Paying for what we want.

           I came to a realization this weekend and it is so overwhelming that I felt I had to share it.  When the government is asked to give something to the people, it must raise taxes in order to pay for it.  To some of you, this is an obvious statement and you just said, "Well, duh," to me.  The rest of you need to take heed.  No one wants to pay taxes and we get our politicians to agree to cut our taxes.  We then turn around and start yelling that we want special programs to fix some problem, we want lawmen to protect us, teachers to teach us, soldiers to defend us, doctors to heal us, and roads to drive on.  These all cost us.  Yet, no one wants to pay for them.
          We have a deficit, not because our government can't do math, but because we the people refuse to.  We the people demand that our government give us all these things and while refusing to allow it to tax us.  The fact that our politicians are elected, leads to their desire to give us what we want so they can be re-elected.  This leads to a deficit as we demand bigger government oversight and lesser taxes.  You can't have both.  If we were to take the annual budget and ensure it was fully funded, everyone would have to pay their fair share.  For some reason, we the people have decided that those who were either born into money or made their own fortunes should pay for those of us who aren't as well off.  Tax the rich has become the mantra we live by.  We should be living by the standards of pay equally.  If every American paid his or her fair share we could kick this deficit, we just refuse to.
            I always felt that it was an obvious statement that you don't buy more than you can afford.  It always amazed me when the government continued to pay for things it couldn't afford.  Then I took a closer look.  I found out that we continued to expand to give more to programs people wanted and then gave them tax breaks because they wanted that as well.  And so we ended up where we are today, deep in a hole with only ourselves to blame.
          Allow me to make a confession; I am one of those that take advantage of our current tax system.  I have been receiving tax refunds for years and have actually been getting more back than I pay into it because of all the breaks and credits I receive.  I am at the low end of the middle class with four children and thus get a lot of deductions.  In other words, if we were suddenly made to pay our fair share, my tax bill would go up significantly.  I am still for paying our fair share.  We need these programs.  Our teachers, firefighters, policemen, and military need paid.  Our roads and infrastructure needs repaired, maintained, and built.  There are a ton of programs that we need to continue.  Sure, we could work to make them more efficient, and that should definitely be one of our goals, but we still need to pay for them.  We need to trim some of the excess, but we still have to pay for the necessary.
           We all have the same problem.  I call it the gimme syndrome.  We all want the government to ”gimme, gimme, gimme," just doesn’t want to pay for it.  You don't walk into a grocery store and expect to walk out without paying for your groceries, so why should we expect our government to give us all that it does without paying for it?  This is something we all need to remember as we move into this election season.  If a politician promises a ton of new programs, reduced taxes, and a reduced budget, you know he/she is lying.  It just isn't possible.  You can do 2 of the three but the other has to go a direction you probably don't want.  New programs and reduced taxes means an increased deficit; reduced deficit and new programs means increased taxes; and reduced taxes and reduced deficit means, not only no new programs, but a reduction in existing programs. 
             This is something every American needs to understand.  We can't end the cycle without understanding the truth of the matter.  We can't solve the problems by turning a blind eye and using wishful thinking.  We are supposed to be about equality, yet we continually strive to punish those who, using the rules established, have made their fortune.  In order for America to be truly equal and to have the same rights, we must stop the inequality in what we pay in taxes.  Be honest, what percentage of your income do you actually pay?  I don't mean adjusted or what the government says you pay, I mean the money that you get before anything is removed, what percentage of that, do you pay?  I am willing to bet that it is less than 10%.  Why should we throw a fit when a millionaire pays 15%?  Fair isn't fair when we use different standards.  That's my two cents.
               Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Why I hate Politics.

           The one thing I hate about elections is the never ending rhetoric.  The thing that is different this year than from 4 years ago is the profuse use of face book in the campaign.  This means I see a ton of posts attacking each party.  What it comes down to is the fact that there is no real positive message from any candidate.  I have heard a few statements on what they intend to do in office, but usually it is over run by negatives on either side.  It has become of a game of who is less evil instead of who is better and it makes me sad.
         The question is, if a law were passed that required a week of positive messages only during each campaign, would we hear anything from either candidate?  It seems that they have taken the old adage of "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything," and turned it around to say, "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, put it on air."  It is a sad state of affairs.  What really makes it suck is that it has become what people expect.  If we got a politician that was honest (yes, I know, honest politician is an oxymoron), I think people wouldn't vote for him on the grounds that he was too different.
       Speaking of honest politicians, growing up, I actually knew one.  He was our local state representative.  The story goes that he was first elected without campaigning because the people in his district knew him and felt he would do right by them.  He was a farmer and was one of the people.  Between sessions he actually returned to his farm and worked, politics was something he did as an extra duty and he claimed his profession as farmer.  You actually had to point out that he was a representative because he looked at it as a side gig.  The funny thing is, he never campaigned but he was re-elected year after year.  One year he even had an opponent.  The funny thing was the opponent got 5 votes, his, his wife’s, his campaign manager, his campaign manager’s wife, and the incumbent.  The sitting representative said he voted for his opponent because he didn't really want the job but would continue to do it as long as the people wanted him to and he was competent to do it.  He finally resigned at 82 or so and it was a loss.
       I used to say I was a republican and would never agree with a democrat.  I have sense come to realize that that mind set is exactly what is wrong in government.  The largest problem we have in our government is that we have become polarized with very few exceptions.  Either you are a republican or a democrat; if you claim to be independent you are labeled as indecisive.  What further complicates this is that if you have convictions and stand by them no matter what, you are a radical and a hatemonger; if you go with the current trends, you are pandering; and if you compromise you are a traitor to your party or an indecisive fool.  We have decided it is better to give negative labels to people rather than look at what their decisions are based on.  I would rather vote for a man that follows his convictions and votes against his party than for a man that follows the party line no matter what.  I would rather vote for a man that compromises to get things done over a man that refuses to listen to the opposing party because they are the opposing party.  We as a people have allowed this to happen and we as a people have directed it.  It is no coincidence that the very people we complain about hold the power to limit what we can do about it.  The saddest part is that the independents have very little influence.  They are such a minority that the only influence they have is when the parties are deadlocked and even that is rare.
            The one thing that makes this worse is that the politicians start looking at the next election almost as soon as they are elected.  Instead of looking at what this country needs, they are looking at what will make them look good for the next election.  The only regular exceptions are a second term president or a senator that has decided to retire.  It is a rare politician these days that repeatedly does what is best for the country over what his party wants. 
               Am I to critical of all this?  Maybe, but then again, if I weren't wouldn't I be like most of us who just take what the media gives us as truth and move on.  Sure, most of what the media says is true, but then a half truth is still true even if it isn't the whole story.  The media takes some flak, but most of it is directed at the "extreme" media.  Those sources that make no secret of their political leanings and jump on anything that helps their party affiliation are targeted most harshly allowing the more subtle sources to be taken at face value. 
               The most interesting part is that, with a little research, you can find the truth and it usually isn't what you are led to believe.  Both sides use statistics and numbers that, while true, only tell a part of the story at best or are downright misleading.  Take the "discretionary spending" argument used to cut the DOD budget.  In budget speak, discretionary means anything not specified by amount to be spent.  In other words, if the amount to be spent is estimated, it is discretionary.  Since caring for personnel (medical, logistical, pay, etc.) is estimated it is discretionary.  This means the department uses its discretion to ensure the people are paid and cared for properly.  So is it right to say that the DOD has a large discretionary budget?  Yes it is very true.  But then, by the budgetary definition of discretionary, teachers, policemen, firefighters, roads, electrical power, and the air traffic controllers are all discretionary as well. 
            The problem isn't what it means; it is how it is used.  The politicians use it knowing that most people will read it as the department has a choice on whether they spend it or not and thus can just cut it.  To most people, discretionary means that part of the budget spent on extras.  Discretionary means to them the excess after bills are paid, not the portion used to pay bills that are in flux.  If we used discretionary the way the government uses discretionary, our electrical, gas, water, grocery, and clothing would be a discretionary part of our budget.  I don't know about you, but I think I would be in a little bit of trouble if I just stopped using or paying for all of that. 
          I guess what I am saying is that we as Americans have to stop looking at the surface of what we are told by the media and politicians.  It is our responsibility to dig deeper and find the truth in what is being said and discover where it is we really fall on the issues.  What is said may be true, but that doesn't mean it is the truth of the matter.  A twisted truth may still be true, but it becomes a lie when it is interpreted wrongly.  Take the time to look into the truth.
        Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Why cut the pay for those that work and not those that don't?

           So I missed yesterday's post because I got sent home to deal with my Septic system.  Turns out, I shouldn't have worried.  Hopefully it happens today.  Unfortunately, I have duty so I will not be able to be there and my wife will have to take care of it.  She worries about it, but I think she will do fine.
            As I was looking at various things, I came to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with politicians.  How else do you explain the idea that in order to save money, you cut pay and wages from working people (military, federal workers, etc) in order to maintain pay to those not working (welfare, jobless benefits, etc.)  Don't get me wrong, I think that these programs are necessary to a point, but to justify cutting pay from those who work and not to those that don't at the same time is ludicrous.  We cut jobs for the sake of savings only to have those whose jobs we cut end up on unemployment and other costly programs as they search for jobs to replace the job we cut to save money.
            Now comes the fun part.  I was always taught that if you don't have a solution or aren't willing to discuss one, don't bring up the problem.  So here goes.  I say put the people on welfare to work.  Set up day care that is open only to those on welfare and staff it with those on welfare.  Next, put those who now have free time to work in jobs appropriate to their physical abilities.  If they don't know how to do the job, they get trained.  If they don't want to work, they don't get welfare.  I can hear some of you saying, "what about those who are disabled?"  I didn't say anything about those on disability, I said welfare.  But they can work too.  There are phones that need answered, data that needs inputted, etc.  There are jobs out there for all disability levels.  Just as there are jobs out there for all ability levels.  Streets need cleaned, ditches need dug, parks need mowed.  Fences need built.  Fences need painting.  Trees need planting.  I could go on and on.  But we continually complain about those on welfare and the job market.  But no one wants to do the jobs that are available, either because the job is not at their particular "skill level" or because it doesn't pay as well.  I think that if you gave people a choice of working for their welfare and unemployment checks on these needed government jobs that they would either work or get off of welfare. 
              The other side of this is that the work we are either not doing or contracting out at exhorbant rates would get done rather cheaply.  One other thing to throw out there.  Because they are working and may actually want to better themselves, you put into place a policy that gives them the freedom to job hunt while doing the work.  What I mean is, you give them the flexibility of schedule that allows them to better themselves.  If they want, you give them the option of going to school on the governments dime with the agreement that they will stop getting welfare in 5 years.  This gives them the time to get a degree and another year for the following job search.  Once they sign up and take money, there is no turning back.  They are off of welfare regardless of whether they finished school or not.  Of course this means we supply tutoring, but in the long run, it saves us a ton of money.
             This is all my opinion and you can take it however you want, but we have a problem here in the US and it is a selfish problem.  No one wants to take responsibility for themselves.  Everyone wants the government to provide for their comfort.  And it does, as long as you are willing to claim that you can't do anything else and throw everything away and start over.  Do that and you will find that you can live pretty well on the government dime.  Especially if you combine programs properly.  If you give something to someone for Free without any end in sight, you find that there is no reason for them to take a risk and get off of it.
             Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Manic Monday: Cut the budget somewhere else.

          It is Manic Monday.  Today's subject, the national budget.  Recently a friend pointed out that the first thing the government seeks to cut is the defense budget.  I wonder why.  The fact is that the defense budget is less than a quarter of the entire national budget.  This means that three quarters of the budget is considered secondary when it comes to cuts.  The pentagon was instructed to cut 600 billion from its budget.  If all of the rest of government were to cut the same amount, it would amount to 2.4 trillion dollars in savings.  Yet, it is only the defense budget that is facing these type of cuts.  Now, add in the fact that, of all the programs on the budget, only Defense is named specifically in the constitution.  I know that some of the other expenditures are implied, but only defense is actually named. 
            So, why is defense always targeted?  Because for years it was viewed as a black hole for our money.  We would drop in millions and what did we get out?  Some new weapons, maybe a new building.  Then there were the rumors of thousand dollar hammers and million dollar toilet seats.  While these may be exaggerations, there is some truth to the premise.  The military does end up paying more for what they buy, than the average Joe would for the same items.  Why?  Because of the acquisition rules set for us by congress.  Because every congressman wants the big government contract for his constituents.  The fact is that we are overcharged because the businesses can.  Let's take a look at a simple valve.  That part may cost $20 at Lowe's.  But the government will end up paying $30 for the valve and here is why.  That mom and pop business competing with Lowe's begins with an advantage.  They get to deduct 10% from what they charge because they are a small business.  Next, they get to deduct another 10% because they are woman owned.  Then another 10% because that woman is a veteran.  Then another 10% because she is a minority.  After all of these deductions, the small business can charge $30 and their bid shows up as $19.70, which is obviously less than $20 and thus wins the contract.  This is a small example.  There are hundreds more like it and it adds up.  As I said, these rules were set by congress and are known throughout the contracting world.  Thus, if a company wants to win a government contract, they split off a division that makes a specific item the government wants and ensures that it is small enough to be classified as a small business.  They list a minority, veteran, woman with a disability as the owner and now she charges 1.5 times what her competitors charge and wins the contract.  This drives up what we have to pay for defense.
           That being said.  I wouldn't have a problem cutting the defense budget if we also got rid of these rules so that we didn't have to pay twice as much for items as they would cost a guy in the street.  The problem is, because of these rules, we have to pay the extra to just maintain our military.  This means, the cuts we are now looking to make must come from the personnel budget.  That's right, we are looking at ways to take away what those of us who have served our country have earned.  They are going to start charging us more for the health care we were promised would be free if we served for 20 years.  We are being told that the next generation will no longer receive a retirement they earned for 20 years of service.  Instead they will be given half of what is now considered small and they have to wait until they are 67 to get it.  How is this right?  We have a welfare system that is broke.  A government that is dysfunctional at best.  Yet, our military, which is considered the finest in the world (and by the way is one of the very few all volunteer force), is the first to get the axe.  Apparently, what works must be destroyed so that that which doesn't appears better. 
          Am I a bit disappointed?  Yes.  Am I bit angered?  Who wouldn't be?  The reality is that those who don't serve or have never served, look at the military as a huge drain.  They don't see the need for it.  there is a need.  The role of our military is to protect our nation and its interests.  We do this by providing a military force within our boundaries.  We do this by taking the fight to those who would bring it to us.  We do this by protecting those who would be our allies.  We do this by ensuring we leave a place better than when we got there.  Some say the military is not protecting our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I beg to differ.  Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11.  Deny it all you want, but we went in with almost 100% support.  Iraq, although not as obvious, was a threat to us and the region.  Saddam Hussein continually threatened those around him and pushed us.  For 8 years under Clinton, he would regularly flaunt our indecision by first denying access for inspectors then allowing them just as we were about to take action.  Did we use a bad excuse?  Maybe.  We don't have the briefing papers the president had when he authorized it.  It doesn't watter now though.  Remember that last thing I said we did?  The one about leaving a place better than we found it.  This means we are responsible to help establish a government that can function and give its people the freedoms that we enjoy.  This means we can't just leave a defeated nation to fend for itself.  Especially a nation that was a breeding ground for terrorists.  If we had just left them, the Afghan and Iraqi people would have been saddled with a country with no government, no infrastructure, and no help to rebuild.  By staying and helping them set this up, we are helping to maintain and build stability in an unstable region.  This is what we do.  To do any less would be un-American. 
          Now that I have ranted and raved about what I believe on this.  It is your turn.  Tell me where I am wrong.  Let me know what I have said that has upset you.  I look forward to any discussion on this topic you wish to have.  I think its time we look at the other three fourths of the national budget for our savings.  But maybe I am mistaken.
          Thank you for your time.  Have a wonderful day.

Skipped Monday, Update Tuesday.

       As you can see, I didn't blog yesterday.  There is a reason for that.  I was too busy getting drilled at the dentist in the morning and felt it wouldn't be fair to you to hear me whine and complain about the pain in the afternoon.  Thus, I decided to skip Monday's post and move on to happier (to a small degree anyway) topics.
        Let's start with the weekend update.  As I mentioned Friday, This weekend was busy.  It started with a soccer game in the drizzling rain (my third son, Mathew's team) which we won.  Then moved on to celebrating my oldest's tenth birthday at Red Robin for lunch.  We then went to my second son's (David) game which we also won.  David also scored his first goal ever.  We then finished our grocery shopping and managed to get home just in time for dinner.  Sunday was a little less hectic.  After church and lunch, we went swimming as a family and had a blast.  Then we finally got to relax.  While it was busy, it was a good weekend.
      Last night, I had my first read through of the musical "Annie!".  I am Drake, Warbuck's Butler.  Turns out, it is a rather involved part.  I am in a lot of scenes and have quite a few lines.  Luckily, I have no solos, which is good.  I look forward to more of the same.
      Finally, this morning, as I was backing out of the driveway, my check engine light on my truck came on.  Hopefully it is something small and easy to fix.  I will have to get it checked out on my way home.  The good news is, the motor sounds good and I don't have any other indications of anything bad, so it may just be an O2 sensor or the gas cap.   We'll just have to wait until this afternoon to see what it is.
      Now that I have my wife wringing her hands and worrying, I will end this post.  Don't worry to much dear, we'll get it fixed and stay within our budget.  We don't even know if it is going to cost more than $2 yet so stop panicking.  Thank you all for reading.  Have a great day.

Happy Hump Day: What the heck did I just write?

    Happy Hump Day!  yes, it's that day of the week.  Doesn't seem like it should be with the shortened week, but it is.  This always seems to happen when a holiday occurs.  You forget that the first day of the week isn't Monday and thus you end up a day off the rest of the week.  It usually takes me until about mid Saturday morning for it to finally dawn on me that it was a shortened week. 
    This is especially bad when it comes to weeks like Thanksgiving week.  Being in the Navy, I tend to get the day after Thanksgiving off as well.  This means that I end up with 4 days off straight.  While I enjoy the lead up to it, I end up feeling as though I should be somewhere else on Saturday and walk around in a daze for hours until it finally sets in that I really don't have to be anywhere.  I think my wife figured this out and has used it as an excuse to either schedule things or to take me shopping.  Either way, I am able to skip the daze.  Not that I don't like shopping or doing things with my wife, it just makes for a long day.  In fact, I love doing things with my wife (I'm not just saying this because she is reading it, Hi Honey!, I really do enjoy spending time with her) and she is the one who hates shopping.  I love window shopping (and the occasional purchase is good as well). 
      This brings me to a whole other topic.  I must have the most non woman type wife in the world.  I mean that in a good way.  She hates spending money.  The height of fashion for her is the sale rack at good will and as long as you can rig it to work it is still good.  She balances me. I like to look halfway decent, can't stand it when things aren't performing or looking as well as when they were new, and love shopping.  Since we actually have a savings account with money in it, you can guess who wins more often.  The funny thing is, we both had similar backgrounds.  Growing up, our clothes were either hand me downs, thrift store purchases, or garage sale finds.  New meant we went into a store to buy it (you do have to go into a thrift store to buy it).  We wore faded jeans because that's how they came (they faded naturally, we paid $2 for them while the stores had them for $50 new).  When ripped jeans became the fashion we were excited, we were finally in style and we didn't have to pay outrageous sums of cash for new jeans, ours came "preventilated" (my dad's phrase) from the thrift store.  Shopping meant that we were going out to get stuff we needed and that was it.  I only got actual new stuff for Christmas and birthdays.  It was the same for my wife.
        So why is it that I like to spend money and my wife wants to hold on to it?  I don't know.  We both had lean times growing up, but when I had money I couldn't wait to spend it.  She on the other hand held on to it.  I really can't explain it and neither can she.  I am glad she likes to hold onto stuff, it keeps me in check and makes it so we can have nice things (at least until the kids get a hold of them). 
        Yes, I sometimes complain about my wife's thrifty tendencies.  Yes, I call her cheap every once in a while.  Yes, we argue about money regularly.  But I think that just helps me reign in my spending.  I get the feeling that she complains about my spending ways just as much.  She constantly reminds me that just because we have $50 in the account doesn't mean that we can go find a new knife for the kitchen (so I like cooking as well).  I love her for it and maybe because of it.  She carries a lot of weight around with the primary worry about money.  I am usually unconcerned about the check book until I have a stack of receipts in my wallet.  Add to that the ease of going to the store on my way home from work and, with out her, I would be up to my eyes in debt. 
        So I guess this Happy Hump day post has become a thank you to my wife.  The humor may or may not be there, but this is what came out when I let my thoughts go free (I also appear incapable of sticking with a single topic, but maybe that's just ADD).  Thank you for reading.  Have a great day.

Manic Monday: National Debt = National Disaster

      To start off today's post, I would like to give a shout out to my brother in law, Joe.  Thanks for coming and spending time with us.  It was truly wonderful and we had a great time.  Next up, the news.  A week from Wednesday, our house goes on the market.  This means my wife and I will be busy cleaning house for the interim as we try to make it presentable.  This also means we need a ton of boxes.  Which means I need to find them.  It is what it is.  I am not looking forward to this.  So much work.
     Now for the part you've been waiting for (either with dread or hope, I am not sure which I find more frightening), Manic Monday.  Today's topic:  The Debt limit and the politics around it.  Let me start with a quote from a bumper sticker.  "Truth isn't always popular, but it is always Right."  How could it be any more simple than that.  Let's look at the current situation and find the truth in it.  Truth: 40% of every dollar the US government currently spends is borrowed.  Truth: You can't pay reduce a debt unless you spend less than you make.  Truth:  You can't reduce your income when you spend more than you currently make.   These should be obvious, yet for some reason, the people WE voted for don't understand this.  For fear of insulting their constituents they make it easier to get on government funded programs.  They add on other programs and increase the area of responsibility.  They haven't "created" new programs, just enlarged current ones. 
        Then they cut taxes (read income).  So they didn't really cut taxes, they just refuse to repeal previous tax cuts.  Do I want to pay more in taxes?  Not really, but the question should really be, will I pay higher taxes now for reduced taxes later.  The answer to that will be yes.
        The final nail in the coffin in this debate is the fact that, while they are talking cuts, they are meaningless if they don't remove earmarks and special interests.  The fact is that government needs to become more efficient.  We need to remove waste and have a directed approach.
       I have always said, don't complain about a problem unless you can present a solution along with it (I wasn't the originator of this, but I can't remember where I heard it).  That being said, here goes.  Please note that these are long term solutions and it may take a few years for the effects to be seen and the results to match.  The first thing that needs to be done is to increase revenue.  Until the debt is paid, we have to increase taxes.  This isn't a hope, or a want it is a must.  The simplest way to do this is to revert to remove deductions and credits.  No matter what you do, people will be angry, but it must be done.  We all need to pay.  I am not a tax lawyer so I don't know the exact sections to repeal, but I think the best way is to start at a flat 20% tax across the board.  We can reduce later when the debt is paid.  As for those whose income is such that paying 20% taxes would reduce them below the poverty level, they would be exempt (after all, if we put them into poverty, that would be that much more spending the government would have).  As for businesses, they are taxed for 20% of their profits.  Thus, they can avoid taxes by expanding the business thus creating jobs, thus reducing unemployment and increasing tax revenues.  Obviously, we have to define legitimate business expenditures (a company jet would not be one) so that buying a house for the CEO from business funds is not counted as a business expenditure and thus no taxes paid on that money.  Now that we have raised revenue by putting more people to work and actually taxing income, we can move on to reducing spending.
      The second part of this, spending reduction, now comes into play.  First off, we partially solved it by reducing the number of people on unemployment and welfare by increasing jobs.  Now we need to look at other areas.  First off, welfare.  I have never liked it, but I recognize that there is a legitimate need.  The biggest problem I have with welfare is the fact that it makes it easy for people to stay impoverished and becomes a way of life.  Welfare should be a stepping stone, not a living.  Start with drug testing of those on welfare.  If you fail a drug test, you are placed in government funded rehab (yes, I know, one more expenditure, but hear me out), this way when you are sober, you may find a better way to make a living and no longer need welfare.  If you fail a second drug test after you complete rehab, you lose welfare.  If you are on welfare and you have children, you will only get one welfare increase.  This is for the first child, after that, if you can't provide for them, the government will take them and place them into the foster care system until you can (having children as a means of increasing pay only compounds the problem, it doesn't gain anything).  Studies have shown that only a small percentage of people born into a poor family rise above the level at which they were raised.  In fact, from what I have found, most people raised on welfare end up on welfare themselves. 
          Another way to reduce spending (and maybe even raise revenue) is to put our criminals to work.  At one time, the US prison system actually made money after paying for itself.  Now we are paying around $30,000 per inmate to house them.  They are criminals, they had their day in court and were found guilty.  Make them earn their keep.  If we made them just tend the fields where their vegetables came from, they would save the tax payer thousands. 
           Another place we could save money from is by giving incentives to various agencies to become more efficient.  Instead of saying that if they don't use all their funding this year they won't get it next year, tell them that funding won't decrease and that it will increase by a percentage of what was saved.  The current system merely punishes underspending.  Overspend and you get berated, but you get your extra funding (it wouldn't be right not to pay your people).  Underspend and you get you funding cut.  This is fundamentally wrong.  We should reward people for doing good things with our money.
           Will we see results from all of the above this year?  Not even close, I would estimate that it would take a decade for the debt to finally be paid if all the above was done (and I am no expert), but it is a start.  The biggest problem with all of this is that, for some inexplicable reason, once the politicians get to Washington, DC, everything they ever learned finances goes right out the window.  If any house in America operated like the US government, they would be bankrupt at the least.  I can't imagine a bank saying OK if someone were to try and borrow more if they already were spending more than they made and had to borrow to pay their bills.  It just doesn't happen.  In reality, we have to live within our means.  Raise taxes, reduce spending and pay our debts now.  Then we can reduce our taxes later and decide if we really need to increase spending at that time.  That's just my opinion, maybe you have a better solution.  No matter how you look at it, something needs done.  Thank you and have a wonderful day.

Financial Odities.

      Sorry I missed Manic Monday, but I had other things to do.  Congratulations to my friend Darryl on his retirement.  In case you were wondering, that is what I was doing yesterday.  I felt it important enough to skip the post.  Now on to today's post.  I thought about doing yesterday's post today, but decided it just wasn't worth it.  I really don't need to upset myself with it.  So this weekend, we were planning on going camping.  Since there were a few items we needed, we decided to total up the checkbook.  We discovered that we had spent a little more than we thought and were down to the point where spending extra would be irresponsible.  So we ended up working on the yard and house.  Yesterday, we did a little shopping for necessities and decided we needed to transfer a bit out of savings to our checking account to get us through.  I decided to compare what the bank said we had and what we said we had.  After checking the math twice, I discovered that the bank said we had around twelve hundred dollars more than we said we had.  I have had a day to think about this now and have realized why this is.  We constantly round up our monthly bills to even dollar figures.  With about 15 monthly bills that we round up by about one to two dollars apiece, it adds up over the years.  Add in the fact that I am overestimating the amount we set aside for the house and you end up with a significant amount set aside.  It's nice to know that even when the checkbook says we are in the red, we are still safe (we only allowed ourselves to take $200 of the error back), not that we let the checkbook go into the red.  At some point we will have to go into the bank and have them go through our records, just to make sure that we are truly up to date.  I have to thank my wife for being so pragmatic at times that we can have this extra bit.  Now if I can only talk her into the Star Wars special edition Xbox.   Have a wonderful day.

Our Independence Day, what patriotism means to me.

    Today's post will be a patriotic thing, you've been warned.

     There seems so much that this country has done for us that we take for granted.  In my years in the navy, I have been to several other countries.  From the affluent to the destitute, there is always something America has, that the other countries don't.  Yet, when we are asked to sacrifice for the country that has given us so much, we tend to answer with, "what's in it for me?"  We take for granted that we are given so much.  We all know that should we fall on hard times, the government will give us what we need to survive.  From welfare to food stamps, we expect our government to take care of us all along the way.  So much so, that we get angry when we are asked to give up a portion of our wages so that we can pay for these programs we rely on.
      We ask the government to protect us from enemies, both external and internal, yet we refuse to support our troops because they are following orders of people you don't agree with.  We ask the government to keep our food safe, yet we rail at the cost of watching it.  We ask the government to provide our retirement, yet refuse to live within our means.  How can we expect our nation to endure if only our government must give of itself?  How can we endure if only the other group is to pay for it all?  We must all give of ourselves to keep this country great.
       There is a famous Benjamin Franklin quote that is making the rounds.  You have probably heard it, it says, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither," Or something similar.  While this is true to a certain extent, I believe there is more to it.  We have all heard the saying, "Freedom isn't free."  This is true as well, but we tend to forget it.  I believe that the two sayings should go together as follows, "Those who aren't willing to pay for their freedom and security deserve neither."  I am not saying that you have to join the military and die for your country.  What I am saying is that we should be more willing to give of ourselves for our country.  Give of our time and serve.  Volunteer to help the police and fire departments at the next parade.  Take a meal or two down to the precinct or fire station every once in a while.  Pay your taxes.  Vote.  Call your senator and tell him what concerns you.  Recognize what is a real need in your life and recognize what you can give up.  Why is it that we as Americans can raise billions of dollars in just a few weeks when there is a disaster abroad, but we can't even raise a few million when it comes to the nation/state/city we live in?  Why is it we can give so greatly to others and live so well ourselves, yet we can't give any to our home?  How is it that we can yell cut spending in the same sentence we can yell give us our stuff?  I don't envy our leaders these days.  They cannot win.  In order to balance the budget, they have to cut programs, which means lost jobs, pay, or both and they have to raise taxes.  There is no way our government can meet the demands our nation has put on it and maintain a balanced budget.  It is impossible.  With that being said, on this Independence day, think on what it is you have given for your country and ask yourself, "can I give more?"  I know I can and should and I have served in the military for 18+ years.  How about you?

     Have a wonderful 4th of July.  God bless America.

Dad's wisdom

   So I missed posting on Saturday.  It wasn't really that busy, I just never got around to it.  Sorry.  Anyway, I am now back at work and I have a bit to do so I will keep it short today.  I got the camper in to the shop Friday and it looks like it will cast me in the neighborhood of $300 to get it up and running for the camping season.  I should hear from the shop this afternoon.  All in all, it wasn't a bad weekend.

   Now to let you in on my theme for the week.  With Father's Day coming up on Sunday (yes, it is that close), I have decided that this week will be dedicated to posts on my dad.  Either I will tell a story about him, or share a lesson I learned from him.  Today, I share a quick lesson.

   The lesson is basic and can be summed up in one phrase.  "It is better to have a little to much, than not enough."  At the time, he was referring to cutting lengths of wire for rewiring a house, but I have found that this simple philosophy applies to many parts of our lives.  Meals for example.  Every time, I try to make the exact right amount so I don't over cook, I end up with to little.  The only time I have enough for everyone consistently is when I throw in a little extra, just in case.  It can also apply to your saving account and expense planning.  Think about it, which is worse, over estimating how much something will cost, or convincing yourself that something is cheaper than it actually is. 
   
     There is a flip side to this.  You can find yourself going beyond what is prudent, into the realm of excess.  As my dad said, just a few inches extra is all you really need, otherwise it's just waste.  In other words, use a little bit of self control when getting that little extra.  Don't make a five course meal for 20 when you're expecting 10.  Don't overestimate the cost by doubling it.  Don't add an hour onto a 15 minute commute.

   Now I know some of you are thinking that there are areas where to much is just to much like alcohol.  I agree, but I wasn't referring to that.  The whole premise behind the philosophy is planning.  This isn't about consumption or implementation, it's about planning.  If you try to apply this to the activity currently in progress, you may find yourself in hot water.  As always, prudence is necessary when implementing a plan. 

   Well, that's it for today.  I look forward to tomorrow.  Thanks Dad for all your wisdom and lessons taught.

My thoughts on Taxes

       The topic of this post is as simple as it is controvertial.  Taxes.  Everyone hates them, no one wants them, and everyone has ideas on who and how much.  The problem as I see it is that the tax code is neither fair, equal, or straight forward enough.  Allow me to address these issues.
    First we'll tackle equal.  Is it fair that the more you make the higher the percentage you are required to make?  I didn't say higher amount, I said percentage.  This is where there are large problems.  As I see it, making more shouldn't mean that you pay a higher percentage.  The percentage should remain unchanged.  By doing this the taxes will be equal for all.  No one can argue that it isn't equal if we all pay the same percentage.  Yes, if you make more money you pay more money in taxes, but 10 cents on the dollar is 10 cents on the dollar regaurdless of the number of dollars you have.  It is true that if you make $1,000,000 you will pay $100,000 in taxes.  But you still have $900,000 to play with, not to many families I know of make a quarter of that and live just fine, well even.  Thus, regaurdles of amount made, a flat 10% is equal.
   Second, we'll tackle fair.  How is it fair that, even though a multi millionaire is in a 50% tax bracker, he actually pays less than 10% in taxes?  The fact is, that once you reach a certain income level, you can afford the right lawyers to find enough tax loop holes and deductables to reduce your income to the point where you essentially are not considered rich.  The only way a flat tax can ever work is if we eliminate all deductions and tax breaks.  Sure, on paper you pay a higher percentage in taxes the richer you are, but this is only true until you reach that magical point where paying for a tax lawyer and accountant pays for itself in keeping your tax levels low enough.  If I pay for H&R block to do my taxes, I actually lose money.  Thye would charge me about $80 and the last time I use them they only found me $50 that I hadn't been able to find, thus I lost $30.  Taxes should be fair enough that you can't reduce what you pay by hiring a lawyer.  But this also falls under the straight forward enough category which is next.
    Finally, we need a tax code that is Straight forward.  This means that all you need to do your taxes is basic math.  In order to do your taxes now, you almost need a law degree.  The complexity of the tax code is such that, without a computer program, a lawyer, or and accountant, you would never be able to file your taxes properly.  You would either miss a deduction or you would claim one for which you didn't qualify without them.  If you don't believe me, take a look at what is out there.  H&R Block, Taxbusters, Taxcut, etc.  none of these would exist without a complex taxcode that people couldn't follow.  Why should the government give refunds?  How hard does it have to be to figure out how much you owe in taxes every year?  If you can't figure out how much you owe for your taxes each paycheck, how can we be expected to withhold the right amount?  The complexity of the tax code by itself is enough to be a drain on the nation.  If we are so concerned with the national budget, maybe we ought to look at where the money is coming from.
     There is a solution to all of this.  I have hinted at it (if I haven't come right out and said it).  It's a flat income tax.  a percentage straight accross all pay levels.  No deductions, no credits, no incentives, just a straight percentage.  I did the math a while ago.  I found the lowest average income per household in the US that I could find on the internet (it was $39,000 and change so I rounded it to $40,000 for simplicity)(the overall average for the numbers was about $62,000).  Multiplied it by the population of the US as of the last census (308,000,000 people).  Multiplied that result by 10%.  The reult was just over $1.2 TRILLION dollars.  For clarification, every average was based on total reported pay divided by total population.  I can already hear some of you saying what about the poor, they can't afford to eat and you want them to pay $10 to the government?  I thought of that and realized that if we don't ask them to pay, then we shouldn't give them food stamps and welfare.  There can be no exceptions.  If your income is such that you need food stamps etc. to live, then you need your tax return to prove it.  The systems are in place to aid you and you will still get them.  If the military (who recieves 100% of their pay from the government) pays taxes, so should anyone who recieves anything from the government.
    I don't mean to come accross as an uncaring hardliner.  The fact is, if a flat 10% tax rate were invoked, I would be one of those who paid more in taxes.  In fact, for the last few years I have been one of those who got more back than I put in.  After all of my deductions, I owed no taxes.  On top of that, I was eligable for several credits.  Thus I recieved a tax return for more than my withholding.  I am willing to pay 10% of my pay for an equal, fair, and simple tax system.  How about you?