I believe that America’s economic, social and political problems cannot be solved until after we address and reform our dysfunctional entitlement system (food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc.).
The current system causes more harm than good. It burdens our economy with high taxes by paying individuals not to work. It is changing our system of limited government into a centralized bureaucratic state. And, it is destroying the traditional two-parent family.
The federal government was never meant to take care of individuals within the individual states. This is a state responsibility. The way to reform entitlements requires a two pronged attack.
1. Transfer responsibility for these programs back to the states without federal regulations. This simple act would reduce overhead costs by 30 percent and go a long way to reducing our federal deficit. (63 percent of the federal budget is consumed by entitlements)
2. Change the nature of most entitlement programs from a dependency, handout system to a system that gives people skills and opportunities to take care of themselves.
To begin this process, I am going to suggest Idaho create a pilot program that uses correct principles of charity with the end in sight of reforming all social programs over the next 10 years. A pilot program is needed to compare and contrast the two approaches to helping the needy. Once the Idaho program is implemented and functioning, it will be easy to compare and contrast the two approaches demonstrating the need to phase out our current dysfunctional system of entitlements.
I am interested in what you think. Is it time to reform entitlements?
Monday, August 9, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Food Stamp Asset Test
I would like to share with you an email I received from a Dept. of Health and Welfare worker. The worker is commenting on my comments on a story about Food Stamps. The DHW recently removed the asset levels from Food Stamp eligibility. Now, a person can qualify for Food Stamps, no matter how much property they own, simply through income levels.
*****************************************************************************
Mr Thayn,
I am writing to express some concern about a comment I read that supposedly was said by you regarding the Asset Test at DHW. Reporter Dustin Hurst quoted you as saying the following
”The reason I believe DHW employees don’t want to deal with the asset test because it means they would have
to work,” said Thayn. ”The whole philosophy behind federal food aid is wrong because we are missing a good opportunity to teach people how to stretch their food dollars are instead teaching people to become reliant on the government for sustenance.” Thayn
Mr Thayne; I sincerely hope you were misquoted. As a "Self Reliance Specialist" I can assure you that I nor any of my fellow eligiblity workers here in the Twin Falls office of the DHW are "afraid to work", in fact I have done 9 interviews today myself and many of my co-workers have done just as many or more. Most days there is literally a line out the door in our office, which consists, I believe of a large percent of people who don't want to be here. Whether or not we have to verify resources for our clients makes no difference to me; what does however is the perception of the work we at DHW are doing. We may sit at a desk all day, but I can assure you that listening to people in crisis day in and day out and trying to give them just a little bit of help is very hard work. If you doubt it, you should try it some time!
Thank you for your time;
Name withheld
*********************************************************************
Dear Name withheld:
Thank you for your communication.
I believe that going out and determining the assets a person has would require more work. Determining income alone is much easier. Am I wrong on this? Second, giving food stamps to people only helps them in the short-term. It does not help them in the long-term. We simply cannot afford to get more and more people dependent upon government programs by paying them not to work.
The wealth of a nation is determined by the productive capacity of the people. As much as your work is supposed to help people, if you look over the last 45 years, the programs of the Great Society have done just the opposite. Until we come to this recognition and reform the system, our nation will continue to decline and experience poverty. If you would like to help me reform the system and modify it to help people become productive and independent, I would like your help.
Rep. Thayn
*****************************************************************************
Mr Thayn,
I am writing to express some concern about a comment I read that supposedly was said by you regarding the Asset Test at DHW. Reporter Dustin Hurst quoted you as saying the following
”The reason I believe DHW employees don’t want to deal with the asset test because it means they would have
to work,” said Thayn. ”The whole philosophy behind federal food aid is wrong because we are missing a good opportunity to teach people how to stretch their food dollars are instead teaching people to become reliant on the government for sustenance.” Thayn
Mr Thayne; I sincerely hope you were misquoted. As a "Self Reliance Specialist" I can assure you that I nor any of my fellow eligiblity workers here in the Twin Falls office of the DHW are "afraid to work", in fact I have done 9 interviews today myself and many of my co-workers have done just as many or more. Most days there is literally a line out the door in our office, which consists, I believe of a large percent of people who don't want to be here. Whether or not we have to verify resources for our clients makes no difference to me; what does however is the perception of the work we at DHW are doing. We may sit at a desk all day, but I can assure you that listening to people in crisis day in and day out and trying to give them just a little bit of help is very hard work. If you doubt it, you should try it some time!
Thank you for your time;
Name withheld
*********************************************************************
Dear Name withheld:
Thank you for your communication.
I believe that going out and determining the assets a person has would require more work. Determining income alone is much easier. Am I wrong on this? Second, giving food stamps to people only helps them in the short-term. It does not help them in the long-term. We simply cannot afford to get more and more people dependent upon government programs by paying them not to work.
The wealth of a nation is determined by the productive capacity of the people. As much as your work is supposed to help people, if you look over the last 45 years, the programs of the Great Society have done just the opposite. Until we come to this recognition and reform the system, our nation will continue to decline and experience poverty. If you would like to help me reform the system and modify it to help people become productive and independent, I would like your help.
Rep. Thayn
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Republican Party State Convention: The Good News and the Bad
I fear the conservatives are committing two major mistakes. First, they are impatient and want to move too quickly which will scare the voters. Second, they have little strategy to implement their policies. They have confused principle adoption with policy formation.
For example, the Convention voted to repeal the income tax; yet, had no suggestions on how to reduce spending to make these tax cuts possible. Tax cuts cannot come without spending cuts; yet, no resolution was introduced indicating where spending reductions could or should take place.
With a significant Republican/Conservative shift likely to occur in November, the lack of well thought out Conservative policy initiatives will negate this opportunity. Conservatives have no plan; just principles. The Conservatives in the Republican Party need to formulate policy initiatives to deal with social programs in Health and Welfare that require 20 percent of the State budget and education that requires another 65 percent of the State budget. Until I hear these two issues being addressed, I don’t see any real changes taking place in Idaho or at the federal level.
For example, the Convention voted to repeal the income tax; yet, had no suggestions on how to reduce spending to make these tax cuts possible. Tax cuts cannot come without spending cuts; yet, no resolution was introduced indicating where spending reductions could or should take place.
With a significant Republican/Conservative shift likely to occur in November, the lack of well thought out Conservative policy initiatives will negate this opportunity. Conservatives have no plan; just principles. The Conservatives in the Republican Party need to formulate policy initiatives to deal with social programs in Health and Welfare that require 20 percent of the State budget and education that requires another 65 percent of the State budget. Until I hear these two issues being addressed, I don’t see any real changes taking place in Idaho or at the federal level.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Every Student Could Graduate with an Associate Degree from H.S.
Yesterday, I started crunching some numbers to see what a student in the 6th grade had to do in order to graduate from high school with two years of college. The strategy used below is based upon taking all 72 semesters worth of classes required by the public school system for grades 6-12, a 7 period day, and taking two classes every summer from IDLA. It does not include challenging classes that is allowed under Idaho law.
Vallivue school district has a plan in place that allows a high school freshman to finish high school with an associate degree by taking concurrent enrollment classes. This program does not begin until the freshman year which means that by taking summer classes and/or challenging some classes a student could finish high school with an associate degree even sooner. Here is the class schedule.
Total classes needed 72
7th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 56 classes remaining
8th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 40 classes remaining
9th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 24 classes remaining
10th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 8 remaining
11th grade
12th grade
All classes taken during the junior and senior year could count toward an associate degree or a professional technical skill by using concurrent enrollment. Concurrent enrollment is a class that counts both for high school credit and college credit.
If you have any questions please email me at ssthayn@aol.com
Vallivue school district has a plan in place that allows a high school freshman to finish high school with an associate degree by taking concurrent enrollment classes. This program does not begin until the freshman year which means that by taking summer classes and/or challenging some classes a student could finish high school with an associate degree even sooner. Here is the class schedule.
Total classes needed 72
7th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 56 classes remaining
8th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 40 classes remaining
9th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 24 classes remaining
10th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 8 remaining
11th grade
12th grade
All classes taken during the junior and senior year could count toward an associate degree or a professional technical skill by using concurrent enrollment. Concurrent enrollment is a class that counts both for high school credit and college credit.
If you have any questions please email me at ssthayn@aol.com
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Public Education and the Idaho Constitution
The Idaho State Constitution in Article IX section 1 states “…it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free, common schools.” What does “thorough” mean?
The teachers union (IEA) has equated “thorough” to mean adequately funded. The IEA would logically make this connection because of the relationship between funding and teacher salaries. However, the primary purpose of public education is to educate children; whereas, teacher pay is a secondary issue and important only in that it is a means to an end. The end is the education of children.
Section 1 also gives the reason for public schools: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people…” Schools were to be established to help the citizens become intelligent and educated and capable of self-government.
The Idaho Constitution gives few details concerning the nature of public education. It simply defines the prime purpose.
Public education has come to mean:
1. 180 days of attendance
2. 7 hour school day
3. 5 day school week
4. k-12 years of school
5. 44 - 48 credits hours of work in high school
6. 3 years of high school math
7. Students taught by a certified teacher
8. Public bussing
9. Sports activities
10. Music, band, drama, etc.
None of these above 10 items or educational traditions are listed in the Idaho State Constitution. They are all policies that we have adopted in the years since 1890. The State Constitution gives us a goal with no or little direction of how to accomplish the goal.
Is there an assessment to see if the goal of public education has been reached? When each student graduates from high school are they capable of self-government? What makes a citizen capable of self-government? Has this been defined? If not, why not? This is our Constitutional mandate for public education.
What does a person need in order to support a “republican form of government”? I ask this question for two reasons. The first is to clarify the purpose of public schools. It seems much of school funding discussions have focused on adult salaries. It’s time to shift our focus to student outcomes, and then make adjustment to take care of the needs of adults. Second, Idaho is experiencing serious budget shortfalls. If Idaho continues to experience budget shortfalls, Idaho taxpayers will not be able to afford all of the educational traditions that we have been able to fund in the past. A serious look at the core reason for education may clarify our thinking in deciding which programs are necessary and which are not.
The teachers union (IEA) has equated “thorough” to mean adequately funded. The IEA would logically make this connection because of the relationship between funding and teacher salaries. However, the primary purpose of public education is to educate children; whereas, teacher pay is a secondary issue and important only in that it is a means to an end. The end is the education of children.
Section 1 also gives the reason for public schools: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people…” Schools were to be established to help the citizens become intelligent and educated and capable of self-government.
The Idaho Constitution gives few details concerning the nature of public education. It simply defines the prime purpose.
Public education has come to mean:
1. 180 days of attendance
2. 7 hour school day
3. 5 day school week
4. k-12 years of school
5. 44 - 48 credits hours of work in high school
6. 3 years of high school math
7. Students taught by a certified teacher
8. Public bussing
9. Sports activities
10. Music, band, drama, etc.
None of these above 10 items or educational traditions are listed in the Idaho State Constitution. They are all policies that we have adopted in the years since 1890. The State Constitution gives us a goal with no or little direction of how to accomplish the goal.
Is there an assessment to see if the goal of public education has been reached? When each student graduates from high school are they capable of self-government? What makes a citizen capable of self-government? Has this been defined? If not, why not? This is our Constitutional mandate for public education.
What does a person need in order to support a “republican form of government”? I ask this question for two reasons. The first is to clarify the purpose of public schools. It seems much of school funding discussions have focused on adult salaries. It’s time to shift our focus to student outcomes, and then make adjustment to take care of the needs of adults. Second, Idaho is experiencing serious budget shortfalls. If Idaho continues to experience budget shortfalls, Idaho taxpayers will not be able to afford all of the educational traditions that we have been able to fund in the past. A serious look at the core reason for education may clarify our thinking in deciding which programs are necessary and which are not.
Friday, May 28, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, May 21, 2010
New Sawmill in Emmett
I attended the opening and ribbon cutting of the first new sawmill opened in the last 15 years. Emerald Forest Products is owned by Dick Vinson, Dennis Drake, and the Pruyn family. It will provide 47 new jobs. The sawmill is located on the old Boise-Cascade sawmill site in Emmett.
Our standard of living and quality of life depend upon access to natural resources. That is where our wealth comes from. The saw mill cost $10 million to open. This is an investment of $212,000 per employee. Another 30 jobs will be created to support the mill in related industries. This mill and the jobs created add to our tax base and our overall standard of living.
By contrast, the Health and Welfare budget was $1.7 billion in Idaho last year. If that $1.7 billion had been used to invest in production facilities at the rate of $212,000 per employee, Idaho could have had 8,018 new jobs created to run the facilities plus another 5,100 support jobs. Imagine creating 13,000 new jobs. Instead, we are spending $1.7 billion and the money is simply gone. No new buildings, no new jobs, and no new businesses that pay taxes.
The lost economic opportunity is one of the problems with our current entitlement system. At the end of 10 years we could have 130,000 new jobs with the money now being spent on government social programs. Now, I understand that we can’t simply eliminate all social programs; but, we should be able to reduce the costs of the programs and free up capital for business expansion. A job is a higher form of charity than a government handout.
Our standard of living and quality of life depend upon access to natural resources. That is where our wealth comes from. The saw mill cost $10 million to open. This is an investment of $212,000 per employee. Another 30 jobs will be created to support the mill in related industries. This mill and the jobs created add to our tax base and our overall standard of living.
By contrast, the Health and Welfare budget was $1.7 billion in Idaho last year. If that $1.7 billion had been used to invest in production facilities at the rate of $212,000 per employee, Idaho could have had 8,018 new jobs created to run the facilities plus another 5,100 support jobs. Imagine creating 13,000 new jobs. Instead, we are spending $1.7 billion and the money is simply gone. No new buildings, no new jobs, and no new businesses that pay taxes.
The lost economic opportunity is one of the problems with our current entitlement system. At the end of 10 years we could have 130,000 new jobs with the money now being spent on government social programs. Now, I understand that we can’t simply eliminate all social programs; but, we should be able to reduce the costs of the programs and free up capital for business expansion. A job is a higher form of charity than a government handout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)