Let's Make A Deal

Let's Make A Deal

All we have heard in the media is how we are facing a huge debt crisis that threatens to ruin our great country.  I agree 100% with this statement, and I think just about everyone I know also agrees with this statement.  The problem comes in on how to solve this crisis.

The first thing we must recognize is that "We the People" got ourselves into this mess.  One way or another, we allowed this financial debacle to develop; whether we elected officials that had "spend, spend, spend" as their agendas, or those who felt we need to go to wars that were unfunded, or asking for "perks" as if they were candy.

So now it's time to take our medicine to cure our financial ills, but like all medicine, there are side effects.  No one wants to experience side effects, but like any true medicine, they exist and we have to find the right medicine for each situation.

I know there are lots of people that will not appreciate my prescription, but I'm always open to suggestions...as long as they actually work.

Let's start with Social Security, which is a huge part of the Federal budget.  Yes, it's like a sacred cow in India...everyone knows it's a problem, but try to steer the "cow" in a definitive direction and the masses believe you are messing with unknown "mythical forces".  I'm over that crap.

I hear the masses say that we must solve the debt crisis and take the burden off the backs of our children and grandkids, but do not touch Social Security.  Sorry...can't have it both ways.

Suggested Change 1 - Change the top tax limit of Social Security.  Currently, once someone makes more than Approximately $107, 000 per year, they stop paying into Social Security.  When I was employed, I would reach this maximum limit in September and for the next few months, received a substantial hike in my take-home pay, because I wasn't paying into the fund until the next new year.  Eliminate this top limit...pay into Social Security period.

Suggested Change 2 - Raise the retirement age from to 67, then 68 years old over the next 20 years in increments.  Yes, it will take longer to reach official retirement age, but what is worse...a higher retirement age or no Social Security at all?  This is a no-brainer to me.

There are other suggested changes, but I want to move on to other financial "fixes" we need to seriously consider.

Limit the time of elected officials to a maximum of 10 years for Congress folks and 12 years for Senators.  Has anyone ever bothered to look at the "perks" and retirement pensions that come with these positions, especially after 10 years in office?

Some of our elected officials that claim to be "ordinary" people have established a pension system for themselves that beats anything else in the government.

I spent 20 years in the military defending the Constitution and our country and I get a paltry 50% of my pay, when I retired.  If a Senator stays in office for 20 years, that person receives over 200% of their pay, upon retirement.  That's just wrong.

Though the savings would be a small fraction of the Federal budget, it all adds up.  Besides, why do we complain about wanting to save money, yet we pay into these accounts with taxpayer money.  Remember, these Federal officials do not pay into Social Security...all their retirement pay comes from our pockets!

Keeping people in office for a limited time accomplishes 2 things; it reduces any retirement they may have "earned", and it provides new blood and ideas to an establishment of the government that sorely needs to move ahead.

We have a constitutional amendment that prohibits the president from serving more than 2 terms, yet we allow other elected officials to serve as long as we are idiots to keep re-electing them.  We need to save ourselves from our continuing blind following.

Have a constitutional amendment that mandates that spending increases must be offset by equal or greater spending cuts that may be taken from ANY Federal agency; including the military.

Come on, in this age of modern technologies, do you really think that one more aircraft carrier will be significant if our country was truly under attack?  Do you know how many cruise missiles, attack helicopters or real-time troops can be financed for the cost of 1 aircraft carrier, or squadron of F-35s, or battalion of tanks?

Though I see these suggested changes as reasonable and thought out, I know that there will be many that just don't get it.  If you really think that my "suggestions" are unreasonable or unworkable, please leave me a comment, but please do so with factual arguments...not a bunch of rants and ravings.

Comments anyone?

Why Are We Fixating on Guns to Stop the Violence?

Why Are We Fixating on Guns to Stop the Violence?

The entire country is awash in arguments concerning the 2nd Amendment and the push for tighter gun control in the United States.  There is the camp of people that want absolutely no further restrictions on any part of the gun industry in this country.  This includes no further control in the form of background checks, the size of gun magazines, the sale of assault weapons or anything that resembles more government control over the constitutional rights of Americans.

As for myself, I don't see anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that gives Americans the right to purchase guns without a background check, or where the Constitution allows gun magazines to be whatever size the gun industry manufactures.  I believe these ideas from gun control advocates are reasonable, though the enforcement of such provisions would be extremely difficult.  

To push through new restrictions on background checks and magazine capacities would create a set of difficulties that would make these new "laws" meaningless.  For example, if every gun sale had to include some type of background check, how would this be enforced at gun shows around the country?

If background checks mandate a specific "waiting time" before the gun sale is final, how would this be enforced at gun shows?  The gun show business is huge in this country and doing something to make it more difficult to purchase a gun legally at a gun show, would place an undue burden on private businesses.  

If some type of technology was produced that would permit necessary background checks within a short time period (i.e. 30 minutes), then mandated background checks might work; otherwise anything longer would inhibit business and that would be totally unfair.

Then we have the idea of limiting the size of gun magazines.  What would be proposed for the millions of existing gun magazines considered "excessive" by gun control advocates?  What is considered "excessive"?

Americans have a strong sense of ingenuity and if someone really wants a gun magazine for an assault weapon that can hold 100 rounds of ammo, they will figure something out.  What if a gun owner didn't use a magazine, but had a "belt" of ammo, like the large caliber guns used in World War II?  Would it be illegal to have "belts" of ammunition, but not magazines?

The root problem isn't guns; it's the violence that is created by people.  I have seen riots in our streets where people were killed and not one gun was ever fired.  In our history, there have been acts of violence so horrendous and guns were not used in any way, yet we are now fixated on guns.

We have racial violence, we have organized violence, we have gang violence...where is the outcry over these types of mayhem?

I read on a semi-regular basis of people using cars to try to kill others; yet we still allow cars to be manufactured.  We have poisons readily available for purchase in grocery stores and some people use these products in their attempts to kill others.

What if a deranged person barricaded a church or a school, burned it to the ground, killing dozens of people trapped inside...would we try to control gasoline, or matches?

Guns are just a prop in the commission of violence.  Yes, guns are used by some people to kill, but so are cars, poison, arson, physical beatings, baseball bats and more...yet I can go to stores and purchase any of these items without suspicion.

I do not think that anyone in this country is against stopping the violence that is at every level of our society.  This is where the common ground is for all Americans...stopping violence. 

So instead of spending valuable time and resources arguing over the details of the violence, why aren't we doing more to stop the causes of the violence?

Of course, trying to stop violence and what steps would be beneficial starts another round of arguments, agendas and opinions.  

I truly believe if we focused on root causes of our violent society, perhaps we would see an overall drop in massacres and other useless killings, no matter what "tool" is used.

More Questions

More Questions?

As we begin 2013, the questions in my head continue.  There are times when I ponder a variety of topics that either amaze or completely confuse me.  When I ask others for answers, they look at me with bewilderment, shake their heads and walk away.

For example...there is a sign being shared on Facebook as follows:

It tries to convince people that guns are less dangerous than hammers, knives, drunk drivers and doctors.  Here's the catch, how many massacres have you read about in the United States by people with hammers?  Or knives? Or drunk drivers?  Or incompetent doctors?

The large majority of deaths caused by hammers usually involved either domestic abuse or robberies; the same with knives.  At no time in our history as anyone murdered 26 people with a hammer.

The bottom line talks about 195,000 people were killed in 2011 by medical malpractice...what a deceptive number.  According to the American Medical Association, the number of deaths in 2011 that "may" have been caused by medical malpractice was closer to 98,000.  Yes, that is still too high, but to use 195,000 as a figure is pure deception on the part of whoever developed the poster.

Remember, the medical malpractice number is for 2011, and not during any time of Obamacare.  Trying to link medical malpractice in 2011 to Obamacare, which is not yet fully employed, is another turn of pure deception.

Deaths by hammers, knives, and drunk drivers are not well thought out plans to intentionally go and murder a large number of people.  

I am not here to advocate gun control, but let's look at the numbers realistically and in proper context, instead of trying to skew the figures to push an agenda.  

There are arguments from both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies that use numbers, to scare everyone, in order to push their respective agendas.  

In my past, I taught a course in Statistics for the Department of Defense for 4 years.  I learned that anyone can take numbers, and use "spin" to reach a pre-conceived result.

For example, based purely on existing statistics, I could find the number of drunk drivers that were right-handed.  Then, I could also use numbers to generate a statistic to "prove" that right-handed drunk drivers were the "true" cause of deaths in the majority of deaths resulting from drunk drivers.  Someone reading these numbers could come to the obvious conclusion that right-handed drivers should be a priority when screening for drunken driving performance.

I can see the furor that would create...all right-handed drivers should be profiled, or if you see someone weaving on the road, but the driver is left-handed, there is a small percentage that the driver will cause an accident resulting in deaths.

Of course, we are never given a balanced perspective, when statistics are thrown at us by the media, focus groups or anyone else pushing an agenda.  It is up to us, as the American public and as individuals to understand that the statistics being shoved down our throats are intentionally meant to sway our opinion one way or another.

Then again, we are also the same group of voters that re-elect these ineffective politicians over and over again.  If we can't understand how we are being led around by the nose, by the use of statistics, I'm afraid we have no one to blame, but ourselves for the continued chaos that plaques our country on so many levels.