The school board has no idea how long it should take; but are satisfied that they are holding costs in line because they are getting a painter for $10/hr.
Meanwhile, when the government finally does settle on the lowest bidder, other than meeting a minimum of qualifications, the work is most likely going to the least qualified or lowest quality contractor. To keep costs down, something has to be reduced – and its either craftsmanship or quality and quantity of materials. So not only are competitive projects costing more they should, they are often providing poorer quality projects.
The solution to obtaining better quality projects and at a lower cost is to forgo competitive bidding. Instead, the government should generate its own detailed estimate of the work. If necessary, they should actually hire a contractor to generate the estimate. Then announce the project, along with the detailed estimate, to the public (i.e. contractors) as project “X” to completed for “Y” dollars in “Z” time and solicit offers to perform the work from the contractors. From those contractors offering their services, now the government can select the one contractor it thinks is the most qualified for that particular project since it is no longer a question of how much. It behooves the estimator for the government to be accurate and fair in their estimate. If it is too low or too fast there may be no contractors interested in the project. The fairer or higher the value placed on the work the greater will be the selection of qualified candidates and hopefully a better quality project.
This is such a simple solution one wonders why does not the government already do this. The reason, it does cost money upfront for the government to generate their own detailed estimate. In order to save a buck their thinking is, why not have the contractors do their own estimates at their expense. Well, as you can see, the cost gets borne by the government eventually through higher project costs, and often much more. The government is “penny wise and dollar foolish.” But, as you probably know, you can’t fix stupid.
Right to Bear Arms
The right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is a fundamental right. Individuals should be allowed the “right” to possess any type of weapon that reasonably could be considered one that is used for either sport (hunting or recreation) or self-protection; however, society does have the legal right to place restrictions on that “right” and only grant a “privilege” in ownership of weapons that would normally not be considered for hunting, recreation or self-defense.
For example, weapons of mass destruction or an arsenal of weapons would not be considered normal use of a weapon for an individual. These exceptional weapons, not likely to be used for either sport or self-protection, would thus have severe restrictions placed on them – but not prohibition. These weapons, if owned by an individual, must be kept in joint control by another government approved authority, such as hunting and recreational establishment who would share the responsibility of ownership. Both the individual and the controlling establishment would assume full responsibility for the use of the weapons. Likewise, for the protection of all, all weapons (including those used for hunting, recreation and self-defense) should be required to be registered and the owner of the weapons held accountable for its use. Any unregistered weapon would be considered illegal.
Weapon ownership is as much as a privilege, as it is a right. Misuse of the weapons should have severe consequences. For example, any person using a weapon for a crime automatically loses his right to own any weapon ever again and should suffer stiffer penalties for that crime than someone who did not use a weapon. Similarly, all violent criminals would be prohibited from owning weapons since they have already shown a disregard for the law. The owner of a weapon would be responsible for any injury caused by their weapon; whether or not the weapon was under their control. This would place a greater incentive on the weapon owner to maintain good control over their weapon. Individuals deemed by society incapable of handling the responsibility of owning a weapon shall also be denied the privilege. Otherwise, if an individual is willing to absorb the responsibility of ownership of a weapon; they should have that privilege.
Gun enthusiasts would argue that such laws only restrict the use of guns by law abiding citizens and places more weapons in the hands of criminals. The key here is to require registration of all weapons. Any individual with a weapon which has not been registered will not only forfeit that weapon, but even their right to bear any future weapon. Anyone with a criminal record would be denied the right of ownership of a weapon. Authorities would always have the right to search any individual or their residence or business for unregistered weapons. If found with an unregistered weapon in their possession, the weapon would be confiscated – even if they did not commit a crime; because their crime was possessing an unregistered weapon.
Personally, this author abhors weapons; however, this author believes that the real purpose for weapons is not for protection from another person, but protection from those who have been empowered to govern. History has demonstrated too many times that the greatest enemy is not from the outside, but from within. In a democracy, we grant our government the privilege of ruling us giving them authority and even weapons to enforce that authority. But if left unchecked, that form of government has the potential to become malevolent and uncontrollable. Thus, the inalienable right to bear arms, as intended in the Bill of Rights, is to ensure that a government which is empowered to be for the people is also one that cannot overpower the people.
In short, make weapon ownership legal; but place restrictions on their ownership and use and severe consequences on their misuse. Attempting to make some weapons legal while others are not and trying to enforce those laws as we have seen is virtually unattainable. Thus, making all weapons legal, but with restrictions and consequences described herein and you should be a simple solution to a complex problem.
Military or National Service
All citizens, men and women, should be required to serve of time in national service, probably two to four years, in some capacity in either the military service or in a national service to their country. This can be expanded to include not only the armed forces; but also for those people interested in more peaceful activities such as Vista or the Peace Corps. One would have a choice to either serve in the military or in some type of equivalent non-military national service; except in times of war. Because of the added danger of military service to more peaceful service, the system may be set up as a choice or 2 years in the military or 4 years in national service, or as needed to balance the participants to the activity.
The individual should have some freedom as to when they could serve their time. The time can be served during a certain age range, such as between the ages of 16 to 28 to accommodate college or other life events that may occur. During that time, basic training and housing is provided to the recruits. Military/national service should only be required of those mentally and physically capable of providing such service. At the end of the service, the recruits may elect to volunteer for additional service, and if accepted can make a professional career in either the military or national service. Or they simply return back to the private work force.
This way, all capable individuals who have completed some type of military or national service receive the same benefits and privileges now afforded only to veterans. Everyone would become a veteran. The system is equitable ensuring that all people serve their country, provides the country with the talents of all of its citizens to help it with its national goals, and provides a simple solution to a complex problem.
Recreational Drugs
Without neither condemning nor condoning the use of so called “recreational drugs” like marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and so forth; a simple solution to this complex problem (drug abuse and illegal drug enforcement) would be to simply legalize the use of recreational drugs, but with conditions. Yes, we all know the negative and harmful aspects caused by the use of recreational drugs. That is not what is being really being questioned here. Person
ally, this author wished none of these drugs existed, but unfortunately they do and people will continue to use them. You can’t fix stupid. But ask yourself, how well is the current complex system of drug control working? Not very well, in fact it is getting worse. And think of the expense it is to society. It seems obvious there will always be a demand for recreational drugs, just like there will always be a demand for alcohol and tobacco. People, by nature always wish to be something they are not allowed and use drugs they think help provide an escape from reality; albeit a false sense of escape. So as long as there is free will, man will exercise it, no matter how harmful it may be to him. You can’t fix stupid. However, society does have the right to legislate the actions of people when their actions can cause harm to another individual’s health, safety and welfare. However, society must draw the line when it comes to regulating a person’s actions when it is only against them self. So consider for a moment the benefits of a simple solution: legalization of
You Can't Fix Stupid. Page 6