If elected I promise to implement my two broad based ideas to solve the problem of cutting off the Welfare State by the method of substitution. That is, rather than cutting off the welfare programs with an axe let's cut them off instead with an idea; an idea that we can title: "Sell the moon and give us back our money".

As to the doing away with the 70% excess taxes the federal government now takes from us year in and year out, every year-after-year-after boring year here is how I would do that.

I call it:

      Step 1: Freeze the ways and wherefores of tax rules and what nots as to how taxes are figured for everybody to the way they are done this year, 2008, for 2007 taxes (for examples see your own tax return).

      Step 2: Find out how gutsy the populace is by asking them to vote on one of the following numbers: 5, 10 or 15 as to the number of years we-the-people will allow our elected officials to get rid of the 70% excess.

      Step 3: For the sake of argument and to simply demonstrate process, say the peoples choose 10 years as a reasonable amount of time for allowing the government to get its act together. Then decrease each person's tax amounts by a proportional amount so that after ten years it will = 30% of the rate-amount it is for 2007 taxes.

That is, for sake of demonstration, say my taxable income for 2007 is $50,000 (which it isn't but let me dream a little) and hence I owe $8,930 (see the booklet, page 69) in federal taxes, then in 10 years that same amount would be 70% less or only $2,679; a savings from this one tax alone of $6,251!!!

See the following for an elaboration on how this would work:

      [insert scan of tax Form 1040 (2007) Page 2 from page 2+ of the booklet with Lines 63a and 63b
ADDED:

63 Add lines 57 through 62. This is your total tax. . . . 63 ________
63a [enter multiplier from Table X]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63a________
63b [multiply line 63 by line 63a].
        This is your rTT (real total tax). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63b________

And then Add this table somewhere in the booklet:

Table X, page Y

Tax Year   multiplier
 0  2007      1.00           Base year
 1  2008        .93
 2  2009        .86
 3  2010        .79
 4  2011        .72 
 5  2012        .65
 6  2013        .58
 7  2014        .51
 8  2015        .44
 9  2016        .37
10 2017        .30
--------------------------------------

As to the other half of my two promises as your newly elected president it may have to wait until I release my book (en)titled:

or to be more precise, sell our moon and give us back our money,

or that is, Baby Boomers Unite, don't let t.h.e.m guilt you into thinking your social security checks are welfare. Those checks are actually backed by real assets that the government and some of its business men (the kiss-a.. ones, which are easy to visualize generally but difficult to isolate individually) have amassed over the last half century. So, if we sell those assets--as we who have paid for them are entitled to do and some would even argue, are obligated to do as a way to honor promises made--we have a shot at getting the full 2.89 times our current social security checks that we should be getting . (Take the Social Security Statement you get every year from the feds and determine the amount you paid into Social Security every year and apply the CPI--Consumer Price Index--rate of return for every year to those contributions as sinking fund contributions to determine the total that is really due you in today's dollars. When I did this for my contributions--spanning 1961 to a couple two, three years back when I did this calculation--I got a multiplier of 2.89. Unfortunately, the spread sheet I used to calculate this--including the annual values for FICA rates and CPI numbers--was lost in one of my not backed-up hard drive crashes and so I can't give you this to use. Since I don't feel like spending the time recreating this, if you want to check this out for yourself you'll have to research the FICA yearly rates and the CPI yearly rate over the life of your Social Security Statement and do your own equivalent calculation. If you do I'm betting it will come out similar to this 2.89 number if you've been gainfully employed and paid into Social Security over a quarter century or more like I have. P.S. I can't remember if I used the employer contributed amount or not, I think I did because it was contributed in my name. If you want to argue who "owned" that money, me or my employer? we might be stuck on it too long and get nowhere; something our controllers would like us to do. But, we don't have to do this because the one thing we can conclude for sure, the one thing we know for sure is this: the government did not own it but the government is the "one" who ended up with it.)

That is, by way of demonstration about the 2.89 multiplier, if you are about to retire and will be getting say $1000 a month social security, you should be getting ... would be getting ... $2,890 per month if the feds had given you nothing more than the rCPI return (real Consumer Price Index, that is the CPI before "they" took food and energy out of it which t.h.e.y did just recently) on your (sinking fund) FICA investment over the 30 or so years you were forced to pay into it paycheck after paycheck after paycheck.

But of course notice, not only are you not getting it, but you are being 1984'd into thinking of it as welfare.

And if this isn't bad enough notice who the government has hired to lead the frontal attach on your psyche. Is it the liberal democrats? No. Is it the religious right republicans? No. It is none other than the professional Objectivists who it would appear are paying back the government for their (the Objectivists) special status as a non-profit, tax exempt educational institution (aynrand.org) allowed to push the Philosophy of Objectivism in exchange (one could argue) for convincing the millions of up and coming baby boomers that the money they had confiscated from them is really an illusion and that the money they are being "gifted" back is just that, a gift from their rulers.

What's that clich�? ... Et tu, B ... naw ... granted, it feels this way, but perhaps a better, more objective choice is: sad but true?

Yes.

Sad but true.

I guess the (professional) Objectivists are people too and as such are not exempt from the psycho-epistemological problem I call "emphasis-extreemum". That is, see every professional objectivist writer from here to tim-$-2 ... who couldn't think outside their square if their (psychhological) life depended on it ... (which of course it does, but) who write one boring after boring after boring-into-your-brain article on the Social Security "problem" and how it is just some variation on the Ayn Rand theme of the welfare state coming home to roost. Ayn Rand had another take on this problem also--a take we could name after the (fictional) world's best economist; that is we could call it the Ragnar Danneskjold take--but besides my(amateur)self I've never seen or heard of any Objectivist--amateur or otherwise-- take this take and run with it. I therefore must conclude, since I no longer suffer from ee (or pee if you like) and 'they' do that that explains it: "emphasis- extreemum" has got hold of "their" psychoepistemologies and won't let go and hence they don't allow themselves to "break free" of "ee". But ... what the hey, c'est la vie .... life goes on and we can't afford to get bogged down [just yet] in their [immature] T.O.T.S [or as we will change it in book 2 to, t.o.y.s and t.o.t.s] problems and so we move on ... )

... to conclude this particular NewsLetter.

That is, in conclusion, let me say, I don't really want to be president, but, if that's what it takes to get my book sales up there, then so be it, I guess I'll do it.

   As of this time BiO Spiritualism Counseling Centers are only available online.
   If you feel you need more than "sounding board" advice as same is afforded you via BiO Spiritualism's Online processes (including the multiple benefits you can get for $$$ FREE $$$ from just reading the content in www.gdeering.com`s BiO Spiritualism and Gary's Venns websides) you are best advised to seek out a therapist with whom you can establish a rapport and get some serious psychological (that is, psychological as in Selfishness Training) work done.
   For some insight on how you can help yourself manage this aspect of your growth and development go here and click on the "How to choose a therapist" article.