E-mail to Congress:
A friend sent me this website address: https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
It describes a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers. I followed it to its source.
It is part of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program, which is known as the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) and was set up under Congressional mandate. Therefore, I need not tell you about it, since you and your Congressional Associates started it. It is said to provide discounts on basic monthly service and initial installation or activation fees for telephone service at the primary residence to income-eligible consumers. There is a minor detail difference in that the advertisement mentions cell phones, while the FCC implies landline phones. However, we consider that a minor factor.
The main question is who pays for this CONVENIENCE to the "poor and underprivileged"? It could be government with the general taxpayers footing the bill. That would be bad enough, but the specific costs are all borne as a group by all telephone users, except the "poor and underprivileged", who pay taxes on their phone usage. The mandate is that all telecommunications service providers must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. Telecommunications service providers then pass the costs on to their customers.
I just checked my telephone bill. My telephone taxes exceed my cost of service by 134%. Rather high, don't you think?
Should I congratulate you personally or the Congress as a group for this major move in contributing to the establishment of a Marxist society?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill into Law
E-mail to Congress:
CNN says, "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law. President Obama signs the $680 billion defense spending bill that includes the hate crimes law. Law is attached to $680 billion defense authorization bill".
As one reads further, it becomes clear that the law makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. We can forgive CNN for eliminating the homosexual aspect from its headline, because we know that CNN is generally considered a socialistic rag. Whether assault of an individual because of homosexuality is a federal offense or not is not my major concern. We already have local laws to control assault of any individual, homosexual or not.
My main point is to chastise you folks in Congress for not having the guts to stand up or down on a specific situation. If you wanted a law making it a federal offense to assault the homosexual, why didn't you say so? Why did you attach it to a defense authorization bill, which has no bearing on any homosexual law.
This is the sort of thing that not only creates public distrust of Congress but also creates downright antagonism.
CNN says, "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law. President Obama signs the $680 billion defense spending bill that includes the hate crimes law. Law is attached to $680 billion defense authorization bill".
As one reads further, it becomes clear that the law makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. We can forgive CNN for eliminating the homosexual aspect from its headline, because we know that CNN is generally considered a socialistic rag. Whether assault of an individual because of homosexuality is a federal offense or not is not my major concern. We already have local laws to control assault of any individual, homosexual or not.
My main point is to chastise you folks in Congress for not having the guts to stand up or down on a specific situation. If you wanted a law making it a federal offense to assault the homosexual, why didn't you say so? Why did you attach it to a defense authorization bill, which has no bearing on any homosexual law.
This is the sort of thing that not only creates public distrust of Congress but also creates downright antagonism.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Bailout Company Executives
It is said on TV that the Obama Administration intends to cut the executive salaries of bailout companies by 50%. This has created a lot of discussion on talk radio and elsewhere.
Government should not have originally bailed out these private companies. However, since the bailouts are an accomplished fact, Government has a dictatorial right to cut executive salaries to whatever level it desires. Congress has approved the bailouts and is part of the dictatorial process. To do this properly, previous bonuses and gains from stock options or other manipulations must also be recovered.
It is also said that the major objection to proceeding with such financial benefit cuts is that good people will leave the bailout companies. Somehow it has escaped the notice of most analysts that there are no good executives in the bailout companies. The companies, such as AIG, have failed as a result of the ineptitude of the executives. If they wish to go somewhere else, good riddance. Any other company directors would be out of their minds in hiring these failures.
Government should not have originally bailed out these private companies. However, since the bailouts are an accomplished fact, Government has a dictatorial right to cut executive salaries to whatever level it desires. Congress has approved the bailouts and is part of the dictatorial process. To do this properly, previous bonuses and gains from stock options or other manipulations must also be recovered.
It is also said that the major objection to proceeding with such financial benefit cuts is that good people will leave the bailout companies. Somehow it has escaped the notice of most analysts that there are no good executives in the bailout companies. The companies, such as AIG, have failed as a result of the ineptitude of the executives. If they wish to go somewhere else, good riddance. Any other company directors would be out of their minds in hiring these failures.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Olympia Snowe and Party Misfits
E-mail to Congress:
This communication is intended to recognize the possibilities for House and Senate members to form alliances across party lines on specific bills. It is also intended to inform Republican and Democratic Party voters of the inherent dangers in voting a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.
Republicans are generally characterized as fiscal conservatives, which means they generally like to spend less money on less questionable projects then do Democrats. However, there are various members of the House and Senate, who parade under the name of One Party and yet adhere to the principles of the Other Party. A typical example is Olympia Snowe, who is a closet Democrat. She parades as a Republican, but her closet activities consistently show adherence to the modern definition of liberal Democratic principles; e.g. big government and big government spending programs. Those members of Congress who wish to work with smaller government and more fiscal conservatism should never attempt to work with Olympia Snowe. She is a dyed in the wool Liberal Democrat.
Conversely, there are within the Democratic Party a number of classified Democrats, who hold very conservative views on fiscal responsibility. This attitude would automatically limit government size and reduce government spending, if a sufficient number of such believers were able to take control of Congress. If so-called Republicans and Democrats were to minimize party affiliation, it would be possible for a coalition of fiscal conservatives to take such control. There would obviously be a need to resolve differences of opinion in the coalition, but such resolution should be secondary to the main point of taking control and establishing fiscal responsibility.
This communication is intended to recognize the possibilities for House and Senate members to form alliances across party lines on specific bills. It is also intended to inform Republican and Democratic Party voters of the inherent dangers in voting a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.
Republicans are generally characterized as fiscal conservatives, which means they generally like to spend less money on less questionable projects then do Democrats. However, there are various members of the House and Senate, who parade under the name of One Party and yet adhere to the principles of the Other Party. A typical example is Olympia Snowe, who is a closet Democrat. She parades as a Republican, but her closet activities consistently show adherence to the modern definition of liberal Democratic principles; e.g. big government and big government spending programs. Those members of Congress who wish to work with smaller government and more fiscal conservatism should never attempt to work with Olympia Snowe. She is a dyed in the wool Liberal Democrat.
Conversely, there are within the Democratic Party a number of classified Democrats, who hold very conservative views on fiscal responsibility. This attitude would automatically limit government size and reduce government spending, if a sufficient number of such believers were able to take control of Congress. If so-called Republicans and Democrats were to minimize party affiliation, it would be possible for a coalition of fiscal conservatives to take such control. There would obviously be a need to resolve differences of opinion in the coalition, but such resolution should be secondary to the main point of taking control and establishing fiscal responsibility.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Dictators
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "EU Commission Chief Barroso Fears Powerful 'European President'. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Addressing the European Parliament, Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe." (euobserver.com)".
The EU apparently sees the handwriting on the wall by looking to the United States. They see the development of Pres. Obama as a dictator in the US and want to thwart a similar development in the EU. It seems that the EU is not partial to dictators, remembering Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
Congress still has an opportunity to limit the powers of Pres. Obama, before he becomes a full-fledged dictator. Please accept the challenge now. Tomorrow may be too late.
EIN News says, "EU Commission Chief Barroso Fears Powerful 'European President'. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Addressing the European Parliament, Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe." (euobserver.com)".
The EU apparently sees the handwriting on the wall by looking to the United States. They see the development of Pres. Obama as a dictator in the US and want to thwart a similar development in the EU. It seems that the EU is not partial to dictators, remembering Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
Congress still has an opportunity to limit the powers of Pres. Obama, before he becomes a full-fledged dictator. Please accept the challenge now. Tomorrow may be too late.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
World Famine
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "World Must Invest $83 Billion a Year to Be Fed in 2050, UN Food Agency Forecasts. The world needs to invest $83 billion a year in agriculture in developing countries to feed 9.1 billion people in 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Thursday. World agriculture needs massive investments to raise overall output 70 percent over the next 41 years, including almost doubled output in the developing countries to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050, the FAO said. (reuters.com)".
This one involves global warming, healthcare and any other ridiculous notions put forth by eggheads and political opportunists. However, we can analyze this potential famine problem relatively easily.
Developing countries will be primarily unable to help themselves. If they could, we wouldn't have as much famine there as we have at present. This means developed countries would need food handouts, which would only be a temporary solution. The better long-term solution would be for US companies to involve themselves and the locals in food production in the underdeveloped countries. The alternative is to let the locals starve. While that may be a reasonable approach, compassion of the US public will likely not allow it.
If Congress continues with climate control and health care, the cost will create a tremendous burden on the US government, which will force additional currency printing, lead to further inflation, and a significantly decreased value for the US dollar. To partially avoid this, the federal government will likely increase corporate taxes. Simultaneously, the burden of climate control cost, through installation of carbon dioxide sequestration equipment and increased employee health-care costs will hamstring corporate efforts to engage in other developments, such as investment for food production in foreign countries.
Alternatively, if Congress is willing to face the probability of underdeveloped country starvation, the obvious answers are: 1.) Get the US fiscal house in order by greatly reducing federal spending, and 2.) Make it easier for businesses to continue investment and development by not burdening them with global warming and healthcare, and reducing other restrictions wherever possible.
EIN News says, "World Must Invest $83 Billion a Year to Be Fed in 2050, UN Food Agency Forecasts. The world needs to invest $83 billion a year in agriculture in developing countries to feed 9.1 billion people in 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Thursday. World agriculture needs massive investments to raise overall output 70 percent over the next 41 years, including almost doubled output in the developing countries to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050, the FAO said. (reuters.com)".
This one involves global warming, healthcare and any other ridiculous notions put forth by eggheads and political opportunists. However, we can analyze this potential famine problem relatively easily.
Developing countries will be primarily unable to help themselves. If they could, we wouldn't have as much famine there as we have at present. This means developed countries would need food handouts, which would only be a temporary solution. The better long-term solution would be for US companies to involve themselves and the locals in food production in the underdeveloped countries. The alternative is to let the locals starve. While that may be a reasonable approach, compassion of the US public will likely not allow it.
If Congress continues with climate control and health care, the cost will create a tremendous burden on the US government, which will force additional currency printing, lead to further inflation, and a significantly decreased value for the US dollar. To partially avoid this, the federal government will likely increase corporate taxes. Simultaneously, the burden of climate control cost, through installation of carbon dioxide sequestration equipment and increased employee health-care costs will hamstring corporate efforts to engage in other developments, such as investment for food production in foreign countries.
Alternatively, if Congress is willing to face the probability of underdeveloped country starvation, the obvious answers are: 1.) Get the US fiscal house in order by greatly reducing federal spending, and 2.) Make it easier for businesses to continue investment and development by not burdening them with global warming and healthcare, and reducing other restrictions wherever possible.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The EU As a World Power
EIN News says, "EU Draws Up Plans to Establish Itself As 'World Power'. The European Union has drawn up secret plans to establish itself as a global power in its own right with the authority to sign international agreements on behalf of member states. (telegraph.co.uk)".
This is rather a silly statement. The EU is already a World Power. However, I believe the main point of the EU is to increase its "federal" power at the expense of the individual countries. This is similar to what is going on in the US, with Obama's program to establish a dictatorial federal government and minimize power to the individual states.
Let us hope that the EU Administration is successful in their endeavor, because Europe will then have an oligarchic/socialist government, which has historically been known to fail. If the US follows the same route, it will also fail.
However if the US follows a policy of returning to fiscal restraint, with accent on capitalism and minimizing federal government, the US can retain its position of being a world power.
This is rather a silly statement. The EU is already a World Power. However, I believe the main point of the EU is to increase its "federal" power at the expense of the individual countries. This is similar to what is going on in the US, with Obama's program to establish a dictatorial federal government and minimize power to the individual states.
Let us hope that the EU Administration is successful in their endeavor, because Europe will then have an oligarchic/socialist government, which has historically been known to fail. If the US follows the same route, it will also fail.
However if the US follows a policy of returning to fiscal restraint, with accent on capitalism and minimizing federal government, the US can retain its position of being a world power.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
US Unemployment
TV news today said the Obama Administration is disappointed with the previous stimulus packages having had on reducing unemployment. The unemployment rate is almost 10% and trending up. The Obama Administration had expected the stimulus packages to reduce it to 8%. Therefore, the Administration is considering another stimulus package.
In a capitalistic society, industry and commerce have traditionally made the jobs. Government employment has been small by comparison. While we may be on the verge of socialism/capitalism, the bulk of our economy is still capitalistic. Therefore, we need to look at the private sector for any significant job improvement.
For 60 years, government administrations and legislatures at federal, state, and municipal levels have continued to pass restrictive rules and regulations against business management. During that time, there has been no effort to reduce such rules and regulations in order to encourage business development and its associated hiring of employees. We have now reached a stage where private capital has little to no incentive to engage in business activity, because of the hassle that is involved in so doing, without likelihood of significant profit. If we want to reduce unemployment, now is the time to do an about-face with respect to government attitude toward business. It is time to strengthen the goose that lays the golden eggs, rather allow it to remain in a weakened condition.
An organization known as the World Bank Group (http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/) ranks all significant countries of the world in their ease to do business. The ratings are by point score, with the best being a minimum number of points. The United States ranks fourth, behind Singapore, New Zealand, and China/Hong Kong. The position of the United States is comparatively pretty good. Total ratings are based on minimum point scores in 10 categories. They are: Starting a business; Dealing with construction permits; Employing workers; Registering property; Getting credit; Protecting investors; Paying taxes; Trading across borders; Enforcing contracts; and Closing a business.
Remembering that 1 is best in the point system, the United States has 61 points on Paying taxes, 25 points on Dealing with construction permits, 18 points on Trading across borders, 15 points on Closing a business, and 12 points on Registering property. Other countries have ratings as well as 1 in those categories. These would be the areas to concentrate on, with respect to reducing restrictions and regulations at all levels of government.
Simultaneously, it must be remembered that these are comparative figures and even though the United States may have a low point score in some areas, such as Employing workers, there is still room for improvement, as we concentrate on reducing unemployment. This might involve: 1.) Eliminate government programs promoting unions, 2.) Reduce the minimum wage from the present $7.25 per hour to the previous $6.55 per hour, 3.) Avoid imposing any business requirement to supply health care or health care insurance to its employees.
A monetary stimulus package will likely do nothing to reduce unemployment, as we have seen with previous monetary stimulus packages. The stimulus package that will do the job will be a combination of reduced restrictions on US business operations.
In a capitalistic society, industry and commerce have traditionally made the jobs. Government employment has been small by comparison. While we may be on the verge of socialism/capitalism, the bulk of our economy is still capitalistic. Therefore, we need to look at the private sector for any significant job improvement.
For 60 years, government administrations and legislatures at federal, state, and municipal levels have continued to pass restrictive rules and regulations against business management. During that time, there has been no effort to reduce such rules and regulations in order to encourage business development and its associated hiring of employees. We have now reached a stage where private capital has little to no incentive to engage in business activity, because of the hassle that is involved in so doing, without likelihood of significant profit. If we want to reduce unemployment, now is the time to do an about-face with respect to government attitude toward business. It is time to strengthen the goose that lays the golden eggs, rather allow it to remain in a weakened condition.
An organization known as the World Bank Group (http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/) ranks all significant countries of the world in their ease to do business. The ratings are by point score, with the best being a minimum number of points. The United States ranks fourth, behind Singapore, New Zealand, and China/Hong Kong. The position of the United States is comparatively pretty good. Total ratings are based on minimum point scores in 10 categories. They are: Starting a business; Dealing with construction permits; Employing workers; Registering property; Getting credit; Protecting investors; Paying taxes; Trading across borders; Enforcing contracts; and Closing a business.
Remembering that 1 is best in the point system, the United States has 61 points on Paying taxes, 25 points on Dealing with construction permits, 18 points on Trading across borders, 15 points on Closing a business, and 12 points on Registering property. Other countries have ratings as well as 1 in those categories. These would be the areas to concentrate on, with respect to reducing restrictions and regulations at all levels of government.
Simultaneously, it must be remembered that these are comparative figures and even though the United States may have a low point score in some areas, such as Employing workers, there is still room for improvement, as we concentrate on reducing unemployment. This might involve: 1.) Eliminate government programs promoting unions, 2.) Reduce the minimum wage from the present $7.25 per hour to the previous $6.55 per hour, 3.) Avoid imposing any business requirement to supply health care or health care insurance to its employees.
A monetary stimulus package will likely do nothing to reduce unemployment, as we have seen with previous monetary stimulus packages. The stimulus package that will do the job will be a combination of reduced restrictions on US business operations.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Unemployment
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Eurozone Unemployment Rate Continues Rising. August's seasonally adjusted rate rose to 9.6%, compared with 9.5% in the previous month, official figures show. The number of people without a job in the eurozone is now 15.2 million. Despite the fact that many eurozone economies are recovering from recession, economists expect unemployment rates to continue rising. (bbc.co.uk)".
The slight rise and fall of unemployment from month-to-month, in Europe, the US, or anywhere in the world, is not of particular significance. The major consideration is a philosophical/societal consideration of unemployment compared to employment at the present time and what the future holds. I agree with economists that expect unemployment rates to continue rising.
The reason for an expected future rise in unemployment is simple. Companies that produce goods and services are motivated to increase profits. One of the best ways to increase profits is to use technological improvements that effectively decrease the involvement of human operators. As companies continue to become more efficient, they will continue to reduce the number of man-hours required to produce a particular widget or service unit.
A natural force to combat such unemployment is opportunity for production of new goods and services, which will be bought by the general public. However the general public has only so much money to spend on such new goods and services, and in so doing may also have to give up other goods and services which they have been previously using. This establishes a kind of balance, but the general advantage goes to a slight decrease in unemployment through these new opportunities.
Another force to combat such unemployment is to give goods and services to the "less fortunate", whether they be local or far-reaching intercontinental. This is a socialistic concept with great advantage to recipients but disadvantage to the givers or grantors, especially if they are the general public of a government with such high altruistic aspirations. Obviously, this approach has its disadvantage in that there is no increase in goods and services. It is merely a redistribution of wealth.
Of these two possibilities, the opportunity for production of new goods and services has the most potential. However, with the major problem of tremendous unemployment, we need an equivalent tremendous production of new goods and services. This will require a redefinition of goods and services, more toward the approach that previously existed with the development of the international railroad system or production of steel. In both those cases, private industry was able to assemble the required assets to do the job. More recently, corporate philosophy has been much more timid, through governmental restrictions.
In essence, we need major projects to absorb the unemployed. In the absence of such projects, the unemployed make their own jobs, as we have seen in Los Angeles and Chicago gangs using a growth industry of drugs and prostitution. Some quick brainstorming brings to mind several possibilities, but each of these possibilities needs to be evaluated on whether its success results not only in reducing unemployment, but also making a positive contribution of improved living conditions and lifestyle for a large number of people. For example, construction of a pyramid, such as those previously built in Egypt, would consume massive amounts of labor to decrease unemployment, but would have no positive effect on improving living conditions and lifestyle.
Conversely, large areas of the country are periodically subjected to periods of drought and flood. We have previously had massive programs of flood control, such as Bonneville and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), but there remains much more to be done. The Southwest from Oklahoma through Arizona has annual rainfall, which classifies it as an arid region. It has the potential of huge agricultural production, if it had sufficient irrigation. There are huge quantities of water available in the North Midwest, in the form of the Great Lakes. That water is continually replenished through substantial rainfall. The quantity of fresh water flowing from the Niagara River to the ocean is tremendous. A huge irrigation project to divert some of that water to the Southwest would employ great numbers of people. Not only in the construction but in subsequent agricultural production, processing, and transportation. The Southwest has the potential of becoming a second breadbasket of the world, right after the Midwestern states.
Consider also that had during the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) employed many young men. This was a government operation at the time, because there was no private support available. However, the idea still has merit, with government cooperating where possible with private industry to engage in desirable construction projects. This might even include the irrigation program, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. When such young men are gainfully employed, they have little desire engage in gang warfare, drug operations, and programs to destroy the establishment.
Think about it. Pay particular attention to the need for grandiose projects. If the Romans had reason and success in building an aqueduct system in the Middle East, should we ignore that leadership?
EIN News says, "Eurozone Unemployment Rate Continues Rising. August's seasonally adjusted rate rose to 9.6%, compared with 9.5% in the previous month, official figures show. The number of people without a job in the eurozone is now 15.2 million. Despite the fact that many eurozone economies are recovering from recession, economists expect unemployment rates to continue rising. (bbc.co.uk)".
The slight rise and fall of unemployment from month-to-month, in Europe, the US, or anywhere in the world, is not of particular significance. The major consideration is a philosophical/societal consideration of unemployment compared to employment at the present time and what the future holds. I agree with economists that expect unemployment rates to continue rising.
The reason for an expected future rise in unemployment is simple. Companies that produce goods and services are motivated to increase profits. One of the best ways to increase profits is to use technological improvements that effectively decrease the involvement of human operators. As companies continue to become more efficient, they will continue to reduce the number of man-hours required to produce a particular widget or service unit.
A natural force to combat such unemployment is opportunity for production of new goods and services, which will be bought by the general public. However the general public has only so much money to spend on such new goods and services, and in so doing may also have to give up other goods and services which they have been previously using. This establishes a kind of balance, but the general advantage goes to a slight decrease in unemployment through these new opportunities.
Another force to combat such unemployment is to give goods and services to the "less fortunate", whether they be local or far-reaching intercontinental. This is a socialistic concept with great advantage to recipients but disadvantage to the givers or grantors, especially if they are the general public of a government with such high altruistic aspirations. Obviously, this approach has its disadvantage in that there is no increase in goods and services. It is merely a redistribution of wealth.
Of these two possibilities, the opportunity for production of new goods and services has the most potential. However, with the major problem of tremendous unemployment, we need an equivalent tremendous production of new goods and services. This will require a redefinition of goods and services, more toward the approach that previously existed with the development of the international railroad system or production of steel. In both those cases, private industry was able to assemble the required assets to do the job. More recently, corporate philosophy has been much more timid, through governmental restrictions.
In essence, we need major projects to absorb the unemployed. In the absence of such projects, the unemployed make their own jobs, as we have seen in Los Angeles and Chicago gangs using a growth industry of drugs and prostitution. Some quick brainstorming brings to mind several possibilities, but each of these possibilities needs to be evaluated on whether its success results not only in reducing unemployment, but also making a positive contribution of improved living conditions and lifestyle for a large number of people. For example, construction of a pyramid, such as those previously built in Egypt, would consume massive amounts of labor to decrease unemployment, but would have no positive effect on improving living conditions and lifestyle.
Conversely, large areas of the country are periodically subjected to periods of drought and flood. We have previously had massive programs of flood control, such as Bonneville and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), but there remains much more to be done. The Southwest from Oklahoma through Arizona has annual rainfall, which classifies it as an arid region. It has the potential of huge agricultural production, if it had sufficient irrigation. There are huge quantities of water available in the North Midwest, in the form of the Great Lakes. That water is continually replenished through substantial rainfall. The quantity of fresh water flowing from the Niagara River to the ocean is tremendous. A huge irrigation project to divert some of that water to the Southwest would employ great numbers of people. Not only in the construction but in subsequent agricultural production, processing, and transportation. The Southwest has the potential of becoming a second breadbasket of the world, right after the Midwestern states.
Consider also that had during the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) employed many young men. This was a government operation at the time, because there was no private support available. However, the idea still has merit, with government cooperating where possible with private industry to engage in desirable construction projects. This might even include the irrigation program, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. When such young men are gainfully employed, they have little desire engage in gang warfare, drug operations, and programs to destroy the establishment.
Think about it. Pay particular attention to the need for grandiose projects. If the Romans had reason and success in building an aqueduct system in the Middle East, should we ignore that leadership?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
