Dear future president,

     There are numerous problems with the United States’ current society. It is important for the president to address these modern issues as quickly as is possible being that his or her position is only temporary in the ongoing cycles of the nation’s history. Without congress’s support, a president cannot hope to make any significant impacts on the United States as a whole, and that presidency will be marked in the eyes of its people by the level of naturally unalterable economic recession.

     One of the most pressing issues is the federal budget. Both democrats and republicans can agree that the doling out of money should be closely and strictly regulated so that only those who need it receive it, and those that can do without a supplementary income do. With this being the case, freeloaders can be eliminated to self-reliant and independent individuals, which automatically help to boost the economy. With the reduction of money being spent on the falsely needy, more money can be saved without the raising of taxes from their current level, which should be drastically reduced when possible. This excess of money can then be given out, still under strict regulation, to more of the needy whom actually need financial support.

     Now, all of this sounds fine and dandy on paper, but there really isn’t much of a savings. To better save federal money in the federal budget, excessive, unnecessary, or wasteful government programs should be cut altogether. Foremost of these is the struggle to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale, military/financial spending to stabilize or appease other countries (when the US should focus on their domestic issues first before trying to fix the same issues in other countries), etc. It is important to note that the cutting of carbon emission preventative measures is not a cut on pollution control. It is still a good idea to maintain standards that reduce dangerous or toxic pollutants which, in turn, destroy the environment and create health risks for humanity. The reduction of carbon emissions is not saving any lives.

     As many leading scientist of today agree, global warming is a natural cycle of heating that the world is undergoing ever since the last ice age that “ended” ~11,700 years ago. As other scientists indicate, there isn’t very substantial data to support whether or not human-emitted carbon dioxide is actually responsible for planetary heating (which obviously didn’t bring us out of the last ice age, because industry has only been around for ~200 years) as the “greenhouse effect” so obviously attempts to establish.

     Regardless, the entire output of carbon dioxide is irrelevant; that’s right, irrelevant. Scientifically, the worse things that could happen to our planet anywhere within a million years, with the minor effect of desertification, are a warmer global climate, which is overall a good thing. Greenhouses, for example, are vital for incubating plants and enhancing their growth, just as a warmer climate would be for planet Earth by expanding the tropic zones and decreasing temperate winter severity. Plus, plants thrive on carbon dioxide. With the heating of the planet, the northern polar ice cap is melting (the southern polar cap is growing, but at a slower rate), which causes the ocean levels to rise by less than half an inch per year. Predictions even suggest that the entire summer polar cap will be gone within fifty years. Still, coastal cities like New Orleans will have plenty of time to adapt.

     Another wasteful government program is the large operations to catch and kill “all” invasive Burmese pythons in the Florida everglades because they offset the natural ecosystems therein. According to leading researchers in Florida, by all current means of reducing the invasive snake population, efforts will be ineffective at ever fully removing the snake, which is now considered a permanent, yet still unwanted resident. To look at it from a naturalist perspective, these snakes have just as much a right to the ecosystem from their birth in a suitable environment as any local animal species. To look at it from a realist perspective, if the snakes are permanent no matter what, why remove them? To look at it from a historical biologist perspective, invasive species are good for the environment because it shifts the balance of power to the new and best suited species, via natural selection. This being the case, after every major extinction (presumably of an out-competed local species), there is a significant increase in speciation (of the surviving species), which restores the biodiversity lost in such an invasive species takeover that helps to better propagate species of the future best-suited for survival in our ever changing world. This hard-core environmentalist cut would save hundreds of millions of dollars that are otherwise squandered on futile invasive species controls per year, while invasive species introduction prevention in the first place is still recommended, when the problem gets out of hand, it is best to let nature run its course for the better.

     With these federal (and state level) budget cuts on these wasteful programs, more federal/state money can be directed towards different democratic ideals such as cheapening college expenses for the young adult generations of today. With this proper budget balancing, taxes can be maintained or lowered to avoid unjust increase (and thereby lessen federal interference in private lives and businesses), and the minimum wage can be counteracted by disinflation. This would restore more value to the US dollar and make minimum wage increases unnecessary; this is where the beneficial aspects of Reaganomics 101 begin. (Beneficial refers not to the portion of history where former President Ronald Reagan increased the national debt further for unnecessary military spending, although maintenance of the currently large military status is highly recommended. To lessen the military would be to lessen the investment we might as well keep with such extreme debt already accumulated.)