The End of the Age of ‘NO’?

Current Republican and Democrat proposals and policies are not capable of solving the problems with the economy and growth of government. The predictable response of Democrats to every challenge is to raise taxes, spend more money, and increase the role of government. This approach is not solving our problems but it is ruining the economy. Massive federal deficits, heavy burden of taxation, rapid and out of control growth of entitlements, and growth in social programs which undermine the family are all the direct result of Democrat’s love affair with big government.

As bad as the Democrat approach is, the Republican plan may be even worse. What plan? They are the party of ‘no’. This is no longer acceptable. Americans demand real solutions to real problems. If more government and simply saying ‘no’ is not the answer, then what is?
I believe our problems are not being solved because problems have been misdiagnosed.

In the past, we have focused on consumption.
We need to focus on production.

In the past, we have focused on redistribution of the wealth.
We need to focus on redistributing the ability to work.

In the past, we have built government social programs.
We need to build the ability of the family to provide its own social services.

In the past, we have demonized and discouraged private sector usage of natural resources.
We need to recognize our economy and jobs are dependent upon a balanced and responsible use of natural resources.

In the past, we allowed the federal government to be responsible for social programs.
In the future, the state and the local communities and families need to be responsible for social programs.

In the past, we focused on monetary policy.
In the future, we need to focus on production policy.

In the past, government jobs and private sector jobs were of equal value.
In the future, private sector jobs need to be seen as production jobs while government jobs are seen as consumption jobs.

In the past, redistribution of the wealth was seen as a form of charity.
In the future, giving a person a skill and a job will be seen as a higher form of charity.

America can solve its problems if we correctly identify them. We need to focus on production, not consumption. Deficit spending, Keynesian economics, and funding government social programs are all examples of policies based upon consumption. Consider; social programming consumes 63 percent of the federal budget and 85 percent of the state budget. If we reduce costs in these areas, tax cuts will be easy. How can tax cuts come before spending reduction?

Many Republicans and Democrats share my concerned about the growth of federal deficits and increasing taxes. However, most citizens do not realize the cause of government growth. The federal government has grown in the 20th century almost exclusively in one area – entitlements. They now make up 63 percent of the federal budget -- up from 28 percent in 1965. (Entitlements are payments to people not to work. Can you imagine anything more detrimental to our standard of living and the mental health of a people?)

The solution, I suggest, is to transfer entitlement spending from the federal government back to the states where current services could be maintained at a 30 percent reduction in costs. The cost reduction is achievable because of the wasteful nature of federal programs. Then, as social programs are transferred, slowly over time, to the states, the states can move toward a mentor system of social programming that helps individuals become self-sufficient and productive. In this manner, social spending could be reduced as much as 50 to 75 percent within 10 years. The federal deficit completely eliminated, people put back to work, and America will once again become the financial giant it was meant to be.

Many school teachers and those involved in Health and Welfare programs have come to me, as a state legislator, and asked me to raise taxes. They assert that we cannot reduce spending to public schools or on social programs without harming services. I explain to them the following:

Tax revenues come mainly from private sector economy activity. The reason tax revenues are down is because private sector economic activity has been reduced. If we want to stabilize the tax base then we need to increase private sector economic activity in 5 main areas: mining, logging, manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture. We cannot stimulate these five areas and put people back to work with our current system of environmental regulations. They need to be reformed to allow us to use our natural resources. If you want more money for schools and social programs; help me reform the environmental laws and regulations.

No one seems to know how to respond negatively against this common sense reasoning.
This short essay is a basic outline of the problems and plan of action that I believe America needs to pursue. We can begin in Idaho. If you agree with me, share it with your friends and neighbors. I am also very interested in your insights and wisdom. Together, we can change America back to a limited government, prosperous, charitable Republic. If you are interested in receiving updates on these efforts and specific, practical legislation that can be implemented in the next legislative session, please feel free to contact me at stvnthn4@aol.com.

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.

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.

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.

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.