Don’t Call Them “Illegal Aliens”, Call Them….,

            Recently several cable TV talk shows have entertained guests that espouse the theory that calling folks who have entered the good old U.S. of A. illegally, “illegal aliens”, is prejudicial, harmful and down right hateful. This “renaming” sort of goes along with the “Political Correctness” movement that renamed garbage collectors “Sanitation Engineers”. No Shirley, I’m not picking on those stouthearted individuals who pick up our trash. It has been said that we would miss garbage collectors much faster than we would miss politicians should both go out on strike. Besides the garbage collectors seem to do an outstanding job at what they are hired to perform.

            But this did get me to musing as to what we should call folks who knowingly break our law by sneaking across our borders in the dark of night and then do their very best to remain undetected.

            It was suggested on one of the shows that we should call them “undocumented workers”. This seems to fall short of the goal. After all, not all that sneak into this fairest of all countries become “workers”. Secondly, “undocumented” by whom, by the Immigration Service, by the IRS, by the Social Security Administration, or by the State Driver’s License Bureau or some other entity? These “sneak in unlawfully” folks often obtain one or more of these types of documentation. Thus they aren’t really “un-documented” in all cases.

            When they sneak across our border out side the law, they then, by definition, break our law. So they are 'outlaws', or ‘felons’. So a good descriptor might be “Non Legal Resident Felons”. Having limited legal expertise in this specific area, it is possible that it isn’t a felony, but only a misdemeanor. We could then call them “Non Legal Resident Misdemeanant”, but that lacks the real punch like ‘felon’ has and seems to infer that they are ‘mean Aunts’.  So we need to improve on the word. So we might consider using “Non Legal Resident Misdemeanorer”. It doesn’t just roll off the tongue like ‘felon’ does, but it does sort of rhyme with “Oscar Meyer Wiener”. Sure that’s a little awkward, but it lends itself to poetic use. An example,

“If they are here illegally,

Don’t dare to feed them regally.

They are miscreant Misdomeanorers,

So feed them Oscar Meyer Wieners.”

            Anyway, I took it upon myself to develop a more “Politically Correct” but descriptively accurate title for these law-breakers. “National Trespassers”, “Border Breakers”, or “Border Outlaws” were a few of my original options but seemed to be deficient. “Trespasser’s Of Our Sovereign National Borders Without Legal Entrance Documentation and Approval” seems to cover the actual situation but is probably too long to become ‘catchy’.

            It was also impressed upon me that I shouldn’t be ‘racists’ or ‘ethno-phobic’ (?) in selecting some descriptor. For instance I concocted “Hispanic Outlaws Ostensibly Trespassing Expressly Restricted Sovereignty” which seemed to zero in on the primary situation. It even had a ‘catchy’ acronym, “HOOTERS”. Unfortunately that acronym was already in use and the title was too long and was ‘ethnically inciting’ according to Shirley.

            So here is my current proposal for the naming of those who have come into our country illegally, “Multinational Outlaws Undocumented Since Entry”. It appears to cover the issue plus has a ‘catchy’ acronym: “MOUSE”. It can even be used to refer to more than one illegally present person, just use the term “MICES”, “Miscreants In Country Eliminating (our) Sovereignty”.

            Of course if they have also obtained a job and the requisite Social Security number, then they have committed a second felony. They have stolen an identity, as well as having entered our country illegally. And if they haven’t obtained a Social Security number, then they are working with the intention to avoid paying taxes, also a felony. Perhaps I need to develop a more strongly worded descriptor to accurately characterize those who are here actively in violation of our laws on at least two counts, a double Felon! “Double Felonious Non Legal Resident Person Violating Our Sovereignty.”  OK, I need to come up with a more ‘catchy’ descriptor.

Shirley, why would we want to offer asylum to a double felon?

On Fixing Social Security, a Proposal

On Fixing Social Security, a Proposal

Among the many problems that we Americans (U.S. of A. types) face today, there are 3 that are easily the most contentious, fight generating, and politically mauled and left unresolved. These three: 1) Funding Social Security; 2) Funding Medicare and some Basic Universal Health Care; and 3) providing an incentive to U.S. based businesses to hire net additional U. S. employees.

I propose a new solution to the first: The Funding Of Social Security (SS). It is simple, easy, and will solve the problem for all future generations. (Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but prove it wrong, if you dare.) Secondarily it can be used to assist with issue #3, new jobs.

            Let’s review some of the major “Concerns” with the current Social Security System.

1. The U.S. of A’s economy has transformed from an “industrial” based economy to an economy based on consumer consumption: (70% of GDP per some sources). We now import far more goods than we export, so no workers in U.S. of A. are involved in their manufacture.

2. The original concept of SS was based on 8-10 workers supporting one retiree who would not be eligible for benefits until reaching the average life expectancy, as it then existed, of 65 years. We are approaching a point when that will become 2 workers per 1 retiree, per some sources, and we allow early retirement as soon as age 62. Life expectancy is now past 72 years of age. In addition, the UN forecasts that the U.S. of A’s population growth will peak and start a slow decline around 2050. That means even more aging folks and fewer young worker types to fund SS.

3. The monies collected in excess of annual SS needs were to be placed into a SS “Trust”. The SS Trust’s funds have been spent by Congress over the years rather than being placed into some type of a “bank account” for SS use only. The Government must now start redeeming their “IOUs” from the SS Trust Fund. That will require new borrowing or the taking of funds from current Government income. Thus we have the screams that SS is bankrupt. Which is inaccurate; it has been “Looted” by Congress. Nevertheless there are no funds now available to make payment obligations.

4. Politicians have proved that they can’t resist spending money, especially OPM. They are even more tempted to do so when they can use that money in an effort to bribe voters. A Politician’s #1 imperative is SELF PRESERVATION of his/her elected status, perks, and power; not to mention the wealth they seem to garner while acting as our Representatives.

5. The U.S. of A. has some number of illegal residents, in excess of 12 million per some estimates. Many of these have jobs, some paid by cash only. This results in 2 hits: loss of potential work for a U. S. of A. citizen and loss of any F.I.C.A. tax paid. Not to mention that many of these ‘illegals’ send a significant portion of their earnings abroad so that money can no longer circulate within the U. S. of A. providing economic stimulus and creating more jobs domestically.

6. We have become a nation of “EEWOWS”: “Entitlement Expectant Wusses Or Welfare Supplicants”. It is time we become men, and women, again. We must pay for what we want rather than send the bill ahead a generation or two. We must stop wanting someone else to take care of us. As the old saying goes, “Each tub must learn to sit on its own bottom”.

7. Today we have somewhere between 10 % to 20% unemployed citizens. This means no F.I.C.A tax for SS from up to 20% of the population!

A PROPOSED SOLUTION to THE FUNDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY: Institute a National Sales Tax of 7%. Wait now Shirley, don’t get excited, and hear me out.

1. The U.S. of A. has a $14 Trillion economy. 7% of that is $980 billion. Assume imperfect collection and exemptions reduce this to $700 Billion annually.

2. The entire, total, all proceeds of this tax to be used ONLY for SS benefits. These funds must be sequestered away so that these funds cannot be spent by Congress for any other purpose.

3. Put out bids for 3 to 6 private corporations to manage the funds. “Prudent man” rules in effect for actuarial prospects of future payments to beneficiaries. You know, like the Insurance Companies have to do.

4. The funds to be ‘locked’ from any spending by Congress. The private companies manage and hold the funds. I.E., Hands Off Politicians!! The Funds can only be invested in marketable securities, not special Treasury ‘IOUs’.

5. On the date that the Sales Tax goes into effect, Immediately REDUCE the current F.I.C.A. withholding on all U. S. of A. domiciled workers paying a F.I.C.A. tax. Reduce the F.I.C.A. tax on Gross Pay under $150,000.00 from 7.65% of their pay to 0.65%. This offsets the Sales Tax impact for most Worker Types.

6. Immediately INCREASE the current payment to those receiving SS by 7%, thus offsetting the impact of the sales tax.

7. The ONLY exemptions from this sales tax: Home Mortgage payments on primary residence only, or Rental on one primary residence; and charitable contributions. Yes Shirley, we all have to carry some of the load so everything else is taxed.

8. Put in some tough rules for SS eligibility:

A). Must work 20 years to be eligible.

B). Must be a U.S. of A. citizen, or legal Green Card worker in domestic US, for those 20 years.

C). Fuss with early and full retirement ages. Say 65 for early and 70 for full retirement by 2030.

D). Employees of State, Local, or the Federal Government that do not pay F.I.C.A.  are not eligible for SS. To become eligible that person must worked at a non- government, F.I.C.A. paying job for 10 years to be eligible. (OK Shirley, I know that they have been paying the 7% sales tax, but this exclusion is necessary because the governments aren’t paying the corporations’ piece of F.I.C.A. If the various governments opt to do that, then this provision is not applicable to that specific group. OK? Cheeze, give me a break!)

E). This tax will be collected on all foreign visitors with NO provision for them to avoid the tax, unlike the European VAT tax schemes. So they help fund US retirement system, but are not eligible to receive SS benefits as they are not US citizens. This includes ‘legals’ as well as illegal visitors/residents.

9. The sales tax is also collected on all foreign goods brought into the U.S. of A for sale. Thus those items made in China and sold here will now carry some burden for the retirement of U. S. of A. citizens. Not picking on China, just using them as the current punching bag.

10. SS Annual payment increases to be governed by CPI. Yes, I know that it is an abdominal yardstick, but it’s the one we have.

11. SS Administration needs to be reduced and re-missioned.

12. The remaining 0.65% F.I.C.A. tax paid by the employee is their “Ticket” to establish their eligibility for attaining the necessary retirement criteria. For example, that they worked for 20 years, not necessarily sequentially or for the same employer, and that they paid their F.I.C.A. tax and are citizens or valid Green Carders.

13. This leaves out three groups who will now be paying the 7% sales tax without a comparable income offset: Government workers not covered by current F.I.C.A. tax, those on Welfare, and those drawing Unemployment Payments.

A). State and Local governments can do as they please as to offsetting the new 7% sales tax impact on their employees. But based on current studies and headlines, it seems that the average government worker already fares better than their civilian counterpart.

B). Federal employees will just have to suck up and pay the additional tax. (See 13, A). above).

C). Welfare and Unemployment benefit recipients will also be left up to the local governments to handle the 7% tax. It might be an additional incentive to seek real work. But it does seem reasonable that the States might want to add their own sales tax increase, say 1%, to fund at least the Welfare for those that are unable to work. (No Shirley, I’m not throwing the unemployed and Welfare folks under the bus; they will continue to receive what they are eligible to receive, it just might not be increased to cover this 7% tax; but they’re already being supported by other folks.)

14. Kill the $250.00 death benefit. It is too small to be helpful and will just become another political bone to be chewed over.

15. The SS Trust in the hands of the private firms will be limited by law to pay out no more funds in the current year than were received the previous year. Might result in lower payments during a recession, but is better than bankrupting the Trust Fund.

16. Remove the cap on F.I.C.A; gross pay above $150,000.00 to be taxed at 7.65%. (No Shirley, it's not equitable, but it does help ensure solvency for all.)

17. “What Shirley?” “You know that once a National Sales Tax is instituted, our politicians will try to drive every pet project and funding need through that doorway.” “Good point Shirley!” Therefore, a 2/3rds affirmative vote in both the Congress and the Senate will be required to pass any increase in the 7% rate. And a 3/4s affirmative vote in both the Congress and the Senate will be required to include any additional use of the National Sales Tax Funds for any purpose other than SS. If the American voters have elected representatives to pass a 3/4s vote, we deserve what we get.

A Serendipitous Benefit can be realized by using the Corporate funded F.I.C.A. Tax (7.65%) to encourage new hiring in the U. S. of A.

1. Every business that increases its TOTAL U.S. of A. domestic work force headcount on an annual basis can hire the net additional employee(s) with a F.I.C.A. rate to the business of ONLY 0.65% up to a Gross pay of $150,000.00. This continues for the length of that employees’ employment with that firm.

2. Every business that increases its TOTAL U.S. of A. domestic work force headcount on an annual basis can also reduce its business F.I.C.A. rate for an existing employee down to .65% on the first $150,000.00 gross pay on a one to one basis.

A). The existing employee’s pay must be within 10% of the new employee's pay. (This is a bone for Shirley who just doesn’t trust CEO’s).

B). Example, if a business of 15 employees doubles its manpower to 30: then it does not have to pay the Corporate 7% of F.I.C.A. for the additional 15 net additional employees (the equivalent of one free employee under today’s system). In addition it saves the 7% F.I.C.A. for the current 15 employees, the equivalent of another full employee salary savings.

3. This should help make the business more competitive in the global economy, since every 15 new employees hired are the equivalent of two additional employees at no cost compared to today’s TAX SYSTEM. This obviously should help with Issue #3 above. Yes Shirley, the business just might keep the money as earnings rather than raise salaries, cut prices, invest in plant/equipment, or pay out dividends. That’s the beautiful thing about free enterprise and capitalism; each business can decide what is best for its own interests.

4. There is a four-year “claw back” provision for the Corporate F.I.C.A. savings on the existing employee(s) if the total domestic manpower goes down.

Yes Shirley, I know that was long, boring, and tedious, but the problem is huge. And yes it does take away part of the Medicare funds, but we will address that next time.

L.R. Police encourage civilians to ‘shoot to wound, not to kill!’

 

Well, OK that isn’t exactly what the article said; but it certainly seems to be what it implied. Let me explain, and by the way, quotes/italics denoted contents are taken directly from the local L.R. paper, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette. ‘[Store-owner]’ is used rather than the man’s real name to avoid inciting the prosecuting attorney to take further action against this fine upstanding hero of a small businessman.)

Two masked miscreants enter a small grocery store, think typical convenience store size, and per the article in The Arkansas Democrat Gazette, “put the weapon to [Store-owner’s] chest and said, ‘Give me the money, give me the money,’ according to a police account in the case”.

“[Store-owner] opened the cash register and said, ‘Take it.’ But one of the robbers said ‘all the money,’ pointing to a place below the cash register where [store-owner] said he keeps extra cash. The robber then jumped over the counter and removed the money from the register while [store-owner] collected the other money.”

“The robber then jumped back over the counter, at which point [store-owner]; pulled a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum revolver from under the counter. [Store-owner] told officers that he got off five or six shots, striking both of the robbers.”

….. “They fled in a maroon Oldsmobile Alero, leaving behind a trail of blood…. They didn’t get far, deciding to pull over…. And dial the universal emergency number.”

“ ‘The robbers called 911 and said they were shot’, said Lt. Terry Hastings, a L.R. police spokesman. ‘They told us where they were. It makes our job a lot easier.’ “

“Police typically don’t encourage civilians to use lethal force, though ‘store owners do have that right’, Hastings said. An account of the event will be forwarded to the prosecuting attorney’s office, but Hastings said ‘we’re not anticipating any (charges) at this time’ against Store-owner.”

An article in The Arkansas Democrat Gazette on a subsequent day added this tidbit of information,” When the gunman walked back out from behind the counter after having leapt over it, [store-owner] said, he saw the man raising his pistol at him. [Store-owner] said he had heard stories of robbers shooting employees even after they had what they came for.”

“…Hastings said police will be investigating [the robbers] possible involvement with a chain of unsolved robberies that occurred throughout southwest Little Rock over the past few months.”

So there we have it. Two masked miscreants enter a store and place the muzzle end of a pistol against the store-owner’s chest and the local police spokesman offers this opinion, “Police typically don’t encourage civilians to use lethal force, though ‘store owners do have that right”.

Now I’ve never personally been caught staring at the muzzle end of a pistol pointed at my chest by a masked miscreant, but if ever it does occur, I will confess right up front, I’ll not be concerned with shooting to wound rather than shooting to kill. I’ll be primarily concerned with not being murdered. But if I decide that my best chance to survive is to ‘draw and fire’, I’ll not worry about trying to only wound the miscreant.

I recently attended a class to obtain a handgun license; it included firing a pistol. I am very impressed with [store-owner]. First he had a revolver, it is ready to fire: no clip to insert, no chamber to load, no safety to release. If the revolver is double action, just pull the trigger and it goes “bang”. Second he had a .357 magnum; a caliber of sufficient power to really discourage or stop a miscreant from doing you further harm. Third, and most impressive, he fired 5 or 6 times and hit both miscreants without allowing them time to shoot and wound or kill him.

It really perturbs me that [store-owner] is having insult heaped upon his terrifying experience. Per the Police Lieutenant, “An account of the event will be forwarded to the prosecuting attorney’s office, but Hastings said ‘we’re not anticipating any (charges) at this time’ against [store-owner].” At this time! Give me a break. This man is a hero! Surely the prosecuting attorney will recognize [store-owner] as a hero. If [store-owner] is due any reprimand, it is for poor marksmanship, for he left himself exposed to being wounded or killed. Plus now the citizens of L.R. will not only be paying the hospital bills for these two, but their ‘room and board’ while pending trial, and then for their long term residency at the State’s Institution for the Criminally Inept.

Still, I am a little perturbed that the local police don’t cottin to civilians using lethal force to defend themselves. What does the Police Lieutenant suggest that a plain old civilian do? There are only three possible outcomes; you shoot the robber; the robber shoots you; or the robber just walks away and leaves you there to provide the police with whatever details you can supply to assist in their subsequent capture of said robber. The Police Lieutenant apparently opines that you should opt for the second or third of these: either being shot, or hoping the robber just walks away. But if you are so terrified for your life as to shoot at the robber, you are not “encouraged… to use lethal force”!

Under the Police Lieutenant’s scenario, the following seem to be the recommended responses by the “civilian”, read that as you or me. One, hope the robber misses with all his bullets should he fire at you. Two, hope that the robber will just walk out and leave you unharmed. Perhaps the “civilian”, you or me, should encourage this “robberly” action by dropping to your knees and resorting to prayer as a first line of defense. Or try to gain an empathetic relationship with the robber by begging for your life. Like claiming you have 13 children, your wife is an invalid, both sets of aging parents are dependent on you for their sole care and support, and you rescue stray Golden Retrievers. Or perhaps just ask the robber to wait while you call 911.

When facing the business end of a robber’s revolver, lethal force by the civilian seems fine with me. Shoot ‘em in the front, shoot ‘em in the back, or shoot ‘em in the side. As the ex-cop who taught the ‘CHCL’ class I attended said, “If they come into to your house when you are there, they know you are there. They are willing, and have no hesitancy, to do you harm. Shoot to kill. If you wound him, he can still kill you.” That makes more sense to me than what Lt. Hastings was quoted as saying. Still I’m grateful everyday for the men and women who put on their uniform and pin on that badge of courage and go out and risk their lives for me, and for you. Still, if I’m ever in [store-owner’s] situation, wounding the miscreant will not be the first thing on my mind.