Save us from Leftists

By definition, Leftists want the government to control much of their money and lives. Governments are run by politicians, which have a favorability rating around 15–20%. Who wants them to control the economy or our lives?

If you do, look around at the numerous countries that have tried this. They invariably get corrupt and their people become poor.

I’m not against programs that give money to parents to educate their children as they see fit. I’m also not against programs that give money to each of us to provide for medical expenses. But this money should go to all equally so that we have ‘equal rights before the law’.

If structured properly, these programs don’t allow Congress to control our lives because parents would be able to choose the school for their children.

And adults could choose their doctors and hospitals for them and their children.

Leftists such as United States Senator Elizabeth Warren, “Unveiled a proposal (in February 2019) outlining the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act, a comprehensive plan to provide millions of families with free, high-quality child care and early learning options and to ensure that every family in the country can affordably access these services.”

Notice the use of the word ’free’. Leftists love to use that word. ‘Free’ means to them, “Paid for by you from a tax or deficit increase”.

What about if a family would like the mother to stay home and raise their children? Would they get the equivalent amount as a child-care subsidy? Nope. Their taxes would go up making it harder for mothers to raise their children without having to work for money. Is this really what we want?

Senator Elizabeth Warren also wants to break up companies such as Google, Amazon and Facebook, because they are too big and dominate the markets. That’s all we need is some politicians deciding what companies are “too big” and how to control them.

It gets worse.

Newly elected United States Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (nicknamed AOC), said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change”.

OMG. Current projections are that the atmosphere will increase in temperature by an average of about 0.2 degrees Celsius in 12 years. I’ll take bets of any amount about the world ending in 12 years.

Later she said, “Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around, and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?'”

Great. Let’s stop having children. Then maybe the Earth can ‘heal itself’. But I do think that people who actually believe AOC should not propagate.

Please save us all from Leftists. I beg of you.

---

Tim Farage is a Professor and Graduate Advisor in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. He writes about mathematics, computer science, physics, chemistry, the reconciliation between science and spirituality, Intelligent Design, and the application of Natural Law to our various systems such as education, government and economics.

A way to have pretty good health care for all Americans

What is the current state of health care in the U.S. 

Currently our government is subsidizing health care in many ways, such as with the programs of Medicare (for those of retirement age) and Medicaid (for the poor), and other health-care laws passed by Congress, such as Obamcare. In addition most people still get heath insurance from their employer.  And anyone who walks into a county hospital can get medical care. 

Medicaid is not a very well-run program.  The amount it reimburses doctors is so low that many doctors do not take Medicaid patients.  My doctor takes Medicaid patients but only if they pay up front for the services provided.  The patient can then send the paperwork to the government to get reimbursed.

There are a number of unworkable and undesirable other things about the way the health care is handled.  One is that these programs are underfunded by over $40 trillion.  This means that the government has made health care promises but eventually not enough income to meet them, so some changes will have to be made.  Even so, not everyone is covered.  And we spend about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, higher than almost all other countries in the world.

Most people receive health-insurance subsidies from their employer, which creates its own sets of problems.  For instance, if a person quits their job or is fired, they must find another company to work for, or they must soon find their own health insurance. And if they have any pre-existing health conditions, this insurance could be prohibitively expensive.  

The only reason employers got involved with providing health insurance for its employees was that during World War II, the government made it a tax write off, as an encouragement to employers.  It no longer makes any sense to have employers involved with health insurance.  It creates many inefficiencies and problems.

On the other hand, most Americans are happy with the quality of health care that they receive. Therefore, we want to maintain at least the same quality, while providing good health care to all, and at an affordable price to the taxpayers. 

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, I think that health care, like education, should be subsidized for all Americans (and permanent residents).  And Americans should be able to choose their own doctors, chiropractors, osteopaths, ophthalmologists, dentists, etc., that they believe best meets their needs. 

What is the best way we can provide pretty good health care for all? 

My proposal will 1) Provide health care for all Americans, 2) Do so affordably using taxes, 3) Remove the pre-existing condition problem, and 4) Be fully funded, so that we don't pass on more debt to our children.  

The essence of the proposal is to provide and fund a Health-Care Account (HCA) for each American adult, paid for through taxes.  Some of this amount would be used to purchase a high-deductible health insurance policy, and the rest would be used to pay for medical services until the deductible is met. For most people, in most years, the deductible won't be met.  Keep in mind that money for the deductible is part of the HCA and would be paid for using a patient's HCA card. 

How much money should our government spend on healthcare?

Most of the advanced countries spend 9 to 12% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare. I suggest the government take 12% of GDP, which grows virtually every year, and provide an equal amount of this to every adult (age 18 or older).  With a GDP in 2017 of about $20 trillion, and 240 million adults, this comes out to over $10,000 per year per adult that the government would provide as a subsidy. 

Each adult would use their HCA card buy a $6,000 per year (in 2017 dollars) high-deductible health-insurance policy, and would have $4,000 per year to spend, using their HCA card, for their deductible. This very high deductible greatly helps to keep the insurance premium down.  Also, the health-insurance companies that wish to be involved in this would also be required to provide insurance for any children the adult may have. 

Here's an example as to how this would work. We'll assume that all Americans and permanent residents already have been given their HCA card.  You have the flu and go to the doctor of your choice.  Say the doctor charges $150 for a visit.  You would provide your HCA card and $150 would be deducted from your $4,000 deductible.  And that's it. It costs you nothing, and your doctor gets paid immediately.

Now suppose that something catastrophic occurs, such as a fall resulting in two broken legs and a concussion.  Say the medical costs would be $12,000. The hospital would first use whatever deductible was left on you HCA card, and then your insurance company would pay the remainder of the costs at 100%.  

This would provide very good coverage for all, and would save money at the same time, since we would be spending 12% of GDP on health care instead of 16% which we currently spend. And it would still keep the advantages of a free-market in health care, because patients could choose their own doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.  This is what would make it better than the "single-payer" plans that most developed countries have, because they dictate the cost of doctor's visits, as well as the costs of various procedures, and lead to many delays in obtaining health care. 

What would health-insurance companies need to do to qualify to be part of this program?  

The United States Congress would certify participating insurance companies who would have to agree to accept the amounts given above and would have to agree to accept any person, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.  They would also have to agree to insure any children of the covered adult. As is true now, they would also have to be fiscally sound. 

Also, once a person has met the deductible, their insurance company would have to agree cover 100% of covered medical costs.  There would be no more co-payments for the year.

Would health insurance companies want to participate in this program? 

Yes.  Keep in mind that these payments start at age 18.  Usually, people up to the age of 40 or 50 would not meet their deductible, but the health-insurance companies would be getting premiums during this time.  People who are older or are frequently ill would be using the insurance most years, and so essentially insurance companies would be making money on most young or healthy people, and losing money on older or less healthy people.  The difference should provide a reasonable profit for an insurance company, so that many would want to be a participant in this program.  This cushion of starting to get premiums at age 18 should also provide enough money to be able to handle the costs of pre-existing conditions.  The specifics as to what is covered and what isn't would need to be worked out so as to insure that insurance companies would want to participate. 

Q and A's

Since this would be a new government program, would it require a tax increase?

All things being equal, it would require a tax increase. But the overall cost to individuals would decrease. This is because they would no longer be paying their part of the health insurance provided by their employer.  Also, companies would be saving money because they would no longer be providing health insurance, and they would no longer have to have large human resource departments to deal with this.  Thus, they could afford to give raises to their employees.

Would eye care and dental care be covered?

Yes, this would be required of all participating insurance companies. 

Would all medical conditions and procedures be covered, and would coverage be unlimited? 

No. Just as now, certain conditions are not covered by Medicare, certain conditions would not be covered by this plan.  For example, a heart transplant would likely not be covered.  Similarly, cosmetic surgery would not be covered, although one could use the cash portion to pay for it. Also, a person could accumulated cash in their account which they would be able to use this for such procedures. 

Probably a lifetime maximum of around $1 million would be in place.  It's important to get good coverage for all, so some limitations must apply for this to occur.  

Would this program replace all other government health-care programs?  

Yes, and that is one way the government will save money on health-care programs.  No programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be needed.  Taxpayers would also save money because they would no longer have to pay for county hospitals because everyone would be covered. (A possible exception is that veterans who are injured in the line of duty would not have the limitations mentioned above.  They would have the same essential plan but any injuries they sustained would be covered, and the lifetime maximum would be increased.  There would be no more need for Veteran's Hospitals, since veterans could get their health care at any hospital). 

Studies have shown that people who take care of themselves physically spend less on health care.  Would there be incentives in place to encourage this?  

The government would not directly apply such incentives, but insurance companies would be allowed to.  For instance, an insurance company could say, "If you keep your weight in the ideal range for your age and sex, and if you keep yourself reasonably fit, and if you get regular physical, eye-care and dental checkups, we'll refund a portion of your monthly payment, and you can use that money anyway you wish."

This would be a valuable incentive to keep ourselves physically healthy.  And of course there would be the additional benefit that healthier individuals are happier and more productive. 

Are you sure it would be a good idea to sever the relationship between employment and health care? 

Very much so.  Economist Albert Brenner has said this about health care: “ Industry and commerce are not well-served by a labor force unwilling to change jobs for fear of losing health-insurance benefits.  I have seen little discussion of this issue in connection with health care reform, but health-insurance benefits are a major reason for individuals to accept employment and to continue their employment even if they are not satisfied, challenged, or motivated by their job.  The current system thereby promotes an inefficient utilization of labor by restricting labor mobility.  This inefficiency reduces productivity, profits, and economic growth and output.  Since labor costs are by far the single largest resource cost in the production of goods and services, a reform that promises to make labor utilization more efficient promises to improve productivity and to increase economic output.” 

Would health-insurance co-operatives be allowed to participate? 

Yes, as long as they meet the same regulatory standards that for-profit health-insurance companies must meet.

(Health insurance co-operatives are owned by those who purchase health-insurance policies through them.  Any profits made can be returned to the policy owners, or can be used to reduce premiums.  Thus, they may wish to provide additional incentives for its members to be physically fit). 

What could a person do with money that accumulates in their HCA? 

They could do a number of things.  A person could choose to get a refund each year for any deductible money they did not use. This would provide an incentive to find good, yet cost-effective doctors and hospitals. 

Also, they would be allowed to transfer their money to another's account.  This could be useful if, for example, a family member needed a heart transplant, or something that wasn't covered by the insurance policy.

And they could stipulate in their will that any excess money be given to another person(s).  This would add more incentive to take care of oneself physically. 

Could a person use their own money to get additional benefits by increasing their health-insurance premiums?

Certainly.  This must be the case in a free country. 

Can the well-off do something to lessen the cost of this program? 

Yes. There should be an easy way for someone to opt out of this program, and those that are well-to-do would be encouraged to do so.  For instance, the government might ask those families who earn over $150,000 to opt out of the program and pay for their own medical care.  As our country becomes more prosperous, more people would be able to opt out, saving the government money.  The government could send a nice thank-you letter each year to individuals who opted out, to show their appreciation. 

Would this program be constitutional? 

Although the Supreme Court would likely rule it to be, I don't think it would be constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution about the government providing health-care subsidies. Therefore, I would want a Constitutional Amendment passed to allow for this program. The amendment would specify that up to 12% of GDP could be used for the subsidy, and that sufficient taxes should be levied so that no debt would arise as a result of it. 

It would also state that this subsidy is not a right. This is because I don't believe one can have a right that requires someone else to pay for that right. 

As an aside, are there other subsidies that you’d like the government to provide? 

Yes.  Until our civilization advances enough, I believe that government should subsidize both education and health care for all.

Additionally, I’ve previously described a Natural-Resource Dividend.  This is an amount of money that would be given each month to every American adult, to compensate for others’ use of our common natural resources. Lately, this idea has been called a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

If each adult got a $1000 per month UBI, a family of four would be getting about $2000 per month from the Natural-Resource Dividend, plus government-subsidized health care and education.  These should provide a reasonable economic base for families, and would also allow most mothers of young children to not have to work for money.

Between these subsidies and the Natural-Resource Dividend, we can eliminate all other subsidies that the government provides, both to businesses and individuals.  This would save a large sum of money by eliminating all of the bureaucracy involved in these programs. 

Note also a very important point: every American would be given the same amount of money for each of these subsidies.  This will save money by reducing the bureaucracy involved, and will satisfy the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment, which are both meant to have laws that apply equally to all citizens. 

Conclusion 

Having a health-care subsidy that a) provides good health care to all Americans without going into debt; b) that saves money as well; c) that encourages us to take care of our physical health; and d) that still allows individuals free choices as to how to obtain their health care, is a plan that we should adopt as soon as possible.

_____________________________________

 
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

What the next President of the United States ought to do

Introduction
 
As I write this in March, 2016, this is the most "interesting" presidential race that I've witnessed. I'm not going to get into the candidates, or the political parties, mostly because both of the major political parties are corrupt, and because they tend to polarize our country. So this post will deal with the issues and not politics, thank God. 

No matter how you feel about the particular candidates, there is a hopeful sign during this election season. And that sign is that people are tired of politics as usual. Amen to that. Go USA.

That said, what would I like to see our next President focus on, in order to keep our country as the best country in the world? And further, what should the next President do to improve our country so that we can be a good model for all other countries? 

1) Allowing all parents to choose their children's school
 
This is really a state issue, but it's so important that I'm including it here. Certainly, the President can lead the charge to encourage the states to adopt school choice.
 
Currently, if you are well-to-do, you can send your child to whatever school you wish, public, private or parochial, if that school is willing to enroll your child. 

If you are not well off, you must send your child to the local public school, or possibly a public charter school. We've been trying for decades to improve public education, and everyone knows how that has gone. If you don't know, go see the documentary, Waiting for Superman.
 
The documentary shows the plight of the poor and how desperate they are to get into good schools. The writer suggests having more charter schools, which is fine. But the only sustainable answer is to have school choice for all parents, rich or poor. There is no doubt that it will eventually happen, so why not start doing it now? If we are going to subsidize education, then allow the parents the freedom to decide how their children are to be educated.
 
It's simple to do. Each state should take whatever it now spends on K-12 education. (In Texas it's about $10,000 per student per year). Then put this amount into an Educational Benefit Account for each child. The child's parents can then use this money to send their child to whatever public, private or parochial school that they feel will best suit their child. And they can change schools whenever they wish.
 
School's will crop up all over the place. Some will be bad and some will be good. But the bad ones will eventually go out of business, since parents will stop sending their children there. And that's what will lead to educational improvement in our country. Why? Because every system improves when people have a choice.

2) Pass a balanced-budget amendment
 
Year after year of budget deficits tells us that Congress cannot balance a budget. As of March, 2016, the national debt is $19 trillion. This is the same as $19 million million. This comes out to over $152,000 of national debt per family. Did you know that you had that debt on top of whatever personal debts you have? And you're paying the interest on it. 

It's time for a balanced-budget amendment that requires Congress to pass only balanced budgets. The amendment should have an exception that allows for Congress to vote to deficit spend for a given year is 2/3rds of both houses of Congress vote to do so. (This might be needed in times of war, or a large natural disaster). The amendment should allow 10 years for Congress to balance the budget.

3) Real health care reform
 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans' health care are underfunded by over $60 trillion. And they don't provide health care for everyone, they don't remove the pre-existing condition problem that everyone hates, and they still tie much of health care with employment. Yet we spend about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, more than most developed countries.
 
Here's a simple solution that provides health care to all Americans, would be completely funded, would eliminate the pre-existing condition problem, and would de-couple health care with employment. 

The solution is for the federal government to take 10% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), about $1.8 trillion, and put an equal amount of this into a Health Care Account (HCA) for each American adult. This would be about $7300 per year per adult. About half of this would be used to buy a high-deductible health insurance policy, and the other half to pay for medical expenses incurred before the deductible kicks in (and in most years, it wouldn't).
 
Insurance companies that grant policies under this plan must agree to cover any children the adult might have.

This plan would also replace all other health care subsidies.

This amount would be pretty good coverage and would include, medical, dental, and vision care. The most expensive procedures, such as a heart transplant, wouldn't be covered because there must a limit to keep coverage affordable.
 
Everyone would be covered, everyone could still choose whatever doctor or hospital they wished, and we'd save money all at the same time.
 
4) Bring our troops home
 
It's hard to believe but we have more than 350,000 troops deployed overseas in over 150 countries. I want the US to always have the best military in the world, yet I see no reason to have troops deployed overseas unless we are at war. Iraq didn't attack us, and Afghanistan didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did. And ISIS is attempting to do so. So the only troops we should have overseas right now would be those who go after those who are planning to attack us. And most of this can be done with our Special Forces and our intelligence apparatus, which have been especially effective since 9/11 in thwarting attacks against us.
 
What is currently going on in the Middle East is a terrible tragedy. But there are more than 400 million people in Arab League countries. They can get rid of ISIS and other terrorist groups if they truly desire to.
 
If we minded our own business, and stopped being policemen of the world, we'd need fewer troops, we'd have less hostility directed at us, and we could use some of the troops brought home to protect our borders and ports. I think we would actually have fewer attacks directed against us without troops stationed overseas.
 
And the US Navy still dominates the oceans. We can defend the US from attacks from just about anywhere in the world.
 
5) Transform Social Security into a sustainable retirement plan
 
Social Security was started by FDR in 1935 and the tax rate was 2%. It was meant to be a supplement to one's retirement income. Now the Social Security tax rate is 12.4%, and it is still only a supplement to one's income. And it's underfunded. Anyone saving 12.4% of their income should be able to retire on that alone. Instead, to retire gracefully, we need to have another retirement plan and save 10% in that. This is an incredible waste.
 
Transition to a system in which individuals are required to save 15% for their retirement. No more under-funding. And if I told you that most people would be millionaires when they retired, you wouldn't believe me, but it's true.  The transition might take decades, but the sooner we start, the better off we'll be.
 
Every month each of us would have much more money to spend because we wouldn't have to put money into both Social Security and another retirement plan.
 
6) Replace the income tax with a Natural Resource and Pollution tax
 
We currently waste between $200 - $600 billion per year just because there's an income tax. This is money spent on tax attorneys, tax accountants, tax software, etc., just to pay income taxes. Furthermore, there is no rational basis for a tax on income. If a person earns X amount of money, then that money is theirs and belongs to no one else.
 
On the other hand the natural resources of a country weren't created by anyone, so they can only be considered to belong to all of us. The best way to handle the natural resources is to allow individuals or companies who own them to pay a monthly tax on those resources that are not used up (mostly land) or to pay a one-time tax on resources that are used up, such as oil, gas, aluminum, and minerals.
 
This would eliminate the IRS and all the problems created by having an income tax, and replace it with a tax that would have many beneficial side effects, such as encouraging conservation in order to minimize taxes.
 
7) Start building nuclear reactors now
 
We need inexpensive, reliable energy to be prosperous. Inexpensive energy is one of the single most important items that help the poor get out of poverty, because inexpensive energy reduces the cost of everything. Currently, there is only one source of non-polluting, reliable energy that can provide a steady base load of energy for our country. And that is energy generated from nuclear power. President Obama is providing loan guarantees to investors who provide money to build nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already approved two very good and very safe nuclear reactor designs. Congress just needs to remove any other remaining barriers to building them now.
 
In a decade or so, we'll have better battery-powered cars, and these can be charged with electricity generated by nuclear-powered plants. We'll then have most of of our energy be clean and safe. They also give off no CO2, and will make us independent of foreign oil.
 
If you're worried about radiation from them, don't be. In over 50 years, there has not been even a single death due to radiation in the United States as a result of commercial nuclear power plants.

If France can get, inexpensively, 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, so can we. And we'll be able to get the rest from solar, wind, and other non-polluting sources. 

Conclusion 

If our next President would do the above items, our country would once again be leading the way to making a better world for all.
 
______________________________________
 
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed here are his own. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law – (Part 2) – Appointment of Supreme Court Justices and Limits on Congressional Authority

Appointment of Justices 

Only Supreme Court Justices who are strict constructionists should be appointed - those who will interpret the Constitution as it is currently amended - not as they would like it to be. 

There are certainly times when many of us have wished that the Constitution would have granted more (or fewer) powers to Congress.  But these powers of Congress should be changed only through the amendment process given in the Constitution and not by judicial fiat.

Powers of Congress

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress – in what areas Congress is able to legislate.  Reading this section shows how few areas in which Congress is able to create legislation.

Most areas have to do with the military.  Some of the other more important areas have to do with the:

-   Ability to lay and collect taxes

-   To coin money, and borrow money

-   To regulate commerce between the States and between foreign countries

-   To establish post offices and postal roads

-   To establish rules for copyrights and patents

Furthermore, a number of the Bill of Rights amendments further restrict Congress and explicitly indicate that Congress only has the powers granted to it by the Constitution:

-   Amendment I forbids Congress from passing laws involving religious expression; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; the right of the people to peaceably assemble; and to petition the government for grievances.

-   Amendment II forbids Congress from passing laws from infringing on the right of the people to own and bear arms.  (This is an aspect of the Natural Right we have to defend ourselves, our families, and or countries).

-   Amendment III starts with, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, shall not be violated by Congress, except upon probable cause, which must be determined by a judge".

-   Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  In other words, people have thousands of rights, and they could not possibly be enumerated in the Constitution.

-   And Amendment X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is certainly clear that the Constitution explicitly limited the powers of Congress.  Clearly, Congress has far exceeded its Constitutional mandates.  A good Supreme Court would have struck down many of these laws. 

Examples of a Law that Violate the Constitution 

Probably the most devastating laws passed by Congress have to do drug laws.  Look as hard as you wish and you will find that Congress has no authority to pass such laws.  It is not the place to go into it here, but so many of our citizens have been arrested for such laws that it is a disgrace.  For further information see Michelle Alexander’s excellent book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness." 

As proof that such law are unconstitutional, when Congress wanted to make alcohol illegal (Prohibition), they knew that they had no authority to do this, and instead proposed a Constitutional amendment, which passed, but was soon overturned.  Nanny-state laws have no place in the United States of America, a country based upon the freedom to live in peace.

Examples of Supreme Court Decisions that Violated the Constitution

A famous example of a Supreme Court decision that violated the Constitution was to not allow students to lead prayer groups before or after school, with students who voluntarily attended. This was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Another series of Supreme Court decisions that violated the Constitution allowed for the "separate but equal" treatment of whites and “coloreds”.  For instance, in Plessy v. Ferguson the ruling required railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races.  The "separate but equal" doctrine applied to railroad cars and to schools, voting rights, and drinking fountains.  However, there was nothing “equal” about these decisions, and they were finally overturned in Brown vs. The Board of Education.

A final example is a Supreme Court ruling about the Ten Commandments.

Here various Supreme Courts have come up with conflicting decisions about this. First, keep in mind that the Supreme Court building has the Ten Commandments inscribed in stone in at least three places.  How could they then rule that other public institutions could not do so?

It is a mystery to me. Displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building has been done since the founding of our country and was certainly not found unconstitutional then. Why now? After all, the display of any text does not ‘establish a religion’ which meant that the US would have an official religion.

Even displaying the words, God forbid, “We love Satan”, would not be unconstitutional, although I, and many other would not walk into such a building.

Suggestions

A Constitutional amendment should be passed that requires Congress to cite the part of the Constitution that gives them the authority to pass a given law.

A Constitutional amendment should be passed that requires Congress to pass laws that have no more words that there are in the Constitutional itself. This would stop the ridiculous laws such as the Income Tax Laws that have over 2 million words in them. What Congressman or person can read a law with hundreds or thousands of pages, which is not uncommon.

The Constitution should be amended to require a balanced budget.  A government that lives within its means does not pass on its debt to our children, who must pay it off with interest.  Such an amendment would force our legislators to make difficult decisions regarding spending and taxes, and not be able to cut taxes and increase spending just to get more votes.  The amendment should include a provision so that, in an emergency, Congress may spend more than permitted if two-thirds of both Houses vote to do so.

This may be hard to believe, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the national debt will be around $17 trillion for the 2013 fiscal year.  This is quite a bit over $100,000 of debt per family!  Each year we must pay the interest on this debt, and the debt and interest has been growing under every almost every administration since 1969. Additionally, the Constitution should be amended so that any tax or spending increases over and above those due to inflation and population growth must be approved by a 2/3rds vote of both houses of Congress.

The clauses in the Constitution that give Congress the ability to pass laws in certain areas are called the “enumerated powers”.  The 10th Amendment gives the states and the people the ability to pass laws in other areas.

By helping to control federal spending and by reducing deficit spending, the three items above will help to keep Congress and the President from inserting themselves into the lives of the people any more than is necessary. And this means that we the people have more freedom to live our lives and practice our beliefs as we see fit.

____________________________________

                    

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer and Graduate Adviser in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

____________________________________