Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 13) - Retirement and Social Security

The History and Future of Social Security

Social Security is a poorly planned system that is not economically sound, and is unfunded.  The current Social Security tax rate is 12.5% and this money is used to pay current retirees; thus none of the Social Security taxes paid by an individual are actually invested for that individual.  This is why it is considered unfunded.  Because of this and because of the aging population that is occurring all over the world, Social Security benefits are becoming an increasingly large inhibitor of economic growth, and are taking up a larger and larger share of federal spending. In 2009, it has been estimated that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by around $50 trillion.  This means that if the benefits remain the same, and the FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax rate remains the same, an additional $50 trillion would still be needed.  Any company that had such a retirement program would rightly be prosecuted.

To show how badly out-of-balance these programs have become, between 1966 and 2006, Medicare and Social Security grew from 16% of the federal budget to 40%. (Defense spending declined from 43% to 20% of the budget during that period.)  By 2050, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is estimated to take up the entire federal budget, if the budget were to remain the same proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as it is today.  (This does not even include the interest on the federal debt, which is increasing even more rapidly; it is projected to be three times the entire GDP by 2050.)  Obviously something will have to be done, and it will not be pretty.

Even worse, as of 2010 or so, people are paying more into Social Security than they, on average, will get out of it.  For instance, if a person turned 65 in 2010, they will have paid into Social Security about $588,000 and will only get $555,000 in benefits.  And these figures get worse every year.   Thus, people are getting a negative return on their 'investment'.

Most people are not aware that when Roosevelt and Congress started Social Security, the FICA tax rate was only 2%, and even then only those who earned over the median income paid into it.  Also, it was only intended to supplement one’s retirement.  Now, virtually everyone who works pays into Social Security at a rate of about 12% of income, and it still is only intended to supplement to one’s retirement.  This is truly pitiful and unbecoming of a great country. 

Retirement Planning

In a system based upon personal responsibility, individuals are responsible for their own retirement funds.  It would be wise to invest at least 10% of one’s income into a retirement plan.  I would recommend that children be taught in school the importance of saving for retirement from their very first paycheck.

To make the transition from our current system, we might require individuals to invest this money, although this would still slightly violate the premise of personal responsibility.

(As an aside, another 5% or so should be used to purchase long-term care insurance, and to purchase disability insurance as well.  Surprisingly often, many people will at some point become disabled, and/or need long-term care).

This 10% of one’s income would be invested in one of a number of government-approved investment companies.  Such companies would have to meet certain strict standards, as determined by the government.  These funds would be held in a segregated account in the individual’s name, so that such savings are immune from the solvency of an employer or the investment company.  This is similar to many retirement plans many States use for State employees.

To get an idea of how much money a person could have at retirement, let’s assume that the person works for 40 years, and has a starting salary of $36,000.  Let’s also assume that the person only gets a raise equal to the rate of inflation, so that they are essentially making $36,000 in today’s dollars for their entire working life.  This is a rather conservative assumption, since the median income of men who worked full time in the U.S. in 2007 was about $45,000.  The final assumption is that the entire amount is invested in a stock-index fund that mirrors that entire stock market.  Over any 40-year period since the modern stock market began in 1920, the stock market averaged a gain of at least 10% annually.

Whipping out my financial calculator, and investing $300 monthly (10% of the $3,000 monthly salary) for 40 years, earning 10% per year, gives almost $2 million in today’s dollars.  (The actual amount would be the value of $2 million of today’s dollars 40 years into the future, a much larger figure.)

Once you retire, you can safely take out 5% of this $2 million each year without reducing the principle, so this would give an income of $100,000 per year for the rest of your life!  And you would never have to worry about running out of money.  When you die, the $2 million could be willed to one’s spouse, children, charity, etc.

Imagine how much better this is than the current Social Security system, which takes over 12% of your income, and gives you about $25,000 per year for life at retirement.  This is what happens when government takes charge of your life.

Even better, we would no longer need to save additional money for retirement as we do now.  For instance, I work at the University of Texas at Dallas.  I pay 12.5% of my income (between me and my employer) into Social Security.  In addition, I am required to pay 15.5% into my retirement plan.  Under the plan I gave above, it would only cost 15% of one’s income (which includes long-term care and disability insurance as well as retirement).  That means I’d have an immediate additional 13% of income to spend.  Would you like a 13% raise?

Conclusion

We need to immediately implement a retirement program as described above.  At the same time, we need to phase out the fiscally irresponsible and damaging Social Security program.  But this needs to be done without harming those retired or near retirement.  This will be expensive to do, but will only get more expensive the longer we wait.  It is likely that the best way to make the transition is to require individuals to put 15% of their income into their own retirement/disability program, and yet still pay FICA taxes until almost everyone has their own well-funded retirement program.  This will take decades, but it took us decades to get to where we are now.  As usual, the piper must always be paid.

______________________________________

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.

______________________________________

The Top Five Lies and Half-Truths Found in Movies

Movies help to define and influence our culture.  But movies frequently reflect lies and half-truths about what is good and what is bad for humanity, and many do so in such a manner as to degrade our culture.

What are some of myths, lies, and half-truths perpetuated by movies?

1) Myth: Nuclear power is dangerous and has caused untold harm to us and the Earth.  Radioactivity has caused an untold number of mutations to humans, and to plants and animals.  Many movie monsters are the result of mutations due to radioactivity. 

The Reality: Nuclear power provides the safest, least- polluting, baseload of energy that mankind has even known.  Not a single American has died as a result of radiation from a commercial nuclear power plant.  And this includes Americans on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.  This level of safety is unheard of in the history of humanity.

Another major advantage of using nuclear power is that we would no longer need to depend on countries hostile to us.  For instance, the most likely nuclear fuel in the future will be Thorium, which the U.S. has plenty of.  Some are estimating that we have over a million years of nuclear fuel remaining.

Nuclear wastes?  Not to worry.  The new reactor designs use the energy in current wastes to generate even more energy, while eliminating most of the wastes.  And when car batteries become more efficient, we can charge them with electricity generated from a nuclear-power plant, and eliminate autos as a source of pollution.

What about the nuclear-reactor problems in Japan?  Well, Japan had a (1-in-every-400-year) 9.0 earthquake, resulting in devastating tsunamis, which killed well over 20,000 people.  Some of their 40-year-old nuclear reactors were severely damaged, and released some radiation.  Of the 20,000 people killed, how many were reportedly killed by radiation?  If you've read the hundreds of hysterical articles about the damaged nuclear reactors, you'd think the answer would be thousands.  But as of 2012, the answer is -- you guessed it -- 0.

Would you like to scare 95% of the American population?  Use the work "nuclear" in a sentence.

There is a source of radiation that kills thousands every year -- the Sun.  These are mostly deaths due to skin cancer.  We must do something about that pesky Sun.  We do need about 10-15 minutes of sunlight a day to get our vitamin D.  But if you want to minimize your chances of getting skin cancer, after your few minutes in the Sun, head to a nuclear power plant.  If they let you in, you'll be safe from any radiation there.

2) Myth: Businesses are bad.  They destroy the environment, they make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  Businessmen are unscrupulous and only care about how much money they make, and how to increase the value of their stock.

The Reality: Sure, some businesses and some businessmen are bad, but this can be said about any group and about many individuals and is just a reflection of the fact that we humans are flawed.  But because we allow free-enterprise more than most countries, we have provided an environment in which our best people created the best products in the world, because they can profit from this.  Americans created electric lighting, the telephone, cell phones, computers, affordable cars, the Internet, GPS, YouTube, the polio vaccine and other wonder drugs, indoor plumbing, IBM, Google, Intel, and thousands of businesses whose products have made each of our lives better.  Without privately-owned businesses, we'd be about as prosperous as Cuba and North Korea.  And remember how well the Soviet Union worked out.

3) Myth: We are destroying the Earth.  Humans are responsible for most of the pollution and global warming that are causing this destruction.

The Reality: There is nothing humans can do to destroy the Earth.  The huge asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs and many other species around 65 million years ago did more harm than we could possibly do.  The Earth could not have cared less.  And yet many paleo-biologists believe that the death of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to flourish, eventually allowing Homo sapiens to flourish.

Surely we would all like to create less pollution, to grow more organic foods, to conserve more, etc.  And other entries in this blog tell how we can do this.  But none of what we're doing is "destroying the Earth."

Furthermore, prosperous countries tend to be the least- polluted ones, because they can afford pollution controls.  How many movies that seem to be concerned about pollution point that fact out?  Instead, prosperous countries and prosperous people are ridiculed and called greedy.  Want a cleaner Earth?  Do what it takes to be more prosperous.

As one of many movie examples, in the latest remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, the main alien, played by Keanu Reeves, said the humans must be wiped out because there are not that many habitable planets in the galaxy and his galactic alliance couldn't allow humans to destroy the Earth.

Keanu didn't explain how humans were destroying the Earth.  This was fortunate, because his explanation would have been nonsensical.  Presumably, it was related to human pollution and human-caused global warming.  Such things could kill some humans and some species, but would not come close to "destroying the Earth."  

I can't imagine what his galactic alliance was thinking, or, more to the point, what the movie's writers were thinking.  Couldn't this galactic alliance have shown us a way to generate inexpensive, non-polluting energy?  Instead, they decided to destroy the entire human race, just so some other alien race might use the "clean" Earth in the future.  (Keanu Reeves did relent and stop the genocide of the human race, but that did not change the premise of the movie).  There is so much nonsense here, one could make another movie about the irrationality of this movie.  For instance, suppose that humans did stop polluting (or whatever was bothering Keanu)?  This would do the aliens no good at all, since humans would still be occupying the Earth, and not the aliens.  So really, if the aliens value the Earth so much, the rational thing to do would be to destroy us before we can defend ourselves.  Of course, they would accumulate some very bad karma doing this, but what the heck?

We'd be much better off with a galactic alliance headed by Darth Vader.

How can a movie that makes those who intended the genocide of humanity seem like the good guys?  Only a movie made by those who value snails and whales more than humans.

4) Myth: The rich are bad.  They are greedy.  They take away jobs from the rest of us, have a huge "carbon footprint", and will certainly not get into Heaven.

The Reality: Name a country with very few rich, and you've just named a country where almost everyone is poor.  Most people who are rich earned their money by starting a business (as opposed to inheriting their money).  These businesses create millions of jobs that create prosperity for the rest of us.  Microsoft, Intel, Facebook, and Google are just a few of the companies started by individuals who are now rich.  We should be happy for them, and thankful that we live in a country that protects people's right to start and profit from a business.  Countries that don't protect such freedoms are now mostly former countries, such as the Soviet Union and its satellites.  Those countries still around that don't protect such freedoms will soon be former countries themselves, unless they start to change and allow their citizens to be free to live in peace.

Of course there are rich individuals who do bad things.  For instance, someone who becomes rich but does not pay his employees their fair share of what they have produced is going to get some bad karma.  Not as much as the aliens who destroy all of the intelligent life on a planet, but bad karma nonetheless.

Movies that show disrespect to "the rich" help to create class envy.  And nothing good comes from envy.  It harms a person physically, mentally and spiritually.  And it even makes them less likely to become prosperous, because an envious person can blame the rich for their woes, rather than take responsibility for their life.  And it allows our politicians to play "the-rich-are-bad-and-are- responsible-for-your-misery" game.  Instead, our politicians should be telling us what they would do to help increase the prosperity for all good Americans who are willing to work.

5) Myth: There are few religious people in the United States.  Few mention God, few pray, and many make fun of those who are religious.

The Reality: Recent polls have shown that about 80-85% of Americans believe in God.  But check out almost any movie you can think of.  Rarely is God even mentioned, and even more rarely is someone shown praying.  An alien who tried to deduce what humans believed just from movies would deduce that most of us were atheists, and and that those who were religious were irrational.

The disparaging of those who are religious is a very dangerous trend.  A country that is not predominantly religious will eventually get into trouble.  The biggest mass murderers in history, such as Stalin, (former president of the U.S.S.R.), Pol Pot (former president of Viet Nam), Mao (former chairman of China), Hitler (former dictator of Germany), and Tojo (former emperor of Japan), were not in the least concerned with how God felt about what they did.

And if God is not the source of one's morality, then usually one looks to government for guidance and to solve one's problems.  And it's abundantly clear how well that works. 

The founding document of our country, the Declaration of Independence, states that our rights come from our Creator.  If one doesn't believe in a Creator, then our rights are up for grabs.  No thanks.

 

Conclusion: Many movies get released that have some major inaccuracy that contributes to our country's debasement or lack of knowledge.  And yet movies, like most other things, can be used to uplift or to degrade.  There are many good movies out there that leave one with a desire to make things better, that cause one's soul to soar.  We can only aspire to creating a culture in which these will dominate the industry.

______________________________________

 

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.

______________________________________

In Memoriam: The Navy SEALs

I had just started reading Richard Marcinko's newest book in his Rogue Warrior fictional series about the Navy SEALs when the news broke that a helicopter with about 30 SEALs and some others was shot down, and all were killed.

Marcinko was the founder of SEAL Team 6, and his first book, Rogue Warrior, was a non-fiction one about its founding.  He, along with the rest of us, must be extremely sad about the recent loss of so many Navy SEALs.

Before the fictional part of his latest book, there was a page that had The Navy SEAL Prayer.  I thought it was an appropriate time to display the prayer here. 

The Navy SEAL Prayer 

Dear Father in Heaven, 

If I may respectfully say so sometimes you are a strange God.

Though you love all mankind, it seems you have a special predilections too.

You seem to love those men who can stand up alone who face impossible odds. Who challenge every bully and every tyrant- Those men who know the heat and loneliness of a Calvary.

Possibly you cherish men of this stamp because you recognize the mark of your only Son in them. 

Since this unique group of men known as the SEALs know Calvary and suffering, teach them now the mystery of the resurrection- that they are indestructible, they they will live forever because of their deep faith in you.

And when they do come to heaven, may I respectfully warn you, Dear Father, they also know how to celebrate.

So please be ready for them when they insert under your pearly gates. 

Bless them, their devoted families, and their country on this glorious occasion. We ask this through the merits of your Son, Christ Jesus the Lord.

Amen 

****************************

I like that the prayer had, "they also know how to celebrate."  Recall Christ's words, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." This is exactly what these sailors did, and I believe they will be rewarded greatly for it.

So go ahead, my dear SEALs, and celebrate away - you deserve it.  And when you are ready, walk with Christ and continue on your journey toward God. 

____________________________________

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.

_______________________________________

Now that Bin Laden is dead, where do we go from here?

I wish to start by congratulating the efforts of President Obama, our military and our intelligence services on finally bringing Osama to justice.  It has taken 10 years, but we did what we said we would do.  Now there can be some rest and closure to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones on that day.  And we have also sent a strong message to those who wish to harm us: don't do it or you'll pay to the last farthing.

And now how should we handle our military?

1) We should always have the best military in the world, so that no country would think that they could prevail against us.  The U.S. Navy still dominates the oceans, and can defend the U.S. from attacks from just about anywhere in the world.

2) We have more than 350,000 troops deployed abroad in over 100 foreign bases.  Given that the only significant threat is that of Islamo-terrorism, there seems to be no reason for this.  We only need our intelligence agencies, and our special forces to find and eliminate threats to the United States.  Bring the rest of our troops home and close our foreign bases.  This includes troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea, Japan, Germany, and hundreds of other locations.

3) We should discontinue our policy of foreign intervention - by trying to use our military to make other countries into democracies.  We are not the policemen of the world, and the fate of other countries is up to them.  

4) Stopping this policemen role would likely result in less hostility toward us, and would allow us to bring our troops home to protect our own borders and ports, and saving tons of money in the process.

5) Similarly, we should phase out continual foreign aid.  The only time we should give money to other countries is when a natural disaster occurs, such as the earthquake in Japan, or the tsunami in Indonesia which killed over 200,000 people.
 
6) We would save U.S. lives, taxpayer's money, and be better prepared to deal with attacks against us, and would give no reason for others to think that we are interfering with their countries.

Now is that time for the United States to go back to its proper military role: that of protecting the United States.

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 15) - Voting System Reform

Why do we need voting-system reform when our current system seems to be working fine?

The biggest problem with the current implementation of our voting system is that it virtually guarantees that the two current major political parties will continue to dominate, winning most of the elected positions in government.  And it should be apparent to all that the predominant interest of both parties is either to get into power or to stay in power.  For instance, neither party has balanced the federal budget for decades (with rare exceptions) because they fear losing the votes of the particular constituencies. This is because Congress would have to raise taxes or cut spending. We need people in government who will do what is best for our country, without worrying about their re-election chances. 

What are some solutions to this, related to the voting system?

1) The first solution offers a way to lessen the impact that the two major political parties have by making it easier for third-party and/or independent candidates to get elected. The current system is designed so that either a Republican or Democrat gets elected. The solution offered here is to change our voting system to what is usually called an "Instant-Run-Off" voting system. 

A traditional run-off election occurs when it is required that the winner get at least 50% of the vote. If more than two people are running, it is possible that no one gets over 50%.  If so, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and a new vote takes place. This process continues until one of the candidates gets over 50% of the votes cast.

An instant-run-off voting system gives the same results as a traditional run-off election, except that each voter need vote only once in the instant-run-off voting system. In the instant-run-off system, the voter indicates his/her preferences by numbering the names of the candidates from 1 to N, where N is the number of candidates. It's very easy for the voter to do; and with electronic voting, it would be even easier, with the voting machine asking for the voter's number 1 choice, and then asking for their number 2 choice, etc. 

When the votes are first counted, only the number 1 choice on each ballot is counted. If no number 1 candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest number 1 votes is eliminated.  Then, on only those ballots that have chosen this candidate as their number 1 choice, their number 2 choice is now used for the second balloting. This continues until someone gets over 50% of the votes.

It can be shown that this voting procedure reflects voters' desires better than the usual plurality voting that just picks the candidate that gets the most votes, because a candidate may get elected without a majority of the votes cast. A number of cities in the U.S. use this system, as well as some other countries. (For more details see the Wikipedia entry on the Instant-Run-Off voting system). 

Instant-run-off voting allows voters to actually vote for the candidates they prefer, and not feel compelled to vote for who they think might win. Currently, when voting, if you'd prefer a particular candidate you think won't win, you may vote for a candidate that you think can win so that you're not "wasting" your vote. With an instant-run-off system, you can vote the way you desire, and if your candidate gets eliminated, your next-highest candidate replaces the eliminated one, so your vote would not be wasted. Thus, voters could truly vote their conscience without worrying that their vote would be meaningless.

Another advantage to this system is that it allows us to get a better idea as to who the voters truly wish to elect, because the results for each round will be made public.

Something that we have in place now that fits well with the instant-run-off voting system is that most jurisdictions allow a person to get on a ballot if he or she receives a certain number of signatures from voters in their jurisdiction. Then, in such a system, all such candidates who qualify would be put on the ballot. The voter then ranks each candidate, and that's all the voter needs to do.

2) Another important proposal that complements the instant-run-off system is a simple-but-important modification to the current system: for the government to stop putting a candidate's political-party affiliation on ballots.  There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties, so there is no prohibition against this idea.  Not putting a candidate's party next to his/her name would require more knowledge on a voter's part – and that is a very good thing. Besides, people can bring names of their candidates into the election booth.

Implementing these quite reasonable and eminently fair actions would go a long way toward reducing the power of the two major current political parties, thus improving the chances that government reforms that could actually benefit the people could come about. 

I'd be very happy if both of those voting reforms were made, because both of these reforms would lead to a better democracy.

////////////////////////////////////////////

The last voting reform I'm suggesting here may sound more controversial, but it's hard for me to find good reasons not to do it, and easy to find a number of good reasons to do it.  So here it is.

3) This reform (an amendment to the Constitution) would require that before a citizen has the right to vote, he or she must pass a fairly simple test on the Constitution and US History.  Let's say the voting age is 18. A person could begin attempting to pass the test starting at, say, age 14. There would be no limit as to how many times a person could take the test.  The test would only have to be passed once to earn the right to vote forever.

This reform would have a grandfather clause that would allow citizens who are already able to vote without having to take the test. Also, citizens under the age of 14 would not have to pass the test in order to vote when they are 18.

The test itself would consist of true/false and multiple-choice questions and be similar in structure and difficulty to the Citizenship Test that new citizens must pass. All questions must be approved by Congress.

For example, one question might be: "True or False: One of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution is 'To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes'."  The answer to this is true, and indicates the type of question that would be appropriate for the test.

Another might be, "Who is the 16th President of the United States?" This would be a multiple choice question whose answer I leave to the reader.

Probably the best thing to do is to have Congress pick say 200 questions. Then a person taking the test would be given 50 of those questions at random. Thus, none of the questions could be considered to be partisan or biased toward a certain political point of view.

The advantages to this are numerous.  For one, schools would all start teaching children more about the Constitution and US History, so that their students could pass the test. (Teachers and everyone else would have access to the 200 questions that Congress picked). This in itself is enough to warrant this voting reform.

Also, since voters would now be more familiar with the Constitution, they would more likely complain to their representatives if a piece of legislation is proposed that does not seem to be authorized by the Constitution.

And lastly, only those citizens who take voting seriously would likely take and pass the test.

Conclusion

These voting reforms would improve our democracy and likely result in better-elected officials, because the electorate would be better informed. Therefore, they would be an important part of the comprehensive government reforms needed to make our country better.

______________________________________

 

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.

______________________________________

 

My Top Seven Wishes for what Congress can do for our Country

Introduction
 
I tend not to think of politics in terms of political parties, because most politicians that are Republicans or Democrats have as their main priority getting elected or getting re-elected. They do this by voting for legislation that they know is bad for the country, but good for keeping them and their party in office. How else do you explain a budget deficit of $13.6 trillion, or over $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities, or having military bases that even the military doesn't want?
 
So what should Congress do that would put the country before their own interests? Here is my Top Seven List of what Congress should do to improve our country and keep it as the best country in the world. How did I come up with number seven? I could come up with 100, but that would be overwhelming. But these seven are the most important. Besides, I like the number seven.
 
1) Pass a balanced-budget amendment
 
Year after year of budget deficits tells us that Congress cannot balance a budget. The $13.6 trillion national debt mentioned above comes out to over $120,000 of national debt per family. Did you know that you had that debt on top of whatever personal debts you have?
 
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 if 2/3rds of both houses vote to do so. This is needed in times of war, or a large natural disaster.
 
2) Real health care reform
 
Medicare, Medicaid, and 2,500 page health care plan that just passed are underfunded by over $40 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.
 
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 GDP, about $1.5 trillion, and put an equal amount of this into a Medical Care Account (MCA) for each American adult. This would be about $600 per month 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.
 
I'll go into more detail in a future post, but that's the essence of it. Everyone would be covered, everyone could still choose whatever doctor or hospital they wished, and we'd save money all at the same time.
 
3) 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. So the only troops we should have overseas right now would be those who go after bin Laden and those members of Al Qaeda 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 by Al Qaeda.
 
If we did this, 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, and can defend the US from attacks from just about anywhere in the world.
 
4) 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 underfunding. 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 more money to spend because we wouldn't have to put money into both Social Security and another retirement plan.
 
5) 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 no one else's.
 
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, 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.
 
6) 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.
 
7) 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.
 
Currently, if you are well-to-do, you can send your child to whatever school you wish, 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 $9,000 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.
 
Conclusion
 
If Congress 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. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Cuba has Finally Read 'Atlas Shrugged'

What does that mean?

It means that Cuba, one of the few remaining Communist countries, has finally begun to allow free enterprise.

What was the economic situation in Cuba?

Their economy has been about ready to collapse. Many workers in Cuba barely show up and they do little productive work when they do. In government offices in Havana, coffee and cigarette breaks last for hours. It's not that they are lazy, it's that they get paid about $20 per month, and have no motivation to work hard.

What specifically have they done to more toward freer markets?

Cuba has recently allowed beauticians and barbers to work for themselves. Drivers can operate their own taxis. Even some farmers have been allowed to own their own land. Of course, these are the people who are making a reasonable living. Also, Cuba just let go of 500,000 government workers, 10% of its government workforce.

Is this really a free market economy?

Certainly not, but it is a step closer. That seems to be the way it starts in all previously Communist countries.

What Communist countries are still remaining?

Mainly North Korea, although there are many countries that have such corrupt governments that they cannot be considered to have free markets.

What's so good about this?

For details about why free enterprise is the best system, see my blog entry about Economic Policy. The bottom line is that we are meant to be free. Therefore, governments whose main purpose is to protect each individual's freedom is the only sustainable form of government. After all, who has the right or authority to dictate how an adult should lead their life (as long as it is done in peace)?

Does this relate to 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 again, 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 there children are educated.

Conclusion

In any area, the more free choices a person has for any product or service, the more those products and services tend to improve. Free enterprise, freedom or religion, freedom of education, free speech - all of these are natural rights, and should be protected by any good government. Hopefully, Cuba is taking its first steps in this direction.

______________________________________

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.
______________________________________