Usually, I am not the type to sit around and watch commercials during television shows. I’ll typically either have several programs that I flip between, or I channel surf, until something strikes my interest. Today was different though. I was watching “Hannity and Colmes” on Fox News, and I was enjoying the debate that was interrupted by a commercial break, so I decided to stay tuned so I wouldn’t miss any of it when it came back on.The first commercial aired during the break was for Bayer Back and Body Pain. It showed a man, clearly in a great deal of pain, as he was slouched over, with one hand on his back, and the other trying to reach up into a cabinet. Standing next to him was a woman, who asked, “Need some help?” He said that he did, and instead of reaching up into the cabinet to get whatever the man was reaching for as was expected, the woman hands him a box of Bayer Back and Body Pain.

“So what”, you say. Just bear with me here. To put this all into perspective, just think of the woman as the government and the man as a citizen (or group of citizens) in need of some help, financially or otherwise. Thought of this way, think about what it is the government does when they are asked for help, or in some situations offer help before they are asked for it. We see programs that offer short term solutions to long term problems, such as welfare, unemployment compensation, and a multitude of others where the government offers handouts to pacify those in need of a helping hand.

The reason why people crawl to the government in search of a handout, is because people have grown to expect the government to offer aid in certain circumstances. Every time the government hands beggars something for nothing, they are offering a short term solution (like if the woman reached into the cabinet for the man), to a long term problem that remains unaddressed (like the man’s back pain). Now you can’t blame the government in all cases for people asking it for help, because there ways for them to help themselves. What you can do is blame the government for making it easy for people to not help themselves. Sometimes helping yourself won’t be the quickest solution, but it almost always is the most permanent solution. Not handouts.

The Bayer commercial didn’t show what happened after the woman gave the man the box of aspirin, but to continue with my analogy, let’s pretend that the man took the box of Bayer, turned around, sat down at the table and took some of the aspirin. While the woman was still standing right near the cabinet, she still did not reach into it to get the man what he was looking for. She went about her business around the house, leaving the man to the morning paper while he waited for the aspirin to kick in. Finally after a short period of time the medication kicks in and the man is able to stand up straight to retrieve the item from the cabinet. Now why is this better than the woman just reaching into the cabinet to help the man?

It’s better because the woman’s solution to the problem allowed the man to fend for himself. It’s better because the man isn’t going to expect help the next time something like this happens, and will learn to solve his own problems. It’s better because hopefully the long term problem is fixed, and the man won’t have to ask for help anymore.

Put back into context with my analogy, government policies should focus on helping people find solutions to their problems, not giving them money when they can’t or don’t. This will cause people to rely less on the government and more on themselves. “How so?” you might ask. Well if the government had an official “hands off” policy in regards to helping people find jobs, or whatever else they give handouts for, people would automatically have an incentive to help themselves, since no one else is going to do it. This solution is far better than any social welfare program out there, because it attacks the problem at it’s root, and will hopefully eliminate it altogether. You see, if the woman had just taken the item that the man was reaching for out of the cabinet, his real problem (his back pain) still wouldn’t be solved.

• American Dream The American Dream, as far as my research can tell,...
• Universal Healthcare - Who Does it Help? Ever since Canada and many European nations began universal healthcare...

• How To Make Pre-Selling Work For You Affiliate marketing is one of the most thriving businesses online...
• WeightView Launches New Design! WeightView.com has launched a new design...and damn it's hot! It's...

I was searching around the web a few days ago and I came across a website called Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). They have done research on almost 30 different government organizations’ spending. In their list they identify ways that these agencies can cut costs so that ultimately we end up paying less in taxes.The first department I looked at was the Department of Education. In the CAGW’s plan, they claim that by charging interest to people who have federal student loans, while in school, would save the government you and I almost $13 billion over the next 5 years. Another big item I saw was a reduction in federal funding for the “Head Start” program, saving you and I almost $4 billion over the next 5 years. Yet, another $6 billion would be saved by eliminating funding for federal initiatives to reduce class size. With just three of these proposed reductions, the federal government could cut spending by over $23 billion in the next 5 years.

The next department I looked at was NASA. They have a total 5 year savings plan of over $20 billion. I would suggest saving a whole lot more by eliminating all federal funding from NASA by privatizing it. After all, I doubt Mars was on the founding father’s minds when the government was formed.

Then I looked at Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which CAGW boasted over a $58 billion savings plan over the course of 5 years. While I’m glad the people who benefit from HUD have a place to live, there’s no need for this to be a federal program, and in my opinion should be eliminated as well.

Finally, I looked at the Social Security Administration. Once again, their savings plan of over $51 billion is a low estimate, because they didn’t mention the elimination of the program.

Changes in government policy in just 4 departments would save the taxpayers over $152 billion dollars over the next 5 years. Imagine the savings for the 142,687,842 individuals, estates/trusts, and corporations (IRS) that filed a return in 2003. Going strictly on a per-person basis, that would be about $1,065 less paid per-person in taxes over the next 5 years. I don’t know about you but I sure would like to have that extra grand in my pocket.

Keep in mind that this savings is only based on 4 federal agencies. If we were to look at government spending across the board (which I don’t have the time for right now, but I will look at it in the near future) the tax savings could easily be approaching a half trillion dollars or more! If that was the case, we wouldn’t be looking at a measly tax savings of $1,000/taxpayer over 5-years, it would be more like $3,500+/taxpayer over the next 5-years.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” – Alexander Fraser Tytler (Author of The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic – 1776).

• Government Charity With the holiday season in full swing, people are becoming...
• Big Government - Big Mistake How many people in this country truly believe that we...

• Obama - Show me the Money Every single day I have a friend, family member or...
• Four Tips to Make your Money go Further If you're a regular reader, you know that I'm almost...

A few nights ago I was watching television late at night, when I saw the worst commercial I have ever seen. The commercial was advertising a product called “Free Money to Pay Your Bills,” What it is, is a product that shows people how to use government programs, grants, etc., that you wouldn’t otherwise know about, to help pay your bills.After hearing about this program, I first thought that it has to be some sort of scam, so I went to the advertised website to find out more. What I found was a picture of the spokesman/author of the book wearing a suit covered in question marks (?), and above his picture was the caption “Get Uncle Sam to Pay Your Bills.” I thought to myself “not only is this guy nuts, the last time I checked, it wasn’t the government’s role to pay our bills, but maybe I’m missing something.” So I kept reading.

The next thing I found was that the book contained “10,000 little-known government money programs” and that “Each year the U.S. Congress appropriates over $1 Trillion in government grants for people to use to help themselves and help their country.” Their country??? How does giving people money for nothing help the country? How about letting the rightful owners of that money keep it, wouldn’t that help our country even more?

Next, the site itemizes how much money you can get for paying off certain things, such as $2,000 to pay your mortgage, $627 to pay your phone bill, $450 to pay your heating bill, $7,650 to pay for legal bills, $5,000 to pay for acting, dancing, or singing lessons, and $200,000 to work on your invention. Now, maybe someone a little more intelligent than I am could explain to me how a government program that pays for acting lessons and phone bills helps the country. To me it just seems like a waste of money that could be spent on something more practical, like national defense maybe?

Finally I found a quote, which stated: “The world is full of free money…and in our democratic society these free resources are for everyone and not just the lucky few. If you get the money and help you need…you not only help yourself, you help America.” There are several major flaws in that quote. First, we don’t live in a democratic society, we live in a representative constitutional republic, there is a huge difference between the two. Second, if you ask any economist to analyze this quote, they will tell you “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” Basically what this means, is that just because you get something for nothing, doesn’t mean that someone else didn’t pay for it, and in this case unwilling taxpayers are footing the bill. And third, you will never help yourself by relying on someone else to walk you through life. People who constantly rely on the government to fund their heating bills or other expenses, aren’t helping themselves, rather they are training themselves (and their children) to think that they shouldn’t have to pay for these expenses, because the government will do it for them. Now how is that supposed to help our country?

I hope this whole thing is a big scam. I hope that all the people who buy this guy’s book find out the hard way that nothing is for free. I want all of them to feel like they have been cheated, so that they will know exactly how the people funding these programs feel about the government handing out their hard earned money. If this is not a scam, and someone is getting rich off of showing other people how to take other people’s money then this is truly capitalism at its worst.

• A New Form of PEST Control It's as if psychologists these days don't have enough made...
• Are We Headed for a Welfare State? With the proposed programs in the Obama administration's budget, it...

• Discover the Secrets of Coins World Collecting money is something which has been enjoyed by many...
• Tips to Help You Save $100.00 or More Each Month Are you trying to save money, but just can’t seem...

With the holiday season in full swing, people are becoming more and more charitable. Everywhere you look; there are Salvation Army volunteers outside stores ringing their bells so that people will donate to their cause, or people working at soup kitchens to feed the less fortunate. Helping others who are less fortunate than you is a great way to spend your spare time or spare pocket change during the holiday season, if that is what you would like to do with your time and money. Personally, I am not one to donate much of anything, unless I know exactly what the cause is that my money or time is going to.A few weeks ago, the Federal Government showed just how much they were in the holiday spirit, when the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law by President Bush. This Act entitles millions of Seniors to receive, among other things, low cost prescription medications so that they don’t have to spend large amounts of money out of their own pockets. This all sounds great, but who has to pay for it? Chances are, if you pay taxes, then you will be footing the bill for these medications. As a taxpayer I would like to say to all those Seniors out there who benefit from this Act, you’re welcome.

This is just another way for the Government to re-distribute money to people who don’t deserve it. The Act falls right in line with Welfare, Social Security and all of the other “entitlement” programs that the government has set up to help struggling Americans by taking money away from people who don’t need these programs.

This is basically what they are doing:
Imagine you’re standing in line at the grocery store, behind someone buying their groceries for the week. Their total comes to say $150, but they can only pay for $75 of it, so they hand the cashier the $75, finish bagging their groceries and leave with all $150 worth of groceries. Next, it’s your turn to check out. You’re buying a comparable amount of groceries, say another $150, but when the total comes up; it says $155, not $150. You rightfully would complain to the cashier, saying that you are being overcharged by $5. They respond by telling you that you, and everyone else who can support themselves will have to pay $5 more for groceries, because the person ahead of you couldn’t afford all of their groceries.

If that scenario seemed ridiculous to you, just think that the government is doing exactly that in these entitlement programs. They first find a group of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, the elderly for argument’s sake. They then tell these entitlement recipients that they can have a certain amount of money to help pay their medical bills, and they don’t have to repay any of it. Next they take taxpayer dollars and give it to these people for doing what most people would love to get paid for, which is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

What the government should be encouraging, which they are through the new Medicare Act, is an individualized health care savings plan. People should, in addition to their regular retirement funds set aside a percentage of each paycheck to add to their health care fund. It should be set up much like any other retirement account, where funds that are contributed gain interest over time, except that this account should allow the individual to have access to the funds, should they require them for immediate medical expenses that are not covered by their insurance.

I agree that seniors have medical problems that cost a lot of money and it’s a very unfortunate situation for them. But why should I or anyone else for that matter, pay for their “groceries” just because they didn’t plan well enough for themselves?

• Hurricane Markups - Sleazy, or not? Over the past six weeks, Florida, and much of the...
• Whites Only Scholarship The College Republicans at Roger Williams University (http://www.rwucr.com) have begun...

• Effective Storing Methods for Valuable Paper Money There are many different things that you will need to...
• Jumpstart your Emergency Fund & Debt Reduction with a Part-time Job Photo Credit:  alexik Many people think that cutting expense is the...