Kevin Pezzi, MD

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right.”
— H. L. Mencken

• It would make people feel better about paying taxes by allowing them to see tangible things their money did: feed a family, buy clothes, pay for their utilities or healthcare, etc.
• It would permit welfare recipients to see that the money they received came not from a government with pockets that seem endlessly deep, but from a person they knew who worked hundreds of hours per year to earn the money they received.
• It would foster a bond between the recipients and payors. That bond would likely make many people want to give even more.

Besides giving money or a job, one might give other valuable things or services, such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, or energy. I've given free firewood just because I wanted to help others, expecting nothing in return, but to motivate more people to do that, they must be given something in return, such as reduced tax liability. It takes money to purchase a chainsaw, fuel it, and maintain it. Replacement chains cost $25, and I've gone through dozens of them, in addition to four chainsaws. Then there is the safety equipment (gloves, helmet, eye protection, and special chainsaw clothing) that needs periodic replacement, along with the tractor and trailer used to transport logs from the tree to the woodpile. The tree itself is valuable, as is the time required to turn it into firewood, so it isn't unreasonable for people who put out so much money, time, and effort to be compensated for it.

A new career: tax liaisons

Another option is to create a new profession: tax liaisons, who would act as the go-between or buffer between taxpayers and welfare (or entitlement) recipients. Acting as proxies for taxpayers, tax liaisons would be contractually bound to the taxpayers they work for and ethically/legally bound to abide by all laws and rules pertaining to interfacing with recipients, akin to how lawyers, as officers of the court, are required to behave.

Tax liaisons would be paid either a set fee by the taxpayer, or more likely a percentage of the savings. Just as there is no seller without a buyer, there would be competitive pressure for tax liaisons to appeal to recipients and taxpayers. Clever liaisons would create nifty ways to give more for less. Can that be done? You bet it can! I'll later post an article full of examples. If you have a bright idea, contact me and I'll post it.

The reward for inside-the-box thinking: economic misery

What the United States is now doing is analogous to what a person nearing bankruptcy would do if he got new credit cards to meet the minimum payments on the old ones. Borrowing more to partially repay old debts is a recipe for economic disaster. Repaying our national debt is mathematically impossible without pixie dust or a miracle invented by an Einstein.

We need good outside-the-box solutions, but when voters elect the next generation of rocket scientists to continue our downward spiral, they choose candidates who make old inside-the-box ideas seem like the exciting solutions we need. They rehash freeze-dried ideas from bygone American politicians, but those plans are often ones that helped dig the deep hole we're in.

So can they save us? Dream on! Rather than come to grips with our plight and seek intelligent, innovative ways to escape it, small-minded American sheeple can usually do no more than nitpick at novel ideas and those who generate them.

Fox News is a good example of an organization that inculcates its viewers with the notion that being hidebound is a badge of honor. If they mention something that is even remotely original, within milliseconds they bash it. Present both sides and let the viewers decide? That's their ludicrously hollow promise they never keep. In their small minds, all we need is a few minor tweaks of a horrendously broken system.

The success of Fox News is proof that we live in an inside-the-box world that often ridicules new ideas. I once thought Fox News was exemplary, but I now think they are pathetic and economically inimical. Their T&A team does such a great job of cheerleading for inside-the-box ideas that most of its viewers are still whistling past the graveyard of our prosperity. Exceptional beauty can make national economic suicide seem palatable now, but when you are old, cold, and hungry, you will rue the day you swallowed their close-mindedness hook, line, and sinker. Even Disney is more tuned into reality. (See my article: Why Admiral Rickover would not like Fox News.)

Update: The feedback I've received about this article boils down to: it is a novel idea that could work well, helping taxpayers and those supported by their tax dollars, but it would lessen the power of politicians by reducing the number of people on welfare (one of the constituency groups always pandered to in elections) and by seeding their minds with new ideas on how to maximize their income by partnering with people such as myself, rather than federal politicians. Thus, politicians would never accept such an innovative way to maintain or increase welfare benefits while reducing the burden on taxpayers, in addition to producing inestimable other advantages. My response? Anyone with such a gloomy prognosis may as well put a chain around his neck and hand the reins to politicians, our masters, who will relentlessly lead our country down the path of destruction.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) said that “we’re basically on the path to a banana-republic-type of financial situation in this country” within 10 years. “We're going to undermine fundamentally the quality of life for our children by doing this. […] It will be hard for our kids to buy a car, buy a house, or send their kids to college. The standard of living will drop.”

The standard of living is dropping. Slowly but surely, prosperity is eroding, one American at a time. I know people who owned once-successful businesses and lived in luxurious homes who are now living in a flophouse and hoping to make $200 per week driving a truck.

The most notable accomplishment of our politicians has been to take the United States, seemingly destined to be the world's indomitable economic superpower, and inflict considerably more damage upon its future than all of our past and present enemies combined, including Germany and Japan in World War II, the USSR during the Cold War, Islamic terrorists, and everyone convicted of treason in U.S. history. All of those enemies combined couldn't begin to deliver the KO blow that our liberal and conservative politicians have given to present and future Americans: problems so monumental they cannot be solved without inflicting widespread suffering and economic pain unless the folks who masquerade as leaders embrace outside-the-box ideas, such as the plan I presented above. We will either embrace good outside-the-box solutions, or our prosperity will continue to fizzle.

What's your choice?

The Greatest Generation catapulted the United States out of the Great Depression and beat Germany and Japan in World War II, then turned our country into an economic superpower. They earned our respect and admiration for what they did.

What will future generations call us? The Spineless Generation who would not stand up to politicians? The Easily Duped Generation that couldn't see that our politicians are superb at campaigning but inept at leading? The Brainless Generation too stupid to see that we need good new ideas stat?

An interesting article (Why We Crave Creativity but Reject Creative Ideas) explained resistance to my above proposals: “Most people view creativity as an asset—until they come across a creative idea.” I discussed this in another article.

Even when there is a desperate need for change and the creative solution is wholly positive, most folks prefer to cling to the old way of doing things.

Why are people so reluctant to think for themselves? Researchers found that peer pressure causes children as young as 4 years of age to conform their public opinion to the majority even when they know better, succumbing to the point of view of the majority. Another study bolstered this finding, showing that even young children coalesce around the majority opinion, following the crowd. Sheeple follow the crowd; people with a spine and brain attached to it think for themselves.

In this case, the majority of adults have no bright ideas for how to pare the size and expense of our government without risking painful cutbacks.

My Plan B should thrill Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, conservatives, liberals, the Tea Party folks, and everyone with a brain. It's a win-win-win situation:

• It's better for welfare recipients because they get more money—potentially much more.
• It's better for the government since there is less welfare burden to meet.
• It's better for taxpayers, who get to keep more of their money.

That plan would have myriad secondary benefits, such as helping reduce crime, improve education, and trigger the joy of helping others along with many priceless psychological benefits. It would make our society a better one, help people become better people, and warm hearts from sea to shining sea.

My principle could be applied to Social Security and various other government entitlement programs. Together, they are bankrupting our nation. We cannot solve our financial crisis simply by eliminating fraud and pork barrel spending such as funding research to see what college co-eds do in the dark after drinking beer—as if we didn't already know! We need to address entitlement spending, but politicians can only suggest reducing payments or restricting eligibility. That would help, but not enough unless the cutbacks were draconian. That way would generate much pain; my way is painless.

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) was touted as a “conservative visionary” for introducing a plan to restructure Medicare and Medicaid. His idea—often referred to as the Ryan Plan—includes no magic that could produce win-win-win situations, such as those I presented above. Instead, his so-called brilliant idea boils down to cleverly camouflaging cuts so citizens won't know what hit them until it is too late. By that time, voter rage will be directed at state leaders, not politicians in Washington.

Is there a better way? Yes, the Pezzi Plan presented above.

The $100,000 challenge: I understand the resistance to truly new ideas, so to prove my plan is feasible, I will give $100,000 to the first person who proves that it couldn't work. It obviously would work, and I already have proof. I could write a book describing the many ways I've helped people succeed. One was a struggling student depressed about his very poor grades that seemed to shatter his dreams of becoming a doctor. He first wrote to me from the basement he once holed up in, but he is now a brilliant medical student who calls me every now and then, impressing me with his mental activity that's two notches above most med students.

Another success story: another depressed person trapped in a dead-end job, also with dreams of becoming a doctor, but convinced she couldn't make it. With my help, she did; she is now a professor at the medical school I attended (Wayne State), and she is chair of her department at a hospital in the Detroit Medical Center.

Yet another person who aspired to become a doctor but hadn't tried, choosing a different career path because she thought she lacked The Right Stuff. I gave her the boost she needed. She is now a neuroradiologist, medical school professor, and president of a prestigious medical organization (not the AMA, which isn't prestigious, IMHO).

I helped myself, too. My sixth-grade teacher said I was “slow,” and I struggled so much my first two years in high school that my big dream was to drop out and work in an auto assembly plant. However, I serendipitously stumbled upon ways to significantly improve intelligence, creativity, and memory. I aced college, the MCAT, and medical school, graduating in the top 1% of my class. My residency program director said I was the smartest resident they ever had, and one of my bosses commented I was the smartest doctor he ever met. He had access to my educational records and said I had an IQ of 160. My sixth-grade teacher thought I had an IQ about half that. How I ascended so many standard deviations up the Bell curve of IQ was primarily a matter of luck (at that time, I was searching for a way to pump up my muscles, not my brain), but once I found that way to boost brainpower, I utilized it and did things my teacher would have deemed impossible for someone like me—so “slow” that he couldn't resist calling me that in front of the class.

When he said that, I silently agreed with him, yet receiving such a brazen affront in class instantly ignited a burning desire to prove him wrong. But how? I hadn't the slightest idea, but I found it a few years later in time to keep me from being a high-school dropout.

I've learned that people who don't think much of themselves or their accomplishments opine that when I speak of mine, I'm just bragging to boost my ego. Wrong. In another article, I explained why. In yet another posting, I revealed some of my painful struggles with self-image. Big ego? Ha! The only thing I am fully confident in is my inventiveness.

The dunce-to-doctor tips that enabled me to go from a “slow” student to a smart doctor can easily be taught to others, to help them achieve seemingly impossible goals. However, the merit of my brainpower tips cannot be fully evinced unless I mention where I began and where I ended up.

The world has plenty of smart people, but the ones who talk about brainpower were usually born on third base, yet act as if they just hit a triple. Their self-help books are typically littered with basic tips everyone knows; if they were truthful, their primary tip would be: “Ensure you have the right parents; the right genes are so important!”

In my ER sites, I repeatedly stressed to students that if I could do it (and I did), they could, too. Most could surpass what I did because most would begin from a higher baseline.

As I mentioned in other articles in this site, boosting intelligence, memory, creativity, and productivity could catalyze our economy, enabling us to achieve things that even most optimists would deem impossible. However, I did things my sixth-grade teacher would have sworn up and down were impossible for someone like me.

If you scour my websites and books, you'll see I've done many things besides becoming a doctor, and my most notable achievements won't be publicly known for a few more years. I've mentioned a few dozen things, some of which surpassed what Google and Microsoft have done, and some of which seems (or seemed) impossible, such as how to contact people on paid dating sites without registering or paying them, or how to send a message to someone without knowing his or her e-mail address—for example, a son or daughter who isn't yet born. Sure, you could simply jot down the advice or whatever you want to pass along, but that would require you to remember it and where you put it, often many hard drives ago. I had a much better way.

Want to thread a hole from the inside out? If you've seen that process the usual way (threading from the outside in), you'd think it is impossible, but it is not with the tool I made in the 1980s. I could fill a book just listing my similar ideas that seemed to be—but weren't—impossible.

If I spoke of my accomplishments to brag, I could find much better ways to waste my time. No one cares about me; you care about you and your accomplishments. I want to help you and others like you, partly because I love to help people, and partly because I want to see our economy roar to life again. I want to see people filled with optimism as their wallets are filled with cash.

Could Mr. Conservative Visionary Paul Ryan do as much for you? No, he and his bereft-of-vision colleagues can only lure voters down a path that leads to a trap. That trap may be necessary if the folks in Washington don't soon overcome their allergy to good outside-the-box ideas, but there is a better alternative.

This morning, a television commentator lamented that no one in Washington knows the answer to what he termed the $14 trillion question: how to reform entitlements without pain. I have a viable plan, while Ryan has a clever trap bound to cause tremendous pain. Which is better?

I have viable ways to solve every one of our most pressing national problems. Take obesity, for example. I once was a blimp too fat to see my feet when I stood up. A year later, with plenty of pizza and breadsticks, I looked like this:

(text continues below this image)

People who think medicine must taste bad to be good are naturally skeptical of weight loss without willpower, but during that year I lost my blubber, not once did I starve myself or feel as if I were dieting. If it took willpower, I couldn't have done it, because I had none. I still don't. Put me near something sweet or tasty and it'll soon be gone. Just ask the State Police officers in Gaylord, MI. While working the ER night shift, I called 911 and told the dispatcher to radio them saying if they weren't busy, to stop by the ER to have some of the pizza I bought. Well, they had some, but my greed for pizza caused me to hog most of it. One of the troopers had a hurt look on his face, as if I'd cheated him out of his share. I later felt bad about that (and still do), but I'll later make it up to him and his partner. In any case, my affinity for food is best summed up in one word: oink!

I've since learned many other ways to easily lose weight, so even though I am now much older and don't exercise after injuring a shoulder and breaking my neck, I am still in very good shape. I could teach my weight loss without willpower methods to the nation so we could all shape up. Since obesity contributes to so many diseases, that would save us countless billions of dollars and improve lives in priceless ways. If the government kept 99.99% of the savings and gave the rest to me, they would be happy, I would be happy, and Americans would be happier and healthier. Insurance companies could reduce their premiums, so healthcare would be more affordable. Thus, this would be another win-win-win situation.

I am a reformed—and hence erstwhile—Republican. I once looked at them as sages, and now I see them for what they really are. I'm not fond of most Democrats, either, but I appreciate their honesty in being less duplicitous.

If you gravitate toward one of the political poles, as I once did, I'd like to suggest a better alternative: win-win-win situations in which those on the Right, those on the Left, and those in between, can all get most everything they want. Isn't that clearly better?

Although my sixth-grade teacher's “slow” comment stung, I appreciate the remarkably effective way he awoke me from my slumber. What he did in today's PC world would now earn him a reprimand or worse, but I'd give him a gold star and a pat on the back for catalyzing my desire to succeed. He helped not only me, but the many others I helped, and the billions I hope to help. What's standing in my way? Primarily people with so little vision they think Paul Ryan is visionary.

Folks, don't be “slow” in thinking that a second-rate vision is a worthy goal.

Understanding resistance to my plan

With my plan a blessing to everyone except the politicians who oppose it, it is difficult to understand why anyone with at least a room-temperature IQ and a shred of common sense would not enthusiastically support it. Psychological researchers found that a process called system justification motivates people to defend the status quo even when the system (such as a government, institution, or company) is inept, unjust, or corrupt and failing miserably. System justification leads people not only to tolerate the bad system or acquiesce to it, but to actively defend it, causing them to resist change even when the change is obviously desirable. System justification is fostered when:

• People feel the system is inescapable
• People depend on the system
• People feel less control over their own lives
• The system is threatened

The last point explains why George W. Bush's popularity soared immediately after 9/11. “System justification can enlighten those who are frustrated when people don't rise up in what would seem their own best interests.”

System justification theory “posits that people adopt belief systems that justify existing political, economic, and social situations or inequities in order to make themselves feel better about the status quo. Moreover, in order to maintain their perceptions of the world as just, people resist changes that would increase the overall amount of fairness and equality in the system. Instead, they often engage in cognitive adjustments that preserve a distorted image of reality in which existing institutions are seen as more equitable and just than they are.”

Interestingly, exposure to Horatio Alger rags-to-riches stories can strengthen system-justification beliefs while stories describing the plight of innocent victims underscore system unfairness, which heightens support for redistribution and the need for change. This explains why Democratic candidates often trot out victims to make change seem more appealing.

Thus, system justification theory seems to suggest that Democrats would be the ones most likely to support my plan, yet they derive much of their power by using our tax dollars to curry favor with recipients of welfare or other programs (e.g., unemployment benefits) that my plan could improve, benefiting the recipients and the taxpayers. By weakening the perceived link between money and politicians, the latter would have less power to ingratiate themselves with recipients, whose votes often make the difference between winning and losing. However, smart Democrats who truly want to help as many people as possible as much as possible could achieve that goal by supporting my plan, which would broaden their appeal to independent voters and Republicans wise enough to realize how such a win-win-win reformation could benefit everyone.

Thus, I have no allegiance to any political party; my allegiance is with ideas, such as my above plan, that help more people in more ways than our current system, which is obviously broken and ripe for change.

Notes:

1. Digital Media a Factor in Ferocity of Political Campaigns Excerpt: “One side is going to lose in every political discussion.” Wrong! As I proved in this article, win-win outcomes are possible.
   Excerpt: “Politics are getting nastier due to digital media, which are segmenting people into polarized interest groups. The researcher recommends a balanced approach to finding information in order to return civility to political discourse, which is at the heart of democracy. [...] It's important to recognize that people who disagree with you aren't 'evil' or 'trying to destroy America;' they just have different perspectives.” True, but most people who are passionate about politics are still in the infantile stage of demonizing their opponents.
2. Less Knowledge, More Power: Uninformed Can Be Vital to Democracy, Study Finds
   Excerpt: “Uninformed individuals—as in those with no prior knowledge or strong feelings on a situation's outcome—tend to side with and embolden the numerical majority” but “if the number of uninformed becomes too high, a group ceases to function coherently. [...] Eventually, noise dominates because there just aren't enough informed individuals to guide the group.” Interestingly, researchers found an association between “a glut of uninformed individuals” and “situations in which a candidate's personality or personal life takes precedent over policy positions in voters' minds.”
   Comment: The latter association would not surprise Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, genius Eric Hoffer, or statesman Benjamin Disraeli:
   
   “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
   — Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, quoting someone he termed an "unknown sage" in The Saturday Evening Post article "The World of the Uneducated" (November 28, 1959)
   
   “A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.”
   — Eric Hoffer
   
   “Small things affects small minds.”
   — Benjamin Disraeli
3. Sheep In Human Clothing: Scientists Reveal Our Flock Mentality
4. Excerpt from Ilana Mercer's Sacrificing kids to PC pietism relevant to system justification: “There is not a dime's worth of difference between … “conservative[s]” and “liberal[s].” Both insist on catering to and enabling organized entities – in politics and in other crime – that despise them for their abilities and frailties, and instinctively seek to harm them.”
5. Slate (surprisingly) linked to this article: 34 Shocking Facts About U.S. Debt That Should Set America On Fire With Anger