Manifesto 2.0

1. The role of government in the economy ought to be a limited one. As President Obama stated in his second inaugural address, "Our rights come from nature and God, not government. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes". This means that the public should not entirely rely on the functions of a government to shield them or provide for them. Instead, we must harness the individual and community opportunities in order to make us who we wish to be. In this vein, the government should encourage a public of contributors with some promise degree of support, as seen in health care and Social Security, but at the same time ought to not involve themselves to deeply and promote a system of dependence, as seen through layer of complex organizations that promise to come to the aid of people. The government should seek to improve and maintain infrastructure and general public health and safety, but then should leave the more personal dealings to smaller governing structures such as states, counties, towns or family units. The government risks drowning under too much responsibility and must learn to share the burden through smaller governments under them.

2. The sources of federal government revenue should rely to a large degree on individual income. The government seeks to improve the public - through infrastructure - and protect the nation's way of life - through military defense - and the beneficiaries of this then logically ought to contribute to these functions. I am slightly unclear about the Social Security and Social Insurance systems and what they constitute, but I can see the government's perspective on the (relatively) low percentage taken from corporate income. In this globalizing world, it is risky to drive away companies that now have the option to pack up and settle outside the USA - and outside the corporate tax. We need these companies and their jobs, revenues and stimulation, so a low(er) tax will hopefully entice them to stay. Overall, I mainly support the percentages that make up the federal government revenue pie chart detailing where the money come from, although I would require greater study into the relationship between government and economics to refine my answer.

3. The money that the government spends is more confusing to me then how they obtain their revenue. The major section I am having trouble with is the "Discretionary" slice. Other than that though, I find it interesting to see the fairly equal manner in which the pie chart is divided. I support the decision to focus on public works and functions, such as Medicare and Social Security, which maintain the quality of life an individual has in our country. The majority of the spending should - as they are - be focused on improving the majority of the nation's public, although it ought to also support those fields that are less visible to the public as well, such new research that may or may not improve the lives of people. However, I feel there will, and should, be a shift away from government funding into this research and instead have private interests fund research; this way, the scientists will be more intimately involved and motivated instead of just working off of grants they apply for simply in order to work.

4. Some of the major choices for reducing the deficit in the years to come include reducing the funding for the arts and humanities. While I enjoy public art and believe to some degree that public art improves the mindset of the people, I have found that communities more often sponsor art that is intimate and focused on the local flavor than federally funded art. Another cut I would advocate is the $852 billion for war spending/defense. We would withdraw from a war that has drained our economy without benefiting us in any major way, and it would allow the public to focus on the national security rather than international affairs that damage our reputation. One other change I would make includes the elimination of tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry that allow them to "expense" exploration costs. The government's job is to improve or maintain the quality of life of the public, and by eliminating these subsidies alternative and cleaner energy sources will be encouraged and explored. This will, in the long run, improve air quality, reduce our dependence on a mainly foreign economic good, and  reduce spending put towards cleaning the environment.

5.                                                   

http://www.ldsfitnessnetwork.com/2012/07/fitness-myth-machines-are-always-a-safer-way-to-exercise/

This is an image of an exercise machine. It symbolizes the need to gradually burn off the fat (unnecessary spending)  and to improve the muscle tone and ability of the overall "body" of the government. This also means that we need to get to work and put more overall effort into the problem, targeting each part of the body so that the resulting body functions well together (focus on national rather than international security). We need to be strong and rely on our own body's ability to function (oil dependence) and overall unite the different sides of the body to work together (unite parties).