THE OSTRICH KILLER'S BUDGET SAVER

All of us have our favorite ideas on how to bring spending in line. Let's face it - in our personal budgets, we either have to cut spending to match our income, or increase our income to match our spending. At the federal level, that means either less spending, or more taxes.

We all love taxes, don't we? As long as it's the other guy who gets taxed, not me. I'm no different. But since we can't all go untaxed, maybe we should look at how to cut spending.

So here's my list:

1. Entitlement programs: First, any entitlement program not funded by its beneficiaries are scrapped. Gone. Done. Including all those federal employees who work on those programs. Close the offices, sell the buildings. You get the idea. Next, any entitlement program funded by its beneficiaries are kept apart from the general fund and may NOT be used as collateral or otherwise leveraged for any purpose other than paying its beneficiaries. Further, only those who pay into these sorts of programs - such as Social Security - may receive benefits from it, and then only in proportion to their participation in funding their personal accounts. Personal accounts may be willed to beneficiaries other than oneself in the same manner insurance policies can. This means NO DEADBEATS, ILLEGALS, OR NON-PARTICIPANTS WILL GET A DIME OF FEDERAL MONEY. Productive citizens will, non-productive won't. Yes, that's social Darwinism. This will save in excess of a trillion dollars a year, all by itself.

2. Welfare programs: Hey, didn't you read paragraph 1, above? No federal welfare. Of any nature. If the states want to provide any form of welfare, more power to them. But they can expect productive people to leave those states for states where there is no welfare.

3. Social Engineering Programs: We're talking things like Planned Parenthood, NEA (both types - National Endowment for the Arts and the National Education Association), PBS, "cultural awareness and appreciation" brainwashing in public schools, any affirmative action programs, etc. Elimination of these programs will save more billions.

4. Foreign Aid: You may be surprised to read this, but I'm not opposed to foreign aid. I'm just opposed to how it's done, although it doesn't amount to many billions. In the Ostrich Killer's budget, all foreign aid would be in the form of in-kind help, targeted to specific non-politically affiliated organizations in the various countries meant to receive such aid. For example, aid to Ethiopia would likely include drilling and irrigation equipment, farming equipment, seeds, etc. But no dollars. And any in-kind materials sent to these organizations would be built or grown in the US. Further, those countries who are not whole-heartedly pro-American would receive no foreign aid of any type. Nor would we allow imports from those countries.

5. The Space Program: They need a lot more money if they're going to reduce the chances of killing more astronauts and still do meaningful exploration. The Ostrich Killer is a big fan of space exploration. So I'd start by doubling their budget. That might almost bring their budget up to an amount roughly equal to the annual pizza expenditures by our citizens.

6. National Defense: This is an area where the question is not "how much can we afford?" but "how much is required?" Without a decisively dominant military, we don't continue to exist as a country. We hear that we have a 25-year technology lead on the rest of the world when it comes to defense items. Well, let's make that 50 years. Sitting on our collective asses and enjoying that technological lead won't keep us safe.

7. Other Programs, Agencies, etc: A deep review of every government agency - dept of agriculture, education, commerce, interior, etc - will be undertaken with the abiding question "does this agency or organization benefit the country more than it costs?" at the top of the list of questions. Any who are doubtful will be canned. Doors closed. People fired.

Do you like the above? Send a copy to Obama. Don't like it? Send a copy to Obama.

THE GIMME SOCIETY

I'm sitting here listening to Walter Williams (one of the clearest thinkers I've ever had the pleasure to hear) on the radio. Here's what he had to say about so-called entitlements - you understand that an entitlement is money that government takes from someone who earned it and gives to someone who didn't, right? - and what they really are.

Here's his example: I'm walking down the street. There's an old woman there, shivering on a grate in the dead of winter in New York. She asks me for some money so she can pay for a room and a hot meal and a visit to a doctor. I don't have any money, but I do have my handy pistol. So I pull the pistol and accost a passerby and tell him to give me $200 so I can give it to the woman, who obviously needs it more than the passerby does.

Walter Williams asks: is this moral? Or is it theft? And how is this different from the government taking money from one person and giving it to another? - - oh. The gun, right? Wrong. Refuse to pay, and armed cops will come for you. Resist them and they'll cuff you and take you to jail. Resist that, and they'll shoot you. So how is it different?

One is against the law, and the other is legal.

Oh, you say. Of course. But that begs the question: what is moral about theft, be it legal or not?

Taking a person's property against their will and giving it to another is immoral. You can make any argument you like about it, but in the end it is really simple theft, no matter the misguided good intentions. Because, you see, the luxury of this sort of good intention comes at the expense of others. It's easy to say that someone else should pay to help the unfortunates or worthless (Yes, there ARE worthless people) in our society. But if a person wants to test the value of their good intentions, let them see if they're willing to surrender their own property to someone else. The answer will nearly always be something like "If we all do it together, it'll cost each of us just a little . . ." In short, they want to keep their own property and pull a gun on the rest of us. They, and the other brain-dead hand wringer bleeding hearts among us, are no better than ordinary muggers.

I quoted somewhere in past blogs a prediction by Alex deToqueville. Something along the lines of 'This noble experiment of democracy is doomed the day the electorate discovers they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers.'

Are we there?

Is our future one of Obamunism - collectivism, socialism, communism? Fascism? Compare, for your own homework, his vision for America and Hitler's Germany.

It's time we non-ostriches begin to lose sleep at night. It's time we let others know what we think about takings, like government oversight of health care, welfare, and other programs that transfer money from those who earn it to those who don't.

Because, in the end, government control of our money equates to government control of every aspect of our lives. If you don't like that idea, let your voice be heard. Start your own blog. Talk to your friends and family about the morality of theft, no matter the perpetrator. Talk to them about the personal traits that made this country strong - individuality, personal responsibility, the work ethic, the knowledge of American History (Pre-PC, of course), and the potential for success without being penalized for it.

Write regularly and clearly to your representatives in Congress. Send copies of those letters to your local newspaper's editorial pages. Show up at political meetings such as Town Halls (if you can get past the screeners). Speak your mind dispassionately but plainly. Bring others with you.

I'll look for you there.

My Dream Party's Political Platform

We all have fantasies about what we'd like our favorite political personality to say. I'm no different. So, since this is my blog, I'm going to outline my dream party's political platform. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I'm enjoying putting it down on paper.

1. Domestic Policy: Leave people the hell alone. Stay out of their lives, stay out of their ways, keep government's hands off their property.
2. Protecting the Poor: This is the land of freedom. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail. It isn't government's job to enable the poor to remain poor, or the rich to remain rich, or any permutation or combination of those possibilities. See Domestic Policy, above. So let the poor choose: starve, or work. If some bleeding hearts out there think this is inhumane, maybe they could point to the Constitution and show us where it permits the Federal Government to be a charity clearing house, or to take from one person and give to another. Nothing prevents concerned neighbors, communities, families, or bleeding hearts from banding together and volunteering their personal resources to help the poor. But it isn't government's job.
3. Energy: Our country and our economy runs on energy. So cheapest is best, all other things roughly equal. For now and the foreseeable future, cheapest is nuclear. Next is coal. Then oil. Then anything else. Nothing has to be especially polluting, given today's technologies. So we're for nukes, coal and oil. We're also for a robust and energetic research program to see what other sources can be harnessed to produce even cheaper energy, such as fusion, tidal, geothermal, wind, etc. But it's gotta be cheaper, or at least not more expensive.
4. Offshore Drilling: Why drill offshore, when there's lots of oil right under our Red White and Blue dirt? Drilling on land has less chance to pollute, and is easier to clean up if an accident happens. No miles of shoreline are damaged, only a few acres of dirt. So we're for offshore drilling if there is no oil under our dirt, otherwise we should drill right here.
5. Foreign Policy: Our Number One export is freedom. Freedom everywhere is in our national best interest. So our foreign policy priority is first to protect our citizens and national interests at home and abroad, which means expanding the export of freedom. Otherwise, we don't meddle.
6. The Iraq War: See Foreign Policy, above.
7. The War on Terror: See Foreign Policy, above.
8. National Defense: We're the only superpower. We have at least a 25-year warfighting technology lead on the rest of the world. We're in favor of increasing that to a 50-year lead. Why? See Foreign Policy, above.
9. Taxes: They're too high. We're in favor of a flat tax rate, which 100% of American will pay. There will be no exemptions, no breaks for the poor. We want everyone to be sorely interested in taxes; today, close to half our citizens pay no income taxes, so they're in favor of tax increases to pay for increased benefits to them. This will change under our administration. Businesses pay too many taxes; we mean to cut them at least in half to help stimulate more innovation, more entrepreneurism, more exports.
10. Entitlement Programs: Aside for veterans and certain first responders, there will be no federally-funded entitlement programs. This will save our national budget well over a trillion dollars annually.
11. Abortion: We don't know when human life begins, and neither does anyone else. So our position is that any unborn has the same rights to life as anyone who can read this platform.
12. Racism: Policies or programs that benefit or punish people differently at least partly because of skin color or declared race, is racism. Therefore ALL government policies, laws and programs that do that will be revoked.

Do you have other suggestions for this Dream Party Political Platform? Send them to the Ostrich Killer, and maybe we'll add them to this list. Now, back to that coffee pot . . .

The Trouble with the U.S. Constitution

First, let me make clear that I stand at the front of the line of admirers of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. They did a magnificent job. Most of what they framed still works beautifully today.

But they couldn't have foreseen the changes technology has brought us: transportation technology and communication technology have combined to emperil the future of the United States of America.

The U.S. Constitution assumes that America can survive the occasional bad choices that an electorate might make. In their time, when reaction times were measured in years instead of hours, that was true. It is no longer true. A bad choice at the polling place can doom the country. If enemies perceive - and perception is reality, don't forget - that we are unwilling or even reluctant to do what's necessary to protect ourselves or even our interests, they will exploit that.

They will know immediately of our errors. We, on the other hand, have migrated our decision-making from 'who's best for America' to 'who's most attractive on TV.' Can you imagine, in this day and age, a Herbert Hoover being elected? Or a Teddy Roosevelt? They'd fail the 'video byte' test immediately, despite their true qualifications.

An ugly, plain-spoken candidate is automatically a non-starter. Today's candidate must have good hair, bright teeth, an attractive spouse, no history of marital issues, the ability to speak in PC, and a pleasing voice. This says far more about out culture than it does about the candidate.

A lot of good can be said for not hearing or seeing the candidate, of having to read their thoughts instead of listening to them.

The U.S. Constitution makes removal from office a difficult task. Rightly so. But in this day of instant news, global perceptions, and the ability to strike through high-speed transportation systems, can America survive the occasional mistake? More importantly, will enemies resist the temptation to strike?

Let me make clear who I mean by enemies. Domestically, an enemy is someone who would expand the role of government beyond Constitutionally permitted boundaries. Those include anyone who proposes an 'entitlement' program. Nothing in the Constitution permits the Federal Government to serve as a charity clearing house. Nothing permits them to take money from one person and give it to another, just because they need it. Alex deToqueville observed that the 'noble experiment of democracy' is doomed the day the electorate discovers that they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers. That day is long, long past. And in the end, he will be proven right. Think of welfare, of the ADA, of government oversight of health care, of jobs programs, of any sort of government handout. All of these take money from earners and give it to the non-earners. Can you think of a more effective recipe for stifling innovation and ambition?

Yes, I'm advocating that in this country, people should be allowed to starve to death. If their families and neighbors want to help, fine. But not on a federal, hold-a-gun-to-our-heads-and-make-us-pay basis, which is what a tax is.

Globally, an enemy is any country that would prefer we not exist, or who would like to put us into their harness. Let them detect weakness, or lack of resolve, or 'understanding', and it's over.

Voters in the day of our Founding Fathers had fresh knowledge of tyranny and the importance of their votes. They thought about national issues. Today voters often choose based on a single issue - abortion, terror, flat tax, government spending, homosexual marriage, etc. - and ignore other issues that may be of greater importance to the nation as a whole. We are a nation, I'm sad to have to report, of the globally and politically illiterate.

Which brings me to voter qualification. I propose nothing new here, you've heard it before. A qualified voter would be a citizen, a high-school graduate, and be either employed and supporting his family or wealthy, and have served his country honorably in federal service in some manner for a period not less than two years. Anyone else would enjoy the benefits of citizenship, but would not be allowed to vote or hold office. In short, only those who've shown an interest in their country would be allowed into the political process.

I guess that the sort of thinking that your friendly Ostrich Killer has shown above is a clue why he is not in public office - who, you might well ask, would ever vote for a guy who thinks like that?

Indeed.