What?!? Reduce taxes? Bite yer tongue!
Frankly, if the government (at whatever level) were truly concerned about the economic well-being of the body politic, they wouldn't keep bumping up the minimum wage every year. When you come right down to it, when the minimum wage goes up, the only people that "win" are the ones that collect the taxes - the increased costs of production (that money has to come from somewhere!) offsets any perceived benefit of wage increases.
So, every time the minimum wage goes up, the dollar is further devalued.
I've said it before - but that was elsewhere, so here we go again...
1) Return to the "Gold" Standard (or silver, or platinum, or brass - but something with an agreed-upon intrinsic value, which is neither expendable or non-renewable. Hell, seed wheat would be an improvement over what we've got now - which is, by default, oil.) This will give the dollar an anchor - something we haven't had since 1933.
2) Rip the bottom out of the minimum wage, and thereby reduce costs of production. All this "living wage" fuss is caused largely by a massively devalued dollar and the lack of a tangible anchor for same. Let's face it - one US dollar has the intrinsic value of a bookmark (or bog paper, take your pick,) and the beginning of the end was the issuance of "Federal Reserve Notes" on the heels of the "Gold Certificate" and "Silver Certificate." The difference between a "Note" and a "Certificate" is simple - while neither has an intrinsic value of its own, the "Certificate" was redeemable, upon demand, to the bearer for a known amount of gold or silver. I suppose they were issued for convenience, but I'd feel better with a pocketful of cartwheels than I would with a pocketful of rubbish paper (still do. Bring back the Double Eagle!)
3) Cure our various "trade imbalances" - and only give MFN status to those nations who agree to do commerce with us on an equal footing (i.e. - spend one million dollars for each dollar we spend there.) Revoke all current MFN (especially mainland China! How'd they ever get that?) and make it perfectly understood that the new MFN status may be revoked at any time for non-performance. No more "trade deficit!"
4) While we're at it, no more "deficit spending" in Washington! Pay cash or do without - meaning you can manage our (national) finances like you expect us to manage our (personal) finances.
5) No more "get-rich-quick-in-Congress." What do I mean? It's simple - it's public service. The state of Vermont still pays its legislators the token sum of $100 per year, as I recall - enforcing the idea of public servitude. Since most of our so-called "servants" are independently wealthy, what do they need our money for?
For those who are not (and, by some miracle, get elected anyhow,) I am willing to compromise - a stipend to cover such bills and obligations you have at the time of your election and a modest per diem for such daily/routine expenses as can be realistically expected. You aren't there to get rich, so stop thinking you are!
Likewise, all the "pension" ideas go right out. I can understand certain elected officials having paid protection for the rest of their lives (former presidents, chairmen of various Armed Forces and (maybe) Law Enforcement committees, and suchlike,) but there should be a demonstrated and understandable need for such protection.
Raises while in office? Don't be daft! If you feel you just aren't getting enough, you may face your constituency with your hat in your hand and explain to us how much you need, why you need it, and why you deserve it. This isn't like a regular job - so there's no reason to expect regular raises. Oh - it takes a supermajority for approval (either 2/3 or 75% - I haven't decided,) and your replacement gets only what he would normally get - he doesn't get your raise. Sure - the base may be raised for Cost of Living adjustments, but there's no reason to be greedy about it.
Once the dollar has an intrinsic value that is not readily subject to change, and the minimum wage issue has sorted itself out (should only take two to four years - it will be tough but it will be worth it,) we will be setting the example for other nations to follow. Did you know that virtually no world monetary unit is based upon anything but "Full Faith and Credit" anymore? No wonder the dollar's worthless - what is the true "Full Faith and Credit" of a nation that is several trillion dollars in debt? I haven't knowingly seen a trillion of anything - so who can honestly comprehend the number?
Doing this will correct the basic problem with fuel prices - the fact that the closest thing there is to an extant specie standard is petroleum - an expendable, non-renewable resource.
For other concerns...
1) Driving the speed limit is not guaranteed to save fuel mileage - unless you are "geared" for ideal crankshaft speed at that road speed. Peak engine efficiency is found at peak torque - which makes an ideal cruising speed an engineering problem, not a legislative one. In fourth gear, I get best cruise mileage at or near 72 miles per hour - in fifth gear, at around 90. If I change my axle gearing (which I plan to do - 3.07 is silly!) I will change those speed points - and I will select gearing based upon intended use and cruiseworthiness of the overall drivetrain combination. You don't get better mileage just by reducing crankshaft speed - no matter what the marketeers want us to think. The key is peak torque (and horsepower just flat don't matter - besides, you're nowhere near peak efficiency at peak horsepower!)
If you've got the one rugmonkey, you drive a Suburban, and keep a cargo pod on top - yeah, you deserve to pay what you're paying in fuel prices. However, not everyone is suited to an econobox...
I'm 6'3", 245#
I haul parts and supplies regularly
I tow a few times a year
I drive in the SF Bay Area, where a certain amount of power is needed for impromptu evasive actions.
I cannot drive a Honda or an Acura - they're just too damn small. I can't haul anything in there once I get in (I either don't have the room or the leftover GVWR capacity,) and I really don't feel safe around here in anything that small (if I did, I'd have a commuter bike.) Towing? Anyone who tows more than a luchbox with a compact should have his head examined....
OTOH, by conforming with CARB's strict (and wholly unnecessary) "visual" examination, I will guarantee that I am losing fuel efficiency, and therefore increasing aggregate vehicle tailpipe emissions. If they were well and truly serious, they would do away with the visual inspection, go right for the tailpipe, and offer some sort of incentive for coming in VERY low on emissions (since low emissions are directly related to fuel efficiency - but not economy - it would be to our mutual benefit to allow me to tune my engine for peak efficiency. But I can't - the first thing I have to do is pull smog devices that harm more than they help...) Considering that under Federal law I would be allowed to modify my vehicle to increase efficiency and reduce emissions, CARB's pleas of "It's Federal Law" just don't work - and they really didn't like it when I explained it to them in public forum!
A realistic fossil fuel replacement? Perhaps fuel cells, perhaps bioDiesel, perhaps both. Still, fossil fuels can be useful and efficient - if we stop trying to legislate innovation (which has never worked!) Maybe a battery with a significantly increased ampere-hour capacity and the ability to accept a "dump" charge, while not being environmentally difficult in a roads accident? Maybe it's Douglas-Martin Screens and Shipstones?
I don't know what it is, but trying to force interim measures on people isn't going to help when we finally find something that really works!
5-90
