devalue the dollar

A friend came to me today with an idea that would solve much of the mortgage foreclosure problem and also allow us to pay off our debt with cheap dollars: devalue the dollar. When one thinks of it, it is an easy chip at a complicated problem, perhaps not a cure but certainly medicine. First, the values of homes would be increased by the percentage of devaluation: i.e. a $100,000 home would be theoretically worth $200,000 if the dollar were devalued by 50% (I'm not advocating a particular devaluation, by the way, just the thought process). Further, the debts would be repaid with "cheap dollars" as they are in times of inflation. It's a two sided sword that cuts in favor of the most oppressed of our citizenry. What do you think?

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is that they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus. I feel our government should not be immune from similar risks. I therefore am recommending the following cuts to be implemented by the next president-elect. Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50. Also reduce remaining staff by 25%. Accomplish this over the next 8 years ( two steps/two elections). Some yearly monetary gains include: $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/yr.); $97,175,000 for elimination of the above congressional staff (estimate $1.3 Mil in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Mil in staff per each member of the Senate every year); $240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%. $7,500,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year (those members who's jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr). The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?! We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing. Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few). These facts alone support a reduction in senators and congress. Summary of opportunity: $44,108,400 reduction of congress members. $282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff. $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff. $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members. $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members. $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members. $8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. What do you think?

Government waste

Let me start by telling you a quick story about my own experience with this topic. In the late 70s and 80s I succeeded to a contract with the Federal Government that insured the property rights into the Everglades in Florida, a project called the Big Cypress National Preserve. It was a large project and my contract included Monroe County, Florida parcels and some Dade County parcels. In approximately the middle of August of each year, I would start receiving envelopes, bubble envelopes, the kind you can mail eggs in..(well, almost) and in great numbers, with maybe a single sheet of paper in each envelope. I'm guessing that the envelopes themselves cost in excess of a dollar, let alone the postage to mail them. I asked a friend who was working in the project why I was receiving all of this expensive post and he just laughed and asked me if this was my first government project. It was, of course. He informed me that they had to spend all of their allocated monies before the end of the federal fiscal year, which ended on September 30th and this was just one way of seeing that all of the allocated funds were spent. If they didn't spend all of the allocated funds, there would be less money to spend in the next fiscal year.

Suggestion: How about an American solution? If an employee of a project of this kind makes a suggestion that will save the project money in the next fiscal year, why not give a percentage of one-half of the savings to the suggesting employee, maybe 25%, maybe some other percentage, and one-half of the remainder of the savings paid to the remaining workers in that project on a prorata basis, using their annual income vs the total paid annual incomes attributable to the project to figure the individual employee's share of the profits. The only condition being that the savings not impact the efficacy of the project and/or the completion date of the project.

What do you think??

Let's Suggest Changes In Government

I am interested in assisting our newly elected President, Our newly constituted Congress and our soon to be newly Appointed Supreme Court in changing the way our government is run on a day-to-day basis. My motivation stems from a personal experience: early in my legal career, I ended up with a large government contract insuring the water rights into the Everglades, commonly known as The Big Cypress National Preserve. Year after year, at approximately the end of July, I would begin to receive single sheets of paper mailed to my office in bubble envelopes, the type in which one could mail an egg if one wished. I finally inquired as to why I was receiving such wasteful mailings and was told that "if they didn't spend all of the money allocated to the project by the end of September (the governmental fiscal yearend), they wouldn't get more money for the following year". The inefficiency and wastefulness of that response was somewhat wasted on my youth. As our country now faces a severe fiscal test and each of us will be required to endure some pain in the process, I am thinking now might be a good time to suggest changes to our government that will result in more efficiency along with fiscal responsibility. I am not interested in your political leanings; have little time for any negativity toward individuals or the government; and do not wish to do anything beyond the stated goal of this blog. Let's suggest changes that will help save money in governmental operation without a lessening of governmental essential services. May I suggest???