Stop Prioritizing the Wealthy Over the Middle Class

 Message I sent to my Federal Non-Representative Bob Onder

Dear Representative Onder,

I’m writing to express my strong disapproval of the ongoing efforts to pass massive tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations at the expense of working and middle-class Americans. This direction is deeply unjust and undermines the very people you were elected to represent.

Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP are not government waste — they are essential supports for millions of families. Targeting them to fund giveaways to the ultra-wealthy is not only morally wrong, it’s economically reckless. These proposals don’t reflect a vision of shared prosperity — they reflect a government captured by those with the deepest pockets.

You were elected to represent all of us, not just your high-dollar donors. The middle class built this country, and we deserve more than empty promises. We were told this administration would protect working people. Frankly, I’ve seen very little evidence of that from your office.

If you continue to support legislation that favors the rich while gutting vital programs for everyone else, you are making it clear who you truly serve — and it’s not your constituents.

I urge you to rethink your priorities and start working for the people who sent you to Washington — not those who fund campaigns, but those who cast the votes.

As Israel has Rights, it also has Responsibilities

 You can believe in Israel’s right to exist in safety—and still question the legality of its actions in occupied territories.

Under the Geneva Conventions, it’s generally accepted that a country shouldn’t move its civilian population into land taken by war. That’s why most of the world considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. People who raise this concern aren’t always “anti-Israel”—many just want international law applied fairly.

At the same time, violence and terror—on either side—can never be justified. Attacks on civilians deepen wounds and destroy any hope of peace.

If peace is ever going to happen, it’ll take empathy, respect for law, and a commitment to nonviolence—from everyone involved.

Tariffs are Taxes

 As tariffs begin to bite into the daily lives of ordinary Americans, it’s worth pointing out just how invisible this cost often is. We’re all used to seeing the sales tax line on our receipts—clear, straightforward, and honest. But when tariffs jack up the price of everyday goods, from electronics to groceries, there’s no such transparency. You just pay more, and most folks don’t realize it’s not the store or the supplier—it’s policy.

Wouldn’t it be fair to have that tariff cost spelled out? A simple line that says, “Tariff surcharge: $3.47” would go a long way in helping people understand who’s really footing the bill. Because spoiler alert: it’s not the foreign manufacturer. It’s you, the shopper. That transparency might also help people ask better questions about whether those policies are worth it or if there’s a smarter way to handle trade.

Tariffs may be a tool in the economic toolbox, but when they’re used like a hammer, everyone feels the bruise. Let’s start being honest about where those extra dollars are going and why. If we’re going to pay more, we at least deserve to know who to thank for the privilege. Wouldn’t you like to see that breakdown the next time you’re standing in line at the checkout?

Fixing Democracy: Why the U.S. House Needs Proportional Representation

The U.S. House of Representatives is broken. Decades of gerrymandering, hyper-partisanship, and an outdated electoral system have left us with a Congress that does not truly represent the people. A minority of voters can secure a majority of seats, ensuring that obstruction and gridlock remain the norm. Compromise, once a cornerstone of American governance, has all but disappeared. Our winner-take-all system creates a distorted democracy where millions of voices go unheard, fueling frustration and disengagement among voters. It’s time to fix this by adopting proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Problems with Our Current System

The first-past-the-post system we use in House elections rewards parties that can carve out districts in their favor, not those that best reflect the national will. This leads to:

- Unrepresentative Outcomes: In many elections, one party can win a majority of seats without winning a majority of votes. This allows one faction to dictate policy, even if it lacks broad public support.

- Lack of Competition: Gerrymandered districts create “safe” seats, making it nearly impossible for challengers to unseat incumbents. This locks in partisanship and decreases accountability.

- Extreme Partisanship: Since most seats are predetermined for one party, politicians cater to their base rather than the general electorate. This discourages compromise and rewards ideological purity.

How Proportional Representation Can Fix Congress

Proportional representation (PR) ensures that parties win seats in proportion to their share of the vote. If a party gets 40% of the national vote, they should get about 40% of the seats. This system encourages coalition-building, amplifies voter voices, and leads to policies that reflect a broader consensus.

Under PR, multiple representatives would be elected from larger, multi-member districts, ensuring more ideological diversity and less wasted votes. This means:

- More Competition: No more “safe” seats—every vote would matter.

- More Representation: A wider range of viewpoints in Congress, reducing extremism.

- More Accountability: Politicians would need to appeal to a broader audience, leading to greater responsiveness to voter concerns.

Increase the Number of Representatives

Another fundamental flaw in the House is its size. The number of representatives has been locked at 435 since 1911, despite the U.S. population more than tripling since then. Today, each representative serves about 760,000 people, making it nearly impossible for them to adequately engage with their constituents.

Expanding the House to better reflect population growth—potentially doubling its size—would bring the U.S. in line with other democracies. This would make representation more local, improve accessibility, and ensure that each citizen’s vote carries more weight.

A More Democratic Future

Proportional representation, combined with a larger House, would reinvigorate American democracy. It would ensure that every voter has a voice, reduce polarization, and restore faith in our political system. The current system is failing us, but we have the tools to fix it. It’s time to act and build a Congress that truly represents the people.

Why I Believe Privatizing Federal Functions is the Wrong Move

In my opinion, the federal government could spend money more wisely, but privatizing its functions isn’t the way to fix its inefficiencies. Having served almost ten years in the Navy and later worked as a Federal Contractor, I’ve seen plenty of waste in government operations. But from my perspective, it’s rarely due to corruption or fraud—it’s mostly inefficiencies and bureaucracy. I believe this is where the focus for reform should be, not on handing over responsibilities to private companies. 

The Problem with Privatization 

To me, privatizing federal services like Medicare or education seems counterproductive. Private companies exist to make a profit, and that doesn’t align with the government’s mission to serve its citizens. In my experience, privatization will inevitably lead to one of two outcomes: 

1. Services Cost More: Profit motives will force recipients to pay more for the same services.

 

2. Quality is Reduced: To maintain profitability, private companies might cut corners, meaning recipients get less for their money.

I find it hard to believe privatization could do anything but shift costs to the people who need these services most. For me, this is especially troubling when it comes to essential programs that millions of people rely on for health, education, and basic support. 

My Perspective on Fixing the Problem 

From what I’ve seen, the government can do better without privatizing. During my time as a contractor, I worked to improve the efficiency of federal procurement. These processes originated in an era when everything was done manually—with typewriters, carbon copies, and standardized forms like the SF279 and SF281. The problem is, when automation was introduced, it was often designed to replicate those old processes instead of rethinking them from the ground up. Even today, every agency seems to have its own variations of these forms, creating unnecessary duplication and inefficiencies. To me, this is a prime example of how government operations could be streamlined. Enforcing consistent, modernized practices could save a lot of time and taxpayer money without sacrificing service quality.

What I’d Like to See Instead

Here’s what I think the government should focus on to spend money more wisely: 

1. Streamline Processes: Enforce consistent use of standardized forms and procedures across all agencies.

 2. Bring in Efficiency Experts: Let contractors or specialists identify and fix inefficiencies, but keep the core services in-house.

3. Rethink Automation: Move away from outdated systems that mimic manual processes and invest in technology designed for the modern era. 

Why This Matters to Me 

I understand that some people see privatization as a way to cut costs, but in my opinion, it’s a short-sighted approach. It might save the government money on paper, but it’ll always end up costing recipients more or leaving them with less. As someone who has worked both in government and as a contractor, I know there’s plenty of room for improvement. But I feel strongly that we shouldn’t sacrifice the public good for the sake of private profit.