Issue 524 Homeless and the homes first approach February 10, 2015

So there is another (and possibly counter intuitive) approach to getting the homeless off the streets and into homes.  It is called the homes first approach, and I’m going to tell you how it works.  (Original source is "The Economist" November 15th 2014 issue).

How it works:  It is basically no strings attached housing for the poor.  Most homeless are apparently mentally ill, alcoholic or drug addicted with many possibly being all three.  The original staircase method required the homeless to quit drinking and doing drugs before putting them into emergency and temporary housing from which they were deemed if they were eligible to be housed.  But according to the article, this staircase approach had many refusing to sign up, and less than half make it all the way to subsidized housing.   

However, the homes first approach that was come up with by Sam Tsemberis, a professor of psychiatry at New York University, in 1992 which was called Pathways to Housing is different. To successfully facilitate and impact the lives of the homeless, those at most risk of dying in the street are put to the top of the list for finding homes.  From there the homeless were given homes in cheap/poor districts.  Medical care, treatment for addiction, learning to cook, learning to pay bills and other services were offered to these individuals, but none of these was required.  After 5 years 88% of the people in the program remained housed.  Since then it has been copied around the world in 200 American cities and in Denmark, Finland, while being tried out in Japan, Australia and Canada.  This international attention has resulted in it being called the "homes first: approach.  

Why it actually saves money:  Apparently long term rough sleepers "...are 15% of all homeless people, but use more than half of all public spending including on services, medical care, detox and jail."  In Denver, Colorado, its 300 heavy utilizers costs taxpayers $37,000 each a year, but putting them into a home with support makes them cost half as much.   The Canadian city of Calgary (the first Canadian city to use the program) saw an average savings of $30,000 per person in its more acute cases.  And the savings continue with the least complex cases costing even less or nothing at all depending on the support needs.  This also allows public services to be freed up for what they are supposed to do, like police officers fighting crime rather than arresting homeless people for trespassing or being a public nuisance.

Conclusion:  Well it is overall a successful program based on what the article presented.  However, while it has been shown to improve the former homeless individual’s quality of life and even their ability to function in a community, many still continue to abuse alcohol, drugs and remain unemployable according to studies. Also, finding cheap homes is still an issue as rents and prices increase with the only possible solution being a planned public housing development.   However, this saving money and saving lives seems to be worth the cost. So what do you think, as it saves money and helps the poor at the same time?  Is it worth the effort?  I seem to think so based on the evidence given in the article.

Issue 523 Are exams outdated? February 9, 2015

Here we are going to talk a little about education and its future.  In this case with the advent of computer based learning, have exams become outmoded.  Let us discuss.

The future classroom:  Whether it is in the home or in a traditional school setting children are relying more and more on computers to learn, study and overall be judged based on their performance.  In the classroom, children sit at a computer terminal where they watch tutorials, solve puzzles and other problems and then advance in their studies at their own pace.  Teachers are in the classroom to assist students having trouble to help them over equations and problems that they can now largely learn and solve by themselves.  It is also noted that students are no longer relegated to having to wait for their peers to learn something new.  Students thus are able to continue forward even if it is supposed to be beyond their grade level.  So what does this mean for the old fashioned exams that students would prepare for, for weeks?  

Exams are gone:  Truth is, with this computer based learning system taking over, exams become useless.  Exams are designed to measure mastery over one subject at a time, or multiple subjects at once.  However, with students going at their own pace and even skipping ahead to do work that normally was taught at higher grade levels, the exam becomes displaced.  Computer learning is even able to build upon each lesson and link subjects together more easily and thus learning via computer becomes mutually supporting.   With all this in mind, exams would have to be tailored to each student to work, which would cost a lot of money.  But with computer learning however, that exam is not required to measure performance.  In fact, computers measure the performance of each child which removes wasted time studying for exams and their associated week long scheduling which takes precious learning time away from children.  Children are monitored in real time and the computer can even bring in questions to courses to aid the student who was having trouble in a particular area until they gain proficiency.  So the exam is now outmoded due to the slow adoption of real time assessment and monitoring.

Conclusion:  Yes I know, big brother will be watching our kids and their progress.  But this computer learning approach that gives our kids a chance to go farther faster and at a pace that they are comfortable with has too many advantages to pass up.  And now, the exams and other tests become a waste of time and money which inherently removes one of the biggest wastes of money in our education system next to printed textbooks.  Even SATs' and other college entrance exams can be eliminated as the student merely has to submit their computer learning information to demonstrate how well they do in all subject areas at once and thus allows them to be compared with other applicants in an expedient manner.  So what do you say my readers.  Is this a good thing for education?  As it progresses forward we will just have to wait and see.

Issue 522 Altering time?! February 6, 2015

So here we ask, why do we have Daylight savings time in the United States?  Why 24hours in a day?  And why not use military time which seems to be an international standard?  Let us discuss.

Why do we tell time the way we do:  The simple reason is because ancient people figured it all out with math.  The seven day week which we originally got from the ancient Babylonians matched perfectly with the solar and lunar cycle which defines the length of a year.  From there the 24 hours in a day was designed to match up with this to perfectly calculate hour and minute per day in correspondence with the number of days of the week.   But, why do we even tell time?  Why is it needed?  Well, think about it.  What would our day look like without being able to tell time?  We could not set up times to meet accurately, nor be efficient on tasks for working and home life.  Sailors need to tell time so they can calculate their positions at sea or else they would be thrown off course.  Farming also would be inaccurate as time, days and months help dictate harvest times to maximize crop yields and prepare for winter months.   So telling time and what day of the year all revolves around our ancient admiration of the stars, and from that we base our lives and prosperity on this ancient and powerful invention.

What is not accounted for:  Daylight savings time is an American invention that was conceived by Benjamin Franklin.  The original idea was to minimize the use of candles for people waking up in the early hours of the mornings, and for nights where dusk fell early due to seasonal changes.  More modern reasoning has it so we can be more productive by allowing people to stay out later in the evening during seasons where the sun is out till late in the afternoon, and for seasons where the sun rises early or late.  That one hour being pushed back or forward gives us literally an extra hour than we would have had if we did not use daylight savings.  And it is an American exclusive.  As such I chalk it up to cultural reasoning with Americans wanting to be productive.

What is also not accounted for is the difference between American and the rest of the world’s methods of telling time. Americans in the United States use the base 12 system counting each hour twice, while the rest of the world uses a base 24 system counting the full 24 hours in a day.  Again this is cultural, and despite our military using the base 24 system here in the United States, the society with its clocks and other cultural norms still supports base 12 for us here.

Conclusion:  So we have a reason as to why we tell time the way we do.  It has to do with the way we measure a year using celestial bodies like the sun.  As to minor differences like daylight savings, and counting 12 hours at a time over 24, we chalk this entirely to culture and possibly some inventor attempting to improve our world.

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.