How Do You Define: Bailout

I am no fisherman but I have been on boats a few times, and unfortunately for me one of those few times I ventured out to sea, we nearly sank. Our boat started taking on water and we had to bail the water that was seeping it's way onto our boat. The purpose of our bailout wasn't so we could keep fishing in the same spot. It was so we could rush back to shore to find the hole. If you can't find the hole, the boat needs to be retired.

It may just be me, but it appears from my perspective that congress has grown to enjoy the bailout motion. (From my experiance bailing out a boat, it was loads of fun... then you run out of energy.) In fact congress has grown so fond of bailing out and excercising it's fiscal muscles, that they are content to sit and bailout a sinking ship. I don't care if the boat is a million dollar yacht or a tin speed boat. There reaches a point when you leave the boat and start saving up to build another boat.

Forgive me for the extended boat analogy. But I think it helps put congress's recent actions in perspective. Right now we have the Big Three auto companies, and they are failing. Business is bad and they need money. Should we bail them out? No! Why... let's take a few case studies.

Chevrolet-http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ a large player in the auto industry. Has released the design for their car unlike any other car of its class! Sound's exciting huh. Try again. This cutting edge car is only cutting a swift path to failure. A car that can only go 40 miles on a charge then requires you to revert back to gasoline... to power your electric motor. After 40 miles this thing is less efficient than your current car after that 40 miles. (Laws of Thermodynamics) Chevrolet may be able to fool the average consumer with its cutting edge gimmicks. But let's look at the next case.

Tesla Motors-http://www.teslamotors.com/ a nobody compared to the Big Three giants. If Chevrolet thinks they are on the forefront of electric technology think again. Tesla motors has put out a pure electric car that accelerates 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and has a range of 244 miles on a single charge. Sure beats Chevy's 40 mile range. This car has more guts than most BMW's. It can charge overnight on your average household outlet and not to mention it has a great sleek look. This car isn't even in the design stage, they are already being produced and shipped. Looks like Chevy is a few years behind. Tesla also has a less expensive and equally impressive Sedan in the works. So, what does Ford have to offer?

Ford-http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/20/autos/ford_electric/index.htm?postversion=2009032005 A Fortune 500 company, giant among automakers. Just released their new electric car. Basically an electric motor slapped into a Ford Focus. The basic idea is good, except their new release is still behind the eight ball. This new electric car set to hit the road in 2011 only has a range of 100 miles. Why aren't they using current technology? Are they going to try and scam us into buying this now and then put out a new car with increased range onces everyone has this inferior model. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but something is going on. While Ford is thinking about building a car with 100 mile range, Tesla Motors is already shipping them out.

So back to the bailout. If the Big Three automakers can't get on the ball and start producing better cars they need to fail. That's right, they need to fail. There are other companies out their who can fill their shoes. Why throw our money into a sinking ship when there are other companies out they who just need stimulus to go mainstream.

The Big Three are a financial black hole. If they can't keep up with modern technology it is time to replace them. The government is only doing what it does so very well, wasting our money, again.

Back In Action

I have been unable to access my blog for quite a while now... But, I have access to it again, and will resume my political blogging. Please, do not hesitate to leave comments, your suggestions and feedback are greatly appriciated. If you have any suggestions on topics that you would like to know more about, I would love to hear them.

My Thanks

My Political Philosophy

I decided that I should provide some background on the way that I think. Hopefully, this will provide a foundation upon which other political discussions can build.

The age old question concerning government is: what size government is best. Of course few can agree on any particular answer. Communists want it to govern everything, while others favor a Laissez Faire view. Ultimately, the size of government you want depends on what you want the government to do for you.

I am a practical thinker. I enjoy taking facts and piecing together plausible solutions. Using this method, I have come to a few conclusions.

There are many reasons that a governments power expands over time. The first reason is that it is easier to add on laws than to replace. When we as a people request new benefits the government cannot easily replace the old benefit system with a new more effective system. It instead adds on to the old which adds new levels of bureaucracy and duplicate departments.

Government also expands because of its large pockets. People tend to think that with the trillions of dollars in the government’s treasury, the government could take care of their problems. It is easy to think that your insurance bill is just pocket change beneath a trillion dollar umbrella.

With a few facts, and simple deductions, the idea of a large government is quickly undermined. A large government is entirely impractical. There is no way that the federal government can fulfill your individual or community’s needs. It has too many tasks to look after and your individual voice will be lost in the pleas of every other dissatisfied citizen.

I have compiled two reasons to shrink the size of federal government.

Accountability:
If we permit government to grow too large, we will no longer be able to hold the government accountable for its actions. The complexity of government limits the American public’s ability to find who is not representing them appropriately. Government becomes a blame game, departments and agencies all blaming each other, grinding progression to a halt. The more streamlined a government is, the easier it is to diagnose the disease in the system and eradicate it.

Efficiency:
Picture yourself in a room with a hundred corridors, each one leading to a problem that requires you attention. Even if you had a hundred men at your command, your progress would still be slow. The men under you would have to assess the problem, report to you, and then run back down the hallway. Finally, they would begin to address the issue, returning regularly to report their progress. That process would be slow and inefficient. Yet this is how our current government works. Congress is filled with thousands of reports and very little action. Government would run much smoother if problems were addressed at the local level. With a smaller federal government and larger local governments, solutions would better suit your individual need, and prevent costly wastes of time with solutions that don't match your needs.

The resized federal government no longer needing to focus on local issues could better service the needs of the whole nation. It would better be able to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" like it was originally designed to do, instead of sapping tax dollars to feed a hungry bureaucracy.

On Taxes

First, I would like to ask a favor. If anyone reading this blog, can easily explain to me the current tax code of the United States (preferably in a way that everyone can understand), please let me know. However, anticipating that no one will be able to give me a satisfactory answer… Let's talk taxes.

The United State of America pulls in around 1.5 trillion dollars each year in tax collection. It makes sense: the government has a lot of things on its plate. (We will talk about governmental obesity later.) Still, at the end of each year the ledger still registers a red minus sign.

This year, the IRS requested 11.6 billion dollars of congress to maintain operations. We could banter numbers all day, but when it comes right down to it the IRS is effective: they triple the money put into it by Congress. They have to be effective or they wouldn't be feared by the public the way they are.

But is it necessary? Do we really need a tax code in surplus of 1300 pages? No wonder we fear an audit by the IRS. What if I missed something important on page 1024! There must be a simpler way. I think that we have lost most of our control over tax collection simply because it is too large for us to combat. Senators even seem to have difficulty wrapping their arms around the tax code. (See http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html)

Rather than modify a broken system, we should throw it out and make a new one. The Founding Fathers understood this. They didn't try to fix the Articles of Confederation, adding complexities and loopholes; instead, they drafted a new Constitution that has lasted generations with little modification.

I believe that we need to simplify tax code and make a system that won't require $11,600,000,000 to enforce. You may have other ideas, and I would love to hear them, but I suggest a sales tax. This is a much fairer form of tax—putting the power back into the hands of the people. A national sales tax would be much easier for the American public to monitor and would equally disperse the load of taxation. The rich would pay more, but only because they spend more and not because the government demands it of them. Sales tax is equal across the board leaving no group unequally treated.

As an added bonus you won't need to fear an IRS audit: you can start worrying about more important things now.

Sources:
IRS: www.gao.gov/new.items/d07719t.pdf
US INCOME: http://www.startribune.com/business/11217101.html

The Purpose of Government

I think that the purpose of government is a fitting place to start this blog.

I don't think that I have ever met someone who can say with all honesty that they like governments. There are people who like to analyze it for faults, and study how governments work because it is interesting. But, I have never met someone who loves government. I would love to get the word politician while playing password, because all I would have to say is crooked and most people would respond politician.

Why are we so dependent on government, when few like them and most associate them with corruption? I just finished reading "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, and found he very accurately discribed government. "Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one." He goes on to explain that if men were alway honest and true in their dealings we would need no law. But because this is not that case, every man must surrender up a part of his own property for protection. Protection is the root of government, we seek protection from outside powers, from crooks within."If men were angels, no government would be necessary." (Federalist Paper #51)

Government is the enforcer of laws, it keeps people true to their word. This is why we deal with governments... and this is why we should not put up with corruption within government.