Political Views

[GTKeeper]

I consider myself a Centrist in the political spectrum and I am just wondering (both from the left and from the right) who would support the following measures/ideas and whether we share common views.


1. Cut back government spending.

Obviously we all agree here that it needs to be done, but lets see if we can agree on what.

I personally think that the department of homeland security is a bloated entity that could use a few cut backs. And I think the reason we haven't had any terrorist attack is more to do with FBI and CIA getting their head out of their A$$ focusing less on political aspirations and actually start protecting American people. I am not sure they need 50 billion / year.

Other cuts:
Welfare: Immeidately institute laws that say if you are on drugs or are not actively seeking work, you lose your welfare check. We stop giving away cash, and give food stamps instead.

Defense:
I think we can defend our country for less than 515 billion for FY 2009. Cut it by 10%

War:
If we finish up in Iraq within the next 2 years, expect 150b+ savings a year.

Energy:
Why are we giving companies TAX BREAKS when obviously they are not needed. Eliminate oil company tax breaks, if the companies start losing money again or can't make it, think about giving tax breaks back. (more on energy later)

Agriculture:
Why are we giving farmer's subsidies? Farmers should be treated just like any other entrepreneur. Lets not go down the path the EU and especially France went down and give away more money to people who don't need it.

Medicare/Medicaid:
Enough with the BS, pass a law that allows Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate prices with drug companies. This step requires 0 dollars upfront but could yield big savings.

Social Security:
If you really want to stop SS taxes going up every year, pass a law that PROHIBITS the government from using SS money as a slush fund and borrowing against it. Its not supposted to be a tax but right now it sure feels like one. If the money would actually stay in the trust that its supposed to, we would not have anywhere near the shortfall that we do not. Raegan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. are all guilty of borrowing the money.

2. Illegal Immigration
As a naturalized US citizen myself, who went through the fun process of getting citizenship legally, here is what I think on the whole immigration issue.

I don't care if illegals are here or not, what i DO care about is whether they pay taxes. I suggest we implement the following rule:

You create a method for illegals to 'declare' themselves and start paying taxes, they have 1 year to do so. Once they do that they enter a 'protected' status where they can apply for a Visa and go about naturalization in the legal way without being deported immediately. Same goes for companies, they have 1 year to convert their illegal workers into tax paying citizens.

Once the 1 year time frame passes, start deporting everyone who did not declare themselves and did not start paying taxes and start prosecuting companies who did not do the process on their end.

3. Energy
This is the big one right now, but I think a few steps can dull the pain.

Clamp down on oil speculators. We all know this is a problem, lets do something about it.

Give Oil companies incentives such as opening up more land for drilling etc. by forcing them to spend a significant amount of their R&D budget on developing alternative sources of energy. I personally like Pickens' plan and the idea of using the Mojave desert to get us solar power.

Increase the MPG rating on cars, we haven't touched this really since the 80s. Now this is just the AVERAGE rating keep in mind. If we make it 35MPG that doesn't mean all cars need to be 35 MPG cars, it just means that the fleet of cars produced by lets say Ford has a collective average of 35MPG. If you still really want that 10MPG or 5MPG guzzler, go ahead and buy it.



Those are my thoughts. Flame away or add your own input or your own solutions. I think I am being reasonable and not too far left or right on these issues. I am interested on what everyone else has to say.

 

[retrospooty]

You make alot of good points... If you went to Washington and started getting any traction on your thoughts, you would wind up dead, of mysterious causes =)

 

[cubeless]

in a post, all things are possible...

if u have the strength of your convictions then start doing something...

the 'oil spot' theory doesn't just work for pacifying iraq... you start by organizing in your locality and then hook up with like minded folks in other localities and then keep growing the cause...

going from post to washington = fail...

 

[ElFenix]

Social Security:
If you really want to stop SS taxes going up every year, pass a law that PROHIBITS the government from using SS money as a slush fund and borrowing against it. Its not supposted to be a tax but right now it sure feels like one. If the money would actually stay in the trust that its supposed to, we would not have anywhere near the shortfall that we do not. Raegan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. are all guilty of borrowing the money.

so what are they going to do with the money?

basically you're telling me you'd rather there be 0% government bearer bonds than interest bearing government bonds.

(so, yes, i disagree with your position)

Give Oil companies incentives such as opening up more land for drilling etc. by forcing them to spend a significant amount of their R&D budget on developing alternative sources of energy.

how does 'forcing them to spend a significant amount of their R&D budget on developing alternative sources of energy' lead to 'opening up more land for drilling'? you seem to be using a perverse definition of the word 'incentive'.

and why would you think that oil companies are any good at r&d on 'alternative sources of energy'?

 

[Skitzer]

2. Illegal Immigration
As a naturalized US citizen myself, who went through the fun process of getting citizenship legally, here is what I think on the whole immigration issue.

I don't care if illegals are here or not, what i DO care about is whether they pay taxes. I suggest we implement the following rule:

You create a method for illegals to 'declare' themselves and start paying taxes, they have 1 year to do so. Once they do that they enter a 'protected' status where they can apply for a Visa and go about naturalization in the legal way without being deported immediately. Same goes for companies, they have 1 year to convert their illegal workers into tax paying citizens.

Once the 1 year time frame passes, start deporting everyone who did not declare themselves and did not start paying taxes and start prosecuting companies who did not do the process on their end.

I disagree with your view here. They are here "illegally". They need to go back/be sent back to their legal country of residency and apply for naturalization like every one else has to do.
Bottom line, they are breaking the law and making it extremely difficult for those who are trying to gain residency legally. Why should they be allowed to go to the head of the line?

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Social Security:
If you really want to stop SS taxes going up every year, pass a law that PROHIBITS the government from using SS money as a slush fund and borrowing against it. Its not supposted to be a tax but right now it sure feels like one. If the money would actually stay in the trust that its supposed to, we would not have anywhere near the shortfall that we do not. Raegan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. are all guilty of borrowing the money.

so what are they going to do with the money?

basically you're telling me you'd rather there be 0% government bearer bonds than interest bearing government bonds.

(so, yes, i disagree with your position)

Give Oil companies incentives such as opening up more land for drilling etc. by forcing them to spend a significant amount of their R&D budget on developing alternative sources of energy.

how does 'forcing them to spend a significant amount of their R&D budget on developing alternative sources of energy' lead to 'opening up more land for drilling'? you seem to be using a perverse definition of the word 'incentive'.

and why would you think that oil companies are any good at r&d on 'alternative sources of energy'?

For the SS money, it should be put in a trust just like we do with government pensions. When the government borrows against it we get measly returns and a 'promise' they will pay it back. Thats the problem with it in the first place. Because the government borrows it and issues bonds against it, the return is bad so its easy to project SS downfall by 2040 or whatever so it justifies the government for jacking up SS limits so it can borrow more etc.

Imagine if the government invested half the damn money in a conservative way from the 1980s to today. There would be a whole lot of money in there right now and we could actually temporarily reduce the SS limit. This year its at 102k and its going to keep going up forever.


I am not saying that oil companies are the best at developing new sources of energy. What they do have though is a ton of money to develop them with. Basic engineering tells you that with enough money, a whole hell of a lot is possible. The incentive is basically 'diversify your business, and we give you easy access to oil'. The oil companies will eventually become 'energy companies' and I just want to facilitate that process now. Does that make sense?

 

[ProfJohn]

My 2 cents:

Defense: a lot of our defense budget is generated via political needs etc. We can't close enough bases because congress won't allow certain bases to close. We spend tons of money on programs we don't need because they funnel money to certain states or districts. Look at the amount of money we spend on Hawaii and all the bases located there even though it would be MUCH cheaper to operate many of these bases on the main land.

Energy: many of those tax breaks and subsidies exist because we ask or tell energy companies to do things they would not do on their own.

Energy part 2: Why should a company be 'forced' to spend their money on something they don't want to spend it on? (alternative energy) These companies exist to make a profit and yet we act as if they exist to serve the public good. If that was true then why not force McDonalds to research healthier foods or force Walmart to research ways to help people dress better?

Alternative energy is all fine and dandy, but free countries don't "force" companies to do things against their will. (Yes, we do have LOTS of public safety mandates that 'force' companies to do certain things, but that is very different than telling a company to spend its money on something totally unrelated to its core business."

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

For the SS money, it should be put in a trust just like we do with government pensions. When the government borrows against it we get measly returns and a 'promise' they will pay it back. Thats the problem with it in the first place. Because the government borrows it and issues bonds against it, the return is bad so its easy to project SS downfall by 2040 or whatever so it justifies the government for jacking up SS limits so it can borrow more etc.

Imagine if the government invested half the damn money in a conservative way from the 1980s to day. There would be a whole lot of money in there right now and we could actually temporarily reduce the SS limit. This year its at 102k and its going to keep going up forever.

that's different from 'staying in the trust.' that's going out into the economy and being invested in the real world. why didn't you say that in the first place?

i want SS to be this. we may be in agreement.

I am not saying that oil companies are the best at developing new sources of energy. What they do have though is a ton of money to develop them with. Basic engineering tells you that with enough money, a whole hell of a lot is possible. The incentive is basically 'diversify your business, and we give you easy access to oil'. The oil companies will eventually become 'energy companies' and I just want to facilitate that process now. Does that make sense?

do you have any evidence they're not doing that already? oil companies have been funding a lot of promising start ups, basically being VCs in the energy business. they still have more money than they know what to do with, which is why they're buying their own stock.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

2. Illegal Immigration
As a naturalized US citizen myself, who went through the fun process of getting citizenship legally, here is what I think on the whole immigration issue.

I don't care if illegals are here or not, what i DO care about is whether they pay taxes. I suggest we implement the following rule:

You create a method for illegals to 'declare' themselves and start paying taxes, they have 1 year to do so. Once they do that they enter a 'protected' status where they can apply for a Visa and go about naturalization in the legal way without being deported immediately. Same goes for companies, they have 1 year to convert their illegal workers into tax paying citizens.

Once the 1 year time frame passes, start deporting everyone who did not declare themselves and did not start paying taxes and start prosecuting companies who did not do the process on their end.

I disagree with your view here. They are here "illegally". They need to go back/be sent back to their legal country of residency and apply for naturalization like every one else has to do.
Bottom line, they are breaking the law and making it extremely difficult for those who are trying to gain residency legally. Why should they be allowed to go to the head of the line?

The vast majority of illegals come here to work and make money. The reason they come here also is that we offer illegals jobs, because they are cheap. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing them. I don't want my taxes to go up for their removal either. To deport all the illegals we are looking at extremely high costs and where are we going to get the money for that? I think logistically and in terms of man power it would be impossible to deport them all. If they all start paying taxes, then they are starting to subsidize themselves in terms of public schools, health care costs etc.

Yes, they are breaking the law thats true. But I am looking at a practical solution here. I don't think we can just 'undo' whats been happening for decades now. At the same time I don't think we could just pass a law right now saying that companies who hire illegals will be dealt with severely and closed down. Imagine the backlash on that and politicians would never step over that line. That is why we need a 2 way approach. Allow illegals to file for taxes and allow companies to pay their payroll taxes on them as well. THEN if that doesn't work, deport them all, and penalize the businesses.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Washington + Spending cuts = Never going to happen

I agree whole heartedly that spending cuts and removal of some entities (Homeland Security) is in dire need. It simply will not happen though. Too many pockets are getting fat. Whether its the current occupation of Iraq (Military Industrial Complex), Social Security (check jacked, no choice, it IS a tax then borrowed against as you mentioned), Bank bailouts at the expense of the taxpayer and the constant growth and spending of Government in general the American people (citizens) are the ones who pay for it all. Those in comfy seats (banks/government entities) will not feel the pain till its all over. Then its too late for everyone.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
My 2 cents:

Defense: a lot of our defense budget is generated via political needs etc. We can't close enough bases because congress won't allow certain bases to close. We spend tons of money on programs we don't need because they funnel money to certain states or districts. Look at the amount of money we spend on Hawaii and all the bases located there even though it would be MUCH cheaper to operate many of these bases on the main land.

Energy: many of those tax breaks and subsidies exist because we ask or tell energy companies to do things they would not do on their own.

Energy part 2: Why should a company be 'forced' to spend their money on something they don't want to spend it on? (alternative energy) These companies exist to make a profit and yet we act as if they exist to serve the public good. If that was true then why not force McDonalds to research healthier foods or force Walmart to research ways to help people dress better?

Alternative energy is all fine and dandy, but free countries don't "force" companies to do things against their will. (Yes, we do have LOTS of public safety mandates that 'force' companies to do certain things, but that is very different than telling a company to spend its money on something totally unrelated to its core business."

Maybe "force" is too strong of a word. What I am proposing is totally optional. If they want easy oil, then start giving something back. If they don't, then tough. I think the amount of innovation generated through alt. energy could be huge, and give us a huge economic/intellectual power boost. The oil companies are fat cats, they like business as usual because it makes them a ton of money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making money, but as a nation we can benefit from new innovation.

Your Walmart and your McDs analogy doesn't apply here totally because when I drove my 1996 Nissan Maxima, I did not have a choice whether to run it on gas or on something else. I don't have to eat at McDs and I don't have to buy clothes at Wal-Mart.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
My 2 cents:

Defense: a lot of our defense budget is generated via political needs etc. We can't close enough bases because congress won't allow certain bases to close. We spend tons of money on programs we don't need because they funnel money to certain states or districts. Look at the amount of money we spend on Hawaii and all the bases located there even though it would be MUCH cheaper to operate many of these bases on the main land.

Energy: many of those tax breaks and subsidies exist because we ask or tell energy companies to do things they would not do on their own.

Energy part 2: Why should a company be 'forced' to spend their money on something they don't want to spend it on? (alternative energy) These companies exist to make a profit and yet we act as if they exist to serve the public good. If that was true then why not force McDonalds to research healthier foods or force Walmart to research ways to help people dress better?

Alternative energy is all fine and dandy, but free countries don't "force" companies to do things against their will. (Yes, we do have LOTS of public safety mandates that 'force' companies to do certain things, but that is very different than telling a company to spend its money on something totally unrelated to its core business."

Why not practice cohersion on companies? They are using our known psychological weaknesses against us in their ads?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Welfare: Immeidately institute laws that say if you are on drugs or are not actively seeking work, you lose your welfare check. We stop giving away cash, and give food stamps instead.

I used to be very pro-welfare, but the more I see of it in the real world, the more I see people abusing it with a sense of entitlement as though it is the job of taxpayers to pay for them to continue irresponsible lifestyles. As such, I think that welfare reform is required, but it's a tough nut to crack. As for your proposals:

How are we going to determine whether welfare recipients are on drugs? Mandatory random drug testing? Talk about increasing the costs of the welfare program. How are we going to determine if they are looking for work? Ask them? They'll lie. Your proposals seem to indicate that we need to assign a case worker for everyone on welfare who can keep tabs on them to make sure they are being responsible; this is ideal, but so incredibly costly that it would be better to simply continue the system as is.

Food stamps are cash. Sure, they can only be used for one thing, but by freeing up the budget that would normally be spent on food, welfare recipients would have cash to purchase other things. I saw it in my good friend, who would use his food stamps on food and use his own money to buy pot and cocaine. He didn't care that he was essentially funding his drug abuse with taxpayer money; he felt he was entitled to do as he pleased (he's no longer on food stamps).

That's the basic problem with welfare; people in this generation, by and large, are not fiscally responsible. If you hand someone a wad of cash and say "invest this properly and use it to get back on your feet," chances are they're going to blow it on booze and a flatscreen TV. I'm not saying everyone would do this, but I'm sure I would (I have no problem admitting my own faults when it comes to money management). We can't just hand someone money, even if it's specifically restricted for an item like food, and expect that they will be fiscally responsible with their other money. Nor can we have the government decide how people should spend their money... So what can be done? I don't know... Until attitudes shift regarding how welfare recipients view the money they get from the government (as taxpayer dollars that are being used to help pull them out of poverty as opposed to an entitlement that allows them to continue self-destructive behaviors), we're really not going to see any change.

 

[NeoV]

umm...profJ - we have bases in Hawaii because Hawaii is that much closer to the rest of the world.....not because it's a nice sunny place to visit

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Welfare: Immeidately institute laws that say if you are on drugs or are not actively seeking work, you lose your welfare check. We stop giving away cash, and give food stamps instead.

I used to be very pro-welfare, but the more I see of it in the real world, the more I see people abusing it with a sense of entitlement as though it is the job of taxpayers to pay for them to continue irresponsible lifestyles. As such, I think that welfare reform is required, but it's a tough nut to crack. As for your proposals:

How are we going to determine whether welfare recipients are on drugs? Mandatory random drug testing? Talk about increasing the costs of the welfare program. How are we going to determine if they are looking for work? Ask them? They'll lie. Your proposals seem to indicate that we need to assign a case worker for everyone on welfare who can keep tabs on them to make sure they are being responsible; this is ideal, but so incredibly costly that it would be better to simply continue the system as is.

Food stamps are cash. Sure, they can only be used for one thing, but by freeing up the budget that would normally be spent on food, welfare recipients would have cash to purchase other things. I saw it in my good friend, who would use his food stamps on food and use his own money to buy pot and cocaine. He didn't care that he was essentially funding his drug abuse with taxpayer money; he felt he was entitled to do as he pleased (he's no longer on food stamps).

That's the basic problem with welfare; people in this generation, by and large, are not fiscally responsible. If you hand someone a wad of cash and say "invest this properly and use it to get back on your feet," chances are they're going to blow it on booze and a flatscreen TV. I'm not saying everyone would do this, but I'm sure I would (I have no problem admitting my own faults when it comes to money management). We can't just hand someone money, even if it's specifically restricted for an item like food, and expect that they will be fiscally responsible with their other money. Nor can we have the government decide how people should spend their money... So what can be done? I don't know... Until attitudes shift regarding how welfare recipients view the money they get from the government (as taxpayer dollars that are being used to help pull them out of poverty as opposed to an entitlement that allows them to continue self-destructive behaviors), we're really not going to see any change.

I agree with you. As for the drug testing, it would be the person's responsibility to show up for a drug test, you miss the drug test, you don't get your welfare check anymore. Simple as that. As for proving you are actively seeking work, you would only need 1 case worker in a large area (the ones that are already there anyway) to monitor job hunting activity.

The only thing I am curious about is if total lack of welfare would increase crime and overall societal cost to such an extend that its better just to give out welfare to the 1% of pop and call it 'cost of doing business'.

The bottom line is that welfare would be cut quickly because of the amount of drug addicts on welfare to begin with. The argument of 'what about the children' doesn't fly here anyway because the welfare is spent on drugs and not the kids obviously.

The partial welfare reform of the 1990s was good, for example you don't get any more money for having additional kids. It needs to go further.

 

[JTsyo]

I'll comment on 2 of the issues:

1. illegal immigrants - it's important to take a tough stand now because it'll discourage future immigrants. Also by granting immunity, you might be allowing scums into the country. Having to do background checks on all would be more expensive than deporting them and probably wouldn't be very accurate. Whatever the upfront costs are, I think the long term benefits are worth it. Some say that we need the cheap labor pool, if that's the case open up more visa slots and let them apply like everyone else.

2. Welfare - I feel welfare should only be there to get people trough tough times. If you've been having a tough time for 5 years, you're doing something wrong. I would propose some kind of work program to be eligible for welfare after a set period of time.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
My 2 cents:

Defense: a lot of our defense budget is generated via political needs etc. We can't close enough bases because congress won't allow certain bases to close. We spend tons of money on programs we don't need because they funnel money to certain states or districts. Look at the amount of money we spend on Hawaii and all the bases located there even though it would be MUCH cheaper to operate many of these bases on the main land.

Energy: many of those tax breaks and subsidies exist because we ask or tell energy companies to do things they would not do on their own.

Energy part 2: Why should a company be 'forced' to spend their money on something they don't want to spend it on? (alternative energy) These companies exist to make a profit and yet we act as if they exist to serve the public good. If that was true then why not force McDonalds to research healthier foods or force Walmart to research ways to help people dress better?

Alternative energy is all fine and dandy, but free countries don't "force" companies to do things against their will. (Yes, we do have LOTS of public safety mandates that 'force' companies to do certain things, but that is very different than telling a company to spend its money on something totally unrelated to its core business."

I personally would slash the defense budget by at least 1/3... and that would just be a start. As far as bases in Hawaii go though, a big reason why the naval bases are there is because Hawaii is a strategic location. It's a US base that cuts about 4-5 days off of the response time from the US Pacific Fleet. Sure we have bases in Japan, but they are there at the whims of a foreign government.

As far as alternative energy goes, I think that we can certainly attach conditions onto opening up new lands for the oil companies to exploit... say that if they want to drill in the US, they need to invest X% into alternative energy. If they don't want to do it, then they don't have to... but then they can't use our land.

Oh and one final thing, most of what the OP is saying about welfare has already been done. The drug thing though, do you really want drug testing for all welfare recipients? How much are you willing to add to the welfare budget to manage drug testing and enforcement? It will cost a lot of money, and I don't really see what we would get for it.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh and one final thing, most of what the OP is saying about welfare has already been done. The drug thing though, do you really want drug testing for all welfare recipients? How much are you willing to add to the welfare budget to manage drug testing and enforcement? It will cost a lot of money, and I don't really see what we would get for it.

I don't see 'enforcement' as being very costly. You get tested twice a year. You fail your test, you lose your check. How much does a drug test cost? If you don't show up, you lose your check. If you test positivie, come in next time and test again, if you test negative you get the check back.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Energy:
Why are we giving companies TAX BREAKS when obviously they are not needed. Eliminate oil company tax breaks, if the companies start losing money again or can't make it, think about giving tax breaks back. (more on energy later)

A lot of these tax breaks are built into oil leases signed by the Clinton administration.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Energy:
Why are we giving companies TAX BREAKS when obviously they are not needed. Eliminate oil company tax breaks, if the companies start losing money again or can't make it, think about giving tax breaks back. (more on energy later)

A lot of these tax breaks are built into oil leases signed by the Clinton administration.

Its a law, it can be changed. Maybe we can put them back in when oil is at 20/barrel again.

 

[HomerJS]

Welfare - How about ending corporate welfare first.

Cafe standards - Agree we need steep increase. Detroit always bitches when this comes up, but if all car manufactures have to comply the playing field is level. I won't mind paying more for the car if it's made up in gas savings. If a 500hp Corvette Z06 can get 24 mpg hwy the average non hybrid car should get 35-40.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Energy:
Why are we giving companies TAX BREAKS when obviously they are not needed. Eliminate oil company tax breaks, if the companies start losing money again or can't make it, think about giving tax breaks back. (more on energy later)

A lot of these tax breaks are built into oil leases signed by the Clinton administration.

Its a law, it can be changed. Maybe we can put them back in when oil is at 20/barrel again.

Why would the oil companies agree to terminate leases they already signed?

 

[DealMonkey]

Surprisingly, I agree with most, if not all of what the OP states and suggests.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Energy:
Why are we giving companies TAX BREAKS when obviously they are not needed. Eliminate oil company tax breaks, if the companies start losing money again or can't make it, think about giving tax breaks back. (more on energy later)

A lot of these tax breaks are built into oil leases signed by the Clinton administration.

Its a law, it can be changed. Maybe we can put them back in when oil is at 20/barrel again.

Why would the oil companies agree to terminate leases they already signed?

I didn't say anything about terminating leases. What I am saying is eliminate the tax break portion and let them sign the new lease. My 'gut' feeling is that all these leases tied to tax breaks are not being developed because its free money to the oil companies. I don't want my tax dollars supporting companies that don't need tax payer support.

 

[HombrePequeno]

For the most part I agree with those. For welfare, they do have to find work and also, every state can tweak the requirements which is nice.

For SS, in the long run it would be better to get some privatization worked in but that would require a budget surplus which isn't going to happen any time soon.

On immigration, it needs to be easier to get citizenship in this country especially for educated workers. We need all the educated workers we can get so we can stay competitive.