Element #1 --  The House of Representatives authorizes 3/4^th of the requested debt increase.  No strings attached.         

 m Element #2 -- The Speaker of the House promises support of the additional debt increase with agreement on spending cuts that are proposed by the Senate, that must be real, substantial and begin immediately.

Before my critics go crazy, please consider:

Where would Harry Reid and President Obama stand?  A debt increase of 3/4^th of what they requested without strings.

Every real cost reduction from the Senate which does not jeopardize the national defense should be enacted and tallied.

We know the number would be small. 

I think conservatives will be in a good position in the fall of 2012.

Then and only then can the necessary changes be made.

It is necessary for conservatives to take control of the Republican Party and then take control of the Congress and the White House.

Several years ago George F. Will wrote a column that pointed out that Americans want all the entitlements bestowed by government, but did not want to pay for them. This is probably in large measure true, except that as time has passed, we have allowed this schizophrenia of wants to create a national debt of nearly $15 trillion.    This is nearly $ 50,000 per citizen.

The Republican approach has been to propose modest spending cuts, and Democrats have been content to pretend that some spending cuts are necessary. Republicans won’t really cut benefits and won’t raise taxes. Democrats want to increase benefits, but only want to tax “the rich.” Both are failing programs.

However, the most appropriate solution has not been proposed and it is quite simple. Since Americans won’t give up their benefits and preventing the nation from going Greek is an imperative, the solution is for Congress to pass a “pay as you go” tax for all Federal programs.

Under my proposed scheme taxes would be increased over a 3 year period until they eliminate the current budget deficit and create an annual surplus of above $500 billion. (The surplus would be aimed at eliminating the national debt over 7 years.)

Central to this proposal would be dividing the Federal budget into two general categories: Those activities which are national in scope and expressly authorized by the Constitution, for example Defense and the Treasury, and those which are individual citizen entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

The national federal income tax would be scaled to meet those activities which are “national in scope,” and would be a flat tax on all income or earnings, whether it be wage or capital based. 

The individual entitlements would be funded through individual and equal itemized payroll taxes and adjusted annually to meet the next year’s budget estimates. Individual entitlement programs would be strictly “pay as you go.” Borrowing for such programs would be out of play.

Now, it is recognized that the payroll tax for these entitlements programs might come as a shock to some citizens. Therefore, another provision of this plan would be to allow citizens to permanently opt out of individual government entitlements after paying a given tax for a period of 7 years. Once a citizen opts out, they would be refunded 50 percent of their past tax and not required to pay the tax in the future. They would be permanently barred from future participation in that entitlement program and would be ineligible from receiving any benefits.

Quite obviously, there will need to be some thinking about transition of individuals at different ages, but the program will have the benefit of allowing citizens a degree of freedom that has been lacking for a long time. (And, as I am not a hard-hearted soul, it would be necessary for the federal income tax to be used for the maintenance of citizens now in retirement or those about to retire in the next 5-10 years, with some sliding scale calculations.)

How many citizens, especially young people, would opt for freedom after 7 years? How many citizens would prefer to remain in serfdom?

Last weekend I heard yet another story about the plight of young people burdened with student loans. Example upon example may be found with little effort.

Solutions for this “crisis” range from debt forgiveness, sometimes in exchange for “community service”, to longer repayment terms with lower interest. However, the most obvious solution to the student loan dilemma is completely overlooked.

The solution is simply to abolish and prohibit student loans, (especially for undergraduate study.)  To  be more precise, abolish all governmental - state and Federal -- forms of support, guarantees, regulation or underwriting of student loans.  Get government completely out of the school loan business.  And, legally prohibit minors -- let's use the drinking age in each state -- from contracting for loans for education.  If parents want to put their home up as collateral for a student loan under commercial terms that is their business.  However, as society regulates drinking for minors, so be it for loans to minors.

When examined with a little care, one will see that student loans are higher education’s version of an extortion racket. Student loans help support ever increasing college and university budgets in both bureaucracy and faculty salaries. Why attempt to keep the costs of higher education low when you can increase tuition? Students can borrow!

Eliminate the concept of student loans and in a short time tuition and fees will start to fall. This is because if one cannot go into serious debt to go to college, then one will work and will save to go to college. This may mean, at least initially, dropping enrollments. But, dropping enrollments will force schools to look at their costs in order to attract students. Ah! Market forces! This could be educational for the educators! 

Some may say that this will disproportionately disadvantage lower economic students. Is this not what is taking place today? The wealthy do not normally borrow to go to college. It is the middle and lower economic strata that need to borrow to go to school. This borrowing merely makes them poorer.

Abolishing and prohibiting student loans (as specified above) will quite rapidly bring a return to the days when students can work there way through college. This will be a very good thing, both for the economic welfare of the student, but also for the education of the student - paying for something as you go will increase the appreciation for that which one works for. The students will be more likely to engage in serious study and will seek studies that will be of value later in life. 

If one still wants to pursue a degree in Medieval Labor Organizing (fictional – I believe), at least one won’t be $120,000 in debt upon graduation.

(Really, while we should not expect to trust the judgment of a young student, what rational person should loan enormous sums of money to a student to pursue a degree in a marginal and non-productive discipline?)

The writer is a passionate lover of higher education, but as Socrates achieved perhaps the highest level of wisdom and yet lived a life of simple poverty, one suspects we can maintain and improve opportunities for higher education without driving students into penury. Making it difficult to borrow to go to school would be a small but necessary step in the right direction.

THANKS TO EMAIL COMMENTS AND OTHER.

I wish to thank those individuals who read my post of yesterday and took the time to comment. It is always helpful to have the insights of others.

As an individual who believes politics is in large measure the art of the possible, it is reasonable to state what I think are the parameters of the possible, and therewith why I think my proposal is “a conservative compromise.”

·        Short of a total collapse of the national economy, (which one must admit, is more possible today than 10 years ago) there is no chance, zero, that we will live to see the end of the social welfare state in America. The best we can do is to seek gradual free market reforms and a gradual weaning of new generations of citizens from this form of servile dependence.

·        Congressman Ryan’s proposal is not a total abandonment of the existing welfare state. He is aware of the reality of the American population’s attachment to these programs. His is an effort to move towards market mechanisms, greater self-reliance and better economies.

·        My compromise proposal is a compromise both with reality and the Congressman’s proposal. A full scale shift is not going to be approved by this or any near term Congress as there are too many liberal republicans and compassionate conservatives. (You may possibly think to include me in the later group.) It is one thing to ask a healthy working 70-year old to use a voucher in the market system of health care, and another to ask an unemployable 85-year old widow to do so. Can you, for a moment, imagine the powerful and effective political ads that will be forthcoming? It will be the Left’s response to the Right’s charges of death panels.

·        If we could move the large number of people in the age group 65 to 75 onto a voucher market oriented system, this would constitute real progress.

·        Additionally, and after we make the initial change, I would be open to increasing the eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security up to age 70, on an incremental basis andover a period of the next ten years.

But, coming back to reality…. My proposals are unlikely to be accepted, but compared to the dream world proposals of Libertarians my proposals are as good as implemented. So, I think there may be reason to hope.

Among difficulties of making the needed changes of the current Medicare Program to a more market-based health care system for senior citizens is the profound and unfortunate sense of entitlement among the citizenry as a whole. One can read about the sacrifices of the "greatest generation" but their children, those about to inundate and drown the program, with notable but few exceptions cannot easily be persuaded to give up government-paid health care.

To expect a wholesale change, even one gradually implemented in the future, is to hope for what is near impossible. Congressman Ryan's plan is a wholesale plan and it will eventually affect all citizens upon reaching the age of 65. It may be that a compromise on who is affected, and when, may help in the acceptance of what is, in its totality, an overall common sense approach.

The compromise I offer, which may achieve many of the same economic reforms intended by Congressman Ryan, and, yet, will moderate what may be seen as its “harsh edges”, contains the following moderate modifications:

• Retain the existing Medicare plan but move the eligibility from age 65 to age 75.  Let this apply to all those currently under the age of 55.

• Implement a new Federal voucher program for health insurance for those ages 65 to 75. This would be implemented for those now under 55 when they turn 65. However, the new program should be immediately available on a voluntary basis for those above 55 upon turning 65, and also those currently on Medicare under the age of 75.

This measure would recognize the fact that citizens live longer than when Medicare was created nearly 50 years ago, it would introduce market incentives and efficiencies and would reduce the number of people dealing with the Federal bureaucracy. Federal budgeting also would be less complicated and more predictable. Additionally, more and more citizens continue to work until their early 70’s. By offering vouchers to senior citizens, this can make their employment more attractive to companies where the voucher can be applied to company group health insurance programs.

By making the voucher program immediately available to those who turn 65 in the next eleven years, and available to those currently on Medicare, (both on an optional and voluntary basis), it will allow for a period of testing, correcting and experimentation during the run up to full implementation.

It will, of course, be necessary to establish reasonable market rules for companies who accept the vouchers.  This will be a challenge and difficult.  How can we encourage reasonably attractive rates for the aged? Obviously, there will need to be a need to require a pooling of some risk with other age groups. In addition, there will be a need to establish a requirement not to drop seniors who get sick.

The proposed compromise above accomplishes the moving of a large number of people to market-based insurance policies. However, it will also be necessary to legislate appropriate tort reform along with this measure to minimize needless testing and defensive medicine. Discounts should apply for seniors to take age appropriates measures to stay in good physical condition.

What about those citizens over the age of 75?  Two alternatives:

1. They can continue to stay on the voucher plan up to age 80, or,

2.  They can move to the standard existing Medicare program.

At age 80, all senior citizens would then move from the market-based insurance program to standard existing Medicare program.

I do not have the actuarial data or the algorithms to run the calculations, but suspect the above would achieve much of Congressman Ryan's objective while softening some of the reservations many people may have with the plan as it now stands. 

The Grey Gambling Medicare Tax:

First, don’t forget that everyone continues to be obliged to make the “payroll tax contribution.” No change here.

So, having established that there will be no relief from FICA, what is the solution?

No children, no benefits!

A major factor in the Social Security System crisis-to-come (but not sole factor) is that we have more and more people on or preparing to be on Social Security and fewer and fewer people paying into the system. Once upon a time the ratio was very high, maybe 25 or 30 to 1, but now it is approaching 2-4 to 1. (I may be slightly off on these numbers but the drift and direction is nevertheless towards one taxpayer supporting one retiree.) 

Why? People are living longer and more and more people are having fewer and fewer children. As I don’t propose knocking off the old (but wait for liberals to change the “right to die” to “its right for you to die”) I propose we require Social Security recipients to produce and rear children.

Therefore, let it be enacted that to be entitled to full social security, one must show that they claimed on their federal income tax return a minimum of 60 credit years of child dependent deductions.  This is 3.3 children per couple.  Adoptions certainly apply.  No excuses for not being able to bear children.  If you only can demonstrate 30 deduction credit years social security benefits are cut by 50 percent. (1 child on one year’s tax return = 1 credit year.)

If you think about it, this will encourage marriage and children!  It will also produce families.  It will provide the working Americans for the future.

To be fair, I would phase this new law in by exempting on a scaled basis those people currently between 35 to 45, and those over 45.  This is not for reasons of justice, but mere pragmatism.

Returning Conservatism to Power

Minds need to be changed; The National Review, The Weekly Standard and talk radio won’t do it.  They preach to the converted. Neither scholarly books like The Looming Tower nor political books like If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat will meet the requirement. Some of these may be a financial success, but the results of the election do not suggest that 20 years of Russ Limbaugh have had a lasting impact. Again, minds need to be changed.

Universities continue to pour liberal pabulum into unreflecting and malleable minds.  And, as Professor Jaffa has observed, the universities have “become the ultimate source of change in (this) regime.” This includes Hollywood, mass media and other forms of mass culture. Given the liberal, leftist and nihilist thinking of the dominate university group think, we cannot rely upon the universities as a source of change. Indeed, they must be changed and this will not be a trivial task.

We need to make right thinking easy, and it must be slightly deceptive. We need to address it to the not-so-intellectual majority of citizens: Republicans, Reagan Democrats and other Democrats who have not imbibed of the Daily-Kos and Howard Dean cool aid. The task is to educate and not just write for the educated.

I have in mind a series of small books; call them pamphlets in the admirable tradition of Thomas Paine. These would be entitled something like “Conservatism for Dummies” or “Conservatism made Very, Very Simple.”  These pamphlets would be presented as “Forbidden Fruit.”  (One can imagine wrapping them in brown paper or sealed in plastic like naughty magazines.) They would have a subtitle which read “NOT FOR LIBERALS or DEMOCRATS”.  It will take prohibitions to induce citizens of the modern mass society to want to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge.

The series would tackle various topics:

·         Voter Fraud 101

·         Adam Smith and Market Economies

·         The Top Ten Socialist Economies in History

·         Immigration!

·         Taxation and Tax Reform

·         Ronald Reagan

·         The Declaration of Independence

·         What is Equality?

·         NeoCon Foreign Policy

·         What is Radical Islam?

·         The High Cost of Medicine: Conservative alternatives.

ETC.

One could also imagine a series of “made simple” pamphlet editions of classic conservative works such as:

·         The Road to Serfdom

·         Reflections on the Revolution in France

·         Capitalism and Freedom

·         The Federalist (my teachers rolling over in their graves at this suggestion.)

I would suggest a price of $4.99 for each paper edition and no document should be more than 100 pages of reasonably large font.  They should be written in the “Dummies” format and distributed in newsstands, bookstores, and especially airports. 

I would have the best conservative scholars and thinkers GHOST write these.

Only by changing minds will we change the rulers in Washington.  Is liberal democracy still possible in modern mass society; a democracy that demands and depends upon liberally educated citizens, or as educated as we can possibly make them?

“In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.”

Carl Sandburg writes, “Shade trees were few in the Ottawa public square and most of the twelve thousand listeners were in a broiling summer sun on August 21^st when the first of the debates took place.  For three hours they listened. Seventeen cars full of them had come from Chicago.  By train, canal boat, wagon, buggy and afoot they arrived, waved flags, formed processions and escorted their heroes.”

Lord Charnwood in his biography of Lincoln (among, if not the best), observes that Lincoln’s House Divided speech (June 16, 1858) accepting the Republican Party nomination for the Senate, “had made a stir, but the rest of his speeches in these long debates could not be noticed at a distance”, that is, on the East Coast.  But Harry Jaffa points to Charnwood’s “opinion that Lincoln, in the debates, had ‘performed what, apart from results, was a work of intellectual merit beyond the compass of any American statesman since Hamilton.’”

In fact, in a key question posed to Stephen Douglas at the second debate at Freeport on August 27, 1858, Lincoln sealed the defeat of the Democrat Party in 1860.   Further, the published edition of the collected debates was the campaign literature in 1860. 

Remember and appreciate the greatness of Mr. Lincoln as we look forward to the debates of this coming presidential canvas.  Perhaps take the time to re-read the first debate would be an appropriate way to do this.   Although I know many of you have this book on your shelf, for those who do not, you may find it at the following link.   http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debate1.htm  Then order a copy from your favourite book seller and read all the debates. 

I just finished reading Michael Yon’s Moment of Truth in Iraq:  How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope. If you are interested in the future and not the past, especially regarding the US policy in Middle East, then this is worth the 4 or so hours it takes to read.

Yon is a former Green Beret turned photo and print journalist.  He has probably spent more time in Iraq than any other reporter.  And, of this time, Yon spent his time with combat units and not in the relative safety of the “Green Zone” in Baghdad.  He was an on the ground eye witness of events.

Yon is not an administration apologist.  The book begins with stinging, and on the mark, criticisms of how the war was mishandled.  He does not waste time on debating the merits or wisdom of the war, he goes straight to the conduct and execution.  Among the first direct hits that Yon triggers is the fatal blunder of the appointment of Paul Bremmer and his decision to literally dissolve the old Iraqi bureaucracy.   Yon also goes after the Administration and pundit friends who failed to see and admit to an insurgency (catalyzed by the Bremmer blunder) which turned into a civil war and then failed to admit to the civil war that nearly ended in catastrophe.

Moment of Truth in Iraq proceeds to explain how and why things have changed in the last 18 to 24 months.  The factors include the depravity and evil of al Qaeda and its contribution to the Sunni Awakening, the brilliance of a new leader – General David Petraeus, and the great moral power and resourcefulness of the U.S. soldier.   Yon repeatedly drives these three fundamental points home with concrete example after example.  More than once this writer caught himself holding his breath.  

American military leadership, with its tradition and emphasis integrity, have ultimately played a larger role in the amazing change than firepower.  Yon cites how Iraqi infantry seeing American officers in combat “leading from the front” soon insisted upon the same qualities in their officers.  There is story after story of how Iraqis have come together because of their trust in the American military.  The horrible calumny of Abu Grhaib is in the past – there is the very recent incident of an Iraqi father bringing his sons into US military custody rather than to the local police, he did not know if his sons were guilty of terrorism but he knew the American would treat them with justice.  Indeed, one of General Petraeus’s first acts on taking command was a letter of instruction demanding from his soldiers-- morality in war.  Yon compares this letter with a similar instruction from General George Washington.

Yon does not argue that the war is over or won.  He does strongly take the position that defeat was near and that now victory is possible.  This is the underlying concern of the book.  Victory is possible and by this he means the solidification of a reasonably decent and unified Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors.    Victory is possible because of the great learning that the US military underwent and has now proved itself to be “world class” in counterinsurgency warfare.  (If you read Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife, you’d see that the US military has been an A++ student.)

For Yon, the key to victory is political and moral courage on the home front. (Courage is not lacking in the US military, although there is the frequently heard remark about the military going to Iraq and America going to the mall.) Now that the right tactics and strategies are being conducted on the ground, it is time to continue them and reinforce them.  Exiting prematurely from Iraq in Yon’s view would be a disaster several magnitudes worse than the ignominy of surrender and defeat in Vietnam.

On this final point may hinge much of the future for the Middle East and for American influence and American interests.   Regardless of one’s position on this matter, Yon’s book is a document that one should honestly confront.  However, it is a report from a soldier turned journalist; there are a few descriptions and expressions that are disturbing.  Sometimes truth is disturbing.

Finally, near the end of the book, Yon relates how he recently said to an Iraqi soldier, “You know, some day Americans and Iraqis will be the best of friends.”  The Iraqi officer responded in disbelief:  “We already are good friends.”