While I love Blogger/Blogspot, I have put up my own campaign website at
www.spencerfortexas.com
All future updates will be on that site. Please hop over and read the blog! Thank you for your support!!!
--Spence
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Spence, What is your Platform? Part 5: War on Drugs
I'm sure this will be an extremely touchy subject with some people. So, lets go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room.
I support the legalization of marijuana.
I believe that by legalizing the growing and possession of marijuana, we will take a tremendous burden off of our criminal justice system.
I believe that placing regulation (age and consumption restrictions, just like alcohol) and levying a tax on marijuana sales, we can provide more funds for our ailing education system (that, coupled with privatization of schools, as I have advocated in earlier posts, would be a huge benefit to our citizenry), as well as other needed projects.
By de-criminalizing marijuana, we take the 'street value' of the illegal good out of the economic spectrum. When you take the crime aspect out of marijuana sales and possession, the ancillary crimes that come with this crime will go away, as well. Lets consider the trickle-down effect of this:
1. Marijuana is made legal, and controlled just like alcohol.
a. Prison overcrowding will instantly start to dissipate as less new and repeat pot heads enter the system.
b. Assault, battery, and theft crimes will begin to lessen immediately (with prices of marijuana inflated on the street, users frequently steal to support their habit. If prices drop due to greater availability, so does the need to commit crime. There's that pesky SUPPLY & DEMAND screwing things up again, doh!).
c. Tax revenue increases, which can be directly used to support anti-drug programs (such as D.A.R.E.) to help teach children the dangers associated with drug use (but, since marijuana can be habituating and not necessarily addictive, the only harm comes along the same lines as smoking cigarettes or a hookah pipe...the inhaling of smoke...).
d. With marijuana now readily available at pot stores across the country, folks that would normally have 'delved deeper' into the narcotics underground and eventually found other illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc) will not have that 'livin on the edge' draw, and stay with the legal stuff.
There's a million excuses not to legalize marijuana, but no real facts that support continued prohibition. Here's some things that Big Government (the Dems and Repubs) don't like about legalization:
1. Less police needed. That's right, if we take away crimes, we need less police. Less police means less state/federal control of the citizenry.
MY RESPONSE: We apparently have a lack of police officers across the country right now. Legalizing marijuana will simply reduce the need for hiring, and lighten the already-burdensome workload on our brave men and women in blue.
2. Less revenue from fines. If something is no longer illegal, you can't be fined.
MY RESPONSE: If it is now legal and taxed as a good, then we are actually making MORE MONEY off of it! Duh!
3. It is harmful to children.
MY RESPONSE: So are race cars, toenail clippers, and steak knives. Just like anything else, however, parents should teach their children the benefits and drawbacks of safety with anything.
If elected to the Legislature, I will partner with other like-minded citizens and lawmakers to advance legislation to de-criminalize marijuana and have it fall under the legal, TAXABLE umbrella of a consumer good.
I support the legalization of marijuana.
I believe that by legalizing the growing and possession of marijuana, we will take a tremendous burden off of our criminal justice system.
I believe that placing regulation (age and consumption restrictions, just like alcohol) and levying a tax on marijuana sales, we can provide more funds for our ailing education system (that, coupled with privatization of schools, as I have advocated in earlier posts, would be a huge benefit to our citizenry), as well as other needed projects.
By de-criminalizing marijuana, we take the 'street value' of the illegal good out of the economic spectrum. When you take the crime aspect out of marijuana sales and possession, the ancillary crimes that come with this crime will go away, as well. Lets consider the trickle-down effect of this:
1. Marijuana is made legal, and controlled just like alcohol.
a. Prison overcrowding will instantly start to dissipate as less new and repeat pot heads enter the system.
b. Assault, battery, and theft crimes will begin to lessen immediately (with prices of marijuana inflated on the street, users frequently steal to support their habit. If prices drop due to greater availability, so does the need to commit crime. There's that pesky SUPPLY & DEMAND screwing things up again, doh!).
c. Tax revenue increases, which can be directly used to support anti-drug programs (such as D.A.R.E.) to help teach children the dangers associated with drug use (but, since marijuana can be habituating and not necessarily addictive, the only harm comes along the same lines as smoking cigarettes or a hookah pipe...the inhaling of smoke...).
d. With marijuana now readily available at pot stores across the country, folks that would normally have 'delved deeper' into the narcotics underground and eventually found other illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc) will not have that 'livin on the edge' draw, and stay with the legal stuff.
There's a million excuses not to legalize marijuana, but no real facts that support continued prohibition. Here's some things that Big Government (the Dems and Repubs) don't like about legalization:
1. Less police needed. That's right, if we take away crimes, we need less police. Less police means less state/federal control of the citizenry.
MY RESPONSE: We apparently have a lack of police officers across the country right now. Legalizing marijuana will simply reduce the need for hiring, and lighten the already-burdensome workload on our brave men and women in blue.
2. Less revenue from fines. If something is no longer illegal, you can't be fined.
MY RESPONSE: If it is now legal and taxed as a good, then we are actually making MORE MONEY off of it! Duh!
3. It is harmful to children.
MY RESPONSE: So are race cars, toenail clippers, and steak knives. Just like anything else, however, parents should teach their children the benefits and drawbacks of safety with anything.
If elected to the Legislature, I will partner with other like-minded citizens and lawmakers to advance legislation to de-criminalize marijuana and have it fall under the legal, TAXABLE umbrella of a consumer good.
Spence, What is your Platform? Part 4: Sunset Clauses & Term Limits
Continuing with discussing issues which I feel are important, today we will discuss Sunset Clauses and Term Limits, which are the same thing but focusing on different areas.
Sunset Clauses date back to the Roman Republic, when Senators would issue a mandate for certain items. These mandates were restricted to a specific length of time, so that the Senate would be forced to review it for validity in the future.
Sunsetting has a long history in politics, and is used frequently within our own system of government. The Patriot Act, for example, had numerous sunset clauses for things such as wiretapping and voicemail evidence collection.
The Texas Constitution utilizes sunsetting on a continuous basis. Starting in 1977, Texas established a Sunset Advisory Commission which has the duty to review almost all State agencies, departments, and programs. The Commission is made up of representatives from the House and Senate, as well as a few members of the public for a fair and balanced evaluation of need.
This system helps to eliminate wasteful agencies, and helps to curb 'big government'. Now, imagine coupling this Commission with a Zero Based Budget, and a temporary hiring freeze, and imagine the efficiency that would be created!
Sunset clauses inserted in certain laws/statutes are extremely wise. Revenue bills, licensing requirement statutes, and laws involving non-violent crimes should be reviewed periodically or automatically sunset at certain periods to reduce the oppressive hand of government on its citizenry.
I would push for strict adherence to sunset provisions and look to work with the Sunset Advisory Commission to help shrink our state government to the appropriate, efficient size.
TERM LIMITS
There are legitimate arguments both for and against term limits on any level of government. Some folks say that we need to refresh the pool of Congresspersons every x amount of years, while others state that in doing so we are stripping our government of some of the wisest lawmakers and thus handicapping ourselves.
Fresh ideas via fresh faces in government (whether local, state, or federal) is always a good idea, provided the term limits imposed are not ridiculous. Some folks believe that politicians should only serve one term; others state that 6 years is plenty. On a federal level, I would say that 6 year stints for the Congress (that is both the House and the Senate) is a fair term. 6 years is plenty of time to accomplish the goals needed by the citizenry.
Furthermore, I would say that these are only blocks for consecutive terms, not lifetime limits. Let me use an example:
Joe Smith runs for State Senate, and wins. He serves 6 years in that body. At the end of that term, he runs for the House of Representatives, and wins. After serving 2 terms there (4 years), he decides to run for the Senate, and serves a 6 year term there. He finishes out his 'political career' by returning to his home state to serve out a final 2 years as a State Representative.
Essentially, our example above was a 'career politician', but he did not park himself in a seat for 20+ years as lord and master over a select few Committees...and thus would not have enough time in each body to have any special interests/lobbyists sink their claws into him (creating that co-dependent relationship we see festering in our system today).
Think about the benefits of this system; serving in multiple bodies gives this legislator a tremendous exposure to different needs, duties, and requirements. He can now see the 'wide angle view' of serving one's constituents, and would (in theory, at least) be better prepared for each successive position.
So, I believe in modified term limits that allow the 'wise' to stick around and still serve the government, but placing realistic limits that act like a thumbtack on the seat of power...uncomfortable, to be sure, but prodding just enough to remind you that while you do your job, that term limit is still there.
I would love to sit down with the citizens of my District that believe in strict term limits and hear out their reasoning, suggestions, and concerns. If elected to the State Legislature, I would do my best to make sure sunset clauses and appropriate term limits are introduced and carried forth.
Sunset Clauses date back to the Roman Republic, when Senators would issue a mandate for certain items. These mandates were restricted to a specific length of time, so that the Senate would be forced to review it for validity in the future.
Sunsetting has a long history in politics, and is used frequently within our own system of government. The Patriot Act, for example, had numerous sunset clauses for things such as wiretapping and voicemail evidence collection.
The Texas Constitution utilizes sunsetting on a continuous basis. Starting in 1977, Texas established a Sunset Advisory Commission which has the duty to review almost all State agencies, departments, and programs. The Commission is made up of representatives from the House and Senate, as well as a few members of the public for a fair and balanced evaluation of need.
This system helps to eliminate wasteful agencies, and helps to curb 'big government'. Now, imagine coupling this Commission with a Zero Based Budget, and a temporary hiring freeze, and imagine the efficiency that would be created!
Sunset clauses inserted in certain laws/statutes are extremely wise. Revenue bills, licensing requirement statutes, and laws involving non-violent crimes should be reviewed periodically or automatically sunset at certain periods to reduce the oppressive hand of government on its citizenry.
I would push for strict adherence to sunset provisions and look to work with the Sunset Advisory Commission to help shrink our state government to the appropriate, efficient size.
TERM LIMITS
There are legitimate arguments both for and against term limits on any level of government. Some folks say that we need to refresh the pool of Congresspersons every x amount of years, while others state that in doing so we are stripping our government of some of the wisest lawmakers and thus handicapping ourselves.
Fresh ideas via fresh faces in government (whether local, state, or federal) is always a good idea, provided the term limits imposed are not ridiculous. Some folks believe that politicians should only serve one term; others state that 6 years is plenty. On a federal level, I would say that 6 year stints for the Congress (that is both the House and the Senate) is a fair term. 6 years is plenty of time to accomplish the goals needed by the citizenry.
Furthermore, I would say that these are only blocks for consecutive terms, not lifetime limits. Let me use an example:
Joe Smith runs for State Senate, and wins. He serves 6 years in that body. At the end of that term, he runs for the House of Representatives, and wins. After serving 2 terms there (4 years), he decides to run for the Senate, and serves a 6 year term there. He finishes out his 'political career' by returning to his home state to serve out a final 2 years as a State Representative.
Essentially, our example above was a 'career politician', but he did not park himself in a seat for 20+ years as lord and master over a select few Committees...and thus would not have enough time in each body to have any special interests/lobbyists sink their claws into him (creating that co-dependent relationship we see festering in our system today).
Think about the benefits of this system; serving in multiple bodies gives this legislator a tremendous exposure to different needs, duties, and requirements. He can now see the 'wide angle view' of serving one's constituents, and would (in theory, at least) be better prepared for each successive position.
So, I believe in modified term limits that allow the 'wise' to stick around and still serve the government, but placing realistic limits that act like a thumbtack on the seat of power...uncomfortable, to be sure, but prodding just enough to remind you that while you do your job, that term limit is still there.
I would love to sit down with the citizens of my District that believe in strict term limits and hear out their reasoning, suggestions, and concerns. If elected to the State Legislature, I would do my best to make sure sunset clauses and appropriate term limits are introduced and carried forth.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Spence, What is your Platform? Part 3: Privatization
Government is a necessary evil. Since Man is flawed and evil motives can creep into the normal interactions that our species requires, we must have some type of framework in place to assist in our societal functioning. Some would argue that the more regulation we have, the better off we are. I disagree.
Since Man is flawed, government (which is made up of humans) is flawed, as well. What keeps me from being considered an anarchist, however, is the belief that we have a set of laws that all men can agree upon as fair, just, and in the interest of all who fall under it.
...well, we did until professional politicians started f'ing with the Constitution (but that is a debate for another time).
Anyway, back to my point. Man is flawed. Government should restrict the amount of influence it holds over the populace, and especially over the economy.
I hold to what is called the Austrian school of economic belief. I believe that the ultimate 'regulator' in the economy is naturally-occurring supply and demand. I also believe that the more fingers the government sticks into the economic pie, the worse off the economy is.
So, when the government creates an agency or department to oversee some part of our society that can be done by private business, they are hurting the economy. Lets take a look at some industries that can be privatized:
1. Corrections. Yes, privatizing prisons and corrections officers can have tremendous economic benefits. Not only can costs drop 10-15%, but introducing competition to a system that traditionally increases its budget requirements every year will also help keep costs down. Corrections also has a reputation for being a 'dumping ground' for law enforcement professionals who cannot/will not 'advance' to other forms of law enforcement. Privatization increases job competition, and thus a higher quality of correctional officer can become the average, not the exception.
2. Transportation. Texas is a prime example of how well privatization works! Not only do we have an average 10% savings on highway maintenance, but other states are using Texas as a model for privatization of their respective highway maintenance programs. One finds it silly that this great example of privatization hasn't inspired the Legislature to spread this method out to the other money-absorbing departments in the Lone Star State.
3. Education. First off, let me say that I support public education. Our Founding Fathers believed that education is a fundamental right of all Americans, and that a sound public education system would benefit our country more than any other program. The key term there is a SOUND public education system. Ours is a broken, union-controlled quagmire. Privatization of public education is not, as the NEA or other teacher groups would have you believe, forcing parents to pay a tuition for education (which you already do...its called your local SCHOOL TAX). Instead, it forces schools to provide a higher level of education while keeping costs low (there's that pesky free market again). A great way to start this privatization would be a voucher program. For further reading, check out what Nobel Economics Prize winner Milton Friedman had to say on this.
So there's just a few of the 'biggies'. What are some of the benefits of privatization that we can agree on?
A. LOWER COSTS
B. HIGHER QUALITY
C. LOWER TAXES
D. SMALLER GOVERNMENT
E. INNOVATION not STAGNATION
If elected to the Texas House of Representatives, I will strive for privatization and right-sizing of our State government. Please help us win this battle against big government and over-regulation. A vote for Spencer is a vote for the free market. Thank you.
Since Man is flawed, government (which is made up of humans) is flawed, as well. What keeps me from being considered an anarchist, however, is the belief that we have a set of laws that all men can agree upon as fair, just, and in the interest of all who fall under it.
...well, we did until professional politicians started f'ing with the Constitution (but that is a debate for another time).
Anyway, back to my point. Man is flawed. Government should restrict the amount of influence it holds over the populace, and especially over the economy.
I hold to what is called the Austrian school of economic belief. I believe that the ultimate 'regulator' in the economy is naturally-occurring supply and demand. I also believe that the more fingers the government sticks into the economic pie, the worse off the economy is.
So, when the government creates an agency or department to oversee some part of our society that can be done by private business, they are hurting the economy. Lets take a look at some industries that can be privatized:
1. Corrections. Yes, privatizing prisons and corrections officers can have tremendous economic benefits. Not only can costs drop 10-15%, but introducing competition to a system that traditionally increases its budget requirements every year will also help keep costs down. Corrections also has a reputation for being a 'dumping ground' for law enforcement professionals who cannot/will not 'advance' to other forms of law enforcement. Privatization increases job competition, and thus a higher quality of correctional officer can become the average, not the exception.
2. Transportation. Texas is a prime example of how well privatization works! Not only do we have an average 10% savings on highway maintenance, but other states are using Texas as a model for privatization of their respective highway maintenance programs. One finds it silly that this great example of privatization hasn't inspired the Legislature to spread this method out to the other money-absorbing departments in the Lone Star State.
3. Education. First off, let me say that I support public education. Our Founding Fathers believed that education is a fundamental right of all Americans, and that a sound public education system would benefit our country more than any other program. The key term there is a SOUND public education system. Ours is a broken, union-controlled quagmire. Privatization of public education is not, as the NEA or other teacher groups would have you believe, forcing parents to pay a tuition for education (which you already do...its called your local SCHOOL TAX). Instead, it forces schools to provide a higher level of education while keeping costs low (there's that pesky free market again). A great way to start this privatization would be a voucher program. For further reading, check out what Nobel Economics Prize winner Milton Friedman had to say on this.
So there's just a few of the 'biggies'. What are some of the benefits of privatization that we can agree on?
A. LOWER COSTS
B. HIGHER QUALITY
C. LOWER TAXES
D. SMALLER GOVERNMENT
E. INNOVATION not STAGNATION
If elected to the Texas House of Representatives, I will strive for privatization and right-sizing of our State government. Please help us win this battle against big government and over-regulation. A vote for Spencer is a vote for the free market. Thank you.
Voting "No" Does Not Make You A Conservative
While doing some research with a few members of our campaign last night, the recognition of a certain trend within all levels of legislative government in this country turned into a spirited conversation. The gist of it was this: If a legislator consistently votes "no" on revenue bills that would increase taxes, does that make him fiscally conservative?
Initially, the answer was a resounding yes. As we delved deeper, however, most began to shift their position. Why, you ask? Well, that's the subject of this morning's discussion!
When a member of the legislature (whether state or federal) simply and consistently votes 'no' on any bill that spends a taxpayer's money, most people would consider them a good conservative. I don't see it that way. What it says to me is the person is actually a good nay-sayer, and nothing more.
A 'good' conservative would not only vote against the proposed increase, but put forward legislation to REFORM current tax laws and put money back in the hands of those who have earned it.
Most Republicans would have you believe that they are strong fiscal conservatives. I would challenge you, however, to look past the voting record alone and see what they are doing to ADVANCE the cause of fiscal conservatism. I bet you will find few who actually do.
Anyone can vote no on a bill. A true leader will stand up and try to change a failing system.
That is why Texans in the 130th District need to vote for me in the 2010 election. No more of this 'just say no' stuff. Lets actually get something done.
Initially, the answer was a resounding yes. As we delved deeper, however, most began to shift their position. Why, you ask? Well, that's the subject of this morning's discussion!
When a member of the legislature (whether state or federal) simply and consistently votes 'no' on any bill that spends a taxpayer's money, most people would consider them a good conservative. I don't see it that way. What it says to me is the person is actually a good nay-sayer, and nothing more.
A 'good' conservative would not only vote against the proposed increase, but put forward legislation to REFORM current tax laws and put money back in the hands of those who have earned it.
Most Republicans would have you believe that they are strong fiscal conservatives. I would challenge you, however, to look past the voting record alone and see what they are doing to ADVANCE the cause of fiscal conservatism. I bet you will find few who actually do.
Anyone can vote no on a bill. A true leader will stand up and try to change a failing system.
That is why Texans in the 130th District need to vote for me in the 2010 election. No more of this 'just say no' stuff. Lets actually get something done.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Spence, What is your Platform? Part 2: Zero-Based Budgeting
Continuing on with this series, today we'll be discussing Zero-Based Budgeting.
Who this applies to: All State departments as well as State contractors
WHAT IS ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?
Zero-based budgeting is a complete 180-degree shift from standard budgeting practices used by the government. The current budgetary process requires responsible parties to only justify increases in their previous budget. As such, budgets can (and usually do) rise each and every year.
With a zero-based budgeting plan, every budget period (annually or bi-annually) starts from $0.00 and each line item in the budget must be justified. Each time the director of a department goes before the Legislature at budget time, he has to have a detailed reasoning for each and every item on his list.
This fiscal accountability is directly in line with what we need; the government is a steward of the citizenry's funds collected through taxation, and they MUST be good stewards.
Now, lets get into the details of Zero-Based budgeting.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?
The largest and most beneficial benefit of Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) is identification and eradication of inflated budgets. Departments can no longer put in unidentified special project money or 'CYA' funding. Without this ability, departments and contractors will be forced to spend our money wisely. Wasteful or outdated projects can easily be identified and eliminated. Furthermore, this type of budgeting creates an opportunity to identify those departments/duties that can be outsourced to private companies for better cost control and efficiency.
There are numerous derivative benefits, as well. Increased communication between members of the department as well as inter-departmental interaction helps efficiency and productivity. The ability to inspire the staff to reduce waste and work smarter (buy-in) can tremendously help morale and output.
WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES OF ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?
In my opinion, the benefits well outweigh the challenges. To be fair, however, I must list the speedbumps involved in such a plan.
First of all, ZBB is quite time-consuming on the part of all parties. Not only must the entities requesting funds spend large amounts of time on building their case, but then the issuing entity (in this case, the Legislature) must spend time reviewing the documentation and commencing the back-and-forth to find out the actual budget. I see this as a 'labor pain' challenge, however, since it will eventually become a stream-lined process as all parties become used to it, and the burden will lessen.
Another challenge would be honesty, which ties directly in to the above-mentioned challenge of time. If the submitting entities are not completely forthright in their budgeting requests, it may take longer periods of time to sort through the muck to get to the bottom line.
CAN THERE BE BONUSES FOR NOT USING ALL OF THE BUDGETED FUNDS?
One of the greatest things about ZBB is the ability to reward people for doing a good job. If a department meets or exceeds all goals and comes in under budget, there is potential there to issue the remaining finances as a bonus to those involved. This acts as an enticement to do work speedily, correctly (the first time), and happily. Employees who know they can receive a nice bonus if they can beat a deadline and still put out quality results will be eager to do so.
Lets use an example.
Lets say that the Department of Transportation is undertaking the renovation of Highway 123 between cities A and B. The ZBB allowed for $2million dollars and 6 months to complete the project. Upon completion and final inspection, any funds left unused from that project will be split amongst all employees (pro-rated by position and contribution).
Five months, two weeks after the project commenced, Highway 123 has been inspected and found to meet/exceed expectations. The entire project has come in at $1.78 million, leaving a $220,000 surplus. As such, that surplus is awarded to the employees as previously discussed.
What was the extra cost to the taxpayer? None. The ZBB verified that the project estimate of $2million is fair for the job being done. By being good stewards of their resources and working harder than they normally would have, the department (or contractors) were able to come in early and under-budget. As such, they are rewarded for their being good stewards without incurring any additional costs to the taxpayers.
CONCLUSION
As you can see, Zero-Based Budgeting can greatly increase the tax savings, productivity, and efficiency of government. While it is not a perfect system (no budgeting system is), it is much better than our current version of incremental budgeting.
Who this applies to: All State departments as well as State contractors
WHAT IS ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?
Zero-based budgeting is a complete 180-degree shift from standard budgeting practices used by the government. The current budgetary process requires responsible parties to only justify increases in their previous budget. As such, budgets can (and usually do) rise each and every year.
With a zero-based budgeting plan, every budget period (annually or bi-annually) starts from $0.00 and each line item in the budget must be justified. Each time the director of a department goes before the Legislature at budget time, he has to have a detailed reasoning for each and every item on his list.
This fiscal accountability is directly in line with what we need; the government is a steward of the citizenry's funds collected through taxation, and they MUST be good stewards.
Now, lets get into the details of Zero-Based budgeting.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?
The largest and most beneficial benefit of Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) is identification and eradication of inflated budgets. Departments can no longer put in unidentified special project money or 'CYA' funding. Without this ability, departments and contractors will be forced to spend our money wisely. Wasteful or outdated projects can easily be identified and eliminated. Furthermore, this type of budgeting creates an opportunity to identify those departments/duties that can be outsourced to private companies for better cost control and efficiency.
There are numerous derivative benefits, as well. Increased communication between members of the department as well as inter-departmental interaction helps efficiency and productivity. The ability to inspire the staff to reduce waste and work smarter (buy-in) can tremendously help morale and output.
WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES OF ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?
In my opinion, the benefits well outweigh the challenges. To be fair, however, I must list the speedbumps involved in such a plan.
First of all, ZBB is quite time-consuming on the part of all parties. Not only must the entities requesting funds spend large amounts of time on building their case, but then the issuing entity (in this case, the Legislature) must spend time reviewing the documentation and commencing the back-and-forth to find out the actual budget. I see this as a 'labor pain' challenge, however, since it will eventually become a stream-lined process as all parties become used to it, and the burden will lessen.
Another challenge would be honesty, which ties directly in to the above-mentioned challenge of time. If the submitting entities are not completely forthright in their budgeting requests, it may take longer periods of time to sort through the muck to get to the bottom line.
CAN THERE BE BONUSES FOR NOT USING ALL OF THE BUDGETED FUNDS?
One of the greatest things about ZBB is the ability to reward people for doing a good job. If a department meets or exceeds all goals and comes in under budget, there is potential there to issue the remaining finances as a bonus to those involved. This acts as an enticement to do work speedily, correctly (the first time), and happily. Employees who know they can receive a nice bonus if they can beat a deadline and still put out quality results will be eager to do so.
Lets use an example.
Lets say that the Department of Transportation is undertaking the renovation of Highway 123 between cities A and B. The ZBB allowed for $2million dollars and 6 months to complete the project. Upon completion and final inspection, any funds left unused from that project will be split amongst all employees (pro-rated by position and contribution).
Five months, two weeks after the project commenced, Highway 123 has been inspected and found to meet/exceed expectations. The entire project has come in at $1.78 million, leaving a $220,000 surplus. As such, that surplus is awarded to the employees as previously discussed.
What was the extra cost to the taxpayer? None. The ZBB verified that the project estimate of $2million is fair for the job being done. By being good stewards of their resources and working harder than they normally would have, the department (or contractors) were able to come in early and under-budget. As such, they are rewarded for their being good stewards without incurring any additional costs to the taxpayers.
CONCLUSION
As you can see, Zero-Based Budgeting can greatly increase the tax savings, productivity, and efficiency of government. While it is not a perfect system (no budgeting system is), it is much better than our current version of incremental budgeting.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Spence, What is your Platform? Part 1: Government Spending
Since some of the folks visiting this blog are not members of the campaign Facebook group, I decided to post a brief synopsis of my Platform (a.k.a. my mission statement for if I were to be elected to the Legislature).
This post is the first of numerous in the series that will go through my position on each topic I hold near and dear to my heart.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
The bureaucratic machine that is the Texas State Government is bloated and redundant. Too many jobs are underutilized.
I will work for a 100% hiring freeze for 3 years for all State positions. With a standard average of 3-5% attrition/year (retirement/termination/job change), costs will decrease while productivity per position will increase. Those in non-essential/redundant positions can be shifted to cover those that are immediate due to the attrition.
---------
Lets dissect this. A hiring freeze is utilized by many companies as a way to trim costs without a drastic step (like a lay-off, or department/branch closure). This allows the employer (in this case, the State itself) to maintain costs and gradually lower them while evaluating what other steps can be taken to trim the budget (such as cost overflows and reconstructing a spending plan based on realistic numbers).
A 100% hiring freeze means that the State will stop accepting new applications for the majority of jobs. This does not mean that absolutely no-one is hired...if an essential position is not filled, and CANNOT be filled by a lateral move or promotion from WITHIN, then the State would be forced to hire; the catch being that the decision to make that position available would rest with the Legislature (or a subcommittee thereof), and not branch heads or supervisors.
Doing a hiring freeze accomplishes a few things. First of all, it allows a real-world test of what jobs are functioning at peak performance, and what ones are not. As employees retire/terminate/transfer, work load will increase. As work load increases, additional strain will fall upon the remaining folks. A ratio of acceptable work-to-employee will be established, and thus equilibrium can be found. No more 'loafing' positions that have IRS-style redundancy (where 2 and 3 people do the EXACT same job, so the work load is hilariously light), but people actually working to capacity for their pay.
Another benefit of a hiring freeze is a period of evaluation on budgeting. Without an influx of new employees, costs will drop to a more realistic level, as will resource consumption. An appropriate level of workers allows for an appropriate level of supplies, and thus costs will shrink in the bloated departments, and balance out in the understaffed ones.
CONCLUSION
This discussion may sound overly simplistic, but the point is to show the platform and the overview of the goal, not the exact intricate workings (which could take weeks or months of work amongst a committee to flesh out properly).
The bottom line is this: A temporary hiring freeze allows the State to appropriately analyze how the money is being spent on salaries, and what departments are bloated. It also allows for internal transfers to undermanned departments, and helps create a situation as close to equilibrium as possible. With the cost of staff on the decline during the freeze, other costs can be 'right sized' within the budgetary framework of the State, and thus another step towards State Government responsibility and PROPER, lower taxation can occur.
This post is the first of numerous in the series that will go through my position on each topic I hold near and dear to my heart.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
The bureaucratic machine that is the Texas State Government is bloated and redundant. Too many jobs are underutilized.
I will work for a 100% hiring freeze for 3 years for all State positions. With a standard average of 3-5% attrition/year (retirement/termination/job change), costs will decrease while productivity per position will increase. Those in non-essential/redundant positions can be shifted to cover those that are immediate due to the attrition.
---------
Lets dissect this. A hiring freeze is utilized by many companies as a way to trim costs without a drastic step (like a lay-off, or department/branch closure). This allows the employer (in this case, the State itself) to maintain costs and gradually lower them while evaluating what other steps can be taken to trim the budget (such as cost overflows and reconstructing a spending plan based on realistic numbers).
A 100% hiring freeze means that the State will stop accepting new applications for the majority of jobs. This does not mean that absolutely no-one is hired...if an essential position is not filled, and CANNOT be filled by a lateral move or promotion from WITHIN, then the State would be forced to hire; the catch being that the decision to make that position available would rest with the Legislature (or a subcommittee thereof), and not branch heads or supervisors.
Doing a hiring freeze accomplishes a few things. First of all, it allows a real-world test of what jobs are functioning at peak performance, and what ones are not. As employees retire/terminate/transfer, work load will increase. As work load increases, additional strain will fall upon the remaining folks. A ratio of acceptable work-to-employee will be established, and thus equilibrium can be found. No more 'loafing' positions that have IRS-style redundancy (where 2 and 3 people do the EXACT same job, so the work load is hilariously light), but people actually working to capacity for their pay.
Another benefit of a hiring freeze is a period of evaluation on budgeting. Without an influx of new employees, costs will drop to a more realistic level, as will resource consumption. An appropriate level of workers allows for an appropriate level of supplies, and thus costs will shrink in the bloated departments, and balance out in the understaffed ones.
CONCLUSION
This discussion may sound overly simplistic, but the point is to show the platform and the overview of the goal, not the exact intricate workings (which could take weeks or months of work amongst a committee to flesh out properly).
The bottom line is this: A temporary hiring freeze allows the State to appropriately analyze how the money is being spent on salaries, and what departments are bloated. It also allows for internal transfers to undermanned departments, and helps create a situation as close to equilibrium as possible. With the cost of staff on the decline during the freeze, other costs can be 'right sized' within the budgetary framework of the State, and thus another step towards State Government responsibility and PROPER, lower taxation can occur.
Monday, December 14, 2009
FOXNews.com - Not So Private Property?: Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab
FOXNews.com - Not So Private Property?: Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab
Take a look at the above article on FOX News. The EPA is at it again. The potential here for government land grabs is scary.
Take a look at the above article on FOX News. The EPA is at it again. The potential here for government land grabs is scary.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Spencer Endorses the FAIR TAX Plan
Today, I throw down the gauntlet to the Federal taxation machine. It is long past the time for tax reform. I wholeheartedly stand by the FAIR TAX plan.
I take the following information directly from the FAIR TAX website, which can be found here:
It is the right of every Texan, and every AMERICAN, to keep as much of their earnings as possible. It is irresponsible for the Federal Government to continue to spend beyond their means and expect the American people to just go along with it. As many of my supporters already know, I support the FAIR TAX 100%. While not perfect, it is by far the BEST plan that has ever been presented.
I take the following information directly from the FAIR TAX website, which can be found here:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
- Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
- Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
- Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
- Allows American products to compete fairly
- Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
- Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
- Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
- Abolishes the IRS
It is the right of every Texan, and every AMERICAN, to keep as much of their earnings as possible. It is irresponsible for the Federal Government to continue to spend beyond their means and expect the American people to just go along with it. As many of my supporters already know, I support the FAIR TAX 100%. While not perfect, it is by far the BEST plan that has ever been presented.
Why Vote for the Libertarian Party?
There is a long tradition of third parties in American politics. Unfortunately, that tradition is one of losing horribly. Since 1971 (38 years ago today, as a matter of fact), the Libertarian Party has tried to push into the mainstream of American politics by showing itself to be organized, moderately funded, and focused on the issues Americans really fret about.
The Libertarian Party, while being the 'largest third party' (which is like saying you came in third in a two-way race), has seen a TREMENDOUS influx of new blood and donations from Americans disenfranchised by the two major parties. This new blood has reinvigorated the Libertarian Party (LP), and is allowing it to gain some standing in many places around the nation.
DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN...WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
There used to be a distinction between the two major parties, but those lines have blurred so much over the past 20 years it is hard to distinguish one from another. Since their policies often accomplish the same damage, the only real difference is rhetorical.
While Republicans cry for tax reform and smaller government, they continually push forward their own policies of debt-increasing spending, and higher taxes (shall we recall President Bush's 'Read My Lips' address to the nation?). Republicans state that they are for small business, but still push forward bills that support large corporations and help out their lobbyist backers. Truth is, they are as fiscally liberal as the Democratic Party.
Democrats are just as bad. Tax this, create a new agency to oversee that, and spend spend spend.
So, where do we look for succor from these money-wasters?
THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Lets talk about the fiscal perspective of most Libertarians.
As believers in the free market principles, the LP wants to lift the absurd amount of restrictions that are currently placed on business. Licensing requirements for non-degree jobs (insurance adjusters, carpenters, electricians, retail salespersons, etc) which restrict who can work in certain fields shrink the labor pool, which increases costs. Increased costs mean less demand, which means less revenue, which means.....
...can you see where this is going? The pattern is cyclical. The more fingers you poke into the market, the more it breaks down. When the market breaks down, tax revenue shrinks.
...But, do we really need so much taxation? The LP thinks not.
"Without taxation, how will the government function?" Good question! Taxation is a necessary evil, but not at the astronomical levels we currently have. The answer to needing less taxation is to lessen the requirement to tax. How do we do that? It is easier than you might think! We have so many agencies, departments, and committees that are completely USELESS or REDUNDANT that simply by placing a hiring freeze on the federal bureaucracy and taking the time to AUDIT exactly which departments are needed and cutting the dead weight will lessen the federal budget TREMENDOUSLY.
Numerous departments are simply redundant to state departments, where the responsibility actually lies. Allowing the states to step into their Constitutionally-appointed roles and managing their own affairs is a great first step in bureaucratic freedom.
This process doesn't happen overnight, but over time with proper management and an approach at thrifty government spending.
When it comes to the social aspect of Libertarianism, there is generally a 'live and let live' policy. If a crime is non-violent, and victimless, then it is not the role of the nanny state to police it. A Libertarian believes that it is the citizen's responsibility to monitor his or her own actions and make sure that they do not harm their neighbors or infringe upon the liberty of others.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT, AND I'M A REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT!
Well, people in the United States historically vote amongst one of the 2 major parties. There's at least a third (if not more) of each major party that actually shares MORE beliefs with the Libertarian Party than with the the GOP or Democrats! The majority of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal. Once someone realizes that a small proportion of their chosen party (GOP or Dem), the more radical part, actually control their parties, they tend to find themselves displaced and looking into the Libertarian Party.
Not sure if what you believe is actually what your Party believes? Take this quiz and find out!
OK SPENCE, THAT IS GREAT. BUT DO THE LIBERTARIANS ACTUALLY HAVE A SHOT?
Well, as a candidate, I whole-heartedly believe that answer to be a resounding YES! As more and more concerned citizens begin to read and research their beliefs for themselves, and decide to become active in the political landscape, we will see more and more Libertarians taking office...on the local and state level, and then on the Federal level, as well.
Tea Party members, 9/12'ers, and other grassroots movements share MANY of the ideals of the Libertarian Party. If more of those folks could be reached and information on the Libertarian Party placed in their hands, I believe they would jump onboard immediately and help us 'fight the good fight.'
I think that 2010 is the Year of the Libertarian Party. We will see numerous local, county, and state positions across the country won by hard-working Libertarian Party candidates and their tireless volunteers.
I encourage you all to help that become a reality. Contact the Libertarian Party today and volunteer to help on a campaign, or take on the government yourself by signing up as a candidate!
www.lp.org
The Libertarian Party, while being the 'largest third party' (which is like saying you came in third in a two-way race), has seen a TREMENDOUS influx of new blood and donations from Americans disenfranchised by the two major parties. This new blood has reinvigorated the Libertarian Party (LP), and is allowing it to gain some standing in many places around the nation.
DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN...WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
There used to be a distinction between the two major parties, but those lines have blurred so much over the past 20 years it is hard to distinguish one from another. Since their policies often accomplish the same damage, the only real difference is rhetorical.
While Republicans cry for tax reform and smaller government, they continually push forward their own policies of debt-increasing spending, and higher taxes (shall we recall President Bush's 'Read My Lips' address to the nation?). Republicans state that they are for small business, but still push forward bills that support large corporations and help out their lobbyist backers. Truth is, they are as fiscally liberal as the Democratic Party.
Democrats are just as bad. Tax this, create a new agency to oversee that, and spend spend spend.
So, where do we look for succor from these money-wasters?
THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Lets talk about the fiscal perspective of most Libertarians.
As believers in the free market principles, the LP wants to lift the absurd amount of restrictions that are currently placed on business. Licensing requirements for non-degree jobs (insurance adjusters, carpenters, electricians, retail salespersons, etc) which restrict who can work in certain fields shrink the labor pool, which increases costs. Increased costs mean less demand, which means less revenue, which means.....
...can you see where this is going? The pattern is cyclical. The more fingers you poke into the market, the more it breaks down. When the market breaks down, tax revenue shrinks.
...But, do we really need so much taxation? The LP thinks not.
"Without taxation, how will the government function?" Good question! Taxation is a necessary evil, but not at the astronomical levels we currently have. The answer to needing less taxation is to lessen the requirement to tax. How do we do that? It is easier than you might think! We have so many agencies, departments, and committees that are completely USELESS or REDUNDANT that simply by placing a hiring freeze on the federal bureaucracy and taking the time to AUDIT exactly which departments are needed and cutting the dead weight will lessen the federal budget TREMENDOUSLY.
Numerous departments are simply redundant to state departments, where the responsibility actually lies. Allowing the states to step into their Constitutionally-appointed roles and managing their own affairs is a great first step in bureaucratic freedom.
This process doesn't happen overnight, but over time with proper management and an approach at thrifty government spending.
When it comes to the social aspect of Libertarianism, there is generally a 'live and let live' policy. If a crime is non-violent, and victimless, then it is not the role of the nanny state to police it. A Libertarian believes that it is the citizen's responsibility to monitor his or her own actions and make sure that they do not harm their neighbors or infringe upon the liberty of others.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT, AND I'M A REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT!
Well, people in the United States historically vote amongst one of the 2 major parties. There's at least a third (if not more) of each major party that actually shares MORE beliefs with the Libertarian Party than with the the GOP or Democrats! The majority of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal. Once someone realizes that a small proportion of their chosen party (GOP or Dem), the more radical part, actually control their parties, they tend to find themselves displaced and looking into the Libertarian Party.
Not sure if what you believe is actually what your Party believes? Take this quiz and find out!
OK SPENCE, THAT IS GREAT. BUT DO THE LIBERTARIANS ACTUALLY HAVE A SHOT?
Well, as a candidate, I whole-heartedly believe that answer to be a resounding YES! As more and more concerned citizens begin to read and research their beliefs for themselves, and decide to become active in the political landscape, we will see more and more Libertarians taking office...on the local and state level, and then on the Federal level, as well.
Tea Party members, 9/12'ers, and other grassroots movements share MANY of the ideals of the Libertarian Party. If more of those folks could be reached and information on the Libertarian Party placed in their hands, I believe they would jump onboard immediately and help us 'fight the good fight.'
I think that 2010 is the Year of the Libertarian Party. We will see numerous local, county, and state positions across the country won by hard-working Libertarian Party candidates and their tireless volunteers.
I encourage you all to help that become a reality. Contact the Libertarian Party today and volunteer to help on a campaign, or take on the government yourself by signing up as a candidate!
www.lp.org
The CFPA and the burning of the Constitution
Yesterday, Congress passed a bill creating the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). This agency will have BROAD authority over financial products in the United States. President Obama's administration, who proposed this Agency, alluded to the purpose of the CFPA being nothing more than a safeguard against financial institutions taking advantage of consumers.
This is complete bullcrap.
Throughout modern history, agencies in the United States have usurped the Constitutionally-given powers of the Legislature and (more importantly) the individual states to oversee commerce, resource usage, and revenue generation (instead of 'taxes' the agencies use 'fines' and 'licenses').
Before we get into the terror that the CFPA will most definitely become, lets journey back through the creation of some other unconstitutional agencies that currently run these United States.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
We all know this one, right? December 2, 1970 was a dark day in American history. The EPA officially came into existence, and mass government regulation of business began. Anything involving water, air, or earth became their domain to oversee, regulate, fine, and disband. Well, everything except Monsanto Corporation, who pretty much owns the EPA.
Every manufacturer that produces waste (so, that would be just about all manufacturers I can think of) has to deal with the EPA at one time or another. The fines and licensing requirements placed on manufacturers by the EPA increase the base cost of all goods produced, thus creating less demand (due to price), and the result of that is less jobs.
The recent CO2 regulation news is yet another nail in the coffin of the free markets...
FEDERAL RESERVE (The Fed)
'Born' in 1913 due to numerous bank failures due to panic/bank runs by depositors, the Federal Reserve was initially formed to provide a form of depositor's insurance and to assist in the policing of banking standards. Since then, the Fed has assumed so much control over our nation's currency (inflation regulation, proposing 'stimulus' packages, etc) that the market can barely operate on a daily basis without some type of input from them.
Funny thing is, banks still fail at a steady rate. So, what exactly has the Fed accomplished?
OTHER AGENCIES
I can go on and on about other agencies (FTC, FAA, FDA, etc), but I don't have the time and neither do you. Suffice it to say that these agencies are:
1. NON-ELECTED OFFICIALS
2. GIVEN THE POWER TO GENERATE REVENUE
3. HAVE THE ABILITY TO STRIP A CITIZEN OF HIS/HER FREEDOM
4. HAVE VIRTUALLY NO OVERSIGHT
SO, BACK TO THE CFPA
Now, the CFPA will have the power to do such things as:
1. Decide what financial products will be available to consumers. What does this mean? It means that the government will tell financial institutions what kind of loans they may issue, and at what interest rates.
--The Negative-- Lenders operate by getting investors to front money to be loaned, at a rate of interest, to people who request it for specific or general purposes. Investors have the right to decide on the return on their investment, which influences the interest rate. This is the enticement that lenders use to get investors. By federalizing the lending institution, less investors will want to front money to the financial institutions (because their chance for decent returns will be lessened), and as such less lending will be available.
--The Scary--Once less investors begin investing, I predict the CFPA will then request Congress to pass a bill to use tax revenue for funding these now-underfunded loan programs. At that point, the balance of power shifts yet again from the citizenry to the federal minority.
2. Levy fines against financial institutions for not living up to the government-approved standards. Instead of letting the market decide what is a good product and what is a bad one, now a FEW PEOPLE in the government (who, as we learned earlier, are not even elected officials) will decide what is right and what is wrong.
--The Negative--Fines generate revenue, so it is beneficial to the Agency to show 'progress' and justify its existence by issuing fines. Fines by the CFPA, like the FDA, EPA, and other A's, will be cumbersome almost to the point of back-breaking...but not quite. That way, they can continue to do it without appearing to destroy the industry overnight (instead, it will take decades).
--The Scary--The power to wield so much moral power by just a few unelected officials (including a 'czar' which will oversee the agency) is worrisome. These folks have virtually NO oversight, and as such can insert their personal feelings into how things are done at a level beyond normalcy. The lack of checks and balances leaves too much to individual interpretation.
3. Require even more licensing and regulatory inspections. While licensing and regulatory inspections put an obvious impact on the financial institutions, it also creates more bureaucracy. That means more costs (salaries, equipment, travel, etc).
--The Negative-- Licensing raises prices as well as lowers potential workers/businesses. Long, drawn-out processes benefit companies that lobby and can chase smaller businesses out of the industry. I can go on and on about the negatives here.
--The Scary-- Almost total money market control by the Federal government. Between the Fed, the CFPA, EPA, and other agencies, we are stepping into a public sector-heavy economy, instead of a private sector-driven one.
CONCLUSION
I can go on and on about the evils of more government agencies. Instead, I will sum up the points of this discussion with the following:
1. Government Agencies, like the EPA and CFPA, are NON-ELECTED BODIES that are given the power to levy fines and charge for licensing (aka taxes) without the consent of the people.
2. Government Agencies have no direct oversight, other than an appointed (not elected) 'czar'. This leaves too much room for a small body of people to exert their personal beliefs onto the masses.
3. Government Agencies reduce the natural ebb and flow of a free market by over-regulating. By doing this, businesses that SHOULD fail do not (kept on life support by the government, just like these stimulus and bailout programs currently in force). This lowers the quality of financial products available.
4. Government Agencies create more debt by increasing the size of the bureaucracy. The revenue they generate raises prices on consumer products, and reduce the amount of available jobs. Overall, that means more taxes and less available money in the free market.
5. Government interference in the products offered by lending institutions will stifle the interest of investors.
This is complete bullcrap.
Throughout modern history, agencies in the United States have usurped the Constitutionally-given powers of the Legislature and (more importantly) the individual states to oversee commerce, resource usage, and revenue generation (instead of 'taxes' the agencies use 'fines' and 'licenses').
Before we get into the terror that the CFPA will most definitely become, lets journey back through the creation of some other unconstitutional agencies that currently run these United States.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
We all know this one, right? December 2, 1970 was a dark day in American history. The EPA officially came into existence, and mass government regulation of business began. Anything involving water, air, or earth became their domain to oversee, regulate, fine, and disband. Well, everything except Monsanto Corporation, who pretty much owns the EPA.
Every manufacturer that produces waste (so, that would be just about all manufacturers I can think of) has to deal with the EPA at one time or another. The fines and licensing requirements placed on manufacturers by the EPA increase the base cost of all goods produced, thus creating less demand (due to price), and the result of that is less jobs.
The recent CO2 regulation news is yet another nail in the coffin of the free markets...
FEDERAL RESERVE (The Fed)
'Born' in 1913 due to numerous bank failures due to panic/bank runs by depositors, the Federal Reserve was initially formed to provide a form of depositor's insurance and to assist in the policing of banking standards. Since then, the Fed has assumed so much control over our nation's currency (inflation regulation, proposing 'stimulus' packages, etc) that the market can barely operate on a daily basis without some type of input from them.
Funny thing is, banks still fail at a steady rate. So, what exactly has the Fed accomplished?
OTHER AGENCIES
I can go on and on about other agencies (FTC, FAA, FDA, etc), but I don't have the time and neither do you. Suffice it to say that these agencies are:
1. NON-ELECTED OFFICIALS
2. GIVEN THE POWER TO GENERATE REVENUE
3. HAVE THE ABILITY TO STRIP A CITIZEN OF HIS/HER FREEDOM
4. HAVE VIRTUALLY NO OVERSIGHT
SO, BACK TO THE CFPA
Now, the CFPA will have the power to do such things as:
1. Decide what financial products will be available to consumers. What does this mean? It means that the government will tell financial institutions what kind of loans they may issue, and at what interest rates.
--The Negative-- Lenders operate by getting investors to front money to be loaned, at a rate of interest, to people who request it for specific or general purposes. Investors have the right to decide on the return on their investment, which influences the interest rate. This is the enticement that lenders use to get investors. By federalizing the lending institution, less investors will want to front money to the financial institutions (because their chance for decent returns will be lessened), and as such less lending will be available.
--The Scary--Once less investors begin investing, I predict the CFPA will then request Congress to pass a bill to use tax revenue for funding these now-underfunded loan programs. At that point, the balance of power shifts yet again from the citizenry to the federal minority.
2. Levy fines against financial institutions for not living up to the government-approved standards. Instead of letting the market decide what is a good product and what is a bad one, now a FEW PEOPLE in the government (who, as we learned earlier, are not even elected officials) will decide what is right and what is wrong.
--The Negative--Fines generate revenue, so it is beneficial to the Agency to show 'progress' and justify its existence by issuing fines. Fines by the CFPA, like the FDA, EPA, and other A's, will be cumbersome almost to the point of back-breaking...but not quite. That way, they can continue to do it without appearing to destroy the industry overnight (instead, it will take decades).
--The Scary--The power to wield so much moral power by just a few unelected officials (including a 'czar' which will oversee the agency) is worrisome. These folks have virtually NO oversight, and as such can insert their personal feelings into how things are done at a level beyond normalcy. The lack of checks and balances leaves too much to individual interpretation.
3. Require even more licensing and regulatory inspections. While licensing and regulatory inspections put an obvious impact on the financial institutions, it also creates more bureaucracy. That means more costs (salaries, equipment, travel, etc).
--The Negative-- Licensing raises prices as well as lowers potential workers/businesses. Long, drawn-out processes benefit companies that lobby and can chase smaller businesses out of the industry. I can go on and on about the negatives here.
--The Scary-- Almost total money market control by the Federal government. Between the Fed, the CFPA, EPA, and other agencies, we are stepping into a public sector-heavy economy, instead of a private sector-driven one.
CONCLUSION
I can go on and on about the evils of more government agencies. Instead, I will sum up the points of this discussion with the following:
1. Government Agencies, like the EPA and CFPA, are NON-ELECTED BODIES that are given the power to levy fines and charge for licensing (aka taxes) without the consent of the people.
2. Government Agencies have no direct oversight, other than an appointed (not elected) 'czar'. This leaves too much room for a small body of people to exert their personal beliefs onto the masses.
3. Government Agencies reduce the natural ebb and flow of a free market by over-regulating. By doing this, businesses that SHOULD fail do not (kept on life support by the government, just like these stimulus and bailout programs currently in force). This lowers the quality of financial products available.
4. Government Agencies create more debt by increasing the size of the bureaucracy. The revenue they generate raises prices on consumer products, and reduce the amount of available jobs. Overall, that means more taxes and less available money in the free market.
5. Government interference in the products offered by lending institutions will stifle the interest of investors.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Forced Morality is not Genuine. Reinforced Morality Can Be.
Today, I'm taking on a social question. Let me caveat this blog post by stating I am not a psychologist, anthropologist, or any other -ologist. This is simply the musings of a concerned citizen.
FORCED MORALITY
I define forced morality as laws that prohibit non-violent behavior upon the populace. These laws restrict the lifestyle of the individual and say what he/she can or cannot do.
I would think one of the larger issues that fall under the banner of forced morality is same-sex unions.
As a practicing Christian, I do not believe in marriage between two people of the same sex. Furthermore, I do not believe in concurrent marriages to more than one person (polygamy). That is my personal belief, and thus I choose not to live that kind of lifestyle.
That being said, I would never force my beliefs on another. I would never want someone to force their beliefs on me. That is inherently wrong, and leads to severe social disarray.
Forced morality is practiced all around the world. Go to any country that falls under Sharia Law, and you will find morality shoved down the throats of their people. Everything from sexual orientation to the clothes a woman may wear are regulated at the tip of a bayonet. To me, that is a scary thought indeed. Thank God we don't have that in the United States...
...or do we?
If we look at the Texas Constitution, an amendment was approved by a 2/3 majority to ban same-sex marriages or civil unions. There is also a part of the Texas Constitution that states a member of the legislature must believe in a Supreme Being (note that a 1961 Supreme Court decision rendered this null and void...but it is still 'on the books').
Texas is not the only state to have such laws. Almost every state has some type of forced morality law on record.
Do these laws really have to be there? What purpose do they serve?
Are homosexual couples a violent group, or some type of public nuisance? I've never heard of a group of same-sex couples causing violent insurrections....have you?
If you throw religious morality in my face over this issue, I'll defend myself with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. If a citizen of this great country chooses not to believe the same thing that I do, that is ALRIGHT! We can still be neighbors, still have the same fiscal beliefs, and still eat at the same restaurants. We may disagree on religion, but we don't have to come to violence over it (as some countries do).
There is no medical, scientific, or public safety concern in the same-sex argument. It is simply forced morality. That, in a nation based on liberty, is wrong. As I said earlier, I would not want someone to force their morality on me, so I should not force mine on others.
I'll use a term thrown around quite frequently, but it does apply: what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business. If someone's lifestyle is different than mine, and their behavior is not violent or the source of a limiting of my liberty, I have no say in what they do.
From a religious standpoint, lets look at this. For the sake of conversation, lets assume that I have a Muslim family living 3 doors down from me. They decide to erect a minaret in their back yard to call other Muslims in the surrounding neighborhood to prayer. I would have a cause of action against them, because that infringes on my privacy (from a minaret, they could see into my fenced-in backyard), as well as being a source of noise pollution (blasting prayer and calls to prayer multiple times a day would be disruptive). I would have cause for CIVIL ACTION against them. It would be up to a jury of my fellow citizens whether my neighbor was infringing on my liberty.
REINFORCED MORALITY
Now, REINFORCED MORALITY is something totally acceptable, and legal. This occurs every single day in our society.
When a parent takes their child to church (or temple, or whatever), and teaches them their system of belief, this is a REINFORCING of the morality they believe in. When a commuter puts on a Christian radio station during their drive to work, they are REINFORCING their system of morality.
When a martyr straps a bomb vest on and blows up a military convoy, that is NOT reinforcing morality. That is FORCED MORALITY.
Some folks may say that parents forcing their children to go to church is forced morality, but I disagree. While a child is under their parents' roof, I believe it is the place of the parents to try and instill a moral foundation in their children to help them in this world of ours. When the children are on their own, they are free to choose their own path.
CONCLUSION
So, that is how I see things. I believe that if people are conducting themselves non-violently, and are not infringing on the liberty of their neighbors then it it not my business what they do in their lives. I wouldn't want someone nosing around in my life telling me what I could and couldn't do/say/believe. I hope that you feel the same.
FORCED MORALITY
I define forced morality as laws that prohibit non-violent behavior upon the populace. These laws restrict the lifestyle of the individual and say what he/she can or cannot do.
I would think one of the larger issues that fall under the banner of forced morality is same-sex unions.
As a practicing Christian, I do not believe in marriage between two people of the same sex. Furthermore, I do not believe in concurrent marriages to more than one person (polygamy). That is my personal belief, and thus I choose not to live that kind of lifestyle.
That being said, I would never force my beliefs on another. I would never want someone to force their beliefs on me. That is inherently wrong, and leads to severe social disarray.
Forced morality is practiced all around the world. Go to any country that falls under Sharia Law, and you will find morality shoved down the throats of their people. Everything from sexual orientation to the clothes a woman may wear are regulated at the tip of a bayonet. To me, that is a scary thought indeed. Thank God we don't have that in the United States...
...or do we?
If we look at the Texas Constitution, an amendment was approved by a 2/3 majority to ban same-sex marriages or civil unions. There is also a part of the Texas Constitution that states a member of the legislature must believe in a Supreme Being (note that a 1961 Supreme Court decision rendered this null and void...but it is still 'on the books').
Texas is not the only state to have such laws. Almost every state has some type of forced morality law on record.
Do these laws really have to be there? What purpose do they serve?
Are homosexual couples a violent group, or some type of public nuisance? I've never heard of a group of same-sex couples causing violent insurrections....have you?
If you throw religious morality in my face over this issue, I'll defend myself with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. If a citizen of this great country chooses not to believe the same thing that I do, that is ALRIGHT! We can still be neighbors, still have the same fiscal beliefs, and still eat at the same restaurants. We may disagree on religion, but we don't have to come to violence over it (as some countries do).
There is no medical, scientific, or public safety concern in the same-sex argument. It is simply forced morality. That, in a nation based on liberty, is wrong. As I said earlier, I would not want someone to force their morality on me, so I should not force mine on others.
I'll use a term thrown around quite frequently, but it does apply: what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business. If someone's lifestyle is different than mine, and their behavior is not violent or the source of a limiting of my liberty, I have no say in what they do.
From a religious standpoint, lets look at this. For the sake of conversation, lets assume that I have a Muslim family living 3 doors down from me. They decide to erect a minaret in their back yard to call other Muslims in the surrounding neighborhood to prayer. I would have a cause of action against them, because that infringes on my privacy (from a minaret, they could see into my fenced-in backyard), as well as being a source of noise pollution (blasting prayer and calls to prayer multiple times a day would be disruptive). I would have cause for CIVIL ACTION against them. It would be up to a jury of my fellow citizens whether my neighbor was infringing on my liberty.
REINFORCED MORALITY
Now, REINFORCED MORALITY is something totally acceptable, and legal. This occurs every single day in our society.
When a parent takes their child to church (or temple, or whatever), and teaches them their system of belief, this is a REINFORCING of the morality they believe in. When a commuter puts on a Christian radio station during their drive to work, they are REINFORCING their system of morality.
When a martyr straps a bomb vest on and blows up a military convoy, that is NOT reinforcing morality. That is FORCED MORALITY.
Some folks may say that parents forcing their children to go to church is forced morality, but I disagree. While a child is under their parents' roof, I believe it is the place of the parents to try and instill a moral foundation in their children to help them in this world of ours. When the children are on their own, they are free to choose their own path.
CONCLUSION
So, that is how I see things. I believe that if people are conducting themselves non-violently, and are not infringing on the liberty of their neighbors then it it not my business what they do in their lives. I wouldn't want someone nosing around in my life telling me what I could and couldn't do/say/believe. I hope that you feel the same.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Why Does Freedom Scare People?
THIS question has popped up a bit lately on various Facebook pages, blogs, and the like. "Why does Freedom scare people? Why can't they stand up to the government and DEMAND change?"
So, I have been rolling this around in my cabeza all day. Does Freedom truly scare people, or is it something else entirely? I came up with the following possibilities:
1. People truly are scared to have so much Freedom, and the responsibility that comes with it.
2. People aren't scared, but apathetic to change.
3. People are defeated spiritually, and feel that fighting won't do any good.
4. People ARE fighting, just not for what 'we' think they SHOULD be fighting for.
5. I'm totally off my rocker.
While number five is a distinct possibility, I decided to go a bit more cerebral and dissect this issue. Lets take it one step at a time.
1. PEOPLE TRULY ARE SCARED OF FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
My initial reaction to this was 'nope, cannot be'...but the more I think about it, the more this option shows merit. Have you been involved in a car accident (or stopped to help at one), where someone required immediate First Aid or CPR? Most folks do not want to take the responsibility of stepping up and doing more than is necessary, for fear of failure or criticism. I believe the same applies to our system of government, as well. If the government has less interference in our lives, and thus less control, then we as private citizens have greater responsibility to maintain a standard acceptable to civilized society. So, taking the path of 'Fight or Flight', the majority of people choose flight.
2. PEOPLE AREN'T SCARED, THEY ARE JUST APATHETIC TO CHANGE
While I would hope this to be false, I think that there is a significant portion of the population that feels some apathy towards the government. The point at which this statement becomes unlikely, however, is the motive behind the apathy. The lack of caring is not about change itself, but about the inability to accomplish it. This leads me to my next point.
3. PEOPLE ARE DEFEATED SPIRITUALLY, AND FEEL THAT FIGHTING IS HOPELESS.
Continuing on from number 2, above, I would say that this is a very common trend. How many times have people told you "its just the way it is" or "what can you do?" This is what I like to call the JOHN GALT Syndrome. When a pervasive feeling of inability to control the events of their reality hits a people group, and they just let the minority (i.e. the Government) do whatever they choose, bad things happen. It is the nature of Government to press for as much control of the constituency as it can, and thus 'manage' the people. Considering our government, by design, is supposed to 'fear' the people, the fact that the reverse is happening is very disconcerting indeed.
4. PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING, JUST FOR DIFFERENT CAUSES THAN MINE.
I think this plays its part in the original question, as well. Obviously, not everyone thinks the same, or has the same moral code. The beauty of our system of government is that we can still work together despite our differences, and no particular group is left out. I do, however, see numerous references to 'Tea Party' gatherings, 'grassroots' movements, and the like, and most of them have large elements of libertarianism in their core beliefs. The problem there is, I think, most folks do not even KNOW what a libertarian is. The news media marginalizes everything but the two major parties (which is sad, considering those two parties are now so much alike it is hard to tell them apart...but that's a conversation for another blog post). The Libertarian Party, for instance, is always used as a punchline or footnote in political discussions.
CONCLUSION
So, I don't think the main problem is that folks in America are scared of Freedom or Liberty as much as they do not understand how fast they are losing it...and that they actually CAN fight for it. I believe that if more people would pick up the banner and lead the masses, those masses would jump in line and start speaking up more and more (again, we are seeing this with the Tea Party movement). Do you have it in you to step up and lead?
So, I have been rolling this around in my cabeza all day. Does Freedom truly scare people, or is it something else entirely? I came up with the following possibilities:
1. People truly are scared to have so much Freedom, and the responsibility that comes with it.
2. People aren't scared, but apathetic to change.
3. People are defeated spiritually, and feel that fighting won't do any good.
4. People ARE fighting, just not for what 'we' think they SHOULD be fighting for.
5. I'm totally off my rocker.
While number five is a distinct possibility, I decided to go a bit more cerebral and dissect this issue. Lets take it one step at a time.
1. PEOPLE TRULY ARE SCARED OF FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
My initial reaction to this was 'nope, cannot be'...but the more I think about it, the more this option shows merit. Have you been involved in a car accident (or stopped to help at one), where someone required immediate First Aid or CPR? Most folks do not want to take the responsibility of stepping up and doing more than is necessary, for fear of failure or criticism. I believe the same applies to our system of government, as well. If the government has less interference in our lives, and thus less control, then we as private citizens have greater responsibility to maintain a standard acceptable to civilized society. So, taking the path of 'Fight or Flight', the majority of people choose flight.
2. PEOPLE AREN'T SCARED, THEY ARE JUST APATHETIC TO CHANGE
While I would hope this to be false, I think that there is a significant portion of the population that feels some apathy towards the government. The point at which this statement becomes unlikely, however, is the motive behind the apathy. The lack of caring is not about change itself, but about the inability to accomplish it. This leads me to my next point.
3. PEOPLE ARE DEFEATED SPIRITUALLY, AND FEEL THAT FIGHTING IS HOPELESS.
Continuing on from number 2, above, I would say that this is a very common trend. How many times have people told you "its just the way it is" or "what can you do?" This is what I like to call the JOHN GALT Syndrome. When a pervasive feeling of inability to control the events of their reality hits a people group, and they just let the minority (i.e. the Government) do whatever they choose, bad things happen. It is the nature of Government to press for as much control of the constituency as it can, and thus 'manage' the people. Considering our government, by design, is supposed to 'fear' the people, the fact that the reverse is happening is very disconcerting indeed.
4. PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING, JUST FOR DIFFERENT CAUSES THAN MINE.
I think this plays its part in the original question, as well. Obviously, not everyone thinks the same, or has the same moral code. The beauty of our system of government is that we can still work together despite our differences, and no particular group is left out. I do, however, see numerous references to 'Tea Party' gatherings, 'grassroots' movements, and the like, and most of them have large elements of libertarianism in their core beliefs. The problem there is, I think, most folks do not even KNOW what a libertarian is. The news media marginalizes everything but the two major parties (which is sad, considering those two parties are now so much alike it is hard to tell them apart...but that's a conversation for another blog post). The Libertarian Party, for instance, is always used as a punchline or footnote in political discussions.
CONCLUSION
So, I don't think the main problem is that folks in America are scared of Freedom or Liberty as much as they do not understand how fast they are losing it...and that they actually CAN fight for it. I believe that if more people would pick up the banner and lead the masses, those masses would jump in line and start speaking up more and more (again, we are seeing this with the Tea Party movement). Do you have it in you to step up and lead?
EPA Hamstrings Country Yet Again
Well, as many of you have already seen, the EPA is attempting to classify CO2 (that's Carbon Dioxide) as a poisonous substance. In doing this, it allows them to REGULATE it. So, lets look at this as the joke that it is...
1. Every time a person exhales, they are now not only a polluter, but a danger to their fellow humans (and the Earth).
2. Farmers and ranchers, who have an untold amount of livestock, are now industrial polluters, since they are 'pumping' untold tons of CO2 into the air every year.
3. Numerous other funny things.
Why do I say it is funny? Because CO2 is NATURAL. It is a part of the AIR! Plants 'eat' it to make oxygen. It puts bubbles in your soda or beer. Without it, we would die (not just from flat beer, but from a lack of fuel for plants to make new oxygen)!
"Oh, Joe, you're such a stupid Libertarian," you say, "the EPA doesn't want to get RID of CO2, they just want to make sure 'too much' isn't being pumped into the atmosphere! Al Gore said it is a culprit in Global Warming, which we all know to be true!!!!"
Silly, silly friend. The height of hubris is believing that Man can somehow do a better job than Nature when it comes to regulating the planet.
Yes, I'll concede that civilization outputs more CO2 than during our pre-Industrial Revolution ancestors. That, however, is not a reason to regulate a naturally-occurring gas.
This all boils down to one thing and ONE THING ONLY, friends: CONTROL. The Federal Government is using UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS to Shanghai yet another part of our liberty. Every step one of these agencies makes towards regulation is another chunk of our freedom being STRIPPED from us.
I urge you to call your Senators and Congressman and DEMAND hearings on this outrage. DEMAND that the ELECTED BODY debate and vote on whether these agencies of red-tapers should have the right to lay down laws as they see fit. FORCE THEM to put their reputation (and thus jobs) on the line and vote in FAVOR of less freedom!
1. Every time a person exhales, they are now not only a polluter, but a danger to their fellow humans (and the Earth).
2. Farmers and ranchers, who have an untold amount of livestock, are now industrial polluters, since they are 'pumping' untold tons of CO2 into the air every year.
3. Numerous other funny things.
Why do I say it is funny? Because CO2 is NATURAL. It is a part of the AIR! Plants 'eat' it to make oxygen. It puts bubbles in your soda or beer. Without it, we would die (not just from flat beer, but from a lack of fuel for plants to make new oxygen)!
"Oh, Joe, you're such a stupid Libertarian," you say, "the EPA doesn't want to get RID of CO2, they just want to make sure 'too much' isn't being pumped into the atmosphere! Al Gore said it is a culprit in Global Warming, which we all know to be true!!!!"
Silly, silly friend. The height of hubris is believing that Man can somehow do a better job than Nature when it comes to regulating the planet.
Yes, I'll concede that civilization outputs more CO2 than during our pre-Industrial Revolution ancestors. That, however, is not a reason to regulate a naturally-occurring gas.
This all boils down to one thing and ONE THING ONLY, friends: CONTROL. The Federal Government is using UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS to Shanghai yet another part of our liberty. Every step one of these agencies makes towards regulation is another chunk of our freedom being STRIPPED from us.
I urge you to call your Senators and Congressman and DEMAND hearings on this outrage. DEMAND that the ELECTED BODY debate and vote on whether these agencies of red-tapers should have the right to lay down laws as they see fit. FORCE THEM to put their reputation (and thus jobs) on the line and vote in FAVOR of less freedom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
