Preface:
Let us be perfectly clear about one thing; the world is in a tough place right now. Financial markets are collapsing and there is the threat of governmental collapse looming over several small countries. Bailouts have failed, the printing of money to stimulate exchange has failed, and now we have super-committees struggling to remove roughly 1/15 in spending from the national debt.
It is not the machinations of government, but the subjective movements of individuals that spur innovation. And it is the direct addressing of a need that spurs the demand for a market. If the addressing of the need was to be taken up by those individuals most possessing of the means by which to create a solution; then the “high minded ideal” might in fact become a working experiment in placing the control of social services in the hands of society.
Relying on the government for the money to support services that would be better served as privately funded corporations, is what led to the budget shortfalls in the first place. If these kinds of services were privatized and allowed to work according to the free market principle, then total government funding would be unnecessary. (Assuming they were handled by the right corporations.)
Proposal:
Starting at the top, this nation needs to restructure its idea of “charity” and “welfare”. If the government would just let go of the whip long enough to realize that the answer is letting us control our own purse strings, then answers to these kinds of problems would be easier to find. What is needed is (a) a flat or “fair tax”, (b) a removal of the government from all health and human services that could be funded and run privately, and (c) an innovation incentive program for businesses that adopt these services, instead of tax payer funded grants that are never repaid.
Charity must be funded by the people giving that charity. The problem with the entire nation at this moment is that we have become an entitlement minded society, instead of taking the matters like these into our own hands and putting forth the time, money and effort to keep them running. And the government feeds our entitlement obsession, because it keeps us reliant on them and complacent about their control over our lives. And, please note, that it took an ACTUAL Libertarian to give you the above answer, because the
Republicans are just as much to blame for the current state of things as the Democrats. All of the entrenched of the two parties are equally complicit in the enslavement of the masses via taxation and entitlement. But nobody giving the above kinds of answers can get into office to implement such answers, because the two parties have made it virtually impossible to do so without being “one of them.”
Under my proposal, the prosperity of a private corporation, whose function it would be, to take on the kinds of services discussed here, would, by the very regulation of that corporation, be required to “trickle down” to the needy, via the services and functions they are contracted to provide. There would be no choice but for the corporation to see to it that funds were raised and allocated to the services contracted and make a full PUBLIC accounting of the funds. ***Unlike the government***
My theory can and DOES work on one level. NGOs are defined by the World Bank as “private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development”. They accept no government funding, or only tiny amounts. They provide the very kind of relief services we are discussing here.
The problem is, that here in this nation, there is no system of support for these corporations and they have in fact been regulated to the point of minimal existence. More on this principle can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization
As for the ‘trickle down” argument, there isn’t one. There is direct support of a specific list of services, based on a direct need of the community for those services, funded via private entities and donors. More private donors would emerge, if first, we put people back to work, by creating incentives for corporations to implement these services via a tax breaks or other means of encouraging the private sector to take matters into its own hands.
Second, we make it more attractive for people to go back to work, than to keep living on extensions of unemployment funds that are already being calculated on a shortfall. Third, we allow the people returning to work, to keep more of their money, by instituting a 6 month tax freeze on newly employed persons. And lastly, what about instituting a national flat tax?
The national flat tax would see to it that those currently not paying their fair share of taxes at all would pay into the system, via the exact same level of taxation for goods and services as the rest of us. This means no more complicated and exclusive exemptions for the big money types, who could, instead be encouraged to funnel the money into an NGO through a one time tax incentive for the charitable donation. The current structure of spend until it hurts, then tax future generations for it, has failed in a way that has endangered all such services in the future.
Unless good people stand up; there will be no solution to the problem at all. What we have seen, is that there was once a spirit of innovation and solution in this country that has been whipped out of us by a master that would rather have complacent and dependent slaves; than people who take control of their own lives, their own problems and their own solutions.
Neo-Socialism that has been the root of the centralization of economies. The various countries that have tried the kind of policies currently coming down from our government; have themselves said that it has failed. The real problem is that we allow the fear of the one dog that bit us, to keep us from trying to get along with other dogs. Instead, we tell the government, “We are scared of dogs, so throw some money into as many cats as you can.”
What has ended up happening repeatedly is that the cats breed until there are so many of them we can’t possibly sustain or support them. So, we end up getting a couple of dogs to chase them away, but those dogs are giant mastiffs controlled by the guy that bought all the cats in the first place, instead of us taking care of the problem with a few poodles and collies that “might bite us”.
The theory, as stated by me, takes into account the human elements of greed and sloth. First, to the extent that I realize that it will take persons greater and better equipped to understand and shoulder the responsibility of correcting the system. Second, it takes into account the notion that there must be a drastic altering of the existing mindset amongst those that truly seek a solution. Admittedly, this is a lofty proposal.
I realize fully, that the majority of Americans would much rather keep feeding off of the government and letting them handle every problem, than actually forging new ideas that require work. And that is the very reason we are subject to the “evil corporations” and “government control”. Without an organized agenda, implemented by the right people, all possible solutions will be subject to corruption.
Enlightened self interest is also what leads to food banks who take no money from government. It leads to private organizations who conduct community clean ups who take no money from government. It leads to youth organizations who volunteer every bit of time they have to education, keeping kids off the street, and beautification projects. It leads to school and little league teams going out to wash cars or sell cupcakes to raise their own money for uniforms.
It leads to scouting organizations going out and volunteering their time to service projects, for the mere earning of a badge as a reminder of their service. It can and does happen. But, it seems, that only the exceptional still think that way. Exceptional ism that was once common, but has slowly been bred and taught out of us over the last 50 or so years.
When handled by government, high minded ideals soon give way to cronyism and personal self interest. We are so ready to condemn the CEO of a large corporation that doles out large sums of money to shareholders who actually invested in those shares; or executives that actually innovated and created ideas that made the profit returned to them in bonuses.
But I hear nobody who is willing to let the government handle it all for us, saying a word about the fact that even the most “high minded Liberals” in government make roughly three times the average salary a private citizen does; while voting themselves raises every chance they get. Those people who control what happens to health, education, social services, food, and economic growth; are the very people that caused the economic downturn in the first place. It is, no matter how you slice it, the fault of failed policies. And those policies have been controlled by two parties for about 80 years now.
Need I remind you of the gigantic battle this nation has had over government accountability? All of the promises of “transparency” have been no more than pretty platitudes to get a couple of specific people elected. There has been little to no accountability in government. We have laws, which were bills that we “had to pass to know what was in them.” We have politicians at the highest level, including the guy in charge of collecting taxes for the nation that have cheated on their taxes.
And the most innovative idea they have right now, is to control the very means we have of protest of these policies; via “fairness doctrines” and “net neutrality”. They are not interested in accountability or in actually doing what is right. They are interested only in maintaining their power and their grasp on the leashes we handed them.
If they were interested at all in actually fixing this current mess, then there would be more than three guys up there right now even considering the notion of a flat or “fair tax” proposal. They would not be gutting Medicaid and Medicare right now, to try to “cover budget shortfalls.”
They would not be wasting our resources on two war fronts, in a region of the world that has no hope of coming to a unified peace. They would focus on our own borders, our own homeless, our own jobless and innovating ideas for correcting the flaws in the system that caused this mess; instead of making a bigger mess with the failed policy of bailout and centralization. But, our government is not about solutions.
A problem:
Food banks and charities frequently fall into shortages, for the very reasons we are discussing here. Too many people are willing to stand idly by and do little or nothing. Those that run such places, often do it out of pocket, with only the donations offered by the community. If corporations were to adopt such endeavors, then funding would be far less scarce. Again, I realize that this is a “high minded ideal.”
A good example might be that while it takes large corporations coupled with government to fund research, Curie, Nightingale, Lister, Chamberland, Flemming and Pasteur were all private innovators without the backing of government or corporations (Until the government found value in their work.).
Not to mention Community Volunteers in Medicine clinics nationwide, providing care to the uninsured working poor who live or work the community. This is the work of thousands of “high minded” professionals who volunteer their time. It can and does happen.
Somehow, the masses keep getting duped into voting for the people like our current president, who told us from the start, that they would implement a plan of centralization and consolidation of power. While it is true that a large number of people stood up and made “cleaned House”, to use a cutesy term; the policies remain to be confronted.
Our president has even gone so far as to state that he will implement the aforementioned law based on the “bill that had to be passed to know what was in it”; regardless of the courts attempting to use our system of checks and balances to correct the flaws therein. This seems to amount to the kind of “soft tyranny” that people like me and the “right wing” press have been “stewing about”.
A good number of people don’t even know who their State Rep is. Not knowing who they are is the problem. Who voted for them? Did we read or listen to their policies before electing them? Or, did we simply vote the party we prefer out of the two available to us? But all of that is a side point. So, who determines what is “fair”?
Would that be the voter, or the giant government corporation, swayed by whichever of the two parties is “in control”? I am not speaking of replacing the existing government with anything, but members of that government, who actually work for the people and represent the interests of the people who put them in office. That has not been the case for a very long time.
Community service must be handled by the community, not by faceless bureaucrats who see us as no more than statistics. Those who oversee the care of the poorest in our nation should be those who are directly associated and involved with those people, not governmental offices that care only about the amount of taxation of the masses that can be funneled through their programs.
In every case cited above, the individual earned their position in society, by first inventing or innovating. In every case, it was the effort of the individual that spurred the interest of the government or the corporation that later took up their research and work and funded it. In every case, the power of the individual became the impetus for change.
The challenge to the proposal:
I was asked: What will make this magical partnership more dependably responsive to the general welfare, while being well-funded and organized enough to construct interstate highways, build and run public schools in every community, vaccinate children in the poorest areas, wage wars when necessary and engage in foreign diplomacy when possible?
You completely misunderstand my point on that. I’m not speaking of removing government of the building of roads, the delivery of the mail, or the waging of wars or foreign diplomacy. That should be, however, all they control. They should not be controlling our food, our insurance, our health care, our hospitals, our education, or our marriages. They should “Provide for the common defense; Promote the general welfare; and Secure the blessing of liberty to us and our posterity…”
They should not be establishing a federal program of control, overseen by a bureaucratic union, backed by special interests; to oversee every detail of our existence. And that is exactly what this government has done for the last 25 years. And we have let it happen by handing them that control.
A prime example of privatization of charity is the haunted house I work for that donates its profits to scholarships and breast cancer research. Why not take those services that the government already plans to cut, ration, and limit because the current system as established is unsustainable and let the communities sustain some of their need on their own. And why not ask the people with the means to give them a hand. Is it really such an impossible proposition?
It seems that in the Liberal or Leftist mind, a corporation can only be a Capitalist, “for profit” entity, with shareholders and giant salaries. They do not seem to take into account Goodwill Industries, The Salvation Army, or Deseret Industries as prime examples of what privately held corporations could do for a community.
Every year, all three take migrant, disabled, and low income individuals, teach them trades, provide goods and funds to them, and help them with future job placement and self improvement. What of the Susan Coleman Breast Cancer Foundation? What of The Red Cross? What of Ronald McDonald house? They provide housing and medical support services for the families of terminally ill children.
Just because they are run by the enemies of the liberal establishment, does not mean that they are not benefiting the community. Every one of them is…you guessed it…CORPORATION.
An answer to the challenge:
Why couldn’t one of the already established big name corporations establish facilities for doing exactly that? And, what exactly, would be wrong with the idea of corporations sponsoring services for the poor? Again, it happens on some level already. http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top50giving.html
It could simply happen on a wider scale and relieve the government of the burden of having to fund (via our current and future taxation and the taxation of future generations), the programs that could be privately funded and run. Why not a “Heinz Food Bank”, or a “Wachovia traveler’s shelter”? Why not a “Target free vision clinic”, or a “Wal-Mart health services center”?
I propose creating an incentive for them to take the large amount of capital they possess and invest it in the community. The capital of industries such as Goodwill is a result of innovative thinking amongst individuals concerned with the state of the community. There is no rule that dictates that the same kind of thinking cannot be possessed by the owner of a large corporation. Look, for instance, at the charitable organizations overseen by Trump Industries.
In the Leftist ideology, however, is a presumption that there is no capacity for influencing large corporations or, at the very least, individuals within those large corporations; to use a portion of their power and significant monetary clout, for the betterment of the community at large. With the right cooperation and incentive, many of the “wealthy” of this nation do in fact present large sums in support of causes they deem worthy.
What incentive is there for them to go along with the current proposal of the government, that all of them, as the larger producers of capital in this nation, be charged an exorbitant tax rate for having done so, so that it can be redistributed to ONLY those charities (“social services”) controlled by government interests?
What incentive is there for any of us to accept the proposed hike in taxes and the taxation of future generations, in exchange for a government mandated plan of utter control over our wages, our health care, our food, our education, etc? When do we take back control of our lives?
The mindset to be overcome:
“There is no difference between public services like fire, EMS, police, military health care, food stamps, etc. These are all social programs.” (And) If I don’t get sick or injured, then I won’t benefit from the hospital.”
But it is equally available to you if you need it and do get sick. Unlike a social Service, which is only available to the select few who are deemed to qualify, but all of us pay equally into them, (assuming we pay taxes at all.)
Social programs are those programs which provide welfare related services to those in need. Fire, EMS, and police are not “social programs”, they are infrastructure. I am not talking about the privatization of police, fire, EMS, roads, or other infrastructure at all.
I am talking about lifting the tax burden of the populace for such programs as Medicaid, food stamps, or section 8 housing; by allowing them to be funded by the high level producers of income in this nation. Couple the two proposed solutions and you have a far better solution to our economic downturn that tax—spend—tax—redistribute—print money. (Which is the currently proposed solution.)
By legal definition: Social programs are designated to provide meaningful opportunities for social and economic growth of the disadvantaged sector of the population in order to develop them into productive and self-reliant citizens and promote social equity. A public utility is a business that furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large.
Public utilities provide water, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and other essentials. Utilities may be publicly or privately owned, but most are operated as private businesses. Public services or systems: the large-scale public systems, services, and facilities of a country or region that are necessary for economic activity, including power and water supplies, public transportation, telecommunications, roads, and schools.
Emergency Services are public organizations dealing with emergencies: the fire department, the police, and the ambulance services collectively, especially when mobilized to deal with emergencies. The purpose of a public service is to provide an equal benefit to all citizens. The purpose of a social program (e.g. Medicare) is to redistribute income or wealth, hence unequal benefits are provided unequally. A few benefit from the contribution of the many; as opposed to all who contribute benefiting from the service, (e.g. fire, police, EMS, roads construction, hospitals.)
” I won’t ever drive on a highway in Rhode Island, why should I pay for it?”
Ah, there you have hit on something. You shouldn’t. You should pay for the roads in your state. But the Federal government has seen fit that the contrary applies. They take from us a percentage of our income before it is even earned, then apply it to whatever they choose, instead of representing our interests directly.
“If my house doesn’t catch on fire, then I am paying for something I don’t need.”
Except, that the same fireman that would put your house fire out, will also extricate you from a crashed car, pull your dog out of a well, or respond to your need for an emergency injection if you are diabetic. They are equally available to serve all of the people all of the time. They are not a rationed service, provided only to those who “qualify”.
What I proposed was a way to shift the burden of paying for those services, away from the government and into the hands of the people of the community. What I have proposed repeatedly now, is the admittedly lofty, but entirely possible plan of incentivizing corporations and wealthy individuals to take on the funding and support of such services on a local level; which, in turn, would relieve a gigantic tax burden on the people most needing those services.
The system I pay into just like the rest of you has seen to it that in the mean time, we have fifth generation welfare recipients, illegal immigrants, and the new crop of unemployed who refuse to fight as hard. So, please excuse me if I speak up and propose an alternative.
We have a giant problem being handled with the wrong solution. Wouldn’t a better solution be a flat or “fair tax”, whereby every citizen, (including the great numbers of us who pay no taxes at all), would, by the very nature of the tax, have to contribute to the system at the exact same level? Say…a national flat tax of 25%.
If such a system was implemented, then the people currently paying no tax at all would contribute to the system they drain of its resources via a sales tax on all non-exempt items. Thus, the $300 dollar shoes the kid whose family is getting food stamps is buying would be taxed at exactly the same rate as the sailboat the “evil rich guy” bought.
A second solution to the greater problem might be one like I propose, wherein corporations are given incentives to create innovation toward solutions to the problem of unsustainable social services. Again, “fairness” never seems to be the point of the attacks on the “evil rich”, either by the government or by “us”.
I have, through this entire thread of thought, offered an admittedly lofty, but possible solution to the sustaining of social services and charities, which would eliminate the necessity of taxation and redistribution for those purposes. If the government was to incentivize innovation of free market and private solutions to the current financial crisis; instead of their current plan of tax—spend—tax some more—redistribute—then print money when that fails; they would find the same kind of economic boom that happened right after the Great depression and the crash of the 70′s.
But, again, this government is not about solutions. It is about power. If it wasn’t about power, they would institute a national flat tax of some sort, suggest free market solutions to the restructuring of medical and social services, and concentrate on our borders, homelessness and joblessness; instead of two wars that can no longer be won because of their rules of engagement.
And, we would also not have an entire sector of the populace, that has decided that they represent all of us, huddling in filth ridden tent cities, wearing t-shirts bearing the image of mass murdering Stalinists, or cartoon representations of England’s most notorious failed domestic terrorist, crapping in buckets, and assaulting police officers.
But that sort of chaos is exactly what they want. They want us all pissed off and rioting, so that they can take more control of our lives. Maybe if we tried to occupy some logic, occupy some solutions, and occupy some perspective; we wouldn’t have lazy, shiftless cry babies rallying to demand more from the government.
As a firm believer in what I say, I am currently accepting no assistance from the government except a small food stipend to support my 6-year-old. (I know…what a hypocrite.) There is a difference between cold, hard principle and doing what must be done to survive.
And what must be done in this case, is that I have crammed us all into a one bedroom apartment; stayed in school to achieve my degree and gain a higher income status by the end of this year; work my ass off for the tips people choose to drop in my tin cup at a performance; while my wife works a full time job; and I sustain the household; volunteering my time for the causes I believe in.
When my income rises, I intend to establish a program of charitable giving. I will do it all for the purpose of exceeding my current circumstances without having to wear the chains of government. I am busting my ass to do all I can not to be a burden on the system.
Charity, after all, begins at home.
