Omit Mitt Instead Of Getting Rid Of Teachers

Instead of getting rid of teachers, suppose Mitt Romney proposed eliminating some of the positions and legal vehicles that truly don't have an historic track record of providing any actual assisitance or value to the comunity or the population at large? Say, perhaps, those probation officers or DWI monitors that get paid to monitor cases after offenders have been paroled, or in some cases, when they have been given probation in instead of jail time? So many offenders reoffend; why not stop paying the salaries of those who do not prevent this, and find some other way to discourage recidivism? If we did not have high rates of recidivism, we would not need probation officers, so it does not really help to keep a probation officer employed if he maintains a good track record. In the probation officer's case, productivity is counterproductive.

While discussing the blissful elimination of ineffective probation officers, why not eliminate an entire legal vehicle, such as prohibition laws? We should probably continue the prohibition of drugs that are truly dangerous, such as certain prescription medicines, and we should certainly never allow drunk driving, but why is marijuana illegal? Since 1937, when it became illegal, whose life has been enhanced by keeping it unlawful? Hmmm? This prohibition law has not aided the average citizen in any way. It has, however; made gangs and drug cartels quite rich. Prohibition laws have also helped make the Mafia powerful. Oh....lets not forget, it also helps keep those ineffective probation officers employed.

The abolishment of prohibition laws would also free up our judicial system and allow it to be an actual judicial system, instead of a babysitting service for wayward adults. Taxpayors spend lots and lots of money on judicial stupidity every year on nonsense that involves..........drum roll..........marijuana. If we could save all this money and spend it on teachers, instead of doing what Mitt Romney wants to do; specifically, get rid of teachers, firefighters, and policemen, we would be investing in ourselves and our own communities. Bishop Romney wants to tell us that we cannot have those assets, and that we cannot use our own resources to invest in ourselves, and in our children. What would he do with our money? He hasn't told us. He is a bishop in his church, so it isn't really a big stretch to wonder if our money would probably bolster his church a lot more than it would bolster our nation.

If Mitt really wants to help America's economy, why not change the pay scale for elected positions? Do some of our elected officials make more than we, the people, can afford to pay them? Why isn't Mitt looking at that, instead of eyeing our schools from the standpoint of a vulture? Perhaps the position of president can even be served on a volunteer basis. We wouldn't have so many career politicians! The bishop really needs to start looking at ways to invest in the middle classes, rather than ways to eliminate the middle classes.

Here's a serious question: if Mitt really wants to cut the number of policemen, yet keep victimless crimes on our books, who is going to carry out the resulting and ongoing arrests? The FBI? The Coast Guard? His own elite bunch of Mormon goons? And, if he becomes president, will he serve the American people? Or does he see us all as potential employees or parishoners? Oh...wait a minute...certain minorities cannot become Bishop Romney's parishoners, can they?