COLBY, Kan. - I have an email from the Kansas Democratic Party urging me to tell my representative to not rescind the cut in FICA deductions or contributions. I'm not going to do that! The cut should be rescinded.
Why do we think it stimulating the economy to cut the investment in retirement income?
Why do we call ours and our employers' matching investment 'tax'? When we have payroll deductions that are invested in E Bonds or other stocks or bonds, we don't call it 'tax'. I've been told, all my life, that I need to be saving and investing. Now we are being told to stop saving and investing and spend! Short term gratification and pleasure at the expense of long term security and well-being?
The "Social Security Trust Fund" (SS) doesn't seem to be in very 'trustworthy' hands.
Years ago, the government started using those funds to keep from borrowing on the open market or raising income tax rates.
Now that the SS system is nearing the point of needing to use that 'Trust Fund', we can't get it back. Why not? Because, the government would have to borrow the money from somewhere else or raise taxes. We can't replace what was supposedly put away in trust for our retirement or disability.
The kids (and the old folks sometimes) have spent the savings account, before the old folks found themselves in need of it.
The U.S. Postal Service is in a very similar situation. Funding the employees retirement fund has exceeded the needs. Actuaries have been indicating this for years. The government has been using those funds for other things. Now, they refuse to change the required set aside. Why? Because, it would dry up a source of funds and require borrowing money (raising the debt ceiling). We will fund the government at the expense of the postal system. Blame it on the postal workers themselves, never mind that the rate is mandated by congress. 'Scape goats' come in handy sometimes. Besides that, it helps kill the unions. Postal workers wages are a small factor in the problems of our postal system. The internet and inability of management is the biggest problem.
The conservative right (Republicans) have been trying to eliminate the Social Security system, since its first inception. We now have the Democrats aiding in destroying the system. Now, the Republicans are wanting to reverse and restore the funding source.
The public doesn't seem to have a clue. We're like a herd of sheep following the shepherd. The shepherd wants a shade tree, whether there is grass or security for the sheep, or not. The shepherd runs faster from the danger than the sheep, hoping the bear will satisfy his hunger before he reaches the shepherd.
Our political leaders (all parties) are more interested in their own welfare than the welfare of their constituents. Sad to say, that is a reflection of society, in general. We are more interested in our own luxuries than we are in the welfare of our fellow human beings. At the expense of a civilized society, we have been trained to look after number one and let the devil take care of anyone else.
Ken--This should be spread far and wide. I'll find it on Facebook and send it to my page. My husband and I live on social security and the pension I get from teaching. We live frugally, which is fine with us. We never expected to get rich. However, we would like our leaders to remember that most people need the little bit social security provides and make sure it will be there for everybody.
Thanks for writing.
Ken, I'm 45 and hope to retire in 15-20 years. I wont be able to collect on SS until I'm 67 and sometimes I wonder if SS will still be available then.
Your right the government has long ago kept spending money it doesnt have. Democrats want to spend it on anything and everything and republicans dont want to raise taxes especially on wealthy people. Neither party wants to make the hard choices of both raising taxes and cutting spending that is needed to get our budget back in balance.
Brad, you are right that Republicans do not want to raise the money (through taxes) that is required to fund the government, military and retirement programs.
However, I must disagree with you about who spends the most money. President George W. Bush is the president that put the Social Security program in jeopardy by spending billions of dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq as well as providing tax cuts to the wealthy which did not do anything to create jobs in America. If you take an objective look at the presidencies of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, you will find that Reagan and George W. Bush were the biggest spenders - raising the federal deficit to record heights through tax cuts to the wealthy and military spending. The Democrats, contrary to popular myth, have proven to be the wisest money managers.
3 points - Republicans don't want to raise tax RATES. It is possible to raise tax revenues without raising rates.
Secondly as to who spends the most (Reps & Dems both suck here), but trying say Reagan and Bush were the biggest spenders is a stretch.
The most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.
Bush = 8 years, $4.9T
Obama = 2.5 years, $4T
"President George W. Bush is the president that put the Social Security program in jeopardy by spending billions of dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq as well as providing tax cuts to the wealthy which did not do anything to create jobs in America."
If we pulled out of Iraq today, and reversed the Bush tax cuts today, would we have a balance budget for FY 2012? If so, then I'm with you, but unfortunately, its not even close. The spending problems go a whole lot deeper than some things Bush did that are unpopular with the Left.
There are great differences in how and why Obama's deficit spending is different from Bush's.
Obama has been trying to stimulate the economy that had been sour during most of Bush's 8 years. Bush's deficit spending was due to massive tax cuts and massive military expenditures to launch and maintain war. Much of Bush's deficit spending benefited war equipment manufacturers and support systems to the military efforts in the mid east.
We may dissagree with Abama's stimulation packages, but, bear in mind, many of them were implementing Bush administration programs.
Bush also kept the war expenditures off the books so to speak, while Obama put the expendutures for the wars in the budget
Ken, How sure are you that a president Al Gore would not have also started a long and expensive war?
How sure am I? Obviously, I'm not sure. But — I doubt that Al Gore would have had Cheney as VP or Rumsfeld in his position. Both of those men were aggressive promoters of the war. Neither would he have been apt to have used or listened to the other advisors that had tried, unsuccessfully, to get GHWB to keep marching across Iraq to dethrone Sadam Hussein, after Desert Storm. Daddy Bush, purportedly, advised his son not to pursue the war with Iraq, using the same reasoning that he had used to not move on into Iraq after halting Saddam's aggression against Kuwait.
Where would we be, today, If FDR had not won the election in 1932? We really don't know. But, we do know what the Coolidge and Hoover administrations had accomplished.
For today's conservatives to argue that FDR's programs actually prolonged the depression is ridiculous. The Banks were shutting down because of the run on deposits, because people were afraid of the economy. The stock market had taken the plunge in '29 (way ahead of FDR's reign) and unemployment was beyond comparison with today. There were no jobs, because there was no demand for goods and services. Unemployeed people don't buy, so there was no incentive for manufacturers to hire production workers. FDR declared the 'bank holiday', preventing people from making the run on deposits, or more banks would have failed. Instead of giving money to banks, businesses, and manufacurers, he used the federal government's ability to provide capital to fund infrastructure and public buildings etc. That put the unemployeed on payrolls that furnished money to purchase goods and services they couldn't afford while unemployeed. That allowed people to pay off bank loans, pay doctor bills, buy shoes and clothing so the kids could attend school, It allowed small businesses and manufacturers to stay in business.
Would Al Gore have promoted the tax cuts? Doubtful! Would Al Gore's social programs have cost as much as the war effort? Would Al Gore have been as intent upon deregulating industry and the banks? We don't know, do we? But, we do know what Geo W Bush did.
Brad, I'm not to much for worrying or speculating about what might have been. I'd rather spend my time and energy analyzing what has been and what may be in the future.