Dear Governor Otter,
As a conservative, I am sure you are troubled by the state of our nation these days. One especially troubling piece of the economic equation is the “Stimulus package.” You and I both know it is impossible to spend your way out of debt on borrowed dollars (borrowed from the next generation). However, it is apparent the stimulus money will be forced upon each and every state. If you bear with me for another paragraph, I think I have an idea that just might be the proper allocation of our share of the stimulus package and help Idaho crawl out of this recession quicker than other states and with a sustained effect.
As you know, the reason states were created, rather than one large government without sovereign borders, was to keep the power close to the people. It was designed that way so states could make policy based upon their regional preference. Such was a brilliant idea of our founders. A state, on its own accord could try new ideas, and if they failed the entire nation would not suffer the consequences of the progressive action. If they succeeded, the other states could observe the policy and act accordingly. In reality, the statehood ideal was a great insulation against wholesale failure of the states united. Alas, the state borders seem to be a bit hazy these days, as we seem to be moving towards National Socialism; a government ruling from D.C.
The conservative mantra for economic growth is tax cuts, especially for small business. Tax cuts have worked every time they have been tried, I think you will agree. So I propose, the State of Idaho ask special permission, in the spirit of state sovereignty and independent policy experimentation, to use our stimulus money in a different manor than other states. I propose we put the money into the general fund and spend the money as allocated in the budget. The key here is to not grow the budget simply because of the surplus. In turn, state income tax (business and personal) and property taxes should be cut/tax credited back to the engine of our economy; the people and businesses. Secondly, existing bonds on completed capital improvements could be paid off early and the interest saved could be brought back into the general fund. Basically, with this idea, we are turning an unproven irresponsible spending bill into a proven method of economic growth; tax cuts and interest elimination. This likely will not go over real well with the Obama administration, however, I voted for you (and I am sure others as well) because I had a feeling you were not afraid to make some waves. I think it is time to make some tidal waves. We are going in the wrong direction.
Lastly, on a bit of a different subject, I would love to see this state on budget every year. If the economy shrinks 2% than cut the budget 2% across the board. I am sure it will be said it is just not that simple. Really? I would love to see the long term goal of the state of Idaho (and the nation, I’m a dreamer) be financial freedom, which means no debt. I would love to see the State of Idaho adopt “Dave Ramsey economics” as its policy.
Respectfully,
Walt Holton
Friday, July 10, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Hero Worship and Reagan
Recently while commenting on a website I frequent http://logisticsmonster.com/, I was asked the following question- following is my response.
Diamond Tiger asked, “Walt – can you explain to me the hero worship of Ronald Reagan – I just don’t get it, but then again it could be because of what I know about Ronald Reagan.”
I would love to. First of all I would like to water down the statement “hero worship.” I have no earthly heroes.
Ronald Reagan was not a man fresh with new ideas, he was neither a visionary, nor a deep intellectual…he did not need to be, because Truth exists. President Reagan’s policy and “ideas” were not new, to the contrary they were very old; they were the ones of our founders.
The founders of our nation, I believe, were God ordained to serve a purpose. The ideas they had were also not new. They did not invent the “self evident truths.” They did not ordain the "Laws of Nature,” or create the "Creator." They simply, through great wisdom, perseverance and the study of human nature, compiled very old Truths and built a series of documents so that we may be ruled by the written law, as inspired by the Creator, rather than be ruled by corruptible men. Just as Moses delivered Levitical Law, so did our Founders deliver The Constitution. Although wise, (a blessing from God) our founders were simply deliverers of God's plan for man; the Truth. When I remember Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Henry and Lincoln I honor their resolute nature, their diligence and love for freedom…but they were just men, honored to serve man and God.
So I say, we are all mortal; imperfect and flawed. Reagan was not a “perfect man.” I do not revere Reagan because he was great, but I do revere the message he carried. A message of freedom, responsibility, morality, actions and consequences; a similar message to those passed to us by our founders. Reagan was humble, kind mannered, and strong. When he spoke people understood and were inspired to follow. Like a good father Reagan was predictable, and consistent, his actions were reasonable and logical. Reagan, like our founders, knew there are no “new ideas” and that there is “nothing new under the sun.” He stood for the old ways, the proven ways…the Truth. No he was not a god amongst men, but he inspired men. He brought out the best in men and within America. He knew that the United States of America was not great because of its land nor location; but by its ideals, the “American Ideal.”
Diamond Tiger asked, “Walt – can you explain to me the hero worship of Ronald Reagan – I just don’t get it, but then again it could be because of what I know about Ronald Reagan.”
I would love to. First of all I would like to water down the statement “hero worship.” I have no earthly heroes.
Ronald Reagan was not a man fresh with new ideas, he was neither a visionary, nor a deep intellectual…he did not need to be, because Truth exists. President Reagan’s policy and “ideas” were not new, to the contrary they were very old; they were the ones of our founders.
The founders of our nation, I believe, were God ordained to serve a purpose. The ideas they had were also not new. They did not invent the “self evident truths.” They did not ordain the "Laws of Nature,” or create the "Creator." They simply, through great wisdom, perseverance and the study of human nature, compiled very old Truths and built a series of documents so that we may be ruled by the written law, as inspired by the Creator, rather than be ruled by corruptible men. Just as Moses delivered Levitical Law, so did our Founders deliver The Constitution. Although wise, (a blessing from God) our founders were simply deliverers of God's plan for man; the Truth. When I remember Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Henry and Lincoln I honor their resolute nature, their diligence and love for freedom…but they were just men, honored to serve man and God.
So I say, we are all mortal; imperfect and flawed. Reagan was not a “perfect man.” I do not revere Reagan because he was great, but I do revere the message he carried. A message of freedom, responsibility, morality, actions and consequences; a similar message to those passed to us by our founders. Reagan was humble, kind mannered, and strong. When he spoke people understood and were inspired to follow. Like a good father Reagan was predictable, and consistent, his actions were reasonable and logical. Reagan, like our founders, knew there are no “new ideas” and that there is “nothing new under the sun.” He stood for the old ways, the proven ways…the Truth. No he was not a god amongst men, but he inspired men. He brought out the best in men and within America. He knew that the United States of America was not great because of its land nor location; but by its ideals, the “American Ideal.”
Thursday, July 2, 2009
...and to the Republic faux which it stands?
If you have been following the news lately, you probably heard that President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was removed from power by his military for usurping the written law of their constitution; this man was not above the law. It looks to me like Honduras is a healthy constitutional republic; a far cry from ours.
Ours has morphed into a "faux-republic," with the executive order, the unprecedented appointment of Czars, policy-from-the-bench justices like Judge Soto' and the ever so powerful "Administrative branch of government," as Mark Levin summarized it so well in his book "Liberty and Tyranny." Perhaps the day the first executive order was handed down, our joint chiefs should have stood up and said, not so fast Mr. President, we are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and by your very title as an Executive you are outside your authority. Alas, "on little cat feet..."
Not only has our Constitutional Republic been circumvented by the leftists, so has our means of representative selection; the democratic election. It has turned into a farcical display that Tehran and pre-'90 Moscow would have been delighted with. We have a distracted decadent populace whose world view and subsequent voting is steered by a Pravda-esque media and a Hollywood that would make Hitler proud. Of course, beyond the shapers of world view we have the direct usurpers of democracy like ACORN, the defenders of "no-ID's required to vote" crowd and the local efforts of corrupt voting practices that rear up from Broward county to Washington state; many organized by big labor (shhhhh). Now, it is not beyond imagination to foresee, with a stroke of our “Dear Leader’s” pen, we may have an additional 12 to 20 million people (illegal immigrants) added to our voting roles as a supreme act of humanity, fairness and decency to a poor and oppressed people. A people oppressed by their own government as we cower from policies that might have forced Mexico off the path of third world corruption. But that is another diatribe all together.
Although all of these examples are a recipe for a faux-democracy, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was probably the worst assault on the Republic of all. Before the 17th, Senators were elected by the State representatives rather than the populace. It is a state representatives job to be in touch with his constituent’s desires and spend much of their lives researching the complex issues; things “Joe six pack” does not have time nor perhaps the intellect or desire to learn. It was the wisest of all representatives (US Senators) to be elected by the wisest of the citizens (the state representatives). Today a senate seat is decided by who can spend the most, who controls the media message, and, if you happen to be a republican, who can keep their pants zipped up or their feet from tapping as you unload your daily grind. Our Constitutional Republic is a sad little puppet show; a faux-republic.
Ours has morphed into a "faux-republic," with the executive order, the unprecedented appointment of Czars, policy-from-the-bench justices like Judge Soto' and the ever so powerful "Administrative branch of government," as Mark Levin summarized it so well in his book "Liberty and Tyranny." Perhaps the day the first executive order was handed down, our joint chiefs should have stood up and said, not so fast Mr. President, we are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and by your very title as an Executive you are outside your authority. Alas, "on little cat feet..."
Not only has our Constitutional Republic been circumvented by the leftists, so has our means of representative selection; the democratic election. It has turned into a farcical display that Tehran and pre-'90 Moscow would have been delighted with. We have a distracted decadent populace whose world view and subsequent voting is steered by a Pravda-esque media and a Hollywood that would make Hitler proud. Of course, beyond the shapers of world view we have the direct usurpers of democracy like ACORN, the defenders of "no-ID's required to vote" crowd and the local efforts of corrupt voting practices that rear up from Broward county to Washington state; many organized by big labor (shhhhh). Now, it is not beyond imagination to foresee, with a stroke of our “Dear Leader’s” pen, we may have an additional 12 to 20 million people (illegal immigrants) added to our voting roles as a supreme act of humanity, fairness and decency to a poor and oppressed people. A people oppressed by their own government as we cower from policies that might have forced Mexico off the path of third world corruption. But that is another diatribe all together.
Although all of these examples are a recipe for a faux-democracy, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was probably the worst assault on the Republic of all. Before the 17th, Senators were elected by the State representatives rather than the populace. It is a state representatives job to be in touch with his constituent’s desires and spend much of their lives researching the complex issues; things “Joe six pack” does not have time nor perhaps the intellect or desire to learn. It was the wisest of all representatives (US Senators) to be elected by the wisest of the citizens (the state representatives). Today a senate seat is decided by who can spend the most, who controls the media message, and, if you happen to be a republican, who can keep their pants zipped up or their feet from tapping as you unload your daily grind. Our Constitutional Republic is a sad little puppet show; a faux-republic.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A guest letter to Congressman (from an old friend)
Congressman Baird,
I’m writing to ask you to please oppose ANY “anti gun bill” that includes ANY “gun ban” to repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I as a natural born citizen of the United States, do hereby demand that you vote “NO” on every unconstitutional bill to ban or confiscate the legally owned firearms of millions of law-abiding Americans. This includes the elimination of Gun Shows as proposed by the Obama Administration and Mr. Holder.
The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment – they were giving the people the right to defend themselves against all threats – including the threat of an oppressive government.
Americans will be highly skeptical of any diversionary talk of “waiting periods”, “background checks” or “gun registration” and additional promises to enforce any new deeply flawed approaches.
If history is an accurate guide, banning guns would only embolden criminals and encourage crime leaving American’s defenseless and allow the uncontrolled and unacceptable to happen, making family security even worse than it is now.
Such legislation is a bad idea because it creates armed criminals to prey upon law abiding citizens. Further, it would be impossible to administer and even more unlikely to be enforced. Gun control is about controlling people, not making people safe.
That’s what is at stake here. Our freedom. Our future.
The most important job you have to do right now is to protect U.S. citizens Second Amendment Rights. Like millions of Americans, I’m sick and tired of the “inside the beltway” politics on this issue; I will NOT listen weasel words or slick excuses.
This issue is BLACK AND WHITE – there are no shades of gray! We need you to protect Americans RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! Please oppose any gun bill, particularly if they include any gun ban provisions. I will be watching your vote on this issue very closely. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Merrill Berger
I’m writing to ask you to please oppose ANY “anti gun bill” that includes ANY “gun ban” to repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I as a natural born citizen of the United States, do hereby demand that you vote “NO” on every unconstitutional bill to ban or confiscate the legally owned firearms of millions of law-abiding Americans. This includes the elimination of Gun Shows as proposed by the Obama Administration and Mr. Holder.
The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment – they were giving the people the right to defend themselves against all threats – including the threat of an oppressive government.
Americans will be highly skeptical of any diversionary talk of “waiting periods”, “background checks” or “gun registration” and additional promises to enforce any new deeply flawed approaches.
If history is an accurate guide, banning guns would only embolden criminals and encourage crime leaving American’s defenseless and allow the uncontrolled and unacceptable to happen, making family security even worse than it is now.
Such legislation is a bad idea because it creates armed criminals to prey upon law abiding citizens. Further, it would be impossible to administer and even more unlikely to be enforced. Gun control is about controlling people, not making people safe.
That’s what is at stake here. Our freedom. Our future.
The most important job you have to do right now is to protect U.S. citizens Second Amendment Rights. Like millions of Americans, I’m sick and tired of the “inside the beltway” politics on this issue; I will NOT listen weasel words or slick excuses.
This issue is BLACK AND WHITE – there are no shades of gray! We need you to protect Americans RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! Please oppose any gun bill, particularly if they include any gun ban provisions. I will be watching your vote on this issue very closely. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Merrill Berger
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Letter to Congressman Minnick: Sotomayor confirmation
Dear Congressman Minnick,
I write you today begging you to stand against the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor to the US Supreme court.
Being a man in the know, I am sure you have heard the typical sound bites concerning Sotomayor’s life experience as a woman and Latino, and how that should make her more wise than other people groups. Although I am not personally offended (I’m a white male) over her statement (she is entitled to her opinion, right or wrong) I do believe such a statement is a declaration of her inability to be objective. Although this statement has been given most of the “legs” in the media, her 2001 speech at Berkley is riddled with statements that should particularly exclude her as an objective justice. She explains over and over how her life experiences will affect her rulings. Her philosophy as I would describe it is postmodernist, relativist and incapable of objectivity; each descriptive is a complete contradiction to what the job description of a Supreme Court justice should be.
A Supreme Court Justice should be very close to a machine; their job is interpreting laws and delivering a verdict based upon the intent of those who handed down the law, not based upon their personal desires. It is your job, Congressman, to deliver the laws, written with the clarity present to make the intent unavoidable. You are the policy maker, not the judge. The Constitution is the Law, not the judge. If the Constitution fails to serve the people’s desires, or if the laws you and your equals pass, fail the people, then change them as the rule of law dictates. It was never our founder’s intentions that the one that holds the gavel be the one that is the law; if so, a scepter would have done just fine.
Perhaps Judge Roberts said it best during his confirmation hearings when he said, "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them." Judge Sotomayor could be likened to a game seven World Series home plate umpire wearing a NY Yankees hat during the game. I encourage you to read her full speech and act as an American Statesman would act. Please act in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and not William Jefferson. Additionally, please don’t bother sending a response if it is one that tap dances around the crowded dance floor without stepping on anyone’s feet. There is a right and wrong to everything, toes will get stepped on. If you choose to be contrary to my position than please declare yours as such. For that you will earn at least my respect, but not likely my support.
Thank You
Walt Holton
I write you today begging you to stand against the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor to the US Supreme court.
Being a man in the know, I am sure you have heard the typical sound bites concerning Sotomayor’s life experience as a woman and Latino, and how that should make her more wise than other people groups. Although I am not personally offended (I’m a white male) over her statement (she is entitled to her opinion, right or wrong) I do believe such a statement is a declaration of her inability to be objective. Although this statement has been given most of the “legs” in the media, her 2001 speech at Berkley is riddled with statements that should particularly exclude her as an objective justice. She explains over and over how her life experiences will affect her rulings. Her philosophy as I would describe it is postmodernist, relativist and incapable of objectivity; each descriptive is a complete contradiction to what the job description of a Supreme Court justice should be.
A Supreme Court Justice should be very close to a machine; their job is interpreting laws and delivering a verdict based upon the intent of those who handed down the law, not based upon their personal desires. It is your job, Congressman, to deliver the laws, written with the clarity present to make the intent unavoidable. You are the policy maker, not the judge. The Constitution is the Law, not the judge. If the Constitution fails to serve the people’s desires, or if the laws you and your equals pass, fail the people, then change them as the rule of law dictates. It was never our founder’s intentions that the one that holds the gavel be the one that is the law; if so, a scepter would have done just fine.
Perhaps Judge Roberts said it best during his confirmation hearings when he said, "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them." Judge Sotomayor could be likened to a game seven World Series home plate umpire wearing a NY Yankees hat during the game. I encourage you to read her full speech and act as an American Statesman would act. Please act in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and not William Jefferson. Additionally, please don’t bother sending a response if it is one that tap dances around the crowded dance floor without stepping on anyone’s feet. There is a right and wrong to everything, toes will get stepped on. If you choose to be contrary to my position than please declare yours as such. For that you will earn at least my respect, but not likely my support.
Thank You
Walt Holton
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Legal but Unjust (An open letter to the IDFG)
Here is the multiple choice question for the day
Which was invented first?
a) The center fire rifle
b) The bow and arrow
c) The muzzle loading rifle
To any one sane this is a simple test, and strangely enough the more primitive the armament the less advantage the hunter retains. However, the Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) seems to operate upon anti-logic. In Idaho with the purchase of a standard hunting license one buys the right to wield a modern firearm in the field. Of course tags are extra as they should be. But if one wishes to give more advantage to the game animal and chooses a more primitive arm, the hunter must pay extra. In the case of a muzzle loader $18.25 and in the case of an archer $18.25. Archery and muzzle loader hunters must pay extra to be disadvantaged; that seems backwards to me. Of course the logic behind the IDFG is fees and funds. Paying extra for a disadvantage seems illogical.
Secondly, should we not consider archery as the de facto baseline hunting weapon? It was invented first the muzzle loaders second and the center fire rifle third. So again would it not be logical for a baseline hunting license to include the right to wield the most basic arms rather than the most modern? I would suggest in a logical world it might go something like this. Hunting license includes archery, additional endorsements may be purchased at the following fees- muzzle loader permit $5 center fire permit $10 enter fire with telescoping site $15. Not only is such a scheme logical, based on sporting advantage and tenure of technology, but it would also raise much more money due to the vastly larger numbers of rifle hunters. The latter should perk up the ears at the IDFG. The present system is unfair and backwards. It would almost seem like they are picking on a minority, which is what a constitutional republic is supposed to prevent. There is a right and wrong in every matter, wrongness substantiated by a majority may be legal but it is still wrong. I believe Ayn Rand called it, “a legal injustice.” The present fee structure is wrong!
Walt Holton
Which was invented first?
a) The center fire rifle
b) The bow and arrow
c) The muzzle loading rifle
To any one sane this is a simple test, and strangely enough the more primitive the armament the less advantage the hunter retains. However, the Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) seems to operate upon anti-logic. In Idaho with the purchase of a standard hunting license one buys the right to wield a modern firearm in the field. Of course tags are extra as they should be. But if one wishes to give more advantage to the game animal and chooses a more primitive arm, the hunter must pay extra. In the case of a muzzle loader $18.25 and in the case of an archer $18.25. Archery and muzzle loader hunters must pay extra to be disadvantaged; that seems backwards to me. Of course the logic behind the IDFG is fees and funds. Paying extra for a disadvantage seems illogical.
Secondly, should we not consider archery as the de facto baseline hunting weapon? It was invented first the muzzle loaders second and the center fire rifle third. So again would it not be logical for a baseline hunting license to include the right to wield the most basic arms rather than the most modern? I would suggest in a logical world it might go something like this. Hunting license includes archery, additional endorsements may be purchased at the following fees- muzzle loader permit $5 center fire permit $10 enter fire with telescoping site $15. Not only is such a scheme logical, based on sporting advantage and tenure of technology, but it would also raise much more money due to the vastly larger numbers of rifle hunters. The latter should perk up the ears at the IDFG. The present system is unfair and backwards. It would almost seem like they are picking on a minority, which is what a constitutional republic is supposed to prevent. There is a right and wrong in every matter, wrongness substantiated by a majority may be legal but it is still wrong. I believe Ayn Rand called it, “a legal injustice.” The present fee structure is wrong!
Walt Holton
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Rights and Responsibility
Today, our country faces a myriad of issues, especially the small businessman and his employees. We are rapidly turning into a semi-socialist state; taxed and mandated. Welfare, food stamps, low-income housing, childcare, healthcare, and other government entitlements are taking a bite out of every family in our nation. Taking care of the widowed, orphaned and mentally and physically disadvantaged is our social and Biblical responsibility. However, a large segment of the “entitled” are taking advantage of the workingman. Unpaid child support, tax evasion, Medicare abuse, and countless other frauds are biting us every day. Substance abuse plays an enormous role in these problems, both socially and economically. Out of one pocket people use food stamps to buy foodstuffs of questionable value and the other pocket use cash to buy beer and cigarettes. This makes me furious! I need to take a deep breathe and settle down as not to loose my compassion. Is it my responsibility to pay for the “entitled’s” substance abuse and cable TV? NO! It is not yours either!
One right our forefathers reserved for us is the right to pursue happiness. Since childhood each of us learned basic rights, responsibilities and rewards, actions and consequences. Such as…“If you clean your room I’ll give you a cookie” (responsibility, rights and reward.) Or; “If you draw on the walls you’ll get a spanking” (action and consequences). The choices we made as children effected our pursuit of happiness. Each “so called” right we have in America is nothing more than an allowed privilege. The right to vote, to drive, to drink alcohol, to smoke cigarettes, to have cable TV, to eat microwave popcorn are all privileges NOT RIGHTS.
I am quite happy to help the under-privileged and I also believe if given the opportunity churches and other groups would handle it quite well. In lieu of common sense perhaps we should tie entitlements to responsibility. My proposal; Anyone who is behind on taxes, child support, and legal fines or is taking government assistance such as welfare, food stamps or low-income housing should be considered “at rears with society.” Immediately when someone becomes, at rears, their right to purchase alcohol or cigarettes should be suspended. This will serve two purposes. The first, it will free up monies to be spent on food, childcare and other worthwhile family pursuits. The other is also obvious; substance abuse would go down, and so would the bad decisions made by the person using the substance. Such as drinking and driving, spousal/child abuse and basic laziness. Secondly the right to vote should be suspended. Unsuccessful people do not make successful decisions! Thirdly, for the worst offenders the deadbeat dads and other tax evaders, who aren’t even trying to do their duty. Suspend their driver’s license, after taking away the other privileges.
Seem harsh? Think I’m going overboard? Than you go to a liquor/grocery store on the wrong side of the tracks. You’ll see two things; good hard working people getting just enough to survive. And you’ll see a person with two dirty kids who buys questionable foodstuffs with your tax dollars; with “their money” buy a gallon of vodka and a carton of cigarettes. Those two dirty kids deserve more. Do you think Mama or Papa sit down with the kids and do their homework? Not likely, because it’s the governments job to teach the kids. Isn’t it?
We need to get back to the basics to solve complex problems…anything else is just a Band-Aid. Rights and responsibilities, actions, consequences and rewards.
One right our forefathers reserved for us is the right to pursue happiness. Since childhood each of us learned basic rights, responsibilities and rewards, actions and consequences. Such as…“If you clean your room I’ll give you a cookie” (responsibility, rights and reward.) Or; “If you draw on the walls you’ll get a spanking” (action and consequences). The choices we made as children effected our pursuit of happiness. Each “so called” right we have in America is nothing more than an allowed privilege. The right to vote, to drive, to drink alcohol, to smoke cigarettes, to have cable TV, to eat microwave popcorn are all privileges NOT RIGHTS.
I am quite happy to help the under-privileged and I also believe if given the opportunity churches and other groups would handle it quite well. In lieu of common sense perhaps we should tie entitlements to responsibility. My proposal; Anyone who is behind on taxes, child support, and legal fines or is taking government assistance such as welfare, food stamps or low-income housing should be considered “at rears with society.” Immediately when someone becomes, at rears, their right to purchase alcohol or cigarettes should be suspended. This will serve two purposes. The first, it will free up monies to be spent on food, childcare and other worthwhile family pursuits. The other is also obvious; substance abuse would go down, and so would the bad decisions made by the person using the substance. Such as drinking and driving, spousal/child abuse and basic laziness. Secondly the right to vote should be suspended. Unsuccessful people do not make successful decisions! Thirdly, for the worst offenders the deadbeat dads and other tax evaders, who aren’t even trying to do their duty. Suspend their driver’s license, after taking away the other privileges.
Seem harsh? Think I’m going overboard? Than you go to a liquor/grocery store on the wrong side of the tracks. You’ll see two things; good hard working people getting just enough to survive. And you’ll see a person with two dirty kids who buys questionable foodstuffs with your tax dollars; with “their money” buy a gallon of vodka and a carton of cigarettes. Those two dirty kids deserve more. Do you think Mama or Papa sit down with the kids and do their homework? Not likely, because it’s the governments job to teach the kids. Isn’t it?
We need to get back to the basics to solve complex problems…anything else is just a Band-Aid. Rights and responsibilities, actions, consequences and rewards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)