With all the heat over the health care issues, the issue of Social Security is being ignored. That is a shame, because Social Security presents us with a far more pressing problem than health care.
Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.
Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.
According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.
As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.
We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.
I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.
On to other possibilities.
We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.
We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.
We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.
Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.
Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.
The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.
It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.
They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.
This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."
In addition:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."
This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.
If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.
This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.
Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.
Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.
That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.
Or else.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Horse Soldiers
That is the name of a book I have just read written by Doug Stanton.
It is the fabulous story of how fewer than fifty Special Forces troops took down the Taliban in two months, rather than the two years the Pentagon thought it would take.
They and about 15,000 irregular troops of the Northern Alliance, mounted on horseback, defeated 50-60,000 Taliban and Al Quaeda, and took the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif.
With B-52s or FA-18s circling overhead to assist with GPS guided bombs, these guys conducted cavalry charges against tanks, other armored vehicles and machine guns, and prevailed against tough and tenacious fighters.
When they finally took Mazar-i-Sharif, half of the Special Forces guys stayed behind while the Northern Alliance and the other half continued the pursuit of the Taliban.
After they were gone, some 600 Taliban prisoners kept in the fort got their hands on weapons stored there and staged a revolt, killing a CIA agent there to interrogate some of them. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was among the prisoners.
In a 96 hour long battle, the Special Forces fought the prisoners until the Northern Alliance came back from Konduz, and a few reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division arrived.
They were later reinforced with other Special Forces, but what happened back then is that about a total of 350 American Special Forces and 100 CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, managed to do something that the Chinese, the British, and the Soviet Union had all failed to do. Conquer Afghanistan.
Read the book and get an inkling why we are going to lose it back, and why we really are losing or have lost Iraq.
Its a fabulous story.
To bad Hollywood is too left wing to produce a movie about it.
It is the fabulous story of how fewer than fifty Special Forces troops took down the Taliban in two months, rather than the two years the Pentagon thought it would take.
They and about 15,000 irregular troops of the Northern Alliance, mounted on horseback, defeated 50-60,000 Taliban and Al Quaeda, and took the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif.
With B-52s or FA-18s circling overhead to assist with GPS guided bombs, these guys conducted cavalry charges against tanks, other armored vehicles and machine guns, and prevailed against tough and tenacious fighters.
When they finally took Mazar-i-Sharif, half of the Special Forces guys stayed behind while the Northern Alliance and the other half continued the pursuit of the Taliban.
After they were gone, some 600 Taliban prisoners kept in the fort got their hands on weapons stored there and staged a revolt, killing a CIA agent there to interrogate some of them. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was among the prisoners.
In a 96 hour long battle, the Special Forces fought the prisoners until the Northern Alliance came back from Konduz, and a few reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division arrived.
They were later reinforced with other Special Forces, but what happened back then is that about a total of 350 American Special Forces and 100 CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, managed to do something that the Chinese, the British, and the Soviet Union had all failed to do. Conquer Afghanistan.
Read the book and get an inkling why we are going to lose it back, and why we really are losing or have lost Iraq.
Its a fabulous story.
To bad Hollywood is too left wing to produce a movie about it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Throwing gasoline on a deficit fire
Sometime in the next week or so, the Obama Administration is going to deliver the delayed Mid Session Review, which is a budget document that updates the administration's economic and budget forecasts.
It was delayed because they wanted it to come out during the dog days of August when everyone was out of Washington. You can imagine why.
Keith Hennessy has an article over at Real Clear Politics entitled "Understanding the Upcoming Deficit Numbers" that gives a pretty good idea of what is coming.
Deficits are already estimated at huge numbers, but will have to be significantly increased because of actions already taken by Congress.
Growth is predicted at too high numbers already and will have to be reduced if they are honest. They probably won't be.
The deficits are so bad because they are 4 times the average the last 20 years. What does that do?
"Budget deficits crowd our private borrowing and raise interest rates. It costs more to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a student loan. Higher interest rates and their effect on the dollar cause the U.S. economy to grow more slowly, meaning fewer jobs are created and wage growth slows."
What will happen?
"The President has boxed himself in with different messages on fiscal policy and health policy. He argues we must slow the growth of long-term health spending, but has not offered policies that unbiased analysts say would achieve that goal. In health care reform, Congress is in no mood to make the painful choices needed to reduce future deficits, so the President has fallen back to a more modest goal of not increasing future deficits. If health care reform should actually become law this year, expect the long-run budget picture to get dramatically worse. Pending bills would create a rapidly-growing enormous new spending commitment that would quickly outstrip the proposed spending cuts and tax increases. In an effort to rescue health care reform the President has shifted away from a cost control message. Congress will read this signal and look for ways to avoid the pain of deficit reduction, knowing that the President will sign any bill that reaches his desk."
The President entered office with a bad situation. We all grant that. But he has determined to plow ahead and force through a liberal social program that will make a bad situation much worse.
"The President’s social policy agenda is throwing gasoline on a deficit fire."
Read the whole thing here.
It was delayed because they wanted it to come out during the dog days of August when everyone was out of Washington. You can imagine why.
Keith Hennessy has an article over at Real Clear Politics entitled "Understanding the Upcoming Deficit Numbers" that gives a pretty good idea of what is coming.
Deficits are already estimated at huge numbers, but will have to be significantly increased because of actions already taken by Congress.
Growth is predicted at too high numbers already and will have to be reduced if they are honest. They probably won't be.
The deficits are so bad because they are 4 times the average the last 20 years. What does that do?
"Budget deficits crowd our private borrowing and raise interest rates. It costs more to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a student loan. Higher interest rates and their effect on the dollar cause the U.S. economy to grow more slowly, meaning fewer jobs are created and wage growth slows."
What will happen?
"The President has boxed himself in with different messages on fiscal policy and health policy. He argues we must slow the growth of long-term health spending, but has not offered policies that unbiased analysts say would achieve that goal. In health care reform, Congress is in no mood to make the painful choices needed to reduce future deficits, so the President has fallen back to a more modest goal of not increasing future deficits. If health care reform should actually become law this year, expect the long-run budget picture to get dramatically worse. Pending bills would create a rapidly-growing enormous new spending commitment that would quickly outstrip the proposed spending cuts and tax increases. In an effort to rescue health care reform the President has shifted away from a cost control message. Congress will read this signal and look for ways to avoid the pain of deficit reduction, knowing that the President will sign any bill that reaches his desk."
The President entered office with a bad situation. We all grant that. But he has determined to plow ahead and force through a liberal social program that will make a bad situation much worse.
"The President’s social policy agenda is throwing gasoline on a deficit fire."
Read the whole thing here.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Biggest Lie
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."
That's it. You have all heard that. There are other big lies, but this is the biggest.
Government, if left to its own devices, as the liberals would have it, is only here to enslave us.
We need an effective governemnt to do those things that we, in the Constitution, have asked it to do.
We do not need a slavemeaster.
Think about it.
That's it. You have all heard that. There are other big lies, but this is the biggest.
Government, if left to its own devices, as the liberals would have it, is only here to enslave us.
We need an effective governemnt to do those things that we, in the Constitution, have asked it to do.
We do not need a slavemeaster.
Think about it.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obamacare and the Constitution
Someone is finally raising a very valid point about the attempt at a Federal takeover of health care.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Did you know
Almost two thirds of Government Motors car sales in the first half of the year were outside North America?
And the new, inexpensive subcompact car they are going to manufacture will be made possibly (probably) in Asia?
The story is here.
Interesting.
And the new, inexpensive subcompact car they are going to manufacture will be made possibly (probably) in Asia?
The story is here.
Interesting.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Public Option Off the Table?
The New York Times is quoting Kathleen Sibelius, the HHS Secretary, that a government insurer "is not an essential element" to the health insurance reform bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
Its Not Just About Health Care
A lot of liberals are making the mistake in thinking that all of the protesting out there by the citizenry is just about the health care bills.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
The "Golden Years"
Last weekend while visiting an old friend who is rehabbing from an almost fatal stroke, I had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a combination nursing home and assisted living home.
Although my friend is slowly improving, it was a very saddening experience.
Actually, it is every old person's horror.
There were only two men that I saw in the facility, my friend and a retired pastor in his 90s. The remainder were little old ladies in various stage of physical and mental health, none of which seemed capable of providing for themselves.
The eyes haunt me. My friend and several of the ladies still had bright eyes...indicating to me, at least, that they still had mental acuity. This was generally proved by conversation.
Other eyes were dull, not bright, and those were the ones that may well have been the best off.
Now my friend appears to be on the way to recovery and escape from the home.
For the others with "bright eyes" there will likely be no escape other than eventual death.
Those with the "dull" eyes? Well, they probably don't appreciate what is going on that much. Their minds have likely already escaped, and their bodies will follow at a later date.
Back in the old days, when we had strong families throughout American society, a place like that would be unheard of. If one's mom or dad, or grandparents got in that shape, they would be taken into a family member's home until they passed on.
Now, however, they are placed in homes like these. And left alone.
Sad.
They way we treat our elderly is certainly a comment on our society the same way as the way we treat our youth is.
Although my friend is slowly improving, it was a very saddening experience.
Actually, it is every old person's horror.
There were only two men that I saw in the facility, my friend and a retired pastor in his 90s. The remainder were little old ladies in various stage of physical and mental health, none of which seemed capable of providing for themselves.
The eyes haunt me. My friend and several of the ladies still had bright eyes...indicating to me, at least, that they still had mental acuity. This was generally proved by conversation.
Other eyes were dull, not bright, and those were the ones that may well have been the best off.
Now my friend appears to be on the way to recovery and escape from the home.
For the others with "bright eyes" there will likely be no escape other than eventual death.
Those with the "dull" eyes? Well, they probably don't appreciate what is going on that much. Their minds have likely already escaped, and their bodies will follow at a later date.
Back in the old days, when we had strong families throughout American society, a place like that would be unheard of. If one's mom or dad, or grandparents got in that shape, they would be taken into a family member's home until they passed on.
Now, however, they are placed in homes like these. And left alone.
Sad.
They way we treat our elderly is certainly a comment on our society the same way as the way we treat our youth is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)