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.
______________________________________

What Should be Done to Defeat ISIS and Other Islamo-Terrorist Groups?

This post gives a more specific solution than I have given before to the Islamo-Terrorism problems that are affecting the entire world.

Neither ISIS nor al Qaeda could openly exist in the United States or many other countries. Why? Because we wouldn't put up with terrorists, or any group who tried to control our lives. Let 10,000 ISIS militants materialize in Texas and see how long they'd last. 

So here's the only real solution. The men in these predominantly Muslim countries must come together and beat ISIS and other terrorist groups.

As far as an organized group of fighting men goes, the Arab League, which is an organization that consists of about 22 Arabic-speaking countries, with a population of over 400 million (compare to the US population of 310 million) has plenty of men and natural resources. For more information about it, check out the Wikipedia page at Arab League. 

It did not have much of a military component until they voted in 2015 to have a military to fight terrorism. They will need time to form a well-organized, capable military, and the United States and other countries can help with this, but only at the request of the Arab League. 

We, and other countries, can provide advice, and air support with fighters and bombers in conjunction with the Arab League. But they need to provide the 'boots on the ground'.

I emphatically do not want the United States to become involved in another land war in the Middle East.

(We should have Special Operations forces and our intelligence agencies over in Middle East in order to find any terrorist groups who have attacked or who are planning to attack the United States. If any are found, we can eliminate their threat without going to war). 

Why is the solution of having the Arab League fight ISIS a good one? We have had wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lost thousands of American military lives, and have had ten times as many severe injuries. And to what avail? None. We may actually have made matters worse. (This is not the fault of our military, but mostly of the Bush administration that got us involved in these wars). 

If the United States, even working with a coalition of other countries, defeats ISIS, another group will pop up and take its place. 

On the other hand, if the Arab League fought and defeated ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, that would mean that most of those in these predominantly Muslim countries will have said no to terrorism, and even to Sharia Law.

Those Muslims that support Sharia Law support laws that infringe on the individual rights of others, especially those of women. Sharia Law is not sustainable and it is only when the vast majority of Muslims reject it, that there will there be a lasting peace in the Middle East. 

I do not know what the chances are that the Arab League will form a military strong enough to defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups. But if they do, this would imply that most Muslims reject terrorism and Sharia Law from being enforced. And that is the only way to have peace in the Middle East. 

That is the end of my main thesis. 

------

Does this relate to whether or not the United States should accept thousands of Syrian refugees? Not directly, but very much so indirectly. 

Currently, Muslims in the United States have a lower murder rate than non-Muslims in the United States, even including Islamo-Terrorist attacks in our country. 

And I want to keep it that way. One reason is that if Muslim immigrants start committing more terrorist attacks, it will be bad for the vast majority of peaceful American Muslims. And it may lead an American land war in the Middle East.

Letting in Syrian refugees will likely lead to negative consequences for the United States, and for peaceful Muslims.

Here are some quotes from a site about Syrian refugees in Europe. The quotes are from:

Survey of Syrian Refugees in Europe

"As the United States moves forward in letting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country, a survey says that 13 percent of the Syrian refugees in Europe sympathize with the Islamic State.

"The poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies surveyed 900 refugees in what it called 'the largest public opinion poll conducted in the Arab region'.

"The survey also found that 10 percent of the displaced Syrian refugees have a mixed or lukewarm — but not entirely negative — view of the terror group. In response to the survey’s findings, Investors’ Business Daily pointed out, 'That means 23% — or almost 1 in 4 — could be susceptible to ISIS recruitment.'

"Asked about national security concerns over Syrian refugees, FBI Director James Comey told the House Judiciary Committee, 'The only thing we can query is information that we have. And so if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there. And so it will be challenging.'

"And National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen added, 'The intelligence picture we have of this particular conflict zone is not as rich as we would like it to be'."

-------

This is a strong argument for not letting into our country Syrian refugees. There is little to gain and much to lose if we do.

-------

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author.

What Should We Do about the Islamo-Terrorists?

Introduction 

As of February, 2015, there are a number of Islamo-Terrorist groups, such as ISIL and Al Qaeda. These groups seemingly want the entire world to convert to their perverted view of Islam. Those that don't have frequently been murdered. Of course, on 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda murdered 3000 innocent Americans. Recently, ISIL burned alive a Jordanian pilot and recorded it so it could be posted on the Internet. And they just murdered a number of Coptic Orthodox Christians in Egypt. The Jordanian and Egyptian governments, along with the rest of the world, were horrified by this and are attempting to track down and kill the perpetrators, who have murdered tens of thousands of innocents.

These terrorists have even attacked schools and murdered school children in Chechnya, the Middle East, and North Africa. Their heinous murders of innocent men, women and children seem incomprehensible to us, especially since they believe they are doing this in God's name. 

What should the United States NOT do about this?

A recent CBS poll shows that a majority of Americans, about 57%,  now believe we should send ground troops into the Middle East and Northern Africa to defeat ISIL. (See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/majority-of-americans-now-support-us-troops-on-the-ground-against-isis-10061247.html).

This would be a woeful mistake.

Since 9/11 our intelligence agencies and the FBI have thwarted most terrorist attacks in the United States. The ones that have succeeded were awful, yet resulted in relatively few deaths.

The job of the United States government is to protect the United States. It is NOT to be the policemen of the world.

While we all empathize with the tremendous suffering caused by these terrorists, dealing with them should be done by the countries whose citizens are murdered or controlled by them. After all, we did not ask Jordan, Syria, Great Britain or any other country to send troops to the United States after 9/11.

So what should the United States do?

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.” 

Thomas Jefferson

We should have cordial relations with all countries or groups who act peacefully.  No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will regret it.  “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be.  This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions. 

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow.  What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same.

And what this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place.

So what should the United States military do?

The United States military and intelligence agencies should defend the USA if it is attacked, and to attempt to prevent an attack against us. 

This also includes eliminating or incarcerating those who have already attacked us.

(A possible addition to this is that if a close ally of ours is attacked, and if they request our assistance, and if we are able to help, we should carefully consider whether to use our military to aid the ally). 

Specifically, we should not send ground troops to other countries unless we are at war because we were attacked.

Rather, we should use our intelligence-gathering capabilities and our Special Forces to attempt to locate threats to the United States. When threats are found, we should eliminate them. 

I approve of the current way the Obama administration is doing this, by directing drones to eliminate such targets, or to bomb them.

I am also in favor of bringing the troops home that we have stationed in over 100 bases in other countries.

Some of these troops can be used to protect our porous borders and ports, further enhancing our safety.
  
But when hunting down terrorists, who can move from place to place and country to country, using our ground troops to fight them puts our soldiers in harms' way, which I do not wish to happen to protect other countries. 

What should the countries whose citizens are attacked do? 

The Arab League consists of about twenty countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The population of these countries is almost 400 million, more than the US population. 

So they have the people to take on and eliminate the terrorists themselves, if they would cooperate with each other. And it they aren't willing to cooperate, that is none of our business.

Conclusion 

The United States military should protect the United States. Other countries have the right and duty to protect their own citizens.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer 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.
______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 16) - Women in the Military

Introduction

Recently, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress a few years ago, has said that women should be allowed to serve fully in combat.  "It is time to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," the commission said.  They went on to say, "Minorities and women still lag behind white men in terms of the number of military leadership positions.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he expected women to be let into special operation forces eventually.  A Pentagon spokeswoman said that the department would review the recommendations when the report is delivered. 
Opponents have said that most women lack the necessary strength and stamina needed for battle.  They have also said that it could harm unit cohesion, and that Americans won't tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags.

Some facts about women in combat

1) It is certainly true that most women don't have the strength and stamina that men have.  And in almost all military physical-fitness tests, the requirements for women are lower than those of men. So if women were allowed into combat units, the men would know they weren't as physically capable as their fellow males.

2) Men and women think and react differently, because their brains are wired differently.  In The Male Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine, she says that men's brains are wired so that they become protective of their mates, and this generalizes to other women, as well.  Thus, in a combat situation a man might unconsciously or consciously be more concerned with protecting the women in his unit than with the mission.  Related to this is that because a young woman could be pregnant, a man may again be more protective of a woman in their unit, and thus be distracted from the overall well-being of the unit.

3) Because of the factors mentioned above, unit cohesion would almost certainly be affected.  We don't want men to be worried about protecting the women in their unit at the expense of accomplishing their mission.

4) Men are distracted by attractive women at via the most primitive parts of the male brain.  This distraction could prove to be a disaster in some situations.

5) Both women and men get pay more attention to an angry man than they do to an angry woman.  Thus, in a command and control situation, an angry male commander is more likely to be obeyed than an angry female commander.  This could negatively affect the unity of the group, which could weaken the accomplishment of it.

6) Women who are pregnant can harm their fetuses when firing in a gun range or in combat or even in an aircraft carrier with loud noises. Children have been born with burst ear drums because their mothers shot guns while pregnant. It could be mandated that pregnant women be removed from combat or combat training if pregnant, but, of course, women are usually pregnant for a certain amount of time before they know that they are.  If women were allowed into combat, almost certainly, some of the children they bear will suffer developmental deficits of one sort or another because of it.

Furthermore, a young woman who is injured in combat may well injure their child-bearing organs — or experience post-combat distress syndrome, either of which could negatively affect their  capacity to be a good mother.

7) It used to be that women who became pregnant were discharged from the military.  Now, they are not only not discharged, but they receive medical benefits, receive full pay, and even are given uniforms to conform to their pregnancy.  And they get child care once their child is born.  This is a waste of tax payers' dollars, since at some point in their pregnancy, they are not longer able to be productive members of the military.  And if women are allowed into combat, a pregnant woman would have to be removed from their unit immediately.

Women stationed on ships and even those who are in small, close-nit units have a very high pregnancy rate.  A Time Magazine article stated that about 13% of the women in the military are pregnant.  Nearly 40% of females in certain Army units are pregnant, according to a report from the Air Command and Staff College.  Aside from the dangers to their fetuses mentioned above, if a woman gives birth and stays in the military, mother-child bonding and certainly father-child bonding can be adversely affected.  This would certainly lower the chances that the child be breast fed for the optimal amount of time. Is this good for our country?

8) If women were allowed into combat, it would not be long before they would be required to register for the draft, and therefore get involuntarily drafted into the military during a war-time situation. They could be assigned to a combat unit.  You might think that the law could allow women to opt out of the draft or being in a combat unit, but the individuals who want women in combat would make sure that such "discrimination" does not occur.  How many fathers out there would encourage their daughters to join the military if they could be put into combat?  I wouldn't.

9) If women were required to register for the draft, a woman who qualified for combat would be required to do so. How many women would intentionally get pregnant just to get out of joining the military?

10) For those who think that being in the military is a right, this is just not so. There are many requirements to be able to get into the military, including age, health, intelligence, etc.  There is no right for anyone to be in the military. 

The most important consideration

My most important concern is this - that idea that women should be treated as men - is culturally degrading.  It is the duty, responsibility and honor of men to protect women (and children).  It is built into our brains, and cannot be removed.  To place a woman - who may at any time be pregnant, into a combat situation - goes against the very being of most men.  My suspicion is that any civilization that does this cannot last long.

Only a woman can bring a new soul into the world -- the most important single thing that anyone can do.

For those who think that such thinking is sexist, their definition of "sexist" must be much different than mine. To me a sexist is a person who believes that their sex is inherently superior to the opposite sex.  My view is that God made all of us as His children and that both sexes are equally important.  Of course, men and women are different in many ways, otherwise there wouldn't be men and women.

If I said, "Men are very, very bad at having children," would this be considered a sexist statement?  Clearly not, since the truth cannot be sexist.

The differences between men and women are expressed in many ways, such as with the yin/yang concept, positive and negative, male and female.  And such concepts express not only that there are differences, but that both are equally needed.  God has created the male/female duality for a purpose, and we would be wise to not attempt to ignore or eliminate it.
_____________________

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.