THE
BIG DO-OVER – Part 1
Getting
back to basics is a very good idea. I think this is what folks mean when say,
“We want our Country back”. The following “new rules” will demonstrate how the
Federal Government system can change without reinventing the wheel.
Restructuring
Social Security
1) The States will get involved in running
a “public” retirement
account that will be a duplicate of the existing Federal Social
Security program.
2) Anyone who has contributed to their Social
Security account,
and has paid less than $2,000.00 at the Federal level must
transfer
what they have on deposit at the Federal level into their State of
residency retirement account, or a Private Sector retirement plan.
When they are
out of the Federal system, they must deposit, from
their paycheck, the same
amount of withholding money to their
new plan as they did to Federal Social
Security. This will be
applicable only to those who have paid less
than $2,000.00 into
their existing Social Security account.
3) For those who have paid $2,000.00, or
more, to Social Security,
they can transfer out
of Social Security and into their State plan, or a Private Sector plan, or stay
with their current Social
Security plan. When they opt out of the Federal system,
they must deposit, from their paycheck, the same amount of withholding money to
their new plan as they did to Federal Social Security. This will be applicable
only
to those who have paid more than $2,000.00 into their existing
Social Security
account.
4) The State run retirement accounts will
accrue no interest, as in the
current Social Security scheme. The Private
Sector accounts will be
interest bearing at rates that are normal to
investment, annuity, or
stocks and bonds. The individual will be able to set up
retirement
accounts offered by any financial institution, private investment
plan,
any Corporate sponsored retirement plan, or any Brokerage program.
The
plan owner, not the plan administrator, will decide on just how
much risk to
take in any of the Private plans they choose.
5) Both State run and Private Sector plans
will be fully portable and
transferable in the total amount available – minus a
standard $50.00 fee.
Example: If an individual were to move to another State the
amount in
their current Private Sector, or State account will be transferred to
either
the State run program, or any number of Private Sector retirement
programs in the new State of choice - minus the $50.00 transfer fee.
If
available, they may stay with their current plans. The money available
for
transfer will be transferred in full to a new plan only after any residency
requirement has been fulfilled in the new State. The individual plan owner
will
be responsible for all appropriate paper work for the transfer from the
old
State and to the new State, and complete the transfer in a timely fashion.
If
you currently have paid $20,000.00 into a New York State plan, and you
move to
Wisconsin, you will have to leave your money with the New York
State plan for
the six months required to establish legal residency in Wisconsin
(legal
residency wait periods vary from State to State, so your transfer will be
conditional on the new State’s requirements). A waiting period is not necessary
for Private Sector plans. Only at the end of this waiting period can you move
your retirement monies from the old State to the new State – again, minus
the
transfer fee of $50.00. The $50.00 transfer fee will apply to each
State-to-State
transfer.
6) Early withdrawals from any of the new
plans will result in fees and
penalties similar to those set out for IRA’s,
401-k’s, etc.
This
is a way to wean the current generation off Social Security and into a
State-run plan, or a Private Sector plan. The number of people who are
eligible
and opt to stay in Federal Social Security will become an
ever-diminishing
number of people due to simple attrition. As the Federal
level declines, the
State and Private levels will increase until there are no
longer any
participants in the current Federal plan. With these retirement
plans at a more
local level, there will be more conscientious oversight, and
less room for
fraud. Also, the States will be barred from ever using the State
Retirement
plan as leverage for bond ratings, and/or borrowing, and/or
outright spending.
Creating these State level and Private Sector retirement
plans will result in
more money circulated into the National economy, and
have the effect of
creating more small businesses and more jobs. This, then,
leads to a more firm middle-class
tax base on which to run governments at
the Local, State, and Federal levels. Of
the six basic statements in Preamble
of the United States Constitution, this
one movement satisfies most of half
of them; “insure Domestic tranquility”;
“promote the general Welfare”;
and, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Prosperity”.
THE
BIG DO-OVER – Part 2
Restructuring
the Standing Military
“...provide for the common defence...” Nowhere
in the Bill of Rights and/or the full U.S. Constitution is there the word
“offence” when related to any mention of a military force for the
United
States. The word “offence” is only used in conjunction
with Justice and the
Legal structure of our Society. Defence as a
military concept applies to “a well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to
the security of a Free State...” (The Second Amendment)
The phrase, “...of a free State...” points to a
condition whereas individual
States will maintain sufficient Militia as to
protect the Nation. This covers
a State-by-State obligation to form what we
would consider the National
Guard. Nowhere in the Constitution is a standing
military mentioned. This
might lead to a reasonable conclusion that our current
National, standing
military force exists solely for “offence”. If you take this
conclusion to the next
level, you can easily surmise that the formation of a
standing military was for
protecting our “overseas” interests. By having
“overseas” interests, are we not
in the business of Colonialism? This would
seem strange, as Colonialism is a
big part of why we revolted against Great
Britain; indicating that we might
not be too fond of “lording” over other
sovereign Nations, or Nation States.
Now, one could make the argument that our
standing military is
unconstitutional. Some may argue that the best defence is
a good offence,
and thereby the justification for a standing military. Either
way, nothing
about a National standing military is mentioned by our Founding
Fathers.
__________________________________________________
The
first one hundred years of our Nation’s existence actually saw invasions
on our
claimed and/or sovereign territories. We were visited by the British a
few
times; by Mexico a few times, and the Native North Americans along
with the
French tiptoed over the line occasionally. All of that action could
have easily
been taken care of with a “well regulated Militia” drawn from
each State
without the need for a standing Army. And, from time to time,
we found it
necessary to venture outside our Borders to “protect our
National interests”.
That just sounds too much like good old Colonialism to
me. A cursory look at
our history indicates that we've been doing this
“offence” thing for as long as we've been a sovereign Nation. As of late, we
don’t even bother to declare War
on anybody; we do it by Congressional
Resolution, or Executive Order.
Currently,
there are more folks in the National Guard and Reserves than
there are in the
all-volunteer Military. Logically, this would seem a pretty
good time to
dissolve our standing volunteer Military and revert to the
original intent of
our Constitution by organizing a “well regulated Militia”.
The
military/industrial complex could still produce our weapons of mass
destruction, and we could put them on display on a regular basis to
discourage
any thoughts of invading our shores. Reverting to a “Militia”
status might have
a beneficial effect on our “intelligence” community.
We could afford to meld
the best of our current “intelligence” Agencies into
one entity that would
serve our National Defence. There would have to be
outside counsel to figure
out what to do with the Pentagon; perhaps a
National indoor sports venue could
be the result of dissolving our
overwhelmingly burdensome Department of
Defense. Also, the last
paragraph of Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution
needs a rewrite
based on the States providing a “well regulated Militia”.
THE
BIG DO-OVER – Part 3
Restructuring
our Education System
When
it comes to our National education system, the most urgent bridge to cross is
that of duplication. If you haven’t seen the organizational chart of our
Federal Department of Education, you really should look at it. The way in which
it is put together leads one to wonder what, if anything,
productive and/or
useful comes out of this monstrous bureaucracy. Having perused at the Federal
level, go check out your State’s Department of Education.
Lay the Federal and
the State side-by-side. Do you see any
redundancies? I have done this exercise
with the New York State Department
of Education, and found the Federal Agency
is almost a carbon copy of the
State’s Agency. The most efficient way to run an
education system is to bring
it down to a local level where it is manageable.
The States could easily take
this on and use a Federal Department of
Educationally for guidance in
curricula and some basic standards to achieve a
National benchmark.
This can be accomplished with about ten percent of people
current working
at the National level. The folks who no longer have a Federal
job can work
at the State level, and, probably, produce a better product than
they do
sitting in Washington DC.
THE BIG DO-OVER – Part 4
Restructuring
the Electoral System
The
U.S. Constitution spends a lot of time and effort on our elected officials,
the
makeup of our Legislative Branch, and how we are to conduct National
elections.
Two omissions that were probably taken for granted at the
beginning are any
formal mention of term limits for our Legislators, and
that elective office was
not meant to be a career. I don’t suggest that I have
the exact number of years
a person can serve, but there has to be a reasonable
number that we can all
agree on. My personal preference would be four
terms in the House of
Representatives, and three terms in the Senate.
The Executive Branch might do
better with a three-term limit. It seems
there is a lot of unfinished business
with the current two-term limit. Three
small changes involving the Supreme
Court might be in order. First, let all
the judges be elected by the citizenry
they are supposed to represent.
Second, increase the number of judges from nine
to eleven. These changes
would more fully cover the will of the people and add
a broader dimension
to court decisions that affect the whole Country. Thirdly,
apply term limits
to the Supreme Court. I don’t think it is fair, or just, to
have, for instance,
an octogenarian ruling on cases that involve current issues
that they don’t
understand. Another concern is that of our “Electoral College”.
This is such
an antiquated mechanism that it has become the main reason why
people
don’t turn out to vote on a regular basis. When our citizens don’t vote,
we
have lost our democracy.
THE
BIG DO-OVER – Part 5
Re-defining What Issues
Do Not Belong at the Federal Level
Our
Supreme Court and the rest of our Federal Government have no
prerogative to
weigh in on issues such as abortion, birth control, same
sex marriage, whether
Corporations are people, etc. They should proclaim
that these categories are
not issues that should involve government, and,
therefore, have no place in the
Federal Justice system. The Legislative
Branch can produce Law that the Federal
government does not have any
obligation to, nor will they pay for, categories
such as abortion and
contraception. A strong and rational moral fiber of the
citizenry should be
deciding these issues, not the Federal government. Most of
these
“controversial” topics were left out of our Constitution because at the
time
there was no perceived need to address them politically.
THE
BIG DO-OVER – Part 6
Re-sizing the Federal Government
As
previously mentioned in reference to the organizational chart for the U.S.
Department of Education, you can skim through every other Departmental and
Agency organizational chart to get an idea of the sheer weight of our Federal
Bureaucracies. When you sink your teeth into one of these Departments, or
Agencies, you quickly realize that not only is there redundancy at the State
level, but also the job they claim to be
doing can done with less than half the
staffing they currently have. There a
lot of arguments that would have you
believe that shrinking the Federal
government would create an unemployment
fiasco. Granted it may sting a
bit at first, but in fairly short order the
States would take up some of slack,
and, by infusing the economy with more money
from consumers, there
would be more opportunity in Private Sector employment.
Rewriting our tax
laws would go a long to achieving close to full employment,
as would
reconstructing, or throwing out, a lot of our Treaties and Trade
Agreements.
If we can’t take care of ourselves, how on earth can we expect to
take care of
anyone else? The serious and responsible avenue would be to get
our own
house in order, then try the broader, international thing without being
“colonial” about it. Nobody is going to take us seriously if we don’t fix
what’s wrong inside our borders first.
Restructuring Social
Security
Restructuring the
Standing Military
Restructuring our
Education System
Restructuring the
Electoral System
Re-defining What Issues
Do Not Belong at the Federal Level
Resizing the Federl
Government
