Sir,
Please see this article published by the BBC here in the UK: Family life on benefits.
 
In this article Raymond (not his real name) makes a number of statements that clearly define why the benefits system here in the UK is flawed. I'll include my comments:
 
"Raymond, a former educational software writer, has been jobless since 2001.... The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise." So why has someone with apparent I.T. skills not retrained to something he can do to earn an income?
 
"We get the Sky Movies package because we're stuck in the house all week - otherwise we wouldn't have any entertainment." This is the most expensive satellite television package available in the UK at £58 ($90 USD) per month, Many hard working families can not afford this, and over 100 channels are free to air over terrestrial television or via free sat packages where their existing receiver could do this for no monthly cost.
 
"My wife and I have mobile phones, and so do all of the teenage children. You try telling teenagers they're going to have to do without their mobiles and there'll be hell to pay." Well, someone is paying, and it's h*ll for the tax payers having to do so. What lesson does this teach his children about personal responsibility?
 
"I go out once a week, on a Friday night. I meet up with my mates in the pub and have three or four pints". A nice life if someone else is paying for it. Most working people are too tired to go out after a hard days work. (He could also stay in and watch his satellite television?)
 
"I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating", yet aside from the discretional spending outlined above, the families weekly shopping bill includes; 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco.
 
At the end of this article Raymond complains that the proposed cap's to limit benefits here in the UK to around £26,000 ($40,500 USD) per household would reduce his income by just over £82 ($130 USD) per week. Adding up the entertainment costs above, he could easily save 1.5 times this amount by eliminating these expenses.
 
Please also remember that here in the UK there is no time limit on this type of benefit being paid.
 
People wonder why we have an increasing Government spending deficit here in the UK. - Ian in Nanny State Britannia

Hi,
Recently on the news here in Belgium they said there's soon going to be a law effective that limits cash payments to 5,000 euro maximum, and in 2014 this limit would be decreased to only 3,000 euro. Officially it's to limit 'black money'. Haven't heard much other things about it (no questions, protests, ..) so it's interesting to follow up if that's only our government being creative
(which I doubt) or that other European countries will also apply a similar law, maybe as a way to be able to devaluate the euro currency in a few years. - A. in Belgium

James:
I got one of the USDA's surveys, too, and had an interesting discussion with whoever responded to their "contact us" email address. I noted that my paper form claimed very clearly that response was required by law, but the web site version of the survey said it was voluntary. So I asked which was true, and was told that Public Law 105-113 "authorizes the [USDA] to conduct an agricultural census every five years," and explained the form was to help them save time in some further census process. The response said nothing about whether my response was required or not, though it did (of course) say the law required all information from respondents to be kept confidential, specifically that it "cannot be used for purposes of taxation, investigation, or regulation." It ended with a warm fuzzy statement about how important agriculture is to America (for some definition of "agriculture", I guess).

So I replied, saying they hadn't answered my question, which I repeated. Their response said, "To try to completely answer your question, the Census of Agriculture, conducted every five years, is a survey that by law requires a response from operators who are involved in agriculture. Though other NASS surveys do not by law require individuals to respond, NASS is required by law to conduct these surveys and publish statistics from the information gathered."

You'll note this still doesn't answer the question, though it does say I need to respond if ever they come knocking with actual census forms. In my emails I also mentioned that the questions ask about "land that is in government programs", in the description prior to question 1. All other questions depend on this answer to question 1. I own "land with the potential for agricultural production" (kind of vague, don't you think?) but none of it is part of any agricultural government programs. It's subject to property tax, emergency services can presumably access it without penalty in time of emergency, and I guess it could be subject to seizure under eminent domain, all of which means it's probably part of one government program or another. But, I don't have a government loan on it or equipment I use on it, I don't get subsidies, so I call it "not a government program", and put "0 acres". All my other responses were thereby zero, as they all depend on how much acreage I operate. Regards, - E.K.

Mr. Rawles:
Have you all heard about this?  Yesterday I received a 2012 National Agricultural Classification Survey [from the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service] in the mail.  They ask 25 nosey questions about how many of each animal we have on our farm i.e. cows, chickens, beehives, turkeys, sheep, goats, horses etc., how much we spend in our "operation" every year, and how much we plan to make this year.  They also ask if we have internet access, how many "operators" are involved in the decision making of our "operation" how many acres we have, how many are pasture land or wooded, do we have greenhouse plants, grain storage and how many animals do we sell each year....and on and on. 
 
We are told on the first page of the survey that it is required by law to fill out this form, or we will get a phone call or someone will show up at our door (to count our animals themselves?)  This is ridiculous, and I believe it goes against our Constitutional rights.  
 
My family does not want to send our survey in, as we are not at all interested in allowing the government have this information which they have no right to know.  We only own 10 acres with a few sheep and goats, yet they classify us as a farmstead "operation" and instruct us to fill out the form if we so much as own one animal.  Without a doubt, the USDA is not going to use this information for our good. Either they are going to start taxing for each animal we own to keep us from being able to afford a self-sufficient lifestyle, or they are going to keep track of what we have so that they can take it from us and somehow make us dependent on them.  They have no right to know how prepared we are to support ourselves.   

I think we ought to get this information to anyone who has animals and receives one of these forms. If enough of us refuse to fill out this form it will be a very good thing. 

Thank you so much for what you are doing with Survival Blog. I am a daily reader. - Lydia B. (Age 16)

JWR Replies: The survey's cover letter is cleverly worded, to conceal the fact that sending in the form is actually voluntary. Just say no to drugs. And just say no to nosey surveys. They are only useful as kindling and bird cage lining.

Dear Editor:
I have a question about the saving of [U.S. five cent piece] nickels, is it for the value of the metal in nickels or [is it for] the value when the government changes the metal composition? I have read on some sites that it is for the metal meltdown in case of government collapse. If it is for that, then all coins after 1965 have the same metal content. Why keep one coin in particular? If it is for the value after the metal change by the government, will it not take a decade or two to bring them to a value that makes them worth keeping. I have been on two different web sites that supposedly know the metal content of coins and they both differ. For example coinflation.com says the after 1965 dimes, quarters and half dollars have 91.67% copper with 8.33% nickel. The other web site usacoinbook.com says the same coins have 75% copper with 25% nickel. Which is right? If this web site is right then why not save all coins that have 75% copper with 25% nickel? Thanks, - John T.

JWR Replies: Please re-read my static page about Nickels.  I consider them a multipurpose hedge, for:

• A currency swap
• Slow currency inflation
• Rapid currency inflation
• A total currency collapse

I believe that you misread the web pages that described the composition of currently circulating coins. To clarify:

Post-1945 U.S. five cent pieces ("nickels") are 75% copper and 25% nickel. They presently have a base metal value that exceeds their face value.

Post-1964 U.S. dimes, quarters and halves are 91.67% copper and 8.33% nickel. They presently have a base metal value much less than their face value. (For example, a 25 cent piece has a melt value of only 4.8 cents.)

That is why I recommend stocking up on nickels, as long as you can continue to acquire get them at face value. A composition change (to steel nickels) is coming soon, so get your nickels by the roll, before you have to start sorting the wheat from the chaff. I believe that the pending bill H.R. 3694 (the Saving Taxpayer Expenditures by Employing Less Imported Nickel ACT -- aka the "STEEL Nickel Act) will be signed into law in 2012 .The window of opportunity is closing. I've warned my blog readers about this inevitable change for more than three years. This is your last chance to stock up on real nickel Nickels!

Firearms freedom is on the march across America. In recent years, there have been many legislative successes for American gun owners, and I'm pleased to report that some of the best have been in the American Redoubt states. Onerous gun laws that had placed too much arbitrary discretion hands of a few political appointees have been rolled back. Meanwhile, "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws have been enacted, and strong assertions of State Sovereignty have been enacted. This animated graphic from the Wiki world, showing the advance of non-discretionary ("Shall issue") CCW permits, is guaranteed to make Chuck Schumer and the other rabid gun grabbers go apoplectic.

The best news is that in Wyoming, permitless concealed carry went into effect in July, 2011. In Wyoming, it is now legal for adult citizens to carry a loaded gun or concealed--in your car, on your quad, on your horse, or afoot--with no permit required. (Previously, this right had only been recognized if the gun was carried in plain view.) This change emulated Vermont's long-standing policy, and followed similar legislative moves in Alaska and Arizona. This used to be called "Vermont Carry", but it is catching on and has now been dubbed Constitutional Carry. (As our friend Tamara aptly put it, the new term was needed becuase "Vermont-Alaska-Arizona-Wyoming Carry is too much of a mouthful.")

Some bad news is that efforts to enact this in three other Redoubt states were either tabled or vetoed in 2011. But at least open carry is unrestricted in most Redoubt locales, and CCW permits are non-discretionary in all of the Redoubt states.

In Oregon, a bill before the state legislature would have granted "rights given to concealed handgun licensee to any person who may lawfully purchase and possess firearm." HB 2790, introduced by Representative Kim Thatcher, did not gain enough support, so it died in the House Judiciary Committee.

In Idaho, a permitless concealed carry bill (Idaho Senate Bill 1126) also died in committee. There are hopes to introduce similar legislation in 2012.

Another disappointment was in Montana, where a "no permit" carry bill passed by a good majority in the legislature but is was then vetoed by the state's Democrat governor. Because the Montana legislature only meets in alternating years, there won't be a chance to enact a Constitutional Carry law until 2013. It is predicted that a veto-proof majority will then be gathered. The big legislative success Montana is that the "Made in Montana Guns" law is in effect. This law clarifies that intrastate manufacture of guns is outside of Federal jurisdiction. Any gun marked "Made in Montana" can be sold without any Federal paperwork, as long as the maker and the buyer both live in Montana.

I am hopeful that laws Constitutional Carry will sweep the nation, following the fine success of enacting CCW permit laws (now in place in some form in 49 states) and Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws (now in place in some form in 31 states). I can foresee that starting with the western states and perhaps Florida and Texas, nearly all Americans will be able to fully enjoy their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Beyond these recent developments, I 'm hopeful that some of the antiquated laws on automatic knives, sound suppressors, explosives, short-barreled weapons, and fully automatic guns will be rolled back at either the state or Federal level. The consensus seems to be that "gun control" was a failed experiment. It is high time that re-assert our rights. As I've written before: Much like a muscle that atrophies with disuse, any right that goes unexercised for many years devolves into a privilege, and eventually can even be redefined as a crime.

SurvivalBlog readers should take the time to read through a fairly lengthy piece about flash mobs that was recently published in Wired magazine. I note several threats, including: Random "bombings" of activity. Organized criminal events. Organized social events that get out of hand. Police over-reaction. Civil rights over-reaction.

It would be a good idea for all teenagers to be aware that even a legitimate, law-abiding gathering can be turned into a riot by a few troublemakers and a measured police response. If the crowd looks too large, or questionable, then leave early. If you have to ask if it's safe to remain, then it probably isn't.

I wonder how my friend Larry Niven feels about having predicted the flash mob trend. - SurvivalBlog Editor At Large Michael Z. Williamson

I've received several e-mails and letters from SurvivalBlog readers, asking me if and when I believe that a "cashless society" is coming. My response is: Yes, I do believe that it is coming, but I can't say when. There are some that have argued that a currency collapse will be used as the pretense to implement a multi-continental or even global digital currency. Most likely it would be in the form of a debit card, similar to what has been popularized in Germany with EuroCheck (EC) Cards. I mentioned these cards in my most recent book, "Survivors: A Novel of the Coming Collapse". These cash equivalent debit cards would resemble outwardly a bank debit card, but would be issued by the Federal Reserve, and would be tied to your Social Security Number. Like a debit card, they would have a PIN used for password protection.

Say that a cashless society comes about. What will happen to all of the old paper currency? There will obviously have to be a deadline for it to be turned in for exchange. (For a credit on your card.) But what about coinage? Will that also be phased out? Officially, yes, but I predict that unofficially, there will still be a lot of it in circulation, in an entirely unofficial Gray Market.

In my estimation, coinage cannot be completely banned, for several reasons:

1.) Large numismatic collections exist, with many owned by wealthy and influential people. There is a long-standing legitimate reason to preserve them. It is noteworthy that even the notorious gold coin and bullion seizure by the FDR Administration under Executive Order 6102 exempted numismatic coins. To ban coin collections would cause a huge uproar and surely be deemed an illegal "taking" by any reputable court.

2.) There are millions of forgotten piggy banks and coin jars in private homes. For these small coin hoards to be declared contraband would be absurd.

3.) The melting of coins for their scrap value would soon become universally legal. (It is presently considered a crime.) It would clearly be in the government's best interest to have the defunct coins "out of sight and out of mind." But obviously some coins not yet melted down into ingots would have to be legal. I predict that governments will simply put a deadline on convertibility. Past the deadline, you would be "stuck" with the old coins, just as you would with the old paper currency.

4.) Coins have long been used mounted in jewelry and even in sculptures, and exceptions would have to be made to keep those coins legal.

5.) There is an important distinction between paper currency in the U.S. and our minted coinage: The paper currency--Federal Reserve Notes and their electronic ledger entry equivalents--are debt-based and created by the Federal Reserve (a private banking cartel) in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving. But all of our coinage is created directly by the U.S. Mint, at taxpayer expense. So any effort to ban coinage would face a much stronger challenge in the courts on Constitutional grounds than a ban on paper currency.

With the safe assumption that it will still be legal to hold (but not necessarily conduct trade in) U.S. coinage, we can therefore conclude that:

A.) A large portion of the currently-circulating coinage will be turned in for redemption through banks and credit unions to the U.S. Treasury, for credit back to citizens, digitally.

B.) Use of foreign currencies for private domestic transactions will be banned shortly before or concurrently with announcement of the digital currency. (Like the Mafia, governments hate competition.)

B.) Gresham's Law dictates that a large portion of the citizenry will turn in their relatively worthless post-1965 dimes, quarters, Sacagaweas, Suzies, and Presidential Dollars. But many people will wisely hang onto their pennies and nickels, since their base metal value is higher than their face value. And it goes without saying that nearly everyone will continue to hoard their 90% silver pre-1965 coins as well as their 1965-1970 (40% silver) half dollars.

C.) A gray market will immediately spring up in pennies and nickels, for small transactions, and pre-1965 silver coins for larger transactions.

D.) I further predict that both the coinage gray market and vast barter networks will quickly catch on in part because of interest by some Christians who fear that digital currency is The Mark of The Beast, as prophesied in the Revelation of John.

E.) Even though officially discouraged, the coinage-based gray market will not be vigorously prosecuted. Doing so would be politically unpopular. And because the collective value of all of the coinage in circulation is miniscule compared to the ocean of paper dollars, it will be considered a non-issue--something "not worth bothering with."

Here are some numbers to consider (with a snapshot of values as of 11 December, 2011), courtesy of the fine folks at Coinflation.com:

So, in essence, a nickel is still worth a nickel, but a dime is now just a copper token only worth about 2 cents. This makes it obvious that pennies and nickels are worth retaining, but the larger denomination coins are not.

(By the way, Coinflation also publishes some very useful information about silver coins. Be sure to bookmark those pages and print out reference hard copies of the key tables.)

Take a few minute to re-read my article about stocking up on nickels. With the advent of a cashless economy in mind, it makes even more sense to save your nickels!

Dear Mr. Rawles: 
In reference to D.B.C. in Minnesota's letter regarding rough service lamps and their availability.  I recently read PUBLIC LAW 110–140—DEC. 19, 2007 which impacts incandescent light bulbs has language which directs the "Secretary" to track the sales of "exempted" bulbs and if their sales grow above historical sales/growth levels, then energy conservation standards will be imposed for exempted lamps, including rough service. Here is a partial excerpt from the bill:

 ‘‘(D) ROUGH SERVICE LAMPS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Effective beginning with the first year that the reported annual sales rate for rough service lamps demonstrates actual unit sales of rough service lamps that achieve levels that are at least 100 percent higher than modeled unit sales for that same year, the Secretary shall—
‘‘(I) not later than 90 days after the end of the previous calendar year, issue a finding that the index has been exceeded; and
‘‘(II) not later than the date that is 1 year after the end of the previous calendar year, complete an accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy conservation standard for rough service lamps.

So this means that over time many of the exempted lamps could eventually be phased out also if people start substituting them for banned lamps.   As D.B.C. points out there are substitutes available such as halogen lamps which have the same fit, form and function of an incandescent (with substantially longer lives) ... the lifetime cost of each bulb type (initial cost + energy usage) can be found on most manufacturers web site for comparison. God bless you all, - D.P.