Transforming People into Patriots
TSA
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) falls under the Department of Homeland Security. There are about 45,000 Transportation Security Officers (TSO’s); these are the employees that are assigned to screen passengers boarding commercial flights. The starting salary of TSO’s is about $30,000 a year however the TSO’s are also paid over $100 million a year in pay raises and bonuses. An estimate of the cost for this workforce is about 1.5 billion a year; these figures are not government estimates. One of the problems experienced in trying to evaluate the operational cost related to government agencies is that the government is not very transparent with its presentation of the actual costs of the agencies. When one adds health coverage, retirement, and the support equipment, that figure may be as high as 4 to 5 billion.
Another aspect of the TSO’s is that this agency is allowed to have union representation, but the same ruling does not hold true for all components of the Department of Homeland Security. It looks like we are developing another government agency that will tell us how much they are going to get and what additional benefits they have a right to. Things are getting out of hand when the employees set all the conditions that the employers will have to abide by, while the employer has little to say what is expected of the employee. It is clear that our elected representatives are more interested in supporting the agencies they have created, rather than supporting the people that are paying for those agencies. One has to wonder which segment of the population is the most dim-witted. I think the only segment that is going to come out on top of this mess is the elected politician. The first segment that is going to fall under the weight of this system will be the working taxpayer in the private sector. Eventually the government workers will feel the pinch, just as they are in many of the socialistic countries in Europe. Unions should not be allowed in the public sector because most representatives are interested in maintaining their power, not in running an economically efficient public service. If the private sector desires unions and if management fails to fully factor the cost to the bottom line, then the business will fail and another will take its place. The resulting effect of unions in the public sector is the same; is the dissolution of our Nation what we really want?
Now there is talk of expanding the types of transportation the TSA covers; the list of potential targets is almost endless. One has to question our leadership when they show absolutely no understanding of the toll that their programs are having on our society. The electorate should not be lulled into a state of acceptance of the action by the TSA; there is nothing that can be done to prevent all the possible means of attack on our Nation by those intending to destroy our way of life. The actions that are being taken by the government are little more than a psychological salve, which may very well do more harm than good.
The ever expanding bureaucracy cannot be supported by our society; there can only be two conclusions to the idiocy we are displaying: societal disintegration or totalitarianism. It is doubtful that either of these alternatives would be acceptable to the electorate, but this is the direction we are currently heading in. It has been suggested that our Founders were well aware of mans’ shortcomings and designed a system that could prevent us from following the same path that all great nations have traveled down before us, but the power structure would dismiss the wisdom of our Constitution, because it stands in the way of their acquisition of power. If we continue to ignore the lessons of the past we will find the same fate waiting for us at the end of our journey. The Nation is too close to a tipping point to allow a continuation of these destructive policies and programs. All the signs are in clear view; all the electorate has to do is open their eyes.
Charlie Allo
Views: 1
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Vincent O'Malley on -
I know that if we changed the relationship between "we the people" and government, we could better deal with all of these satellite issues.
Me thinks all politicians, especially socialists, sigh in relief that we have not demanded all the fruits of our labor.
Their greatest fear is that we realize while one hand is catching our attention, we have completely accepted income taxation as "the way" for government to collect revenues. Fear mongering is immediately used if confronted with an alternative method. Taxing the poor more, taxing the rich less. The usual class warfare rhetoric. They don't want too many of our citizenry to have lazer focus on one issue at a time. They'd rather attack on multiple fronts. Hence TSA is being used to further "pacify' the rednecks into accepting government intrusion, even our bodies, to "keep us safer". Just another brick in the wall.
Currently Government has a 70,000 page "hammer' of a tax code that manipulates our markets, controls our lives, and has the authority to use deadly force in collecting taxes on income.
I find no moral argument to confiscate wealth for redistribution. Jesus did not say confiscate wealth to feed the poor. He said turn to each other in "private" charity. He never preached class warfare. He was for unity not reparations.
Private property rights are illustrated throughout nature. If the vulture approaches a lions fresh kill too soon, the response is violent. Taking our wealth too soon does the same thing. Taxing our income is too soon. It is obvious that payroll deductions, income taxation and the death tax drains our wealth. Lowering tax rates doesn't change the relationship. A flat tax on income doesn't change the relationship. A consumption tax changes the relationship to the core.
Without private property rights, we don't have freedom of religion, or speech or freedom of association. Our founders knew this.
We must make America a safe haven for income quickly. Private investment instead of government "funny money" is a better key to rapid recovery.
What does this have to do with TSA? Whatever the government does from TSA to EPA to Obamacare is dependent on the power they have to confiscate our wealth and the myriad of ways they can do it through our 70,000 page tax code. The regulations they issue are born of arrogance. This arrogance can be successfully thwarted if we assume responsibility for being the hammer and insist that we keep all of what we earn. The government can live off of what we purchase.
Taxing income means hidden taxes on everything we purchase. How can we keep an eye on the cost of government overhead if we can't see what it costs? Wouldn't the tax appearing on every receipt let every American know what government costs them?
Simplicity brings accountability through transparency. Letting the light in is a natural way of limiting government power, including the TSA.
I didn't mean to hijack the conversation. I think that most of the issues discussed in forums, while interesting, do not address core principles. One of them is personal property rights. Amendment 16 is in direct contradiction to Federalist Paper 21 and the intent of our founders. We ratified our Constitution with the agreed upon theory of taxation being consumption although taxes on income were discussed, they were rejected because of the potential for tyranny. They were right.
Happy New Year!
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Allo on -
Gary, feel free to hijack any of my postings. I like what you had to say and there are many ways of getting a message out to the public, and if you your view would add to the stimulation of thought, then go for it. I enjoyed your comments.
Charlie
Gary Vincent O'Malley said:I know that if we changed the relationship between "we the people" and government, we could better deal with all of these satellite issues.
Me thinks all politicians, especially socialists, sigh in relief that we have not demanded all the fruits of our labor.
Their greatest fear is that we realize while one hand is catching our attention, we have completely accepted income taxation as "the way" for government to collect revenues. Fear mongering is immediately used if confronted with an alternative method. Taxing the poor more, taxing the rich less. The usual class warfare rhetoric. They don't want too many of our citizenry to have lazer focus on one issue at a time. They'd rather attack on multiple fronts. Hence TSA is being used to further "pacify' the rednecks into accepting government intrusion, even our bodies, to "keep us safer". Just another brick in the wall.
Currently Government has a 70,000 page "hammer' of a tax code that manipulates our markets, controls our lives, and has the authority to use deadly force in collecting taxes on income.
I find no moral argument to confiscate wealth for redistribution. Jesus did not say confiscate wealth to feed the poor. He said turn to each other in "private" charity. He never preached class warfare. He was for unity not reparations.
Private property rights are illustrated throughout nature. If the vulture approaches a lions fresh kill too soon, the response is violent. Taking our wealth too soon does the same thing. Taxing our income is too soon. It is obvious that payroll deductions, income taxation and the death tax drains our wealth. Lowering tax rates doesn't change the relationship. A flat tax on income doesn't change the relationship. A consumption tax changes the relationship to the core.
Without private property rights, we don't have freedom of religion, or speech or freedom of association. Our founders knew this.
We must make America a safe haven for income quickly. Private investment instead of government "funny money" is a better key to rapid recovery.
What does this have to do with TSA? Whatever the government does from TSA to EPA to Obamacare is dependent on the power they have to confiscate our wealth and the myriad of ways they can do it through our 70,000 page tax code. The regulations they issue are born of arrogance. This arrogance can be successfully thwarted if we assume responsibility for being the hammer and insist that we keep all of what we earn. The government can live off of what we purchase.
Taxing income means hidden taxes on everything we purchase. How can we keep an eye on the cost of government overhead if we can't see what it costs? Wouldn't the tax appearing on every receipt let every American know what government costs them?
Simplicity brings accountability through transparency. Letting the light in is a natural way of limiting government power, including the TSA.
I didn't mean to hijack the conversation. I think that most of the issues discussed in forums, while interesting, do not address core principles. One of them is personal property rights. Amendment 16 is in direct contradiction to Federalist Paper 21 and the intent of our founders. We ratified our Constitution with the agreed upon theory of taxation being consumption although taxes on income were discussed, they were rejected because of the potential for tyranny. They were right.
Happy New Year!
© 2012 Created by Carolina Talk Network.
