10 point plan for fixing America

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,282
Location
Southern NH
I was just wondering what you thought of this: is he accurate, redundant, what would better points be, etc?

THE TEN STEPS TO "FIX" AMERICA. Popular Los Angeles talk show host, Larry Elder speaks out.
The 10-Point Elder Plan

1) Abolish the IRS
Pass a National Sales Tax--Also known as the "Let's Make Tax Lawyers and Lobbyists an Endangered Species Act." A simplified tax code gives lobbyists little to lobby about. A low tax rate spurs people to work harder without resorting to schemes to "shelter" income. At the turn of the century, government took 10 percent of the national income. Now it takes nearly 40 percent. Low taxes means higher productivity and greater job creation. Let's welcome any move to reduce our tax burden, whatever form it takes.

2) Reduce Government by 80 percent
Less than 2 percent of Americans are farmers, yet the Department of Agriculture adds still more bureaucrats. And what exactly does the Department of Commerce do? Do we need the Small Business Administration? Amtrak? The Tennessee Valley Authority? Department of Education? Before 1950, the government largely stayed out of the housing business. Now we have housing projects in all of our major cities. They have become sewers of crime and drugs. The government, an absentee landlord, couldn't care less. The private sector can build housing more cheaply, with an incentive to maintain the property and screen tenants.

3) End Welfare, Entitlements and Special Privileges
Welfare for the poor works out to a national average of $12,000 to $13,000 a year (cash and non-cash) per recipient. Why work at minimum wage? Why worry about impregnating someone when the government shields you from financial responsibility? But welfare for the non-poor, or entitlements, are five times as bad. This includes Social Security (the average recipient has put in fifteen cents for every dollar he or she takes out), Medicare, tuition tax credits, farm and dairy subsidies, tobacco subsidies, as well as government ownership or control of airports and utilities.

4) Abolish the Minimum Wage
A low-paying job remains the entry point for those with few marketable skills. The minimum wage hurts the so-called hard-core unemployable by forcing an employer to pay more than the fair value of labor. Every time the government raises the minimum wage, thousands of entry-level jobs get destroyed.

5) Legalize Drugs
Legalization does not mean approval. America spends at least $20 billion a year to fight a losing battle against drugs. (Research by William F. Buckley places America's direct and indirect costs of this "war" at more than $200 billion a year.) Experts say that worldwide, the annual drug trade may be as high as $500 billion! "Just say no" ain't gonna stop that. The drug trade provides an economic incentive for children and teens to drop out of school and earn fast money. It accounts for 50 percent of all street crimes and perhaps 30 percent of the prison population. Tax drugs, and use the money for drug treatment and additional police protection. Drug legalization would free up prison spaces, vacancies that could be used to lock up violent criminals. What about the harm to society? Drug abuse would have to increase well over fivefold to match the deaths caused by cigarette smoking (allegedly 400,000 a year).

6) Take Government Out of Education
Before the mid 1800s, elementary and secondary education (except for slaves) was largely parent financed. Today, taxpayers spend more than $6,000 a year per student, more than virtually any other country, including Japan. With what result? Poor test scores, high dropout rate, kids incapable of filling out employment applications. Why can't the private sector assume this responsibility? Let's cheer anything, including vouchers, that takes us in this direction

7) Drop the Davis-Bacon Act
This little-known act compels contractors bidding on government jobs to pay union wages. This cuts out competent, non-union workers willing to work for less. This hurts minorities, many of whom were for years discriminated against by unions.

8) Eliminate Corporate Taxes
The government taxes corporate profits and re-taxes the dividends, taking money otherwise used to reduce prices, pay higher dividends, pay higher salaries, or invest in research and development. More corporate investment means more jobs.

9) Charity from People Not Government
During the 1980s, the "decade of greed," charitable contributions by corporations and private citizens increased by at least 30 percent! Why? People had more disposable income, paid fewer taxes, and therefore gave more away. Americans are among the most generous people on Earth. But people want their money to go to people and organizations that they choose and trust.

10) End Protectionism
How many people know that Japanese trucks and minivans cost $2,000 more due to import tariffs? Government-mandated "price supports" force consumers to pay more for milk. Government goodies for the tobacco and sugar industries stiff consumers. Congress imposes a mind-boggling array of rules and regulations to protect declining, inefficient businesses, while taking money away from new ones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I would also vote to eliminate property tax. I don't understand why you have to pay taxes on land you or your family have owned for decades.

six
 
I'd add a few more, too, but I can't disagree with anything thats there.

If I could only live to see the day we got one or two of these...
 
I would suggest one more. It happens to be one of my biggest gripes about government.
There should be NO retirement program for any elected office. A citizen should run for and be elected to a public office, finish out his term and go gome. Those who can look ahead to a rich retirement spend too much of their efforts in office to stay in that office long enough to get the cushy retirement . It would be nice to see some statesmen in office instead of politicians.
 
I dont know if I would completely abolish social security, but I would sure as hell privatize it.

My take on property taxes is this (you may have read this in an article that I base my belief on): Property tax isnt really a tax. Its more like a life-time lease. If you dont pay your government-mandated lease, you get booted from your property. So, by this example, NONE OF YOUR PROPERTY IS YOURS. IT BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

This is completely opposite of what I believe the Founding Fathers wanted.
 
6) Take Government Out of Education
Before the mid 1800s, elementary and secondary education (except for slaves) was largely parent financed. Today, taxpayers spend more than $6,000 a year per student, more than virtually any other country, including Japan. With what result? Poor test scores, high dropout rate, kids incapable of filling out employment applications. Why can't the private sector assume this responsibility? Let's cheer anything, including vouchers, that takes us in this direction

Minor problem - how many people (as a percentage) could read and write then? How many can now?
 
Minor problem - how many people (as a percentage) could read and write then? How many can now?

I don't know, but was it because of or in spite of govt education? Medical care was rather primitave back then compared to what we have now, so would socialized medicine have been a good idea, even though we know that it's garbage?
 
I dont agree with about half of these.

1. As much as I hate the IRS I think a "sales tax only" scheme puts a tough burden on those that earn little. The percantage of income to necessities for poor people is very high as compared to those at higher levels. I like a flat tax idea that starts above a certain income.

2. Reduce guv'ment as much as possible.

3. Parts of social security should be kept. What do you do with disabled children who must become wards of the state for cost reasons? THere are a lot of TRULY disabled people who need this money to survive. I cant imagine that there would be enough private funding either

4. This one is a toss up. The reason cited is basically just not true in a good economy and in a bad economy it might make it worse. A high minimum wage is not good but a low one like now is very reasonable.

5. I favor legalizing drugs when there is an equivilant to a DUI test for them. I nkow you can blood test but that isnt very quick.

6. No. I favor privatizing it but it should still receive goverment money or the poor would continue to get stupider. IF they culdnt afford school then the education gap would ba even larger. Similar to what it was a century ago.

7. I am not really a union fan so this one is OK

8. Corporate taxes are worng. You shouldnt tax money three times

9. This one didnt say where the gov was giving money so I cant comment.

10. This is just wrong. I disagree completley. How can we ever compete with labot costs of 10 cents per hour from other countries. This would be a huge blow to our economy. IT is the same as the need for import taxes from countries where the goverment subsodizes the industry.
 
10) End Protectionism
How many people know that Japanese trucks and minivans cost $2,000 more due to import tariffs? Government-mandated "price supports" force consumers to pay more for milk. Government goodies for the tobacco and sugar industries stiff consumers. Congress imposes a mind-boggling array of rules and regulations to protect declining, inefficient businesses, while taking money away from new ones.
Noble sentiment in an ideal world. Like it or not we live in a world where labor is a global commodity. Because it is so easy to move production off shore we in the US are now faced with competing for jobs on a global scale. Problem is protectionism and minimum catches the attention. Protectionism raises to price to the consumer. Minimum wage raises the cost of production to the manufacturer.

Minimum wage is not the issue. What is the issue is the gaggle of government mandated "benefits" that lard up the cost of employing Americans in America. What benefits? Social benefits such as minimum wage, social security costs, medicate taxes, workman comp, etc. Health benefits such as health ins, dental insurance, health standards in places of production. Environmental benefits such as land use planning, clear work places regulations, EPA bureaucracy. Safety benefits such as OSHA goons, waste disposal. And finally the ringer in the list is litigation premium whereby indirect costs are increased simply to cover the chance of some predatory, unelected, unaccountable lawyers attacking you. It is no wonder manufacturing jobs are flushing out of the US.

In the last 3 years the US has lost 3.3 million jobs. 2.0 million of those jobs came out of the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector accounts for 17% of the US economy. What does it say? It says 65% of all job losses came out of 17% of the economy. While the unemployment rate across the economy is supposidly 6.1% I am willing to bet the unemployment rate in the manufactuing sector to be a high as 20%. . . . . which puts it clearly in the same category as the Great depression.

Protectionism is not the issue. Its government interference in the economy.
 
Larry Elder wrote that at least a year (or more) ago, and while largely adheres to his libertarian beliefs, has recently registered Republican and is a 'Republican with libertarian leanings'.

He has in the past, dissed the Republicans for having a soft stance on the 2nd Amendment and criticized G.H.W. Bush for signing the 1989 ban, etc.

VERY pro-gun.
 
If one reduces the Federal government by 80% or more, there's no need for a national sales tax to fund it. Drop the income tax, and don't replace it with anything.
 
Minor problem - how many people (as a percentage) could read and write then? How many can now?
If you're talking about recent graduates of government schools, the percentage may be lower than you think.

And as far as personal income tax . . . if we just rolled government spending back to 1990 or so levels, we could abolish personal income tax entirely, and have a balanced budget to boot. The problem is, spending is growing faster than population, faster than inflation, and faster than the product of the two.

And most of the increase has nothing whatsoever to do with homeland security or the war on terror. :cuss: :( :mad:
 
Sales tax punishes the financially successful anyway. More higher priced stuff=more taxes paid.
 
Some of these seem like good ideas, but....

As far as tarrifs are concerned, I think would adopt a policy of not accepting imports from companies that don't meet certain standards such as a reasonable minimum wage, certain pollution and worker safety standards, etc. The reason so many companies tak production overseas is not just wages, but also because they can skirt US eviromental laws, worker safety laws, protection from being sued, etc. If they don't have a BIG incetive to be overseas, then I think a portion of these jobs would come back home.

The IRS does need to be abolished and a sales type tax instituted for two reasons; one so that you can control the amount of tax you pay. If you want to buy that $13K car instaed of the $25K car you are free to place the other UNTAXED $12K in your kid's education fund, etc. There should be no sales tax on basic foods, mediacal services or supplies, scholl tution, or purchase of primary home. This would keep low income folks from being hammered. A sales tax would also mean the IRS has no (&^(*&%(&(*&^(&^*&(()*&%^#$% business scoping out your private financial affairs.

Legalize some drugs and tax them with all money to go to treatment and education, while rasing the penalty for other truely dangeruos drugs. Conduct military strikes on overseas suppliers without ANY DAMN EXCUSES!

I do believe that anyone on goverment assistance, except for non-self inflicted disabilites, should not be able to vote.

One thing I would add however is that I would like to see military similar to what they have in Switzerland. Maybe 2 years basic skills training and in return free college or trade scholl if you make th grades. In the reserves until you are 40 minimum. This would give us a large number of people that could be brought up to speed quickly and would give us a chance to discover most of the nutt cases in the process. There should also be some alternative type service if you just can't bring yourself to be part of the military.

Oh well, my 2 cents anyway


Stay Safe

TEX
 
The IRS does need to be abolished and a sales type tax instituted for two reasons; one so that you can control the amount of tax you pay.
Y'know you can pretty well control how much income tax you pay right now. Take your 1040, and instead of filling it out and mailing it the IRS goons, just throw it out. :) Sure, it's risky - but if you don't want to pay the tax, just don't.

If the Feds have to levy taxes on individuals (as opposed to small tariffs or requesting money from the states) the they are too large. Rather than give them more taxing power, we should hack them down to a more proper size. Frankly, if they collect any money by force they're too big, IMO.

Also, I detest the idea of mandatory militry service. I have absolutely zero interest in fighting overseas; and I am perfectly capable of militia-style national defense training myself. No way the Feds can come in and claim two or more years of my life for their own.

I do like the idea of limiting the vote to those who don't receive direct government payoffs.
 
As for funding the Federal govt, I think the Feds could bill the various state govts based upon their population. If State X has 5% of the population, they pay 5% of the buget. Whew, that seems really complicated and cumbersome compared to the current tax structure.

If they don't have a BIG incetive to be overseas, then I think a portion of these jobs would come back home.

Do you really want these jobs? Do you want to work in a factory making toasters? I don't, and it's also not good for the country to do so when it can be done at less cost overseas. It costs us because 1) we'd have to have domestic resources producing those goods, which could be applied to making other, more profitable goods. I'll not try to explain it, but I will direct you to someone better than I to do so. Tex, meet Walter Williams

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32568

The other problem with erecting those trade barriers with said countries is the cost of other countries trading with them. If we cut ourselves off from those inexpensive goods, and the economic opportunity that goes with them, do you think that the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans will do likewise, or will they jump at the chance to economically suirpassing us? They'll go for it in a heartbeat.

How will that affect us in the future, when they have a far stronger economy that can fund their war machine and we've fallen behind?

Conduct military strikes on overseas suppliers without ANY DAMN EXCUSES

What would you think if Iran bombed breweries and distilleries here? I'm sure some boioze made here makes its way there, and it is against their Islamic law, so should they be allowed to bomb us?

If a drug really is dangerous, the user will soon find out, and we'll have one less drug user to worry about, or do you want to experiment with drinking gasoline to see if you get a weird buzz off it? Also, why should the govt provide funding for dependancy treatment? What happened to personal responsibility, that you are responsible for your actions and for cleaning up your own life. The America of Big Daddy govt wiping the collective butts of the population is not one of limited govt and rugged individualism, and it's not the one I want to raise my kids in.

Sales tax punishes the financially successful anyway. More higher priced stuff=more taxes paid.

Not quite correct. A sales tax punishes those that consume more, not necessarily those that make more. I know plenty of muppets that spend everything they make and more, going into debt, while others spend only a fraction of what they make. The really savy individuals invest their disposable income, which then produces more income for them. See "Cashflow Quadrant" by Robert Kiyosaki for more details.

Also, I am also completely opposed to compulsory Military service. For a number of reasons, it's a bad idea, the biggest being that you are essentially a slave if you can be forced to perform a service against your will. Is that a precedent that you want formed?

I think if you 1) stopped all the nonsense interventionalism arount the world, and 2) changed the military from the current PC touchy cuddely overweight don't hurt my feelings "fighting force", you'd have more people wanting to join than the Military can handle. I certainly don't want to get my behind shot off to stop the Croats and Serbs from killing each other, and I don't feel like going somewhere to take the spotlight off Clinton's sexual exploits.

Give me a military that is 1) allowed to be a military rather than a police force, and 2) run with the purpose of defending America's vital interests and not politician's, and I'll join today. I also know that I'm not alone in that. I came close to joining the Marines and the Army, but couldn't do so out of principles, as I don't believe in all the nonsense that the Military is involved in. If I don't believe that invading Haiti is a good thing to do, what business do I have there.

I also don't like the idea of some college twit who's never seen any real military service commanding those that have. We should be running our officer system like the Israelis, where you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. Maybe we should have a thread on how we should reform the military?
 
Jeeper,

If we reduced govt to it's Constitutional limitations, that tax burden would be minimal, especially considering the economic growth that would happen as a result of the increased capital in the hands of citizens as opposed to politicians. If we needed a sales tax, it would be extremely low.

I cant imagine that there would be enough private funding either (for the disabled)

Here's an idea: maybe if the Feds weren't consuming 40% of the GDP, we'd have more money so that folks like you and I could donate more to charity. Let's try it and see where we get.

A high minimum wage is not good but a low one like now is very reasonable

I don't get this: if a $7/hr minimum wage is good, why is a $70/hr wage bad?

At worst, a minimum wage creates employment barriers for those with no experience, violates people's right to contract, increases unemployment. At best, it's an inflationary tool that robs people of their purchasing power.

I favor legalizing drugs when there is an equivilant to a DUI test for them.

Shouldn't we work towards that regardless, or are people not driving while drugged up, cause it'd be illegal for them to do so?

No. I favor privatizing it but it should still receive goverment money or the poor would continue to get stupider. IF they culdnt afford school then the education gap would ba even larger.

Is there a Chinese buffet in your town? There is in mine, and I can get an all-you-can-eat lunch for under $7. One could live off of that and nothing else if you had to. Who would argue that food isn't more necessary to live than education, not me? Yet in food production there is a relatively free market that will satisfy demand, yet there is not a free market in education.

Even in the skewed market that exists, private education is far more cost-effective than govt education. To get the govt out of education at all govt levels, or at least get the Federal govt out of it, would mean tremendous savings to the consumer, so it would be even more affordable than you think. There would also be reciprocal economic benefits, as people have more disposable income, so the economy would improve as well, thus making it yet more affordable. In such an environment, would private charities not be able to pick up the slack?

How can we ever compete with labot costs of 10 cents per hour from other countries. This would be a huge blow to our economy.

How do Northern businesses compete with Southern business, cause we all know that the cost of labor is less in the South? How do we compete? In some instances, we don't. Florida will never be able to compete with Maine when it comes to lobsters, and Maine will never be able to compete with Florida when it comes to Citrus, so they don't try and they specialize in what they're good at.
 
  • Stop SS payouts. Use lockbox SS dollars to pay off national debt over next 1-2 decades
  • Fund real presidential and congressional/senate candidate debates (LD or similar). I'm sick to death of "debates" such as the recent Democratic '04 Prez. candidates debates, where the moderator asks each candidate a different question, allowing only a minute or two per answer, and in general fostering zero intelligent discussion.
  • Stop the WoD. This frees up still more money. Gut the relevant federal law and replace it with an across-the-board 20% import tax to stop drug money from funding destabilizing guerrila factions in Central and South America, and to pay for useful government programs. Street price will still drop, and risk will drop to zero, eliminating most drug-related violence, which reduces healthcare costs, which further reduces government spending. Import duties are Constitutional, though perhaps not wise.
  • People on wellfare for over a year don't get to vote. Parents on welfare at conception may not have/keep the child This is implemented irrespective of gender -- if only the father is on wellfare, this still applies. The child must be aborted No later than at 3mo or within 2 weeks of discovery, whichever is later. A binding adoption agreement may be signed in place of abortion, with a clause providing that the agreement can be voided by the biological parents if they are not on welfare when the child is born. All 3rd-term "discoveries" must be similarly aborted or adoption arranged, but the parents do not get to choose -- they must explore adoption first. Both mother and father will have their own welfare checks docked 10% retroactive to conception and extending to a year after birth or abortion. A single non-welfare parent must either obtain legal sole custody or get the other parent to go off of welfare if he or she wishes to have the child. Abortion costs will be deducted from the parents' welfare checks to avoid abuse. The alternative to this proposal is to eliminate welfare.
  • Online voting using certificates (via smartcard) with passphrase and biometrics for authentication. Not everyone has or wants a computer with a fingerprint scanner, so this would be implemented at voting centers, simultaneously avoiding most security problems with the online, at-home implementation. As an added benefit, many more people will become familiar with crypto, and such contracts and required FIPS 140-2 L3 and above hardware will drive crypto research.
  • Online voting ballots will not list party affiliation. There will be no option for "party vote" that autoselects all candidates from a particular party. Any candidates, qualifying by signatures from x% of the vote or selection by primary vote by a party with over x members, will be placed on the ballot in alphabetical order.
  • Disband the Department of Education, and any State equivalents. Require that all schools teach A View of the Constitution (Harvard Law's Conlaw text for the early 19th century) and various other texts like Mill's On Liberty, and probably some Plato, Hobbes, and Locke for good measure. Constitutional justification? Such teaching is vital to the political health of the state. The writings used may be changed, but the majority of the several required texts must be over 100 years old to prevent historical or philosophical revisionism by any single generation/regime.
  • Government funding for non-economicially-viable programs. R&D for tasks such as space exploration and fusion power is not being explored enough by corporations because the cost barrier of such research is extremely high and there is no guarantee of success. The private sector can only be counted on to pursue research when the costs are relatively low or when success is reasonably certain. As a result, the Federal Government should fund at reasonable levels such programs which may solve serious future resource problems or that may have other significant benefits for mankind. Privatization of the programs is an option, subject to the next point...
  • All contracted government work must be transparent. All non-classified project details, budgetary divisions, balance sheets, etc., must be publicly displayed on the internet. The goal is not to discourage privatization of specific tasks, but to ensure that citizens know, to the extent the activities are unclassified, what their government is doing and how companies are spending their government's money.
  • Required publishing of FOIA-accessible (Federal and State) documents online. This includes court decisions. Documents must be stored in open format so that expensive software is not required to read them. Government must also phase out all non-open-source software. This does not mean all software used by government must be free, but that would probably be the result. Because the government is accountable to the people, the people must be able to see the processes and software by which the government is run. This includes classified algorithms like Skipjack. Except, as mentioned above, classified data is of course not to be made public.

Healthcare, and whether to nationalize it, is a serious issue, but has been omitted to avoid excessive conflict. :p
 
The child must be aborted

This is sick, both in it's effect (govt mandated abortion) and in it's cause (sustaining a forced welfare system). Why don't we just ditch govt welfare all together and let the chips fall where they may? If someone is not one their feet and they go to a another party for assistance, they can figure out their own terms. Why have the state dabble in welfare, is it because of the stellar job they do paving roads? Your alternative proposal is the only viable one.

"R&D for tasks such as space exploration and fusion power is not being explored enough by corporations because the cost barrier of such research is extremely high and there is no guarantee of success"

Sounds like most business ventures out there, it's a wonder how anything was ever invented or brought to market.

"Healthcare, and whether to nationalize it, is a serious issue, but has been omitted to avoid excessive conflict"

This is THR, not DU.com where they shut you down if you punch holes in their socialist arguements. So please, do tell, should we nationalize healthcare?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.