Monday, August 30, 2010

Taxes, immigration, and government salaries

In a letter to the editor in the Sun, this gentleman states,
The two wars and our foreign policy spending need to be reviewed. If we decide the spending is necessary, then taxes should be raised to pay for it. If not, the expenditures should be severely cut.

The fact that salaries and benefits of government workers have risen a good deal above what exists in the private sector is unfair, wrong and dangerous. These salaries and benefits should be cut to equal private-sector compensation.

Illegal immigration requires that we impose tough economic sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, set up a system so people can come here to work temporarily and be tracked, and provide a way for noncriminal illegal immigrants already here to become legal or return to their home countries. If all that were done, border agents could work to block illegal drug traffic as their primary duty.

He makes some good points. I don't agree that we should raise taxes to pay for the military spending, but we should spend what is necessary to support our troops. I also do not agree in amnesty for illegal aliens, but I do think that we should provide a noncriminal way for illegal aliens to return home and still have the opportunity to come back legally.

I am frightened.

This is an article in the Sun. It is about a 51 year old man who is on verge of homeless. It is a heart wrenching story. This man is in a desperate situation.

However, this story is has a lesson for us all to learn. That is that you have to take responsibility for yourself and your future. You have to save for the financial disasters that will occur in your lifetime.

Sometimes, people will save and still fail when financial disasters destroy their savings. However, you must still save and plan for the future. You cannot reply on the government to take care of you.

That is the problem with our society. We feel that the government should take care of us, that the government should protect us from everything, that the government should make our life perfect. It isn't going to happen.

This gentlemen states in this article that he receives $926 a month in disability payments from the government. He also states that for 8 years he has kept his earnings under $1000 a month to avoid losing his disability payments. What has that plan got him? He is going to be homeless in a few days.

When people rely on the government for support, they do not grow or improve their life. They stagnate and end up living in poverty.

John F. Kennedy said,

It is time for Americans to take responsibility for themselves, help others when they can, and not expect the government to support them.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Reid, Angle stop the garbage commercials

This is one of the letters to the editor that I mentioned in my last post.
The fact is our national outlook is not getting any better, but much worse. The confidence we have in our political leaders is now at a miserable low.

It goes on to say,
This could be one elections in which "None of These Candidates" receives more votes than the politicians.

There are 6 candidates in this race. I am sure that one of the six would be a good senator.

This is the reason that we are in this mess. The media doesn't cover the campaigns of all the candidates and misleads the public into choosing between only the Democratic and Republican candidates.

You can fight back by voting for the best candidate Don't worry about who will win. Just vote your conscience.

You can also send a message by changing your voter registration to the 3rd largest party in your state. You can still vote for any candidate, but you will be helping that 3rd party grow to provide more choices.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Today's Review Journal's Opinion section

Today, you must read the Opinion section in the Review Journal. It has a good editorial on teacher data and several excellent letters to the editor. This post will concentrate on the editorial. It states,
Shouldn't teachers under whose tutelage kids don't do as well at least be told the problem so they know to seek help? In worst cases, shouldn't they be told to seek other work?

It also stated that,
The data should be used to grade and reward the best teachers. It should also be made public, allowing parents to choose their kids' teachers.

For that matter, data on the schools themselves must be made public, and parents allowed to opt out of schools that consistently fail their students.

Instead of more money, we should demand this information and data.

Jon Ralson and the Budget

In Jon Ralston's column on the Rory Reid Budget proposal, he states,
This is a math problem, folks. For those who hated algebra, prepare to wince: You can change the variables to make the numbers work, but you can’t make both sides balance without a plus sign somewhere.

Don’t believe me: No one who really understands the state budget — past and current budget directors, knowledgeable lawmakers and private sector fiscal mavens — believes it can be balanced with cuts alone.

He then quotes Guy Hobbs as saying,
Essentially, cutting $3 billion from the state budget ... you’ve heard this comparison before ... if you funded just education alone, you could fund nothing else in the state budget.”

The problem is that any tax increases will hurt Nevada's economy which cannot withstand any more problems.

We are facing 2 large tax increases in the next few years. One is the tax increases that are Federal Tax Increases. That would be the increase in the marginal income tax rates, the possible return on the death tax, higher income taxes on marriage and family, capital gains tax increase, increased taxes on health care due to ObamaCare, and the The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes.

The second is the increased state tax increases. The next session of the Nevada State Legislature will be considering a state personal income tax, a corporate income tax, a sales tax increase, and other miscellaneous tax increases in a desperate effort to balance the budget.

It is time to take a stand. Once taxes are increased, they are seldom, if ever, reduced permanently. However, we can cut the budget and when the economy gets better; we can expand it as necessary and only as necessary.

Debate should include all the candidates

This letter to the editor in the Review Journal on Thursday stated,
So the debate sponsors -- 8 News Now, the Review-Journal and Vegas PBS -- are the new election board that decides who is a candidate and who isn't?

And the decision is based solely on a candidate's fundraising?

This appears to be nothing but a ploy by the media to control an election instead of taking the high road and giving Nevada voters exposure to all the candidates. Politics never changes: Nevadans continue to receive the best politics money can buy.

Then in Friday's Review Journal a front page article stated,
Nearly eight of 10 voters who remain undecided or who don't like Angle or Reid say they, too, would have preferred if the staunch conservative hadn't won the June 8 primary over her more moderate foes. And 58 percent of such nonaligned voters say they wish Reid hadn't won the Democratic nomination, suggesting a majority of Nevadans are unhappy with their choices.

There are 6 candidates in this senate race, but, if you just listen to the media, there are only 2.

The problem is that the media doesn't give the other candidates any publicity and they do not have the funds to buy advertising.

The Democrats and the Republicans control our government and they got us into this economic mess. Do you really trust them to get us out?

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Nevada Allance for Retired Americans

Today, I was interviewed by the Nevada Allance for Retired Americans (NARA). I discussed the how the next session of the Nevada legislature would be discussing a personal state income tax, a corporate tax, a sales tax increase, and several other miscellaneous tax increases in a desperate attempt to balance the budget.

How, with the Federal Government creating huge budget deficits, inflation will increase, health care costs will increase, food costs will increase, utility costs will increase, and the cost of living will increase. How we will be faced with many difficult financial decisions. How we cannot afford another huge state tax increase.

You can ignore history and vote for a Democrat or Republican with their tax and spend policies, or you can fight back and vote for me, an Independent American Party candidate, who will fight to lower the budget and lower taxes. It is your choice.

The gubernatorial debate

This debate is sponsored by 8 news now, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and Vegas PBS. It will feature only 2 of the 7 gubernatorial candidates. Why are five of the candidates not invited?

Once again, the voters are being treated like sheep being lead to the slaughter. I am really surprised and very disappointed that Vegas PBS would be part of this. Vegas PBS likes to say that they want to give the public things that they would not get on regular television.

The public deserves to hear from all the candidates so that they can make an informed decision.

What are the Republicans and Democrats afraid of?

Social Security

A letter to the editor in the Review Journal stated that
I want to quote directly from the front page a statement by Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration:

"Social Security is a compact between generations. Since 1935, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement. In 2016 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been in a position to "fix" Social Security for how long now? How much longer does he need? All he can do is mock, twist and bend any solutions offered by his opponent.

In my opinion, we should replace Social Security with a 401k type account for individuals. Let everyone over 30 or 35 decide if they want to continue with Social Security. Anyone younger is out automatically. They would use the 401k account.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Federal mortgage aid effort struggles

This article in the Review Journal points out the failure of the governments efforts to help with the housing crisis. It states,
Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration's flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday's report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.

The bailout and this mortgage-relief program have failed miserably. I ask why didn't the government use the bailout money to give vouchers the mortgage troubled people. These vouchers would be payable to the banks if the bank refinanced the loan.

This way the banks would still have received the money, but only if they refinanced the mortgage. As the mortgages were refinaced, the foreclosure rate would have been stopped or at least slowed. The people would have saved their homes.

If the government was going to give the money away, at least they should have made sure that it would accomplish something.

Focusing on Nevada businesses can help us all

This article in the Sun states that,
So what can we do? What should we do?

Focus on job growth. How about a “Nevada First” campaign? Why do our state’s businesses send their tax payments to an Arizona post-office box? Why should out-of-state businesses win construction bids on Nevada stimulus-funded projects?

It’s time to help the businesses here that are struggling. Oregon and other states have aggressively promoted opportunities for their own states’ businesses.

I agree that we have to help the business that are here and to also try to get businesses to move to Nevada. It is my first priority. However, we must also improve education, stop illegal immigration, and balance the budget as part of helping businesses and stimulating the economy.

While campaigning, I have a program for helping local businesses by distributing their advertising brochures. They can also advertise for free on Also, consumers visit the site and get money saving coupons from these local businesses.

It also states that,
Democrats and Republicans examined the budget from top to bottom and created a budget that was lean and austere. Positions were cut and programs eliminated, but we rejected cuts aimed at stopping home health care for medically fragile infants and payment for bathing and toileting of elderly and disabled Nevadans.

I disagree. I believe that the budget is not lean enough. We can still cut more from the upper management costs. We must first cut the budget to the bone before we look at revenue. Once the budget is as low as possible without cutting necessary services, we can look at the revenue problem.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Social Security as a Ponzi scheme

A letter to the editor in the Review Journal is reply to an earlier letter on Social Security. The letter states,
James Bragge had an interesting letter Friday, whereby he defended Social Security as being solvent, at least until 2037, and took issue with previous writer Tom Cameron's description of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

To quote Mr. Bragge, "The idea that Social Security is filled with IOUs is dishonest rhetoric promoted by partisan hacks. Social Security funds are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and securities, the safest and most reliable securities in the world."

Oh really?

Actually, the $2.5 trillion in the trust fund (I use the term loosely) is not in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds, which can be bought and sold in the open market anywhere in the world. Nope, they are non-negotiable "special bonds," denominated in the billions, which can only be redeemed by the U.S. Treasury. They are in fact IOUs from one branch of the government to another.

Actually Social Security wasn't able to sustain itself before this economic collapse. In order to survive, it was necessary to raise the percentage taken from your pay from 1% to over 7%. It was also necessary to set to raise the age of eligibility.

The fact is that Social Security cannot survive as it is today.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Is the government taking advantage of illegal immigrants.

This is part of a newsletter that I receive. I have edited some of this so it is not an actual quote from the newsletter.
As an owner of several small construction-related businesses in Virginia, we have hired upward of 20-30 immigrant workers during the 'good times.' All had 'proper' paperwork and Social Security cards. We followed all the rules, etc., in the hiring of 'immigrant'-type workers.

I then reviewed all of the employment files and determined that at least two-thirds of this work force was probably illegal, if not all.

After thinking about it, I immediately let all of them attrition out After more thought, I wondered why hasn't the government contacted us regarding these obviously fake Social Security cards. There has to be some kind of contradiction within the system that would raise a red flag. WHY?

Because the government is taking the illegals' deductions in order to fund today's retirees KNOWING that they, the government, will never have to pay out for these illegals, as they will, at some time, go back to Mexico or wherever they came from. It's a perfect scam for the government to hold up Social Security.

They are knowingly supporting the illegal immigrant situation here in the U.S. in order to fund the government. Why do you think the 'cost deficit' for Social Security has mysteriously increased over the past year? It's because a large proportion of the illegal immigrant population has gone back to their home country due to the nonexistent construction spending and is no longer paying into the fund.

It is interesting that the government hasn't taken steps to prevent fake SS numbers from being used.

Treat budget's disease, not its symptoms

This article in the Sun is about state and local government budgets. I suggest that you read the entire article because it is very interesting.

The part of the article that I wish to discuss states that,
Some may not realize that state government provides a fairly narrow range of services — primarily education, human services and prisons — very high priorities for nearly everyone.

In contrast, local governments provide a much broader range of services — police, fire protection, hospitals, parks and recreation, water supply, airports, most court systems, regional transportation and social services to name just some.

Therefore, raising taxes to provide the state with more revenue doesn't necessarily mean that services provided by the local government will be improved. It fact more money doesn't guarantee that anything will be improved.

It also states that
State employees receive very generous, and very expensive, retirement health care benefits — a benefit virtually no one else, in or out of the private sector, receives.

My point here is that raising taxes to provide the state with more revenue to balance the budget is not the best way to go. We must cut state spending not raise taxes.

Not about race

This letter to the editor in the Review Journal is absolutely correct when it states,
This is not a race issue, although Sen. Reid, in his bid to be re-elected, is desperately trying to make it one. This is about what is legal and what is illegal according to our laws. It amazes me how many of our elected officials in Washington, D.C., a majority of whom have a law degree, don't understand the difference between legal and illegal.

It quotes Reid as saying that,
Hispanics shouldn't be treated any differently than earlier European immigrants simply because 'their skin's a tone darker.'

When someone breaks the law, they must be prosecuted or no one will respect any laws.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Voters speak on ObamaCare

This editorial in the Review Journal is about the "popularity" of ObamaCare. In discussing the Missouri vote on it's ObamaCare referendum, it states,
Poll after poll showed Americans wanted the law repealed. Sen. Reid insisted his "reforms" were not only wonderful, but wildly popular.

On Tuesday, Missouri held the country's first referendum on ObamaCare's most constitutionally dubious provision: a mandate, effective in 2014, that Americans obtain health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty for not doing so.

When all the ballots were counted, 71 percent of Missouri voters rejected the mandate. The result wasn't surprising, but the margin of victory sure was.

It continued at the end of the editorial and stated,
The message to Washington -- and to Sen. Reid, in particular -- could not be more clear: Americans do not want Congress dictating the type of health coverage they have, they are angry that they will become lawbreakers if they decline to purchase it, and they want less federal control over their personal lives.

After the Missouri vote was in, however, Sen. Reid put on his happy face -- and entered complete denial.

"Once you explain what's in this bill, the American people, of course, like it," Sen. Reid said.

Sure, Sen. Reid. Americans like your health care takeover, all right. Just like they like the IRS, plumbing failures and traffic jams.

We must take control of our government by electing representatives who will honor their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Federal Budget email

I received this email.
The Washington Post babbled again recently about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough..... a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY (Fiscal Year) 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.




In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is 'I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.'

So the blame game continues, maybe the last budget deficits were outrageous, but when the Republicans had control, we still had deficits.

Workers lament cuts

The lead story in the Review Journal is about how state workers lament cuts. Of course, they do. However, everyone in today's economy is struggling. State workers are not the only ones.

It quotes Lalo Macias, acting director of the America Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041, as saying, "State workers are very pissed off. We have to do something to help them."

Why are the state workers the only ones who need help? The entire state of Nevada needs help. That is why the cuts were made.

The article also states that
The state now pays $680 a month to provide health care for each worker. That is much higher than costs paid by private industry.

Maybe the state should ask why? Maybe the state is also paying too much for administration since they haven't done anything to reduce the health care costs.

A basis for compromise on immigration

This letter in the Sun demonstrates how Americans are giving away this country little by little.

It states,
I would support a compromise that allowed a pathway to citizenship in exchange for having the standard for U.S. citizenship at birth be set at having at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen (by birth or naturalization).

While I have nothing against reviewing the immigration laws to improve them, I don't understand why Americans have to compromise. Does Mexico compromise? Are there any countries that would feel that it was up to them to compromise?

Why should the United States feel that it has to compromise? It is our country and, if we want to change our laws, we can. We don't have to compromise to do it.

Democrats see job creators as villains

This letter in the Sun is about how spending doesn't create jobs. Investing creates jobs. The first paragraph says,
Despite spending hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars, Democrats have failed to stimulate job creation. Why?

In the next paragraph, it continues,
Investment, not spending, creates jobs. The source of the dollars Democrats have borrowed and spent is the private sector.

While I believe that it is true about government spending and private investing, I don't think it is entirely the Democrats fault.

The Republics are also responsible. After all, the Democrats and Republicans have had complete control of government for over 100 years.

It is time to elect candidates who will uphold the Constitution instead of destroying it and our country. It is time to elect third party candidates to show that we will not take it any longer.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Social Security and you

The headline in the Review Journal said,
Politics choke Social Security.

It goes on to say that many Democrats adamantly oppose any reductions in benefits to cut costs, and some won't accept a gradual increase in the retirement age. It continues saying that Republicans say an increase in Social Security taxes is out of the question , even for the wealthy.

Social Security is broke and the time to act is now. I propose that everyone over 40 can continue to pay into social security and collect it. Everyone 30 to 40 have the choice to stay in social security or not to stay in it. Everyone under 30 is out and can pay into a 401 type of account and receive the tax benefits.

I am sorry that I could not find a link to the article, but I did find a link to this article about how social security is broke.

People say how will we pay for your plan. My question is how are we going to pay for what we have. We had a 800 billion dollar bail out for the financial institution, but we don't do anything about the people who are losing their homes, their jobs, and now their social security.

Dropout remedy challenged

There are 2 articles in the Review Journal about drivers licenses and school. Two years ago, I proposed that the Driving Age be 21 year of age with 3 exceptions.
One is if you are in the military.
Two is if you have graduated from high school or a trade school.
Three is if you are 16 years old and in school with a C average or better.

One article is entitled "Stopping dropouts from getting licenses a bad idea". This article is added restrictions to the license question which are not necessary. Therefore, the arguments do not apply and the article doesn't apply either.

The second article is more to the point. However, the article doesn't provide any real evidence that such a law would not work. While a few states have tried similar laws, they do not have any statistics on the effect of the law. It does say that
North Carolina has had a law denying driver's licenses to dropouts since 1998. Last year, the state had a graduation rate of about 75 percent.

The problem with most of the proposals and laws is that they are added other restrictions to the law. Politicians have to add something to a law even if it is not pork. They cannot help it.LOL

All the arguments about hardships to the students are not justifiable. It is wrong to let children go into the work place without an education. When they cannot get a job, that is a hardship.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Does more money mean better education?

This article by the NPRI talks about Nevada's pupil per teacher ratio. It explains how $83 million will be available to K-12 education in Nevada would decrease the ratio only by 1.4 students per class if all the money went to saving teachers who would be fired.
According to U.S. Department of Education figures, Nevada's pupil per teacher ratio was 18.3 in 2006-07. Losing 1,660 teachers, the ratio would rise to 19.7 — or just 1.4 additional students per teacher. Not exactly the end of the world.

Of course, all the money will not go to teachers. Almost 50% of the educational budget goes to administration so it stands to reason that 50% of the additional money will also go to administration.

However, according to this article, the pupil per teacher ratio doesn't have any effect on the education of the students.

I believe that we need to split the budget into administrative and teaching so that the legislature can have some control over the educational spending. We need to cut the administrative budget and put the money were it will do the most good. We need to start emphasising teaching.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

The bailouts total

I received this statement in an email from a financial institution.
Two weeks ago, we noted the most recent estimate of the financial system bailout: Over $3.7 trillion. Mr. Geithner could have written a $264,000 check to each of the 14 million currently unemployed Americans for the same price.

I haven't varified the figures, but I felt that if we gave each homeowner a voucher for 20% of the mortgage on their home up to $150,000 good only for a mortgage modification, we could have reduced the real estate crisis and helped both the home owners and the banks.