GR

Dear Mr. Dubner,

I applaud your use of well based logic in this world of emotional decision making. I have been trying to vet a probable solution to our rising social costs and deficits before we go the way of Rome, and after many years of watching and weighing the ideas put forth by those in government with less end results and greater costs I think there might be a logical solution. My ideas are based solely on a pragmatic view that top down social services are not attune to the actual needs of the end consumer. These ideas are not currently based in economic fact as that field is not my area of expertise. I would be interested in your input, and if these ideas are valid I think publication would creates change that has not been seen in over a century.
If groups of people at the local level were to provide for those who are in need and actually service these people we might end the need for government run social programs, and in doing so massively cut the costs of providing for those in need as well as the tax burden levied across the population. The economic questions to be answered include what the benefits in tax liabilities and reductions in tax contributions to individuals or corporations would be for donations of assets, time, or cash in the following areas. Housing, food programs, medical care. The theory is to privately provide quality housing in areas that have more employment opportunity, a food program that includes necessities such as soap, toothpaste and toilet paper, and a volunteer doctor and hospital referral network to provide medical services. As individuals enter the work force they would start to contribute to their living situation, and as their income grows they would work their way out of the programs.
Basing and servicing the programs locally through existing organizations staffed by volunteers and resourced by local persons who have connections within the community to acquire the assets that are unused in the community would cut overhead costs that consume social spending dollars, and best deliver the exact services in a streamlined manner. If this is done privately there is no need for government contribution.
It roughly seems that if the private sector could provide the necessary housing, food and medical care from unused resources and donations delivered by volunteers we could eliminate at least 40% of federal spending, let alone the savings to the individual states and local governments.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these ideas.

GR

Did they say Pirate Party? lmao But then I think I would vote for a pirate vs a Dem or Rep... Taking away the ability for a voter to understand what an independents views are is why we are a Republic! if you dont know what a politicians platform is, DONT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD VOTE FOR THEM as they probably do not represent your views... When I vote I read up on the candidates, their views, platforms and their past actions and will abstain from those who do not espouse my views. I do not vote for judges as they are not allowed to stump in my state. To vote only for a specific party is not only lazy but as foolish as you can act in our society. You have the right to be a fool as I have a right to call you to task, and ask that you make an educated decision based on your values.

GR

Wow their math sucks, that would be $188,405.00 per teacher. I also find it interesting that there were supposed to be NO teacher layoffs from the money in stimulus! If we take the logical path when considering these facts it seems to indicate that teachers get paid $188k per year, and that congress missed on its goal by 138,000 teachers. Where is the rest of the slushie going? If the average salary is $40k per year that would mean that the funds would provide for 650,000 teachers... Does congress need to go back to school? do the teachers that taught congress need to be fired, or are we just getting snowed...