3 votes
Federal Law Enforcement Officers should need to pass a bi-annual physical fitness test. If they carry a gun, they should also be able to walk up a flight of stairs.
Physically fit law enforcement agencies/departments could save the Fed Gov lots of money.
9 votes
During my Mom's last illness and hospitalizations, Medicare was automatically billed as the primary payer, even though she had her own private health insurance. Why? I know that many retirees do not have their own insurance, but if those that do had their private insurance billed as primary payer, how much money would Medicare save?
4 votes
With health costs going up in this country, training people to help themselves first can drastically reduce both the number of emergency room visits and the cost of the resulting medical bills. For example, knowing to keep a broken arm in a sling, before you visit the emergency room, will help it heal quicker and straighter, reducing overall medical costs in the long run. Also, only about 18% of emergency room visits ...more »
With health costs going up in this country, training people to help themselves first can drastically reduce both the number of emergency room visits and the cost of the resulting medical bills. For example, knowing to keep a broken arm in a sling, before you visit the emergency room, will help it heal quicker and straighter, reducing overall medical costs in the long run. Also, only about 18% of emergency room visits result in hospital admission. This means with proper training, fewer people will feel the need to visit the hospital for the small things they can take care of themselves.
A side affect will be more interest in the medical field, which will create more medical professionals which will also help lower medical costs.
« less full details »
7 votes
The change to a longer season of daylight savings has accomplished its goal of reducing energy usage, as people are now up and about during more daylight hours and use fewer lights. It has also contributed to highway safety by having daylight at a time when more people drive. We can take this change to the next level during the months of the year with the most daylight (May, June, and July) by having an extra hour of ...more »
The change to a longer season of daylight savings has accomplished its goal of reducing energy usage, as people are now up and about during more daylight hours and use fewer lights. It has also contributed to highway safety by having daylight at a time when more people drive. We can take this change to the next level during the months of the year with the most daylight (May, June, and July) by having an extra hour of daylight savings during those months. This is about as painless a "green measure" as there is to reduce energy costs and dependence on imported oil. It would also increase the daylight hours during which people can engage in healthy outside activities. Congress could implement this as a pilot program and then consider the results after two or three years.
« less full details »
10 votes
Transparency is a powerful cost saving tool. The Combined Federal Campaign started publishing the percentage of contributions that charities used for administrative and overhead costs after a financial scandal at United Way threatened the integrity of the campaign. It set a bar of 25%. Contributors began making more informed decisions and charities reduced their overhead costs over time to get below the bar. We could ...more »
Transparency is a powerful cost saving tool. The Combined Federal Campaign started publishing the percentage of contributions that charities used for administrative and overhead costs after a financial scandal at United Way threatened the integrity of the campaign. It set a bar of 25%. Contributors began making more informed decisions and charities reduced their overhead costs over time to get below the bar.
We could take the same approach to reduce health insurance costs. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies will be required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement, rather than on administrative costs, starting in 2011. If they don’t, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012. What if OPM published the % of administrative and profit for each provider in the FEHBP at open season. We would begin to assess the value of our insurance differently and make different decisions. Companies would have to reduce costs to be competitive.
We could require doctors to do the same. That would push them to reduce costs and embrace cost saving electronic billing options and record- keeping.
My electricity provider enables customers to compare what they pay per month to what other customers in comparable (e.g., size of home) areas pay. It has found that customers change their usage because they have a measure of what is achievable in cost reduction.
Contracts are another area where transparency could affect costs. We need to push companies to be more efficient and reduce administrative and overhead costs on government contracts and especially on sub-contractor costs. The costs for specialized and high-end technical expertise are very high and so is the overhead. How much are we paying for healthcare and other benefits, how much are we paying for facilities and other overhead costs like clearance processes and compliance.
« less full details »
25 votes
section 8 and low income housing encourages dependency and complacent behavior. Why work when you can get a house for practically free and keep collecting entitlements. ILLLEGAL squatting and unauthrized people live with a legal tenet often and this is a criminal offense since changes in family size and income are required to be reported. the section 8 system and low income housing system is a complete failure which has ...more »
section 8 and low income housing encourages dependency and complacent behavior. Why work when you can get a house for practically free and keep collecting entitlements. ILLLEGAL squatting and unauthrized people live with a legal tenet often and this is a criminal offense since changes in family size and income are required to be reported. the section 8 system and low income housing system is a complete failure which has drained the US economy of trillions of dollars and maintained tenets in social and financial bondage. there is no incentive to leave section 8 or low income housing. why work or attend college when you can get housing for free or low cost. This encouranges drug abuse and out of wedlock births and tenet abuse by housing squatters and unauthorized people living in the units. section 8 and low income housing also reduce local taxpayers home values and create blighted neighborhoods with loud music and cars with dark windows and dirty messy yards often with dirt as a yard.. SECTION 8 and LOW INCOME HOUSING TENETS NEED TIME LIMITS of 1 to 3 years then they must be evicted from the units since they are living on free enititlements and have no incentive to Raise themselves out of the free benefits. WAKE UP AMERICA! WE ARE TRILLIONS IN DEBT and giving away FREE BENEFITS . remember that all secion 8 and low income housing authoritys are TAX FREE and you pay the costs of educating the people and their rents are susidized and food and insurance are subsidized and paid for. its like the midlle and upper class is paying triple to live, we all have to pay for everyone else.. its not fair..http://www.hud.gov/complaints/fraud_waste.cfm
« less full details »
38 votes
http://www.hud.gov/complaints/fraud_waste.cfm -section 8 and low income housing encourages dependency and complacent behavior. Why work when you can get a house for practically free and keep collecting entitlements. ILLLEGAL squatting and unauthrized people live with a legal tenet often and this is a criminal offense since changes in family size and income are required to be reported. the section 8 system and low income ...more »
http://www.hud.gov/complaints/fraud_waste.cfm -section 8 and low income housing encourages dependency and complacent behavior. Why work when you can get a house for practically free and keep collecting entitlements. ILLLEGAL squatting and unauthrized people live with a legal tenet often and this is a criminal offense since changes in family size and income are required to be reported. the section 8 system and low income housing system is a complete failure which has drained the US economy of trillions of dollars and maintained tenets in social and financial bondage. there is no incentive to leave section 8 or low income housing. why work or attend college when you can get housing for free or low cost. This encouranges drug abuse and out of wedlock births and tenet abuse by housing squatters and unauthorized people living in the units. section 8 and low income housing also reduce local taxpayers home values and create blighted neighborhoods with loud music and cars with dark windows and dirty messy yards often with dirt as a yard.. SECTION 8 and LOW INCOME HOUSING TENETS NEED TIME LIMITS of 1 to 3 years then they must be evicted from the units since they are living on free enititlements and have no incentive to Raise themselves out of the free benefits. WAKE UP AMERICA! WE ARE TRILLIONS IN DEBT and giving away FREE BENEFITS . remember that all secion 8 and low income housing authoritys are TAX FREE and you pay the costs of educating the people and their rents are susidized and food and insurance are subsidized and paid for. its like the midlle and upper class is paying triple to live, we all have to pay for everyone else.. its not fair..http://www.hud.gov/complaints/fraud_waste.cfm
« less full details »
7 votes
To fix the health care debacle, we should purchase health insurance the same way we purchase house & auto insurance. Call a provider, establish individual requirements, get a policy and done. I get the policy and coverage I want - not some one size fits all policy that costs 3 times what I want or need. The Government does not provide home owners or auto insurance for me - why health insurance? The money saved from ...more »
To fix the health care debacle, we should purchase health insurance the same way we purchase house & auto insurance. Call a provider, establish individual requirements, get a policy and done. I get the policy and coverage I want - not some one size fits all policy that costs 3 times what I want or need. The Government does not provide home owners or auto insurance for me - why health insurance? The money saved from providing hundreds of policy options can go in part to increase salary or retirement benefits - say 20%, the other 80% can go back to the budget to pay down the debt. But strictly to the budget deficit, not welfare support, ear marked programs, etc.
This gets the government out of the insurance business, reduces the size of government by alleviating staff to work insurance issues and gives it to the private sector where it belongs. Since people pay for it themselves they will be less likely to abuse the program and be more judicious in their insurance claims.
This is only if we as a government really wants to resolve the health insurance issue, if really want to downsize the government and lower the national debt. Congress and the White House have to make that commitment.
« less full details »
21 votes
Many commercial organizations offer wellness programs for employees to maintain physical health. A more physcially healthy government workforce, would be cheaper and more effective on the taxpayers.
15 votes
I like most ideas on this website. I think that most ideas have come from somebody who is trying to do a great job at what they do. It has become so difficult to navigate through that, I have decided to take 15 minutes out of my day to dedicate to this at home on my own time. I believe that the top 25 contributors and top 25 idea submitters should be invited to bring their heads together and discuss what is really ...more »
I like most ideas on this website. I think that most ideas have come from somebody who is trying to do a great job at what they do.
It has become so difficult to navigate through that, I have decided to take 15 minutes out of my day to dedicate to this at home on my own time.
I believe that the top 25 contributors and top 25 idea submitters should be invited to bring their heads together and discuss what is really important to their agency and to the federal government as a whole.
« less full details »
15 votes
The United States is trying to battle it's most terrifying battle to date: obesity. Unfortunately, obesity kills more than the war does overseas. This can translate into how we eat, live and even work. Think about all the operational costs associated with poor health lifestyles: sick pay, reduced productivity, health insurances, etc. Engaging the workforce to live a healthy lifestyle is not about imposing the ...more »
The United States is trying to battle it's most terrifying battle to date: obesity. Unfortunately, obesity kills more than the war does overseas. This can translate into how we eat, live and even work. Think about all the operational costs associated with poor health lifestyles: sick pay, reduced productivity, health insurances, etc.
Engaging the workforce to live a healthy lifestyle is not about imposing the idea to work out during lunch or printing a brochure that highlights the benefits of being healthier. It's about increasing accessibility to exercise and healthier meals.
To increase the accessibility to exercise, each agency can provide at home fitness videos in their facilities that can be used by employees at any time during the day in an open space. These programs usually have a very low cost and can be used by many at a given time.
To increase accessibility to healthier meals, agencies can farm their own sustainable products. Yes, farm. Here at Census Headquarters, we have a "green roof". It has very pretty gardening and even benches. But is it used? No. It's actually closed off from any access. In order to maximize this soil and the vast green areas adjacent to the parking lot, employees can start gardening their own basic produce. Salads and fruit tend to be more expensive than pizza. When paying at the register, the pizza becomes the wiser choice. If however, employees were offered the empty green areas to harvest fast growing crops like spinach, tomatoes, lettuce and some fruits, this can become a more accessible and exciting meal plan.
This minor investment can help increase productivity and reduce operational costs that come along with maintaining a productive workforce.
« less full details »
17 votes
Place a monetary value on each hour of sick leave donated (whether direct designation or to a pool), and let the employee or new retiree take a tax credit for that tax year the sick leave was actually donated. Create and annually issue an IRS form similar to 1098-T for tuition credit…1098- SLD whatever.
15 votes
With few exceptions, each CSRS retiree has unused sick leave that cannot be applied to his/her retirement…left on the table. Unless the retiree designates what to do through a direct donation at time of retirement, make it mandatory that all sick leave not applied to the CSRS retiree or his designee will be pooled in an Agency account for equitable/as-needed distribution.
63 votes
A solution to save on fuel costs would be for Institutions to use push mowers instead of gasoline operated mowers. Not only does the government save money for fuel and maintenancer, but inmates are afforded health benefits by pushing the mowers, maintaining their physical fitness. Additionally, the environmental impact is aided in less carbon emisions. The cost of a gas powered mower is around 3 to 4 times what a manual ...more »
A solution to save on fuel costs would be for Institutions to use push mowers instead of gasoline operated mowers. Not only does the government save money for fuel and maintenancer, but inmates are afforded health benefits by pushing the mowers, maintaining their physical fitness. Additionally, the environmental impact is aided in less carbon emisions. The cost of a gas powered mower is around 3 to 4 times what a manual push mower would cost. Also, the maintenance for a manual push mower is 10% of maintaining a gas powered mower.
« less full details »
40 votes
With the growing number of FERS employees retiring or becoming eligible to retire, a system for checks and balances needs to be addressed to ensure retirees begin receiving their full entitlements within the first six months of retirement. This would limit the need for retirees to seek new employment and/or outside help.
21 votes
A solution to save on fuel costs would be for Institutions to use push mowers instead of gasoline operated mowers. Not only does the government save money for fuel and maintenancer, but inmates are afforded health benefits by pushing the mowers, maintaining their physical fitness. Additionally, the environmental impact is aided in less carbon emisions.
10 votes
Design and build bike trails/paths around major cities to encourage less gas consumption, more exercise, and safety. Ideally, a bike trail and/or perimeter (1 – 5 mile radius) around the White house where only electric-smart vehicles, Security, and access authorized/verified vehicles are allowed. Benefits: Enhanced security, less gas consumption, enhanced national security protecting our government, better health by ...more »
Design and build bike trails/paths around major cities to encourage less gas consumption, more exercise, and safety. Ideally, a bike trail and/or perimeter (1 – 5 mile radius) around the White house where only electric-smart vehicles, Security, and access authorized/verified vehicles are allowed.
Benefits:
Enhanced security, less gas consumption, enhanced national security protecting our government, better health by using bicycles in a safe zone.
« less full details »
14 votes
This is a forward thinking proposition for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to begin the steps of combining vertical agriculture with future high-rise metropolitan prisons. While this proposition calls for an initial investment, the cost savings created by that investment will be enormous; potentially the entire budget of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. What is vertical agriculture? "Vertical farming is a concept that argues ...more »
This is a forward thinking proposition for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to begin the steps of combining vertical agriculture with future high-rise metropolitan prisons.
While this proposition calls for an initial investment, the cost savings created by that investment will be enormous; potentially the entire budget of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
What is vertical agriculture?
"Vertical farming is a concept that argues that it is economically and environmentally viable to cultivate plant or animal life within skyscrapers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farm
Vertical farms were conceived of separately by ecologist Dr. Dickson Despommier and architect Ken Yeang as future solutions to the problems caused by traditional outdoor farming.
What are high-rise metropolitan federal prisons?
The Federal Bureau of Prisons operates several institutions in downtown areas mainly as detention centers for pre-trial inmates. Their metropolitan location allows for easy and secure access to courts. One example is the 27-story Metropolitan Correctional Center at Chicago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Correctional_Center,_Chicago
Why do we need vertical prison farms?
The short answer is because vertical farms will be fiscally unsustainable unless they are also prisons, and that future prisons will be fiscally irresponsible unless they are also vertical farms.
It is the thesis statement of this proposition that the operating costs of both vertical farms and high-rise prisons can and should be folded into each other for financial, security, health, and humane reasons. I contend that by combining the missions of the two buildings into one, we will create prisons that are safer for staff and inmates, less violent, more rehabilitative, financially responsible, and which engender not only the health of the staff and inmates, but also of the surrounding metropolitan area.
In making my argument for the vertical prison farm, I am contending that ALL future federal prisons should be built as high-rise metropolitan farms. I am advocating a "vertical complex," which will be built as a long term detention facility for all security levels of inmates.
But to really understand why we need vertical prison farm complexes, we need to examine their horizontal equivalents, both the traditional outdoor prison farm and the conventional prisons run by the FBOP (those that are not high-rise). We need to examine what the advantages and disadvantages of operating traditional prison farms are, and also to know why most of them have disappeared (or in Canada's case, are disappearing). We also need to examine the traditional prisons run by the FBOP, especially in regards to the policy of building these institutions in rural areas for the supposed economic benefit of small towns.
The traditional outdoor prison farm
Since an inmate has to be housed, and fed, and had his health cared for, all at the expense of the government, it makes sense that he be involved in some kind of industry that returns some of that cost back to society. In the past, many prisons were also farms. They grew much of their own food, and also grew food for other wards of the state at mental hospitals and juvenile centers.
In the 1960's and 70's, with the spread of industrial agriculture in this nation, many local farms began being consolidated under the ownership of various corporations or cooperatives. The lobbying power of these organizations grew tremendously, and prison farms were seen as competitors that could be eliminated through political means. Reinhart (2008) discusses how Connecticut lost its prison farms when farmers complained about losing profits to them. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0081.htm This actually works well for the farmers in two ways: Not only are they eliminating a competitor, but they are also inheriting as customer, as now that the inmates do not make their own food, the state has to find an outside contractor to supply them with meals. In South Carolina, prison dairy farms are able to operate because there is not enough dairy produced by private farms in the state. These farms are saving the state money; however, the inmate workers have to endure 100 degree heat and twelve hour work days. http://www2.wspa.com/news/2010/jul/26/4/sc-media-getting-sneak-peek-new-prison-dairy-ar-624489/
Which brings us to the issue of prison farm brutality: Today, most prison farms in the United States are located in the south, mainly in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. These farms have a not undeserved reputation for being brutal. Angola Louisiana State Penitentiary is a place where mainly white correctional officers supervise the often forced labor of mostly black inmates while they pick cotton in the Louisiana heat (they farm other crops as well, but you get the picture).
The vertical prison farm of the future will be free from both the brutality of the southern prison farms and from the competition of large farmers. The indoor nature of vertical agriculture means that inmates will not be working out under the scorching sun; they will be in a temperature controlled environment that is also free from pesticides (vertical farm's indoor nature allows them to grow food without the need of chemical pesticides). It will also be more secure than the open and expansive prison farms that require armed officers on horseback. The inmates will be in an enclosed environment where they can be effectively managed and observed. Inmates of higher security levels will work the higher floors, thereby reducing their possibility of escape, whereas minimum security inmates can handle the export of the food product onto trucks at the ground floor.
The vertical prison farm will not be in the same sphere of competition as large industrial farms. The reason is that large industrial farms cannot mass-produce organic food, mainly due to the inability to use pesticides and still receive organic certification.
The conventional federal prison
With the War on Drugs declared in the 1980's, prison populations began to skyrocket. At the same time, many rural areas in the United States were heavily impoverished. When it came to the issue of where to build all of the new prisons that would house these inmates, it was thought that building them in these impoverished rural areas would stimulate their economies. Unfortunately the economic benefits never came for these small towns. The prisons were unable to find qualified people from the local area to staff the institutions, and as a result, most staff commuted in from larger cities. The rural prison project has been understood to have failed at its goal of infusing money into these rural areas, and has only created institutions that are difficult to staff, thereby increasing the overtime costs that the prison has to pay to its officers. http://ppjr.org/prison/files/tracy%20huling%20prisons%20economy%20study.pdf
The FBOP already operates many high-rise metropolitan prisons. The surrounding metro gives these facilities access to a large pool of qualified staff, thereby reducing overtime costs. The Bureau should learn from its mistakes and build future institutions in highly populated areas. This will be a necessity if we want to build vertical prison farms as one of the advantages of having a skyscraper farm in a metropolitan area is that since most of the population resides in the city, the food doesn't have to travel near as far as it normally does (often times thousands of miles). The Bureau could either build skyscraper farms in downtown areas like the following example http://www.verticalfarm.com/designs?folder=3c954850-8253-4a4e-8844-bfff256ce44c or they could build an arcology type farm on the outskirts of the city as in this example http://www.verticalfarm.com/designs?folder=a150915e-a6c5-41fa-b69a-49844c84e9a2 Note the space for recreation yards in that last one, either on the roofs, or in the inner courtyard. The skyscraper version would minimize the so-called 'food miles,' but an arcology version right outside of the city would still be able to provide fresh organic food at a dramatically reduced transportation cost, and it would give more outdoor recreation space to the inmates.
The vertical prison farm as a safer and more rehabilitative institution
Considerable research has been conducted regarding both the therapeutic and crime reducing effects of being around green living things. http://www.paluc.org/pdfs/sprawl/health/sprawl_do_trees.pdf When you think about it, it is not hard to understand why. It is the same reason why landscaping increases the value of a home, people buy plants for their office, and that receiving flowers makes you happy. There is an entire field in psychology devoted to horticultural therapy, which examines the calming and restorative effects of working with plants. http://www.ahta.org/ This is not some new age alternative fad either, gardening has been shown to reduce PTSD symptoms in returning combat veterans. http://www.portlandtribune.com/features/story.php?story_id=10244 http://www.asla.org/ppn/Article.aspx?id=25302 It would be a hard sell to taxpayers that we need to put trees and flowers into prisons to reduce violence, because many municipalities cannot afford similar area beautification. However, the vertical prison farm allows us to fold landscaping costs into a profitable operation. Inmates and prison staff will receive the violence-reduction benefits of a green living environment without passing the cost onto taxpayers. It is further recommended that inmates with violent histories work in a floral garden, as the market for organic flowers is growing, and the soft colors of flowers have been shown to reduce violent behavior. http://www.aboutflowers.com/health-benefits-a-research/emotional-impact-of-flowers-study.html
http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1979/pdf/1979-v08n04-p218.pdf
The profitability of a vertical prison farm
Research has shown that the organic food market is on the rise. http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20100319/nf_USDA-census-shows-profitability-of-organic-farming Because organic foods cannot be industrially produced in the traditional outdoor environment, it has been up to small farmers to supply the growing demand for organic food. One of the proposed advantages of vertical farming is its ability to mass-produce organic food due to its hermetically sealed environment. Also, a skyscraper farm in a downtown metropolitan area would be right in the heart of its core customer base: the educated and affluent urbanites that are driving the demand for pesticide free, naturally grown food. There are also restaurants and grocery stores in these areas, such as Trader Joe’s and Chipotle, who will buy organic produce. Furthermore, former McDonald’s executives are building a new healthy fast food chain. They say that “we think the biggest unmet customer need is great-tasting, delicious, affordable food that is also good for you." http://www.luxecoliving.com/luxeco-food/former-mcdonalds-execs-building-healthy-fast-food-chain-2/ The vertical farm also combines two different popular food trends, organic and local, into one package, giving the metropolitan area access to naturally grown food that is also fresh because the food doesn’t have to travel far.
But will people buy food that is made by inmates?
They will if it is properly marketed. Remembering who the core consumer of organic foods is, the affluent and educated urbanite, a campaign focusing on the humane and social reasons for building vertical prison farms should succeed. One way to put it would be to show the lifeless concrete prisons that we now operate, where inmates are idle for most of the day, and the brutal prison farms of the south, where inmates toil in the sweltering southern heat, and then show a gorgeous, green, vertical farm where inmates work in lush, clean gardens.
Appealing to the political spectrum
When viewed in the therapeutic light, it should not be difficult to convince the political left that the vertical prison farm is a more human alternative than the lifeless concrete penitentiary. It shouldn’t be difficult because it is the truth. However, one advantage of this proposal is its ability to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. The political right will be thrilled that inmates whom we are paying to incarcerate can actually reimburse part of all of their incarceration expenses. When put in the context of a “no free ride,” it shouldn’t be difficult to convince either republican politicians or their constituents. Furthermore, since the thought of releasing prisoners due to budget problems probably terrifies the political right more than it does the left, the angle can be used that we are being “tough on crime” by implementing this safeguard from early release due to budget constraints.
Why the first vertical farm also needs to be a prison
Three reasons: The first is an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor, and let’s be honest, one that doesn’t rely on illegal immigration, as is the case for many traditional outdoor farms. A private company building a vertical farm in a metropolitan area would be right in the eyes of municipal law enforcement, and therefore would have to utilize higher paid legal labor.
The second reason, and this is a big one, is light. The need for artificial lighting in a vertical farm has economist questioning its profitability. Since not enough natural light can hit all of the floors, artificial lighting is needed to grow the plants, but this light comes at a large energy cost. However, there happens to be another sort of institution that requires a large amount of lights throughout the night. In the conventional prisons run by the FBOP, there is a need for high mast lights to be run throughout the entire night to provide security and to prevent escapes. So if you have two types of buildings that require a lot of light, then it would make since to combine their missions.
The third reason has to do with why a vertical farm would want to be secure just like a prison is. If you look at proposed architectural designs for vertical farms, you will see that most of them are gorgeous and futuristic. Many of them could potentially increase their profit as a tourist destination. However, there are drawbacks to this type of “open” concentration of food resources. First, in a post 9-11 world, there is always the threat of terrorism to any skyscraper. It is also not inconceivable that terrorists would try to poison the food supply of such a large population (such contamination would be difficult on a traditional outdoor farm, but given the condense nature of the vertical farm, it is probably more feasible). However, what I really think needs to be guarded against is the city experiencing a food panic, i.e. due to some natural or financial disaster, the public has such anxiety about the availability of food that it raids the vertical farm. Therefore a more practical design from a security standpoint is probably required. Since inmates definitely need to be housed in a secure institution, we again find that both buildings complement each other’s needs.
Why the federal government has to build the first vertical farms
Given the uncertainties surrounding a new technology such as vertical agriculture, Dr. Despommier has proclaimed "I think the real issue regarding the invention of vertical farming is, who will pay for the first ones?"
The federal government will for two reasons. The first is because no one else will. Private investors are historically skeptical when it comes to unproven technology on this scale, and they want to wait for someone else to take the lead on R&D costs, usually the military (for example, the development of nuclear fission power plants in this country was only possible due to government investments). The second answer is that no one else really needs to. Private investors do not have the economic hole that is the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Even if the vertical prison farm only succeeds in filling in that hole, it will have been an astounding success for the government. Private investors, of course, are more interested in building things, not filling in holes, i.e., they want to make profits.
Listen: The federal government doesn’t need to make a profit on these farms for them to be successful. While a private company wouldn’t want to invest in something that is a potential financial loss, the federal government already operates an agency that is a huge financial loss – the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prisons are a cost that society decides to pay, and the United States pays more for them than any country in the world. So the real question that the government needs to ask about these farms is not how much profit will they make, but how much of the cost of operating prisons will they recuperate.
But there is a huge tertiary benefit that these farms would give to the federal government, and that benefit is health. Both the inmates and the surrounding metropolitan area would see an increase of fresh organic food in their diet. Taxpayers shoulder the entire cost of an inmate’s healthcare (even in cases where the taxpayer himself does not have health insurance), so it actually behooves us to keep inmates as healthy as possible. Currently most of the food that inmates consume is provided by a low-bidding contractor, and the quality is often atrocious. More than one riot has been caused by the inmates being angry about the quality of food that they are being given.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/2009/11/kentucky_prison.php
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/82831517.html
http://www.kentucky.com/2009/11/07/1008801/food-caused-northpoint-riot-guard.html
But it is not only the health of the inmates that the government is concerned about. By providing people in the surrounding city with low-cost, fresh organic food, the government will be helping to deal with problems such as the rampant child obesity that this nation is facing. Programs like Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! http://www.letsmove.gov/eat-healthy and the HealthierUS School Challenge http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/healthierus/index.html would be much more successful if great tasting healthy food was cheaper and more accessible in urban areas.
Conclusion
I hope that this introduction to the possibility of a vertical prison farm has spiked your curiosity. Prisons are an unfortunate necessity in our society, and given the rate of population growth in the world, vertical farms will one day be required as well. It is my belief that we do not have to pay for both, but that by folding the costs of each institution’s operation into each other, we can operate a prison that is safe, secure, humane, cost-efficient, and that gives something back to society.
« less full details »
14 votes
We could scrap all current government-funded health insurance and health care and institute a self-sustaining National Health Insurance covering all citizens and paid for by all citizens, in part - with a National Sales Tax. This would be an immediate shot in the arm for American industry and business, as well as provide a new flexibility for American workers. No American should have to depend on anyone else for their ...more »
We could scrap all current government-funded health insurance and health care and institute a self-sustaining National Health Insurance covering all citizens and paid for by all citizens, in part - with a National Sales Tax. This would be an immediate shot in the arm for American industry and business, as well as provide a new flexibility for American workers. No American should have to depend on anyone else for their health insurance. It makes sense. The only way to ensure all Americans are insured is to insure all Americans. I have a viable plan based on a 4% National Sales Tax, a 3% payroll tax and a 4% corporate EBITA tax. This would fully fund our health insurance needs - $5000+ per capita indemnity - and insurance companies who suffer economic damage can be compensated with health trust money and through eminent domain arbitration. The day after a self-supporting National Health Insurance plan is put into place, the federal budget will be closer to balance as well as many states. P.S. as part of this plan, everybody will have to pay reasonable but mandatory copays, even the "poor".
« less full details »
93 votes
Prisoners should have to work off their incarceration expenses: room and board, meals, clothing/laundry, electricity, heating/cooling, water for showers, waste disposal costs, health care, etc. No more free rides for having broken the law. In addition, hourly work load is based on a system that considers several factors: criminal record (each subsequent incarceration results in more work hours,) degree of crime committed ...more »
Prisoners should have to work off their incarceration expenses: room and board, meals, clothing/laundry, electricity, heating/cooling, water for showers, waste disposal costs, health care, etc. No more free rides for having broken the law. In addition, hourly work load is based on a system that considers several factors: criminal record (each subsequent incarceration results in more work hours,) degree of crime committed (the harder the criminal, the more work hours,) behavior during incarceration (incentive to not cause trouble, and to help others). The result: Inmates have less time to cause trouble, and waste electricity on television and internet. More time: dedicated to overall health and physical fitness thus reducing or eliminating health care costs.
« less full details »
15 votes
Just a thought, we should repeal the Health Care Law. Several judges say it is unconstitutional but no action from the Executive branch. The legislative branch should either repeal it or the AG contest the ruling - otherwise the preparation are WASTED money!
What do you think? If you disagree, why?
28 votes
In an effort to reduce spending, the government should reevaluate the 40- hour work week. While there are options to work less than full-time in government, they come at a high cost to the employee in benefits lost, retirement and vacation earned. The result? Few employees take the option and many of these employees complete their work in less than 40 hours/wk. While maintaining full employee benefits and allowing the ...more »
In an effort to reduce spending, the government should reevaluate the 40- hour work week. While there are options to work less than full-time in government, they come at a high cost to the employee in benefits lost, retirement and vacation earned. The result? Few employees take the option and many of these employees complete their work in less than 40 hours/wk. While maintaining full employee benefits and allowing the forfeiture of salary in a reduced hours schedule, the government could reduce costs while increasing performance. In fact, this is already in place, but only for Leave without Pay, requiring special circumstances. A reduced hour plan could be implemented to issue hours like approved Leave Without Pay and taken either on a weekly schedule, or when work was slow. It should not be news that the U.S. has one of the highest work hours/week and lowest vacation time than other nations, we also have the highest depression, and lowest health. This suggestion not only fits with the national goal of decreasing government spending, but also with those aimed at decreasing health burdens, energy consumption, and can be incentive toward employee education and community outreach. It could be effective in most Departments, with obvious exceptions to emergency staff, military, and SES positions. Cost savings and Benefits include: Direct cost savings. As example, the average federal employee earns $75,419 in 2009. The average savings for reducing the work schedule to 38 hours would be $3,771. Yes, the employee would voluntarily reduce their hours and therefore salary to $71,648. Conservatively, if 5% of the approximately 2,721,000 Federal employees participated at reducing 2 hours/week we’d save $0.5 billion. Health The U.S. has the highest rates of depression in comparison with other nations, and we all know how our health is rated low. A reduction in depression cases would not only decrease the cost to health assistance programs, but increase employee performance as well. Energy consumption One study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that by reducing our work hours to European levels, we'd reduce our energy use and carbon footprint by up to 25%. Our education systems have selected these alternatives to cut energy costs, closing at noon on Friday, such as at the University of Louisiana, or instituting furlough days (mandatory Leave Without Pay days) in Hawaii and California. Innovation Large changes in federal employment can initiate improved employee conditions in corporations. Using our current financial situation as a catalyst for improvement of the average American life-style is a solution I am certain this administration supports. Showing the public that the government can share in the national sacrifice by initiating large employment changes is good for ratings in the short term, and good for America in the long term. Implementation can be: Scaled Reduced time could be implemented as the above mentioned furlough days, where offices close on a pre-specified week to best benefit from the cost savings, and energy savings. Nearly all offices and employees have weeks of “down time” where fewer employees are available to complete work, but energy consumption to keep offices open are still required. More voluntary alternatives are available, where employees can request reduced hours up to a maximum, such as 4 hours/week where costs to benefits would increase. Marketed Time is the answer. From an employee perspective, these are hard times to voluntarily reduce a salary, but it is also increasingly difficult to spend on things that could be accomplished “if only I had time.” Home repairs, training, education, selling a home or car are just a few examples. The typical U.S. employee hires help for some portion of their regular chores, cooking, yard work, laundry, house-cleaning to name the most common. Personal time is invaluable to cutting those costs and improving personal mental and physical health. Education in this sense is NOT the answer, we know that eating fast food is killing us. …but it’s fast and we are out of time. Personal time is the answer. These times can be great “catch-up time”, but can also be wasted time. Have you ever put in days that were not very productive, just to save your vacation time? This costs the employer and doesn’t pay off for anyone.
« less full details »
7 votes
A younger worker who is Caregiver for a Wounded Warrior should be given immediate Social Security Benefits as if they were of the right age for collecting. Spouses and parents of our wounded are providing caring 24 hours a day.
We owe the families of our wounded vets everything. No one should have to quit work and be denied an income because he or she is providing for our nation's best who have sacrificed for us.
15 votes
If the government wants to remain competitive, rather to GET competitive, along with "enforcing" telework, alternate work agreements/sites, etc, it needs to do what many top companies of todays world are doing... Allow domestic partnerships, same sex partnerships and the like full access to health insurance. Whether or not someone can get past their own "shock and horror" factor of same sex couples, all that is wanted ...more »
If the government wants to remain competitive, rather to GET competitive, along with "enforcing" telework, alternate work agreements/sites, etc, it needs to do what many top companies of todays world are doing...
Allow domestic partnerships, same sex partnerships and the like full access to health insurance. Whether or not someone can get past their own "shock and horror" factor of same sex couples, all that is wanted is to be treated the same as everyone else. Be allowed to have the same access to everything else. Beyond the fact that people cannot see past the same-sex factor, many of the relationships last longer than todays marriages.
The government needs all the tools it can muster to be competitive since the pay tends to be lesser than the private sector, yet the responsibilities are greater for the same type job.
This to some is a moral issue, and to others a rights issue, to some it doesn't matter. But one thing is for sure - in the private sector (which the government tends to lag behind and takes years to catch up to), health benefits are offered across the board to "relationshipped" people. That person's marriage does not mean it will cause this other person's marriage to disolve, regardless of the sexes involved.
Don't hate, educate - ignorance and hate of others holds the hater down, right along with those they hate. Acceptance of others does not mean one must agree with the other's lifestyles; it means treating others how one wants to be treated.
Be respectful...ready for the bad comments.....
« less full details »
148 votes
This option needs to be made available to federal employee health insurance. It's available now for vision and dental so why not for health?
It would lower the cost to employees and ultimately the government.
