You Can't Fix Stupid.
Page 5
to either of these ideas. So why not have individual states decide their own laws and see which State can come up with the best solutions? As long as the law does not deny an individual person of one the Constitution’s “inalienable rights”, or endangers the health, safety and welfare of another individual or a State, then the State law should be permitted. Whenever possible, do not create a Federal law when a State law will do.
Now, in the event all 50 states happen to agree on a single law, then and only then, should it be considered a candidate for a federal law. Likewise, whenever possible, do not create a State law when a County law will do. Counties and Cities should have their own set of laws and only if there is agreement among all the Counties and Cities within a State should it be candidate for a State law. Universal laws should be developed from the bottom up, not from the top down in a society.
Society has made a terrible mistake granting too much authority to Federal jurisdiction, particularly in matters where there are multiple viewpoints or a controversial issue. History has clearly demonstrated that centralization of authority always stagnates and eventually strangles individuality within a society, inhibiting growth and innovation, and eventually causing revolt among the people. Keep State individuality and State freedom as much as possible, it is what is best for all of the United States.
Likewise, whenever there is a Federal mandate to the States, then that mandate is effective if, and only if, the Federal government is responsible for paying for its implementation. Likewise, a State mandate to Counties and Cities must be paid for by the State, not the County or City. Basically, put up or shut up. If the Federal government does not have the ability to pay for the enforcement expenses incurred because of one its laws, then they do not have the right to implement that law. The Federal government has no right to implement laws that places the cost burden of that law upon the individual States unless it can clearly demonstrate that it is a constitutional right.
Only the most basic and absolute fundamentals of the protection of States’ rights should entrusted to a Federal government such as common defense and protection of the universal rights as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, each State (and for that matter each County or City) should have as much latitude over its own internal affairs and local matters as possible, even if contradictory to another jurisdiction. Difference and competition is what makes the United States strong, not uniformity and compliance.
If a City, County or State enacts an unpopular or questionable law or one is not beneficial to its citizens; then the people will either vote with their feet and leave the area or vote and elect representatives who will seek to change those laws. An unjust law will always have a tendency to correct itself given time.
Meanwhile, just think how much Federal bureaucracy and waste would be eliminated and how much competition and ingenuity would be invigorated with the single action of returning rights back to the States, Counties and Cities and thus provide a simple solution to a complex problem.
Balancing the Budget
No business, no household, can exist for very long if its expenses exceed its income. So why does the federal government think they are any different? Deficit spending is unsustainable and costs society significantly more than one without deficient spending. A deficit is a sign of bad management. A balanced budget is not only a good practice; it is the only acceptable practice. A government that cannot stay within a budget does not have the moral or legal right to govern its subjects. And if anything, a government should only not run a deficit, it should be running a surplus in anticipation of leaner future times, providing a financial cushion for future unanticipated expenses.
The members of Congress and the President who determine the yearly budget should only have the authority to determine the percentage each item has in the budget. For example, they can determine that for this year the 20% goes toward Social Security, 15% to Defense, 5% to Education, and so forth. In the end, it should all total to 100%. If they feel that more money is needed for one program and wish to increase its percentage, then they must deduct that amount from the other programs; case closed. They can never exceed 100% of the revenue available.
The amount to spend is fixed based upon what they have already received in taxation; not what they expect to receive. If they have a trillion dollars in taxes in hand, then that is what they have to spend for the next year. And, really they should be spending less than what they have and earmark part of the money for contingencies or for anticipated probable unknown future expenditures. There will always be additional expenditures required for things that we all know are likely to occur, but we just don’t when. For example, we know there will be future natural disasters or extra costs due to a war; but no one knows when they may occur. A prudent business man or a homeowner always stashes away extra money in anticipation of future expenses he knows will come even though they may not know exactly what they may be or when they will occur.
If the managers of a budget cannot balance the budget, then their salaries are the first to be cut from the budget. That should be an incentive for them to resolve the issue quickly. Once a balance budget is obtained, and money spent is only the money already received. Once a balance budget is obtained, ,then it is a lot easier to maintain it. However, struggling from a deficit to a balance budget is extremely painful. There are only two choices. Either begin an austerity program and/or raise taxes and pay off the past debt as fast as possible, or have a revolution and default on all existing debts. Typically, when austerity becomes more painful than revolution and war, people opt for a revolution.
Regardless of the method, a balance budget is the only truly long-term sustainable solution for a society and must be maintained at all times. Balancing the budget is a simple solution to a complex problem; getting there, however – that is still a complex problem.
Competitive Bidding
At first glance, competitive bidding to perform work seems to offer the lowest price for a project. In reality, competitive bidding almost ensures you are paying a higher if not the highest price. How is that possible? First, it is expensive for a contractor to generate a cost estimate. If the contractor wishes to be accurate in his bid to ensure that he will make a profit and hopefully not lose money, he must invest a lot to time to generate a reliable estimate. Typically, a contractor may only get 1 out of 10 projects for which he is competitively bidding. That “free” estimating service has to come from somewhere. Time costs money. So it comes from that one job he does get. The contractor, to stay in business, must inflate each bid to cover the cost of bidding for all the other projects he does not receive. Or, the contractor can elect to spend less time on the bid and basically guess (referred to as a WAG or “wild ass guess”) and submit a bid hoping he guessed correctly. Naturally, with so many unknowns and for the contractor’s own protection, the contractor is going to “guestimate” on the high side as opposed to the low side in order to cover all expenses. Again, the competitive bid is higher than the actual cost of the project.
Then there is the cost of demonstrating that the contractor is “qualified” and equal opportunity is provided to all qualified contractors. This may sound as if it is protecting individual rights and equality, but the process creates inordinate amount paperwork and delays – both costing the contractor and money. Therefore, the contractor has to increase his bid even more to cover those costs; which again costs the taxpayer more money. And the government agency wants all sorts of assurances, such a performance bond, liability insurance, proof of worker’s compensation, and so on; all in the name of projecting the government’s and workers rights. It is not unusual that a government project will cost 40% more than a similar project in the private sector. While trying to protect the rights of contractors and the government, what happened to the rights of the taxpayer footing the bill?
Often, in the attempt to control costs, government agencies develop incredibly comple
x “specifications” to describe the work to be performed. Contractors seize on these specifications as their best means to increase their profit through “change orders” of services. While they may bid to specifications, they know that those specifications provide the very loopholes for them to charge more. In fact, many firms actually bid the job at cost knowing they will make a huge profit with the change orders for the items not clearly specified. The general public is usually totally unaware of these situations and extra costs. After all, how many government officials want to voluntarily announce their project is improperly regulated and over budget.
Many well intended procedures end up becoming a game between contractors and the government. A school board states in will only pay $10/hr for a painter for its maintenance work. No quality painter in the private sector will work for less than $30/hr. So, when a competitive bid goes out and the contractor calculates it will take him 1 hour to paint the door, he submits a quote saying it will take 3 hours to paint the door.