone either way. But this revolution also helps the people with a lower income level as college is now becoming that much more affordable. This means less loans will be needed and as such less burden upon the individual once they graduate.

Issue 174 Right to die?! October 1, 2013

Do we have a right to die? Well I am conflicted. As a libertarian I should be in favor of letting people commit suicide if they so choose or of having assisted suicide if they feel they can no longer live in pain or other circumstance. As a Catholic, I am opposed because you’re not supposed to die by any means save a natural death. So let us discuses both sides as best we can.

Those who say we have the right: For one, it is your own body. You are allowed to jump out of airplanes, dive down to the depths of the sea and even clime mountains. We do many dangerous things that risk our lives. So why is it that we are allowed to risk our lives doing such things but not allowed to take it? Then there is the fact that people are suffering from diseases that are terminal. Some of these unfortunate people are in severe pain. Do they not have the right to end their own suffering when all manor of medication fails? And what if they cannot kill themselves but need the life support turned off for them? Why can't they have a doctor flip the switch for them that will end their suffering? Some States have already passed laws allowing people to have assisted suicide. This of course is better than traditional as the other person can at least insure that this is what that individual really wants. There are even seniors who want to be euthanized because they feel they are nothing but a burden to their own families. Of course this is sad, but it is also their own bodies. Do we as individuals have a right to decide this? We are given that choice when we appoint health care proxies to determine if to attempt resuscitation or not. Of course this is a person dying on there own and it being determined if they still want a chance at living. But for some, there is very little difference between choosing to die by not being resuscitated and having some one help you.

Libertarians ask themselves these very questions. They wonder about how many rights I personally hold over myself the individual. As such, because it is my body and I am not hurting anyone else "physically" then it is ok.

Those opposed: The people opposed to such things remember what it is like to loose a loved one. They hated that feeling with a passion. As such, a friend or family member choosing to die of their own free will is foreign to them. Sure they will praise the soldier who jumped on the hand grenade as a hero. But that is because the suicide had some sort of meaning. It was not senseless to die to save others. However, choosing to die for selfish reasons (no matter how benign) just turns many people’s stomachs like mine. I do not want to loose any of my friends and family in such a way. I love them all dearly irrespective of how often I get to see them or feel about them. With regards to faith, suicide is like spitting in the face of God because you are murdering yourself. You have taken Gods only other role in your life (deciding when it is your time) and finished yourself off. Then there is the emotional content. What of the people you leave behind. Do they not have a say because they love you? Then with respect to assisted suicide, doctors are supposed to save lives not take them. How does that meet with the Hippocratic Oath and come out on top?

These are the reasons people who cannot see suicide as anything but a cowardly act feel. It is also how people of faith feel when confronted with such an issue. As such there is no easy answer as we really do not know how we will confront the issue when we are faced with it.

Conclusion: It is a hard topic to right about. I myself have only thought about suicide in the concept of what it would be like without me. What would happen to my parents, my family and my friends? What would my death do to them? Would it make one of them commit suicide, or break up the family? What ways could it be done? I have access to knives and guns, and when I really got creative I found that there is an infinite number of ways to just kill yourself off. It actually scared me how detailed I had gotten in thinking about it. But after that time I never really thought of it again. I wanted to confront the world’s problems that were put in my path with every ounce of strength and vigor I can muster. Am I afraid to die? Yes I am. But I prefer a natural death to one that I impose on myself. As such I personally am against suicide. I hate the very idea of it all. However, I cannot speak for everyone. As such I have to come down the middle road on this and say that I would allow for assisted suicide for people on their death bed. But that is all especially as you cannot stop a healthy person from killing themselves if they really wanted to die. So this is how I feel. Again thanks for reading and I hope you get something good out of this too.