America's Three Main Problems

Currently, America is experiencing several serious economic problems. Does this generation have the courage to make the hard decisions necessary? Rest assured, every problem has a solution, if we have the resolve to do what it takes. In this short article, I would like to list our three most serious political problems and offer possible solutions.

Our second President, John Adams stated: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

One measure of morality is the level of tax burden; the higher the tax burden; the lower the overall morality of the people. A low tax burden, on the other hand, indicates a high level of basic morality. Why is this? Thomas Jefferson said:

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

High taxation means that government is taking from the worker and giving to someone else who has not earned it. High taxation leads to redistribution of the wealth. Redistribution of the wealth leads to an oppressed working class and a dependent lower class that can only survive on the wealth of others. Worst of all, high taxation leads to the centralization of power from which no free society can survive.

American’s three Political Problems
1. The federal government has ventured into and controls almost all social spending.
2. Environmental regulations are keeping us from using our natural resources wisely.
3. The breakdown of the family unit.

Why these are Problems
Federal social spending
• Federal spending is out of control with 63 percent of the federal budget allocated for social spending,
• Social spending is the fastest growing portion of the federal budget
• High social spending creates a dependent class
• Social spending is the main cause of our budget deficits and threaten our monetary system
• High rates of social spending centralize power in Washington D.C.
• Social spending takes “from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” thus discouraging productive work

Environmental regulations
• A nation is wealthy because of its ability to produce
• Production takes place mainly in the big 5 industries – mining, logging, manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture
• Environmental regulations discourage and at times totally prohibit access to our nation’s natural resources
• Senseless environmental regulations increase unemployment, decrease our standard of living, and increase our budget deficits

Family breakdown
High taxes coupled with federal control of social programs cause the family unit to decline
The family is the most efficient social service delivery system ever known to man
Most childhood poverty is found in single parent homes
Most social problems are found in dysfunctional homes

Solutions
Federal spending: transfer social spending to the states. This simple act would reduce overall costs by $700 billion and reduce the federal deficit by 41 percent. How? Federal programs, by their very nature, are more expensive to run than state-run programs. Once federal programs are at the state level, they could be further modified to help people become independent rather than dependent and further reduce costs.

Environmental regulations: move to a more balanced system that protects the environment while still allowing for natural resource usage. The pendulum has swung too far towards environmental protection. It is time to rethink and reform the environmental rules and laws. States should begin to sue the federal government and environmental groups for violating the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Our general welfare is being impacted.

Family Breakdown: reduction of taxes, reform of social service programs, and acknowledgement by national and community leaders of the value of two-parent homes will allow the family to naturally heal itself with no grandiose government programs. Ill conceived government programs have been the problem.

Conclusion
It seems that we have a choice. We can continue the current course and watch the federal government self-destruct or decentralize power, reject redistribution of the wealth as impractical and immoral, and acknowledge the family as a more important tool in solving social problems than federal social programs.

HOW? We need to focus less on the office of president and focus more on Congress and State Legislatures. Do these politicians support and what is their plan to…
• Transfer social programs from the federal to the states?
• Give more control to the states to determine environmental policies?
• Strengthen the family unit?

If you agree with Rep. Steven Thayn’s views on these issues and would like to have more information or copies of this article, please contact him at 208 365-8656 or check out his blog at steven-thayn.blogspot.com or website at thayn4idaho.com

Time for Political Courage: The Untold MAPP Story

Prior to the 2009 legislative session, I brought a resolution to the State Republican Central Committee to support the concept of early graduation that was later incorporated in the MAPP bill. This resolution was defeated! Why? Some of the old guard Republican leaders thought it was too controversial.

So, I worked, without the help of the Republican Party leaders, to develop and get a resolution passed through the legislature that had all of the major points of the later MAPP bill. This resolution passed the House and got a hearing in the Senate.

After the legislative session, Rep. Branden Durst a Democrat from Boise who liked my resolution approached me to suggest that we create a pilot program. I thought this was a great idea and MAPP was born. I partnered with Rep. Durst because no Republican offered to help me.

Now fast forward to the 2010 legislative session, MAPP passed the House 61 to 7 and the Senate 27 to 7 with no organized opposition. The IEA did not oppose it. Superintendent Tom Luna supported it. Almost every major newspaper in the state supported it. There was no controversy.

Why did the old guard Republican leadership not see the potential in MAPP? Why did they see pitfalls that did not exist?

I believe they focus too much attention on the media. They tend to cater to the media rather than focus on problem solving. I think it is time to change our focus. We need kind, thoughtful, courageous leadership with vision.

MAPP and the Increasing Cost of College

MAPP and YOU

The passage of the MAPP bill (HB493) was an historic event that will benefit Idaho families in several ways. I would like to mention one of those ways.

Students using MAPP can reduce their cost of college education. Idaho colleges and universities raised their tuition almost 10 percent for this next school year. MAPP allows students to challenge classes beginning in elementary school and finish the 1-12 curriculum up to three years early. This means that your child could then take college level classes, in the high school, for one or two years and obtain an associate degree at very little cost by age 18.

Your child could then leave home and enroll in the U of I or ISU or BSU or any other public institution of higher learning and take only two years to obtain a college degree or professional technical certification.

For example, tuition at ISU cost $5,416 per year. The four year cost of tuition would be$21,664. If a student has an associate degree after leaving high school then the cost for two years of school would only be $10,832 a savings of $10,832.

This possibility was brought to your courtesy of the Idaho State Legislature and Governor Otter with bi-partisan support.

Hug your child and then thank your legislator.

Constructive Political Discourse

Constructive political discourse requires an exchange of factual information and basic principles within an historical context between two or more people desiring to understand reality

On the other hand, destructive political discourse involves an exchange of prejudices, "gotcha" moments, and ridicule

The media has long been guilty of modeling the latter by telling half-truths, withholding information, stirring up controversy and marginalizing certain political positions. This media marginalization of certain groups is one of several causes of great frustration on the part of many American citizens trying to petition their government for redress of grievances

I fear that this mixture of media bias and citizen frustration may combine to form a new toxic political extremism. What is political extremism? A comparison between a political extremist and a political realist may be instructive.

A Political Extremist verses A Political Realist

intimidation vs. persuasion
prejudice vs. facts
name calling vs. analysis
emotion vs. principle
anger vs. reason
appeal to frustration vs. appeal to person action
blaming vs. personal accountability
finds problems vs. finds solutions

I maintain that the current political landscape contains few political realists; we need more of them. It is easy to find problems and complain; it is much harder to offer solutions.

Political extremists are found on both sides of the political spectrum. Walter Bayers and Rex Rammell both tend toward political extremism; not because I disagree with their basic political positions; but rather, because they too easily abandon persuasion. Whereas, Keith Allred is a political realist, not because I agree with all of his positions; but rather, because he is willing to use reason, facts, and persuasion. Political extremism, to me, involved both the method of pursuing a political objective as well as what the political objective may be.

I find Idaho politics dominated by political realism. At the national level, however, I find political extremism to be on the increase. The country will be better served if those running for office would embrace political realism and abandon political extremism.

Response to a Social Workers Questionnaire

To; Mr. Stone: Lobbyist for the National Association of Social Workers;
From; Rep. Steven Thayn District 11

This is in response to your questionnaire.

1. Am I in favor of raising taxes on those that make $250,000 or more?
Answer: No. I don't believe that the problem is not a lack of money. The real problem lies in the nature of social programs that focus on the material needs of individuals rather than on helping them become self-sufficient. While it is true, not all individuals are able to achieve self-sufficiency, most individuals can do something to contribute. Our current system creates more dependency not less. Success should be measured by the number of individuals that don't need the assistance rather than the number of individuals on different programs.
The current system is too expensive and needs to be reformed. Simply increasing the budgets of these programs is not the answer. Already, 63 percent of the federal budget is for human services and is a phase of uncontrolled expansion.

2. Would I support the creation of a state-owned bank in Idaho and the elimination of the state's use of private for-profit banks so that all revenues would go back to the citizens of Idaho?
Answer: I don't know. This is a new issue for me. I would have to learn more about it. However, the question seems to have an anti-profit slant. I find profit a positive thing. In a free market system, people are free to make choices to buy and sell. When profit is taken out of the system, the only thing left is a state controlled economy which leads to less production and widespread poverty.

3. Will you oppose all attempts at restricting a woman's reproductive rights if you are re-elected to the Idaho Legislature?
Answer: I think what you are asking is if a woman should be able to get an abortion at any time. Life is sacred. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe governments are instituted to protect these rights. I would oppose tax funded abortions. I do think there are a few, narrow situations where an abortion could be considered. I do not support unlimited access to abortion at any time during the pregnancy.
In fact, I wonder why this is a question on a National Association of Social Workers questionnaire? How does unlimited access to abortion further the life and liberty and quality of life of individuals. It would seem that you would be interested in teaching the youth the consequences of their actions so that they can make wise and informed choices.

4. What are your top three priorities if re-elected to the Idaho Legislature?
First, help implement House Bill 493 which I wrote and allows students beginning in elementary school to challenge classes, graduate early, and get a couple of years of college completed before age 18 and while still at home saving them and the state money. This will improve their later standard of living.
Second: Stimulate the private sector of the economy (logging, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production) so as to lower unemployment rates and create a stable tax base by reducing environmental regulations.
Third: Reform the entitlement system so that it recognizes the importance of the two parent family. I would like to see the number of children raised by two biological parents increase so as to reduce poverty, abuse, and crime.

Sincerely,

Rep. Steven Thayn

Reform our social service system (Entitlements etc.)

I believe that the current entitlement system (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps etc.) needs to be reformed. I am not suggesting that society not help those in need. I am simply suggesting that our current system is inefficient, expensive, harmful to individual human progress, and undermines our system of limited government.

Definitions: Human services, social services, social program, and entitlements are nearly interchangeable in meaning. The Department of Health and Welfare administers these programs.

The numbers:
• the human service portion of the federal budget is 63 percent of the total federal budget
• at the state level, education and Health and Welfare make up 85 percent of the general fund
• at the local level almost 50 percent of all costs are social service costs
• China sends 5 percent of its GDP on Social Services while the USA spend 13 percent of its GDP

The budget problems facing America are largely because of the costs of delivering social programs.

Why have these costs increased? The answer is simple. Government social services are funded through taxation. These social programs tend to increase the number of people that need them by encouraging poor decision making. Social programs also encourage individual consumption while discouraging people to produce and work. The reason is simple. If a person on food stamps earns too much money, they no longer qualify. There is a real incentive not to work and as the number of people not working increases, the burden on the productive increases.

Also, those that do produce are punished through high taxation to fund social programs. If there were no social programs in place and all charitable giving was voluntary, then taxes could be reduce by at least 50 percent and maybe as high as a 70 percent reduction in tax levels.

It is not realistic to simply eliminate all social programs; however, they can be reformed, altered, and improved while reducing costs. These are the steps that I think we should consider:
1. Start transferring social programs from the federal government to the states. This would allow states to control costs and improve services. A place to start would be with the Medicaid program. This simple act would reduce costs by 30 percent without reducing services.
2. Eventually return all social programs to the state over a several year period.
3. Allow those that pay into Social Security to have an option of maintaining the current system or controlling their own retirement account as is done in Chile.
4. While social programs are being returned to the states, reform them from a materialistic system that helps people with material needs to a system that helps individuals become self-sufficient. Instead of giving a fish, let’s help people learn how to fish.
5. The value of the family needs to be rediscovered. The family is the most efficient social service delivery system ever invented. Parents provide social services at no cost to other taxpayers. This year the Idaho Legislature passed a bill that directed the Department of Health and Welfare to place children taken into protective custody first with extended family members, second with an adult that has a significant relationship with the child, and third in the state foster care system. This concept will increase success rates and reduce costs. Other such common sense ideas can be found if we look for them