Individuals, groups, and nations make decisions that determine lifestyle, wealth, and ultimately, the future of their nation. In a democracy, freedom allows us to follow a chosen path. In America, dominated by capitalism and in lieu of the government making choices for us, choices are made by the individual. Conflict arises when people make bad choices, and in America, too many people are choosing poverty. Teen-age pregnancy, one parent families, large families, drugs, and dropping out of school are choices made by individuals. These choices lead to poverty.
The Texas Child Protective Service took away the child of a young, underage girl in Dallas, placing the child in foster care. A few years later, the unsupervised woman, working at a minimum wage job, was struggling with three more children. This girl has chosen a life of poverty for her and her children, while the American taxpayers have spent nearly $100,000 for foster care, medical care, education, and food for her children. It’s a tragedy, the girl is attractive, intelligent, and a hard worker, but she has chosen poverty, not school, not a career, poverty.
Not just in America. In China, Latin America, Africa, or any other country, this American girl would be living in poverty. Nowhere can the average girl drop out of high school, give birth to four children, and live the good life. Everywhere, this girl would struggle to feed and clothe her children. It was her choice to drop out of school. It was her choice to have unprotected sex. It was her choice not to marry the father or fathers. It was her choice to have four children. A girl, whether it is a Chinese girl, Mexican girl, or American girl with four kids, no husband, and no education would be living in poverty. Poverty is a choice.
American middle class families choose school. They choose a career. Child rearing is put off and smaller families have become the norm. All of these things are personal choices and the choice determines lifestyle and wealth. In poor American families and in undeveloped countries, education is not chosen. Child rearing is not put off. A large family is chosen. Ultimately, there are no jobs or careers to be chosen. Individual choice determines lifestyle and wealth—not the government, not racism, not the quality of education or access to medical care. Poverty is a choice.
In Darfur, there are no jobs, no education, no food, and no hope. Sudan’s central government has pushed out, the population as the world watches the quintessential march to safety. SOS calls for international aid go out, but what can the international community do other then apply a few bandages? There isn’t enough money in the West to provide decent housing, health care, education, and jobs for large groups of uneducated and unskilled workers. In Darfur, the chosen lifestyle is unsustainable. The average Darfur family is too large, the population growth too rapid—under pressure, large families dissolve quickly.
Darfur’s population is not an asset to any country—hundreds of thousands people with large families and no jobs or education. The land picked clean. While the calls for help are many, the best thing is to let it play out. If that means the population collapses, it should be allowed to happen. When over population occurs in nature, collapse is inevitable.
Poverty in Darfur was a choice. A woman with six kids can’t afford food, medicine, or a teacher. A woman with one child can afford food, medicine, and a teacher. A small family has the money for a doctor, while a large family has no money. People in Darfur have chosen poverty and subsequently became a liability to Sudan. But this has happened across Africa and around the globe as large groups of people choose poverty.
Unfortunately, for the people of Darfur, the Western and Muslim worlds have clashed in a worldwide religious war. What will happen is another tent city and rebels. Money, supposedly for food and education, will be diverted to guns—fighting, hunger, starvation, and death will follow. Another Palestine-like state will develop—only Christian. Darfurens will become surrogate fighters for Western countries and years of human suffering are in the waiting.
In Venezuela, democracy failed. Venezuelans did exactly what Greek philosophers warned the world about 2000 years ago. They voted for the man that promised them the most. They’ve chosen poverty. Similar to the United States, Venezuela has an elite wealthy class and striving middle class. But unlike the United States, Venezuela has a massive class of poor individuals. Most of whom have chosen to be poor—the population growth rate of Venezuela is nearly twice as high as the United States and three times that of Europe. The poor out-bred the middle class, and outgrew the ability of a very wealthy government to provide food, education, and health care.
Venezuelan voters’ solution was socialism, nationalizing businesses and property, but socialism has never worked anywhere. Governmental decisions will push out the educated middle class who will migrate to other countries. Venezuela will undergo a steady decline and possibly a revolution. Because the country is oil rich, the decline will be slow and debilitating, and the revolution will be bloody. Others will be blamed for their problems—primarily the United States.
China made the decision not to be poor. A strong correlation exists between population growth and poverty. The larger the family, the worse the education, jobs, food, and health care. The smaller the family the better the education, jobs, food, and health care. In 1979, China’s one-child policy jump-started their economy. China was able to turn poor farmers into consumers in one of the world’s largest success stories. The one-child policy, criticized by leaders of nearly every western country, worked.
Like most developed countries, other countries have voluntarily reduced population growth, making the decision not to be poor—Thailand and Jamaica for example. A modern economic truth: Couples with one child are consumers—even in third world countries. They can afford food, medicine, clothe, and a weekly trip to a restaurant. They can afford a tablet and pencil for school. These things stimulate the economy. In all Third World countries, the family with six kids needs help with food, medicine, and schools supplies. Taxes go up or government services become nonexistent—the economy slows down and /or evaporates.
In the sixties and seventies American baby boomers voluntarily reduced their families. The Chinese government mandated a population reduction. In both instances, it accelerated their respective economies. The low birth rate in both countries has led to better education, health care, housing, and a higher standard of living.
Hurricane Katrina gave the average American insight into the inner city. It’s obvious to even the casual observer that inner city New Orleans residents have chosen poverty. They didn’t choose education or job training. They didn’t choose a career. They didn’t choose marriage or small families. They didn’t have home insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, or medical insurance. The residents were dependent on governmental services, including the transportation system—they had no cars to escape from the city. The school system provided free meals and health care for their children. The government provided other basic needs including food, health care, and cheap rent.
Choosing poverty is a rational and intelligent decision. Inner city resident are not bad or evil people, they’re not criminals or stupid. They aren’t bogged down paying for an overpriced home, medical insurance or a big car payment on an over-priced car. It’s easier to demand services from the government. Most work when they need money and many work in stress free jobs. Drugs, gangs, crime, and prison have become part of the inner city lifestyle.
Inner city poverty is a chosen lifestyle. Advocates constantly ask for more programs, better programs, and bigger programs. Advocates complain that the school, county hospital, or government isn’t doing the job. It’s never the individual, parent, or family that isn’t doing the job—it’s always the government isn’t doing the job. Attorneys, in numerous lawsuits, point the finger at the taxpayers. It’s the taxpayers’ fault for poor schools, poor health care, and housing.
While it’s apparent that people in New Orleans have chosen an easy, carefree lifestyle, they blame America, the government and racism for their lifestyle of poverty. After Katrina, the victims filed numerous discrimination lawsuits. But men and women, who drop out of school, have three or four children and no job or at best, a minimum wage job, are poor. In America or any other country, they are poor—the inner city’s chosen lifestyle doesn’t put people on a career path to success. Katrina victims had nothing to fall back on. Work skills had vanished, insurance policies were nonexistence, their pocket books were empty, blaming the government, and filing lawsuits was the only reasonable out.
Katrina victims are still living in government-paid housing, but not in New Orleans. They are in Dallas, Houston and other American cities—complaining. Apparently, they want people in Dallas, Chicago, and New York to quit their jobs, move to New Orleans, and fix their city. After the city is repaired and the workers have left—to find a new job—New Orleans residents will move back home and what? Party? One presidential candidate said black Americans are getting mad over the Katrina mess. Don’t believe it—it’s not true, middle class black Americans are as disgusted as middle class white Americans over the Katrina mess and the greed of Katrina survivors. America opened its hearts, purses, and homes. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and a hundred cities in between provided enormous amounts of help. Massive amounts of free rent, free food, clothing, and personal items have been given to the victims. But people from New Orleans are some of the most ungrateful people anywhere.
All the world hears about is the pathetically small negative side of the coin. The American media’s one-sided reporting of the disaster is disparaging to America and Americans. The American media has facilitated the constant turmoil and conflict—a story without conflict is no story at all. Good news barely sells and bad news always sells.
There are poor people who are in need. Regardless of what they do, they end up poor. People work at minimum wage jobs or hustle from job to job never finding their spot. They have no retirement and limited Social Security. But many of these working poor don’t think of themselves as poor. They don’t receive services and don’t ask for services. The working poor make up the backbone of America’s work force, doing the most wretched jobs in America without complaint. Those who have chosen poverty demand much, those who are poor demand little.
In America, the majority of people getting help have chosen poverty. It’s the people, who bailed on the education system, jobs, and careers. They’ve used the welfare system to fund their lifestyle and they’re the people we hear so much about. They cry aloud for their rights. The evil triplet of civil rights, human rights, and legal rights with lost meanings and misguided assumptions. There is no right or entitlement to food, housing, health care or the right to a free attorney. An individual can’t be granted a right or entitlement based on the labor of another person—rights and entitlement have enslaved the American taxpayers, who provide vast amounts of money for various disability, pensions, welfare, and medical services.
Facilitators and enablers, the so-called advocates and activists, consistently encourage the poor to remain poor. A recent example is the afternoon meal for schoolchildren. Facilitators are complaining that children are sent home from school hungry. Really! Every student and every worker in America goes home hungry. They go home and fix dinner. For the first million years of human existence, children have looked to their parents for food. Fifty years ago, every child’s mother prepared a box lunch for her children and every child carried the lunch box to school. Parents prepared an after school snack followed by a nutritional dinner—that is a parent’s responsibility. The few parents who didn’t feed their children ended up in court or jail for neglect.
Schools began offering hot meals to students and advocates for the poor complained that the poor were at a disadvantage because they couldn’t afford the hot lunch. The government started the free lunch programs. Free breakfast was added. Now, it’s a free dinner, too. As the government added each free meal, parents became less responsible. Now we have Mexicans living illegally in America who shout about their family values one second and then complain about the lack of afternoon meals for their children the next second—a complete abdication of parental responsibility. Facilitators complain about the lack of a free meal, but not one facilitator or activist complains about the loss of parental responsibility.
The American media encourages dependence. The news report on the lack of free dinner for schoolchildren was reported as if the government was responsible and at fault for its failure to provide nutritional dinners for children before they go home for the night. But it has never been the responsibility of the government to provide dinner for children and it never should be.
Another example is birth control, an unmarried girl has two or three children, and advocates complain that the women didn’t know about contraceptives or couldn’t afford contraceptives. The poor have access to television, school, and in some cases free internet services—anyone watching American television would have a basic understanding of birth control. The poor can afford alcohol, drugs, and various entertainment outlets, but they can’t afford bus fare to a free clinic. In China, with limited media outlets, the government was able to educated nearly a billion uneducated, rural farmers. Advocates have used the lack of education and/or funds as an excuse for so long that people believe it.
Several years ago, reporting on the homeless, a reporter was able to fight her way past hundreds of drug addicts, push her way through a group of mentally ill individuals, and step over hundreds of alcoholics, and find a young, white, single mother of two who had run into bad luck. The next day the television station was deluged with calls, mostly from desperate men, offering marriage, free rent, or their house. This is modus operandi for most reporters and televised stories—find the most worthy poor person and get them on the news.
Cherry picking has been the media’s response to poverty. Say or write anything bad about the poor in America and a long line of good and decent poor people are paraded slowly across the screen of the nightly news. The truth about poverty is out there, finding it can be difficult.
America is about creating wealth and creating wealth has become a pursuit in itself. The principle of “getting rich at any cost,” has been accepted. People, society, the environment, and American ethics have all taken a back seat to the pursuit of wealth. Individuals and companies have become consumed by uncontrolled greed. Making money with money is easier than making money without money and wealth has become centralized in the hands of a small percentage of the population—less than one percent of Americans.
The average American middle class family, making a hundred thousand dollars a year, pays federal, state, and local taxes—after deductions for retirement, medical, auto, home, and life insurance and making home and auto payments there is little left over. The middle class family has become as worried about buying groceries as about creating wealth.
Fairness in America has become an outdated concept. Attacked by the wealthy from above and poor from below, being middle class no longer pays. The burden of high taxes, health care, and debt has consumed the middle class. As America’s wealth is centralized in the hands of a few, the vast majority of the people will be living in poverty—a recipe for disaster. Changes are needed or the middle class will disappear.
Immigration and American Expectations
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people from developed countries were spreading out. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, people from undeveloped countries are spreading out. The West has become the escape route for people who have chosen poverty. Many of these people, especially Mexicans, live in high crime, low expectations countries—schools, housing, and health care are substandard. As they migrate, they are bringing their chosen lifestyle with them.
In Mexico, large families live in poverty. In America, large families live in poverty with benefits. Mexican’s are demanding services, food, housing, and health care assistance. But in America, it’s not the government’s responsibility to provide these services. It’s the individual’s responsibility to make the right choice and achieve success.
This is what middle class Americans expect from immigrants from any country. Americans expect immigrants to work full time. Americans expect immigrants to obey the law. Americans expect immigrants to learn English. Americans expect immigrants to educate themselves. Americans expect immigrants to have only two children. Americans expect immigrants to get their children through high school. Anything less than these expectations is failure—it’s immigrants’ failure not America’s failure. Don’t have six kids and expect Americans to teach them English, feed, house, and educate them—the American middle class can’t afford to do so. Americans have a hard enough time doing it for their children.
Do not choose poverty in America. Americans will not live in a high-crime, low-income, and low-expectation country like Mexico, or any other Third World country. That is not Americans way of life. It never has been and never will be.
Living in Poverty
Bill Crosby said black children don’t study in school because it’s too white. Americans nodded their heads in agreement. If a government official said 70 percent of all lawsuits are frivolous, the majority of Americans would nod their heads in agreement. If anyone said that 25 percent of the health care dollars was fraudulently obtained, the majority of Americans would nod their heads in agreement. If someone said that marijuana should be legalized, the majority of Americans would nod their heads in agreement.
America is plagued by problems—drugs, crime, violence—in the home, school, and on the street—border security, global warming, green house gases, budget deficits, national debt, education, unfunded retirement obligation and runaway health care costs. But there is not one single solution on the horizon. Politicians give us the same old, same old as if original thought has made an untimely exit from the land of opportunity. Americans know what’s wrong with our country. We simply refuse to make the hard decisions. If we don’t solve our problems, poverty is looming on the horizon. Individuals can choose poverty. Groups can choose poverty. Countries can choose poverty. Poverty is a choice. Middle class Americans can choose to solve some problems or choose to live in poverty.
The American dream is the white male’s dream. Struggle through school, find a good job, buy the nice house and car, and provide for the family—that is the dream. American’s value education, hard work, owning property, and taking care of the family. The overriding value is self-determination, independence, success, and prosperity—these are American values.
White people work hard to achieve success. They limit their family size, they teach their children basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, and to speak proper English before they reach kindergarten. In school, they force their kids to do their homework and they expect and demand good grades. In adulthood, they expect their children to find a good job, buy the nice houses and to be a solid citizen—the continuation of the American dream. Anything less is failure.
There is the perception in America that white males are better off—that they’ve taken the better jobs, the better house, and the better life. The truth is not close to that reality—the nice house, car, and job lead to great personal sacrifice. Most white males struggle to maintain their lifestyle just as much as anyone does. The government hasn’t provided anything and, if anything, the government has gotten in the way.
A joke and a book, tells how white males are born on second base—into some sort of privileged society—while thinking they hit a double. That’s crap—far too many books and articles disparage white males. The truth: white males are expected to study hard, to get good grades, to go to college, and then work hard at a miserable job, while keeping the whining down to a low roar—personal sacrifice leads to success, not birth right or privileges. Life in America is a struggle, and for those who do everything right, there is very little glory—big house or not, most people in the suburbs are just hanging on.
Schools, suburbs, homes, clothes are designed to suit the taste of white males and white society. It’s obvious that white males didn’t build a culture that would suit the tastes of Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, or Africans and, in fact, had no moral responsibility to do so. They built a society that meets their needs. That makes sense, doesn’t it?
Homes in the Middle East are larger, more like an estate home than a suburban house in America, with large bedrooms and room for a large extended family, meeting the needs of Muslim families and their culture. It wasn’t intended to meet the needs of white males. In fact, it doesn’t; most white males would struggle to live in a Muslim culture. It’s the same for Japan and China. They have built a society that meets the needs of their population. Anything else would be self-inflicted racism. It’s also true in America. For anyone to criticize white society as racist or American schools as racist is unfounded. It leaves the impression that white society and culture has a moral responsibility to build a society and culture for other races. It doesn’t, we don’t.
Most black Americans have bought into the American dream—maybe sixty percent of America’s black population has the good job, nice home, and car. They’ve struggled through high school and college. They get a decent job and work hard, just like the white Americans. They put up with a huge amount of abuse at school and on the job, while keeping their mouths shut. Their children speak proper English, know their ABCs, and struggle through school just like white children. We don’t hear about the majority of black Americans because it doesn’t make good news copy. We hear about the constant turmoil in the inner city because that does make good news copy.
For Asians, Arabs, and Mexicans, it’s the same. The people who buy into the American dream move right to the suburbs, where they work, pay their bills and push their children through school just like white and black Americans. Those who don’t, head right for the inner city, or in the case of Asians and Muslims, they build a Chinatown or a Muslim city that meet their cultural needs—America is dotted with enclaves where different cultures flourish.
These enclaves are where future problems in America will occur. Just like problems flow out of the inner city, so will problems flow from foreign enclaves in America—isolated enclaves will never be part of mainstream America.
White males are heavily criticized by women, Black Americans, and others because of their no welfare stand—they’re against subsidized housing, food, medicine, and utilities. They don’t believe in charity. The American dream doesn’t include free housing, food, and health care. That is not what America is about. America is about the struggle, working hard, and achieving success. That is the dream. White males don’t dream about getting a government handout that rips away human dignity and destroys a person’s soul.
Democracy works for white males. Given the right to vote, white males nearly always vote for the politicians promising the least. Governments have no money. They produce no goods that can be sold. Their revenues and only source of income come from taxing businesses and citizens—socialism taxes a man’s labor, even more demeaning, than taking away his money. When a politician makes promises for more housing, food, medicine, and education, he’s talking about taking money from the pocket of one person and putting it in the pocket of a second person. Democracy works for those who want or need little from the government. But it doesn’t work for all countries or cultures.
Western civilizations have embraced democracy and pushed it as the ideal form of government. But in China, the Chinese Communist government continues to rule China with a heavy hand. American politicians continue to criticize the Chinese form of government and their long record of human rights abuses.
The Chinese Communist Party should be called the Mao Zedong dynasty. From a Chinese viewpoint, the Communist Zedong dynasty will need to last two hundred years to be moderately successful and five hundred years to be successful. China has had the same form of centralized government for 3500 years, and it may never be a democracy, and democracy may never work in China. Between each Chinese dynasty, there are periods of civil war, strife, and unrest, until a central leader is able to seize power and recentralize the government. A democratic China may be a land of conflict and war.
China has learned not to accept all Western ideals. Karl Marx’s—the stupidest white man ever born—theory of socialism has lofty ideals, but it takes away the motivation to work. Without the accumulation of goods and property, a man has little reason to work. In a socialist economy, the owner of property and goods is the government, and it taxes 100 percent of a man’s labor, redistributing the goods equally. Capitalism allows individuals to keep the proceeds from their labor and only taxes a portion of a man’s labor, with limited redistribution of goods. With all of its lofty ideals, socialism doesn’t work and it didn’t work in China.
The flexibility of the Communist Party has been amazing. China learned that strict socialistic communism didn’t work. Mao instituted The Great Leap Forward, The Cultural Revolution, and encouraged small families, but like most social welfare programs, they didn’t work. His successor, Deng Xiaoping instituted a one-child policy, independence, and experimented with capitalism. These are American middle class values—small families, independence, and capitalism. These ideal have made America great. They will make China great, too.
Apparently, Deng Xiaoping looked at successful countries: America, the European Union, Russia, and Japan—picking out the things that worked for them. Socialism didn’t work in Russia or China, but capitalism worked in America, Europe, and Japan. Russian, Japanese, European, and American citizens voluntarily limited their family’s size. Deng Xiaoping instituted capitalistic reform, forcing independence, and mandatory one-child families—these concepts are part of American middle class values, part of the American dream. Capitalism and the one-child policy have energized China, proving that limiting family size and capitalism, works with at least two different forms of government.
American politicians have persistently forced democracy on China, and numerous politicians and religious leaders have taken potshots at China’s one-child policy and the Mao Zedong dynasty whenever they need a good sound bite. But the right to self-determination is part of the American value system. The Chinese have the right to choose the form of government that best fits the Chinese people. 3500 years of dynastic rule is evidence enough that they have found the best fit for their country and culture. The one-child policy is also part of America’s value system. While Americans have voluntarily limited family size, our country would be vastly different, if we hadn’t.
The federal government has put pressure on China to change their unfair trade practices. The Chinese retorted that they would destabilize our economy by selling off bonds and other ghastly things. They should have at it. It might be the best thing to happen to this country. While it’s true that the Chinese sounded like a wealthy, arrogant American touting his own horn, it’s also true that China might be able to screw things up. But it would bring massive change to this country. That’s what’s needed.
For the last fifty years, the President and Congress have spent their time doing the worlds business—not our business. American owned, multinational corporations are doing the worlds business—not our business. Wealthy American investors are doing the worlds business—not our business. American oilmen are doing the worlds business—not our business. If China can shake things up, they should have at it.
We’re fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and are facing a worldwide terrorist’s war not because of our foreign policy or our defense of Israel. But because we haven’t did a thing right, since the oil crisis in 1972. Pump more oil is the only thing Wall Street investors, wealthy oilmen, and the government seems to understand. The Middle East has no economy, without oil revenues, they would be living poor, and wouldn’t have the money for a worldwide religious war. Russia is crying about bringing back the cold war. Mexico, Venezuela, and others oil producers need massive reform. Worldwide corrupt and inefficient governments are being propped up by American’s demand for oil. If China can shake things up, they should have at it.
We have tens of millions of uneducated Mexicans living in America claiming that out country couldn’t function without them—if America is dependent on millions of uneducated workers, we’re in trouble. If China can shake things up, they should have at it.
Ford, GM, Exxon/Mobil, and other American corporations are rusted relics of the past, hanging on because they’re able to manipulate Congress and the President, our environmental laws and most of all, prices. Ford and GM can no longer compete in America.
The war against drugs—lost. The war against poverty—lost. The war against hunger—lost. The war against middle class Americans—won. America hasn’t fixed one damn problem in the last fifty years—not one. Crime, education, health care, unstable borders, and growing unstable inner cities—pick a problem; there is not one single workable solution on the horizon. In 2007, one presidential candidate said he wanted to give the poor hope. We own 9 trillion dollars; the budget deficit is 250 billion dollars. The middle class is being squeezed by the wealthy and the poor. Not one single Presidential candidate is giving the middle class hope
If China can shake us up, they should have at it. It’s what America needs.
Africa and a one-child policy
Africa is in worse shape today than it was fifty years ago, and certainly worse off than a hundred years ago. In fact, Africa has been a mess since the first white people colonized it. The ideal of democracy doesn’t work with primitive people surviving on subsistence farms or leading a nomadic life. In our zeal to help, we’ve done more harm than good.
Africans have developed a fear of America. They fear the polio vaccine, HIV medication, even the food and medicine that we’ve sent during times of hunger and drought. It’s as if Africans know we’ve done something to them, but they’re not quite sure what.
The typical African village, some of which have been on the same site for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands of years, is based on small individual subsistence garden plots. The people aren’t rich, but they aren’t poor either. Clan or tribal leaders are appointed by village elders, not elected. Village women have ten or more live births in their lifetime. Three or four babies die in the first year of life, three or four die before they’re ten, only one or two reach adulthood. African villages have been able to maintain a stable population for thousands of years.
In the early part of the twentieth century, the world’s population exploded. Vaccines were developed, clean water reduced intestinal parasites, and penicillin defeated common infections. These three little things increased the world’s population.
In Africa, Americans and Europeans provided money for public health programs, vaccinations, and antibiotics. Missionaries from America and European countries poured into Africa to help. They dug water wells, vaccinated children, provided a cheap source of antibiotics, and basic sanitation instruction. The African population boomed.
After the Baptists, Catholics, or Mormons completed their missions, seven or eight children survived to adulthood. Villages grew from a few hundred residents to thousands of residents, most fit in, but the increased population stretched the village resources to the limit. Villagers were forced to migrate to the cities.
The next generation was even larger, with massive migration to cities where slums grew. Villagers picked the landscape clean, trees were cut for fuel, and soil eroded—desertification set in. This has happened across Africa. Western countries provided modern public health services and the population in Africa boomed. But unlike Russia, Japan, or the US, there was no voluntary reduction in the population. Unlike China, there were no forced limits on family size.
In the 1960s, most Europeans, Russians, Japanese, and Americans made the decision to concentrate the family’s resources on two or three children instead of eight or nine. With smaller families educational achievement shot up, health care was better, the overall quality of life was better. Smaller families have become part of the basic middle class values. In Africa, there was no population control, and chaos has ruled for the last fifty years.
Limiting family size works. After the collapse of the Soviet Union’s political structure in 1991, economists predicted an economic collapse, but the one factor not taken into consideration was Soviet family size. Most Soviet families only have one or two children. The parents stayed together, feeding one child is easier than feeding eight or nine children. In many cases, grandparents were present, six adults were working to feed and clothe one or two children. While the government collapsed around them, Russian families were able to stay together and function as a family unit—the small Russian family saved Russia from total ruin.
In Africa, in times of war, economic collapse, or drought, our television screens are filled with long lines of Africans marching toward safety. Most of the marchers are women, the elderly, and children. Women tell stories of losing one or more children to starvation, disease, or war. Males are off fighting or in the cities looking for work. In Africa, males don’t stick around to watch their children die of disease or hunger; they leave to fight or to work. Large families and countries with a high birth rate dissolve quickly under pressure—that is a simple unpleasant fact.
The government of Zimbabwe, formally Rhodesia, announced that private ownership of land was abolished, stripping white landowners of their farms. A second announcement was that Zimbabwe was aligning with China. This may actually be good news for Zimbabwe, good news for China and very bad news for the Western world.
The one-child policy in China was the most important political decision made in the twentieth century. It jump-started China’s economy, rapidly moving it from a one-cent economy to a five-cent economy, to the current twenty-five-cent economy. The economic future of China has never been brighter.
By aligning with China, the government of Zimbabwe has gained another option. China will focus on capitalism, independence, and the one-child policy. A strong central government is needed to institute a one-child policy, and Zimbabwe already has that. If Zimbabwe, with China’s help, institutes capitalistic reforms and a one-child policy—something that Western countries would never recommend or force on a population—the economy will bloom. Zimbabwe will prosper just as China has, and just as Japan, America, and Russia have. The family with one child becomes an asset and a consumer. The family with one child can afford health care and school—with smaller families the economy booms.
HIV has infected some African countries and in some countries, HIV is running rampant, but the cure for AIDS is not more medicine or more children. The cure for AIDS is hope—smaller families, better education, and a hope for the future. Small families stay intact longer and have greater hope for the future. Large families in undeveloped nations have no hope and too many people don’t care if they are infected with HIV.
If China succeeds in Zimbabwe, and they should be encouraged to do so, other countries will follow. Africa may become a player in the world’s economy. A strong central government, a one-child policy, and capitalism worked in China. It will work in Africa, too.The West is losing in Africa; if the choice is between Islamic fundamentalism and China. The West should encourage Chinese involvement in Africa.
Of course, we will hear a lot about genocide. When an American politician inadvertently suggests birth control for African countries, not only does the Christian community come down on him or her, but also black politicians, who condemn the proposal as genocide. But a one-child policy is exactly what Africa needs.
America failed in Africa because we didn’t push American middle class values. We hand out food, medicine, and hand-me-down clothes, and basic commodities—an overwhelming amount of charity. America’s charitable zeal has ruined African economies and ripped away human dignity and the African people’s souls. Africa needs to be weaned from Western charity.
The West provides Africa with charity—food and medicine—and through the Catholic Church and other religious groups, large families. The Middle East provides guns and Islamic fundamentalism. China will be pushing capitalism, independence, and small families—American middle class values. China will succeed in Africa where the United States and other Western countries failed because of these stolen American values.
Mexico and the Philippines
The United States has a never-ending stream of Mexicans entering the country. Mexico has a high birth rate, almost double the rate of the United States, and a low per capita income, well below the United States. Education, health care, and housing are sub-standard. It’s the same for the Philippines: a high birth rate and low per capita income. The only difference between Mexico and the Philippines is that Mexico has dumped its excess population on America. Both countries are Catholic, and the church’s stand on birth control is well known.
While Catholic families in America have limited their family size, just like the Baptists next door, in Mexico and the Philippines people have continued to listen to the church and family size has remained large. People in both countries demand subsidized food, health care, education, and housing—all of which are below standard. It’s democratic socialism, and it’s not working. Both countries could benefit from the Chinese policy of a strong central government, a one-child policy, and a capitalistic economy.
The solution in Mexico is nearly forced migration to America. Like the people living in Darfur, Mexicans aren’t consumers. They aren’t adding to the economy. They can’t afford school, consumer goods, or health care. But immigration doesn’t solve any problems. If anything, the forty billion dollars a year migrants send back to Mexico from the United States will increase and reinforce a dependent lifestyle of poverty. Mexicans should be dependent on themselves, not dependent on relatives sending money back home. The money from America, along with subsidized food, gas, and goods, has stolen Mexico’s independence and dignity and destroyed their economy. Forced migration by the Mexican government will destroy Mexican society and their culture. At some point in time, migration will end and civil strife will increase. That strife will tumble across the border like tumbleweeds in a high wind.
In the Philippines, it’s even worse. Without the option of migration, the population has turned to Islam. The Filipino government announced that the Philippines is awash in terrorist dollars. Islam is marching across the Philippines like wildfire.
The Philippine government turned to America for help, and we rushed in troops to train their army, but in the Philippines, there is already a huge anti-American sentiment. The Filipino government forced America’s Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Base to close. Like Africans, it’s as if the Filipino people know we did something to them, but aren’t quite sure what.
Democracy hasn’t worked in Mexico and the Philippines. They would be better off aligning with China, with a strong central government, a one-child policy, and a basic capitalistic economy. The government needs to enforce limits on family size to achieve and maintain economic gains.
On the surface, this is a radical, anti-American idea, bordering on the ludicrous. But in America, capitalism, independence, and small families work. Mexico and the Philippines are unable to sustain long-term economic growth because family size continues to place a hardship on the food supply, schools, and the economic infrastructure. It’s always more schools, more hospitals, and more roads, not, better schools, better roads, and better health care.
Haiti is over populated with a high, uncontrolled birthrate and, not surprisingly, Haiti is the poorest country in the West—without massive food aid, most of the population would starve. HIV is running rampant because there is no hope—uneducated, hungry people with no jobs and no hope for the future don’t care whether they become infected or not. Hattie has become a black hole, eating up massive amounts of aid while providing nothing for the future. America has no policy for Haiti, other than the same old, same old. We’ll keep sending food and money, until we run out and then some other country will be sending food and money or the population will collapse.
Haitians have chosen poverty. Large families, overcrowded or nonexistent schools and no jobs, it has no hope. American aid should be dependent on population stability, job, and educational values—we shouldn’t be supporting over-populated countries with unlimited population growth and no economic growth. America needs a President that’ll stand up for American middle class values—not far right wing religious values or left wing political correct values. George Bush, two children; Hillary Clinton, one child; Barack Obama, two children; won’t be pushing American middle class values. George Bush has pushed far right wing Christian values, while the others are pushing left wing values.
In Palestine—Gaza and the West Bank—not one single value is compatible with American middle class values. Palestine has the highest birth rate of any country, little value is placed on education and with 50 percent of the population unemployed, well, there is a very limited work ethic. Worse of all, mothers, Imams, and elected politicians teach hatred of America and Israel—there bigots. A typical family wants to send two sons to the West to work as shopkeepers and send home money and, depending on how radical the family, two sons to the Hamas or Fatah political organizations to fight. Daughters marry and stay at home in large extended family groups.
Palestinian life style in unsustainable. For the last forty years, America and other Western countries have supported Palestinians with massive amounts of money, food, and aid—it shouldn’t surprise anyone that American foreigner policy has been such a failure. The United States taxpayers shouldn’t be funding large groups of people who hate us and whose values are nearly opposite of our own—American taxpayers should have rights, too
Democracy in Iraq and the Middle East
Canada has a better chance of becoming an Islamic fundamentalist nation then Iraq has of becoming a democracy. Someone needs to tell George Bush that Iraqis hate us. Not 10 percent of the population or 20 percent, but as much as 80 percent of Iraq’s population hate America and Americans. Iraq would have a better chance of becoming a democracy if President Bush pushed for a dictatorship. They would accept a democracy just because he was against it. An American army general said to win the war, we need to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people—this is what army generals said in Vietnam, too. Well, the war is lost because that will never happen. They hate us.
It’s not just Iraq. It’s the Middle East, hating America is taught by mothers to their infants, by teachers in the classroom, and by Imams in the mosques. The central political theme and rallying cry is destroying America. Constant, government-sponsored anti-American protests are allowed—Middle Eastern governments encourage and sponsor the teaching of hate. One example of government-sponsored hate is in Saudi Arabia; the State Department had to negotiate with the Saudis to take out the anti-American theme in school textbooks.
The Shah of Iran was a pro-American dictator, brutal in nature; he used secret police to rule with a ruthless hand. People may not remember, but Iran was clean, friendly, and nearly crime-free—a wonderful place to live and work—just like Saddam’s Iraq before the invasion. Both dictators were ruthless and unscrupulous, but their countries were run fairly well. At least decent housing, food, and education were available to most people.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s takeover of Iran and the current president and group of Imams running Iran has shown just how fast and how easy it is to lead Middle Eastern people down the wrong path. It’s their hatred of America; taught from birth, that allows them to be led into darkness so easily.
The Taliban in Afghanistan is making a comeback. For any group of guerilla fighters to operate in any country, massive support has to exist. The Taliban can’t exist in a vacuum. They need guns, ammunition, food, intelligence, and cooperation from large numbers of people. Afghanis have consistently supported the Taliban since the start of the war and they deserve the Taliban.
Naively, George Bush thought the war was with Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban—and their repressive governments. That is why both wars are such as mess. The war is against the Iraqi and Afghani people. It’s against the Middle Eastern Islamic people. They have chosen to hate Americans—our lifestyle, culture, government, and nearly everything about western life.
Toppling Saddam Hussein and the Taliban wasn’t enough—cutting off two heads of a multi-headed beast does no good. Trying to buy love by rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan will not work. Hating us is okay, but Muslims have no respect for us and they don’t fear us. We can’t change the hatred, but to win in the Middle East we need to make them respect and fear us
Where you find a high birth rate, you find poverty and misery. And in the modern world, we find Islamic fundamentalism. The Middle East wants to control the world’s oil supply, and Islamic fundamentalism is the tool best suited to achieve that goal.
Sudan, an oil producer, has pushed out the Christian minority in Darfur, who were ill equipped to fight back. The Darfuren family, villages, and clans had nearly dissolved under a high population growth. When Islamic fundamentalists pushed at Darfur, the population was quickly forced out. When Sudan is under complete Islamic fundamentalist control, they will push for fundamentalism in Chad, Niger, and Cameroon—Chad and Cameroon have significant oil resources.
Ethiopia, a Christian country, currently fighting in Somalia, will be forced into war after war. Nigeria, an oil rich country whose population is mostly Christen will be destabilized. Two hundred million people live in Northern Africa and tens of millions of people will die. Mostly black Africans and all because of oil.
Oil is the goal because the industrial world has put such a premium on it. But Western countries don’t need oil. We need energy—energy to run our cars, factories, businesses, and homes. The production of energy is currently met by oil and gas. To win the real war, America and other Western countries need energy that isn’t dependent on oil.
Winning in Africa and the Middle East
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair proposed 25 billion dollars in new African aid, more of the same old charity. A quarter of that money will end up in the hands of corrupt government officials, a quarter in the hands of rich Western businesses, a quarter in the hands of Eastern European gun merchants, and a quarter will filter down to the common man. But 25 billion dollars in charity will slow African economies.
The American and European middle class have been asked to support a lifestyle in Africa that they couldn’t sustain in their countries. If every middle class American family had eight or nine children, the American lifestyle would be pushed back to the 1950s. Innovation would end—if no one could afford a cell phone, computer, or IPod there would no longer be a need to develop the computer or phone.
Poverty is a choice. For cultural or religious reasons, numerous African countries have chosen socialism, large families, and dependency. Africans need to decide if they want to be dependent on Western aid or build their economies, educate their children, and provide ample food, housing, and medical care.
Russell Simmons, a successful American entrepreneur, wants to change America’s focus in Africa. Botswana has important diamond resources and exports raw diamonds. Mr. Simmons wants Botswana to export fine jewelry. He would teach Africans how to sort diamonds, cut diamonds, and turn their raw gold and diamonds resources into jewelry. Instead of exporting raw diamonds, Botswana would create jobs and increase import dollars by exporting fine jewelry. As a model for economic development, this is what Africa needs. Africans should be exporting copper wire, finished steel, and wood furniture, not raw copper and iron ore, rough diamonds, and trees.
Conservative, black American businessmen need to determine what will turn Africans into consumers. Black Americans have had enormous success in America—whether the average black American wants to admit it or not—but they continue to listen to the same old, liberal black politicians. Africa needs a good dose of reality and it needs to come from successful black Americans—before Africans turns to China or Islamic fundamentalism.
African and Middle Eastern policy should included basic American middle class values:
1)Capitalism—the freedom to build businesses and sell goods
2)Self-determination and independence
3)Development of own food supply
4)Limited charity so the economy will grow
5)Population control, limit family size
6)Education & health care
9)Stable, enlightened government
Capitalism and the freedom to build businesses and sell goods must be pushed in Africa. Socialism works nowhere, capitalism works everywhere. Capitalism gives everybody a fair chance. The fact that so many people fail at it doesn’t make it a bad economic system. Socialism doesn’t give anyone a fair chance, only the government can accumulate wealth, taking away the incentive to work, and all workers fail. People need the right to accumulate goods and property and to use their natural talents and abilities to start and build businesses.
The quickest way to destroy any country—or the inner city—is to flood it with free food, clothing, and medicine. Farmers, tailors, doctors, and nurses lose their jobs. Shops and restaurants close. Business owners lay off workers. Self-determination and independence is lost when a country becomes everyone’s favorite charity—the battle for the soul is lost. Donations, food, clothes, and medicine should be curtailed in Africa, allowing African economies the opportunity to develop and grow.
The one-child policy should be encouraged by everyone, especially Black American businessmen. With a Sudanese one-child policy, Darfur would have been an asset to Sudan. In a drought, they may have struggled a bit, but the economy would not have collapsed. In a normal year, they would produce more than enough food, and in a great year, they would be exporting food. The Sudanese government could not have afforded to force them out.
Smaller families mean more money for education and health care. Modern education means staying in school until adulthood and not dropping out to help feed numerous siblings. Kids in Africa are put to work too early or sold into slavery or prostitution at an early age. Most kids—to help their families—go willingly.
Freedom of speech and press are part of the package. Items one through eight are American middle class values. They believe in limiting their families, capitalism, and a free press. They believe in independence and self-determination. They don’t believe in charity or government handouts—which take away human dignity. The American middle class believes in education and hard work.
The type of government doesn’t matter, whether it’s a king, dictator, communism, or democracy as long as the government’s central economic policy is capitalism not socialism. America should support enlightened governments who are meeting items one through eight. Countries with unsustainable population growth and socialism should not receive help.
Africa is dependent on Western charity. The Middle East, Venezuela, and some African countries are dependent on Western oil money. To win the ideological battle, we need to curtail the use of charity and oil. Americans need to support renewable energy. Winning in Africa and the Middle East means keeping the price of oil at three dollars a barrel or less.
 A historical footnote: In 1964, President Johnson instituted reform measures eventually dubbed The Great Society. Subsidized and/or
free food, housing, and health care—socialism—these are things that steals a man’s dignity and destroys his soul. In the subsequent turmoil, over three hundred thousand Americans died in inner city violence. The loss of human dignity, drugs, and crime has prevailed for more than fifty years. Until….
 When a government forces its people to migrate, as in Sudan or pushed to migrate as in Mexico, it’s a crime of against humanity. Vicente Fox who started pushing out the Mexican people should be tried in an international court of law for crimes against humanity. Yet in America, he has a book deal. Local governments, who have spent millions on illegal migrants should put a lien on his profits
In a speech, George Bush, who apparently never read or understood a history book in his life said, “Diversity is America’s greatest strength.” Yet, everywhere you find diversity you find war and conflict. The European Union is one of numerous attempts to unite Europe. Extremely ethnically and culturally diverse, Europeans have fought various wars for 2000 years in an attempt to unite the continent. First, the Roman Empire, then the Holy Roman Empire, then Napoleon and finally Hitler—with hundreds of wars, invasions, and revolutions in between. When Europeans weren’t fighting among themselves, they were fighting Muslims in the Middle East, Africans, or Asians.
The mega-slaughter of World War II pushed Europe into a cooperative mood. Finally understanding that war was not the answer, but bloodshed is never that far away. The Irish have fought over religion—people of the same race, culture, and language, fighting over something that, at best, is a personal choice—but the guns have been put down in Northern Ireland and the ethnic and religious violence in the Balkans has temporarily been put on hold.
In Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, the Kurds have fought for an independent state for hundreds of years—their dreams never diminishing in intensity. The Shiite and Sunni Muslins, current enemies in Iraq, are religious competitors. They’ve fought numerous times in numerous countries. Muslims of both sects are currently bombing in thirty-six different countries—apparently, they hate the West and they hate each other, too.
Africa, which is extremely diverse—religion and ethnic clans—is constantly at war. Darfur is a religious rivalry—Muslims against Christians and nothing more, and it has been going on for hundreds of years. The 1994 genocide in an over-populated catholic Rwanda was clan warfare at its worst.
Russians are fighting separatists from Chechnya. In Kashmir, the same race, but different religions have fought for the past twenty-five years. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, once the same country, split over religious grounds. Given the chance, ethnically diverse countries like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union all disappeared quickly.
Israel and Palestine are constantly fighting; when the Palestinians aren’t fighting Jews, they’re fighting each other. In Mexico, southern Indians demand independence. The Mexican government’s solution was to encourage them to migrate to the United States.
Black Americans have peacefully protested for the last fifty years. The only reason it’s been peaceful is because the black population is only eleven percent of the population and the American court system has transferred billion of dollars to black Americans.
Los Angeles, with 40 thousand black and Mexican gang members, is diversity in action—when both sides of a diverse group are of nearly equal size and power, they fight. The mayor of LA, acting as if he was the mayor of Tijuana, asked for the federal government’s help in combating gang violence, but federal involvement will not help. The violence in LA will only get worse as the death toll mounts both sides will arm themselves. Warlords have a real chance of assuming real power in LA—whenever a government can’t protect its people, somebody will step up and get the job done. As the violence grows, it will spill out to every inner city enclave in America.
Yet George Bush says, “Diversity is our greatest strength.” Everywhere great diversity exists, war and misery seem to follow, whether its religion, ethnicity, or race, diversity produces chaos. Importing massive amounts of cheap labor is good for business, increasing corporate and individual wealth. But America has also become the most diverse country in the world. The American middle class have been enslaved by unfair taxation—somebody has to pay for schools, housing, and health care for cheap labor—while cheap foreign laborers have become slaves to cheap American jobs. Multinational companies and wealthy Americans should beware, “all slaves are enemies.”
Former President Vicente Fox said Mexicans are doing jobs that Americans don’t want. One black man spoke up and reassured us that black folk had picked enough cotton. Only a few people came to the defense of the American workers, but President Vicente Fox is wrong. It was a ludicrous statement, coming from what was the weakest leader anywhere. America doesn’t have a labor shortage. America has a cheap labor shortage. Americans won’t work for chump change, while the Mexican economy is so bad that chump change sounds good to most Mexicans.
After World War II, America faced a huge population growth—that’s the baby boomers we hear so much about. Did presidents Eisenhower or Kennedy have a national policy of migrating back to Europe? Of course not. They would have been voted out of office or worse. Mexico is facing the same problems that America faced after the war—high population growth and a population that’s reached critical mass. Vicente Fox’s solution was to migrate to America.
The Chinese built the bamboo curtain and the Russians and East Germany built the Iron Curtain, not to keep people out, but to keep their most valuable assets in. The walls kept their people from leaving. The solution wasn’t to push migration. Most countries see their people as an asset, while Mexican politicians are handing out guidebooks, water, and tacos at the border. Obviously part of the goal is to conquer America with a huge swing in America’s population. At the same time, Mexico can dump large numbers of uneducated, unwanted workers on the American market. Mexico wants Americans to pay the long-term cost for the failure of the poor Mexican economy and schools. This is a crime against humanity. The difference between Sudan’s pushing the population out of Darfur, and Mexico’s pushing out its populations is that Mexican’s have somewhere to go.
In the early 1980’s, almost all of Texas’s roofers were white and black males. A typical roofer in Texas was making twelve to fifteen dollars an hour, about five to six hundred per week. His wife worked as a clerk at a convenience store or department store making five to six dollars per hour. Combined, the family made nearly forty thousand per year. Enough money to buy a house, a new car every six or seven years, pay taxes, purchase health care, and a twelve-pack of beer on the weekends. A great life? No. A good life? Absolutely.
Today, the typical roofer in Texas is an illegal Mexican. They make three to four dollars an hour and are paid cash money or by check as contract labor. They don’t pay taxes, buy health care insurance, or purchase a new car. Their wives work as clerks and are paid the same six dollars an hour that American women made back in the early 1980s. The whole family brings home less than twenty thousand a year. Not enough to live as a working class American family. Not enough to pay for their children’s health care or school costs. Not enough to assimilate into the American economy or culture.
In the 1980s, roofers used half-inch plywood and a twenty-five-year shingle, but today they use pressboard and lightweight shingles. There are two-hundred-fifty-thousand-dollar homes with cheap, three-tab, fifteen year, fiberglass shingles, and pressboard. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. If the storm of the century hits Dallas with high wind, rain, and hail, the area could have a hundred billion dollar insurance loss.
The irony: there shouldn’t be any Mexicans putting on roofs in Texas, or anyone else for that matter. The problem in Texas is that the building code allows builders to put on cheap roofs. Houses should have a permanent roof of cement or heavy tile that can withstand high winds and heavy softball-sized hail. Because the roofing code is nearly useless, a nano-storm in Texas can cause major damage and huge headaches for insurance companies. Texans are sitting in a hole as deep as our guests from New Orleans were.
Cheap foreign labor is everywhere. Good for America? Cheap foreign labor has hurt senior citizens, students, ex-cons, and stolen an option from the middle class. Americans won’t work as checkers, clerks or in the construction trade at eight dollars or less per hour, but there are there plenty of Americans willing to work as checkers, clerks or in the construction trade at twelve to fifteen dollars per hour. Mexicans have lowered the wage scale across America. It’s good for the million Americans living in million dollar houses, but not for average American.
A white or black male paroled from prison will not work for six dollars an hour. Part of the high recidivism rate is because too many jobs pay the minimum wage or below, reducing the opportunities a parolee has to find a decent job. Cheap labor has curtailed a parolee’s options. Much of the anger we see in our prisons can be attributed to cheap foreign labor. When they’re released from prison, American men and women have nowhere to go and most know they’ll end up back in prison.
In the news, we hear about the increasing crime rate of women. Professionals surmise that as women gain independence, they feel free to commit crime. That line of reasoning is crap. American women are caught in the same wage crunch that American men are. They can work at or below minimum wage, or they can run an identity theft scam or commit some other crime. Just like men, when women can’t find a decent job, some find an easy way to make a fast buck.
Students can’t find decent part-time jobs or summer work. Why hire and train a college student when he or she does not intend to stay on the job? It makes more sense to hire an illegal worker who’ll work cheap and stay on the job—for years. Because unskilled and semiskilled jobs have been filled by foreigners and the pay scale lowered, college students have to borrow more money to get through school. If the choice is working part-time at six dollars per hour or borrowing money for school, most college students will borrow money. But if the choice is working part-time at twelve dollars per hour or borrowing money for school, most college students will work. Cheap foreign labor has reduced student’s choices.
Cheap labor discriminates against senior citizens. A senior citizen simply won’t work fifteen hours a week at McDonalds or Wal-Mart for six dollars an hour. Ninety bucks a week isn’t worth the effort to buy the clothes, car, and gas necessary to work part-time and live like an American. At twelve dollars per hour, many senior citizens would be happy to work. When only low-paying jobs are available, more senior citizens need assisted living facilities because their Social Security income isn’t enough to keep a household functioning. Assisted living has become a huge expense for state-run welfare programs.
Cheap labor has ripped away the safety net for the middle class. A suburban couple making sixty-five thousand a year has complementary bills. The mortgage, car payment, credit card bills, and insurance payments are all compatible with the sixty-five thousand a year income. When a spouse loses his or her job, a temporary job as a checker, waiter, or construction worker reduces the family’s income by 25 percent. If both lose their job, it’s a 50 percent reduction in income. Health insurance, credit card bills, cars, and the house go quickly. The home foreclosure rate has stayed historically high, in large part because the wage scale for unskilled and semiskilled jobs hasn’t kept pace with middle class income. The safety net is no longer available to provide a temporary refuge. Twenty years ago a man could make fifteen dollars an hour in an office or twelve dollars an hour as a construction worker—a choice. Today the office worker makes 20 dollars an hour, the construction worker makes five dollars an hour—no choice.
Neo-Nazi and other right-wing groups are growing along with various conservative religious factions and movements. A man in his forties or early fifties can still make a living as a skilled carpenter, painter, or construction worker, but his sons can’t find entry-level jobs—most have been filled by cheap foreign labor. If college isn’t an option, his other options are limited including the armed services. A soldier or marine coming back from Iraq will either go to college or trade school or end up flirting with extremism. Some of the kids in Iraq are fighting for absolutely nothing. Their future in America has been ruthlessly compromised.
Former President Vicente Fox’s statement that Mexicans fill jobs that American’s don’t want was ludicrous at best and racist at worst. Americans want and need jobs at a decent wage. Ironically, there are lawsuits over the low wages paid by employers to Mexicans and claims of racism and sexism. Foreigners take jobs from Americans because they’re willing to work dirt-cheap, and then sue because they are underpaid. Only in America.
It’s cheaper to exist within a micro-economic enclave then live in a modern American suburb. Legal and illegal foreign workers in America have adapted to cheaper jobs by creating their own economy and subculture. Food, clothes, and services can all be had cheaper in their “section” of the city. In the suburbs, people pay twenty-five bucks for a haircut, while inner city residents pay five bucks for the same cut. A fifty-dollar shirt or blouse at the mall can run 80 percent less at an inner-city shop. Forgeries are popular in micro-economic enclaves, just as they’re popular in a cheaper China. Goodwill and second-hand stores have become big business.
It’s not only foreigners who are living in micro-economic enclaves. Inner city black Americans live within a subculture. They live in older homes that their grandparents paid off or pay very little in rent. There is no home insurance, health insurance, flood insurance, or car insurance. Public transportation is used along with Food Stamps, public health care, and the Social Security program. In lieu of work, inner-city Black Americans have used the welfare system to fund their lifestyle. Drugs, gangs, and crime are part of the enclave.
Various ethnic and cultural groups have purchased homes and businesses in their section of a city or metropolitan area. Chinatown is an example of a micro-economic enclave. People in Chinatown have not assimilated into American culture. Vietnamese, Afghani, Cambodian, and Middle Eastern enclaves have been built, most are small in nature, but they will grow in size—causing problems when the population reaches a critical mass.
Inner-city Mexican enclaves are huge. The recent protest by legal and illegal Mexicans emphasized the size as well as how comfortable Mexicans have become in America. When large groups don’t or won’t assimilate into a culture, they survive in a micro-economic bubble. It doesn’t take much effort for problems to roll out.
Conflict arises when an individual from a micro-economic enclave need the services of people who work within the framework of America’s economy, such as schools, hospitals and the criminal justice system.Oddly enough, doctors, nurses, attorneys, and teachers want to be paid a full American wage when they treat, teach, or represent a construction worker who works for three bucks an hour or a convenience store clerk who makes seven dollars an hour and has never paid taxes or a medical insurance payment.
Texas is currently wrestling with how to pay for health care, schools, and our criminal justice system, and it doesn’t look good for the middle class. As cheap foreign laborers come to America, the micro-economic enclaves become larger, threatening America’s middle class culture and their future.
Assimilation into American culture isn’t happening; at best, assimilation is a joke. An uneducated Spanish-speaking couple with five kids, making fifteen thousand dollars a year can’t assimilate into a culture where the typical educated English-speaking small family’s income is fifty thousand dollars or more. They can only observe how well the average American is doing from their jobs as gardeners, construction workers, and clerks.
Most Mexicans in America aren’t finding a better life. If anything, a Mexican has to work harder in America than in Mexico. Hatred is growing, just as the inner city, high school dropout has no future; the typical Mexican high school dropout has no future.
The Real Cost of Cheap Labor
America is falling behind, becoming a Third World country right in front of our eyes. If we could go back to 1960 and bring back a McDonald’s clerk, it would take less than an hour for him to get back in the swing of things. By , he could be serving customers just as fast as he did in 1960—zero progress in fifty years.
If we brought back a carpenter from the nineteenth century, he would be appalled at the quality of American homes. By , he would be able to keep up with any construction crew in America. A store clerk from the eighteenth century could be clerking at a convenience store with a couple of hours of training. If we could bring the iceman—the man who was found intact in a glacier in Switzerland—back to life, he could go to work picking fruit or harvesting vegetables without any training at all— zero progress in 2500 years. Wherever you find cheap labor, you find the lack of progress.
If not for cheap foreign labor, McDonald’s would have to pay the average American eighteen to twenty dollars per hour. But if McDonald’s was forced to pay decent wages, the counter clerks would be long gone. In their place would be computer screens. Customers would have a computer chip in their arm. A patron’s account would be pulled up with the last meal served and a list of favorite meals. While the patron was ordering and paying with their cash card, the kids would be getting their drinks. The plastic cups would have a radio frequency chip and the computer would adjust the bill as the kids made their purchase. The patron would pay the bill with the push of a button and McDonald’s computer would e-mail a receipt to the customer’s home. If forced to pay decent wages, McDonald’s would have been forced to reduce their labor force by 50 percent or more a long time ago.
It’s the same for Wal-Mart. If the average checker at Wal-Mart made twenty bucks an hour, a three-cent radio frequency chip would be in every item. Shoppers would bag their purchases as they put them in the shopping cart and spend less than a minute at the checkout counter, where the computer would instantly add up the items and the shopper would pay with a cash card. Wal-Mart would e-mail the receipt in an effort to reduce paper and save time. Where Wal-Mart sees the need for cheap labor, others see a real waste of their time—the checkout lines at Wal-Mart are long and inefficient.
Convenience stores would put radio frequency chips in their plastic coffee cups. A customer would prepay for twenty cups of coffee or twenty fountain drinks at a time. He would stop in the morning for his coffee, scan the cup at the checkout counter, saving labor costs, and reducing the number of paper and plastic cups used. A patron could prepay for coffee, a newspaper, a donut, and a pack of cigarettes, or prepay for a sandwich, chips, and a drink and have his cup scanned at the checkout counter. A convenience store could have two hundred customers a morning and more than half would never pay cash money at the checkout counter.
Homebuilders would be more innovative. Houses are built exactly the same way they were built in the 1700s. The tools might be a little different and quality of material used today might be a little worse, but that’s about all. Homebuilders simply don’t look for a better way to build homes. As long as cheap labor is around, they won’t.
The real cost of cheap labor is the loss of technological innovation. We have the ability to build a cashless society and haven’t. We have the ability to build an electronic restaurant and haven’t. We should be able to walk in and out of the grocery store without waiting in a checkout line, but cheap labor has kept radio frequency chips off the market. The modern electronic world that most of us expected has never fully materialized.
In the news, apple growers were complaining about cheap foreign imports, especially from China. American apple growers have tried to compete with cheap foreign producers by hiring legal and illegal Mexican migrants—importing cheap labor. It may be a hundred years before cheap labor in America is equal too cheap labor in China. The way to beat cheap labor is automation, robotic arms should be picking, sorting and boxing apples—not people. The federal government has failed to support modernizations, if one percent of federal farm subsidies were spent on automation for the farming industry, apple growers would be able to compete worldwide.
Japan, Singapore, and South Korea haven’t allowed tens of millions of uneducated Third World people to enter their counties and have continued to modernize. The Japanese estimate is that they have more than four times the number of robots than America. This writer’s estimate is that America is as much as twenty years behind Japan. Cheap foreign labor is costly.
George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-four, featuring the menace Big Brother, is a paranoid delusion of the worst kind—people believe it. Big Brother, a massive system of men and computers, monitors everything and punishes people it deems to be a threat. The absolute truth is that the federal government doesn’t have a Big Brother, can’t afford Big Brother, and can barely afford a Little Brother. Big Brother is not a threat in America and never has been. But nearly every security proposal is condemned with a quick “Big Brother is watching you.” A good example is security cameras—not one news story is written without a reference to Big Brother and/or the lack of privacy. But security cameras can save millions of dollars in investigative cost, cut crime, and generally make life safer for everyone.
The security cameras in London’s train stations helped the police to identify and isolate the Islamic hate killers after the London train bombings. Security cameras at American airports helped to identify and isolate the 9/11 hijackers. The cameras offered absolute, worldwide proof of the hijackers’ identities—not a single person questions the identities of the Islamic hate killers on 9/11. Without the cameras, there would still be questions and perhaps, believable conspiracy theories.
The fear that something as simple as a security camera will start a slippery slope leading to “Big Brother” is absurd. Most Americans, including this writer, live pathetically normal lives. A little invasion into our privacy is simply not harmful. In fact, security in America is often lacking by the hesitation of the federal government to invade our lives.
The NSA scandal over the collection of telephone numbers has been condemned, lawsuits have been filed, and President Bush has taken his hits. But so what? If the government can trace and capture a terrorist, save lives and perhaps, billions of dollars by a collection of numbers, they should do it. Invasion of Americans’ privacy? I don’t think so.
Building or buying a nuclear weapon is expensive. To obtain the weapon, terrorists will have to spend millions of dollars and the money will be transferred through the worldwide banking system. The federal government has access to this bank transfer process, but The New York Times exposé of this will change terrorist operations and certainly hamper government efforts.
Ironically, if terrorists obtain a nuclear weapon and successfully smuggle it into America, the main target will be New York City—it’ll explode very close to the front door of The New York Times. It’s not surprising that reporters in America put the story and their careers ahead of their lives, the lives of their families, friends, and neighbors and the economic health of their country. It also would not be surprising to find that the majority of Americans believe a little invasion into the banking system by the federal government will not hurt America or Americans and has the potential of saving millions of lives and billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars.
The openness of our society and paranoia over Big Brother has placed the government in a difficult position. When terrorists attack, the American government is held partially responsible. The CIA and FBI have accepted responsibility for America’s lack of security on 9/11. It was their job to identify and stop the 9/11 terrorist group. Yet we deny the government simple measures to ensure their success.
Another example of national paranoia is the resistance to a National Identification Card. Obviously the government has the right to know who we are. That would seem to be a prerequisite for any government. We trust the police to protect us, the IRS to tax us, the Social Security Administration to provide for our retirement—a program that works very well, I might add—and to govern in a reasonably intelligent manner. Yet the lack of a national identification card makes it difficult for various government departments to function.
When Congress debated a new immigration bill, the collective guess was that there are around eleven million illegal aliens living in America. The lack of certain knowledge is appalling. How can supposedly reasonable people debate and pass bills into law in a black void of knowledge—reasonable men can’t. We don’t know if the true number of illegal aliens is the eleven million, twenty million or as high as thirty million as some have estimated. We don’t have any clue as to their national origin. When several Islamic terrorist cells were uncovered, they were made up of a few citizens, a few legal residents, and a few illegal residents. Congress has no clues as to their nationality, medical, educational, or criminal background. Yet Congress seems willing to provide a road to naturalization with minimal security measures.
A National Identification Card would end any confusion and allow Congress to make informed decisions. All of the information for a National Identification Card is already collected by a hodgepodge of government bodies.
1)Birth certificate—the County
2)Driver’s license—the State
3)Social Security numbers—The Social Security Administration
4)Green Cards—Immigration Service via the State Department
5)Illegal Aliens—Homeland Security
6)Passports and tourist visas—State Department
7)Death certificates—the County
Various local, state, and federal departments keep records and issue licenses. Including:
1)Taxes—Nearly every government body
2)Medical records—Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Administration
3)Criminal records—Various local, state, and federal agencies
4)Military service records—The Department of Defense
5)Marriage license—the state
6)Teachers certificates—the state
7)Real Estate, medical and law licenses—the state
8)Pest control, plumbers, electricians, and auto wholesalers licenses—the state
9)DBA certificates—the county
It’s a long list of government records, files, and licenses—most Americans are listed on hundreds, possibly thousands of computer systems in various government agencies. These computer systems offer no privacy—hundreds of thousands of government workers have daily access to portions of our private lives. This isn’t Big Brother, or even Little Brother, far from it. It is chaos. None of these computers and documents is secure— forged and counterfeit documents in America are common.The need for one federal agency that has the absolute authority to issue birth certificates, driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, passports, immigrations cards, and death certificates is paramount. These six items would be the bases for a National Identification Card.
A centralized system would be cheaper, more efficient, and provide more privacy than the hodgepodge system in use now. There are more than five thousand counties issuing birth certificates, state departments in all fifty state are issuing drivers license and numerous other departments are issuing marriage license, teacher certificates, DBA’s, and various business licenses with little communication and no coordination. It wouldn’t be surprising if 250,000 people were employed by various government bodies producing government identification documents and licenses. Do we have privacy in our current system? No. Do we have security in our current system? No. Do we have a big tax bill in our current system? Yes. Taxpayers are paying massive amounts of dollars for the worst possible system.
None of these documents—driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and Social Security cards—are secure and counterfeits are numerous. There are too many hands in the pot, too many unsecured computers and too many unsupervised individuals—massive amounts of money would be needed to secure these documents and computers. But one government agency with the authority to issue all six certificates could reduce the number of workers, increase computer security, offer more efficiency—reducing the number of counterfeits. Instead of spending vast amounts of money creating a new department, the government would consolidate parts of the Social Security Administration, the State Department, state driver’s license departments, and county workers under one roof—like the Department Of Homeland Security, various government agencies would be consolidated into one agency.
The new “Real ID card” is being resisted by many states. Privacy advocates have criticized the program for the loss of privacy—since most states sell our information to the highest bidder and/or put it on the internet, it kind of makes you wonder what these people are thinking. The political flap over the Real ID card is what’s wrong with America, too many people—with petty little political agendas—and agencies are responsible for producing the same document, and they want to hang onto their little bit of power.
One nationwide department, using one software program and computer system, could save massive amounts of money. Private business has done a more efficient job monitoring who we are than the government. Companies have accumulated massive amounts of personal data on every American, much of it purchased from the government. Companies like Equifax (4,600 employees) and Experian (4,500 employees) collect data in a worldwide system, but they’ve been hampered by the lack of a secure form of identification.
While a national system would provide instant access to an individual’s history, the computer system would not be on the internet. It’s incredible how much personal data is available on the internet just waiting to be stolen and, apparently, how much data is simply lying around on computer discs waiting for someone to walk off with it. The system for a National Identification Card should be a government intranet and not available online for people to hack at. Government employees would have biometrics access to the computer and the computer would have access chips embedded to allow the machine to gain access to the system. Access would be limited and controlled. Government employees and law enforcement agents doing a security check at the Department of Identification, Licenses, and Records would have their efforts monitored by a computer and electronically noted in the individual’s file. Does this mean a completely secure system? Absolutely not, but illegal entrance to the system would have severe and lifelong consequences, with mandatory prison sentences. While it’s impossible to secure thousands of various computer systems in use now, it is possible for the government to provide security and privacy for one national system.
Every citizen would have a National Identity card and it would be mandatory that illegal aliens in America get a special identification card. The government needs to know who’s in America and why. Living in America is a privilege; we expect and should demand law-abiding, hardworking, responsible immigrants. The card would have the individual’s picture, name, age, sex, race, and it would be swipeable like a credit card. Data would not be stored on the card—data would be on a controlled intranet system. Any data on a card, regardless of how it’s coded, will be counterfeited.
DNA would be part of the system and collected at various times in a person’s life. The cost would be assumed by individuals. A national DNA data bank would reduce the number of rape cases and/or force rapists to use condoms. Serial killers would have to clean up after themselves, spending extra time and effort at the point of the crime, giving them a better chance to be spotted, identified, and captured.
The list of why we shouldn’t have a DNA data bank goes on and on, but absolutely none of the reasons are valid. An example: insurance companies would use DNA profiles to discriminate against individuals with a propensity to become addicted to alcohol or drugs. In fact, if we were able to tell who’s potentially an alcoholic or drug addict, wouldn’t it be prudent to notify that individual? Some family genetic lines apparently produce huge amounts of cholesterol, other families very little. In time, a DNA profile will pinpoint problems and individuals will be directed away from a potentially harmful lifestyle. This is the promise of a DNA data bank, a glimpse into a person’s medical future and solving problems before they occur. It has the potential to save billions of dollars in health care costs and countless lives. Yet all we hear about is how DNA databanks would be misused by big business.
Birth certificates would include a DNA profile, digital fingerprints, and pictures and cost a hundred dollars—no birth certificate, no citizenship. A National Identification number along with the Social Security number would be issued at birth. Driver’s licenses would cost a hundred dollars, the DNA profile and fingerprints would be redone and matched at that time.
The average person would have their DNA profile done four times.
1)At birth—cost $100
2)First driver’s license—cost $100
3)At retirement—cost $100
Fingerprints, DNA, and family medical history would be collected at birth and a National Identification number and birth certificate would be issued. At age sixteen, every American would report to the Department of Identification, Licensing, and Records for their updated pictures and DNA tests and their combination driver’s license and/or identification card—the card would be updated every four years. The third DNA test would be at retirement, and DNA would be collected at death.
The Department of Identification, Licensing, and Records would be responsible for other public records keeping.
1)Medical records: See chapter eight
2)Legal records: See chapter twelve
4)Missing persons files
5)Car registration and licenses
It’s ironic: we hear so much about the digital age and the swiftness of information exchange. Yet the government isn’t part of that exchange. To get a teachers certificate in Texas, individuals are fingerprinted and fill out detailed questionnaires but felons and child molesters still get teacher certificates—school administrators say it’s expensive to verify information and/or no one checks. Teachers lose their jobs for sexual misconduct and move across town to a different school district—nobody at the new school checks. Felons get security guard licenses and permits to carry firearms.
Information exchange is limited, with little coordination between federal, state, and city agencies. It’s the same problem that American spy agencies had before 9/11. Agencies aren’t talking to other agencies. Information in a mobile society needs to be mobile, and at the very least, it should move as fast as criminals move.
Drifters are as common today as in the old west. Far right religious and conservative groups have built sanctuaries where people come and go. Illegal immigrants come and go as easily as sand in a windstorm. Serial killers and sexual predators are safer when they’re on the move, and they leave a very small trail behind them.
Instead of small, city or state-run computer systems, one nationwide criminal justice computer system has become a necessity—one system that can organize and manage criminal files. A police officer in California would have information on an arrest in Texas on the same day that the individual was arrested—there would be no information delay.
Apparently, there are fifty-seven thousand individuals missing in America—at least that’s one figure reported numerous times. A recent article reported that 800,000 people go missing every year—if the actual number of people reported missing is even half that number it would be surprising. Some, out-of-control, teenage runaways are reported missing three or four times per year. Apparently, 2 percent or roughly sixteen thousand people stay missing, but it’s doubtful that even sixteen thousand people are actually missing—there isn’t one database that is accurate or believable. Other estimates are higher or lower depending on the group and its motives—numerous non-profit groups seem to make a good living off the missing, and the agenda of some private non-profit organizations is suspect.
A low number of missing persons doesn’t make good news copy while a high number gets front-page coverage. It the same for non-profits, a low number doesn’t bring in the donations while a high number will pull in the dollars. Inaccurate reports are tarnishing America and Americans, the news media, and nonprofit groups are destroying our international image for the sake of a story and/or increased donations—that borders on a conspiracy to defraud.
The Department of Identification, Licenses, and Records would act as a clearinghouse for missing persons. The question has to be answered: Are people actually missing? If they are missing, is it foul play or accidents, or are they missing because they wanted to leave their responsibilities behind?
Recently digital automobile license plates were in the news. The digital plates could be read by a scanner on a police car, or from scanners fixed on overhead streetlights and the roof of a building. This is a welcome crime-fighting tool, but a digital license plate is easy to bypass. Cars should be tagged with imbedded chips during the manufacturing process before they are offered to consumers. It’s simple to do and amazing that the federal government doesn’t mandate tamper-proof digital identifications for cars. Even more amazing is that the insurance industry doesn’t demand it. It would save billions of dollars, millions of hours in investigating crimes, and save thousands of lives. Yet a few individuals chant privacy concerns and the whole process is shelved.
Cars should have digital tags, and homeowners should be able to purchase a scanner that could scan cars as they drive by, and then cooperate with the police to solve crimes in their neighborhood. The scanner would simply note the car’s identification number, and the date and time of its passing. Like an I-POD, the scanner would be one or two gigabytes and able to hold months, perhaps years’ worth of records.
With tagged cars, cities, counties, and state governments could have scanners fixed to bridges and buildings. A scanner would not only keep records of cars driving by, but would actively seek out stolen or wanted cars—nearly every crime could be solved—digital tags would act as breadcrumbs leaving a scanned trail from a crime scene.
Is this Big Brother? Absolutely not. If this is an intrusion into our privacy, well, nobody should care. Privacy experts will be jumping up and down, but the average person would rather have a serial killer caught and give up a little bit of their perceived privacy. 1.2 million cars are stolen every year; if only half of the cars are recovered, it’s still an insurance loss of 12 billion dollars a years. A nationwide system could save six billion dollars or more each year. Yet people fear Big Brother—what are people doing that’s their so afraid? People demand an efficient government, but we don’t give our government the tools to be an efficient government.
National Identification Card
There are 22 thousand missing children from Hurricane Katrina. Don’t panic. They’re not lying under a pile of rubble somewhere. Pedophiles didn’t swarm the GulfCoast region dragging kicking and screaming kids off into some perverted underground sex slave world.
Approximately 220 thousand kids were enrolled in schools that were shut down after Hurricane Katrina, but only 198 thousand kids were re-enrolled in school systems in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The twenty-two thousand missing kids were apparently conceived with the stroke of a pen. It’s been rumored—off and on—for years that inner city school districts inflate their enrollments to obtain extra money from the state and federal government. But 22 thousand kids? That’s massive inflation. If the state government pays half of the cost of education that amounts to approximately 77 million dollars a year obtained under false pretense. That’s a crime, isn’t it?
Head out to LA; half of the black and Mexican kids don’t graduate from high school. But if the rumors are true—if inner city schools inflate their enrollment, the true picture might be 60 percent graduation rate versus a 40 percent dropout rate, not the 50 percent graduation ratio that we hear about. We don’t know if elementary schools inflate their enrollment, and we don’t know if the fictitious kids are passed along from elementary school all the way through high school. We don’t know if high schools are handing out fictitious diplomas to fictitious kids. The key word, we don’t know.
No one is checking and no one knows for sure. More importantly, it might cost twenty million dollars to find out. People would have to be hired to check the enrollment of every kindergarten through senior class for the last twenty years, and track kids from kindergarten through high school, and identify them through various name changes or misspellings—it would be a huge task.
A national identity card would end the confusion. Schools would swipe the student’s ID card, and then the computers would take over. Instead of school districts trying to track kids from school to school, and city to city, one department and one computer would be able to track kids easier and cheaper. Inflated school enrollments, if they really exist outside the rumor mill, would end. A National Identification Card is a first step to ending the chaos in America.
It’s amazing the attitude that this country has toward a national identity card. How can the government govern—without absolute certainty of the identity of every American? How can they debate an immigration bill without absolute certainty of how many illegal aliens are in this country?
America’s cash society is growing; one estimate here in Texas is that 50 percent of the Mexican population is working on a cash basis—never filing an income tax form or paying a penny in Social Security tax. Yet these are the first people to feel entitled to a “get-into-America-free-card” and other benefits they never earned.
Here’s an example of how silly our government gets. When a person renews their driver’s license in the state of Texas, they take a digital picture of a person’s thumbs. It would take an extra minute, maybe less, for a complete digital set of prints, even palm prints. This would be a great crime-fighting tool, but the state of Texas doesn’t want to infringe on our privacy. But 99 percent of Texans never commit a crime, 99 percent of the population would be just a little safer, if the state of Texas had a data bank of fingerprints of every Texas resident. What the state of Texas and right to privacy groups are really saying is that they don’t want to infringe on a criminal’s right to commit a crime and get away with it.
No ID card—no citizenship. No ID card—no enrollment in school. No ID card—no job. With one secure National Identification Card, heavy penalties could be leveled against forged documents—ten years in prison for anyone using a forged card or someone else’s card and twenty years for anyone using forged cards while committing a felony. Identity theft could be reduced overnight. Court cases would be easier, prosecuting attorneys would only have to prove someone used a forged ID or a stolen ID card’s number to get a conviction, and a long prison term. Because it would be mandatory for illegal aliens to obtain a special National Identity card, identification would be easier, saving law enforcement time and energy.
Every single country in the world has the right to know who’s living in their country except America. Here in Texas, the Department of Public Safety attempted to track the number of illegal aliens. But Mexicans are complaining because we had the audacity to check to see if someone was a actually a America citizens—Mexicans and the American court system have stripped away our basic human rights. We have the right to force everyone to get a national identification card. We have the right to collect bio-data from individuals to make our country function more efficiently. We have the right to jail anyone who doesn’t have one. These are just basic rights that people in all countries have, why can’t we Americans have them, too.
Poverty is a choice. The federal government, the media, and privacy groups have resisted a National Identity Card, but it would provide a degree of privacy that we don’t have now. It would save billions of dollars by organizing information that the government already collects and billions of dollars by reducing the man-hours it takes the police to investigate crime. Most of all it will provide efficiency to a very inefficient government. Governments make decisions affecting national wealth; not having one centralized National Identity card is expensive. In this time of uncertainty, the lack of proper ID can cost trillions of dollars.
 During the debate, the number passed around was 11 million illegal aliens, while others were guessing 20 million. This writer wouldn’t be surprised if the true number of illegal immigrants popped up to thirty million. The government has only a collective guess and the size of the guess is dependent on the agenda of the guesser.
 Death certificates are becoming one of the most important certificates in America, but I will talk about that later.
 Part of the reason is the fear of lawsuits; talk too much or be too honest and a lawsuit can ruin a career.
 This information has come from various news sources in the Texas area, and this writer is not in a position to verify the accuracy of the information. I believe that it’s accurate, but for the purpose of this book, it doesn’t matter whether it’s accurate or not.
The process by which we elect our national leaders and their annual salary is ludicrous. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for a two-year term, and are paid $165,200 per year, with small automatic raises. Senators are elected for six-year terms and are paid the same $165,200 per year. The President is limited to two four-year terms and paid $400,000 per year.
They also get office expense and various other payments. Even so, Congressional salary is barely in the top range of middle-class and nowhere near the seven-figure income of various attorneys, executives, and wealthy individuals doing business in Washington. The President’s salary is at the upper end of middle class salary and nowhere near the pay of the successful CEO or attorney.
Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, and every single decision they make is tainted by politics. Congressmen spend much of their time seeking campaign donations and/or on the campaign trail. For every vote, they have to take into consideration the people who finance their reelection campaigns, not the people whom they represent. Vote wrong and campaign money dries up—even worse, his or her competition gets a fat check. The President must make decisions according to the needs of his campaign contributors or there will be no second term. Senators are elected to term after term because they represent wealthy individuals who contribute to their war chest.
An example is the current, persistent debate on amnesty for illegal aliens. Americans want a secure border and no amnesty, while multinational businesses and America’s wealthy want amnesty and open borders. Congress will listen to the people who fund their campaigns and simply hope that Americans will forgive them when the next election comes along. The wealthy will keep amnesty on the table until it’s passed, the debate will continue until it’s passed. Elections no longer matter, special interest groups, multinational businesses, and the wealthy fund both parties with nearly the same agenda.
The cost to run a political campaign is roughly ten million dollars for a senator and three million dollars for a representative—a rough total, spent by our elected leaders, about 3.4 billion dollars. Counting the money spent by the loser, 6.8 billion dollars can be spent on reelection campaigns. For a billion dollars or so, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Mexico can fund ten percent of all national political campaigns and buy massive amounts of political influence. Attorneys, from a law firm that represents Saudi Arabian oil interests, will fund special interest groups that meet their agenda. Oil companies with tens of billions of dollars in profit could fund the whole shebang without any problems. It’s no wonder that George Bush and the federal government have left America and Americans dangling in the wind with the lack of a consistent oil policy.
Our national leaders are caught up in this God-awful system, and once elected there is no way out. They need special interest money to be elected and to provide for their financial future. We need to change the way we elect our national officeholders, and it would take a constitutional amendment to do it.
Members of the House of Representatives should be elected for a six-year term—not the current two-year term, and be limited to two six-year terms—twelve years total. The pay for members of the House should be increased to two million dollars per year. A five million dollar bonus would be paid at the end of the first term and a ten million dollar bonus at the end of the second term, but only if certain criteria are met such as a balanced budget. The cost to taxpayers for one six-year term would be seventeen million dollars per member of the House. With 435 members it would be a yearly cost of 1.8 billion dollars—a fraction of the current national deficit.
Members of the Senate should be limited to two six-year terms, and their salary should be increased to four million dollars per year. A bonus of ten million dollars would be paid at the end of each term. The cost for a senator’s six-year term would be thirty-four million dollars. The total cost per year for one hundred senators, approximately 560 million dollars.
The President should be elected to and limited to one six-year term, instead of the current four-year term. His or her salary should be five million dollars per year, with a bonus of fifty million dollars at the end of his six-year term—the cost would be 80 million dollars for one six-year term. The total cost for our nationally elected politicians would be 2.5 billion dollars per year. The key, Congress would be working for the American people, not the wealthy or special interest groups that fund their reelection campaigns every few years.
Congressional representatives and the President would pay their Social Security and pay into a private retirement account, but they wouldn’t receive any retirement income, medical benefits, or be entitled to any money after they leave office. Once they finished their term, they would no longer be a financial burden on the government and American people
Along this same line of reasoning, the salary for our nationally elected government leaders would be tax-free. They wouldn’t have to compromise their positions by looking for tax breaks or dealing with tax attorneys to figure out how to evade their income tax along with other wealthy individuals in America.
If you’re thinking our elected leaders are sold-out, and that not one of the current Senators or Congressmen is worth a couple of million dollars, you might be right. Most of the men and women in Congress are attorneys, doctors, or wealthy businessmen. They do not intend to balance the budget, reduce pork, or clean the environment, and no one should wonder why the country is in such a mess. But the system forces elected officials to seek out special interest groups for campaign donations to get elected, it’s the system, it’s not necessary the men and women in office.
There are always catches, and this catch is major. Once elected to the Senate or House of Representatives, an individual would not be allowed to take money from anyone—seeking campaign donations would end. Elected leaders would be forced to finance their next reelection campaign from the bonus money paid by the taxpayers.
This is how it would work: A man or women runs for office and wins a seat as a member of the House of Representatives. Once elected, the congressman would no longer be allowed to accept campaign donations, money or gifts—not a single plane ride, chicken dinner, book deal, speaking engagement, or any other type of reimbursement.
At the beginning of his fifth year, if he or she meets certain criteria, the representative would receive a five million dollar bonus. It costs about three million dollars for a House member to run a campaign for reelection. He would use his bonus money to run his reelection campaign. At the end of his second term, he could use his ten million dollar bonus to run for the Senate or he could retire—a choice.
The only exception would be if he or she ran for president, then the individual would be allowed to accept campaign donations a second time. But the President or those running for the office would not be allowed to keep or use campaign money for any other purpose. After his election or defeat, any campaign money left over would be returned.
After a congressional representative retirement or defeat, there would be a ten-year moratorium on accepting money. He would not be allowed to sit on boards, be a paid lobbyist, or accept a promised position for favors. The President would have a twenty-year moratorium on accepting money.
The maximum amount of time a person could spend in Washington as a nationally elected leader would be thirty years—twelve as a representative, twelve as a senator, and six as president. Because of the moratorium on taking money after their retirement, they would leave Washington and return home.
On the surface, overpaying our national leaders is ludicrous, but no more ludicrous than underpaying congressional representatives, who depend on the special interest system to be reelected. We have forgotten the most important thing about democracy. We the people are the government, but we have allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to buy our government. Oil companies, multinationals, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico run elected officials in Washington and, subsequently, the federal government.
Our system has been corrupted. Collectively, we the people have more money and more power than the wealthy. Our unwillingness to pay senators and representatives decent salaries has led to special interest groups and outright corruption in Washington. The American taxpayers must buy back Congress.
This is unique. By overpaying national leaders and not allowing them to accept so much as a free chicken dinner, corruption would be held to a bare minimum. People have never bought back their government, usually people revolt.
A general set of criteria might be added to the oath of our national leaders. Here are some suggestions that I think most middle class Americans would find acceptable. Even if a congressional representative met only three of the following six criteria, most of us would be happy.
1)Moral and ethical behavior
2)A balanced budget
3)Reduced trade deficit
4)A clean environment
6)Safe and secure country
Obviously, one can see what’s important to this writer. But the addition of any criteria would be secondary to paying congressmen a decent salary and giving them a bonus to fund their campaigns, ending their dependence on special interest groups that keep them in office.
Government Chartered Corporations
The federal government needs to divest numerous federal departments into the government-owned chartered corporation. NASA, VA, and FHA housing programs, FAA and NTSB all non-political agencies and could be run as for-profit chartered corporation. Employees would not be government employees or work for the government; they would be employees, of the corporation. The corporations would be self-sufficient by charging fees for their services. They would not be allowed to accumulate debt, including retirement debt.
Half of the Board of Directors would be appointed by Congress, the other half by the president. The CEO would be appointed by the board. He would be a person with management skills who understands how to run a high-tech, efficient corporation. The CEOs salary would be comparable to salaries in the corporate world—perhaps a million dollars per year, plus a bonus of up to a million a year. That’s what it takes to hire a CEO or senior vice-president from a high-tech corporation and/or Fortune 500 company—someone who understands both people and modern technology.
It was noted that the Department of Identification, Licenses, and Records would not be a new government bureaucracy. Instead, the new department would be a government-owned chartered corporation with 100 percent of the stock held by the federal government and owned by the American people. The Department of Identification, Licenses, and Records would be self-sufficient—charging individuals for their services.
Public Road Corporations
Building roads in America has become almost prohibitively expensive—the cost has surpassed the ability of the American people to pay. In the Dallas area, main arteries that take people to work are being turned into tollways. One government official even announced that toll roads could be a profit center. But a tollway is an unfair tax on the working class of America—taxing people going to work is cruel and very human.
The construction trade in America is one of the major employers of illegal workers. Drive past a crew working on a street or a highway and all of the unskilled labor and most of the skilled labor is Mexicans—probably illegal, but no one is really checking, included the federal government. The cost of construction labor has dropped dramatically as the price of road construction has skyrocketed.
In Dallas, the city government proposed building several “designer” bridges for the downtown area that will cross the Trinity River. But the city couldn’t afford to have the bridges designed. They had to seek donations to fund the project. When the design was finished, the cost of the bridges skyrocketed to 130 million dollars per fancy bridge. To be fair, after negotiations, the price has been reduced to 80 million dollars per bridge. But it wouldn’t be surprising, if 50 percent of the cost of the bridge, or for that matter, any highway project were profit.
The government pays too much money to design—over and over, it seems—the normal freeway bridges and highway overpasses. Tens of thousands of the standard cement freeway bridges and overpasses have been built across America, yet every time there is a new project, we have go back to square one to design and build the overpass. Construction companies should be forced to use standard overpass designs and standard parts.
We do very little right when it comes to building and maintaining our roads. In Minnesota, seventeen years of known structural deficiencies wasn’t enough to motivate the highway department to fix a bridge. But Minnesota got their fair share of earmarks. After all, a study of the sexual lives of pigmy slugs or some other important earmark is just as important to our Congressman as building or repairing bridges. The real problem is that we no longer have the money to do things right. The profit on road projects, including bridges is too high—building bridges is good for the wealthy and good for Mexicans but bad for Americans. Another example of mismanagement is Hurricane Katrina. This is the second time in just a few years that bridge spans along the GulfCoast have been knocked down by the wind and storm surge of a hurricane. In California, they found that bolting a steel jacket around a support column increased the strength of the column during an earthquake. Along the GulfCoast, it’s apparent that most bridge spans are solid enough that a storm doesn’t knock them off. A little help and these long bridges would remain intact during a storm. A steel plate bolted to the cross beam covering the span’s joints would protect the spans from the wind. On the seaward side, a plate could be bolted to the bridge to direct the storm surge and the wind over the bridge instead of at the joints. This isn’t rocket science, a little preventive maintenance and the government could save the taxpayers billions of dollars. But it doesn’t happen. This is what I believe: The money to repair bridges after each storm is greater than the money to come up with a cheap fix. Its tax money after all—nobody is accountable.
In the Dallas area, 260 million dollars was spent on an interchange called the High Five at the intersection of Interstate 75 and LBJ Freeway. Even before the interchange was done, they were finding cracks in the pavement and had to repave the surface. It’s not surprising. Americans have come to expect incredibly expensive, shoddy construction, and it’s happening in every community in America. Was anyone surprised when a section of Boston’s “Big Dig” fell and killed a motorist?
Cheap steel and cement were bought from Asia and Latin America countries and profits soared, As American workers were replaced in the construction industry with cheap illegal workers, profits soared even more. The construction industry has become infected with uncontrolled greed. Companies simply no longer care about anything, but the profit, and shoddy work has become acceptable. Americans have bought the cheapest possible roads at the highest possible price.
The marketplace has failed. The number of companies building roads has dwindled, while prices have skyrocketed—public works projects go to the “lowest” high bid. The government needs to assume the responsibility of building our roads and reacquire the skills necessary to design and construct roads.
States and counties would incorporate public-owned chartered corporations who would hire construction managers, design engineers, surveyors, and construction crews. They would purchase equipment—new and used, and assume the responsibility of building county roads. A chartered company could build roads at half the cost of big construction companies. By doing it themselves, a state or county could nearly double the amount of roads built or reduce their costs by half. America taxpayers can no longer afford American construction companies, and the ludicrous amounts of money that they demand for some of the simplest building projects.
FAA and NTSB
The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board should be combined and spun off into a government-owned chartered company. The company would derive revenue for fees charged to airlines, shipping companies and the automobile industry and function as an autonomous unit. Profits would be turned over to the federal government.
FHA and VA
HUD and VA’s housing programs should be combined and spun off. There is no reason for the federal government to provide service that the private sector can do just as well. Both programs would be spun off into a private company with a charter to provide loans to veterans and low-income recipients. As chartered companies, FHA and VA loan guaranty programs would prosper, just as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae has done in the open market.
NASA, combined with Los Alamos National Laboratory, White Sands Test Facility, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and other government-owned research facilities should be run as for-profit chartered companies. NASA has extraordinary assets, both human and physical. As a government-owned chartered company, with a charter to operate as a research facility and explore space, it could tap into those assets.
A private company would have junked the shuttle ten years ago—it was a good idea, but poorly designed and never fulfilled as much as a third of the agenda set for it during its development. The international space station would never have been built—it’s the most useless thing on or off the planet. Research can’t be done on the station because of Russian involvement.
If an American company paid fifty million dollars to do an experiment aboard the station, the Russians would be selling the results to Chinese and European companies before the American company had the results. When the Russians built the American Embassy in Moscow, they inserted so many listening devices that the building had to be abandoned. I suspect the same happened with the space station—bugged to high heaven—but this is what governments do, what they’re supposed to do.
When NASA announced they intended to abandon the Hubble Space Telescope, most Americans were shocked. The science gathered from Hubble seems to outweigh the science gathered from the space station—at least in the eyes of the American people. Most Americans would abandon the space station and keep Hubble. We are not stupid people. The space station has taken political correctness out into space where it stands as a scientific and political failure. The world is a competitive place. Nations compete—for jobs, science, and money. Our national leaders have forgotten that.
The news about NASA gets worse. The mistake of the Apollo moon program—not one single reusable part—is being made again. When the Apollo program was over, it sucked the life from NASA. But NASA announced a new program to return to the moon that could be dubbed Apollo 2. Apparently, it is designed exactly like the Apollo program, another massive one-shot rocket without any reusable parts.
If we go back to the moon, NASA should build a Moon Shuttle that can go from Earth orbit to a Moon orbit a hundred times or more. They need a Moon Lander that can be refueled in space and land on the moon hundreds of times. It doesn’t make sense to rebuild the Apollo program, and it shows a lack of leadership and an unclear perspective of the future.
If NASA rebuilds the Apollo program using fifty-year-old technology, it will be a major embarrassment—in America, three strikes and you’re out. The shuttle, the space station, and Apollo 2 may very well end America’s involvement in space.
Fixing things, starts with national leaders who give more than lip service to representing Americans. Decent pay is a start. Congressman shouldn’t be spending massive amounts of time on the campaign trail and holding fund raisers, they should be attending business in Washington. Government-owned chartered companies would allow the federal government to downsize, while providing the needed services that all country needs. Most chartered companies would be self-supporting, fee-based, while others would be funded by the taxpayers. Each chartered company would have their own pay scale and retirement program. In cases like road construction and health care, where the American marketplace has failed, the government needs to step in and provide the needed services or products.
 This writer simply can’t believe that steel and cement costs so much. Labor is expensive, but if construction and steel workers make 100,000 a year and they need 50 men for three years, the cost would be fifteen million dollars—total labor costs might run twenty million. Something is very wrong.
 I don’t have any real knowledge of bugs on the International Space Station. But if I were the Russians, with inferior technology, I would have bugged the hell out of it. The fact that the American military opted-out of the space station program is strong evidence that they were worried about their research being compromised.