My first suggestion would be to blanket freeze ALL Federal disbursements, including ALL Social Security and Public Assistance spending, at 2010 levels. No increases in per capita spending for anything unless human life is directly threatened. Then maintain that level of spending until the tax base catches up and exceeds it slightly.
Next would be a 10% force reduction in ALL Federal employment categories exclusive of Military and Law Enforcement. This could be accomplished by attrition and may take some time.
Next would be a 2% - 5% payroll reduction through salary reduction for ALL Federal employees receiving more than $75,000.00 annually.
There seems to have been some talk about increasing the retirement age. This sounds good on the face of it, but taking forty years to accomplish seems a little pointless. I would propose, instead, that the retirement age start being adjusted immediately.
Those who are currently within two years of retirement remain on schedule. 64 and above, retirement age remains stable.
Those who are currently more than two years from retirement need to wait an extra year. 62-63, retirement age becomes 66.
More than four years from retirement currently wait an additional extra year. 60-61, retirement age becomes 67.
More than six years from retirement currently wait another additional year. 58-59, retirement age becomes 68.
Eight years from retirement currently, add another year. 56-57, retirement age becomes 69.
Those who are currently ten years or more from retirement age would then become eligible for retirement at 70 years of age. 55 years of age and under, retirement age becomes 70.
Also require that ALL Federal employees contribute at least ten percent of their salary to their own retirement account and contribute significantly, at least fifty percent of the cost, to their healthcare insurance and include these as part of their total compensation package. Then limit maximum retirement disbursement to about 100% of the final annual salary earned by the retiree plus paid healthcare. Persons who are employed by the Federal Government are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, they are supposed to work FOR the Citizens of the United States of America; their compensation should be directly dependent upon the ABILITY of the U.S. Taxpayer to support them; PUBLIC SERVANTS should not be allowed to demand more when our Nation is already so deeply in debt just because they want it.
Next would be to mandate Employment Eligibility Verification, E-Verify, for all Public AND Private sector employers. Back this up with very strict enforcement and penalties stiff enough to fund the program directly and help to defray the costs associated with unemployment and joblessness. There are about 15 Million+ U.S. Citizens who are out of work but want employment. There are also about 12-20 Million+ Undocumented Foreign Nationals living and working illegally inside the United States. What would be the effect if those Undocumented Foreign Nationals were unable to seek or find employment within the United States? At least a third of those U.S. Citizens who now want work but cannot find it should be able to find jobs. This would remove them from the rolls of tax consumers and create Taxpayers thus broadening the Tax Base. Deny all non-emergency public assistance funds to Undocumented Foreign Nationals who are within the United States illegally and then limit access to any emergency funding to the control and stabilization of the immediate life threatening circumstance only.
Please note that this is not an immigration policy, it just acknowledges that only those who are U.S. Citizens, Natural or Naturalized, Documented Foreign Nationals legally within the United States, and Legal Resident Aliens are entitled to recognized legal status within the United States of America.
Finally, we must recognize that energy is needed to do things. Limiting access to that energy simply limits productivity. The United States could become energy independent if we really wanted to. Oil, Coal, and Natural gas are the current standards, and yes they are dirty. We have the Natural Reserves here inside the United States to allow ourselves to become energy independent if we would only make use of them. Instead, we artificially limit the supply and thus create an inflated market while also retarding the ability of that market to produce. Unfettering the energy producers here inside the United States while requiring even stricter standards would probably result in more overall productivity. If I could produce twice as much product but had to spend 25% of my profits to make it non-polluting, I would still see a 50% net increase in productivity while rendering a cleaner product.
And then there is still Nuclear. If we were to concentrate on short-term containment of waste, 50 to 100 years, while allowing the advancement of the science, we could probably find better means of producing Nuclear power while improving the containment issues as well in the mean time.
Again, improving energy access could only act as a shot in the arm for our economy. Mining those resources here at home would also create an additional source of revenue as much of the land I am referring to is currently Federally administered, The U.S. Government could administer leasing out of the land for exploitation and then use the fees and royalties to offset Federal expenses and reduce the National Debt.
I have hit on only four major topics here, the cost of the Federal Government to carry out day to day operations, the cost of entitlements, the cost of supporting Undocumented Foreign Nationals who have no right to be within the United States and their impact on our domestic jobs market, and energy issues. I honestly believe that these factors have a significant impact on the continuing fiscal viability of the United States of America.
A Forty-Year Plan is next to useless, especially when it seems to only amount to about $100B per year. The United States needs swift and decisive action. Yes, we must proceed with caution, but inaction and over cautious slowness of action will be worse. The DEBT CRISIS is NOW; we do not have a luxury of time to face this crisis. So far as I can tell, the plans circulated so far barely even address a portion of the current interest on our current National Debt.
Currently, our Federal Government is behaving like a very spoiled BRAT who goes out and purchases something they know they cannot afford then demands more money in order to pay for it, regardless of whether that money is available or not.
That BRAT needs to be spanked!
Thank You
Douglas J. Howard
UPDATE:
BORN IN THE USA?
Supremes punt on Obama eligibility again
Lawyer: Decision 'doesn't mean that this issue goes away'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 29, 2010
9:51 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.
The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama's eligibility.
The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."
"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."
"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly.
"This decision did not help Mr. Obama," Apuzzo added. "It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?"
"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."
"Now it is far worse," Kerchner continued. "The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken."
Kerchner v. Obama argued that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," which article II, section 1 of the constitution requires any U.S. president to be. According to Swiss political theorist Emer de Vattel, whose writings heavily influenced the founding fathers, an American "natural born citizen" must be the child of two parents who were both American citizens. Mr. Obama's father was a British subject, a Kenyan student living temporarily in the United States.
"A person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil," Apuzzo explained to CNN. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States."
"If they wanted to they could have taken this up," Apuzzo told WND. He surmised the court decided, "I don't want to rock the boat too much because that will make it worse, let me be nice and things will go away."
"None of this is moot. If he runs again in 2012, people will want to know" [whether Mr. Obama is a legitimate president], said Apuzzo. "The issue is not going away. … You're going to have a lot of states that are going to be on this, they will want to see that birth certificate."
Like previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama foundered in lower courts on the question of "standing." Mr. Obama's attorneys have avoided addressing the merits of an eligibility case. Instead, they have repeatedly succeeded in persuading courts to dismiss cases because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not prove they were directly harmed by Mr. Obama's occupation of the Oval Office.
Another case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, Barnett v. Obama, may not be stopped by the standing problem, according to United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep. Kreep, author of the Western Center for Journalism amicus curiae brief cited above by the Supreme Court, represents two plaintiffs in the Barnett case.
Kreep explained that one of the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes, was a presidential candidate in 2008.
"According to case law, candidates have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates," Kreep told WND. "The Department of Justice, which is handling Obama's defense, is not even addressing standing. They're saying it's a political question," and therefore shouldn't be decided by the courts."
Apuzzo and Kreep both suggested that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should have recused themselves from the Kerchner case.
"We've seen Justice Kagan recuse herself in various cases, and here's a case where she did not recuse herself, and also Justice Sotomayor, which struck me as really odd because they were appointed by President Obama," said Apuzzo.
"If he's not eligible to be president, he never was, and it could jeopardize their appointments," said Kreep. "An argument could have been made that they should have recused themselves."
"If either of them had anything to do with any of the eligibility decisions, they should have recused themselves," Kreep added. Kagan, as President Obama's Solicitor General, was "probably" involved in planning his legal strategy in earlier eligibility cases.
Apuzzo suggested Kagan's and Sotomayor's participation might have changed the outcome of the court's deliberations.
"We don't know what the vote was," Apuzzo pointed out. "If it was a dog of a case, you don't need Kagan's or Sotomayor's votes. Why did they leave this ethical cloud hanging in history? For what? For a dog of a case?"