A 50 year plan moves forward

If you read monoblogue during the first half of the year, you’ll certainly know that I spent several posts talking about what I call my 50 year plan – so-called because it’s going to take at least the next two generations to implement some of the sweeping changes I seek. Hopefully I’ll be around to see them!

At this juncture I’m going to take my thoughts on the direction our country should go down two paths. One of these paths will be posted on monoblogue for all to see and the other will hopefully find a wider audience sometime in the near-term future.

Starting later this week, I’m going to use most of these pet issues I care about to compare and contrast the Republican presidential candidates and see which ones I think are best suited to run the country. And as an added bonus, I’ll rate the Democrats and minor party ones as well, insofar as I can with some of the limited information available to me from some of the lesser lights.

From the sixteen chapters I originally devoted to the 50 year plan, I’ve whittled them down to 12 issues that I’m going to grade the candidates on. After looking at the issues and rereading the posts, I’ve decided that some are related enough to be combined. I also graded the twelve in order of importance, so what I’ll do is begin the process with the twelfth most important and proceed, probably on a semi-weekly basis, to number one. I’m shooting for this to run on Tuesdays and Fridays starting this coming Friday. I’m also exploring other ways to interact with various campaigns.

I’ll need to work offline as I can for the second path. One goal I had in doing the 50 year plan was to promote discussion. And while that’s occurred in most cases, it’s a case of the limited scope of my readership retarding the progress I seek. In the back of my mind, though, the posts were intended as a sort of outline for a longer form of writing.

All told, my posts dealing with the 50 year plan ran about 22,000 words. In book form, that’s somewhere between 70 and 90 pages. And while a lot of assertions I made were factual, I also wrote this in a Maryland-centric way and I think I need to do further research and study into some of the subjects I delved into. It’s probably not going to change my views on them any, but buttressing my arguments with a more diverse set of facts, figures, and research can only make the argument stronger.

To achieve this I have a goal of, in the next year or so, enlarging the 50 year plan into a book format. If it can get published, great – if not, it’s still helpful for doing monoblogue. I figure, why can’t I write a best-seller? After all, many greats in political writing and thought started out with just an idea and made it into a lucrative career. May as well dream big, huh?

In the interim, I’m still planning on being helpful in enlightening the voting public into the choices that we’ll be faced with here in February and November, 2008. Being into politics as I am, this will be a fun process. Seeing that the Shorebirds season is now over 60% complete, soon it’s going to be “back to school” and Labor Day (the traditional start of political season) is not all that far away. It’s going to be a LONG season since we have the early primary, but it’s also quite possibly a watershed election in American history. My goal is an informed electorate, so stay with monoblogue as we learn together.

A 50 year plan: Taxation

Welcome to the final action chapter of my 50 year plan. The next chapter will be about where I’m taking the concept.

Over the weekend I read a book that I recommend everyone check out: The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. Say what you will about the concept of a national sales tax, the argument in favor of this system is well-spelled out in the book. I can’t say that I’m a total convert, but I do know the system as it stands is corrupted, complicated, and I think broken beyond repair. If it were a computer our tax code would be headed for the scrap heap.

I think the progressive tax system that Boortz and Linder currently revile is exactly the wrong approach because I don’t go in for the bullshit about soaking the rich. People who manage to amass wealth generally do it through hard work and I feel that should be rewarded, not punished. So for quite awhile I’ve been an advocate of a fairer, flatter tax system. A decade ago I was a big Steve Forbes supporter because of his flat tax idea. Former Congressman Dick Armey was another flat tax proponent.

But as time went on I did see some problems with the Forbes and Armey approaches. I think my biggest one was that there are still two numbers that can be toyed with, as both the rate and the standard deduction could be tweaked. And of course, some brilliant mind would come up with just one extra deduction that simply had to be in there and that would start yet another rush back to the system we have now. (In fact, Armey’s plan maintained a few cherished deductions.) Moreover, I don’t see any effort to end backup withholding. Originally people wrote yearly or quarterly checks to the IRS, similar to the way people who pay estimated tax do now. Backup withholding started in the World War II era, sold as a way to ensure more revenue to the government for fighting the war but not dropped once hostilities ended. So people don’t tend to think about what they pay in taxes because they never actually see the money they would’ve received.

Let’s say for the sake of my argument that the FairTax is the way to go. Job number one is to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Obviously the tricks to that are a) getting a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to go along with it and b) convincing 38 states to do the same. If we ever get through step A I’d be willing to bet a good dinner at a fancy restaurant that Maryland would be one of the holdouts insofar as step B goes. The reason repealing the Sixteenth Amendment has to be done first (or concurrently) with adopting a new sales tax system is that I could just see some Democrat saying, ok, you have the FairTax, but we need to keep the income tax around in case we need a backup source of revenue – first chance they get, bam! Double taxation.

More tellingly, we know that some in Congress would fight a national sales tax tooth and nail because then they can’t divvy out tax breaks to favored constituencies, like homeowners. But is it the duty of government to provide market-busting incentives to promote some action or penalize ideas that lead to vast wealth? For example, the state of Maryland had a program to give tax incentives to those who wanted to build ”green” buildings. Is this a noble purpose? Possibly. But shouldn’t market forces allow this to happen naturally? After all, if a “green” building provides energy savings that’s worth the extra price, one would think developers would adopt all of those standards. Obviously the added cost is still a disincentive, or not deemed to have a worthwhile payback period yet.

But getting rid of the usage of the tax code as a carrot or stick is probably the biggest hurdle. To that end, it’s going to take getting a majority in Congress that aren’t power-hungry but truly citizen servants. And that’s where the next two generations have to play a part.

Another hidden benefit of a tax based on consumption is that I’m not forced to pay it. Every two weeks I get a paycheck only to find that 28.7% of it has been vacuumed out by the federal and state governments (yes, that backup withholding thing.) And that doesn’t add in a couple “breaks” I get because my flex benefit and 401.(k) are pre-tax deductions. Because of the tax laws I can’t use that money I earned unless certain restrictions are met – in the case of the flex benefit I have to spend it on medical-related expenses to be reimbursed at a later date. I can’t touch my 401.(k) without penalty for another 17 years.

But under a consumption tax I can choose to pay it when I spend money on goods. With the somewhat frugal lifestyle that I lead, I’d have less of a tax bite than a person who spends money like water. It’s the element of choice I have in the matter that appeals to me. Right now I have the “choice” of paying taxes or being financially ruined by the IRS. Plus it’s tough to practice architecture from the federal pen (and it goes without saying they’d pull my license to practice in Maryland). I also have a sneaking hunch they’d frown on me writing a blog from there too, particularly one like monoblogue.

If you look at all 15 chapters of my 50 year plan (16 if you count the introduction) you’ll see that there’s one underlying theme that ties them all together.

I want the next generations of Americans to enjoy more of the benefits of freedom and less of the oppression of an ever-expanding federal government. In this case, it’s the freedom to keep more of what they will earn if they choose to. I’m also aware that they’ll have to fight for their freedoms against many and varied enemies, not just from outside our nation, but some from within who will be seductive in their promises of equality for all.

As a nation we should strive for equality of opportunity. But we have to guard against the big-government do-gooders who preach equality of outcome. Just like in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, those in power have a tendency to deem themselves more equal than others. If I live to see another 50 years, all I ask at that point is to see that those generations have the freedom and ability to live and succeed as far as their talents, abilities, and knowledge take them. Show me the American Dream envisioned by the Founding Fathers is still alive.

A 50 year plan: Health care and Medicare

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Health care is NOT a right.

This chapter may sound suspiciously like my last chapter on Social Security because the solution is pretty much the same. It’s time to get the federal government out of the health care arena too. But instead of a gradual sunsetting of the program as I suggest for Social Security, the Medicare program would likely be better served by turning it over to each individual state and letting them set their methods of payment and such. Thus the federal government wouldn’t be sending states billions to assist with their existing health care and health insurance program costs. Because many states require a balanced budget (like Maryland does), it will bring a debate on what should be done about the issue of government involvement in health care and how to pay for it to each state capital, instead of just depending on the bottomless well of the federal government to cover their shortfalls as they currently do.

Some states have made attempts to change the system by focusing on the health insurance aspect. Probably the most well-known is the Massachusetts plan that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney sheperded through. In simple terms, Bay State residents either need to have insurance through their employer, through the state (for unemployed or poorer residents), or pay a penalty with their income taxes. Many compare it to a state requirement to carry auto insurance, but there’s one piece of the puzzle that tends to be forgotten. People can get along in life without owning a car (hey, the Amish do it) and, particularly for those young and relatively healthy, some don’t feel the need for health insurance. The Massachusetts plan compels people who might not want a product to buy it anyway as the price for living in the state. While it’s their right as one of the several states, I tend not to agree with mandates of this sort.

A good resource for further discussion of the Massachusetts plan is here.

Obviously, people want to live longer and enjoy a better quality of life. Compared to our ancestors, we live much longer and in general have healthier lives because many of the diseases and ailments that plagued earlier generations have been wiped out or controlled. Going under the knife used to be a risky proposition, now millions do it simply for vanity reasons or to improve their eyesight. Drugs have moved from simply being lifesavers (like penicillin) to those devoted simply to improving one’s perceived quality of life, such as Rogaine or Viagra.

So why did President Bush and Congress push a prescription drug program (Medicare Part D) that entwines the federal government even deeper into the internal business of Big Pharma? Heaven only knows, but it’s another Gordian knot we have to figure out how to untie. The sad thing is that many people didn’t need this program expansion but will have to deal with it anyway. Instead of leaving well enough alone, or, even better, allowing the states to propose their own solutions, taxpayers are stuck with yet another entitlement.

It’s amazing how many other issues of import affect our health care system as well. Illegal immigration has forced a number of hospitals and emergency rooms in the Southwest to close as they were not being compensated for caregiving. Without tort reform, doctors practice what’s known as “defensive medicine”, ordering unneeded tests and procedures to build a case in their defense if they’re brought to court. Like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon most issues in the national limelight can touch healthcare sooner or later. Solving the issue will take a coordinated effort across many fields; paying for it is my focus here.

With the income tax system we have now (more on that in my next chapter), I think the best interim solution is to allow health savings accounts (HSA) to become easier to get and more accessible. In general, the HSA is treated like an IRA for tax purposes and is combined with a high-deductible medical insurance plan. The problem is that not all health insurance providers cater to the HSA market. Also, many states still mandate certain coverage types that may or may not apply to the individual case. Perhaps by delinking the insurance component we could get better participation. While the insurance aspect could be encouraged through financial incentive, if folks wanted to go without and participate they still may.

And just like the fiscal responsibility discussion in my last chapter, there’s an element of personal accountability that becomes part of the solution. For example, one aspect of attempting to drive down health care costs is businesses not allowing smoking on their premises. While I don’t think the nanny state should have a say in this, it’s just fine for a private entity to do so. Whereas I’m not in favor of banning transfats, common sense dictates that if you slam down two Whoppers and a king-size order of fries on a regular basis, you’ll get to be obese and that’s not a particularly healthy thing. (Welcome to my former world, I finally got a bit smarter about that. Fortunately I didn’t do a whole lot of damage to myself.)

The best way to avoid the high cost of health care, particularly the high-dollar results of cardiac treatment or combatting diabetes, is to live in a reasonably healthy manner. It’s a shame to me that kids today are already too portly for their own good because of a sedentary lifestyle. As a kid, I was out the door like a shot during the summer, out riding my bike or playing sandlot baseball. While the dregs of society have dictated a few changes to the world kids live in today, it’s not impossible for a kid to get outside and have the stink blown off him or her. 

It’s those sedentary kids of today who are going to have to deal with our healthcare woes. I’d not like to see their paychecks eroded as badly as mine is now to deal with the federal government’s “one-size-fits-all” solution.

A 50 year plan: Fiscal responsibility

It’s sheer happenstance that I write this chapter of the 50 year plan at a time when budget battles are looming at all levels of government – locally fighting over a property tax increase, the state looking at a special session of the General Assembly this fall to combat a structural deficit, and the federal government perpetually makes a show of trying to whittle down its deficit spending.

Over the last few decades, a number of ideas have been bandied about as possible solutions to the problem of government overspending. I’m going to talk about three in particular for this chapter.

To begin, many have attempted to jumpstart the process by introducing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The argument goes that most states have a balanced budget amendment so the federal government should as well.

There are times I would agree with that; however, in this era of an open-ended war with the forces of radical Islam, a balanced budget may not be readily attainable. Generally a balanced budget amendment leaves an exemption for times of war, and, whereas states cannot declare war, the federal government retains that right to do so. Also, since 2001 the government has a stated position of dealing with the national security threat brought about by al-Qaeda and its allies globally in any and all ways possible.

So a balanced budget amendment is probably not in the cards, at least for the foreseeable future. Something much more attainable but probably just as realistic as enacting a balanced budget amendment is reforming the system of “earmarks”.

A couple months ago we had our state Senator, Lowell Stoltzfus, as a guest speaker at the WCRC meeting and the subject of state spending naturally came up. Like all other states, Maryland has a capital improvements budget and what we call “bond bills.” What occurs during the portion of the General Assembly session devoted to the budget is a lot of serious horsetrading and competition as legislators scramble to secure pork for their districts.

The point Stoltzfus brought up was that you have two choices: you can take the high road and not seek any money for the district as a means of cutting spending. Unfortunately, there’s always another legislator without those scruples who would be happy to fund something in his or her district with that money since it’s going to be available anyway. Or, you can sort of hold your nose and grab for as much cash as you can get, which is distasteful but is also a sad reality that the money is going to be made available because almost all legislators like being in Annapolis and want to be reelected. Yes, in my way of thinking it’s called buying votes.

Now multiply that by 50 states’ worth of elected officials on the federal level and you see why our financial house is so far out of order – particularly when there’s a theoretically unlimited money supply out there. After all, the deficit is just a number to them.

So you come to a third theory, which isn’t always thought of as a fiscal responsibility aspect but I believe would contribute to the effort of reining in spending.

At one time, I subscribed to a fairly libertarian theory that term limits were bad policy because you deny voters all of the possible choices. But over the last few years, as I’ve seen hundreds of career politicians spend decades in office, I’ve changed my thinking. Our Founding Fathers intended political duty as something done for just a few years, which is why the House of Representatives was set up to be elected by the people every two years. Many don’t realize that the Senate was set up with six year terms in part because Senators were not directly elected by the people, they were chosen by state legislatures.  The longer terms were in order to bring continuity to the office when there was turnover in state legislatures on a semi-annual basis. These terms were not changed when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, only the method of Senate election.

While term limits may seen an unnatural limit on the will of the people, the principle is already in the Constitution as the 22nd Amendment. Ratified in 1951, it codified what had been a tradition started by George Washington and carrying through until Franklin Roosevelt defied the norm by running for a third consecutive term in 1940. Prior to FDR, no President had served more than two terms. Teddy Roosevelt ran for what would’ve been almost a third full term in 1912 (taking office upon the assassination of President McKinley in 1901), but he had been out of office since 1909.

Further, since the Amendment was ratified, regular change has occurred at the executive branch. A party holding the office of President for 8 years has been the norm, except for the years of Jimmy Carter through George H.W. Bush. Democrats only held the presidency for one term under Carter (1977-81) before the GOP held sway for 12 years (1981-1993, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.) We returned to an eight year cycle with Bill Clinton and the trend would continue if a Democrat wins back the Oval Office in 2008.

But this change does not occur in lesser levels of government. A number of Congressmen and Senators, generally Democrats who favor an all-encompassing government, have held their offices 30 years or more. Once entrenched, they become obstacles to reform. And, above all, reform is what’s needed at the federal level if the taxpayers are ever to get true relief as I’ve outlined in earlier parts of my 50 year plan.

I also wanted to write about fiscal responsibility on a personal level. Sure, it would be nice to have all levels of government tighten their belts in order to keep more money in our collective pockets where it belongs. But we have a part to play in this too.

I tell people the story of one of the downstairs neighbors I had when my first ex-wife and my daughter (step in name only) lived in the upstairs half of a duplex. He bragged about his $800 TV and $800 stereo (which had bass enough to thump my apartment at 2 a.m.) but it turned out he could never keep his wife’s car in repair and they were eventually evicted for not paying the rent – after they had the gas turned off. Hopefully they learned a lesson from that but something tells me they just skipped to the next rental and did the same thing.

And I know that I talk about things I do that are frivolous, but it’s a question of moderation. I don’t see bands every weekend, my Shorebirds tickets are a company benefit, and I didn’t buy an overly expensive house or car even though I could have. The Sun yesterday had an article about car sales slowing because of longer finance periods for their present cars.

I suppose the best advice I can give to young people is to take the first 10% off your check and stick it in a 401.k or someplace else you can’t easily touch it. Then pay your bills and groceries and such. Also cut up the credit cards, and if you own a house ignore the siren call of home equity loans for the most part, unless it’s something that would improve your property value or a needed repair like fixing the roof. If there’s one thing that’s become a pet peeve of mine, it’s seeing and hearing dozens of advertisements a week that tell the unsuspecting that they can have (and deserve) it all, just refinance your home. Never mind the deeper hole that you’ve dug for yourself just to take a cruise to Aruba or buy the big-screen TV you’ll likely have to replace (with a bigger one, of course) in three years. Sure, you can deduct the interest off your taxes – for now.

Am I frugal? To an extent, yes. I can be a little tight with my money but my life has taught me the hard way that it’s a good policy to have. I paid a lot of interest to the folks at MasterCard, Visa, and Discover for a bunch of years before I finally got wise. So I make every attempt to stay within a budget and plan for the future.

So maybe the “buy now, pay later” basis of our economy takes a hit. Smart people are always able to land on their feet when adversity strikes. I’m trying to avoid two generations’ worth of train wrecks with some simple advice. It’s up to my readers of that age to take it.

Social Security blowback

There’s a comment that I want to respond to but the point is too important to bury in my comments section. So I guess it’s back to politics for a bit.

“Myndful” has been a critic of my Social Security plan, which is fine. I wrote it off the cuff, almost as a conversation starter about a possible solution I see to the problems inherent in the program. But he (or she, I’m not sure) made this statement as part of the last comment:

“I tend to agree that social security as a retirement insurance program needs to be rethought. But going back to my comment about my age group (late 20′s) - how many people my age do you think have seriously thought about supporting themselves 40 years down the road?”

There’s two responses I have to this portion of the comment. Number one, by sunsetting the program over the amount of time I’m proposing it’s not like they’re not going to get fair warning. And how many young people already have an inkling that Social Security isn’t going to be around for them anyway? We hear on a regular basis that the program’s going to go into the tank in 2040 or whatever year they decide sounds scary but far-off enough to plug the latest “fix.” So this is my idea for a solution, and for most young people it’s just going to make what they’ve thought all along a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My other response is actually going to lead me into part of my next chapter in the 50 year plan, because I was planning on talking about fiscal responsibility – moreso on a governmental level but to some extent on the personal level.

Maybe I had a bit more of a head on my shoulders than most late 20′s types but I was already attempting to put money away for my retirement. Unfortunately, I also had a spouse who enjoyed having a lot of “stuff” and I could never put away a good sum of money until much later. (To be fair, we also bought a house in that time and used a chunk of my retirement money as a down payment.) Each time I tried I ended up having to withdraw the money I’d squirreled away. So I really didn’t get a good start on my retirement until about 8 years ago, in my mid 30′s.

But I look at the “bling” that kids in their 20′s spend their money on and it makes me shake my head. If they took 10% of what they spent on tricking up their little Hondas or buying games for their PlayStation and salted it away, they wouldn’t miss it but it would add up over time, not to mention keep their credit card payments at bay.

“Myndful” also noted:

“Making a sweeeping (sic) statement like ‘drop social security’ is all well and good, but what are you offering instead?”

My copy of the Constitution says not a thing about the federal government securing retirement. However, if a state wanted to get into that business, it’s up to them. An obvious example is where Alaska already distributes oil royalty payments to certain citizens – they could easily recast it as a retirement program and set up accounts for each resident. And we all know Maryland Democrats would have the attitude that you really don’t need the 12% that FICA takes out anyway and they’d likely try to vacuum it out of your wallet to set up a state program after the demise of the federal one is enacted. I’d fight that tooth and nail because I’m of the opinion we should try to take care of ourselves as much as we can, but Constitutionally it would be acceptable.

I have to give “Myndful” credit for making good comments that advance the post, as did the other people who gave their two cents. Really, I think I get the best comments of any of the blog sites around here, which I suppose means I have the best readers. So keep up the good work!

A 50 year plan: Social Security

A facet of my 50 year plan that’s going to take a combination of diligence, guts, and sacrifice is embodied in what I’d like to see done with the Social Security program. I personally feel that Social Security should be sunsetted.

There. I’ve said it.

Let the AARP bitch and complain, I don’t care. I’m going to give the AARP a piece of advice – in less than 7 1/2 years I become eligible to join your organization (it is age 50, right?), but just save yourself the mailing because I’m going to tell you to drop dead.

And I know that there’s millions of people who draw a Social Security check out there, and they were promised benefits for placing their taxes in the trust of the government for all those years that they worked. One myth is that you’re only receiving the money you put into Social Security. I ran some basic numbers at the Social Security website.

A mythical person who was born on today’s date in 1945 (so he/she turns 62 and is eligible for benefits) would receive the following per month based on these income levels at his/her last full year:

• $30,000 income would get $691 per month now, $965 per month if they retired at age 66, and $1,333 per month if they retired at age 70.
• $60,000 income would get $1,086 per month now, $1,537 per month if they retired at age 66, and $2,147 per month if they retired at age 70.
• $100,000 income would get $1,438 per month now, $1,980 per month if they retired at age 66, and $2,701 per month if they retired at age 70.

For this mythical example, I also found the tax rates for each year, starting with the 3.625% rate in 1963, the first year the SSA assumes earnings, and up to the current 6.2% rate in effect since 1990. (This doesn’t count the Medicare tax.)

At the $30,000 income level and retiring at age 62, it takes until 1990 (27 years) for one year’s taxes to practically equal one month’s current benefit of $691. The first month of benefit collection exceeds all of the money put in during the first 10 working years. All told in this particular case, the total taxes paid by the individual equal $27,657.11, or 40 months’ worth of benefits. If this person decides to work until age 70, the payoff is slightly shorter, about 32 months. (SSA assumes the same $30k income on out years though.) The person at the $60,000 income level has a little more room to complain because of the lower relative benefit; that mythical recipient has 51 checks come before the taxes are redeemed. Retiring at 70 bumps that down to 40 months, again assuming the same $60,000 income level.

And what of our executive drawing 100 large a year? His payoff works out to 64 months if he or she retires at age 62. Interestingly enough, Joe or Jill Executive contributes a bit less per dollar than the others because they occasionally bump into the top end of the tax scale, and it’s even moreso for the out years in the SSA formulas. Thus the payback for retiring at age 70 drops a full year to 52 months. But in any case, living past retirement and drawing Social Security for more than 5 years or so fully exhausts all of the resources placed into it by a worker. After that they are on the backs of those working right now.

As far as that goes, I found my personal Social Security report that runs through 2005. (In a month I’ll get my 2006 one.) Over 20 years of working, I’ve paid into the system $34,764. I don’t know about you, but I would’ve liked to have that extra 35 grand during the time.

In his first term President Bush introduced a measure that sort of took my idea halfway with the concept of personal accounts. Of course, the Democrats and AARP (not that there’s much difference between the two) accused President Bush of wanting to destroy Social Security. Well, go ahead and accuse me because I want to as well. The government had no business in the first place getting into retirement accounts, and much of the entitlement mentality that plagues America today can be traced back to the creation of the Social Security program.

On the other hand, there are millions upon million of Americans who put their trust into this program paying them their promised benefits upon retirement so they went on their merry free-spending way and didn’t put anything away for their future. Thus, the program has to “wither on the vine” as Newt Gingrich was accused of saying about Medicare.

The other issue with sunsetting Social Security is that the federal government takes the money that is withdrawn from your paycheck and spends it on things not associated with Social Security – and has since the late 1960′s. Part of the impending problems with the program have to do with this incessant raiding of the (so-called) “Social Security Trust Fund.” To the feds, it’s free money and I don’t believe it’s on-budget either.

So something needs to be done. I have one possible approach; granted it’s a little arbitrary but at least I’m placing an idea in the hopper that I think merits study.

Anyone who collects Social Security now or in the fairly short-term future will get full promised benefits. People of a certain age were suckered into the thought that they would have their retirement supplemented by Social Security and it wouldn’t be right to pull that rug out from under them. So I’d say those born prior to 1950 come into this group.

If you were born between 1950 and 1960, you still have several prime earning years remaining and it gives you time to sock money away in a retirement account. So at that point benefits would be lessened on a sliding scale depending on date of birth, I’d say 75% to 85% of full benefits. People in my age bracket (I was born in 1964) would have benefits decline at an accelerating rate, so eventually those born around 1980 or so would be left with zero – however, as they age and fewer and fewer receive benefits their tax rates to pay for the survivors would go down. However, they probably wouldn’t pay zero taxes for their working life as more people reach a riper old age. Someone who’s 100 years old right now has been collecting benefits for 35 years or so and more people than ever reach the century mark.

There will also have to be some sort of cutoff for survivors’ benefits, perhaps on a similar sliding scale. Obviously the insurance industry would reap some benefits from my idea, but as I said the government should’ve never gotten into the insurance business anyway.

It took over 70 years to build this behemoth we know as Social Security, so it’ll take at least two generations to restore sanity to the system. I’m counting on the next two generations to have guts and foresight in order to move the government out of a role it didn’t belong in initially.

A 50 year plan: Crime and justice system

Note: if you read this Sunday afternoon, I added a little to the end. 

This weekend I’m going to shift gears a bit and continue my series on the 50 year plan. In this installment it’s my views on where the justice system needs to shift focus to in the next five decades.

In our justice system there are two separate types of cases – those on the criminal side and those on the civil side. There’s problems with each but both have led to overcrowded court dockets.

Unfortunately, our legislative bodies continue to enact more and more regulations and ordinances, so the chances of you running afoul of a law increase. As an example, effective June 1st a person may not catch oysters for sale in Maryland without certifying they received information from the state about where oysters may not be harvested. So if you forget to send in this piece of paper you’re in violation of the revised law. And obviously with more laws come more court cases.

I think the best way to solve this issue is to take a series of steps involving how we write laws and what we regulate. First of all, let’s stop passing laws and regulations at the federal level mandating the states write some particular law or regulation on their part, otherwise they lose federal funding. The Tenth Amendment is there for a reason, so stop violating it.

The next step is for the states to junk many of the laws that I consider “nanny state” laws. These cover areas that properly fall under personal responsibility. Is it a crime that one doesn’t wear a seat belt while driving? I don’t think so. I’ll be the first to admit I do buckle up but to me that’s common sense and I’d do it even if the law didn’t say I had to. On a more controversial note, I’m not sure that many of our drug laws are necessary. Having a couple ounces of marijuana or a few pot plants for personal use really shouldn’t be a crime (however, the sale of it or driving under its influence should remain in the criminal realm.) In this case, I’ve not tried marijuana myself but have been in situations where it was smoked and offered to me. (That would be pretty much any concert I attended in my formative years, the 1980′s.) So I guess I’m the anti-Clinton in that I didn’t try it but I did inhale the second-hand smoke. To me growing marijuana for personal use equates with home brewing or winemaking, both of which are legal in most locales.

All in all, my libertarian side is most pronounced when I discuss these sorts of issues. While I do agree that there should be guard rails, it should be the force of society that shames people into compliance rather than the force of law fattening government coffers and crowding our jails and prisons with drug offenders who were (in many cases) otherwise nonviolent.

The other side of the legal system coin is the civil side. If you watch TV, drive down the road, or even look at your phone book, chances are sooner or later you’ll see some lawyer advertising his or her services because you’ll be screwed by the insurance company after your auto accident if you don’t hire them, or else you should get what’s “yours” because you took Vioxx, was exposed to asbestos many years ago, or some other common real or imagined affliction (in other words, the class-action lawsuit.) And what has all this legal action gotten us? Mostly it’s resulted in some extremely rich trial lawyers (think John Edwards or Orioles owner Peter Angelos) and some extremely stupid warning labels placed on products because some idiot didn’t use any common sense. However, he or she probably won life’s lottery via class action suit and made a trial lawyer quite wealthy in the process.

My thought is that just one measure is necessary to rid the system of a whole lot of junk lawsuits. It’s called “loser pays.” And while the article I cite is now almost 12 years old, the idea is just as valid and probably more pressing. Of course, trial lawyers hate the idea, and so do the Democrats. They whine that “if you do ‘loser pays’, it will discourage the average citizen from filing a lawsuit.” Not if their case has merit. 

Further, in many civil cases lawsuits get settled long before they get to the courtroom because a company decides that it’s better just to settle and make the problem go away than risk the prospect of John Edwards “channeling” an unborn child who ended up with cerebral palsy and swaying a jury with emotion rather than the facts behind the case. That doesn’t necessarily go away with “loser pays” but trial lawyers will have to build up their cases better. (Hopefully the juries of tomorrow will be better in critical thinking thanks to my ideas for education reform too.)

One idea that I’ve heard regarding trial by jury that I don’t care much for is the idea of paid professional jurors. Back in the day, people seemed to take jury duty more seriously than they do now – now it’s something to be avoided. You end up taking a day (or more) off work for the pittance that you’re paid, which is essentially paid to make up for the parking fee you’re charged to keep your car at the courthouse all day.

So somebody came up with an idea about juror as occupation. This writer is among those arguing for it. But I have to disagree because what you’re doing in this case would be appointing more unelected judges – a panel of 12 professional arbitrators, if you will. Instead, being called for jury duty needs to be more mandatory (fewer excuses for avoidance) but also more lucrative, with at least a minimum wage placed on it. With fewer trials clogging the courts, the need for a jury pool is lessened and the savings could be placed on making jury duty less of a financial hit.

Our system of justice has worked pretty well for over 200 years. But the courtroom should not be a place where a trial lawyer strikes gold by playing to the emotions of twelve jurors in order to convince them that, hey, this company won’t miss the $30 million I’m seeking to have awarded to my client (never mind I’ll get half); nor should it be the place where one who is growing marijuana solely for personal use end up risking a jail term.

You know, I reread this after I posted and it occurred to me that I had one more point. Quite simply, I think regulations and many laws should have a sunset date. As one example, the PATRIOT Act was set up originally to expire in four years; however, many thought that it should become permanent. But where a lessening of civil rights is concerned, any measure curtailing them should be temporary. I think ten years is a good timeframe – first, it allows a turned over legislative body to revisit the law and its consequences; and secondly, if they’re looking at existing laws it’s less likely they’ll think of new ones!

So with that addition, there’s another piece of my 50 year plan. I have four more installments I’m going to do and then a summary. All of these will be written over the next month or two because I want to wrap it up in time to do a Presidential candidate focus featuring these particular issues near and dear to my heart.

A 50 year plan: Education

From the earliest days of our nation, the federal government has taken an interest in education. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) expressed it thusly:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

In today’s schools though one is led to wonder if the goal is to educate children or to maintain reasonably cushy administrative positions. Test scores in general have either declined or held steady over the last few decades, while the testing isn’t considered as rigorous as it once was. The forces of political correctness have determined that testing is unfair to poor and minority students and demand changes regularly. And some parents consider the school a babysitting and restaurant service (since most serve free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch), not caring much about how their children progress or behave at school.

Some of these complaints were addressed under President Bush as the No Child Left Behind Act was sheparded through Congress early in his first term and signed in January 2002. While Bush asked for this act to combat what he termed “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, it also added more federal regulations to the multitude that already exist, and became a target for Democrats to constantly claim that NCLB was underfunded.

While I appreciate a set of measurable standards for school performance, in reality this law hasn’t done a whole lot to improve the learning status of America’s children. In my opinion, the law to its full extent wasn’t necessary and it encourages education in exactly the opposite way from what it should be.

I was educated in public schools for the 13 years of my primary and secondary schooling (as well as a state university.) There was a time in elementary school I was in a special class because I have what’s now known as ADHD, and I finished my high school years by taking vocational classes for my junior and senior years (drafting and related courses.) So I experienced a lot of different classroom situations, probably moreso than the average child.

What the schools taught me was all of the factual knowledge I needed to get through and get a good grade point average. History and math classes were pretty much a piece of cake for me and I did reasonably well in English. Science was pretty easy as well. One disadvantage I had was spending my middle school and high school years at a small rural district that didn’t have a whole lot of advanced classes. (Though to be fair, I went to vocational school so I didn’t opt to stay and take some of the AP classes that may have been available to me in 11th and 12th grade.) My older daughter did have a chance to participate in a gifted/talented program because she went to school in a large city district and took advantage of several of these classes to get her high school language credits in junior high.

But there were two things I learned in college that I never did in high school. One was how to study and manage time because I didn’t have to do that for most of my academic career prior to college. The other was something I’m still learning to some extent as most of us do, and that’s critical thinking.

Teaching to the test as most schools are geared simply teaches a child to regurgitate the facts that they’re taught without giving them a context to work from. This particularly affects kids when they’re taught history and current events. For example, if children are taught American history, they brush through the saga of the Pilgrims coming to America. If anything, they’re taught about all of the help the Indians gave the settlers and how they thanked the Indians by holding a Thanksgiving feast. They learn nothing about the reason they came (religious persecution in England) or the failure of their early efforts at communal living. Their bountiful harvests came after they abandoned that socialism and allowed each settler to keep and trade their own land and labor. Unfortunately, this and many other important parts of early American history are barely covered in schools today.

There’s also the question of ever-spiraling educational budgets that seem to take more and more of a bite of our wallets. Well over 2/3 of the money a school district spends is in the form of salaries and benefits. True, a good teacher is worth every penny he/she is paid, but too many teachers simply go there to collect a paycheck – and in extreme cases, due to union contracts, are paid despite not teaching at all as they’ve been proven to be a danger to children but can’t easily be let go by the school district.

I’m going to address the money issue first with my solutions. I strongly believe that since it’s us taxpayers who provide the money to educate the majority of our children, any money spent on education at the state or local level should follow the child. Whether it’s through vouchers or some other sort of mechanism, giving this power of the purse to parents will encourage schools to become better or lag behind the market. Also on the financial front is a message to the federal government: there’s no amendment in our Constitution that mandates the federal government either pays for education or hangs the sword of Damocles over local school districts by forcing them to do what the feds want (including NCLB.) So butt out of the education business. There’s already way too much bureaucracy at the local and state levels for the system’s own good, and having a federal layer tossed on top just creates a lot of make-work positions for pencil-pushers who are about as far removed from educating a child as we are from the moon.

Now to the curriculum. Obviously there should be more local input, however as a parent who’s had children in school not too many years ago I’ve seen some of the strange items that were taught to them. But there’s a lot they don’t have a chance to cover, particularly in the areas of American history, geography, and (at the high school level) economics. And given the writing and speaking skills I see out of a lot of today’s youth, English needs to be brushed up on as well.

If we can get money to follow the child as I wish it would, that would solve another issue that bedevils the educational world. Teachers who are really good at their craft would have more demand placed for their services, and actually it could be possible for them to create their own cottage industry and blend the best aspects of homeschooling and school-based education by becoming independent contractors. In fact, with this concept it’s likely a private or charter school could attract the best area teachers and lease them space in their school building. (And it’s why the NEA fights this idea tooth and nail.)

I also want to extol the virtues of vocational education while I have an opportunity. As I stated, I attended vocational school for my last two years and it taught me a lot about drafting in general and a bit about architecture. This was the Stone Age when we actually learned board drafting with pencil and straightedge.

But not all kids are college material and unfortunately our nation also suffers from a shortage of skilled tradesmen. To me, there’s nothing wrong with learning to be a CAD operator, plumber, carpenter, or machinist. Given how I did in shop class I’m certainly on the right end of the building industry as far as my skills are concerned, but we simply have too few people who are interested in these sorts of occupations. On the other hand we have way too many who drift through college not knowing what they want to be, or worse, get through school with aspirations to be a bureaucrat.

Education should be about what’s best for the children and I believe that the more options they have in their education, the better they’ll succeed in life. Instead of filling these “skulls full of mush” with just enough facts to pass a standardized test and not the context with which these facts fit, we need to teach kids how to think for themselves. Currently in our nation, those environments for learning that show the most success (private schools and homeschooling) generally have the least to do with governmental regulations and the most to do with the children through more rigid discipline, a course of study that emphasizes classical subjects, and a greater sense of morality through faith-based studies. I think it will be easier to get to a better educational model if those who dictate the rules in education are based as closely as possible to those they educate – not in some DC office.

A 50 year plan: Second Amendment

It’s 4:00 Friday afternoon as I write this for a Saturday posting. I actually started writing this earlier this week (Monday night) and had planned on writing this particular “50 year plan” chapter well before this week’s events ensued. (This is the 9th of 15 planned chapters, give or take.)

But after calling in to John Robinson’s radio show today, incensed that he felt the Constitution was a “living document”, I figured I better place a little bit of background in front of the actual article. Despite his protestation, the Second Amendment is not “dead”; however, layer upon layer of federal gun laws need to be stripped in order to bring it back to health. This is the point of my post today, and I think it serves to revise and extend my remarks from Friday.

It’s only judges that make the Constitution “living and breathing”, regardless of what history professors might say. Now, I had some ideas on how I’d improve the Constitution way back at the start of monoblogue, that post is here. Repealing the Second Amendment wasn’t among them.

Here’s what I originally wrote this week.

I’m writing this chapter of the 50 year plan after the terrible events in Virginia, as a gunman snuffed out over 30 lives before his was taken on the Virginia Tech campus.

Predictably, the knee-jerk reaction from the left is, “we need more gun laws!” The sad fact is that no gun law would have prevented what happened. The gunman decided that his was the way to solve those personal problems he had. People in that mindset to do damage to society will use whatever means they deem necessary. Not only that, the gunman bought his gun legally. It turned out to be the last legal thing he did insofar as gun ownership was concerned, as the serial numbers on both his guns were filed down. Moreover, Virginia Tech’s campus was declared a “gun-free zone” so the moment he entered campus with his weapon he violated another of many laws.

The way I see it, the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution because people having weapons would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Having broken away from a monarchy to establish what they hoped would be a truly republican government, they worried about the reestablishment of oppression by a future society – thus, they decided that people should have the right to bear arms. It was “necessary to the security of a free state.”

Some say that the Second Amendment only covers people in a “well regulated militia”, which they interpret as being in the National Guard or a like organization. However, National Guards didn’t come into being until the twentieth century. And that’s not the important part of the sentence. The Second Amendment is sort of unique in that the militia language is descriptive rather than prohibitive. It could have been just as effective without the sentence, just reading “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let’s go back to Virginia for another example. As states go, Virginia is one of the least restrictive as far as acquiring a weapon which is their perfect right under the Tenth Amendment. Other states make citizens jump through hoops to get a gun, and that’s also acceptable in the eyes of the Constitution.

The main objection I have to the current situation, and the change that should guide policy in the next fifty years, is working to eliminate the federal gun laws. Just as the Constitution says, Congress shall make no law restricting the right we have to bear arms. However, pages and pages of the federal code deal with guns of all sorts.

I’m certain some read this and think I’m trying to resurrect the wild, wild west. But my point is simple – laws that deal with guns (and a lot of other subjects too, guns just being the subject of this short tome) should be established by the individual states. If a state wants to disarm their populace and leave the weapons to the hands of the criminal element, well, that’s their right. It would also be the surviving public’s right to throw those fools out of office who encouraged the situation by being a legislature full of gun grabbers.

On the other hand, states that show respect to their citizens by allowing them concealed carry and fewer restrictions on the number and type of guns they can possess are generally rewarded by lower crime rates. Imagine if even just 1 out of 100 students or faculty at Virginia Tech carried a weapon – there may still have been a number of deaths, but it may have been limited to the number Cho Seung-Hui could kill before someone else with a gun could have struck him down. (The guy was pretty clever, though, chaining the classroom doors closed before mowing down his victims.)

One final note – while I’m a supporter of people being able to keep whichever weapon they choose, they also should be properly trained in how to use them. Just like people have to take training to drive an automobile (which can also be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands), people should be trained on using and given an opportunity to gain respect for this powerful weapon.

Perhaps this respect for a possible tool for ending a life could carry over into respect for life in general.

A 50 year plan: Trade and job creation

To begin this chapter of the 50 year plan, let me say that I’m in favor of free and fair trade. The idea behind NAFTA and other trading alliances is a sound one. Those who are protectionists don’t seem to understand that the economy is a global one and discouraging competition by enacting high tariffs and other barriers to free trade hurts our economy in the long run.

On the other hand, I also feel that we’re giving away too much of our industrial base by shipping production of a myriad of items out of America. If you purchase an electronic product, chances are it’s made in China, and many other items are made across the border in Mexico. But with the cost of labor becoming more and more a share of the total product price, businesses need to create profitability for themselves and their stockholders. And I’m a supporter of a capitalist system.

We also have some bright spots in our manufacturing economy. With our skilled labor force and a prosperous population because of these skills, America attracts many of the top global industrial giants, particularly in the automotive field. Many cars with Japanese nameplates are made right here in America, and these factories spawn thousands of ancilliary jobs in both manufacturing of parts and associated service jobs created by the influx of foreign capital.

At this juncture I want to take a look at just a few of the major products that America imports and exports and make my forecast on the direction we need to go to maintain our prosperity despite competition from huge Asian markets like China and India.

The trading commodity that probably affects us on the Eastern Shore most is agriculture. While the romanticized American Gothic version of the farmer is long gone and has been replaced by the modern-day Internet literate and degreed farmer working on his (or her) multi-thousand acre spread, it’s still a fact that American farmers are able to supply our country’s basic nutritional needs many times over. Thus we’re able to send millions of tons of grain around the globe. Conversely, while America has many areas suitable for citrus crops and truck farming, more and more of those products arrive from overseas. Long gone are the days of “in season” vegetables and fruits, most items are available year-round both because of rapid air shipment from the Southern Hemisphere and technological advances that enable some fruit (like apples) to be maintained and retain flavor for much longer timeframes.

There are some dark clouds on the horizon, though, for which American farmers need to be prepared. As environmental regulations become more onerous the competitive advantage we enjoy is eroded. Fertilizers may have to change composition and could become less effective. Further restrictions on waste disposal could hamper poultry, pork, and cattle farmers as well as egg producers. Another possible threat is the takeover of prime agricultural land by suburban sprawl.

A third pitfall could be the reduction in food yield as millions upon millions of bushels of corn exit the food chain and become automotive fuel. Ethanol production continues to increase markedly and, if present trends continue, corn may be as rare a commodity on the table as fresh strawberries in December used to be.

As farming continues to evolve into being a less and less labor-intensive task due to the twin influences of technology and a shrinking real number of farms, job creation in the agricultural field needs to be concentrated on research in two realms of study. One path would be to discover ways to make crops more disease-resistant, improve yields, and make them more adaptable to poorer soil conditions. The second path is searching for ways to make biomass (or waste products) more useful in the energy field. It’s a known fact that methane gas from animal waste is a huge emission source – the trick is finding a method to utilize this resource and keep it out of the watershed. On a local level, while Salisbury University does not have an agricultural program, UMES has a program that can become a leader in such research if given a good level of support.

Moving back to a national level, a vital import of ours is oil. While America has a lot of oil still left underneath its lands and territorial waters, overblown environmental concerns have prevented us from taking advantage of our own resources – hence, we now import almost 2/3 of our daily oil consumption. And the list of countries we buy our oil from is a list of states not necessarily in agreement with the strategic goals we’ve set globally. With the exception of Canada, we’re at odds in some way, shape or form with most of the remaining main suppliers.

Further, while oil is generally refined into the fuel that drives our transportation industry, we can’t forget that this resource has many other uses, particularly in the manufacture of plastic products. So to me, it’s vitally important that we work out some sort of compromise between the environmental issues and the national interest that we all have in maintaining a free supply of domestic oil. Our current situation, where some stalwarts in Congress place the needs of caribou above the needs of our economy, has passed the ridiculous stage and is quickly closing in on dangerous. Even if ANWR, Pacific, and Gulf drilling were allowed tomorrow, we’ve lost (and will continue to lose in the short-term future) tremendous amounts of capital that could’ve been left in the domestic realm instead of paying OPEC their sheik’s ransom for black gold.

Once again, technology plays a role in allowing us to begin moving past an oil-based economy. Just like steam-powered vehicles were replaced by gasoline-powered ones early in the 20th century, somewhere out there is the key to the next generation of transport. In a future installment, I’m going to look at education and its role in the next 50 years, but it’s going to be incumbent on the next two generations to solve these issues through rigorous research.

America does have one export that maybe not everyone thinks of as a tradable commodity, but it creates a huge amount of capital. As a country, the United States is almost certainly the world leader in intellectual property – a term I’ll adopt as shorthand for all of the books, movies, television, and musical recordings that are created by Americans and exported around the world. In many cases, revenues made overseas by films can exceed the domestic take. And sometimes musical artists considered obscure here are major players in various foreign nations.

One of our major trade gripes with China at the moment is their laxity when it comes to stopping the sale of pirated movies. Black market copies of Hollywood films are big sellers there but the studios never receive a cut of the take. And with the evolution of “on-demand” movies, downloads of songs for personal use, and increased internet bandwidth (not to mention services like YouTube) major film studios and record labels are going to find it more difficult to maintain a revenue stream using models developed 30 to 50 years ago. However, on the flip side music is more accessible than ever. I know some of my favorite local groups would’ve had a lot more difficulty having their music heard prior to the advent of Myspace and the internet in general. While we have the phoniness of “American Idol” (which actually originated “across the pond” in Great Britain) there is still quite the untapped market out there for America to export intellectual property.

But now I want to complete the circle and discuss our manufacturing capability again, this time by reviewing a little history.

In the century-and-a-quarter from 1845 to 1970, Americans changed the world. Starting with Samuel F.B. Morse revolutionizing communications with the telegraph, on our shores we created invention after invention that made our society as we know it (while America also fought and won two world wars in that era), culminating with Neil Armstrong and his small step for man. And while America is still a powerhouse when it comes to innovation, many of the more recent advances have occurred offshore. It seems to me like we’ve settled on mediocrity, doing research in order to secure the next government grant instead of being truly innovative.

It’s long past time for Americans to make stuff again. But the idea in this go-round is not necessarily to make the cheapest product, it’s to make the most cutting-edge product that has the quality and construction to last for decades. In turn, American consumers need to reward these efforts and consider quality as much (if not more) than price. Maybe a better term for this consideration is life-cycle cost.

The next two generations have the potential to allow America to be a leader once again, just like it was not all that long ago. Before we cede our crown to those in China or India, we need to remember that there’s a reason that Japanese auto makers put their trust in us to build many of their best-selling cars. Japan became a world leader in industry by taking both the American know-how that built up their industry after we defeated them in World War II and the can-do spirit that still existed in America at that time, and allowing these to evolve by putting an emphasis on manufacturing goods of high quality and innovation. We can do the same (again) by putting our minds to it and telling those who wish for us to remain mediocre (like those interested in big government and not creative capitalism) to get out of the way.

A 50 year plan: Military and veterans’ affairs

The Cabinet-level Department of Veterans’ Affairs is a relatively recent creation, authorized by President Reagan in 1988. What I’m going to touch on in this installment of the 50 year plan is more aligned with the direction and function of that Department than the actual global military strategy necessary during those times. Some of that I discussed in my chapter of the 50 year plan about the Long War. Insofar as the rest of military strategy goes, I subscribe to the Reagan-era doctrine of “peace through strength” with an emphasis on forward deployment. This is why I advocate not completely retreating from Iraq when our job there is through (assuming the permission of the Iraqi government of course.)

What has placed this particular facet of veterans’ affairs at the forefront is the continuing saga at the Walter Reed veterans medical complex. Building 18, a moldy, rat-infested firetrap slated to be closed in a few years, has become yet another avenue for Congressional Democrats to continue their mantra of “it’s Bush’s fault” when problems occur and need to be addressed. Yes, there are problems in the veterans’ healthcare system – but they go far beyond the bricks and mortar of decrepit facilities and even beyond the lack of oversight and maintenance that placed Building 18 in such atrocious condition. Like most Americans, I feel that veterans deserve better.

In many areas of life, veterans get preferential treatment. This dates back to Revolutionary War days when pensions for war veterans and land grants were established. Sponsored medical care for disabled veterans also dates back close to two centuries. Outside the realm of financial and medical care, the original GI Bill enabled World War II veterans to buy homes and helped pave the way toward the postwar prosperity of the 1950′s. The neighborhood I live in is among the thousands that were created during this era, with reasonably-sized homes built for newly financially empowered veterans and their young families.

As things stand now, there are a great number of benefits to joining the military, including recruitment bonuses and college assistance. Beyond service years, veterans get assistance in job training, finding housing, preference for civil service work, and many other benefits not generally available to those who chose not to serve in the military. (Obviously there’s a risk factor involved which makes the perks necessary.) In most cases I don’t have a problem with these and they actually benefit and supplement things available to the public at-large. Anyone can train for a different job, buy a house, or apply for a civil service job whether they served in the military or not. But only veterans, their surviving spouses, and dependents are eligible for VA medical assistance.

To me, there’s a solution that can help eliminate a lot of the government red tape that has bogged down the veterans’ health care system and created situations that allowed problems like Building 18 to fester. This solution is a two-part solution.

The first portion is to allow choice for current veterans as to the location where they’ll receive their health care. Many veterans (particularly the few WW2 and Korean War vets remaining) would probably feel most comfortable with continuing to deal with the VA health care system as it is now. But I think newer veterans should be given a choice whether they wish to continue in the VA or be given vouchers by the federal government that can be used in one of two areas:

• Payment for care at a hospital not affiliated with the VA when required, and/or;
• Establishing a Health Savings Account, with the high-deductable insurance policy required as part of that through a qualified private insurer.

Meanwhile, future military personnel would be given the vouchers and allowed to choose the method and delivery of health care services.

Eventually this would lead to the closing of VA facilities, but what would likely happen is that existing non-VA facilities would begin to cater to the needs of the veteran population in an effort to secure their voucher dollars. It would eliminate a situation where services are (more or less) duplicated for two separate but comingled populations: the 60 million or so people eligible for VA services of some sort and the rest of us.

Taking care of veterans through pensions, benefits, and the like is one of the few areas not specifically addressed in the Constitution where I feel the federal government has a legitimate stake in regulating day-to-day needs. It is because these men and women have sacrified in service to our country that this is so. But as Rush Limbaugh has noted, the purpose of the military is to “kill people and break things”, so having the military running a health-care system doesn’t meld well with that particular skill set.

By allowing the private sector to bring better competition to the market, it gives veterans opportunities to select the health care they feel is best for their needs, rather than the one-size-fits-all solution government bureaucracy seems to come up with.

Just as an aside, if and when Hillary Clinton tries to introduce the single-payer health system she favors, think of being housed in Building 18 – because that’s the sort of treatment we’ll all get if we put the federal government solely in charge of our health care.

A 50 year plan: Election reform

I don’t remember this sort of attention the last time that we had an “open” seat for the Presidential race but for whatever reason the 2008 campaign has gotten off to a really early start and the trend is accelerating as California recently moved its 2008 primary up to a February date. This instantly makes the Golden State a disproportionate player in the Presidential sweepstakes and all but dooms states that even have primaries as early as March to second-tier staus.

As part of my 50 year plan for election reform, I’m going to address this piece of the electoral pie, but there are other slices that I think merit attention first.

The very first thing which needs to occur is to require a photo ID to vote at the ballot box, or have one on file with a signature card for absentee ballots. It just makes sense to me that, in a society where I’m asked for my ID in order to place money into my own bank account, some form of photo identification needs to be required to exercise one of our most precious rights.

Normally the Democrats scream about this point that requiring ID disenfranchises the poor. (It’s probably why a bill dealing with this died in committee here in Maryland.) I believe Georgia was going to require something similar to this and was willing to pony up a few hundred thousand dollars to allow anyone who could get to the DMV their own photo identity card, but that still wasn’t good enough for the Democrats. I guess then I have to ask what they’re so afraid of? Are they worried that their ideas aren’t good enough to appeal to a majority of those who vote? (I know if I were them I would be.)

So if we adopt part number one above we’ll have voter ID. The next step is to use the electronic machines, but have a backup paper trail set up as a double-check. Conspiracy theories about the 2000 and 2004 elections aside, and using my bank as an example again, every time I put in or take out money I get a receipt. Something tells me that voting can easily be the same way, and with the backup no one in the tinfoil hat brigade can claim a Diebold conspiracy.

Thus, I’ve taken care of making sure the people who are eligible to vote can do so (once) and that their votes would be accounted for properly. But there are two other items that Maryland does (or may do) which, in my opinion, need to be rolled back.

First of all, in 2008 we may have a Constitutional amendment placed on the ballot that allows for early voting but insofar as I can tell doesn’t have a provision to pay for securing the ballots for the extra days necessary nor a common-sense identification check on it. (This has passed the Maryland Senate but is pending in the House of Delegates.)

I believe that we have adequate means of voting between the polling places being open on the days already designated by the state Constitution and absentee balloting (even with some limitations I’d place on it) that the number of voters who actually wish to participate in the process has a chance of doing so. There’s no need to extend the opportunities for voter fraud and tampering by adding several days to the process. For me, I’ve made the time to be there on Election Day, in fact last year I worked the polls for Bonnie Luna’s campaign as well. Voting and then working the polls is something I’ve done for a number of years.

Now, as far as absentee balloting goes, I believe there should be some restrictions placed back on it. I don’t really care for the “shall-issue” rules Maryland has because it leaves some openings for a lack of accountability. A more common-sense approach would be one where certain classes of people remain eligible (such as those over 60 years of age or serving in the military and stationed out of the state), but a qualified excuse has to be provided for others. I’ve voted absentee only about a half-dozen times in my life – mostly while in college but in 2004 I voted absentee for Ohio because I found out I’d move to Maryland too late to be registered here for the November election. Those are legitimate reasons to get an absentee ballot, whereas just because you don’t want to drive to the polling place is not. Hell, the weekend before the 1996 election I was laid up in the hospital with pneumonia but I’ll have been damned if I wasn’t going to be out for Election Day to at least vote for Dole, if I couldn’t work the polls. (Fortunately I recovered enough to be let out on the Sunday before.)

In both state and national election law, there are restrictions on candidate financing. When the McCain-Feingold reforms were passed in 2003, it was supposed to take the money out of politics – but estimates are now coming in for the 2008 Presidential election that suggest the spending total may reach $1 billion. Other changes made by McCain-Feingold gave it a billing as an “incumbent protection act” as regulations were placed on advertising within 60 days of an election.

Personally I think any and all contribution limits should be abolished. But with that carrot comes the stick of daily and accessibly reporting any and all contributions to a particular campaign. So if AFSCME gives $50 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, within 24 hours anyone in the pajamas media can say, hey, AFSCME members, look what your union dues are paying for. If the trial lawyers’ associations give $20 million to John Edwards, we can immediately follow the money and ask him what’s the quid pro quo here? Obviously the situation holds true as well if the national Chamber of Commerce gives $15 million to Rudy Giuliani.

But, one may argue, wouldn’t that make the little guy’s $25 contribution to Giuliani meaningless? After all, it’s said that money talks and more money talks louder. Well, this is true, but the people still hold the absolute power of the vote. And if I’ve found out that someone or something donated to a candidate I don’t like, I can choose to act accordingly. For example, when I get the annual reports from companies I invest in, I check and see who their board members make political donations to and withhold share votes from those candidates who support people I don’t feel are friendly to the goals of the business as I see them. If more people did that, it will police the situation.

After all, George Soros donated many of his millions to defeat President Bush, but he only had one actual vote in the matter. I’ll grant he influenced many to follow him and vote against Bush, but others worked and donated to the Bush side and the President prevailed because he and his supporters convinced 59 million people to vote for him.

Now to the California question. To me, it’s insane that we’ve dragged this election process out so long. Here Maryland has plenty of common sense in the way it runs state elections. Last year our primary was September 12, a date that was 8 weeks before the general election. This gives candidates and the public the maximum amount of time to get together and interact so the public can make an informed choice with as many candidates in the running as possible.

However, in the decision for the 2008 Presidential election, by all indications we’ll know who the two leading candidates are a full nine months beforehand. (Even though Maryland has a March primary, we’ll have little say.) In 2004 there was some case of “buyer’s regret” among Democrats that summer when John Kerry didn’t turn out to quite be the candidate they thought they’d get in March when the race was essentially decided. So it looks like most of 2008 will be consigned to mudslinging and negative campaigning between the Republicans and Democrats and nothing will get done in Congress either because no one will want to hurt their candidate or help the opposition.

I think I have a better idea then this. Of course, Presidential politics are dictated by the party conventions that generally take place in July and August. The first step is to move those to a mid-September timeframe, right after Labor Day when people begin to pay attention to the campaigns anyway. One can start the Monday after Labor Day and the other the following Monday, alternating between cycles.

(It might mess up Newt Gingrich’s idea a little bit, but there’s still time for several weekly debates.)

So now we work backwards from that point. What I’ve always thought would be a good idea would be to have a series of regional primaries held on consecutive weeks. Six regions of eight states each (more or less, depending on population) would hold primaries, starting the Tuesday after July 4th and ending in August. And to assure each area would get the “prime” first spot once every six cycles, the regions would run elections in a particular order, the first one in a cycle sliding back to last in the next cycle. Thus, the idea Maryland was trying to promote of having a “regional” primary date with Delaware and Virginia would be realized, only on a slightly larger scale. For example, we could be teamed up with Delaware, Virginia, DC, West Virginia, the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania with our regional primary. Iowa and New Hampshire would be exempt and continue with their influential first caucus and primary, but could be moved back into June.

So instead of having this process last almost a year, I’m compressing it into five months. It gives the American people, who are getting less and less of an attention span, a short and focused campaign for our highest office and it also means Congress can get more done because they don’t have to worry quite as much about influencing the Presidential race.

Voting is the most important civic duty most of us do over the course of the year. I believe that these reforms would go a long way to increasing the percentage of people who actually exercise their right as citizens to do so.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• Hit My Tip Jar

  The server isn't free...

  

  And did you know you can support me through Amazon? See right sidebar below.

• Loyal sponsor

  TEA Party Posters

• Warm news

  • Dock Daze 2012 in pictures and text
  • Union picketers engage in ‘shame’ campaign
  • The SEO blues
  • Wright to leave Wicomico BOE
  • Does Ben Cardin have to worry?
  • Moving forward in the wrong direction
  • Maryland budget fixed – for now
  • Shorebird of the Week – May 17, 2012
  • Maryland Delegate: Baltimore harbor should be ‘no travel zone’
  • Doomsday rally quotables from notables

• 2011 monoblogue Accountability Project

  The 2011 edition can be found here, in PDF format.

• Archives

  Select Month May 2012  (29) April 2012  (36) March 2012  (40) February 2012  (37) January 2012  (43) December 2011  (35) November 2011  (33) October 2011  (35) September 2011  (46) August 2011  (35) July 2011  (39) June 2011  (35) May 2011  (38) April 2011  (34) March 2011  (44) February 2011  (42) January 2011  (35) December 2010  (47) November 2010  (44) October 2010  (46) September 2010  (47) August 2010  (40) July 2010  (57) June 2010  (57) May 2010  (46) April 2010  (43) March 2010  (55) February 2010  (54) January 2010  (59) December 2009  (58) November 2009  (46) October 2009  (41) September 2009  (37) August 2009  (31) July 2009  (33) June 2009  (28) May 2009  (20) April 2009  (25) March 2009  (25) February 2009  (30) January 2009  (45) December 2008  (39) November 2008  (38) October 2008  (48) September 2008  (46) August 2008  (44) July 2008  (47) June 2008  (46) May 2008  (48) April 2008  (54) March 2008  (44) February 2008  (42) January 2008  (41) December 2007  (34) November 2007  (46) October 2007  (39) September 2007  (43) August 2007  (37) July 2007  (38) June 2007  (37) May 2007  (39) April 2007  (37) March 2007  (36) February 2007  (24) January 2007  (25) December 2006  (19) November 2006  (30) October 2006  (21) September 2006  (43) August 2006  (29) July 2006  (29) June 2006  (36) May 2006  (18) April 2006  (22) March 2006  (18) February 2006  (16) January 2006  (18) December 2005  (20) November 2005  (1)

• Bloglist

  • Michael's Facebook page
  • monoblogue fan page
  • monoblogue Myspace site
  • ttown’s right wing conspiracy

• Daily news and commentary

  • All-American Blogger
  • American Thinker
  • Atlas Shrugs
  • Bob Owens
  • Death By 1000 Papercuts
  • Dr. Melissa Clouthier
  • Front Page Magazine
  • Gateway Pundit
  • HotAir
  • Instapundit
  • Michelle Malkin
  • NetRightDaily
  • NewsBusters
  • NewsMax
  • Patterico
  • PJ Media
  • PoliPundit
  • Power Line
  • Red County
  • Right Turn
  • Right Wing News
  • Sweetness & Light
  • The Corner on National Review
  • The Lonely Conservative
  • The New Editor
  • The Other McCain
  • The Right Scoop
  • Twitchy
  • U.S. Constitutional Free Press
  • WorldNetDaily

• Delaware

  • Blue Hen Conservative
  • Delaware Grapevine
  • Delaware Liberal
  • DelawarePolitics.net
  • Delmar DustPan
  • Resolute Determination
  • Sussex County Angel
  • The Colossus of Rhodey

• Eastern Shore

  • afterthegoldrush
  • Atomic Donkey Brewing
  • Cecil Times
  • Chesapeake Journal
  • Delmarva Observer
  • Delmarva Shorebirds blog
  • DirtyBury
  • Easton Savvy
  • Lower Eastern Shore News
  • Patty Hancock
  • Questing for Atlantis
  • Reflections on Delmarva's Past
  • Right Coast Conservative
  • Salisbury News
  • The Other Salisbury News
  • The Pocomoke Public Eye
  • Twirling…towards freedom

• Maryland

  • A Citizen's View
  • A Conservative Lesbian
  • A Republican Out Of The Blue
  • Anthropocon
  • Blue Ridge Forum
  • Carroll Standard
  • Cecil Calvert
  • Center Maryland
  • Cross Purposes
  • Eye on Annapolis
  • Global Rhetoric
  • Letters from Glome
  • Maryland Juice
  • Maryland Reporter
  • MDGOP Insider
  • Old Line Elephant
  • Potomac Tea Party Report
  • Red Maryland
  • Red Meat Conservative
  • Sarah Says
  • The FreeStater Blog
  • The Quinton Report
  • The Vail Spot

• Other great blogs

  • Bob McCarty Writes
  • Datechguy's Blog
  • Drea Wood
  • Energy Tomorrow
  • Jen Kuznicki
  • Kira Davis
  • Melinda Musil
  • Michael Yon
  • There She Runs
  • Thurber’s Thoughts
  • Tygrrrr Express
  • Wake Up America
  • Zilla of the Resistance

• Political Links - my side

  • Castle Coalition
  • Cecil County Patriots
  • Club for Growth
  • Delegate Mike McDermott
  • Follow the Money
  • Maryland Business for Responsive Government
  • Maryland Constitution
  • Maryland House GOP Caucus
  • Maryland Republican Network
  • Maryland Republican Party
  • Maryland Senate Republican Caucus
  • Maryland Society of Patriots
  • Newt Gingrich
  • Opensecrets
  • Red State
  • Rep. Andy Harris
  • Somerset County GOP
  • Stimulated Yet?
  • The Center for Union Facts
  • The Maryland Public Policy Institute
  • Wicomico County GOP
  • YR Network

• Political Links - the loyal opposition

  • Daily Kos
  • Democratic Underground
  • Governor Martin O’Malley
  • Maryland Democrat Party
  • Maryland General Assembly
  • Sen. Barbara Mikulski
  • Sen. Ben Cardin
  • The Stakeholder
  • THOMAS

• Sporting Life (teams I follow)

  • Cleveland Browns
  • Delmarva Shorebirds
  • Detroit Lions
  • Detroit Tigers
  • Miami University Athletics
  • Toledo Mud Hens

• The local media

  • Cecil Whig
  • Star-Democrat
  • The Daily Times
  • WBOC-TV (Channel 16)
  • WICO-AM and FM
  • WMDT-TV (Channel 47)

• Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner

  

• Syndicate

  

  Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.

  Desktop Reader Bloglines Google Live Netvibes Newsgator Yahoo! What's This?

• Support my advertisers!
• 
• 
• 

• The Poll

• Campaign 2012 – President

  On-ballot candidates are first, with write-ins afterward:

  Mitt Romney (R)
  Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
  Buddy Roemer (Americans Elect)
  Barack Obama (D - incumbent)

  Write-ins:

  Tiffany Briscoe (D)
  Matthew Lydick (R)
  Richard Duncan (I)
  Michael Boyles (I)
  Fred Dickson (I)
  Nelson Keyton (I)

• Campaign 2012 – U.S. Senate

  Daniel Bongino (R)
  Ben Cardin (D - incumbent)

  Write-ins:

  Brandy Baker (I)
  Dennis David (I)

• Sign the petition

  Go to mdpetitions.com to sign the petitions forcing same-sex marriage and our state's blatant gerrymandering to referendum. Even if you favor the ideas, it should be obvious that the people deserve the final say.

•  

  May 2012

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Apr
  	1	2	3	4	5	6
  7	8	9	10	11	12	13
  14	15	16	17	18	19	20
  21	22	23	24	25	26	27
  28	29	30	31

• Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!

  

  Click on the photo for details.

• My Twitter feed...

  • Dock Daze 2012 in pictures and text http://t.co/RVWp8hQH #WicomicoCounty about 2 hours ago from Tweet Button
  • Union picketers engage in 'shame' campaign http://t.co/H9g4MRFp via @sharethis about 16 hours ago from Tweet Button
  • The #SEO blues http://t.co/hLtll5PR 02:14:48 PM May 20, 2012 from Tweet Button
  • Wright to leave Wicomico BOE http://t.co/pTCk1MDQ #MDGOP 12:10:28 AM May 20, 2012 from Tweet Button
  • Tomorrow morning I have a post about some recent blog feedback which might interest you. Also I would like more... http://t.co/GoHWXO1U 02:33:44 PM May 19, 2012 from Facebook

  @ttownjotes

  Powered byWordPress Twitter Widget Pro

• Link to Maryland Democratic Party

  In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:

  

• More Campaign 2012

  Congress

  First District:

  Andy Harris (R - incumbent)
  Wendy Rosen (D)
  Muir Boda (Libertarian)
  Marc Cohen (I)

  --

  Second District:

  Nancy Jacobs (R)
  C.A. 'Dutch' Ruppersberger (D - incumbent)

  --

  Third District:

  Eric Delano Knowles (R)
  John Sarbanes (D - incumbent)

  --

  Fourth District:

  Faith Loudon (R)
  Donna Edwards (D - incumbent)

  --

  Fifth District:

  Tony O'Donnell (R)

  Steny Hoyer (D - incumbent)
  Arvin Vohra (Libertarian)
  Jeremy Stinson (I)

  --

  Sixth District:

  Roscoe Bartlett (R - incumbent)
  John Delaney (D)

  --

  Seventh District:

  Frank Mirabile Jr. (R)
  Elijah Cummings (D - incumbent)
  Robert Brookman (I)

  --

  Eighth District:

  Ken Timmerman (R)
  Chris Van Hollen (D - incumbent)
  Mark Grannis (Libertarian)
  George Gluck (Green Party)

• Categories

  Select Category 50 Year Plan  (30) All politics is local  (1196) Baltimore Examiner  (73) Bloggers and blogging  (236) Book Reviews  (4) Business and industry  (391) Campaign 2008 – Congress  (235) Campaign 2008 – President  (155) Campaign 2009 – Salisbury  (20) Campaign 2010  (379) Campaign 2011 – Salisbury  (40) Campaign 2012  (118) Campaign 2012 – President  (107) Campaign 2013 – Salisbury  (2) Carnival of Maryland  (6) Communications  (33) DC Examiner  (16) Delaware politics  (42) Delmarva items  (1933) Delmarva Shorebirds  (223) Detroit Tigers  (27) Education  (10) Inside the Beltway  (372) Kratovil Watch  (62) Liberty Features Syndicate  (45) Live Blogging  (2) Local Music  (128) Mainstream media  (45) Maryland Bloggers Alliance  (6) Maryland Politics  (1081) National politics  (1086) NFL News  (13) Ohio politics  (14) Op-ed columns  (7) Pajamas Media  (18) Patriot Post  (6) Personal stuff  (724) Politics  (1994) Polling  (27) Radical Green  (144) Red County National  (10) Senator Watch  (87) Sports  (258) State of Conservatism  (555) Ten Questions  (49) Toledo Mud Hens  (10) Uncategorized  (3) Wal-Mart  (21) Wicomico County Examiner  (65)

• Locals flock to monoblogue

  

  Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.

• Text Link Ads

  • Maryland Self Storage
  • auto financing

Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)