Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is failing Dallas

 

First of all I do have to admit I do not have much experience riding mass transit, however the ones I have rode are significantly much better than what Dallas is giving us right now. Second I have always felt one reason for rapid transit is to help get cars off the road. And if there is ever a city that needs to get cars off the road it is Dallas. Two other cities that could use reduced traffic that I know of are Los Angeles and Houston. I have spent some time in both of those cities and all day long traffic just doesn’t benefit anyone, however I live in the Dallas area so I will want to talk about where we stand.

I am going to speak most specifically about the train system, yet I have traveled by bus in Dallas and Austin long before the DART train system was ever built. Basically at various times in my life I have tried to do what is right for our environment and use mass transportation. And if you live in Texas you already know that is actually a bit of a chore.

My experiences using train or metro systems previously include Washington DC, London and Madrid. I first used the metro in DC when I was a teenager and outside of getting the hang of it so to speak I managed to get around quite well. It was not a large system at that time, yet it got me to where I wanted to go. I have used it since including recently with my youngest daughter who lives there now. My family once visited DC in the early 2000’s and rode it from a hotel outside of DC into downtown and it was rather nice generally speaking. By no means I am saying it is perfect, but it is definitely functional and has only minimal of the problems that Dallas has.

I spent a week or so in London while I was in college and rode their system extensively. We did not rent a car so to go anywhere we had to use their metro system. And it got us around the entire London area including riding out to the equivalent of suburbs in the United States. I was able to find some pretty unique things to do and had no trouble getting there. The trains ran regularly and same as DC has little of the same problems that plaques Dallas.

We also spent a week in Madrid and pretty much the same. We had to use the system to get around and outside of the forced marches our daughter took us on (family joke) it was very beneficial. The phrase it is just over there means something completely different to a college student than an older couple.

Another aspect of these other systems is that you can connect to trains that go to places less than a hundred miles away so there are day trip options you just don’t have from Dallas even though there are places you could go that would be entertaining for tourists visiting Dallas.

The problem is getting people to ride DART that normally drive. And I hate saying this, but DART does not manage its riders well. It is almost like DART is taking a Christian approach and letting the homeless and mentally unstable have carte blanche on their system. I saw an occasional problem in the above mentioned systems, but nothing like what goes on in Dallas. Even the regular riders that use mass transportation because they need it are frustrated.

I reread my first sentence and I guess I should clarify. I do ride DART in Dallas to get around for many reasons from going to work, to going to my doctor and for other various destinations. My wife and my oldest daughter do not want me to ride. My wife has been on DART trains and buses and she is just not comfortable with some of the clientele. And I understand why, there are people on the system that take away from feeling safe, secure, even healthy in fact way too many. Yes some people should be able to ride, but when the system is bogged down so much that regular riders are uncomfortable there is a general problem that needs to be addressed. No one wants to say it out loud because we all want to be considerate, yet for a system to work people have to see a benefit to riding it. That is not happening in Dallas and it is the people who need mass transportation to get to work, shopping or other necessities that provide the bulk of the revenue are hindered and uncomfortable and if they could they would not ride. This would of course doom DART.

I think most of the problem is a logistics problem with how DART is set up. I do not manage nor understand the management of mass transportation so I do not feel confident in making a complete overhaul recommendation, but it feels that is what is needed.

To be successful DART needs paying riders and to help make DART beneficial to Dallas many of those paying riders need to be people that would normally drive to work at the very least. And that will not happen until DART decides to address the problem with the people who are not just impoverished, but significantly marginalized. It sounds cruel, but they cannot continue to allow these people to be such a problem that other people do not want to use the system.

And I know we need to do more as a society to help the marginalized people, but if we also want to increase ridership and help those who need mass transportation to go about their daily lives, DART cannot be a surrogate answer to homelessness. I have seen fights between people who could barely understand who they are and for many average Americans they just aren’t going to accept this while riding. It is a harsh reality, but true that most Americans do not want these types of problems interfering with their lives or worse subject them to conditions that make them uncomfortable to downright scared.

I would love to continue to ride DART, but am under orders from family members not to even think about it. (I have though). It is rough when you have seen other cities do very well with their systems and outside of an occasional individual most riders are going about their general day and you feel little concern.

Management of DART may need to make some hard decisions or they will continue to struggle with limited ridership in a city that desperately needs them to fill up those trains.

And again I know we need to do more for the marginalized, yet those answers are even more difficult.

No Labels, exactly what are they and for me this is more of the same nonsense that isn’t going to produce anything and is a big waste of time,,,,but don’t you want new parties you ask?

Yes I do want new parties, but from the little bit I have read they really aren’t a new party even though they are trying to get on ballots in states as if they are a political party. You cannot make any headway or productive change if you just try to upset the apple cart in one election. As of this morning they are on the ballot in 14 states and do not have a ticket yet. Not having named candidates right now though isn’t an issue. Shoot the Dems and Reps haven’t had one primary vote yet so No Labels does not need to be in a hurry.

And what really irks me about all the No Labels talk is that this is a broken record. Does anyone remember American Elect? And yes the exact same Democrats who were against them are against No Labels because they are afraid that they will siphon votes from the Democratic Candidate which is presumable Joe Biden, but not guaranteed yet. Essentially the Democrats fear any moderate candidate outside of them is not good for them. Yet if they had done what is right for the working and middle class all along these attempts at independent candidates would gain no head way. So first they should not be allowed to prevent No Labels from being on the ballot anywhere because second their failure here is their own fault. And going back to first point, it is un-American to deny people the right to be on a ballot unless they try to shoot themselves onto it.

And going back to American Elect moment in time I wrote a post on this blog on December 30, 2011 and a follow up on January 01, 2012. You can go back and check me, however basically I was against the run back then for the same reasons now. You cannot make significant change in the body politic of our country just by electing an independent candidate to the Presidency. Why, well you need a political party in Congress to help support your legislative agenda. Much as the two major parties are failing with new initiatives right now, to get legislation passed you need to have someone bring a bill to the floor of the House and Senate.  Here is one paragraph from the previous post”

            Now back to the comments about the America Elect process. I am not going to get into the splitting of the vote, CNN and others are pretty ramped up about that. And yes it could be a concern, but lets take a look at the America Elect group actually winning. The problem is that they have no other support. Legislation gets passed when you have support in Congress and most of the time that comes from your own party. American Elect is not trying to create a third party so they run into a huge wall when dealing with Congress if they win the Presidency.  This would create a gigantic stalemate or even something more interesting where Republicans and Democrats agree on some issues and pass what they want and override Presidential vetos left and right (pun intended). So the goal of America Elect is thwarted by the very group they are trying to by pass to run this country. Basically we get more of the current situation which is partisan arguing and no real and new policy development. And if you are a libertarian you might be able to claim victory this way if the government cannot do anything for four years.

I just copied and pasted and even left the misspelled word from the original post. Here we are almost 12 years later and no one has figured out that to overcome the current morass in Congress you need to bring in full scale change. Well maybe some people have figured that out, but no one is doing anything about it. Go back to my blurb about this blog” an editor is worth their weight in gold, too bad I have neither.” If I had the gold I would at least try to pull something together because I obviously need the editor to make sense of my thoughts to get people to make changes, yet again almost 12 years ago I saw the same attempt as No Labels, explained why it would fail if they won and yet here we go again with no change that would be successful. Anyone wonder why I walk the thin line of madness?

Also if you do go back and read the full two parts of the post it also contains a small history of third parties in the United States. And if you are reading this on Tumblr or Wordpress, you will have to go to blogger or blogspot or whatever to read the original. I basically do the same blog on three platforms, but did not start the other two until sometime later.

No Labels is a waste of time and money, no matter how sincere they may be. If we want real change, we need to do real work. Where is the gold?

No cheers, this is maddening. 

Signs of a possible recession from someone not even an amateur economist and other thoughts

 

There is a company that started in Texas called Bucee’s. It has grown pretty significantly in Texas and lately is branching out to other states. It is not a truck stop, yet it is a place where you can stop get gas, food, an enormous variety of souvenirs, trinkets, road trip supplies, t-shirts with their logo, they tout their bathrooms being the cleanest and more. It isn’t a store that sells primarily necessities. It is quite an impressive size store that derives most of its business from people traveling. Or you might think that based on locations, however quite a few people go to one that is close to their house.

I use them as sort of a tongue in cheek marker for road trips. They are positioned near large cities in Texas, but mostly about 30-40 miles away so I say if you pass one on the highway going out of town you are now officially on a road trip according to my logic.  Their target audience is basically working and middle class families on the go.

So what has this got to do with a recession. There are now billboards where they are advertising 5% off the whole store. So this says to me sales may be slumping a bit. Most retailers have sales, however when the whole store goes on sale even a small amount something is usually amiss with total sales. The billboards lean into the idea that they are inflation fighting, but I am not buying it. I am not saying they are struggling, however, signs like these might mean leaner times are coming for the consumer economy. This is a very popular store where they are located and can be overwhelmed by crowds. I have made that stop on occasion over the last few years and it can be busy. There is always a line at the register which is a good sign for the company. I haven’t been in a few months so seeing this billboard makes me wonder. I am not about to make a special trip just to find out, yet if you are reading the tea leaves this billboard isn’t screaming optimism.

 

And as you know someone drove the House of Representatives off a large cliff. There are many culprits and suspects, yet generally there is a problem. I know some will say that the Democrats aren’t the problem, yet they are part of the disease as a whole. There is an article in from Time by Lee Drutman titled: “The only way to fix Congress”. First of all that is a bit presumptuous. Second Mr. Drutman mainly addresses the well known problem of the two party system is marching further and further to the right and left based House districts being safe for the respective partly. And as you know means the real election is in the primary for most House seats. Mr. Drutman works through this premise for the first half of his piece and discussing a bit of the current situation and history.

He then suggests that we should adopt a proportional representation system to elect House members. I have seen this discussed before and I certainly understand how it works. I am just curious about it. I think Mr. Drutman is also in favor of expanding the number of political parties which you know I am very in favor. The question is how do we break up the monopoly of the two party system. Do we sue them via the Federal Trade Commission? Probably won’t work, but at this point anything is worth a try. Going back to his proposal I am not sure how it would get implemented. You could still have just the two party system and maybe obtain better representation. I do not know, yet he tends to think so.

I think in some ways what he is proposing or the concept is somewhat done in the primary elections or at least it use to be. The primary candidates for President would receive delegates based on the percentage or some other formula used so it wasn’t winner take all. I think that might have changed, not sure. I do not vote for the two parties in an election, however I treat the primaries differently and have voted in Democrat and Republican primaries, mainly for the entertainment factor. I have been to precinct meetings and one year ended up being the person to help with the math to determine how many delegates each candidate received to go to the County or State totals. This was years ago so do not remember the exact details. I do remember it was a convoluted formula. The problem with voting in a primary is you receive inordinate amounts of campaign solicitations from various candidates from that party. It becomes way too much of a cost to opt out of it all just for one day of watching people behave like crazed baboons to sway how the results are determined and especially since it is a fixed formula. Or it was, not sure nowadays.

We do need to change processes up since the House is definitely at the bottom of a cliff right now. The idea in Mr. Durtman’s article won’t change our current disaster, yet it is a consideration for the present moving into the future.

And for me as always, we do need new major parties and maybe some different electoral maps.

Cheers

Okay this time I’m not critical and other thoughts

 

So I read a story by Jay Caruso in the Washington Examiner titled “The House Freedom Caucus Chickens have come home to roost” and it is written before the third vote for Jordan’s attempt at being Speaker. I have to say I like what he says. Here we have someone in the Examiner laying out exactly what has happened. It isn’t earth shattering reporting or opinion, just some plain facts and thoughts as to as why the Speakership is in such turmoil.

He mentions that Jordan may eventually win, but since this was written before the third vote I do not see how that is going to happen. And he asks even if he were to win, what kind of governing coalition will he have. Since it doesn’t look like he will win since he lost three more votes Friday morning, I am feeling better about what that coalition might have looked like.

Yet here we are. The Freedom Caucus members do not seem like they want to budge since they do not want to support the interim Speaker’s powers be expanded, but they have no plan. Nothing, nada, squat, diddly squat, big bag of nothing is the plan being put forth by them. They do not want to accept any compromise or work with the Democrats to do anything. It boggles the mind that they cannot just accept something to get a portion of what they want to move on some issues. And this is pretty much the point of the article I read, that they apparently have no idea what they can do.

And unfortunately the members trying to find a way forward with some attempt at conservative policy are attacked, berated, stymied, harassed, and the madness goes on. Mr. Caruso goes through these points that the House Freedom Caucus lost either the will or the ability to do the real work to get conservative policy enacted. Now to me that seems like a lost dream.

And switching gears the legal news is not going well for one Mr. Donald Trump. Will the New York Judge overseeing his business trial slap consequences on him for maintaining or not taking down something from one of his websites that was ordered two weeks ago? I haven’t seen any actual fine or jail time perpetuated on Mr. Trump yet, but keeping an eye on the news today.

Second two of his attorneys in the Georgia case have now pleaded guilty with Chesebro’s plea coming today. This could start heading further south than the Gulf of Mexico fast.

And with Jordan’s Speakership potentially fading into a footnote of history, Mr. Trump’s influence on everything but his supporters is one heck of a leaky ship out there in the aforementioned Gulf.

Cheers

Let’s open this can of worms, pro life versus pro abortion.

So did you catch the phrasing, some will say pro choice versus anti abortion. The way it is phrased automatically shows which side you fall on the debate. Or at the very least it is an interesting tell.

Everyone has an opinion and of late I am struggling with many others’ opinions. I recently read a piece by Amanda Marcotte titled: “Keep her legs closed!” Republicans are mad one of them said the quiet part out loud.

Her opening is that Republicans definitely want to punish women for having sex- but they don’t want voters to figure that out. And then ties her argument to the Dobbs v Jackson decision overturning Roe v Wade and then ties all this to the idea that all Republicans have a long standing dream of using forced child birth to punish women for having sex.

I seriously struggle with this over handed reach as to why people are against abortion. Could there be a few Republicans who fit her description? Probably, but to lump all people who believe that life begins at conception and many of us truly believe all life should be protected is definitely reaching. The actual definition of pro life is the respect and dignity of life from conception to natural death. And yes there are some politicians who are pro life for political expediency, not because they have true understanding or belief in what it means to be pro life. Yet for Ms. Marcotte to espouse this monstrous definition that all of us want to punish women for having sex is absurd. And as always I do need to say I am not a Republican, but an independent conservative, but for her purposes I do not think she worries about that difference.

We have too much extremism in this country as it is, so to lump everybody in one category to brand everyone sex haters to me is an extreme position. And I am being a bit short on purpose.

The pro life pro choice argument is one of the most difficult discussions to have in this country. So her choosing the verbiage “…punish women for having sex” or me calling her opinion monstrous does not do the debate any favors. Yet we, as humans, all fall into this emotional trap when we try to discuss topics we have hard opinions. And this debate is top of the list in this country for rousing our deepest angers.

I truly believe that life begins at conception so I struggle with the concept of pro choice. Yet I am not here to say women or men cannot have sex. I wouldn’t be here without it. And should it be considered that if we believe in the dignity of life from conception to natural death, where do we draw the line at natural death? Is a women suffering in child birth a reason to have an abortion to save her life? That is a damn good and difficult question to answer. The choice between saving one of two lives is a struggle for mankind in general much less for one doctor that has about thirty seconds to make a decision. So I believe we should not condemn any one for making that choice either way.

Yet where do the nuances become an easier choice? Well, that depends if you say, pro life or pro choice. So that leads back to the circular arguments that each side will make to justify their decision. And most of us tend to be birds of a feather that flock together. The vast majority of my friends are pro life so I would tend to use our arguments in a discussion with someone who is pro choice. And I will say unequivocally we are right. Life begins at conception. So how do you explain dignity of life until natural death and for the unborn child that dignity exists and it is up to us to protect their life since they cannot.

Some will argue that since an unborn child cannot exist outside the womb that allowing a woman to choose to make decisions regarding her body preempts the life argument. And honestly I may have missed the exact argument there so if you want to clarify it, please do in the comments, just be respectful to the debate and not use emotions.

And Ms. Marcotte’s article does not immediately reference a religion argument, yet she heavily attacks the general concept that all or most Republicans (again not the verbiage pro lifers, but Republicans, I am curious as to why) and specifically calls out a State Senator in New Jersey, Sen. Durr who apparently said “a women does have a choice, keep her legs closed” which seems to have set her head on fire and inspired her to write her piece. And apparently this State Senator had liked some other anti woman phrasing. Yet if she really wants to make headway this anger fueled post is not going to change any minds. And as I said earlier this national debate is one we struggle with mightily with entrenched opinions And we all know how difficult it can be to change an opinion. I once wrote a short story to try and create a way around the debate and to change people’s hearts. For true pro lifers we know that this is not a debate, but an understanding of the value of life and to get people to understand this we need to change what is in the heart. And yes we struggle when people who call themselves pro lifers stick their foot in their mouth ie the above referenced Senator. Yet I feel that Ms. Marcotte needs to be called out for lumping the entire pro life debate into a false narrative to vent her anger with one person or a few people who truly do not represent what it means to be pro life.

We know we are human and have faults. And maybe all our are arguments aren’t perfect, but we believe that people should be engaged with each other, believe women have the right to choose who their partners are and to engage with them sexually. We know that saying keep your legs closed is not the answer. We were or are young. We know we can make mistakes, yet to vilify us for I think reasons not stated is beyond the pale.

In the Gospels there is the story of the woman about to be stoned due to accusations of adultery. Jesus steps in and calls out everyone there, saying those who have not sinned cast the first stone. And then they all leave and I love this part, starting with the elders.

Not one of us is perfect, but that is one of the main reasons to be pro life. We need to treat each other with dignity and respect until our natural death. Sure our politicians could do better in helping with adoption laws, better healthcare programs for young and old, leading by example and not denigrating each other, and so much more, but to arbitrarily attack a group of people using labels because a few people present a false front is not an answer to solving this debate or more hopefully to a change of heart. Until then as pro lifers we need to remember we are not perfect and cannot lecture or berate especially us elders. That will do more for the change of heart for people who call themselves pro choice than any argument. Maybe one day Ms. Marcotte will be able to see beyond what is fueling her anger to get to the real answer.

When exactly did you say this happened? Republicans and the deficit, a brief not sure what.

 

I read an opinion piece by W. James Antle, III from the Washington Examiner who states that the Republicans that ousted McCarthy as Speaker have valid points that we need better control over spending and returning to regular order in the House. I am totally for this proposal, however his claim that these Republicans, both the people who ousted McCarthy and the conservatives in the Party are the ones to move this forward is more than a bit outlandish. Mr. Antle goes on to state that the people that ousted McCarthy did so because we need to pass the fourteen individual appropriation measures. And yes I agree this would be a better way to fund the government since and he addresses it in his piece, the measures could be read in advanced, debated, amendments proposed and everyone knows what they are voting for or against.

First question; the House knew they wanted this in January when they elected McCarthy so why didn’t they start work then? Second question, when have the Republicans ever done this?

In 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 the Republicans had the Presidency, Senate and House, what happened those years. This was the era when big business was ruling the roost in the Republican party so tax breaks and heavy military spending was the main goal, yet if they really wanted to create the appropriation measures they certainly were in a place to do such.

In 2016 and 2017 during Trump’s term the Republicans held the House and Senate, yet did we have the appropriation measures Mr. Antle states the Republicans were all for when they elected McCarthy as speaker. Why didn’t they produce a full budget at that time?

And currently since Republican politicians today are remnants of the big business era and a large band of how can I get Donald Trump to like me it isn’t difficult to figure out why they couldn’t create the appropriation measures in the first place. Yet, Mr. Antle is all puppy dog in love with his argument the Republicans should listen to the people who ousted McCarthy and make sure the new Speaker makes the appropriation measures a priority. Is he kidding us?

Neither the Democrats or Republicans have any interest in actually producing a budget or one would have been completed years ago. They blame each other of course. And overall both parties struggle to even come up with constructive public policy. Well, every now and then something does get passed that resembles an idea, but since the current Republicans prefer Donald Trump’s one liners as public policy and the Democrats spend way too much time trying to make everyone happy and spend money to try and do such what do we expect. I agree there are marginalized people, disenfranchised people, rights of certain groups are stepped on, but the Democrats never address this constructively, yet find ways to make platitude speeches with no real concrete improvements for these people. We get inordinate amounts of money spent with very little actually going to poor people, but we receive platform after platform each election telling us how bad we are that we don’t do more. Well do more, but we have had Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and do you see significant tax breaks for the working and middle class passed, real health care reform, not the insurance overall of Obama, Social Security improved, and even them passing appropriation measures.

Neither party has a clue as to legislating, yet both parties are great at blaming each other for the ongoing troubles our country faces.

Today though was a bit much. Mr. Antle appears somewhat young via the picture I saw when I internet searched who he was after reading his opinion piece. And yes it is only an opinion piece not someone positing a plan to be implemented as if he was in Congress. Yet to say, the current Republican party can actually implement this wonderous dream that the House or even the Senate actually produce a responsible well thought out budget that can be reviewed, addressed and voted on is beyond the pale. They had their chance starting in January, yet spent more time waving at Mr. Trump to get his attention than doing anything else. And then at the last minute their fearless leader wanted them to shut the government down unless they got all they wanted. Great way to manage our country there Mr. I want to be President again. How does this make me trust anything the Republican Party does.

I am an independent conservative and have been for decades and it is articles like this that just reinforce my desire to stay such.

Here it is, your 23/24 US Government Shut down budget

 

Okay this is just a rough draft/guideline of some budgetary ideas since our illustrious Congress doesn’t seem up to the task.

As regular readers know I am an independent conservative so this is reflected in how this budget proposal shapes out. You can also take into account though that a government still has functions to perform and ongoing initiatives just cannot be cut or dropped at the drop of a hat. And since we live in a winner take all society which is morally wrong and economically unsustainable over time, this budget proposal will reflect that the government does need to protect the populace from individuals and groups that try to use the government to their advantage such as tax cuts and circumventing the needs of the general populace.

Knowing the government cannot do everything though and that contrary to some people’s beliefs cannot borrow incessantly we do need to reign in the budget to spend less and start reducing the debt. It amazes me that people believe we can keep borrowing and expect us to make all the payments to keep up our credit ratings. Sooner or later you cannot produce enough revenue to pay the interest and borrowing to pay interest is just ridiculous.

Finally this is an outline or guide to some changes that need to be made. Our government should be taking a multi year deep dive into repairing our budget. There are other factors to consider and I will touch on those a bit as I write. Yet to obtain a better handle on what is in front of us, we need to start somewhere. And it needs to be flexible, both in immediate needs and as a plan to move forward.

So with the above as a brief guideline, let’s get started.

The first statement is a general lets just cut 2.5 percent from the whole budget. Now we aren’t talking about cutting services or benefits by 2.5 percent, but operational budget. Another words each department etc. will need to reduce spending on how their budget operates without effecting the output that that department is required to meet via previous legislation. And each department etc. will need to work from the top down to help the various groups within it to find ways to cut. And this is for the first year so there probably is going to be some redundancies, some normal attrition, better efficiencies in tasks found and combining some operational tasks to make this goal of 2.5 percent. And it does not have to be a blanket 2.5 percent, the executive branch will be responsible to mediate costs in case maybe one department can cut 3 percent and another may only cut a bit over 2 percent. This coordination will be coming from the White House staff and Congressional committees that overlook the various tasks our government performs from National Parks to the military.

I do want to make a few exceptions. We can probably find 3 percent in the military since it is so large. One thing we do not want to cut is battle ready troops and supplies such as ammunition. Yet with the largesse of the military there will be opportunities for budget cuts by reduction of bureaucracy and better use of working with vendors to obtain better costs on what is needed. The military may not want to admit this, but they could do a better job of working with vendors and reducing redundancy.

And another aspect of the military budget we need to address is and this will take a few years to work into the budget, but is to have a fund to handle situations like Ukraine that can be kept year over year if not needed, but ready when needed. Right now we do need to fund Ukraine temporarily until their war is resolved. Many do not like this expense, but it is necessary. Yet for future planning depending on how the world is playing out, we should keep a budget for flash points that is above the normal military budget. This way we are not increasing spending ad hoc in a budget year, but can tap resources already built in, whether it be weapons or supplies or money. Again part of the military budget, but over and above what is needed for ourselves. This is somewhat like the petroleum surplus reserves that can be used when needed.

For now though we need to bake in some funding for Ukraine as we work towards the larger goal.

Second exception is the budget for immigration which needs a complete overhaul, however it cannot be overhauled until we develop a new immigration policy. Legislation needs to be written to address the changing world and our changing needs. I am not going to make immigration policy suggestions here, but they are needed and until we develop the new policies the budget will need to be scrutinized to find some cuts without hurting our immigration staff, border patrol, and handling in a humane way a crisis such as what is happening at the border. This is definitely something that will need multiple years of work both on budget and policy until completed and needs to be made a priority by the appropriate Congressional committees. Yelling and screaming there is a problem is just another problem in and of itself.

A third exception for cuts is to start paying ahead our debt. We need to make extra payments towards reducing our debt especially if we can cut out any high interest debt. I know that most of our borrowing is issuing bonds so we may have to change the strategy around issuing new bonds or making them callable during these high interest rate times. There are probably some other ways to retire some of our debt and need to be explored. We have to reign in how much of our budget is dedicated to paying interest so we can truly make a long term dent in the budget.

And for change of course, we also need to increase revenue. And yes this is not everyone’s favorite topic. I am going to touch on a couple of items though and this is by no means an overhaul of the tax code, but some changes to help change an attitude about who should be the priority of our government and here is a hint, it is not the ultra-wealthy.

The tax brackets are interesting if you look at them in general and is hard to explain in the written word. It is better to see a chart, yet copying and pasting them in this post would take up a bit of space. You can internet search yourselves how it works, yet generally there are 7 tax brackets and 4 categories or filers. Generally though the more money you earn the higher of a tax bracket you fall into. And there is the problem that if you make enough money you can higher tax professionals to reduce your tax burden so long term there needs to be quite significant changes in the tax code. Yet for now though outside of working on reducing some of the extravagant tax loopholes, we split up the tax percentages based on income so that the lower four brackets see a reduction and the fifth bracket sees no change or slight increase and the top two brackets see increases up to 38 and 41 percents from 35 and 37. Yet you have to be careful because if you lower the tax bracket for the first three levels by the incremental way taxes are calculated (you have to see the charts) the higher brackets see their increase not increase as much as you would think. Each bracket only uses the higher percentage above the previous levels income bracket. It is difficult to explain in words, but everyone is taxed at 10 percent for the first level, then 12 percent from the first level to the second level, 22 percent on the amount from the second level to the top of the third level and so forth. So adding 41% to the top bracket does not mean by any stretch that all their income is taxed at 41%. Their total is drawn down by the lower brackets that are calculated. You don’t want to be caught up in higher earners saying their taxes are going up too much, it is not as much as they would make it out to be by saying their taxes are going up 4 percent. In totality, it isn’t.

Another benefit of changing the tax code and lowering the amount to the first three brackets is you can switch some of this reduction to social security. This will not solve the social security shortfall by itself. Also we do not include the increase to the employers contribution. Many small businesses do not need extra expenses right now, but if someone is making $50,000 and we reduce the tax level from 22 percent to 18 percent for the third level and 12 percent to 10 percent for the second level which actually increases the first level overall since the first level is taxed at ten percent then their total tax bill drops actually from $6617 to 5658.00. This example is derived from the current first two brackets being turned into one and taxed at 10 percent and the third bracket becoming the second bracket and taxed at 18 percent and the numbers are based on single filer status. So over the course of a year the single filer $50,000.00 income saves about a thousand dollars in taxes and based on my social security change approximately 50 percent or $479.50 goes to the tax payer and $479.50 goes to social security taxes. These are not astronomical changes, but do reduce the tax burden who may be struggling to pay for everything right now and helps to increase social security revenue for the future. This alone will not save social security, but with some other enhancements not added here it will definitely help alleviate the upcoming shortfall.

To recap, this year we are making soft cuts of 2.5 percent to the total budget, forcing a deep dive on the military to reshape their thinking on the budget so we can increase immediate help to Ukraine, but long term bake in a fund to have for these types of situations, forcing an overhaul of immigration policy so we can work with what we have to create a realistic budget for border security. Quite frankly building a wall that is going to be breached constantly, subsequently will need repairs and will not prevent the infamous problems at the border is a waste of money. We need some serious reflection as to what we expect from policy, where the true problems lie and yes some of it is the masses at the border, but what else is happening such as illegal immigrants being able to work cheap and corporations turning a blind eye to save on labor costs are some examples of why we cannot expect to solve problems without spending the time to create a comprehensive policy to better manage the issue. Throwing money at the border is not a sustainable immigration budget or policy.

And minor changes in the tax code to switch who should be receiving better policy by our government. And from here we take the deeper dive to remove the frivolous tax breaks that allow the headline grabbing billionaires paying very little in taxes. Some business breaks such as paying employees and investing in future products are reasonable tax breaks, but this needs to be addressed in a constructive way to better understand where unnecessary breaks are given.

We also need to start paying down the debt so more money can go to the actual services the government provides which will eventually mean we have to raise less money to have these very same services.

This is just a start. Our Congress needs to start working on each year’s budget in February so they can bring proposals to the floor by July to be reviewed, discussed, debated and voted on long before September, or at least voted on in September. And flexibility needs to be accepted. Each year brings us new obstacles to overcome.

Oh and a final point, we may need to increase the amount allocated for disaster relief. Some of these disasters are budget busters apparently so planning ahead is needed. And if we do not use all of it one year, we should rollover it over in its own fund until the disasters aren’t as expensive or be prepared for years that are more than anticipated.

The madness must end.