Bill Whittle: The Wealth Redistribution Pump

Talk about a reality check. Bill Whittle breaks down where our tax money goes and exactly why we’re headed for collapse if we don’t fix it. And the ‘it’ I refer to , he says, is going to be very difficult to fix:



Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

124 thoughts on “Bill Whittle: The Wealth Redistribution Pump

  1. Did I miss something? I wish he had calculated the billons of dollars of subsidies we giveto the oil industry each year. How much money the George Bush tax cuts cost us in lost revenue. The farm subsidies to people who don’t actually farm. The list just goes on and on and on. I would love to have that number.

  2. Pretty sobering…

    So just to fix this country… it looks like we’ll end up having a civil war between the moochers who won’t get to work and the workers who have has to prop up the moochers.

    Greeeaaat… Throw Them All Out

    1. Oh, the war is coming. A black man said on international TV, all USA whites should pay the blacks for the US slavery, (135,000 slaves imported by the British empire, by 1776).Obama said all white rich men, should justify their wealth. I’ll justify my money all right, I’ll send Ob back to Nigeria.

      1. I’m not implying racial tones here… but I agree, there very well could be a war between the “haves” and the “have nots”. Those of us who pay our taxes and are being drained can only support the weight of the lazy for so long before we break or rebel. And Maobama HAS to go… now!

  3. 1. Abolish the departments of: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Labor, Transportation, EPA & NASA.

    2. Abolish ALL entitlements.

    3. Reduce ALL taxes by 50% and use whatever is left to pay off the debt.

    4. Abolish ALL government regulations over private individuals and businesses.

    There, I just saved the US economy.

    Vote for Kordane!

    1. Is this not a tad radical? No entitlement spending at all?

      I couldn’t imagine where my 85 year old grandmother would be without her SS check. I couldn’t imagine what my mother would have done when she was laid off and couldn’t find work for 2 months. I couldn’t imagine what my best friend, who avoided abortion, had his son, dropped out of high school to support his family by getting a job at Target but still needs welfare in order to keep the lights on.

      Cut NASA!?!? But how will we build our colony on the moon by the end of Gingrich’s second term?

      1. If we weren’t taxing the working public right to death your mother would not have had trouble getting a job and your grandmother would have been receiving help from her family, community and church. Without government regulation and taxes that electricity would be close to free. Every single word in there costs everyone more than it should. I like some of your posts but this one bugs me. It will be difficult and painful to fix our issues but giving anyone something for nothing doesn’t help anyone.

        1. Not even any props on the Gingrich joke? I thought it was comical… could be that liberal satire, damn you NBC, damn you.

      2. Is this not a tad radical?

        Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.

        I couldn’t imagine where my 85 year old grandmother would be without her SS check. I couldn’t imagine what my mother would have done when she was laid off and couldn’t find work for 2 months. I couldn’t imagine what my best friend, who avoided abortion, had his son, dropped out of high school to support his family by getting a job at Target but still needs welfare in order to keep the lights on

        Picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Those people can rely on family, friends and/or private charity. What they cannot and most importantly should not do is steal from others through the government.

        Cut NASA!?!? But how will we build our colony on the moon by the end of Gingrich’s second term?

        http://www.virgingalactic.com/

        Among others…

      3. You evil bastard! Are you telling me you would not help her out at all? Our society has decayed to a horrible place where we can only care about what we can get from our parents in terms of money. They brought us into this world, nurtured us and for what to tell them to kiss off.

        Our grandparents used to live with us, look after the next generation of children, cook clean and we were so much better for it. Now we look force them as wards of the government and watch our children’s minds decay from the liberal claptrap of unethical, immoral social engineering schemes. Our children are dropped off at strangers houses so that we can go off to work. Our houses are many but most of them small with no room for the previouis generation. That generation is left out of the family only to feel useless instead of given the dignity of purpose as it use to be.
        How many of our women can cook today? Most are so inept around the kitchen that they could burn water. We pay total strangers to cook, clean and tend our children when a parent would do a much better job.

        Get back to the constitution and decay of civilization stops sp quit allowing the government to tell you and me what we’re entitled to. I for one just want them off my back so I can keep the fruits of my laboring. I know what’s best for me and mine. Quit stealing from me to give it to others in the name of fairness.

        Read Frederick Bastiat’s “What is Law” http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004

        1. Of course I help my grandma, but the government alleviates the financial burden, since her medical is covered and she gets SS. This benefits me and every other American with elder family members.

          And forget what you heard, my woman can cook… matter of fact, got some catfish and grits on the menu tonight (Fridays are usually a good meal to go along with the mary j and Bill Maher) I know you know what I’m talking bout @VirusX

          1. You DO realise that the “financial burden” as you call it, would be incredibly alleviated if they did what I listed? Did you not see the part about reducing taxes by 50%? That’s quite a sum of money, even for poor people. Not to mention the massive growth in the economy that it would cause, and the massive growth of private charities which would more than pick up the slack that the government took.

          2. Again, you’re being dishonest. The “government” doesn’t “alleviate” anything. The taxpayers do, and I do not owe your grandmother, or anyone else, anything. People took care of the elderly, long before the government began illegally reaching into peoples’ pockets to steal their money in wealth redistribution schemes. My grandmother wasn’t entitled to government (taxpayer) money, and neither is yours. When we took care of my grandmother, that’s precisely what we did: WE took care of her. We paid for her apartment, we paid for her medical expenses. There might’ve been some taxpayer money, used, but I don’t know, I was in high school. All I know is that my mother and aunts shouldered a lot of that burden, because it was THEIR mother, not anybody elses’. My plan called for the absolute elimination of all social spending, and I stand by that. Social engineering is un-Constitutional, in that NOWHERE in the Constitution is that power granted to any of the 3 branches of government, which means its in the hands of the People and the States. I stand by my plan, because it is even more comprehensive than even Kordane’s (who may be my VP). You may see nothing wrong with taking other peoples’ money away from them and forcing them to pay for your retirement, but I do. Pay for your mother yourself, and pay for your own retirement. I don’t want anything to do with it, and my friends don’t deserve to have their Constitutional right to their property stolen away leaving them saddled with your responsibilities, either.

  4. Democrats, including the president have acknowledged that spending needs to be cut. I wish we could hear from Republicans that taxes need to be increased. The cutting the loopholes, that’s been proposed isn’t the same, especially when those loopholes are for middle class citizens (such as home mortgage interest deduction)

    But a lot of things struck me here in this presentation… the government is nearly 40% funded by ordinary income taxes and SS tax, yet corporate income tax made up 5% of our revenue stream?!?! Whhaa wait a second, I thought we had the highest corporate tax rate in the world? Yet how is it we are receiving fewer funds from corporations than we once did? Also, estate taxes strike me as too low as well. I know the estate tax is wrong to most conservatives but I think Teddy Roosevelt put it best, “The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.”

    And to Bill’s point on those who receive federal taxes without putting anything in, why is that such a bad thing? Are there not people with nothing who wouldn’t be able to feed themselves without government assistance? Isn’t society better served when it’s citizens are fed? Rather than resorting to crime? Don’t we all benefit from this?

    I’m all on board on shrinking the deficit, but I don’t think simply cutting will do the job. Haven’t there been commissions that state BOTH cutting and raising taxes will help us fix this problem?

    1. I am not in disagreement but, as a tax payer I am not willing to donate one plug nickel UNTIL the fed starts responsible fiscal responsibility. Until they show they have the ability to behave like grown adults and show transparency and fiscal responsibility I will not agree to paying one penny more. It isn’t the tax payers fault we have that deficit.

      1. BULLSH*T, Mike. A hard line has to be taken on this. Soft-soap half-stepping won’t solve anything, except delaying the inevitable. The instant we go back to the Constitution and Constitutionally allowed spending is the instant we start rolling back the damage tax-and-spend politicians and their greedy, lazy constituents with their hands out have done to this nation. Cutting spending isn’t enough; in fact, its NOTHING. Until all that spending that they DO NOT HAVE the enumerated power and authority to engage in is COMPLETELY ELIMINATED, we’re doing nothing.

        1. We don’t disagree often but my argument is the same as when the debt ceiling debate was going on. You don’t give an addict more money because he says that last night was his last bender.

          1. That’s what I JUST SAID. Eliminate ALL spending that they don’t have the power to engage in, which is EVERY unfunded liability, and the vast majority of the departments and bureaus the federal government’s padded itself with. Do that, and that’s trillions in spending GONE. That’s not giving them more money, that’s taking it AWAY. Read what I wrote to you in response to your proposal to take away voting rights from some of these people. It all says the same thing: TAKE AWAY THE BLANK CHECK.

            1. Good, I prefer when we agree. I am at work and it has gone bananas over the last two hours. Can you say multi tasking?

                1. I like the idea of a breaching charge taped to the desk too but that technique tends to upset your coworkers.

                2. When I worked in the tech shop at Comp USA we performed laptop discus. When a unit was replaced on warranty, we would hurl the units into the wall or dumpster with sufficient force to break the cases and screen. This was company policy. I asked if I could build a trebuchet for desktops but they refused.

    2. Your position is horse crap.

      Democrat suggestions for spending cuts have almost always been targeted at things like national defense and securing the border, both of which we’re seeing, right now. Tax loopholes that they’re looking to take away include disallowing tax deductions for mortgages:

      http://www.billupscpa.com/weblog/?p=129

      This will hurt, everyone, and not just the middle INCOME. We don’t have “classes” in this country. Couple that with the leftist democrat desire to tax charitable contributions out of existence, and that’s a recipe for me asking why you’re so hot on listening to anything they have to say?

      http://philanthropy.com/article/Jobs-Bill-Would-Limit-Charity/128966/

      Taxation is a necessary evil, but the magnitude to which we are taxed is inexcusable. The federal government has no authority to tax for social security, because it has no power to engage in social engineering. Corporate taxation is something else they made up because they refused to address their real problem: SPENDING. End that out of control spending, and you could eliminate even income taxation. As for quoting Roosevelt, just because he said it, doesn’t make it true, or intelligent. You sound like you believe this horse sh*t:

      http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/27/obama-people-dont-get-rich-on-their-own-theyre-successful-because-of-the-federal-government/

      Its your mentality that’s holding this country back, and promoting and perpetuating stupidity like worrying about how much money somebody else has, and what they do with it. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, or as my father once said: “GET YOURSELF SOME BUSINESS, and STAY OUT OF MINE”. Let me tell you something that apparently you’re not aware of: poor, comfortable or rich, I don’t owe you, or your bloated government, SH*T. I don’t owe YOU sh*t, I don’t owe your mama sh*t, and I certainly don’t OWE Barack Hussein Obama sh*t. And nobody owes ME sh*t. Unless I borrowed money from you, or the government, it belongs to me, and only to me. Same for everyone else. The Constitution was created for this country to provide people equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. We can both get into a business, but while I succeed and become the riches man in the world, your business can implode and leave you absolutely destitute. But you know what? Too bad, I don’t owe you ANYTHING. And when I die, if I have kids, my kids don’t owe you, or your get anythng, either. If you don’t like that they inherited $100,000,000,000.00 each in cash, tough sh*t. Stop worrying about how much money somebody else has, and how much they pay, and trying to determine their “fair share”, and worry more about what your’e doing. Instead of listening to Roosevelt’s crap that was possibly taken out of context, I’ll listen to this, instead.

      We are all guaranteed the chance to fail, just as we are guaranteed the chance to succeed, but we are not guaranteed success or failure. As for feeding the poor, no, its not the federal government’s job. The federal government is only to administer to this state and protect it. Nothing more. Read the Constitution, for once. Charity is to be handled by the People, or, at worst, the State (and not nation). If the government wants to assist people so badly, then they can let the Private Sector get to work, get out of the way, remove all the red tape, remove a lot of these unnecessary laws that create a business hostile environment, and then do their own job. You don’t help someone by giving them food, you help them by giving them the means to acquire their own food. You follow the democrat doctrine: ENSLAVE. I follow the Conservative doctrine: EMANCIPATE. Give people what they need, and you create DEPENDENTS. Teach people how to get what they need on their own, and you create independent, productive citizens. I’ll take being a productive worker for the state, than a ward of the state, anyday. Its a stupid question to ask if we’re benefitting from this crap, when you look at the pie chart showing the unfunded liabilities, and how we have to beg, borrow and steal to half-assed pay for it. We’re supposed to benefit as a nation and society from this?!

      If you want to shrink the deficit, SLASH spending, because its spending on these stupid programs that the Constitution prohibits that got us in this mess, in the first place. Slash spending, slash and eliminate the vast majority of taxation to leave the People and Free Market with more of their own money in their pockets, and you’ll see a lot of charity work taking care of itself. Continue to put people on the government dole, and continue to allow the government to bring people on the dole, and we are looking at economic Armageddon.

      1. Holy Horse Crap, I thought I was the lone Black guy patrolling these waters… what’s upp bruh!!? I see you pimpin’, getting your creep on with the Constitution, yooOww.

        I’m with you, spending needs to be cut, but ALL spending? NahHH, instead we should cut wasteful spending. For example, the video points out we spend 15% of our money on defense, that’s not absud to you? Who are we preparing to fight? The Transfomers? I see entitlement spending, as do the receipients of entitlements as a good thing! I agree there is waste within it, and it should definitely be reformed… but to say to get rid of entire programs is not only draconian but goes against the American public’s view of these programs (at least SS and Medicare, not too certain how we feel collectivelty about the other entitlements)

        And as for my stupid mentality… relax. Let’s try civility before we got to bring the guns out. The idea that you promote seems like it would work better in a tiny isolated country. But pa, this is the UNITED States of America, are we not in this together?

          1. Loosen up chap, I was merely engaging in the vernacular of the young folks. What is it these kids are listening to nowadays? Kanye East?

    3. For my part, I am not interested in giving more tax dollars to a bureaucracy that continues to waste it, expand their role in government, and kill the very engine that makes our economy work.

      If they displayed one iota of interest in cutting spending I might feel more receptive to talking about giving more. I don’t have much and between the feds and the state I give plenty.

      The current bunch in DC want to talk about increasing taxes but they sure are shy about cutting fraud & waste. I think they need to practice trimming what they can control before they make more demands of the revenue generators.

      1. YES! I think we see eye to eye, sort of… I think the burden of taxes is placed too heavily on you and I, as well as other average folks. While those who have more income who can afford to give a little more, should give more. At the same time, there is wasteful spending that needs to be omitted.

        1. So, the top 10% pay 71% of the income tax burden isn’t enough? What is,100%? Maybe we should just take it all, like the soviets did. Of course they killed them too, but what they hey, right?

          1. Lol, a bit drastic no? Does it really scream communism to go back to Clinton level tax rates? To tax capital gains (for individuals who are above a certain income) at ordinary rates? The top 10% pay 71% of the income, that sounds about right, but could be better, especially when considering the top 1% owns 40% of the nation’s wealth.

            1. No you miss the point, a progressive tax is unfair, and discriminatory. A service is a service no matter what is. Do I get a break on wireless services because I earn $100K or $20K? No. Government is no different. You will collect more taxes at lower rates that you will at higher rates, even JFK knew that. The Clinton levels were at the start of his presidency, not the end. My solution would be to stop using the tax code for social engineering. Lower the rate to a flat percentage apply it to all income levels above the poverty level, and remove deductions. Thus, everyone short of the very poor would pay for the services rendered. The people earning larger salaries would pay more than those of the lower levels, but at a same percentage of income.

              And yes class warfare is the first step to socialism and communism.

        2. You might be interested in this video. I think the rich pay plenty also. They also provide much of the job market that keeps us all earning a paycheck. I would like to see the tax code revised and a flat tax implemented. Get rid of the loopholes and special interests, but don’t kill the geese that lay golden eggs.

      2. “Trimming” will be just as useless a measure as virtually anything else. “Trimming” fraud, waste, abuse will be as effective as shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Now, the only thing that’s going to preserve this republic is the Constitution, which means they will have to SLASH and BURN EVERYTHING. The VAST majority of what Congress is pissing away money on is illegal [as in violating the Constitution], and passing a law stating that a president has to pay unfunded liabilities is just as illegal and un-Constitutional. ONLY when we get the will to absolutely eliminate all that spending (not trim it) will we automatically head back toward a balanced, sustained budget. There are plenty of people out there claiming to be “Republicans” and “Conservatives”, but every one of them that refuses to follow the Constitution is nothing but a RINO, and no better than OBAMA.

        1. Semantics. I agree with your statements and used the word “trimming” more or less in keeping with the fact that they eagerly talk about increasing taxes but aren’t the least bit interested in doing any spending cuts.

    4. the government is nearly 40% funded by ordinary income taxes and SS tax, yet corporate income tax made up 5% of our revenue stream?!?! Whhaa wait a second, I thought we had the highest corporate tax rate in the world?

      Ask yourself this question,”What do we have more of, citizens or corporations?”. The answer is the reason the revenue stream from individuals amounts to more than the one from corporations. While our corporate tax rate is high, it is not the highest in the world, it’s second or third. Though it is still plenty high enough that it is the major contributing factor in driving manufacturing overseas.

      1. Again, Kevin, those kinds of taxes wouldn’t even be NECESSARY, if it wasn’t for the absolute abandonment of the Constitution, which prohibits things like social engineering projects (unfunded liabilities), completely. If the government would get back to the Constitution, this irresponsible, and even ILLEGAL, spending would stop, and a lot of those taxes (including income taxation) would literally become obsolete.

        1. In truth, if we are going to have a Federal Government, even if it is only providing those things that are enumerated in the US Constitution, we are going to be paying taxes. The Federal Government tried to exist and carry out its enumerated functions by subsisting on income from tariffs and excise, and that failed. So began taxation. As to just what form it takes is debatable, but “income” taxation has been there since the beginning. Originally, though it was required to be “apportioned” as were all direct taxes, it was the 16th Amendment that did away with the requirement of apportionment (even though the amendment’s passage was questionable, prior to being sent to the states for ratification). I concur that our Federal government needs to be reined in, back to the confines of our Constitution and I have consistently advocated this. As to whether SSI is constitutional or not, is debatable, as there is no strict literal prohibition in the document against it, it can be argued that it is absent and that, its absence makes it “extraconstitutional” is a valid point. However, we cannot in good conscience, just “cut loose” those who have diligently paid into that program, we need to come up with a way to do away with it without “harming” those that are legally drawing it. I do like a transition to something like the “Chilean Model”. But I feel that a complete “rethink” and reform of our tax laws and our government expenditures and “responsibilities” (at every level) is way past due.

          1. I never said we would abolish taxation, but the amount we’re paying is unconscionable and absolutely inexcusable. We are paying so much, because the federal government has overstepped it’s bounds. As for the Constitutionality of Social Security, that’s incontrovertible; its nowhere in the Constitution. Article 1, section 8 lists no such power for Congress. Article 2, section 2 contains no such power for the president, and Article 3, sections 2 – 3 contain no such powers for the Judiciary. This is backed by:

            Amendment 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            The document clearly states what they can, and can’t, do, and just as clearly states that anything not mentioned is solely the province of the States and the People. An additional amendment states that just because they interpret something as not saying the federal government CAN’T do it, doesn’t mean anything; unless it says they CAN, then they can’t, and social engineering is not in there. Nowhere does it give the president, Congress or the Supreme Court the power to take money out of my pocket to put into anybody else’s, because they want to make sure they have fun in their retirement years. Nowhere does it say I have to pay for someone else to have a house or apartment, and nowhere does it state that I have to pay for anyone elses’ food or medical care. NOWHERE.

            Cutting loose these programs is precisely what we have to do, and it is BECAUSE of good conscience. I will not impose a tax burden on everyone else, just because we have a segment of the population that is either unable, or unwilling to work. 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-15 sums it up very well. It is not the job of the US government to feed or clothe anyone, and it certainly isn’t my job to pay for anyone elses’ food or clothing. I specifically laid out how this could be done, just a few posts down. This plan could be enacted without harming anyone, except politicians that use handouts as swag for voters. Going to a Chilean model only means going from one government intervention program, to another. If America is supposed to be the greatest nation of all time, then we don’t need to emulate Chile. The government is not to be a charitable organization. If there has to be a government involved, then it should be no higher than a state. The federal government has only 2 jobs: to run the country, and to protect it. Not to pay you welfare checks, every month, not to feed or house you, and not to feather your nest with other peoples’ money for your retirement.

            1. For the most part we are in general agreement, however the 9th Amendment has nothing to do with the subject, the 9th deals with rights listed, being in conflict with other rights not listed. The 10th amendment really does not address the Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality of the Social Security program, it addresses powers not enumerated in the Constitution and the relationship between Federal and State authorities. That said while I am not familiar with the laws in all 50 states, I have yet to hear of one that prohibits the Federal government from creating through legislation, the Social Security program, one thing that additionally “muddies the waters” is that it is funded through a specific tax, which under Article 1 Section 8, the levying of taxes is an enumerated power of Congress.

              As to the use of scripture as the justification, advocation or opposition to/for government or legislative actions, is setting yourself up for the “Theocracy Argument” besides being irrelevant, as we as a nation, do not recognize the authority of religious law, and doing so sets a very dangerous precedent. I think you can see where that road would lead, I for one do not want to see another “Dearbornistan” rearing its head here, one is plenty to deal with straightening out.

              Social Security is a mess for sure and needs to be addressed, however I don’t see it as welfare, as those receiving it have paid into it, just because our government raided those funds is no reason to punish those who exercised “good faith” in following the rules, as to those who have paid into it, but have yet to draw it, what of them? Do you propose to stand up there and tell them “sorry, but you’re S.O.L.”? I think those that have invested thus far are entitled to a full refund of funds paid in thus far and let those already on the program continue until they leave this “mortal coil”.

              As to the “doing away with it” you’re preaching to the choir there, my concern is to do it in such a fashion that those that have followed the rules are not punished for doing so.

              1. The 9th & 10th Amendments clearly establish that powers not explicitly given to the federal government reside with the States and People, and that the federal government cannot contradict that. The federal government does not have the enumerated power to force people to contribute to retirement funds, just as the federal government does not have the enumerated power to force people into any other contract, be it with government or Private Enterprise. The Constitution is very specific: if the power is not enumerated, there, then it DOES NOT EXIST for the federal government. ONLY for the States and federal government. Listen to Mark Levin; he stated that, like Obama, the administration that started this said it was an insurance program, only to change their story in court and say it was a tax (though they’d bragged for months that it was not, just like Obama). Continuing to yield power to the federal government is what has lead us into these unfunded liabilities, in the first place. You see it does not work, and has no chance of doing anything other than driving us insolvent.

                My use of scripture is very benign; its a lot less hostile to say that if you won’t work, you don’t deserve to reap the benefits of those that do, than it is to cut your head off, and advocate cutting the heads off everyone else that won’t work.

                The only comparisons I made between Social Security and welfare, is the fact that both of them are un-Constitutional burdens on people that work. They are separate programs that are both contributing to the economic destruction of this country, and as long as people continue to pay into it, and legislators allow it to continue, the Constitution will continue to mean nothing. “Creative interpretation” of the Constitution is what got us here. I am a Constitutional Originalist, and only interpret as its written; I don’t stretch the meanings to see what else I can use it to justify. And once again, you’re saying I’m looking to throw people out into the cold and put them on the streets. This is the THIRD TIME I will say that there is a transition period that would take place, putting people on BETTER, PRIVATELY FUNDED and OPERATED programs. As for refunds: no. There are no funds to refund, in the first place. There is no Social Security “lockbox”. Any funds like that were long ago scavenged by Congress for other illegal purposes. The federal government would be responsible for helping people get established in private programs, as they were responsible for forcing them into a morally and fiscally bankrupt government program. I would hardly call being enrolled into a more secure, fiscally responsible, privately-controlled account “punishment”. In Social Security, you can’t touch a penny of your own money; in a private account of your design, you can. Social Security is insolvent. Your private account has your money, and what you’ve reaped through investments. Whereas you have no say as to how much money is taken away from you to pay for others’ retirement, you would have complete say as to how much (if any) was to be taken out of your checks, for YOUR retirement.

                1. You are reading things into the 9th that just aren’t there. What the 9th amendment addresses is that a right listed in the Constitution does not “trump” another right already retained by the people that may not be listed there.
                  Justice Story on the 9th;

                  S 1898. The next amendment is: “The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people.”
                  This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious
                  misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others; and e converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others. The maxim, rightly understood is perfectly sound and safe; but it has often been strangely forced from its natural meaning into the support of the most dangerous political heresies. The amendment was undoubtedly
                  suggested by the reasoning of the Federalist on the subject of a general bill of rights.

                  The 10th Amendment is the one that deals with addressing the limits of Federal Powers as those enumerated in the Constitution. As well establishing the proper hierarchy of authority in the national structure. At the top (as the Founders intended) are the People, followed by the State government, then the Federal government whose authority is strictly limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. One item, a line in the Tenth is often overlooked reads “nor prohibited by it to the States” addresses limits placed on States authorities by the Constitution, Authorities reserved to the Federal government or outright prohibited to both State and Federal, which are enumerated in sections 9 & 10 of Article 1.

                  You are “blending” two amendments that address two different subjects Rights (9th) and Powers (10th) so in effect you are “stretching” the 9th.

                  As to ending Social Security we seem in agreement on the fact that it needs to end, we just differ on just how precisely to go about ending it.

                2. The powers of Congress are clear and in black and white. The Constitution says that they cannot do ANYTHING other than that. Stretching and twisting Constitutional passages and intentionally ignoring the written minutes of the meetings where the meanings were openly discussed during the drafting of the Constitution is what got us where we are, now. Those minutes are readily available in the Library of Congress. Neither the Executive, Legislative nor the Judicial have the power of social engineering, and you KNOW that. It is not written anywhere in their enumerated powers, and therefore, if it isn’t there, then it does not exist in the realm of the federal government to do, which, in turn, it means it is in the hands of the States and the People. You KNOW the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution specifically with that in mind; not to have a centralized, top-down, authoritarian federal government that can tell you how much water you can have in your toilet, not to tell you what kind of light bulb you can have in your house, and certainly not to tell you that you’re not smart enough to plan for your own retirement, or force you to pay the retirement expenses of others.

                  The People and States have ALL POWER that is not enumerated to the federal government and simultaneously prohibited to the States. The 10th Amendment states that. What powers the federal government has, does not include social engineering, and do not prohibit the States and the People from exercising their powers; the 10th Amendment states that. Creative interpretation of the Constitution is the pathway to tyranny. We’re already in that, BECAUSE of that, and you have to see that, Mike. Strict, original interpretation of the Constitution is the key to keeping government power in check, and shrinking the tumor that it has become, sapping the life out of the States and the People. There is no “blending” of the 9th and 10th; they compliment each other, both stating that Congress does not have the power to do this [social programs], and that since it isn’t forbidden to the States and People, it is in the power of the States and People, exclusively.

                  Ending social programs can be done, and my program would work. I’m not saying it is doable overnight, but would take several months and the cooperation of both the States and the People in the Private Sector. It would cost the US money, because people that have paid into the ersatz, corrupt and un-Constitution system would have to get some sort of compensation for the government’s malfeasance, and that would come in the form of paying for whatever competitive program they chose to utilize to replace their Social Security. As for replacing other social programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, that would also have to be synchronized with the States & People. Fanny & Freddie? Complete, instant removal from the US dole, with no transition. Private investors would be more than welcome to fill the void left by the US government (like Romney did), but there would also be a thorough, top-down investigation of past and present employees and politicians involved in decisionmaking by a combined Treasury Department/FBI task force. We both know criminality was involved (including on the part of Barney Frank’s gay lover, and possibly Frank, himself), and people would necessarily face prison time over this.

      2. The point I’m trying to make though is corporations are evading their fair share of taxes. Despite the benefits they receive that come from taxes, they aren’t putting up. This is my same beef with high net worth individuals who escape taxes with schedule D’s. I heard the other day that the 100 largest corporations have spent more money on lobbyists than on taxes. Isn’t this a problem? The irony of our tax code… yes it may be one of the highest, but the effective tax rate is nowhere near the 35% we think it is.

        1. corporations are evading their fair share of taxes.

          This is nothing more than a typical “Democratic Socialist” talking point (or meme, if you prefer). There are many more individuals that pay less than their fair share of taxes on income, than there are corporations paying less. Let’s not forget who or what creates the jobs that pay individuals their wages. Likewise these “evil” employers also pay taxes into the system, on each employee (a share of your SSI,and UI ) on top of paying taxes on their profits. Individuals, just like businesses can itemize their taxes and take deductions on “approved” expenditures. Once again the expenditures will vary, as individuals seldom have a “covered” cash outlay that comes anywhere near that of a business. To compare what a corporation “spends” to what it pays in taxes is, to put it bluntly, non sequitur.

          The truth is in simple math, if we have a tax rate of 10% (I know we don’t but for the sake of argument I’ll use that number) and that rate is applied to individuals and corporations across the board who will pay more in total taxes? Answer: The individual or corporation with the highest income.

          In the end the real problem is rampant fiscal malfeasance, and huge amounts of unfunded liabilities at the government level.

          1. I agree, it’s not just corporations taking advantage of our tax code, but individuals as well… I see you Romney. You kind of lost me with your second paragraph, but YES I agree there are astronomical amounts of liabilities on the books, and there’s a great deal of waste in there. But if we are also consonered with the deficit, we need to raise revenues and we can start by getting something from those who haven’t put in their fair share (Romneys, G.E., etc.)

            1. The fact that the second paragraph “lost” you, illustrates my point. The political left has spoonfed its adherents the lie that the because the total revenues from a given source (businesses) is less than another source (individuals), somehow implies that those that are that source pay less than other source, it simply is not true. The simple truth is that there are more individuals than there are corporations/businesses.

            2. Romney paid a higher tax rate on his earned income before he invested it. It is only the earnings (capital gains) that are taxed at the lower rate. So in total taxation, he probably paid 35% going in plus 15% on earnings coming out.

              I’m not a Romney fan but dang it nobody should want to eat the rich.
              As far a GE is concerned, get rid of tax loopholes and special interest deductions and even Jeff Immelt’s company would be paying taxes.

          2. Let’s not also forget that we’ve almost 50% of people not paying ANYTHING in taxes, and that we’re spending money on virtually everything we have no business spending money on, ranging from foreign aid to social programs used as voter swag. Eliminate both those problems, instead of replacing them with socialist/communist “graduated” taxation, and we’re back on the path to success.

            1. That point, the one of how 50% pay no taxes, is not technically correct. The correct version is that nearly 50% pay no Income Taxes.

              Addendum: Of all the tax “schemes” out there, the one I tend to favor is the Flat Tax.

      3. Corporations do not pay taxes, people do. The taxes are passed onto the consumer in higher prices, or to the investor in lower returns on dividends. It is time to stop hating corporations.

        1. I know that “Corporations” per se do not pay taxes, Corporations are groups of people. Not sure if you are implying that I hate Corporations, if indeed you are I would be somewhat puzzled just where you got that from.

          1. But, if corporations can make campaign donations, they should also pay taxes. How is it that GE pays NO taxes?

            1. That’s easy “corporate cronyism”. It is an issue on both sides of the political spectrum to be sure and something that does need dealing with if we are going to fix this mess.

            2. Mike, do a little reading, see how GE is run. I didn’t believe it. I had insider info. Just correlate GE income with Government contract outgo.

    5. Where to start….

      Question, what entity makes more money, the company or the labor it hires? The labor makes much more money than the company. Also by definition there are more workers than companies, and thus there is a smaller pool to tax. And yes they will pay less in taxes.

      Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers, share, and bond holders do. Only living things that consume a product, produce a product and or labor pay taxes. Yes businesses need to support the government for the services they receive, however those taxes are paid by flesh and blood people not the company. If you consume the product, you pay in higher cost for it. If you have a 410K, IRA, Private or Public Pension, the profits from the company are reduced by taxes, and thus you dividends you receive are reduced as well. This makes your money grow less and at the extreme may not keep up with inflation.

      Yes we have the the highest corporate tax rate in the first world. This leads us to problem number three, the more you tax something the less you get of it. This is called the Laffer Curve. Companies are required to be financially responsible to the shareholders that have invested money via stocks and bonds. You would not want a person wasting your money by throwing it away on projects that did not add value, why should anyone else? Thus, if you tax something at a high rate people and organizations will work to avoid it. You will not receive as much return from high tax rate than if you used a lower rate. JFK knew this in the 1960’s and campaigned on it. Every time it is implemented growth occurs and the returns on the taxes increase not decrease, no matter if a demonocrat or republican implements it.

      The death tax has no place in a free society, no matter what uncle Teddy says. What right does the government have to confiscate the wealth of a person who is dead? That wealth should be distributed as to the wishes of the deceased person who owned it, not some bumbling bureaucrat in Washington DC. A person of great wealth owes nothing to anyone at the level of the state. While he may have a moral obligation per his or her religion, the state does not have a say in that. That is pure socialism, the first step to communism.

      Everyone should contribute to the cost of the services rendered to government. They are expected to pay for food, water, electronic devices, private services, and a whole host of consumable goods and services, why not government? What makes government so special? Nothing, but only if you want to buy votes. People dependent on an entity will not actively work against that entity. So if you pay no taxes, and someone threatens to remove that gravy train from you, you will vote against it. The really bad part is that the person is being used. This was the reason for the representative republic, and not a pure democracy. When people can vote themselves monies from the treasury, then all is lost.

      Please keep your straw men in the closet. No one is suggesting letting people starve in the street. However, all famine currently happening in this world is occurring because of government interferrence, not because of a lack of government. Stalin killed millions by starvation through redistribution of food. Mao killed even more than Stalin by an order of magnitude. In current Africa, people starve because the government controls and redistributes all resources. Look at Haiti and the Dominican Republic. One prospers the other is mired in starvation. They are both on the same island, difference is the government. It is governments that starve people in the modern world not corporations or the rich.

      The real point in this video was that no matter what you do with discretionary spending, you cannot balance the budget. You can confiscate all of the money earned by those that make over $250K a year both individuals and corporations, and pay only for one year of the current budget. After that you will have nothing for the next year, for there would be no jobs, no food, no stores, no energy, no nothing but government. And since the government cannot produce anything we would all be on our own.

      We need to cut spending and entitlements. Raising taxes will only further exacerbate the problem. Remember the goal is to grow the economy, not squash it. What you tax you get less of, so if you tax the economy, you get less growth. In your home, you are expected to live within your means, this should apply to the government as well. Otherwise you are left in the same position as Europe. What is happening there will be us in a few years. Now is the time to stop it before it is too late. It is probably too late to stop all of the pain.

    6. Where to start….

      Question, what entity makes more money, the company or the labor it hires? The labor makes much more money than the company. Also by definition there are more workers than companies, and thus there is a smaller pool to tax. And yes they will pay less in taxes.

      Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers, share, and bond holders do. Only living things that consume a product, produce a product and or labor pay taxes. Yes businesses need to support the government for the services they receive, however those taxes are paid by flesh and blood people not the company. If you consume the product, you pay in higher cost for it. If you have a 410K, IRA, Private or Public Pension, the profits from the company are reduced by taxes, and thus you dividends you receive are reduced as well. This makes your money grow less and at the extreme may not keep up with inflation.

      Yes we have the the highest corporate tax rate in the first world. This leads us to problem number three, the more you tax something the less you get of it. This is called the Laffer Curve. Companies are required to be financially responsible to the shareholders that have invested money via stocks and bonds. You would not want a person wasting your money by throwing it away on projects that did not add value, why should anyone else? Thus, if you tax something at a high rate people and organizations will work to avoid it. You will not receive as much return from high tax rate than if you used a lower rate. JFK knew this in the 1960’s and campaigned on it. Every time it is implemented growth occurs and the returns on the taxes increase not decrease, no matter if a demonocrat or republican implements it.

      The death tax has no place in a free society, no matter what uncle Teddy says. What right does the government have to confiscate the wealth of a person who is dead? That wealth should be distributed as to the wishes of the deceased person who owned it, not some bumbling bureaucrat in Washington DC. A person of great wealth owes nothing to anyone at the level of the state. While he may have a moral obligation per his or her religion, the state does not have a say in that. That is pure socialism, the first step to communism.

      Everyone should contribute to the cost of the services rendered to government. They are expected to pay for food, water, electronic devices, private services, and a whole host of consumable goods and services, why not government? What makes government so special? Nothing, but only if you want to buy votes. People dependent on an entity will not actively work against that entity. So if you pay no taxes, and someone threatens to remove that gravy train from you, you will vote against it. The really bad part is that the person is being used. This was the reason for the representative republic, and not a pure democracy. When people can vote themselves monies from the treasury, then all is lost.

      Please keep your straw men in the closet. No one is suggesting letting people starve in the street. However, all famine currently happening in this world is occurring because of government interference, not because of a lack of government. Stalin killed millions by starvation through redistribution of food. Mao killed even more than Stalin by an order of magnitude. In current Africa, people starve because the government controls and redistributes all resources. Look at Haiti and the Dominican Republic. One prospers the other is mired in starvation. They are both on the same island, difference is the government. It is governments that starve people in the modern world not corporations or the rich.

      The real point in this video was that no matter what you do with discretionary spending, you cannot balance the budget. You can confiscate all of the money earned by those that make over $250K a year both individuals and corporations, and pay only for one year of the current budget. After that you will have nothing for the next year, for there would be no jobs, no food, no stores, no energy, no nothing but government. And since the government cannot produce anything we would all be on our own.

      We need to cut spending and entitlements. Raising taxes will only further exacerbate the problem. Remember the goal is to grow the economy, not squash it. What you tax you get less of, so if you tax the economy, you get less growth. In your home, you are expected to live within your means, this should apply to the government as well. Otherwise you are left in the same position as Europe. What is happening there will be us in a few years. Now is the time to stop it before it is too late. It is probably too late to stop all of the pain.

  5. Unfortunately, this video doesn’t address the fact that 0bama has continually been expanding the government and thus government jobs as well ,which is lots of people doing uneeded jobs with high salaries, benefits and pensions which can NEVER be cut because of EVIL BIG UNIONS AND GUTLESS POLITICIANS! SINCE BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES ARE RUN BY ELITES whose main goal is to keep the “gravy train” going and only make minor changes America is DOOMED! It is a crazy train destined to self-destruct, sad but true!

  6. Have you seen the picture of Rosie the Riveter – J. Howard Miller’s iconic Westinghouse Poster image of the woman in the scarf flexing a bicep saying WE CAN DO IT?

    Come on people! We can do this.

  7. Bill is right to focus on entitlement reform. My fear is his cure of limiting it to those “through illness and physical incapacity” need help isn’t enough. People will jeopardize their health to get a free piece of pie. That will end up costing more than letting them get a paycheck for sitting on their butt.

    We won’t fix the fiscal deficit until we fix the moral deficit, i.e. the apathy, sense of entitlement, willingness to cheat the system, etc. However, cutting back much of the entitlement should force some out of their addiction, and that is a good start.

    1. You are right on the money there. But let me throw in this monkey wrench: suppose we get leaders who will balance the budget and cut entitlement spending. Now suppose all the takers either choose or are forced to get a job.

      Where are the jobs?

      1. If there was a balanced budget and jobs a plenty, I hypothesize there would still be a large contingent bent on gaming the system either through fraud or jeopardizing their own health. Strict enforcement of the rules can reduce fraud. Convincing squatters work is good and morally the right thing to do is more of a challenge. Maybe the next president should assign Tony Robbins or Zig Ziglar as secretary of morale. 😉

        1. Progressives want to get rid of the Bible, which says:

          For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2Thes. 3:10

          Quick side story: my wife told me she heard a story where a teacher put Socialism to work in his Economics class and gave everyone the average grade. Pretty soon, the high performers stopped performing, the average students stopped pulling up the F students and the whole class ended up with an F.

      2. I am a small business owner. We have two of us in here now. I could use 3 more but with the currnet tax burden plus the threat of Maobamacare I will not hire another person, period. Drop my tax rate both personal and the Incorporation and repeal Maobamacare and I, myself will hire 3 more people.

        1. Oh, but Mike! It’s just three jobs. Three jobs don’t matter. Neither do 20,000 jobs on a pipeline. You silly capitalist.

  8. Take a tour of your local Section 8 housing communities. Check out all the people under the age of 50 that have learned to game the system. That’s right, I talked to someone who told me how he managed to collect disability, although he is perfectly capable of working. His problem is that he’s lazy, blames the world for his problems, and likes to sit around all day watching TV and getting high. He’s a poster-boy for what’s wrong with entitlement spending.

  9. Easy fix to entitlement spending. If you receive federal entitlement money, you forfeit your right to vote until you are off of the public dole.

    1. I do have sympathy for the folks who have paid into Social Security all their working lives and its why I was all for the change to personal savings accounts when it came up years ago.

      There are two cities in America that removed themselves from the federal plan years back (when they could still do that) and both of their “self-directed social security plans” are in the black and doing fine, thankyouverymuch.

      The cities are Galveston, TX and Bellevue, WA. (I understand that Chile has a similar approach, also with good results).

      I can’t imagine why more people don’t support this change, because the savings are owned by them not the government – like a 401k or IRA.

      (In my case, my husband passed away after receiving 5 months of his social security after paying in for over 45 years … and I don’t inherit his account. Also I’m not old enough to collect as a surviving spouse. That stinks from an investment perspective)

      1. Well said. This is a touchy subject with some but I am mightily bothered by it. I am 41 years old and have been working since I was 14 years old. Only 47% of the country pays any taxes and for every 1 person collecting SS, it requires 3 working stiffs to cover it. As it stands now, I will never get one penny of my own money back what with the baby boomers retiring in record numbers. So, who gets screwed the worst? My generation will have to eat it. I wish I could stop donating without prison time. I have secured my own retirement with savings and IRA’s. It isn’t fair, but more than that, the democrats have guaranteed an entire voting block by giving them checks. That must stop.

        1. I’m 26 (tomorrow ;-D), and feel EXACTLY the way you do!!! It’s terrifying knowing that we’re being pushed to the bottom, so people can take what we earn to give to people that have no right to it. Our ENTIRE future’s have been sacrificed for the Democrat party voting bloc, and to them, that’s a worthwhile sacrifice. It’s a very scary proposition, but that’s why I’m going to school. I’m not about to take it without a fight…

          In the end, all we’ve got is family and likeminded friends. WE will stick together, and that’s enough for me!!!

          1. You are doing the right thing. Getting involved, getting vocal and vote, vote, vote. Wtih the Georgia law suit and Alabama’s announcement that Obama will not be on their ballot, today is the most hopeful I’ve been since I was your age. The Chinese symbol for Chaos is the same as Opportunity. We live in interesting times.

              1. I’m not usually a smoke blower but you are THE perfect age for the economic recovery our country will see after we’ve finished nuking the DNC communists. You should be optimistic about where we seem to be headed and you will benefit from it. I will, too but you’ve got almost 20 more years than I do to work under positive conditions.

                1. Dude, I REALLY hope you’re right! And here’s the kicker: I’ve got SOOO many business ideas floating around in my head, and I’d LOVE to try them out, but doubt I will ever be able to. I’ve always dreamed of starting a Brick-Oven Pizza Restaurant…

                  In other news, did you know it’s a 3rd-Degree Felony to have a potato-gun here in California…? THAT’s how crazy things have gotten…

                2. Well, hopefully you move east before the Peoples Republic of California falls into the sea. Won’t be a great loss, California. Just escape when you can.

                3. I fully intend to! I’m currently researching what state I want to move to!!! It’s really exciting actually! I’ve got about 2.5 years left of school, and then it’s off to the races!

                4. It’s an exciting time in your life. You have it far more together than I did at your age. That’s why I joined the Marines. Remember, our big enemy was the USSR when I was your age. I wanted to go to exotic places and meet interesting people. Be careful what you wish for. If you are really unlucky you will get exactly what you think you want. LOL

                5. Hahaha! Great point on the wishing thing!

                  I’m actually pretty happy with how things have turned out for me thus far. Now if only the Democrats would stop trying to bankroll my redemption, I’d have far more opportunities at an EASIER life. They haven’t locked me out of anything yet, but they have made everything I do so much more difficult than it needs to be. Nothing we can’t fix though!!!

                6. I grew up during affirmative action, which means if your white it doesn’t matter if you ARE the best person for the job. Your color means more than your abilities. It was always hard to get that good job we all seek. I see good things for your generation. That is why this fight we are all in is so darn important.

                7. I like your atitude, but you don’t know yet. You have been locked out of many things. I suggest you take a psy course, to handle it, when it comes.

          2. I suggest you take some eco classes,and set up your own retirement system, then learn how to fund it. Even in school, you can join groups that oppose the welfare system. While you are at it, do not allow some professor to feed you socialist propaganda.

            1. Oh, quite the opposite! My “professors” HATE me, because I WILL NOT be fed BS, and I refuse to allow my younger classmates to be spoonfed BS either.

        2. It is definitely unsustainable with the numbers of working taxpayers now vs. the number at the time they designed this unstainable program – and they knew it was not workable even at origin.

          Also makes me wonder why they didn’t consider this when they started making people feel okay about murdering their unborn. Some 50 million have been aborted.

          Or sending jobs overseas when union concessions made jobs at home unsustainable.

          Stupid social engineers at work.

            1. They can briing it down if they desire but they’re simply out to lunch if they believe that the people in this country would choose slavery over freedom. What they don’t understand is that we were all born into freedom with a constiution guarantee of those rights. Othe rnations at the time of their downfall had no such institutions to fall back on therefore we are prone to revolt against that tyranny far more than you average “worldly citizen” is. Our country went to war for much less than what the progressives promise us and I’m counting on such revulsion in the next armed conflict which will settle the question, Liberty or Social paradise. Happy hunting and good luck!

              1. Simple. How to boil a frog. Do not put the frog in boiling water, he will jump out. Put him in cold water, and bring to a boil. He will never move. Better not count on reason. Count on truth, and action.

                1. Sorry, the frog had enough sense to jump out why haven’t everyday Americans done so? Oh, that’s right frogs have superior intellect.

          1. If they only were capable of reading Frederick Bastiat, they could have avoided all of it but alas, it wasn’t the case. Bastiat lays it out in a case by case format. He was battling the very same progressives that our nuts were praising. Damn shame!

          2. Expediancy. Buying some votes. Obama just got a billion dollars. He is so stupid, he thinks he can live anywhere, when he retires. When it is a million dollars for a loaf of bread, it is too late.

        3. Eventually it will stop. Look at it this way, the Parliament of Britain didn’t think that the colonists would revolt and they sure as hell didn’t believe that the colonists could win an armed conflict against the most powerful nation but they were wrong on both counts. It was the beginning of the end for Britain a mere shadow of what once was.

          Either starve the beast of it’s food or slay the beast by revolt, it’s your choice. Wait, another choice is to sit idly by and absorb the misery produced by such a tyrannical government.

        4. How much was the dollar worth, when you earned it? Inflation ate up your money, not the government. We can get into it, but government attitude, is the real culpret. Better stick to getting the rascles out, than changing everything.

    2. Illegal and un-Constitutional. I have a better plan: return to the Constitution.

      The laws mandating the president pay unfunded liabilities are illegal, because they are clearly in contravention to the Constitution. The Constitution does not, anywhere, give the President, Congress or the Judiciary the power to participate in social engineering programs like Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Nor does it give the federal government the power to house or educate. Nor does it give the power to even fund programs to send people into space, really.

      There are programs and Private Sector interests that could take all that, and handle it much more efficiently. If banks, for instance, were told they were going to be given Social Security, this would mean that they’d have laws to comply with (even as you remove unnecessary red tape and some unnecessary regulatory laws) and compete with other banks to provide prospective customers the best Social Security plan they could get. Bank of America, Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan and Chase, AIG, etc. All would have their own plan, and all would have to compete with others to get your business. All would be bound by state laws, depending on what state the branch in question is operating out of. For instance, there’s an investment firm, here in Michigan [Russ Jalbert]. Investors gain most of what they reap from dividend payments, but not all. Why not all? When the market downturns, the investors have lost NOTHING. Why? Because some of what you gain is used to buffer potential losses, and, like I said: his investors have lost NOTHING. Has Social Security been that stable? I’m thinking “no”.

      Medicare and Medicaid: Eliminate them both, and leave them to the States and People. Allow doctors to write off all expenses for indigent patients, dividing them up between the state and the federal government. Increase frequency of these reimbursements by priority (meaning, they get paid back, immediately), so doctors see monthly payments in lump sum. The states pay 50% of what they incurred as expenses, the federal government incurs 50%. Basically, its a tax program that works on a monthly basis, instead of annually. Doctors and hospitals can’t pay out and wait a full year for full reimbursement, or else the program is no better than what we have, now. Furthermore, the patients can see the best doctors, available, such as going to University of Michigan Hospital, not some back alley chop shop, like in the first Keaton Batman movie.

      That’s 3 expenses down.

      National parks: States seize the lands back. The Constitution does not say that the federal government has the right to possess land. Federal employees in that capacity are transferred to states, as their employees, along with their lands.

      HUD: Again, un-Constitutional, and therefore illegal. Dissolve, completely. Give some warning, so banks and other private firms can try to take on those responsibilities. Perhaps spin HUD into a private corporation, owned privately by shareholders, and giving the federal government no stake.

      Education and EPA: Un-Constitutional. Both create extreme tax burdens for the People, including salaries and illegal regulatory powers. Dissolve both, and turn over all control of education and environmental regulation to the states. States that have dictatorial EPAs will lose business (and possibly residents), as they seek and find states that are more people/business friendly. States losing people and business see revenue drops and their politicians lose the jobs in favor of people more competent. Dissolve teachers unions and privatize as much of schools, as possible, giving parents more control over their kids’ education, and the power to leave and contribute to the demise of schools that are under-performing.

      NASA: Dissolve. Replace with a multi-corporate board of aerospace corporations. Whenever we need something put into space/orbit, contracts are issued. If the government wants their own vehicle, they have to put out a contract, the private interests do the R&D, and we buy the best product. Outsource a lot of space exploration to the Private Sector, but make military personnel that are already astronauts available.

      Military: Dissolve EUCOM. Let the Europeans fend for themselves. Replace the vast majority of land-based military installations on foreign soil by seabasing. That way, we’re paying less (no land leasing), military installations are in international waters (and therefore cannot be challenged or told to leave) and are close to hot spots. The increased demand for ships (considering the Army, Navy and USMC will be on them, including large elements like BCTs/MEUs), this will stimulate the domestic economy (steel, shipping, energy, all industries connected).

      Energy: Simple: drill here, drill now. The Constitution does not give the enumerated power to any of the 3 branches to prevent drilling for oil ON SHORE. Combine on shore and offshore assets, force all foreign energy concerns OUT. Again, an economic stimulus as the energy infrastructure is expanded. Break down Department of Energy, reducing them to only regulating nuclear power plants. Return control of nuclear weaponry to DOD.

      Welfare: Remove from federal hands, put in state hands. Find a formula of how much the average middle income family makes, and issue that to qualified applicants in lump sum. That is enough for them to sustain a good home, pay for children, food, education, transportation, etc. Money can be taken from an ATM, via electronic account created by government or private firm. Once money is exhausted, only special circumstances can allow renewal. Money must be repaid monthly in installments, or face criminal prosecution. Private interests becoming involved in welfare (such as churches) can write off such expenses, in a manner like the medical expenses, I’d talked about, above. No more federal welfare.

      Just simple cuts like that, and we could eliminate income tax, altogether (also un-Constitutional). Getting rid of a lot of the other taxes (capital gains, corporate, payroll, etc.) would lure more American business back, and bring in more foreign business, creating more jobs.

      However, we all know that while this could all be done (and in some cases, inside about a year, or so), we lack people with the will to do any of it.

        1. Dude, if I thought I could actually get into the White House, I actually think, at this point, I’d really make a run of it. However, as I can see, people really don’t like when you state certain things, and I would say things like Newt does. Not for shock value, but for truth value (I don’t know why Gingrich says what he says; maybe for the same reason, I can’t say). I’d be called a neocon by the paulnuts, a self-hating black man and “stockholmed” by black leftists and idiots like Jeanine Garofolo. People like Obama would say I’m “…a Tea Party extremist…” and that I “…hate the poor…”. CAIR would call me an “…islamophobe…” while gays said I was a “…homophobe…”. And, naturally, most of the alphabet networks would hate me. None of that would be true, of course, and I would still run. I don’t know how my ideas would be received, though…

    3. Wow! Let’s include unemployment checks. And all life insurance pay outs. Nah, lets just nationalize the whole country. Mike, that means no retirement pay for you. You have countered your own argument. I move you run for Budget Director. You may find a one armed vet, beating you, with his stub.

  10. So even if we cut the size of the bloated federal bureaucracy, we’re still screwed until entitlement spending is brought under control. Good luck with that sparky, neither side will touch that one with a ten foot pole. We’re already moving at light speed across the suicidal precipice that is Greece.

  11. Whittle sure knows how to bake a pie. Don’t try the same at home and set it on a window sill to cool…..because some occupier will slip by and “share” it with you….just the way O shares his spending disease with all of America.

    It’s soo easy to vote on OTHER people’s money.

    Let’s start the grand “untitlement” program…or it will be forced upon us by cercumstances.

Comments are closed.