Blog Archives

I am Ex-GOP and I am endorsing Austin Petersen for President!


As a loyal, and vocal, member of the #CruzCrew…with the impending nomination of Donald Trump…I have officially decided to leave the Republican party and pledged to do everything in my power to make the GOP a “third-party” in the future.

 

After much thought, research, and prayer, I have decided that I will be joining the Libertarian Party.

 

I will be casting my support for Austin Petersen, who faces an uphill battle to win the nomination at the end of May 2016.

 

Here is my reasoning on voting for Mr. Petersen instead of Mr. Trump:

 

When faced with a choice between a small government candidate versus a candidate who is in favor of eminent domain and Universal Healthcare…

 

I choose Austin Petersen!

 

When faced with a man who wants us to pay as little tax as possible, and has a “Penny Plan” to reduce spending versus a man whose tax plan will ADD $10 Trillion to the National Debt…

 

I choose Austin Petersen!

 

When faced with a decision between a pro-life candidate versus someone who has been pro-choice most of their life and STILL supports federal funding for Planned Parenthood…

 

I choose Austin Petersen!

 

When faced with a choice between someone who is a strong proponent of the second amendment versus someone who just recently “evolved” to a (mostly) pro-2A stance…

 

I choose Austin Petersen!

 

When faced with a choice between a huge reduction in immigration spending verses a MASSIVE expansion in federal powers and workforce within the immigration department…

 

I choose Austin Petersen!

 

When faced with someone who will limit our foreign aid and foreign wars versus someone who is already threatening to use nuclear weapons…

 

I choose Austin Petersen!

 

When faced with a choice between a pure defender of Religious Freedom versus a man who wants men to be allowed to use women’s restrooms with our daughters inside…

 

I choose Austin Petersen!

 

To be fair, some of Mr. Petersen’s stances are not directly aligned with mine, but he is a strong proponent of the 10th amendment, and will not force his views on the country.  His sole goal is to “Take over Government to leave everyone alone”.

 

I am officially (and proudly) endorsing Austin Petersen for The Libertarian Party’s Presidential Primary!

 

I encourage all of the CruzCrew to contact his campaign at www.austinpetersen2016.com to see how we can help him defeat his competitor at the Libertarian National Convention later this month.

 

Please consider casting your vote for the only pro-life, small government candidate left in the 2016 presidential race.  Thank you!

How Michael Bloomberg Can Win Only 3 States, and Still Become Your Next President!


Michael Bloomberg is currently evaluating an independent run in the 2016 presidential race, and is willing to spend up to one billion dollars to win the election. Popular wisdom would say that it would be nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to win a General Election. The rumor is that if Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, win the Nominations, Bloomberg would run as the only pro-gun control candidate, and would run a nationwide campaign to win the Presidency. I am going to lay out a way where Hillary Clinton could go up against Donald Trump (much more likely scenario), where Bloomberg could spend far less money, win only three states, and still become the next President of the United States of America.

A little known fact, since we have not had a really serious third-party candidate in some time, is that if no candidate meets the 270 electoral vote threshold, the election will be decided by the House of Representatives. An even lesser known fact, is how that secondary election works. Basically, the top three finishers in the Presidential election will enter this House of Representatives Election. Currently, there are 246 Republicans, and 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives, but the secondary election is not nearly that simple. Each state gets only one vote in this special election, meaning Delaware has the same amount of voting power as California. The House votes, and each state delegation gets one single vote, a Candidate needs 26 votes to win. If no candidate gets 26 votes, then another vote will be taken…over, and over, again until someone gets 26 votes. Currently, if the House of Representative delegations voted based on party lines, there would be 33 votes for republican, 15 votes for democrats and 3 votes with evenly split delegations.

How does this lead to Michael Bloomberg winning only three states, and being elected as our next President?

First of all, Donald Trump (who, as a constitutional conservative, I will never support) will need to win the Republican Nomination. Hillary Clinton will need to win the Democratic Nomination. Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton, will enter the General Election as the two candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings in the history of Presidential Politics. Unfortunately for Donald Trump, one large group who hates both of them are the constitutional conservative base of the Republican party. Very much like what we saw with McCain, and Romney, Republicans will lose all of the swing states if the conservative base stays home.  In a nutshell, the Democratic Candidate is likely to win all of the swing states, and walk away with the election if Donald Trump were to run against them, with no significant 3rd party opposition. If Bloomberg were to run in all 50 states, conventional wisdom is that he would likely siphon off more votes from the Democrats, than from the Republicans. In a year where both the Republican and Democratic candidates have high unfavorable ratings, this would set up a politically-intriguing, wild-west, 31-way showdown for the Presidency…But, this is not his smartest move.

The smartest move Bloomberg could make is to run in just three states: New York, New Jersey, and California. If Bloomberg were to get on the ballot in just these 3 states, he would force the Republican and Democrats to continue to spend most of their money trying to win the key swing states, while Bloomberg could focus his one billion dollar campaign war chest on winning just these 3 states, and their 98 electoral votes. By not getting on the ballot in the other 47 states, he would maintain the Electoral College equilibrium, each of the candidates would win the states that they are supposed to, and Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump in the swing states. This will stop Donald Trump from capturing the 270 Electoral votes that he would need to become the next President of the United States.

Why should Bloomberg get on the ballot in these three states? These states are all huge gun control states, which would play right into Bloomberg’s hands, and winning these consistently Democratic states would allow him to stop the Democratic Nominee from capturing 270 Electoral votes. On top of that, Bloomberg would get far more than the 2 million votes likely needed to become the third largest vote-getting in the 2016 Presidential Election, which would qualify him for the secondary election inside the House of Representatives after both major nominees fail to meet the 270 Electoral Vote requirement, even without getting ballot access throughout the rest of the country.

We will put those three states aside for a moment, and assume that the 2016 Presidential Election goes into the secondary election within the House of Representatives. As I mentioned, there are 33 states with Republican delegations, so won’t they just vote for Donald Trump? Well, only 1 of 435 current congressmen have endorsed him so far, and he rails against their ineffectiveness (as he bashes them all for being establishment) every single chance he gets. After he alienates the conservative base, and they don’t show up to the polls in November, a number of the conservative republicans will lose their seats, potentially along with their Republican majority. In short, there will be a lot of angry Republican congressmen who blame Trump for how badly this election went for the Republicans, and will be looking for a way to punish him, without electing a Democrat. Bloomberg offers them a chance to elect a fiscally conservative former Republican, instead of electing a former Liberal Democrat who just lost them control of the House of Representatives.

There is literally no chance that the Democratic candidate can win 26 votes, as Republican delegations will never be able to look their constituents in the face again after voting for a Liberal Icon. There are only 15 states with Democratic constituencies, which leaves them 11 short of the 26 state requirement to have their candidate elected. Let’s assume all of the Republican delegations split evenly between Bloomberg and Trump (best case scenario for the Democrats), the Democratic candidate would still only secure 22 states, which means there is virtually no reason for Democrats in Congress to back their own nominee, when they could flip their support to Bloomberg and be part of the larger group who could say that they ended Trump’s hopes of the Presidency.

Bloomberg would need 26 state delegations to back him in the secondary election in order to get elected President. An important part of this plan, is that the 15 states with Democratic delegations realize that their candidate cannot possibly win, and resolve to vote for Bloomberg, since he would be better for them than Trump. In an interesting twist, the smaller state congressmen actually have the most power during this entire process. For example, Congressman Kevin Cramer, the only congressman in North Dakota, has as much power as the 38 congressmen in Texas combined.  If Representative Cramer votes for Bloomberg, he wins the state, it’s that simple.  If the Democrats back Bloomberg, there are 17 states with Republican (or evenly split) delegations who would only need 2 (or less) Republican congressmen to back Bloomberg, instead of Trump, in order to win that state’s vote. That is more than enough, alone, to hand the Presidency to Bloomberg. Less than 30 Republican Congressmen could wind up handing the Presidency directly to Michael Bloomberg after he wins only three states. That said, I would actually anticipate many of the larger delegations to swing in his favor, after Trump spends the rest of the year alienating the “Establishment”, helping make incumbent Republican’s lives difficult, and after he moves further to the middle after he wins the nomination.

Bloomberg, of course, is a polarizing figure among Republicans, so this is not a slam dunk. Republican Congressmen would need a very good reason to hand the Presidency to someone who is not the Republican Nominee. I believe that between Trump’s polarizing statements, his tax returns, the Trump University Fraud case, and other misstatements that he makes throughout the campaign, will be enough to drive a wedge between him and the sitting Congress. Of course, there is one wild card in this plan. The whole reason that these three states are ideal for Bloomberg to win is because of his strong support of gun control. There would be a huge push by the NRA to pressure its members to vote against Bloomberg as President. The NRA is extremely influential within the Republican congress, and it would be hard for them to vote for an anti-NRA nominee. This is probably the largest roadblock that he would have in order to execute this plan.

Bloomberg will need to name a pro-gun, pro-life VP, to show that he wants both sides represented in every policy debate in Washington. This will send a message to conservatives that he is serious about listening to their concerns on social issues. In the end, whoever Trump picks as his VP candidate would win the VP election (not covered here, but the Senate would vote separately for the VP among the top two candidates, rendering Bloomberg’s VP choice essentially meaningless). Conservatives will be able to sleep well knowing that Trump’s strong pro-gun, pro-life VP will keep Bloomberg in check, and Bloomberg will have to make promises to make the new VP extremely active in policy decisions. Conservative Republicans will argue that they need a proven fiscal conservative, who helped turn around New York City after 9/11. They will be able to look their constituents in the eyes, say they stopped the nightmare of a Trump Presidency, while still putting a fiscally conservative businessman into the White House. Bloomberg would be able to spend one billion dollars in just three states, and capture the first presidency decided by the House of Representatives in over 100 years.

2016 Presidential Election Preview: Grading The Top 11 Potential Republican Presidential Candidates


Here is a look at the best 11 candidates that the Republican Party has to offer. I have graded them based on their social views, fiscal views, potential grassroots momentum, potential establishment support, their total candidate grade, their likelihood of winning the primary, and their overall likelihood of winning the general election.

Please feel free to discuss/argue/debate my opinions in the comment section, I would love to dive deep on each of these candidates before I decide who to endorse, and I want to hear from you folks!

 

Mike Huckabee

Background: Former Arkansas Governor, Former Preacher, Former Television host

Social Issues: B+ – Strong on Abortion, Crime, and the 2nd Amendment, moderate on Immigration

Fiscal Issues: A – Supports the Fair Tax, and fiscal reform

Grassroots Momentum: A – Fox News Republican base would get behind him, so would Evangelicals

Establishment Support: C – Backed out to let Mitt take the nomination, some will respect that

Total Candidate Grade: A- – Great candidate if he decides to run, needs to declare early and run hard

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 16%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 8%

 

Jeb Bush

Background: Former Florida Governor, George Walker Bush’s Brother, George HW Bush’s Son

Social Issues: B – Strong on Abortion, Crime, and the 2nd Amendment. Moderate on Immigration.

Fiscal Issues: D – Willing to negotiate on taxes, careful entitlement reform, big spender

Grassroots Momentum: B – Big brand name, moderates in the party will rally behind him in primary

Establishment Support: A – GOP looking for best chance to win moderates will rally around Jeb

Total Candidate Grade: B+ – Swing State Gov + moderate on immigration/entitlement + big spender

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 15%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 7%

 

 

Rick Perry

Background: 4-Term Texas Governor

Social Issues: A – Strong on Abortion, Crime, Immigration, and the 2nd Amendment

Fiscal Issues: A – Called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, supports the balanced budget amendment

Grassroots Momentum: B – Republicans like Texas Republicans, and he is right on the issues

Establishment Support: D – Needs to shed the “dumb” label from 2012, but can overcome that

Total Candidate Grade: B – Needs to convince people he is intelligent, but he has the whole package

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 14%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 6%

 

 

Marco Rubio

Background: Florida Senator

Social Issues: B – Strong on gun rights, and crime, moderate on Immigration and abortion.

Fiscal Issues: A – Strong on tax reform, entitlement reform, and good on budget issues

Grassroots Momentum: B – Latino candidate that people can believe in, could unite party

Establishment Support: B – Strong choice if Jeb is out and Dems are leaning towards Hillary

Total Candidate Grade: B- – Swing State Senator on the right side of every issue for mainstream America

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 11%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 6%

 

Scott Walker

Background: Wisconsin Governor

Social Issues: C – Strong on Abortion, gun rights, moderate on Crime, and weak on Immigration.

Fiscal Issues: B+ – Union Buster, strong on budget, light experience on federal fiscal issues

Grassroots Momentum: B – Anti-union crowd hero, survived Recall vote, strong candidate

Establishment Support: A – Fiscal Conservative with good track record, could gain momentum

Total Candidate Grade: C+ – Swing State Governor with guts/determination, don’t count him out

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 9%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 5%

 

Rand Paul

Background: Kentucky Senator, Former Doctor

Social Issues: B+ – Strong on Abortion, gun rights, moderate on Crime and Immigration.

Fiscal Issues: A – Strong on reducing spending, entitlement reform, and endorses the flat-tax

Grassroots Momentum: A – Daddy’s fans, plus he won a lot of support with his filibusters

Establishment Support: B – Reasonably conservative candidate with a brand name and moderate ideas

Total Candidate Grade: C+ – He would be #1 here if he was a governor with 4+ years of experience…

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 8%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 5%

 

Paul Ryan

Background: Wisconsin Representative

Social Issues: A – Strong on Abortion, gun rights, Crime, and Immigration.

Fiscal Issues: A – Advanced multiple balanced budgets to congress looking for 5+% bump in revenues

Grassroots Momentum: B – Lots of name recognition, newest budget talks could spark discussion

Establishment Support: B – Lots of establishment money spent on Romeny/Ryan, could continue

Total Candidate Grade: C- – Swing State Representative with budget chops, could leverage debt crisis

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 8%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 5%

 

John Kasich

Background: Ohio Governor, Former Representative

Social Issues: A- – Strong on Abortion, Crime, and the 2nd Amendment, and Immigration

Fiscal Issues: A – Supports lower taxes, lower spending, and entitlement reform

Grassroots Momentum: B – Would build momentum if he can tell his balanced budget story

Establishment Support: D – Very little support in 2000, he would need to improve on fundraising

Total Candidate Grade: D – Swing State Governor with top-rate credentials, just needs to raise cash

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 6%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 3%

 

Chris Christie

Background: New Jersey Governor, former US Attorney, former Lobbyist

Social Issues: D – Flip-flopped on Abortion, semi-weak on immigration, very weak on 2nd amendment

Fiscal Issues: C – Good on tax reform, great on entitlement reform, weak on replacing taxes with fees

Grassroots Momentum: B – BridgeGate slowed down the momentum, but still has a lot of fans

Establishment Support: B – Well known, lots of wall street money behind him, good establishment choice

Total Candidate Grade: D- – Primary will be tough, lots of baggage to overcome, no huge upside

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 6%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 2%

 

Rick Santorum

Background: Former Pennsylvania Senator, Former Representative

Social Issues: A- – Strong on Abortion, Crime, and the 2nd Amendment, and Immigration

Fiscal Issues: A – Supports lower taxes, lower spending, and entitlement reform

Grassroots Momentum: B – Some fans left from 2012, but his fan base will always be limited

Establishment Support: C – Fought Mitt to the end, wasting his money, people will not appreciate that

Total Candidate Grade: E – Strong conservative with little chance of winning the entire election

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 3%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 1%

 

Ted Cruz

Background: Texas Senator

Social Issues: A – Strong on Abortion, gun rights, Crime, and Immigration.

Fiscal Issues: A – Supports single-rate tax, entitlement reform, and smaller government.

Grassroots Momentum: A – Hardcore Republicans love him, he will have a following

Establishment Support: D – Never met anyone who thinks he can actually win the nomination

Total Candidate Grade: F – Newby who has a reputation for being extreme, no name recognition

Likelihood of Winning the Primary: 2%

Likelihood of Winning the Election: 1%

 

It Is Time For America To Relearn The ABC’s – Always Be Cutting!


Tax

Tax (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013)

In the wake of a $16 Trillion dollar debt that is growing every day, a congress who refuses to say no to spending, and a tide of politicians who want to increase taxes so that they can justify going even deeper into debt….it is time for a change!

Americans need to embrace a new view of government…a much smaller view.

Politicians need to revolutionize how they look at our government, and it all starts by re-learning the ABC’s.

A – Always

B – Be

C – Cutting

We need to take this mantra to the Federal Government, every State Government, all the way down to our Local Governments.

We need to CUT the size of Government!

We need to CUT taxes!

We need to CUT the debt!

We need to CUT spending!

We need to CUT needless regulations!

We need to CUT Foreign Aid during our recession!

If we replace our elected officials with legislators with this mindset, we will soon see this tide of irresponsibility begin to turn.

Balancing our budget will no longer be considered “extreme” politics.

Our paychecks will start going towards helping our families, rather than paying China back for the interest on our National Debt.

Government will be relegated to serving and protecting the people, rather than participating in the race to bring home the bacon to their own states.

Businesses will be free to use their hard-earned money to drive new innovation, new products, at better costs….rather than using that same money to comply with regulations that add no value to the consumer or the economy.

If you believe in this message, please share it with EVERY single one of your friends and family.  This is that important.  America is at a key crossroads in our history.  We can either relearn our ABC’s, or we will very soon find out that it is too late to turn this ship around.

SHARE this article TODAY!

Attention Chicago Teachers: Go Back To Work!


English: in Chicago, Illinois, USA.

English: in Chicago, Illinois, USA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Chicago has a graduation rate of only 56% versus the National Average of over 75%.  Only 15% of 4th graders in Chicago can read, which compares to 34% Nationally.  Despite these facts, Chicago teachers are paid an average of $71,000 each year, which is 25% above the National Average.  For those keeping score, this means that the teachers are vastly under-performing, and are drastically overpaid.  If you were to say that their salary should be linked to their graduation rate & 4th grade literacy rate vs. the National Average, these teachers would have to take over a 50% pay cut just to be fairly compensated against the performance of their peers!

Instead of offering them a 50% pay cut so that they could be fairly compensated, they were offered a 16% pay raise over the next four years, but they turned it down because they want a 30% pay raise…This would mean that these teachers would make an average salary of $92,000.  What would Chicago get?  Well, as with other jobs in this country, the teachers had to promise to increase the graduation rate above 56% and they had to increase the percentage of 4th graders who can read…Right?  Right?  Right?

WRONG!

350,000 young students, who already are less likely to read or graduate because of the state of their public schools and the quality of their teachers, are now missing more school so that these teachers can demand a larger raise than anyone deserves when promising to add no additional value.  In the real (non-union) world, we need to show what value we are going to add to a corporation before demanding a raise.  If we don’t get a raise, we can choose to either work harder and try again, or leave the company.  Neither of those options directly hurts 350,000 students…If they did, can you seriously see yourself ever negatively impacting 350,000 kids so that you could become even more overpaid than you already were?

This is an unnecessary, but very telling, strike at a key time in our country’s history.  After the unions sank the Big Three, helped drive us into the Great Recession, and continue to hammer companies as we struggle to get out of it, the teacher strike shows exactly how unreasonable most union negotiations wind up being.  Call a Chicago teacher today and tell them to get back to work, teach those kids to read, get them off the street, and get them through to graduation…That’s what they get paid for.

If not, then we need to look at our other options for schooling in this country, including charter school programs, and pick-your-own-district programs.  Otherwise, these school unions will be affecting a city near you soon.  Share this with your friends & family, and tell me what you think about the issue.

Who Does A Better Job Managing The National Debt?


Breakdown of political party representation in...

Breakdown of political party representation in the United States Senate during the 112th Congress. Blue: Democrat Red: Republican Light Blue: Independent (caucused with Democrats) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In order to understand the National Debt, we need to first look back at the last 30 years or so to try to understand what lead to the National Debt issue getting out of control.   It is extremely important to understand the difference between who controls congress, and who controls the presidency.  While the President is very powerful, and he has Veto power, the congress is who actually passes the laws.  It is very telling to watch what happens when a particular party has control of both the Congress and the Senate, which allows them to pass just about anything that they want, with minimal minority party support.

Since 1980, Democrats have had control of both the Congress and the Senate for 12 years, the Republicans have had control of both houses for 10 years, and there have been 10 years where we have had a split congress.

So, who does better at controlling the National Debt?  Let’s take a look…

12 Years of Democratic Control = $8 Trillion added to the National Debt – $800 Billion per year

10 Years of Republican Control = $3 Trillion added to the National Debt – $300 Billion per year

10 Years of Shared Control = $4 Trillion added to the National Debt – $400 Billion per year

Wait…are the numbers skewed by wars and terrorism and stuff?

Well, the Democrats were in charge during the 1st Gulf War, there was Shared Control during 9/11, and the Republicans were in charge during the 2nd Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan,…So let’s call it even, or at least not a large issue in this debate.

Conclusion:  Despite what the Liberal Media says, you get the most fiscally responsible governments when the Republicans control  both the Congress and the Senate.  The numbers don’t lie.

Neither party has done a good job, but the Tea Party is committed to changing that in the future…

Help us take back control of the Senate this year so that we can return to an era of fiscal responsibility!

President Obama has NOT created 4.5 Million new jobs – Get The Facts Here!


English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the University of Southern California (Video of the speech) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The news coming out of the Democratic National convention, as usual, made me a little sick to my stomach.  I always try to just tune out for a week, and not get too worked up, because both parties get a little inflammatory during convention time and tend to start exaggerating.  The only claim that irked me enough to write an article about is this claim that President Obama has created 4.5 Million jobs.  Hours after the claim emerged, a claim which was repeated in convention speeches by Julian Castro, Deval Patrick, and Rahm Emanuel, dozens of fact-checking organizations had already refuted the claim.  Why?  Because it is a flat-out lie.  Here are the facts:

President Obama’s Starting Figure:  133.6 Million Jobs

Current Figure:  133.2 Million Jobs

Change:  LOSS of 0.4 Million Jobs

Fact:  The Unemployment rate was approximately 7.8% when President Obama took office and now it is over 8%.

In order to hit the 4.5 Million figure, Democrats are doing multiple unethical things all at once (not entirely unusual).

First, they are only counting private sector jobs, because apparently the 20+ million people who work in jobs labeled as “Public Sector” don’t matter…

Second, using that incorrect measure, they are still only counting the lowest figure during Obama’s Presidency as the starting point (January 2010), because apparently President Obama denies responsibility for the entire first year of his presidency (don’t you wish we all could deny responsibility for the whole first year when we start a new job because everything was the old guy’s fault?)

Here are the facts:  President Obama has created 4.5 Million new private sector jobs since January 2010.  Why didn’t they just say that rather than lying about his record?  Because they were on national television…and they wanted to mislead the public.  It is the strategy that almost every politician employs during debates, since they know people are watching and no one will read the fact-check stories later.

The bottom line is that the unemployment rate is higher than the day he took office.  His own Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors promised that unemployment would never reach 8%…It has been 8% for around two years and is still over 8% today.

Conclusion:  His Numbers Are Wrong….His Promises Were Broken…The Dems should stop lying on National TV.

Go ahead and run on the economy if you all want to….You will lose!

 

We Need A Balanced Budget Amendment Today!


With the National Debt skyrocketing up over $15 Trillion, with Obama’s 2011 proposed budget threatening to balloon that number to over $25 Trillion by 2025.  My newborn child’s fair share of today’s National Debt is already $45,000.  The average family of four in this country has a $180,000 share of the National Debt.  China is our #1 Debt Holder, and is growing increasingly powerful in dealings between the two countries.  If China were to stop buying our debt and funding our untapped thirst for new spending, the United States economy would be sent into a tailspin.  Do we really want China to have that much power over our economy, our jobs, and our country?

There are three possible solutions to our rising National Debt:

1)       Demand that every American pay $45,000 to the Federal Government today, or raise taxes dramatically in order to accomplish this over the next few years.

2)      Reduce spending to zero for each of the next 6 years.  The Federal Government takes in approx. $2.5 Trillion each year in taxes, so if it spent nothing over the next 6 years, it could come close to eliminating the debt.

3)      Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and get spending under control immediately.

Obviously, only one of these three “options” is really something that can be implemented.  All 50 states and thousands of cities across the country are forced to balance their budgets every single year.  People and businesses must consistently balance their budgets or face bankruptcy.  Yet, the government routinely spends $1 Trillion more than they take in from taxes each year.

Today, Congress has no incentive to passing any real, meaningful spending reform.  Anything that they vote against is going to be used against them during the next election cycle, and their unlimited checkbook is routinely used to try to drive as much benefit to their district regardless of whether it is good for the country or not.

Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment would force the Federal Government to either increase taxes, or reduce spending – Which are the only two options for balancing the budget.  Your congressperson would have to more than double your income taxes in order to balance the budget without reducing spending…Do you really think they would do that?  Of course not, which is why the Balanced Budget Amendment would force Congress to finally tackle spending reform in a real, meaningful way.

The only good argument against the Balanced Budget Amendment is the perceived need for a blank check in times of emergencies, such as war or a terrorist attack.  Because this argument is valid, I am in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment with emergency measures that can be implemented in a completely transparent way, so that the American people can determine whether the Congress used the emergency measures properly.

Other than that, there are no good arguments for why the Federal Government should not balance their budget just like every state and city in the country.

If you know of some good arguments against this amendment, I would love to hear from you.  If not, please forward and share this article with your family and friends, and work hard to convince your congressperson that they need to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment today!

Largest Landowner In The United States: The Federal Government


How much land do you think the Federal Government owns?  10 million acres?  100 million acres?

Try 650 million acres

How much is too much land for the federal government?  What about 84.5% of Nevada?  Or 69.1% of Alaska?  Or 45% of California?  If that sounds ridiculous…that is because it is!

The Federal Government owns over 30% of all of the land in the United States…

We can argue over the merits of the different uses of this land, including defense bases, national parks, Indian reservations, or testing grounds, but we cannot argue over the fact that the land is being badly mismanaged.  According to the GAO, the Federal Government owns over 55,000 buildings that are barely being used at all.  If the government were to sell these buildings, they could yield up to $96 billion immediately, and would save millions of dollars a year in maintenance costs, while generating billions of dollars in additional taxes to the people who purchase and use the buildings.

$96 Billion is equivalent to almost $1,000 for every household in the country!

The Federal Government needs to refocus themselves on doing their primary jobs:  Running the government, and keeping our families safe.  While many of us believe that the total size of government should shrink, there are still a lot of folks who think big government is good government.  I would like my followers to go ask these big government fans the following question:

“Would you rather own 55,557 useless buildings…or $96 Billion Dollars?”

Follow that question up with:

“Do you still believe that the Federal Government knows how to spend your money better than you do?”

Please post the answers you get in the comment section so that we can all share the logic they use to defend the government’s position.  Thanks folks!

Gen Y Social Security Proposal


Gen Y Social Security Proposal

The sad reality is that Social Security, in its current form, will never be around for most of us in Gen Y when we retire.  Politicians are too scared, too ideological, or too stupid, to be able to come together and pass a compromise that will keep the system working.  Currently, most sources say that the system is set to run out of money in 2039, well before we are eligible for the dollars.  The system started as a Pay-As-You-Go system, which takes money from people who are working now and gives it to an equal number of people in retirement. Today, under 25% of the population is over 65, but that number will rise to almost 40% in 2040.  What that means is that there won’t be enough people working to support the people who are collecting Social Security.  This is the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.  Money from new investors is used to pay old investors until the system collapses because there is too little “income” to pay out the expected “payments”.  What started as a great program, is a great program no more.  This Ponzi Scheme needs to be addressed in a major way and it needs to be done now!

No one is taking action on this issue, so I am calling on my fellow Gen Y’ers to be the solution to the problem today.  I am asking you to sign a petition to forego your Social Security Retirement benefits.  If you would like to sign the petition, all you have to do is make a comment on the bottom of the page in support of the initiative.  All we are asking is that the politicians put together a group to study this as a possible solution to the Social Security Crisis.

Why Should You Do This?

At the current rate, you will pay 4% – 6% on your income for your entire working life.  That means that a worker who averages $50,000/year could pay over $125,000 in taxes and never see a dime of Social Security if the politicians are too scared, too idealogical, or too stupid to pass real social security reform.  This means that most of you will get less than 25% of that money back.  In order to keep Social Security solvent, the government is going to have to drastically increase the social security tax, which will make this return on investment go even lower for those of us who will be working for the next 50 years.  This is not an investment, this is a Ponzi Scheme!

What Will You Get In Return?

Under this plan, you will continue to pay the 6% until 2040, but anyone who has paid at least 10 years of social security taxes will be eligible to have their student loans eliminated after the 10th year of paying the social security tax.  This means that if you start working the day you graduate high school at age 18, your government student loans would be paid for when you are 28 (you would pay the payments on them until then).  Basically, this will allow the Social Security system to survive until 2040, by using our revenue to pay for the Baby Boomer’s retirement, and it will serve as an incentive for Gen Y to go back to school and get as educated as possible for two reasons:  1)  The Government will foot the bill.  2)  We will need the education to make enough money to fund our own retirement without government handouts.

Under this plan, the retirement contribution limits will also be removed.  This will allow us to take advantage of tax-free or tax-deferred investments in a major way so that we can fund our own retirement in the future.  For example, today you might only be able to put $5,000/year into a tax-free Roth IRA (Retirement account) and you cannot contribute once you make a significant income.  By eliminating both of those limits, you will be able to save into a tax-free retirement account for your entire life, which will make funding your own retirement much easier, and will be much cheaper for the government than it would be to keep social security alive.

What Are We Asking For?

1)      Eliminate all Social Security taxes after 2040.  Eliminate Social Security benefits for anyone born after January 1st, 1980. 

2)      Immediately remove income limits on the Social Security taxes – High-Income people should continue to pay Social Security tax on their entire income just like the rest of us.

3)      Move the retirement age up to 69 by 2030 – We are already moving the retirement age to 67 by 2022, based on the increased life expectancy, we should move the age to 69 years old.  Retirement was never meant to last 30+ years when Social Security was introduced.

4)      Immediately remove federally-mandated income and contribution limits from all tax-free and tax-deferred retirement accounts.

5)      Put in a Federal Government Student Loan waiver for anyone who will not be eligible for Social Security (Gen Y) after they have paid into the system above x-level for 10 years.

Benefits & Consequences

Benefits

1)      Gen Y will have a motivation to get advanced degrees, paid back by the government, to help them fund their own retirement.

2)      Retirement saving will go up dramatically once the contribution limits are removed, and every generation (including Gen Y) will become less dependent on the Ponzi Scheme we call Social Security.

3)      We will not see an enormous increase in taxes in order to fund Social Security indefinitely.  Gen Y will still see a poor return on our Social Security tax dollars (which is what we are giving up), but in return we will be guaranteed that these Social Security tax dollars don’t triple when legislators finally realize that they need to drastically raise taxes in order to keep the system going.

Consequences

1)      The insurance companies will immediately come out with Social Security programs for people who still want to have that type of protection

2)      The government may eventually have to come up with lighter social programs for the poverty-level Gen Y’ers who will not (or choose not) to benefit from the low-cost education this program would offer.

3)      Colleges will have to be kept in check to make sure that they don’t gouge Gen Y with higher tuition knowing that Gen Y will have a government-subsidized college education.

I am offering up this document to start a much-needed debate in this country about how to handle the Social Security crisis.  I believe that Gen Y would gladly give up their Social Security checks in exchange for education opportunities, greater retirement saving flexibility and a promise that we won’t have to pay ridiculously high taxes in the future to make sure that this poorly-constructed program continues indefinitely.  Please offer constructive comments/feedback and keep this conversation going until we have a solution.  Thank you all for caring about this country!

%d bloggers like this: