Issue 521 The Auditing Office February 5, 2015

This is one of my own concepts that I have been developing overtime.  The goal was to simplify government with respect to monitoring where and how funds are spent.  So this issue is a re-hash of that idea, and my attempt to improve upon the concept.  Let us begin.

What it is supposed to do:

1) All auditing functions in the federal government become centralized in this one agency under the treasury department.  It eliminates the need for Presidents and the Senate to appoint and confirm auditors for each individual department which saves time and money.  As such, only two people would need to be confirmed, the leader and deputy of this new agency, with everyone else being hired out for the job by them or similar department.

2)  As part of the auditing process, these men and women of the Auditing office would pick and choose projects and agencies at their leisure.  This is meant to insure that each agency is completely unprepared for such an audit and thus forces them to keep their accounts and successes recorded on a daily basis in order to comply at a moment’s notice.  Overall, this ensures transparency and saves money.  (There will also be a method of punishment if they do not comply, save freezing pay, funds, or halting promotions, and transferring people out of the non-compliant agency or office).

3) The Auditing office would have the power to shut down programs they deem superfluous, redundant or wasteful if they do not meet a set criteria.  That criteria will be set by Congress and approved by the President, but if the Congress and or the President fail to perform such, the auditing office will do create their own.  The Auditing office can even shut down or reorganize or merge entire agencies, departments or programs as they see fit without approval of any other government body.   To ensure there is no corruption involved, or that the merger, or removal of program or agency is good, the Auditing office will have three teams evaluate the merits based on the evidence suggested.  Team A will look for reasons to abolish, or merge, while team B will try to refute team A's reasoning and justify the continued existence of a program or agency.  Team C will have the job of evaluating both team A and B's findings and arguments with them making the final decision.

4)  Within this Auditing office will be the Human Resources department.  It will conduct all the hiring, firing, promotions and transfers of the entire federal government.  In this department, they will evaluate each individual worker in the federal government to see their skill set, productivity, ability to work with others, and other performance factors to determine if they are worth keeping, or if they can be reassigned to a place they can be even more useful.

5) Another office in the Auditing office would be the Internal Office.  Here this office will perform the same tasks as listed in numbers one through four, but in this case applying it to the auditing office.  Basically it acts like internet affairs.

Possibilities of other powers:  

1) The office can audit elected representatives to look for corruption.

2) Any money saved from mergers, or elimination of programs, departments or agencies will be collected by this office, used to pay for their functions to keep them financially independent of the Congress (thus avoiding corruption and obscurity) save the Internal Office to keep egos in check.  Any money left over from expenses will be used to pay off the national debt.

3) The office can reduce funds going to a program, department or agency if there is a surplus going to said program department or agency and then use it to fund a different program, department or agency that is deemed worthwhile, but is considered underfunded.

4) The office will look for other methods and technologies to make the government as financially efficient and work efficient as possible.  As such they will also have the means of proposing methods of adoption (if those methods require financial funding) to Congress.  If said methods do not require financial support, then the Auditing office, after approval from the internal office may implement the method or technology in any way they deem fit.

Conclusion:  Overall, the idea is to simplify government, and make it cost efficient.  Congress seems inept at this, and we may not want to give such powers to the President.  So where do we turn, an independent panel or group we call experts.  As such, this is my proposal for an Auditing office.

Issue 520 Selling organs Post-mortem February 4, 2015

So at current most countries in the world make it illegal to sell organs (with Iran being the only exception with Kidneys).  But what if you yourself could not profit off of said organs?  What if the money went to your family instead?  Let us discuss.

Concept:  While many people are squeamish about selling organs, our bodies’ parts are worth a lot of money.  The reason why many people are against the profit motivation is because they think it hurts the idea that people voluntarily give organs away to the sick, and that to profit off selling your body in this way is just in poor taste.  So what if we lose the profit for the seller, and instead make it a beneficiary that profits instead?  Basically the person who volunteers to be an organ donor can check a box which would allow his/her organs to be sold at market value after death with a beneficiary(s) being able to reap in the money.  The beneficiary(s) of course would not know they would get money upon the individual's death from selling the body parts until the after the death of that individual.  Obviously the purpose of this is to protect the post mortem seller, and to enable the dead person to give at least one last financial gift to their family or other individuals.

Purpose:  Basically, many families struggle after the death of a loved one, and that may include financial struggle as well.  By allowing the organs to be sold to hospitals, charities or even to universities for either study or donation, the family of the individual benefits.  Also, recipients of the organs benefit as they can bypass waiting lists which would insure survival of many more people in need of an organ transplant.  Obviously, to protect from corruption and sale directly to individuals, only universities, hospitals and licensed charities could buy them and then trade them among themselves to insure the organ is used to benefit someone or science as a whole.  As such, less waste of both time and effort as organizations actively seek to buy and give organs to those who need them.

Conclusion:  While the premise of the idea is simple, in practice there are many obstacles.  For one, if an organ can be used for a transplant, can we guarantee it will not be used for science instead?  Will this increase the cost of organ transplants?  Is there a method in this that allows the transplants to pay for themselves? Also, does this method leave the poor without a chance of getting a transplant themselves?  And finally, the question of getting world governments to agree to this scheme.  There is much to be worked out, and yet no immediate answers.  So for now this is simply a thought experiment.

Issue 519 The Non-citizens should not be taxed!? February 3, 2015

Did you know that people who live here legally, but are not citizens pay taxes?  Yes, depending on the circumstances these people pay taxes even though cannot vote.  Let us discuss.

How they are taxed:  While resident and nonresident noncitizen individuals may not get deductions, they are in fact taxed on all revenue garnered in the United States.  So as long as you make money inside the United States, regardless if you are a citizen or not, you will be taxed.  Now the question is, does this make sense?

Why they should not be taxed on income/assets:  My logic is as follows, they are not citizens, and thus not able to vote for representation which would affect them financially.  So the fact that they cannot vote for a representative means they are being taxed without representation (which was one of the original reasons that the 13 colonies separated from England and became the United States).  While I do acknowledge sales taxes should be maintained regardless of citizenship, the fact is, these people are being forced to pay taxes to a country they have no allegiance to.  And thus I see it as unfair as it is to tax any individual who does not have the right to vote.  

Conclusion:  Some may think this unfair that non-citizens will not pay taxes while citizens do and vice versa.  However, our income tax code is fundamentally flawed and taxing people directly (if the 16th Amendment did not exist) should be illegal.  Personally, I feel that no noncitizen, or anyone unable to vote should be taxed via their income or assets in the United States whatsoever.  It would be better to just maintain a sales tax so that you get to decide how much money you want to give to the government every time you buy something.  I believe in fairness, and this to me in my opinion is not fair.

Issue 518 The Church as a bank? February 2, 2015

The concept here is simple.  Should the church take on some of the functions of a bank?  Let us discuss.

The idea:  What inspired me for this idea is the Knights Templar of the Crusades.  They actually acted as something similar to a bank and thus had vast sums of wealth to call on (this also made them a target and thus there overall extermination).  So in the modern concept, the Church would provide bank accounts to the people where there will be no fees imposed, no interest collected or earned, and provide loans that do not garner interest either.  Basically, it would act as a bank primarily to the poor, who lack the money or assets to open a traditional bank account at a normal bank (though people of higher incomes would be able to open accounts as well).  

Purpose:  The main goal is for the poor to finally have a safe place to deposit their money with little risk to that money being stolen (i.e. part of the reason banks were created in the first place).  Traditional banks charge fees just to take out money or put money in as a service charge, but a bank run through the church would not be able to do that.  Also, the church can provide loans that gain no interest and thus make it easier for poorer elements of society to pay back a loan and thus not go into debt (which exacerbates poverty).  Of course in return, no interest will be given to those with the accounts either as money in this case becomes a finite resource (there is no revenue earning opportunities which would allow such services).  Also, there is a possibility that because the account is run by the church, then the government would not be able to seize the money inside your account due to the separation between church and State.  Hence it becomes a form of tax haven as well which will in turn protect people’s assets.  

Goals:  For one, it provides another use for the church, in this case protecting people’s money.  It also allows them to use the funds in the same way regular banks use loans, but in this case to support the church and perform charity.  It will enable a form of protection for bank accounts as the church is not subject to market devaluation or influences like regular banks.  So they cannot shut down.  Also, with the church being everywhere they can mutually support one another if funds run low for any reason.  A final benefit and goal is to empower people's money.  In this case due to the vast amount of types of currencies that the church collects, they can exchange funds based on value at any given church location free of charge.  Not only that, if the value of say the Euro, or the dollar goes down, they can convert your money to the next strongest currency.  As such, the value of your money will always be maintained.

Conclusion:  Money is precious, but we put it into institutions that place the money at risk.  The church, while still risky in some capacities is still a safer bet than a regular bank and they will not charge you an arm and a leg to keep and take money out of your own account.  Heck, the church can even monitor your money for you and give you tips on places to find and buy your goods cheaper.  All in all, is this a good idea?  Possibly if handled correctly.  But if this idea is worthwhile, then let’s hope the church implements it soon.

Issue 517 The Church and studying diseases January 30, 2015

OK, I am here to advocate that the Church actively study diseases and report on them to the community at large.  Let's discuss my reasoning.

Reason 1:  First and foremost, having an additional body that studies diseases and shares information ensures that there is more diversity in the search for a cure.  In this, I mean that scientific institutions may focus on one or a dozen ways to find a cure for a specific disease.  As such, there could be numerous other methods and varieties of cures/treatments left untested due to lack of resources, funding or manpower.  So by turning over the more basic research, or even an entire avenue of research to another body ensures that another potential cure can be found, allows for a variety of research opportunities and also allows more information to be shared which could lead to other cures and treatments.

Reason 2:  The church also has a large sum of money to call upon to research a disease, or even act as a conduit to share information.  With the churches resources, even a village in Africa or other part of the globe with no access to the World Wide Web can provide information on a disease. 

Reason 3:  The church may be less political than some other government and private institutions funding and doing research.  Reason being is that the church does not seek to make a profit.  They seek to enlighten and empower individuals through the word of God.  So it is not a stretch to say they could add the fight against diseases to their resume for their own purposes of spreading the word of God and solving global issues for the sake of gathering new parishioners. 

Reason 4:  This also expands the capabilities of the Priesthood.  Now, not only will Priests bring forth the word of God, but they can advise their parishioners on how to stay healthy during flu season, or even how to avoid getting sick from all sorts of diseases.  This will bring new respect to the Priesthood, and allow it to be a viable career choice if applied correctly (basically more people may actually become priests as a result of the "selfless" nature of the research being done through the church).

Conclusion:  I do not know for sure if the church already cooperates on the search for cures, but they more than likely already cooperate in the prevention of diseases.  So my suggestions expand upon the status quo to transform the church into an organization bent on not just saving peoples souls but their health and general wellbeing as well.

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.