Healthy Internet for Children & Kids

Note:  The first three parts of this diatribe should be read first.

OK, now that we've cropped big chunks out of the federal budget by cutting the military and making changes to Social Security and healthcare spending, let's look at the smaller parts of the budget that could use pruning.  At this point, we're taking small bites, but it adds up.

First, lets look at the agencies that I think should be totally removed from the budget.  In other words, these federal agencies have failed so badly that I don't believe that it's worth spending a red cent on them:

• Education - Educating our children is not a federal matter.  The educational success of the average American student has cratered since this department has created in 1979.  The individual states know that if they want to compete with not only each other, but also foreign locations, for 21st century industries, they need to provide good  education, and will finance education from their own funds accordingly.  The federal government should get out of states business.
• Department of Veteran's Affairs - The functions of this cabinet level department would be put back under the Department of Defense, where it belongs.  Let today's soldiers look after the interests of yesterday's soldiers, and eliminate redundant staff.
• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting - I listen to NPR.  I watch PBS.  BooBoo and I watch Sesame Street together.  I contribute to my local NPR and PBS affiliates, and would up my contribution if I knew that my tax dollars weren't being used to finance it.  I don't think that my preferences for media should be financed by other people's tax money.  If the CPB were to lose federal funding, something tells me that Elmo, Big Bird, and Cartalk would be OK.
• Drug Enforcement Agency - The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 needs to be repealed.  If the states want to regulate what intoxicants may be consumed within their borders, and by whom, that's up to them. The "War on Drugs" is an expensive endeavor that's continued since before I was born, and there are more drugs on the streets of America than there were during the days of the flower children.  Get rid of this useless law, and disband the federal agency that has tried in vain to enforce it. 

Now for the agencies and activities that I think could be changed or pared down:

• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms - This agency will go back to what it was designed to do:  issue licenses, check paperwork, and collect taxes.  It will be moved under the Department of the Treasury.  When it finds evidence of a crime, it will refer the matter to a real law enforcement agency - The Secret Service. 
• While we're on that subject, there will be three federal law enforcement agencies  - The Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Secret Service, and the Federal Marshals.  Everyone else gets to turn in their badges and guns.  If a crime is found by someone in government, they can go to the real cops. All the "investigators" and "operators" in other areas of the federal government get walking papers.
• Departments of Energy and Transportation - All of the "green" research money that's been funneled to these agencies is cancelled.  If windmills, coal-powered automobiles, and solar films are such good ideas, someone in the private sector will find a way to make them efficient and economic without government funding. 
• Additionally, the part of the Transportation budget that deals with interstate highways will be gone through with a fine toothed comb.  Hawaii, I'm sorry, but you can't drive to the main land.  You don't get an interstate.  Alaska, you get to make an argument as to why you get to keep your funding, but it better be good.  As for the lower 48, here's a hint:  A four lane road that connects two interstates within the borders of a state is not an interstate, no matter how you number it, and the federal government is not going to pay for it anymore. 
• College Education - In addition to getting rid of the Department of Education, the Pell Grant and Federal Student Loan programs are going to be changed and reduced.  First, , what you can study and get federal aid for will be changed.  As much as I like reading English literature, our country doesn't need more English majors.  We need doctors, teachers, engineers, and a whole bunch of other professionals whose education didn't amount to four plus years of navel gazing.  Only those studies that have a concrete benefit to the interests of the country will be subsidized by the American people.   Students can still major in Literature or whatever else they want, but they will have to find another way to finance their studies. 
• On that note, who qualifies for student aid will change.  Using the G.I. Bill as a template, several years of low-paid public service will be mandatory before receiving a Pell Grant or federally subsidized student loan.  Prospective students won't have to join the military.  Positions cleaning highways, picking up and maintaining parks, and working at the bottom rung of federal agencies for 4 to 5 years will work.  But those who want to join the military will have to serve fewer years to gain the same benefits.  Participation will be available to any citizen who wants to sign up, regardless of disability.  Participation will not be mandatory.  Students can go straight from high school to college, but they will do it without public financing.  The plus of this is that less money will be spent in college by 18 year olds who have no clue what he wants to do when they grow up, and the country will benefit from having fewer marketing, communications, and business majors graduate and demand top salaries.  Also, the services provided by these minimum-wage earning volunteers will save money when unionized government workers are shown the door.
• Transportation Security Adminstration - The TSA screeners at the airports, bus stations, train stations, and the Applachian Trail get to go back to whatever they were doing before they hit the lottery and got a government job.  The individual airlines and such will pay for security again, but will do so while meeting standards established and enforced by the TSA.
• The law will be changed so that members of Congress and the President will not be paid until the budget is passed, and will not be paid at all if the federal government runs a deficit unless there is a declared war.  In addition, no living or travel expenses for the Congress will be paid by the government.  If a congresswoman wants to live in a multi-million dollar condo in Georgetown and fly home every weekend, it's on her own dime.  These two won't save much money, comparatively, but they will light a fire under Congress to get their business done, be smart about spending, and go the heck home.

So that's it.  We've cut the military by resizing it to meet reduced requirements, changed Social Security and healthcare to save money, and cut a few of the more nickel and dime costs out of the budget.  I'm sure I've slaughtered a few sacred cows, but we just flat can't keep going the way we have been since the 1960's.  We've been trying to have guns and butter at the same time since before I was born, and no-one has learned that this is impossible to maintain.  We will cut our spending.  The question is whether or not we have the guts to do take the pain of doing it ourselves or wait until the rug is pulled from beneath us.

I'm curious to hear y'all's ideas on this.  What you agree with, what you disagree with, and what you think I've forgotten to include.

Please read Parts 1 and 2 of this discussion first.

OK, now that I've touched on military spending and Social Security, we'll give the pitchfork and torch crowd the final excuse to test my new moat: Health Care.

This one is going to probably be one of the tougher ones to cut. Health care spending that prevents disease and stops epidemics in their early stages is a force multiplier to the country and the economy.  Also, the emotionally wrenching thought of a sick child or grandmother being cut off from necessary care because the government refused to pay for it and they can't afford to do so themselves makes me ill.  I'm tempted to either leave this one alone for the most part, or fall back on the old saw of finding efficiencies and reducing fraud.  But I think we will be able to make at least a few cost saving measures here without violating our senses of decency.

Health Care Spending


General Thoughts:

•  Federal employees stationed within 50 miles of the District of Columbia, to include members of Congress and their staffs, employees of the Executive Branch, and members of the Judiciary and their staffs, will get their day to day medical care from military doctors at facilities equal in sophistication, staffing, conduct, and decor to the Troop Medical Clinics at the U.S. Army Infantry School.  This will not only cut down on the amount of money spent on these individuals' medical care, but will give them a taste of what they put our soldiers through to get decent medical care.  Use of Bethesda Naval Hospital will be on a referral basis only, and military patients get priority in non-emergency care over civilians.
• Health care plans for federal employees and their families will provide no more coverage than the best plan that the VA offers military retirees through Tricare or its replacement programs.This is an upper limit, not a gold standard.  If we have to have public employee unions, then I expect management negotiators to get the cheapest healthcare coverage for them as they can.
• Anyone who signs up for a government health care program of any kind, including health care insurance for federal employees, voluntarily agrees to not sue the doctors and other medical professionals that treat them under the plan, unless that professional is charged and convicted of a crime in relation to the incident in question. For example, if your cardiologist makes a mistake in reading your test results, or makes the wrong choice in a diagnosis that could go in multiple ways, you can't sue unless she committed a crime such as criminal negligence or malicious mischief.  That alone should bring down the cost of healthcare.

ObamaCare:

• The existing legislation, good or bad, will be repealed.  I'm not going to get into whether or not it's a good idea, we just flat can't afford it without raising taxes to the point where I might as well be living in Helsinki.*
• If you want to provide universal health coverage for everyone, change the Constitution to say that the government a) has that responsibility and b) has that power.   Then raise taxes enough to pay for it. 
• Good Luck

Medicare:

For those outside the U.S., Medicare is the government program that provides a minimum level of health insurance to our senior citizens.  

• Just as I said when I discussed reforming Social Security, current recipients and citizens born before January 1, 1950 will still be covered.
• Citizens born between January 1, 1950 and January 1, 1965 will become eligible for Medicare on their 75th birthday.  In addition, the means testing I discussed for  Social Security will apply to Medicare as well.  
• Citizens born on or after 1 January, 1965, warm up the lube some more.  You're not going to get Medicare benefits either.  We get to keep paying into the system, but the amount will decrease over time as the number of Medicare recipients dwindles.  
• To compensate for the fact that the second two groups will have increased out of pocket costs for healthcare in their later years, the cap on the amount of pre-tax income that can be put into Healthcare Spending Accounts will be lifted.

Now that we've established who will be covered by Medicare, let's talk about how the program itself will change.

• Elective procedures and therapies are not covered. Elective means "It is going to be very difficult for me to be a productive member of society without it", not "If I don't get this, I won't be happy or pretty".  I'm not saying that our seniors get a lot of Botox or Viagra, because I'm sure they don't.  But a lot of the questionable coverage is going to have to go.
• Only drugs that have gone generic, and are therefore less expensive, are covered. Drug companies can make their money on the non-government funded market.

Federal Medicaid Funding:

For those outside the U.S., Medicaid is the generic name for the program that provides minimal medical insurance to low income people.  It is partially financed and managed by the federal government, with the rest of the money and implementation provided by the individual states.

• Again, the list of what services are covered by federal funding to Medicaid needs to be rigorously evaluated and thinned.  
• Just as I recommended with Social Security, a condition of accepting Medicaid benefits will be to submit to regular, random testing for intoxicants.  If you want other people to pay for your health care, then don't spend money on smokes, drugs, or alcohol. 
• Again, only drugs that have gone generic, and are therefore less expensive, are covered. Drug companies can make their money on the non-government funded market.

Unfortunately, any effort to control spending on these programs will cause medications or procedures to become unavailable to the old or indigent.  While cancer treatment may cover chemotherapy or a mastectomy for a woman, due to budget cuts, it may not cover reconstructive surgery for her breast.  An orthopedist may make sure your broken back is fixed mechanically, but the length of physical therapy for the injury may not be optimal.  The dentist will make sure you have teeth in your head, but government programs won't pay for braces.  In order to help make sure that these and other procedures that may not be absolutely necessary to staying alive, but are still important, I would encourage charitable giving by removing the cap on writing off charitable giving from individual and corporate income taxes.  Yes, I'm forcing some members of our society to go to charities for what is easily available from the government now, but I believe that charity should be voluntary, not withheld from paychecks under force of law.  Prior to 1965, the poor and old weren't keeling over in the streets any more than they are now, and I don't believe that asking them to go to charitable organizations for health care that isn't absolutely essential will make it happen now.

That's the last of the major spending areas I'll talk about.  Next we'll discuss the little, when compared to what that I believe could be done with military spending and entitlement programs, things that I think can be either reformed or eliminated to save just a bit more.

*Not that there's anything wrong with Helsinki. It's one of those places I'd run to if I ever had to leave the U.S.  It's just not the most tax-friendly places on earth.