Is the United States a Kind Society?

The goal of a kind society should be to help every person become self-sufficient and independent. How does the United States measure up? To answer, this question, we need to list four approaches to charity -- from least desirable to most desirable.

1. Have the government take wealth through taxation and give it to the needy.
2. Voluntarily assist the poor.
3. Mentor the poor and help them produce their own wealth.
4. Become self-sustaining and able to help others.

The problem with method #1 and #2 is that the needy are still poor. They are given a fish but are not taught how to fish. These two approaches perpetuate and increase poverty.

Methods #3 and #4 are vastly superior because they help people grow by focusing on individual needs. These two methods teach a man to fish and focus on production and self-sufficiency.

The America government’s approach to helping the poor employs the worst of all methods of charity – using the force of government to redistribute the wealth. I think it is time to use the higher levels of charity. Our needy deserve it.

The Forgotten Man

The Forgotten Man” is an essay that bears reviewing. The entire essay can be found at: http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm

"The Forgotten Man"
By William Graham Sumner.
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) was a Professor of Political Economy and of Sociology at Yale.


The current Health and Welfare system is unsustainable. For the first time in American history, the sum total of all federal taxes collected will not be enough to pay for the cost of entitlements. The system is unsustainable. Unsustainable means that it must be changed and reformed or it will collapse the economic system of the United States.

The reason for the collapse is very easy to understand. Any kindergarten child could follow the logic. The current system encourages consumption and discourages production. As more and more people require charitable support provided by government, there are fewer individuals producing. When the number of consumers exceeds the ability of the productive to produce, the system collapses and general, widespread, oppressive poverty occurs.

I believe we can avoid widespread poverty; but only if we make systemic changes to the Health and Welfare system. The changes can be made; but only after the need to make changes is recognized.

Higher Ed and Cuts

In House Education Committee today, we heard from three university student body presidents: Kelby Wilson U of I, Ross Knight ISU, and Clay Long LCSC. All three were well spoken, articulate and concerned about higher education. Their parents should be proud.

These three young people raised a question in my mind. How can funding be stabilized for higher education? I see five options:
1. We can make cuts in the state budget in other areas to protect higher ed spending. If we decide to do this, where should we make these cuts?
2.Increase efficiencies and change the culture at higher education to reduce the costs. If so, what are these changes?
3. Increase taxes. Is this possible?
4. Increase the ability of universities to self-fund. What can universities do to create funding through self-perpetuating activities?
5. Increase the ability of students to pay for their own education by encouraging high school students to get professional-technical certificates in high school.

The easy route is simply to raise taxes. I think that this option would harm the economy and is not available to us. I believe we need innovative solutions that require addressing budget cuts, increased efficiencies of higher education, and self-funding. It is time we become truly innovative.

A Heartwarming Story for Parents

Should everyone get a college degree? Or, should more young people get a professional-technical degree? Let me tell you a story. On January 26th in the House Education Committee, Dene Thomas the president of LCSC shared with us an experience she had with one of her daughters.

The daughter said she did not want to go to college and if she was forced to go she would fail. Dr. Thomas asked, “What do you want to do?”

The daughter replied, “I want to be a dental assistant.”

So the daughter went to school, got her dental assistant certificate, worked two weeks, and then decided she wanted to go to college. She didn’t like being a slave of the doctor. Was the time spent obtaining a dental assistant certificate wasted? NO. She used her certificate to work summers and during vacations to fill in for other dental assistants, in this manner, was able to pay for her college education.

I got thinking. The state is going to require a senior project for all seniors to graduate in 2013. Maybe this requirement should be waived for anyone who gets a professional-technical certification.

War, Bush, Democrats, Republicans, and the 2010 Election

The Democratic strategy of blaming Pres. Bush worked well in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. It appears that blaming Bush is no longer working; but what if the Democrats do dust of the old “blame Bush” strategy? What should Republicans do? I have a suggestion.

We should acknowledge the Bush mistakes. We should recognize that Bush supported a costly war that was fought with little support from the regional nations in the Middle East. Yes, I, too, was wrong for supporting the war in 2001. According to Costofwar.com, the war in Iraq since 2001 has cost America over $700 billion. Imagine if we had invested 700 billion into electrical generation facilities. We could have build around 70,000 20 megawatt facilities and generated enough power for 140 million homes. This would have largely solved our energy dependence on the Middle East and stimulated our economy. We would probably not be in a recession at this moment.

But why stop at blaming Bush, it seems that we are still hampered and harmed by the policies of the Great Society that LBJ saddled us with. Republicans ought to blame LBJ and his ill-conceived social policies that have cost 10 times as much as the war in Iraq. It seems that we need to declare war on foolish policies at home before we go and fight expensive wars in other places in the world where we are not wanted.

I maintain that it is time for politicians in both parties to take ownership of the mistakes of the past, correct them, and solve them. I believe the voters want a balanced budget, wise use of funds for social services, a stimulated private sector economy, and a peaceful world through strength. Republicans understand these issues better than the current administration in Washington D.C. that seems ashamed of American greatness.

The Failure of Obama's Economic Policies

Idaho is suffering from a poor economy. I believe that Obama and almost all politicians have misdiagnosed our economic problems and their policies will make the economy worse. Obama’s policies are based upon Keynesian economics that stimulate consumption and discouraging production. This is a formula for unemployment; government budget deficits, monetary devaluation, and widespread poverty. Let me explain why.

The purpose of an economy is to produce wealth. As production increases, standards of living increase and unemployment decreases. A healthy society celebrates producers, workers, and self-sufficiency. A prosperous society maximizes the number of workers in agriculture, mining, logging, and manufacturing because these four activities are the source of wealth; at the same time keeping government and medical jobs and expenses at a minimum.

Keynesian/Obama economic policies fail because they focus on monetary policies that increase consumption and discourage production. These policies increase government jobs and the number of individuals on government programs while discouraging production through high taxation and senseless regulation.

Consider a car. A care needs both oil and fuel. Oil protects the engine while gasoline provides the power. Money is like oil. Gasoline is like production. Keynesian economics is like checking the oil every 10 minutes but forgetting to but any gas in the tank. It will not take long before the car stops moving.

Money doesn’t disappear no matter who spends it; however, wealth disappears if no one produces it and before long there is nothing to buy. The absolute lack of concern for increasing private sector production in agriculture, mining, logging, and manufacturing is the dilemma of Keynesian economics. Do you hear your politician calling for an increase in production and private sector job growth?

Entitlements and Federal Deficits?

Last year, the federal government ran a $1.4 trillion deficit which was three times as high as Pres. Bush. (and we thought Bush spent too much) Over 65 percent of the federal budget goes to pay for entitlements and payments on the national debt.

The Founding Fathers never expected the federal government to take care of the poor. This was not a federal responsibility. This was a family, church, and local responsibility.
Consider:

• federal programs cost 30 to 50 percent more than state programs
• if all federal social programs were returned to the states along with the revenue for these programs
• then, a state like Idaho couls save 30 percent or $500 million on its $1.9 billion H&W budget
  

$500 million, used more efficiently at the state level, could solve many of Idaho's budget problems and allow the federal government to get its fiscal house in order.

Balance the budget on the backs of the poor?

“AARP is warning legislators and the Governor of the dire effects the proposed cuts and sending them a simple message: Don’t balance the budget on the backs of the state’s most vulnerable residents.” (AARP Jan. 21, 2010 news release)

Is the AARP helping to solve the problem or just making sound bites with of little or no practical value? This statement sounds reasonable; but, what do the facts tell us? Of the Idaho general fund budget, 65 percent goes to Education and 20 percent to the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) added together an astounding 85 percent of the budget! The state revenues have fallen from an expected $2.959 billion budget in 2009 to $2.28 billion in 2010. This is a $679 million decline in the last two years or a 22 percent budget decline.

This means that if every other department in State government were totally eliminated including the Idaho State Police, Corrections, Park and Recs, the State Legislature, and the Courts, the legislature would still have to cut $236 million from Education and DHW.

Since Education by definition is for the young and DHW funding is for the poor and defenseless, then the only other choice AARP seems to accept is to raise taxes. The reality is that if taxes are raised, it will probably harm the economy resulting in fewer tax collections in coming years. We can no longer raise taxes. We cannot hold Education and DHW harmless. The third choice, the reasonable choice, is to work together to prioritize services and then improve services at less cost.

Are spending cuts harmful or is this an opportunity?

“AARP is warning legislators and the Governor of the dire effects the proposed cuts and sending them a simple message:  Don’t balance the budget on the backs of the state’s most vulnerable residents.”  (AARP Jan. 21, 2010 news release)

This is the tone of the AARP and many other social activists within the state.  They seem to think that the state has no fat; that budget cuts are harmful to the poor and elderly; and only bad can come from declining revenues.  I disagree.  This year is a wonderful time to reevaluate our priorities, cut the fat out of the bloated state government, and develop new ways of doing business that can improve services while reducing costs.  Let’s look at the facts. 

The state revenues have fallen from an expected $2.959 billion budget in 2009 to $2.28 billion in 2010.  This is a $679 million decline in the last two years or a 22 percent budget decline.   I maintain that the first $500 million worth of cuts caused minimal disruption of services to the citizens of Idaho.  Yes, it will be difficult to cut another $150 to $200 million; however, I am convinced that it can be done.  It will benefit the taxpayer, improve government services, fix some problems that can’t be done in years of high prosperity, and focus our attention on the most important functions of state government.   

The only other alternative is to raise taxes. 

Reform DHW

Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) members testified in favor of a one year removal of the asset test for food stamps that greatly increases the number of citizens eligible for food stamps. I want to share why I believe this specific proposal and the whole H&W system is unsustainable and must be reformed.
First, the federal budget is unsustainable. Neither raising taxes nor increasing the federal deficit is possible without harming the economy or threatening to destroy our monetary system. A monetary collapse, by itself, would stop all federal social spending harming all those dependent upon federal services when they disappear.

Second, the current H&W system is based upon the redistribution of wealth through force. Taxes are not voluntary. This legal theft is justified by many because it is thought to benefit those in need; however, true charity is voluntary. Our current system of forced charity distorts the economy, negatively impacts the character of the people, and creates a growing class of dependent individuals. All of which, will probably destroy our system of limited government and transform America into a centralized, bureaucratic state.

Third, the current system stimulates consumption without encouraging production. As the number of individuals that consume without producing increases the overall wealth of the nation decreases leading, eventually, to generalized poverty. What we need is a policy of charity that leads to generalized wealth through increasing the productive capacity of the recipients.

I believe we need a new vision of charity. We need a reformation of the current system based upon:

• Private charity
• Building family capacity rather than state programs
• Lower taxes
• Strengthening of the interfaith network

This is a vision of sustainable charity. There has never been a better time to begin the process. For many years, the federal government has assumed more and more responsibility for delivering social services. Deficits and social problems have increased in a direct proportion to the growth of federal power.

We need to reverse the process and petition for the return to the states of this responsibility along with the resources that accompany them. According to our Founding Fathers, the federal government was never meant to be responsible for the needs of individuals within the states. The simple act of removing this responsibility from the federal government and giving it back to the states would reduce the cost of social services by 30 to 50 percent and would, almost immediately, solve federal and state budget problems.