Issue 516 Should the Church Preach Conservation? January 29, 2015

So we are asking if the principles of conservation are in line with the Principles the Church puts forth.  So should the Church preach conservation?

Possibly:  The ideas behind conservation is to use our resources more efficiently and to live in harmony with nature as much as possible.  Church's in general do not disagree with this sentiment as far as I understand for God created both mankind and all that exists in the universe.  As such, existing in harmony with nature so that we do not destroy ourselves by eroding and destroying our natural environment is a good thing.  On this angle, the Church agrees and thus the Church can promote things like clean energy, recycling, and the cleanup of toxic waste.  They can also preach safe and reliable food storage, limits to hunting, saving the environment for other plant and animal life and teach about how not to overuse a natural resource.  In addition the Church can promote things like community gardens, teach methods of conservation and overall good practices such as preserving water and other resources.

Where it gets sticky:  There is though some areas of conservation (the extremist section) that the Church would not agree with.  Mainly issues of population control and similar ideas that go against the Churches ideas on human birth and procreation.  As far as I know, the Church does not believe the same as those who want population control in order to save the planet from overpopulation and thus the overuse and destruction of our natural resources.  This is seen as an extremist view of the conservation groups and thus is not something the Church would support.

Conclusion:  So to a degree, we have a lot of commonality with respect to the basic tenets of preserving our planet.  However, the Church or the very least the faithful see overpopulation as a possible joke and the solutions for it (those solutions in the extremist camp) like sterilization, the choosing of marriage partners, and others to be against the foundations of the faith.  So yes the Church can and probably should preach about conservation, just for the sake of preserving our world and making it a little bit cleaner and more livable for the next generation.

Issue 515 Should the President Number 3 January 28, 2015

In the final leg of this series, we ask if the President should have the power to veto past laws that have been already been passed under previous administrations.  Let us begin.

Idea:  Like with the issue of too much government overlap, we have an issue of too many laws that over the course of time are rendered useless, or are usurped by current law, while the old laws are still being enforced for arbitrary reasons (some of which Congress simply passes when they are set to expire without actual review).  So the idea is to allow the President to again make a proposal to Congress on what laws to abolish, agencies/ departments to eliminate, and even programs to defund. And just like before, the Congress will have a veto power on each individual post Presidential veto.

How it works:  So the President would make a list of laws he/she wants to eliminate, and a list of agencies, departments, or programs (all passed into existence by law) to defund and thus eliminate. This list would be called the Post Presidential Veto due to it all being laws passed under past Presidential administrations.  From there the Congress like before would vote on the merit of each law if an objection to a laws termination was raised.  Of course again, the law could only be saved by a 50% plus one vote by congress.  However, the other laws will still be terminated.

Impact:  So this again gives the President greater power, but still at the behest of Congress to balance it out.  It would also allow the President to reduce government waste by not having to enforce or fund certain laws and their associated programs, agencies and departments.  However, there is still an issue of too much power, and the possible risk of necessary laws we have forgotten the purpose of being removed.  Also, with Congresses penchant for not actually reading laws before passing them, it poses an even greater risk to allow the President to have this power at this current time.

Conclusion:  Unfortunately, Congress would need to be responsible for this type of veto to actually take place.  The fact that Congress shirks its responsibility by not reading the bills it passes into law means such possible useful powers for the President and Congress become non-starters.  So for now, unless we give such power to the Supreme Court, we cannot have this type of tool be given to the President.

Issue 514 Should the President Number 2 January 27, 2015

Continuing with this series, in today's issue we ask if the President should be able to fire top level advisors without oversight.  Let's talk.

The idea:  So the President has many advisors following him/her, and generally seeking attention.  But there are times the President no longer has need for said advisor and they thus take up space and taxpayer money.  As such, an advisor becomes dead weight.  However, the President cannot fire these advisors or even high level staff because of corruption that occurred in the Presidency.  I cannot remember which administration it was, just that it was a President from before World War II who sought to fire members of their staff when they did not agree with what the President wanted.  It got so ridiculous that Congress actually took power from the President and claimed power to review any firing of any high level official.  As such, the President cannot fire whomever he/she wants, but instead isolates that individual and denies them access to the White House or to the President him/herself.

Is changing it back worth it:  In this case, turning back the clock is not worth it.  The fact that a President would fire an advisor over a disagreement on policy is stupid and would demonstrate the Presidents arrogance and foolishness.  Sure the Congress has oversight which is good, but the whole denying access to the President is also really dumb as well.  Hence why many of these advisors and staff usually stay until they find a better job or are able to curry favor with the President once again. A fairly idiotic situation is it not?

Conclusion:  So for right now, there is no viable solution to this idiocy that I can see for the foreseeable future.  Making a slimmed down government, or implementing any libertarian or conservative reforms will not stop this issue what so ever because this is a problem the President has, the disease known as arrogance, and so long as there is no cure for this, we will simply have to deal with this problem with each and every President we elect.

Issue 513 Should the President Number 1 January 26, 2015

In this issue we ask if the President should have the power to merge overlapping programs, agencies and departments within the Federal government without congressional approval.  So should the American President have such an ability?

The idea:  So the Federal government wastes a lot of money on the Federal Bureaucracy each year due to overlapping agencies, departments and programs.  Obviously this is a bad thing as multiple groups doing the same exact same job is inefficient and thus wastes a large amount of money.  So the idea is to let the president merge these existing programs, agencies and departments so that efficiency can be maintained without having to resort to relying on Congress to pass a law.  In fact, Presidents used to have this power, but it was later taken away because it was felt that Presidents could corrupt this power to their own ends.  So there is a tradeoff here.

How it would work:  So to prevent corruption while allowing the President and our government more efficiency, we can allow the Congress to have a veto power over the merger of individual programs or departments.  So say the President wants to merge the agencies and their associated programs that oversee the feeding, care and slaughter of poultry (yes each of these departments exists and some exist for specific species of farm animals).  The President can first propose the merger, and what the new agencies organization would look like and levels of responsibilities to Congress.  Then Congress would then look at each individual agency and decide if this merger should or should not be allowed.  Congress would only vote if an objection to an agencies merger was to be voiced and that merger would only not take place if a 50% plus one majority vote was to occur.  However, this would not stop the merger of the other individual agencies from becoming a new singular entity, it would just stop that one particular agency(s) from being merged into the larger one.  As such efficiency can be implemented and Congress can maintain its oversight.

Conclusion:  Obviously this idea has merit as it would make it easier and cheaper (hopefully) to run government and keep an eye out on its activities.  Obviously this grants the President broader powers, but with the Congressional veto in place to usurp it if Congress feels that there is an issue helps to alleviate the President over stepping his/her bounds.

Issue 512 Making Health Care Cheaper January 23, 2015

So there are a few things that could make it cheaper for us all to afford prescription drugs and insurance.  Here are a few things that can be done to do just that.

Free trade on health insurance:  This is very basic.  Health insurance is sold both here in the United States and also in the countries of Europe and Asia.  Usually though, European health insurance caters to the rich while the rest of the populace relies on government care.  In the United States, the insurances companies must be licensed in each State and they must abide by a certain level of prescribed coverage based on the law.  This in effect creates mini monopolies on health care for each State.  So for this to work, a universal standard for what is covered under the most basic health coverage must be established.  Once this is accomplished, the insurance companies can sell across state lines and international borders.  The result would be lower costs due to the fact that health insurance companies would not have to be established in each State or country (thanks to electronic billing) and thus these companies can settle in a particular State or country that is the most business friendly.  This saves money and allows them to either increase their services and/or make their premiums cheaper.  Also, because they now can sell to people globally, they have a larger group of people paying for their services which means more money to go around.  This will also result in not only cheaper care for the people in the United States, but will also make private health care more affordable in other countries too.

More OTC's and Generics:  Here we have something that is fairly standard when it comes to making health care cheaper. Generics are drugs that are copies of brand name drugs once the patent runs out (as such they are typically cheaper than their brand counterparts).  In the United States, these generics typically are allowed to be sold for a specified number of years before the FDA says they cannot be sold anymore (this also may be due to a superior generic that has come to market).  However, Canada allows such drugs to be sold much longer which results in cheaper health care for their people.  So in this case, increase the number of generics and the amount of time they are available to consumers and that will save the people money.

Additionally, there are many drugs that can be changed into over the counter medications (OTC's) which are drugs that do not require a prescription.  Things like allergy nasal sprays, and stomach acid reducers can easily be shifted from prescription drugs to OTC’s.  As such, once a medication becomes an over the counter product the price for said drug plummets because the drug does not have to abide by as many regulations and restrictions as their prescription drug counterparts.  This again means cheaper health care as the drugs become more affordable.

Let them make more drugs:  Apparently each year, drug companies must ask permission to produce a drug in a certain quantity.  Once the FDA gives the approval, the drug company can only produce that amount of their drug with no more and no less being made for that given year.  The original goal of this was to reduce the chances of price gouging by the pharmaceutical companies, but it has the negative effect of artificially raising prices of drugs. What I mean by this, is that if said drug could not meet demand for that given year, by the laws of supply and demand, the cost of that drug would go up.  If the drug company was to produce more than demand required the price of that drug would drop, but in return other drugs that company produces will have their prices raised or the drug next year will be sold at a higher cost for the drug company to make up for the lost revenue.  Obviously, causing drug prices to rise is a bad thing, so my solution is to allow drug companies to produce as much product as they want per year.  They can still set a minimum if they expect demand to be low, but can go beyond that minimum if they choose to keep up supply if demand increases.  As such, it keeps the drug costs down.

Conclusion:  So these are some basic solutions.  The more OTC's, generics and drug companies being able to make more of a product are simple reforms that can take place within less than a year if implemented.  The free trade one though has to be negotiated on for it to go through and is thus, harder to implement.  However, these are all options to decreasing the costs of health care which would work.  In fact the more OTC's, generics and allowing more of the drugs being produced removes our reliance on prescription drug insurance to a certain degree as certain drugs become much more affordable.  So we can make health care cheaper, it is all a matter of actually putting the reforms into practice.

Issue 511 How I would Run a Union January 22, 2015

Well, you are probably wondering why I am writing this one.  The reason is, I am disturbed by how some of the union bosses make millions a year off the contributions of their membership.  On top of this, the union bosses also use the money to fund political campaigns which may go against the ideology or values of the membership.  As such, I write today's issue on how I would run my own union (if I was a boss of one).

Pay: For one, union bosses should not become multi-millionaires off the contributions of the union membership.  If a union boss becomes a millionaire, then how do we expect them to keep their own values and relate to the workers they are supposed to represent.  As such, the top wages of a union boss should be equal to double of the highest take home pay of a union member.  So say, I represent a steel worker who gets paid from his boss $45,000 a year, and then after taxes takes home $40,000.  As such, my pay as the union boss would be $80,000 a year.  If the highest paid worker should have a pay cut, then so does the union boss so as to feel the same pain financially (or a semblance of pain) the union workers might feel. From there the secretaries, the accountants and other union staff have a pay scale based on whatever the union boss makes and has it fluctuate along with the bosses as well.  As such, the union boss, and the staff have an incentive to maximize pay of each of their membership so that they themselves can make more money. 

Healthcare and Insurance:  If the union membership is going to be useful and maximize pay, then they may as well provide healthcare and insurance in various forms to the workers.  This allows the businesses the membership works at to not have to provide such benefits and thus maximizes the businesses productivity which typically means them hiring more workers which expands membership, or by them raising wages which enriches the membership.  

Support Services:  Say members are dealing with financial issues at home.  The union should help them by providing aid in the form of financial counseling.  Also, as the union will typically have lawyers on staff, or on retainer, these lawyers should be made available to answer any legal questions and provide any legal aid to members of the union.   This also includes tax help and even help for home issues like substance abuse.

Banking:  To ensure that the membership is safe from market depressions, the union will also act as a credit union.  This protects union membership money as the money is not subject to market influences, and allows the union to give loans to its membership that are more in line with the pay the member makes on a daily basis.  It also insures that loans are fairer, and that the union can make a small profit on the side to support its activities and benefits without asking for additional dues from the membership.  (This means that people outside the union can also bank with the union’s bank so that again profit can be maximized while ensuring that the union has money to support its activities.)

Outside revenue:  In order to maintain these activities and collect revenue while ensuring maximum take home pay for the membership, businesses would be allowed to buy advertising space in union offices/facilities and the union will allow them to put ads on/in official emails and correspondence so that the union can profit off the bought advertising space.  This also may include coupons and other discounts being distributed as well.  So by allowing businesses (union and non-union alike) to advertise with the union, the union can acquire the money it needs to support itself beyond what can be done solely via member dues.

Restricted spending:  The final component of this would be that money collected will be restricted to union activities and operations.  Political campaigns and donations will be done individually so as to ensure that the views of each member of the membership can represent themselves as opposed to the union boss supporting causes the membership may not agree with.  

Conclusion:  This is how I would run it.  A union boss has a responsibility to protect and serve its membership.  Thus by providing all these benefits, and removing responsibilities from the employers, a union came maximize take home pay and thus continue to enrich its membership.

Issue 510 The Church Should Provide Health Care January 21, 2015

Ok, I am going to criticize the Church.  The Catholic Church, my own faith. I am annoyed that they keep saying that government should provide health care.  You are probably wondering why I am against such an advocating.  Well I'll tell you why.

The Church Should Just do it:  So the Christian ethos is all about helping thy neighbor.  So basically be kind, be helpful, and do the right thing.  This includes voluntary charity.  That voluntary charity also may include health care.  As such, the Church wants the governments of the world to provide health care (a form of charity) for everyone.  Ummm, one question though.  Where does the Church get off pushing its Catholic beliefs (mine) onto other peoples?  And on top of this, the charity is supposed to be "VOLUNTARY", but the way the Church wants it, is so that governments around the world will provide it for the poor, tired, and huddled masses.  Yea, this does not fly with me.  The Church to me in this case comes off (from my perspective) as shirking its responsibilities.  The Church is supposed to be Gods implement to show the light of God through various methods including charity.  So why does the Church shrug off this responsibility to someone else.  Sure, yea, there are Catholic Hospitals, but that is not the kind of healthcare I am talking about.  The one I'm talking about is free clinics and providing universal health care itself.  I mean, the order of the Knights Templar during the Crusades became the world’s bank for a while (this caused them to gain power and thus why they were destroyed), so why cannot the Church accumulate this amount of power and use it toward a positive end like health care.  Every Priest and Nun can be trained in the basics of health, hygiene and physical exercise.  They can be nutritionists, herbalists, farmers, and instructors in yoga, tai chi, and more.  Heck the Buddhists first adopted martial arts to stay healthy, so why cannot priests become the peaceful monks to the Asian warrior monks.  The Church can raise masses amounts of money to educate young priests to become Nurse Practitioners or other lesser equivalents to doctors and even pharmacists.  There is so much potential for the shepherd to educate their flock in more than just the word of God, but on nature's laws created by God, and in doing so help prevent disease and if the time should arrive treat a disease.  As far as I know, the Catholic Church dominates almost all of South America, North America and Europe.  And it has outposts throughout the rest of the developed and developing parts of our world.  And when even this is not enough, we have Christian brothers and sisters in the greater Christian philosophy that would be more than happy to join in.  I definitely see the scion of Christianity, the Mormons, joining in along with the Orthodox Church, and many Protestant sects looking to do some greater good.  I also have no doubt that our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters would be more than willing to fill the gaps left behind.  Yea, we can do it if we try.

Conclusion:  Yea I am a little annoyed.  I mean why the hell would you tell someone to do your own job when you are more than capable of doing it yourself.  There are numerous methods to making this work cheaply and successfully, but instead the Church just brushes it off.  So I say quit telling someone else to do your own damn job, and then maybe I will actually donate more than $5 to my Church every Sunday cause at least then I know it will be helping to do more than just keep the Priests fed.