Why Social Security is heading for a fall

February 11, 2011

Letter: Why Social Security is heading for a fall

To the editor:

Social Security is functionally bankrupt due to 40 years of dishonest politicians using our retirement funds to buy votes. This really started in 1968, but has continued unabated.

Yes, I know, that there is currently $2.5 trillion in special U.S. Treasury bonds being held in the "trust fund." But those bonds currently amount to worthless IOUs. If a corporation did this, its officers would be in prison, but for Congress it is business as usual.

What happens is: We pay our payroll taxes, and Congress promptly spends that and more, replacing this money with bonds. These bonds are a promise to pay in the future. There is no money to redeem these bonds. The Social Security actuary announced recently that this year Social Security will pay out more than it takes in, going "into the red" for the first time.

As time rolls on, this shortfall will have to be made up by the general fund. Currently Congress spends $1.5 trillion more than it takes in through the general fund. The national debt is already 98 percent of GDP. There is no more room for increased spending.

Contrast this with a corporation, which, if providing a pension, would have to invest the funds in that account and plan on the return. Social Security was initially set up the same way, with trust funds managed by portfolio managers to provide a return. The return forecasted was an unrealistic 6 percent annually.

When Congress spends the money, they tell the public that they are putting bonds with a yield of 5 percent in place, without acknowledging that these funds, as well as the original funds they have blown, must also come from the same place they are currently stealing from — the taxpayers.

Obama has no plan to reduce our debt

April 20, 2011

Letter: Obama has no plan to reduce our debt

To the editor:

The current debate over government spending in Washington was invited by the Democrats' failure last year to write a budget for this current year. This forced a series of continuing resolutions to fund government.

As we have come to expect our commander-in-chief was nowhere to be found in this debate. Less than two months ago, the president put forth a budget that cut nothing, instead calling for $400 billion in new spending. Despite the continued begging from House Dems for his involvement in the budget process he chose instead to golf.

Into the void left by Obama jumped a representative, Paul Ryan, who devised a budget that tackles spending without huge tax increases, and without starving the government. He was invited by President Obama to sit front and center for the president's campaign kick off speech yesterday, only to be humiliated and demagogued by the president using his bully pulpit not to lay out an alternate plan — although he referred to "his plan" many times, as usual there is no specifics.

It is not leadership to give a speech, with no specific policies, nor any fresh ideas, but it is evidently what passes for leadership in the Obama White House. Obama chose instead to lie outright about the Republicans' budget, claiming that it does not have any money for autistic kids, grandmothers and the neediest among us.

The Ryan budget does lay out specifics, something the president is evidently afraid to do. It does not de-fund Medicare, it instead gives that funding to the people responsible for providing the services, the states, and allows them the freedom to spend it as their state and patients need it, rather than having to follow a mindless bureaucracy 3,000 miles away. It also reins in spending, recognizing that federal spending has increased 83 percent in only three years with little positive impact on the general public, but with an unsustainable debt and deficit.

At some point the president is going to have to realize that we can not control our debt by adding 10 percent per year to it.

Wake up, people! We are functionally bankrupt

July 25, 2011

Letter: Wake up, people! We are functionally bankrupt

To the editor:

Yes, If we were a business we would be bankrupt. With budget deficits of $1.5 trillion per year for the next 10 years (at least the last time the Democrats prepared a budget) and $14.6 trillion in debt, plus another $114 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug benefits. Yes, you read that correctly, six times our entire economy.

We watch daily the Congressional Kabuki dance going on over raising the debt limit. The left is incensed, claiming racism, that the Republicans would put any conditions on raising the debt. The Republicans are at least trying to address an out of control problem (yes, that they, as a party, helped create over the years), but someone has to stand up and put a plan on the table, and so far, only the Republicans have done so. The Democrats in Congress have been happy to demagogue the issue, with Harry Reid admitting that "it would be foolish to pass a budget now." Our president is reduced to doing that one thing at which he appears to excel, making speeches. He has presented no specifics, and when asked by a reporter to name one program he would cut, he was unable to do so.

It is time for the American people to wake up and smell the cesspool backing up in Washington. The spending of our grandkids' money has to stop.

Where is the outrage as Obama surpasses Bush?

April 6, 2011

Letter: Where is the outrage as Obama surpasses Bush?

April 6, 2011

To the editor:

For eight years we were treated to an endless media blitz about the illegality of the war, the impropriety of keeping prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the warrantless wiretapping, the USA Patriot act, the "record deficits" ($426 billion when that claim was made), the mounting debt ($9.4 trillion when that claim was made). To hear the left in 2008, America was falling apart and only the messiah of hope and change could save it.

Obama promised to "get our forces out of Iraq within the year" and to "close Guantanamo Bay within one year", and to "grow our economy" and "reign in the reckless spending of the Bush years", to "bring America back from the brink" and "restore our financial footing."

In reality, he has spent $4.5 trillion in only two years, more than Bush spent in eight. He has increased the national debt by $4.5 trillion more than Bush did in eight years. He has quadrupled the record deficit he railed against in 2008. He passed the most massive regulatory and spending bill in history, Obamacare, and unemployment has risen dramatically higher than ever achieved by Bush. The only reason it is dropping the last two months is because people fall off the rolls when they stop looking for work and run out of benefits.

So where are the protests? Where is Michael Moore doing a mockumentary on the failure of the president? Where is Cindy Sheehan? Where is Nancy, Harry, Dick, and Brother Jesse? Where is all the outrage that marked the Bush years?

Obama has continued and expanded every one of Bush's national security policies, even announcing the resuming of military tribunals at the hated Gitmo. Troops in Afghanistan have been expanded as has Iraq, and we now have troops in Libya, Bahrain, Qatar, and more. We still have warrantless wiretapping, the USA Patriot Act, higher deficits, and more reckless spending. Where are the protests? Where is the outrage?

Could it be that all of that manufactured outrage on the political left during the Bush administration was not genuine concern for the issues, but rabid hatred of one man instead? Hypocrisy lives on.

There's no disaster if debt deal fails

July 14, 2011

Letter: There's no disaster if debt deal fails

—

To the editor:

We hear the punditry, the president and others tell us that we must raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion by Aug. 2 or else! Or else what?

Well, to listen to the president, we would default on our debt, thereby plunging the world into financial ruin. The Republicans, however, want to see $4 trillion to $6 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years before they will agree to anything.

The Republicans are right — history bearing them out — to insist on cuts up-front. Typically, Congress will raise taxes immediately, while promising cuts five years out, then simply refuse to implement the cuts. This is how we got here, and it is disingenuous at best to hear the man who ran up $4.5 trillion in new spending in two years claim it is Congress' fault and problem, and play the part of the responsible statesman trying to broker a deal.

The point is that if the debt ceiling is not raised, it does not mean an automatic default. It means that we cannot borrow any further. That's it!

The government receives revenue daily, totaling approximately $200 billion per month. Debt service is $19 billion per month. Without borrowing any more the government could choose to continue paying the debt service, however this would mean that some other items would not get paid.

How serious is this? Well consider the following: We're spending $21 million to research how Frisbees fly; there's $137 billion in unspent stimulus funds; $129 billion in improper payments; $41 billion to the 423,000 new government employees; $8 million per month in limousine purchases; $2.3 million to chart shrimp on treadmills; a $427,824 research grant to design better video games for senior citizens based on their unique "game-play needs. Then there's the $712,883 research grant to develop "machine-generated humor." This project will design artificially intelligent "comedic performance agents", and will "deploy them both on- and off-line for the enjoyment and illumination of everyday citizens." There's the $54 million project to relocate one bridge for the Napa Valley Wine Train (!) in order to mitigate the possible impact of a "100 year storm event."

Yes, we could do without an awful lot of government spending before the politicians had to defund anything you care about. And when a politician — from congressman to president — tells you the world will end if they don't get more of your hard earned money, they are lying to you!

Debt ceiling deal is politics as usual

August 2, 2011

Letter: Debt ceiling deal is politics as usual

To the editor:

To listen to the media, we have a deal! Woo-hoo! Only one problem — this is a deal we have seen time and again throughout history, and it always ends the same.

This deal allows a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt ceiling immediately. This number was crucial to Obama because it means this subject will not have to be addressed again until after the election. However the vast majority of the alleged spending cuts do not start until 2013 — again, after the election.

Washington will tell us, and act as if these cuts are really going to be made. But if history is any guide, they will not.

Consider 1986. Reagan wanted spending cuts. He was mainly negotiating with house Speaker Tip O'Neill. The final deal promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Reagan agreed. The only problem was the tax increases were immediate but the spending cuts were scheduled to begin in 1988, conveniently after the next congressional election. As O'Neill knew, today's Congress cannot bind the hands of future congresses. The cuts were never made. In 1991, George H.W. Bush made essentially the same deal, breaking his "no new taxes" pledge to get three-for-one spending cuts. The cuts never happened, and, in the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton used Bush's breaking of that pledge as a rhetorical bludgeon, beating him about the head with it.

Flash forward to today. House Republicans tried to use this debt ceiling increase to force Washington to put its fiscal house in order. They announced their intent to do this in January, leaving eight months to resolve this before any deadline. Congress, as usual, waited until the month prior to begin serious proposals. Unfortunately, our president did not get involved until three weeks prior to deadline, other than making speeches.

This is another deal where the spending cuts will likely not materialize, and in January 2013, we will be having this debate again, hopefully with a president who will lead on this very serious matter.

a short idea for reform

Scott, I apologize for the delay in getting back to you, as promised, here goes, and please let me know what you think afterwards;

Healthcare:

Force doctors and hospitals to post price lists for routine procedures(office visits, chest x-ray, pap, etc.) This will allow people to shop for what they want. It will also inform the consumer of medical services of their cost.

Incentivise the patient to reduce their costs by a combination of MSA's, and insurance incentives(rebates, etc) for reducing costs.

Medical Tort prelim; here in NH if you wish to sue a government official you have to go to a 491 hearing. It is a preliminary hearing at which you have to show the judge that there is a clear likelihood that you will be able to prove your case, or the judge may dismiss it as frivolous. Do the same for MedTorts. Plaintiff would have to demonstrate likelihood of willful negligence, actual damages, or case may be dismissed. This will reduce torts, and resultant defensive medicine.

State Lines; Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines, are you aware that some states only allow 1 or 2 providers? This reduces competition, couple with this the end of state mandated minimum coverages. If I am a 22y/o male, I should not have to pay for annual PAP smears. This will also allow people to pay privately for routine office visits, and use insurance for the catastrophic events, in order to reduce their insurance costs if they wish. Choice always works!

In the case of someone here illegally, such as is driving AZ. hospitals into bankruptcy, they get stabilized, turned over to ICE, and their embassies get billed for their care. It sounds cruel, but in some states this is the single biggest cost driver.

Taxes:

a FLAT 15% income tax, same for business on net operating income. NO loopholes, deductions, etc. EXCEPT for a generous personal exemption of $12,000/taxpayer, and $7,000/dependent.

Examples:

Family of 4, income $50,000. 2 workers., $50,000- $38,000personal exemption= $12,000 taxable income at 15%= $1,800 income tax. effective tax rate 3.6%

Couple both work gross income $200,000- $24,000 personal exempt. = $176,000 taxable at 15%= $ 26,400 tax. effective rate 13.2%

family of 4, only Dad works gross income $1,000,000- $33,000 personal exempt. = $964,000 taxable at 15%= $144.600 tax. effective rate 14.46%

family of 3, only dad works, gross income $10M- $26,000 personal exempt.= $9,974,000 taxable at 15%= $1,496,400 tax. effective rate 14.96%

This is TRULY fair and progressive, and prevent the politicians from using the tax code to buy votes, and contributions.

Education:

Let your tax dollars go where your kids go. Let the parents choose. This will encourage more parental involvement, it will force schools to provide customer service, and accountability to the parents. Let me explain; If your current school district's budget is $14,000 per kid(budget/enrollment) Then if you decide to enroll your kid somewhere else, you get to take a voucher for 75% of that to your new school. if your new school is cheaper than that, the difference goes back to your current public school. In this manner the current school loses the costs of educating that child, but retains 25% of the compensation for what they are no longer doing. More money to be spent on the other kids, which will hopefully be spent wisely to improve the school the kids is leaving. NO FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT! Education is a state and local issue. It should be close enough to the community that the community can hold it accountable. Instead of STATE and FEDERAL mandated curriculae, have mandated goals for each grade. This is what you need to learn to graduate to the next grade. NO SOCIAL PROMOTION, do the work, or stay back. Moving kids through the system helps no one least of all the kids.

Budget:

STOP BASELINE BUDGETING! Every dept. head should have to justify every dollar every year. If the program is not achieving its goals, it ends! EVERY spending measure should have a sunset clause. If certain objectives have not been achieved by X it dies.

Every line item should be examined, no subsidies for anything; no corp welfare, no green energy welfare, no Ag welfare, No bailouts. NONE!

I know I have left some stuff out, but lets see how this flies. I am donning my flame retardant gear now.