In Behavioral Psychology, we talk about reinforcing successive approximations to a goal. Overnight Saturday, world leaders reached a six-month agreement with Iran concerning their uranium enrichment/nuclear program. As John Kerry emphasized, it was not the ultimate goal for which they had hoped. It was, instead, a temporary baby step toward a nuclear free, bomb free Iran.
Every Sunday for some long time, I have watched Joel Osteen's sermon and then This Week. Today I was struck by the difference in attitude of the two programs. Joel's message of hope and favor is in large contrast to that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and U. S. Republican negativity.
Joel Osteen quotes scripture of how those of us who believe and declare have God's favor. Netanyahu follows up the news of a temporary deal with how it is an historical mistake and gives off a general attitude it won't work. This comes from the mouth of the leader of God's self-declared chosen people.
Joel Osteen quotes scripture saying God's people, Jews and Christians, have His favor. He says if we are stuck instead of reaping the benefits of that favor, it is because we have not stayed in the faith. We need to declare that favor, expect that favor and leave the house each day having told God thank you for the favor we are about to receive. The Republican response to the announcement of the deal with Iran was they needed to forge ahead with more sanctions on Iran.
On the one hand, we get hope and faith brings an abundance of favor. On the other hand, negativity.
Joel Osteen and Christians are not the only individuals who believe a positive attitude can make a difference in the abundance of good things the people of the world can expect if they positively believe and assume the best. There are other movements that purport that if we expect good we will receive good and vice versa.
Benjamin Netanyahu, of course, has no clue that this column exists. He would negate these thoughts from Joel Osteen, as repeated by this author, with a flick of his hand. In fact, just as easily as he negated the small step toward the common goal of a nuclear free Iran.
The Republican Party as a whole, however, purports to be representative of religious and family values. They hold themselves up as leaders of the country who propose to show us all the "right" way to live. Then they follow up every bright, albeit small, achievement toward success we make with criticism and a bad attitude..
During President Clinton's campaign and presidency, it was common to hear the remark "get with the program". Well, I would like to challenge both Netanyahu and the Republican Party to get with the program. Perhaps you can put your supposed faith in God in gear. Believe in the favor of God. Express and declare your faith in Him. Maintain the positive attitude that faith will achieve. Accept with gratitude the small baby step this agreement brings. Use it as a stepping stone toward the final desired goal and build from there. What can it hurt to have faith this will work?
Shakti Gawain, in her book Creative Visualization, encourages the world to visualize positive results in order to achieve positive results. Can we all do this and abandon this destructive negativity? Perhaps it is time for America to crack out and dust off The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale. Oh, yes, and then read and reread it. There is a better way to achieve results.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
A Proper Reporter
In The White House Diary of Jimmy Carter, the former President has an entry about a press conference. His comment was that the journalists attending seemed much more interested in their questions than his answers. That goes ditto and possibly double for the recent press conference with President Barack Obama.
Back in the Dark Ages -- the fifties and sixties -- student journalists were taught and required to report the news as it happened. In The Student Journalist by Edmund C. Arnold and Hillier Kreighbaum, they state "a reporter has no editorial policy." I might suggest that a reporter is not supposed to have an editorial policy. He is supposed to report the news in as unbiased a manner as possible.
Editorializing is for the editorial page not the front page. Editorializing is for columnists such as George Will, Joe Klein, louhough, etc., not for the representatives of major news broadcasts who are assigned to cover press conferences.
We, of the American public, are mostly capable of formulating our own opinions as long as we get the facts as they happen, not some representation of the facts as warped by a reporter's own opinion.
In respect to the press conference where President Obama apologized for "fumbling the ball" with the health insurance startup, reporters were even wording the questions with their editorial colors flying high.
Watch it guys. It is not enough to report just the facts. We need you to leave your own biases at the doorstep when you enter press conferences. Commit yourselves to getting the "5 w's and an h" without your own spin on it.
If you want to express your editorial opinion, become a columnist or a blogger. We need you to be a proper reporter when you cover the news.
Back in the Dark Ages -- the fifties and sixties -- student journalists were taught and required to report the news as it happened. In The Student Journalist by Edmund C. Arnold and Hillier Kreighbaum, they state "a reporter has no editorial policy." I might suggest that a reporter is not supposed to have an editorial policy. He is supposed to report the news in as unbiased a manner as possible.
Editorializing is for the editorial page not the front page. Editorializing is for columnists such as George Will, Joe Klein, louhough, etc., not for the representatives of major news broadcasts who are assigned to cover press conferences.
We, of the American public, are mostly capable of formulating our own opinions as long as we get the facts as they happen, not some representation of the facts as warped by a reporter's own opinion.
In respect to the press conference where President Obama apologized for "fumbling the ball" with the health insurance startup, reporters were even wording the questions with their editorial colors flying high.
Watch it guys. It is not enough to report just the facts. We need you to leave your own biases at the doorstep when you enter press conferences. Commit yourselves to getting the "5 w's and an h" without your own spin on it.
If you want to express your editorial opinion, become a columnist or a blogger. We need you to be a proper reporter when you cover the news.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Chained CPI Means More Medicaid/Food Stamps
There is a lot of focus recently on methods for saving Social Security. This was covered in this blog just weeks ago. (louhough.blogspot.com)
Social Security is a topic of concern to almost every American whether Democrat/Republican, Conservative/Liberal and even non-voters. Very few citizens are not taxed for and expecting to receive Social Security during their retirement.
As covered in my blog article, possible solutions are to remove the cap that dictates how high a salary can be taxed for Social Security purposes; to lengthen the number of years one has to work; to raise taxes on all wage earners; as well as two ridiculous suggestions that would probably kill, rather than save the program -- opting out and privatization. And then there is the chained CPI.
Nobody likes having approximately one quarter or more of their earnings deducted for income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and Health Insurance. And yet, law abiding Americans have dutifully submitted to these withholdings for many years. No matter how one feels about large government/small government, Republicans/Democrats, or being charitable to others, all citizens who have paid their Social Security and Medicare taxes have a stake in whether or not these programs survive. Also, your parents, children, grandchildren and future generations of Americans are affected.
Some retirees, already collecting, take a laissez faire view about such issues. Perhaps they number among individuals who collect at the maximum level of benefits, so losing a portion of their customary Social Security would just cut luxuries. Perhaps they have couples benefits, so they have not experienced what it would be like to fall below the average benefit as well as have only one person's percentage. They respond with a ho hum attitude not unlike Leona Helmsley's "them", not us. Wrong. It applies to all current and future seniors.
Chained CPI, rather simply explained, means you will not receive the full amount of inflationary increases added to your annual income. The COLA based on CPI was meant to keep us at a constant standard of living. Chained CPI will keep us going lower and lower each year there was a rise in the cost of living. If inflation rises 4 per cent during 2014, you will not receive a full 4 per cent increase for 2015. You will get only what Congress deems to be the cost of cheaper fruits, vegetables, etc. You can't buy Porterhouse, or possibly even round steak. You can't buy 93 % heart healthy lean ground beef, you have to buy the cheapest hamburger, complete with fat, gristle and pink slime. Your bread won't be crusty Italian. It will be day-old or stale store brands. Do you get it?
But the worst part is, cutting Social Security to seniors will actually raise taxes on working Americans. How? Because every significant cut adds senior citizens to some level of Welfare. Maybe they will be forced to use HUD housing. Maybe they will have to have assistance with heating fuel. Perhaps they will have to receive help paying their Medicare and supplemental health insurance premiums or go on Medicaid. Maybe they will, OMG, have to be placed on Food Stamps.
Yes, more aid to retirees means more taxes on working Americans. Whereas Social Security was meant to be self supporting, Welfare is paid by income taxes. Welfare is a budget issue. Social Security is not.
It is totally unacceptable that America's entrepreneurs and our legislators have forced hard-working Americans to suffer the humiliation of needing to be on Welfare rolls in retirement even though they supported themselves proudly during their working years.
We need all our citizens to participate in this issue, before it is too late. If we just sit here and do nothing, we will probably get chained CPI as a permanent part of our American experience. We need you to speak out for yourselves, your daughters and sons, your grandchildren, ASAP. If you don't call, e-mail, speak with, write to or otherwise consult your area Congressmen -- or OMG you could even forward this article -- we are probably going to get the chained CPI option. Life will just get harder.
You understand, the Tea Partiers, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, all are considering this as the way to "save" Social Security. It is not the worst way, but neither is it a good way.
Social Security is a topic of concern to almost every American whether Democrat/Republican, Conservative/Liberal and even non-voters. Very few citizens are not taxed for and expecting to receive Social Security during their retirement.
As covered in my blog article, possible solutions are to remove the cap that dictates how high a salary can be taxed for Social Security purposes; to lengthen the number of years one has to work; to raise taxes on all wage earners; as well as two ridiculous suggestions that would probably kill, rather than save the program -- opting out and privatization. And then there is the chained CPI.
Nobody likes having approximately one quarter or more of their earnings deducted for income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and Health Insurance. And yet, law abiding Americans have dutifully submitted to these withholdings for many years. No matter how one feels about large government/small government, Republicans/Democrats, or being charitable to others, all citizens who have paid their Social Security and Medicare taxes have a stake in whether or not these programs survive. Also, your parents, children, grandchildren and future generations of Americans are affected.
Some retirees, already collecting, take a laissez faire view about such issues. Perhaps they number among individuals who collect at the maximum level of benefits, so losing a portion of their customary Social Security would just cut luxuries. Perhaps they have couples benefits, so they have not experienced what it would be like to fall below the average benefit as well as have only one person's percentage. They respond with a ho hum attitude not unlike Leona Helmsley's "them", not us. Wrong. It applies to all current and future seniors.
Chained CPI, rather simply explained, means you will not receive the full amount of inflationary increases added to your annual income. The COLA based on CPI was meant to keep us at a constant standard of living. Chained CPI will keep us going lower and lower each year there was a rise in the cost of living. If inflation rises 4 per cent during 2014, you will not receive a full 4 per cent increase for 2015. You will get only what Congress deems to be the cost of cheaper fruits, vegetables, etc. You can't buy Porterhouse, or possibly even round steak. You can't buy 93 % heart healthy lean ground beef, you have to buy the cheapest hamburger, complete with fat, gristle and pink slime. Your bread won't be crusty Italian. It will be day-old or stale store brands. Do you get it?
But the worst part is, cutting Social Security to seniors will actually raise taxes on working Americans. How? Because every significant cut adds senior citizens to some level of Welfare. Maybe they will be forced to use HUD housing. Maybe they will have to have assistance with heating fuel. Perhaps they will have to receive help paying their Medicare and supplemental health insurance premiums or go on Medicaid. Maybe they will, OMG, have to be placed on Food Stamps.
Yes, more aid to retirees means more taxes on working Americans. Whereas Social Security was meant to be self supporting, Welfare is paid by income taxes. Welfare is a budget issue. Social Security is not.
It is totally unacceptable that America's entrepreneurs and our legislators have forced hard-working Americans to suffer the humiliation of needing to be on Welfare rolls in retirement even though they supported themselves proudly during their working years.
We need all our citizens to participate in this issue, before it is too late. If we just sit here and do nothing, we will probably get chained CPI as a permanent part of our American experience. We need you to speak out for yourselves, your daughters and sons, your grandchildren, ASAP. If you don't call, e-mail, speak with, write to or otherwise consult your area Congressmen -- or OMG you could even forward this article -- we are probably going to get the chained CPI option. Life will just get harder.
You understand, the Tea Partiers, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, all are considering this as the way to "save" Social Security. It is not the worst way, but neither is it a good way.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Please Find Another Topic
The flagellation of the Democrats for having a worse than normal startup of a Federal program is apparently beginning to bore the press. The President, after all, has now apologized that the insurance companies refused to improve insurance policies that were inferior to the new Affordable Care Act requirements. Believe me, he regrets his promises.
Television and other media are casting around looking for something more interesting than beating a dead horse. So, the next Presidential election is popping up as a big topic again. Will it be Christie? Will it be Hillary? Really, guys, who cares at this point? Most of us are actually enjoying the break from hateful, spiteful advertising. If you continue to insist on picking our next Presidential candidates for us, you run the risk of forcing them to declare way too soon. The result of that is one or the other, if they do decide to run, could peak too early. Then we would be back to square one.
Surely there is enough news in the world that you do not have to resort to politics this early in the cycle.
Please find another topic.
Television and other media are casting around looking for something more interesting than beating a dead horse. So, the next Presidential election is popping up as a big topic again. Will it be Christie? Will it be Hillary? Really, guys, who cares at this point? Most of us are actually enjoying the break from hateful, spiteful advertising. If you continue to insist on picking our next Presidential candidates for us, you run the risk of forcing them to declare way too soon. The result of that is one or the other, if they do decide to run, could peak too early. Then we would be back to square one.
Surely there is enough news in the world that you do not have to resort to politics this early in the cycle.
Please find another topic.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
What Is Your Point?
In the movie After the Harvest, a young teacher who had become pregnant out of wedlock, was coveted by several young men. When her fiancé died before their wedding day, a local farmer asked her to marry him. He promised, at least by implication, that he would rear her child as his own. Yet, when the boy was born, he gave him away.
Almost a whole generation later, they are feeding their resentment into the family life as well as his interactions with his neighbors. His whole being is focused on acquiring land and showing the community who is going to bring in the best harvest. He works his children and wife to the bone. He insults neighbors and newcomers alike. He obsesses on his goals and on being the "gentleman" farmer, but with no conscience and no compassion for anyone. In the end, he loses all of them. To make matters worse, his crops -- harvest -- catch fire. Alone he stands watching it burn as the real important ones in his life, his family members, walk away. What a sad and lonely man.
We have a political party in our country that is starting to look as sad and lonely as that farmer. The members are so busy wanting to always win -- the election, the issue, the quarrel -- that they are ruining their own party. They have so far pissed away 29 per cent of their following just since the last presidential election. That's right, they fell just below half of the popular vote for President and the winner fell just above. Now the Republicans of Congress hold about a twenty per cent approval rating.
So, Republicans, what is your point? You have so far succeeded in alienating each other, your constituents, and just about every American voter. And why? Because you have chosen to feed your bitterness and resentment that the Democrats won the Presidential election, held onto the Senate and passed the Affordable Health Care Act into every issue. You have chosen to be obstructionists. You have dragged your feet. You have quarreled among yourselves. You have made mountains out of non issues. You have yelled shame on you at every step your enemies and even your colleagues have attempted to make. To do what? Nothing constructive, that's for sure.
And now you are engaging in avoidance. You have three months, much of which includes celebrations of holidays, to negotiate budget matters. These matters are stuck in committee and not due to reach vote until mid December. You have four months to deal with the debt ceiling again. But what do you choose to do? You pick one more way to embarrass and torment Democrats, as if masses of citizens have not told everyone for years to stop the negative politics. All of this is evidence that you are engaging in avoidance of the real needed work. To what avail?
It is time to quit avoiding . . . stalling . . . obstructing . . . politicizing . . .harassing . . . and demonstrating the dysfunctional nature of your party and your intent.
We need you to roll up your sleeves and do some real work. Talk more about the budget negotiations. Help member of the committees to formulate good compromises. Make good, cooperative, bipartisan decisions.
The current obsessive-compulsive disorder which is being exhibited is not winning any favor or anymore future votes.
Please get the jobs done that we sent you there to do and quit the constant yammering.
Almost a whole generation later, they are feeding their resentment into the family life as well as his interactions with his neighbors. His whole being is focused on acquiring land and showing the community who is going to bring in the best harvest. He works his children and wife to the bone. He insults neighbors and newcomers alike. He obsesses on his goals and on being the "gentleman" farmer, but with no conscience and no compassion for anyone. In the end, he loses all of them. To make matters worse, his crops -- harvest -- catch fire. Alone he stands watching it burn as the real important ones in his life, his family members, walk away. What a sad and lonely man.
We have a political party in our country that is starting to look as sad and lonely as that farmer. The members are so busy wanting to always win -- the election, the issue, the quarrel -- that they are ruining their own party. They have so far pissed away 29 per cent of their following just since the last presidential election. That's right, they fell just below half of the popular vote for President and the winner fell just above. Now the Republicans of Congress hold about a twenty per cent approval rating.
So, Republicans, what is your point? You have so far succeeded in alienating each other, your constituents, and just about every American voter. And why? Because you have chosen to feed your bitterness and resentment that the Democrats won the Presidential election, held onto the Senate and passed the Affordable Health Care Act into every issue. You have chosen to be obstructionists. You have dragged your feet. You have quarreled among yourselves. You have made mountains out of non issues. You have yelled shame on you at every step your enemies and even your colleagues have attempted to make. To do what? Nothing constructive, that's for sure.
And now you are engaging in avoidance. You have three months, much of which includes celebrations of holidays, to negotiate budget matters. These matters are stuck in committee and not due to reach vote until mid December. You have four months to deal with the debt ceiling again. But what do you choose to do? You pick one more way to embarrass and torment Democrats, as if masses of citizens have not told everyone for years to stop the negative politics. All of this is evidence that you are engaging in avoidance of the real needed work. To what avail?
It is time to quit avoiding . . . stalling . . . obstructing . . . politicizing . . .harassing . . . and demonstrating the dysfunctional nature of your party and your intent.
We need you to roll up your sleeves and do some real work. Talk more about the budget negotiations. Help member of the committees to formulate good compromises. Make good, cooperative, bipartisan decisions.
The current obsessive-compulsive disorder which is being exhibited is not winning any favor or anymore future votes.
Please get the jobs done that we sent you there to do and quit the constant yammering.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Saving Social Security
Some months ago, I wrote to the Congressman for my District concerning Social Security. In his wisdom, he espouses a wish to save Social Security for future, as well as, current retirees. He even asked for my opinion concerning which method I thought would be the best solution to the problem. My knee jerk reaction is none of them. Yet, all of us know that something has to be done or we will no longer have this fund.
Social Security is one of those programs that was implemented by majority vote, but which a vocal minority will probably be protesting until the end of life as we know it. All Americans need to take note that our insurance program, meant to fund our retirement, is definitely in danger. This is not a joke. This is not politics. It is fact.
The first danger is with funding. With what we have in the fund to date, as well as withholding taxes at the current rate, we can continue as is until around 2033. If we want to continue to collect beyond the next twenty years, some change has to occur or we will run out of money.
What are the alternatives being considered and why or why not choose them?
As stated earlier, some politicians are opposed to any programs such as Social Security. They scream it is socialism even though all people who receive money from the program have to have held jobs and contributed a Social Security withholding tax from their paychecks. Also, they collect their transfers based on the amount they contributed. This is not taxing the rich to give to the poor. A person doesn't work, said person doesn't collect.
The Congressmen who dislike Social Security are usually the same people that scream about Social Security Reform during every budget debate. I see two alternatives for why they do this. Either they are trying to delude us into thinking that Social Security is part of the basic budget and, therefore, needs to be cut; or they misunderstand how it is funded. Horrible as the first possibility is, it is preferable to the thought that Americans would elect such uninformed people to represent them. So, you need to evaluate on a personal basis. Do you receive or hope to receive the Social Security you have sacrificed for after you retire? If so, you need to inform your Congressmen as well as your President of your concern.
One point of view, especially prevalent during the last Bush Administration, is privatization of each individual's funds. This means that whatever money we contribute will be held in a fund with our names and would be invested for (and possibly by) ourselves. President George W. Bush said one time that he liked this idea because people want to leave something to their families. People already have ways to do this. They are called savings, investments, real estate and insurance. The biggest flaw with privatization is that it takes more, not less, money from the Social security funds. Therefore, it would cause us to run out of money faster. There are other problems with this which I addressed in earlier blog articles at louhough.blogspot.com.
Some Congressmen favor letting people choose whether or not to participate. It is referred to as "opting out". How would that be considered fair? Were you allowed to opt out? I sure wasn't. Probably this option would be chosen by wealthy people because they think they will never need it. I wonder though, how many suicides would have been avoided over losses during the Great Depression if people had been able to count on Social Security. Besides, this is another example of removing money from a system that is already in trouble because it has too little money. People really are determined to end the program, aren't they?
There is also the suggestion from some economics professionals that we raise the ceiling on earnings that can be taxed for Social Security. I read somewhere that currently it is capped just above $160,000. Some economists assure us that getting rid of this cap, alone, would solve the funding problem.
The everlasting solution of raising the age for full retirement again has reared it's ugly head. For people who love their own jobs, this probably has a lot of appeal. But folks, most of us don't get to earn our livings doing what we love. For us, retirement comes as a blessed relief, a time when we can engage in our passions. Sometimes when we can do this, we make greater contributions than we did with our work. For my children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren and those adorable little great grands, I would not wish this option to prevail.
And now for the chained CPI most suggested in recent months. Per my understanding they would reduce the cost of living adjustment downward based on substitutions. For example, if bananas were expensive, but apples inexpensive, they would allow us enough to buy only apples. Doesn't matter which fruit our particular bodies might need. We don't already have to buy the cheaper fruits, vegetables, breads and meat cuts on our niggardly Social Security money? We don't already have to shop the ads for the stores with the best sales, the ones that are offering what we need? We don't already go without movies, cable, phones with aps, vacations, basic clothing?
Many Congressmen, as well as media experts, misinterpret the statistics for retirees. They look at the mean, which can be skewed upward by the people who earn high dollar values. They look at the median, which is simply the middle number. They need to look at the mode -- the most frequent amount of Social Security transfers. This is the figure that represents most of the people on Social Security. I guarantee that the mode will not look as optimistic.
As you can see, there is no easy solution. Whatever choice is made, some group is going to be hurting and probably bitter.
My recommendation would be to rule out privatization. That will ruin a system we are supposedly trying to save. Opting out should not be a choice either, for the same reason.
What might work would be a compromise between raising the payroll tax on all and the cap adjusted upwardly (though not eliminated entirely) and increasing the work years by one additional year.
You will note that I did not mention using a chained CPI. As I said before, the Cost of Living Increment and/or the base to which it is added is already insufficient for most Americans to live the barest existence. But the methods I've suggested at least keep funding within the Social Security System.
Congress must remember that for every way they devise a cut to retirees, they increase the need for Medicare and Supplemental assistance, Medicaid, heat assistance and Food Stamps. Retirees on Food Stamps already represent over eight per cent of the age group. Though Social Security itself is not a drain on the Federal budget, Food stamps and Medicaid concerns are. How would that cut the budget?
People have to be able to eat, pay rent and have medical treatment. (Or would the more stingy of you prefer to shuffle all retirees out to the pasture to starve in the cold)? There have been primitive cultures who handled us this way. If you do it to us, though, it will also happen to your parents, your children and other loved ones. Or are you planning to support all of them yourselves? What happens to them if you precede them in death? Are you planning to split your estate among everyone you care about? The individual amounts wouldn't amount to much, would they?
Social Security is one of those programs that was implemented by majority vote, but which a vocal minority will probably be protesting until the end of life as we know it. All Americans need to take note that our insurance program, meant to fund our retirement, is definitely in danger. This is not a joke. This is not politics. It is fact.
The first danger is with funding. With what we have in the fund to date, as well as withholding taxes at the current rate, we can continue as is until around 2033. If we want to continue to collect beyond the next twenty years, some change has to occur or we will run out of money.
What are the alternatives being considered and why or why not choose them?
As stated earlier, some politicians are opposed to any programs such as Social Security. They scream it is socialism even though all people who receive money from the program have to have held jobs and contributed a Social Security withholding tax from their paychecks. Also, they collect their transfers based on the amount they contributed. This is not taxing the rich to give to the poor. A person doesn't work, said person doesn't collect.
The Congressmen who dislike Social Security are usually the same people that scream about Social Security Reform during every budget debate. I see two alternatives for why they do this. Either they are trying to delude us into thinking that Social Security is part of the basic budget and, therefore, needs to be cut; or they misunderstand how it is funded. Horrible as the first possibility is, it is preferable to the thought that Americans would elect such uninformed people to represent them. So, you need to evaluate on a personal basis. Do you receive or hope to receive the Social Security you have sacrificed for after you retire? If so, you need to inform your Congressmen as well as your President of your concern.
One point of view, especially prevalent during the last Bush Administration, is privatization of each individual's funds. This means that whatever money we contribute will be held in a fund with our names and would be invested for (and possibly by) ourselves. President George W. Bush said one time that he liked this idea because people want to leave something to their families. People already have ways to do this. They are called savings, investments, real estate and insurance. The biggest flaw with privatization is that it takes more, not less, money from the Social security funds. Therefore, it would cause us to run out of money faster. There are other problems with this which I addressed in earlier blog articles at louhough.blogspot.com.
Some Congressmen favor letting people choose whether or not to participate. It is referred to as "opting out". How would that be considered fair? Were you allowed to opt out? I sure wasn't. Probably this option would be chosen by wealthy people because they think they will never need it. I wonder though, how many suicides would have been avoided over losses during the Great Depression if people had been able to count on Social Security. Besides, this is another example of removing money from a system that is already in trouble because it has too little money. People really are determined to end the program, aren't they?
There is also the suggestion from some economics professionals that we raise the ceiling on earnings that can be taxed for Social Security. I read somewhere that currently it is capped just above $160,000. Some economists assure us that getting rid of this cap, alone, would solve the funding problem.
The everlasting solution of raising the age for full retirement again has reared it's ugly head. For people who love their own jobs, this probably has a lot of appeal. But folks, most of us don't get to earn our livings doing what we love. For us, retirement comes as a blessed relief, a time when we can engage in our passions. Sometimes when we can do this, we make greater contributions than we did with our work. For my children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren and those adorable little great grands, I would not wish this option to prevail.
And now for the chained CPI most suggested in recent months. Per my understanding they would reduce the cost of living adjustment downward based on substitutions. For example, if bananas were expensive, but apples inexpensive, they would allow us enough to buy only apples. Doesn't matter which fruit our particular bodies might need. We don't already have to buy the cheaper fruits, vegetables, breads and meat cuts on our niggardly Social Security money? We don't already have to shop the ads for the stores with the best sales, the ones that are offering what we need? We don't already go without movies, cable, phones with aps, vacations, basic clothing?
Many Congressmen, as well as media experts, misinterpret the statistics for retirees. They look at the mean, which can be skewed upward by the people who earn high dollar values. They look at the median, which is simply the middle number. They need to look at the mode -- the most frequent amount of Social Security transfers. This is the figure that represents most of the people on Social Security. I guarantee that the mode will not look as optimistic.
As you can see, there is no easy solution. Whatever choice is made, some group is going to be hurting and probably bitter.
My recommendation would be to rule out privatization. That will ruin a system we are supposedly trying to save. Opting out should not be a choice either, for the same reason.
What might work would be a compromise between raising the payroll tax on all and the cap adjusted upwardly (though not eliminated entirely) and increasing the work years by one additional year.
You will note that I did not mention using a chained CPI. As I said before, the Cost of Living Increment and/or the base to which it is added is already insufficient for most Americans to live the barest existence. But the methods I've suggested at least keep funding within the Social Security System.
Congress must remember that for every way they devise a cut to retirees, they increase the need for Medicare and Supplemental assistance, Medicaid, heat assistance and Food Stamps. Retirees on Food Stamps already represent over eight per cent of the age group. Though Social Security itself is not a drain on the Federal budget, Food stamps and Medicaid concerns are. How would that cut the budget?
People have to be able to eat, pay rent and have medical treatment. (Or would the more stingy of you prefer to shuffle all retirees out to the pasture to starve in the cold)? There have been primitive cultures who handled us this way. If you do it to us, though, it will also happen to your parents, your children and other loved ones. Or are you planning to support all of them yourselves? What happens to them if you precede them in death? Are you planning to split your estate among everyone you care about? The individual amounts wouldn't amount to much, would they?
Another Near Miss
Thank you all who set aside personal agendas and passed, however temporarily, the debt ceiling increase and budget issues. No matter how queasy it makes me that you gave us a temporary fix, at least this was just another near miss instead of a disaster.
In psychology, in one layman's version, called Transactional Analysis, there is reference to impediments to problem resolution. One such impediment causes the participants to "throw in everything but the kitchen sink". They involve past quarrels, as well as side issues when discussing the current problem. This makes it harder to reach resolution in the present situation.
It may be one of the reasons that progress cannot be made on budget issues. So, how are we dealing with every sore spot but the kitchen sink? Let's think about that for a moment.
Why are participants throwing Social Security and Medicare into budget discussions and debt ceiling quarrels? What do they have to do with these discussions? Both have their separate funding. The payroll deductions we pay for those are supposed to be in separate funds which should be safely invested so they will earn interest for future usage. They are not budget items. They do not come out of our income taxes. Saving Social Security and Medicare should, therefore, be separate issues and discussions. If they were left out of the extortion plots of Congressional members, it would be easier to fix the budget. Fixing the budget might even lead to less raises of the debt ceiling. Then, voila, perhaps we would have less gridlock in Congress.
Next, we have the Affordable Care Act, a. k. a, Obama Care, which also has a separate fund that was being tapped even as the rest of the non-essential government agencies had no funding. Yet, our more naïve members of Congress were stalling the budget and debt ceiling negotiations to "stop Obama Care."
As stated in previous blog articles, the Affordable Care Act is now a law. This law has been upheld by the Supreme Court. And, the majority of American voters apparently are willing to abide by this law as demonstrated by the reelection of the President whose name is part of the nickname for the insurance plan.
Now, granted, there are a lot of vocal people who don't like having to buy insurance even though they can afford it. But a lot of insured people don't like paying higher insurance rates because deadbeats can, but don't, insure themselves.
Special interest groups, especially insurance companies, don't care much for it either. Why? If they could take our money for a hundred years and never have to pay our medical expenses, that they would like. Payouts are anathema to them which is why they haven't wanted to insure people who are already sick or handicapped and why they drop people who get sick. These special interest groups keep the opponents stirred up with negative advertising and even lies. You should see the garbage that circulates on the internet. Oh, yes, you probably have.
So, let the law alone. It's bugs will show themselves as the launch persists and the kinks can be worked out in the future. It's too late for big government, small government arguments pertaining to this issue. Let this done deal alone so we can move on to unsolved deals.
As to large government, small government issues, I look at it this way. The less government institutions we have making laws and people telling us what to do, the better. Most Americans have Federal, State, County and Local governments taxing them and pushing them around. For me, less government would be one governing body, not four. If you don't believe me, try living in a coop for a while and add another bunch of bullies telling everybody what to do and wasting your fees on things you don't care a fig about.
It is obvious Congress cannot move on so complex a set of issues. So, separate the issues. Surely members of Congress know how to do goal setting. Set long-range goals. From these, design short-term goals. Break these down into smaller goals. Prioritize these smaller steps.
When it is time to increase the debt ceiling, that is your priority goal. Between debt ceiling crises, reduce the budget -- eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending. Stop pork barrel finance like Mitch McConnell's vote sold in return for Kentucky infrastructure improvements. After all, most states need work on infrastructure. Duh! Won't Kentucky infrastructure improvements require taxes, that conservative Republican no-no? Conservative Republicans don't like taxes? Who are they kidding? They just don't like to be taxed for someone else's needs.
Think of Congress as caught with too much to do. Because of it, they can't do anything, like a deer caught in the headlights. To recap, they need to break their tasks down, prioritize and make small steps toward each goal. Now, please just do it. It will cut down on your stress level as much as ours. And do it soon, not the day before the next debt ceiling deadline.
In psychology, in one layman's version, called Transactional Analysis, there is reference to impediments to problem resolution. One such impediment causes the participants to "throw in everything but the kitchen sink". They involve past quarrels, as well as side issues when discussing the current problem. This makes it harder to reach resolution in the present situation.
It may be one of the reasons that progress cannot be made on budget issues. So, how are we dealing with every sore spot but the kitchen sink? Let's think about that for a moment.
Why are participants throwing Social Security and Medicare into budget discussions and debt ceiling quarrels? What do they have to do with these discussions? Both have their separate funding. The payroll deductions we pay for those are supposed to be in separate funds which should be safely invested so they will earn interest for future usage. They are not budget items. They do not come out of our income taxes. Saving Social Security and Medicare should, therefore, be separate issues and discussions. If they were left out of the extortion plots of Congressional members, it would be easier to fix the budget. Fixing the budget might even lead to less raises of the debt ceiling. Then, voila, perhaps we would have less gridlock in Congress.
Next, we have the Affordable Care Act, a. k. a, Obama Care, which also has a separate fund that was being tapped even as the rest of the non-essential government agencies had no funding. Yet, our more naïve members of Congress were stalling the budget and debt ceiling negotiations to "stop Obama Care."
As stated in previous blog articles, the Affordable Care Act is now a law. This law has been upheld by the Supreme Court. And, the majority of American voters apparently are willing to abide by this law as demonstrated by the reelection of the President whose name is part of the nickname for the insurance plan.
Now, granted, there are a lot of vocal people who don't like having to buy insurance even though they can afford it. But a lot of insured people don't like paying higher insurance rates because deadbeats can, but don't, insure themselves.
Special interest groups, especially insurance companies, don't care much for it either. Why? If they could take our money for a hundred years and never have to pay our medical expenses, that they would like. Payouts are anathema to them which is why they haven't wanted to insure people who are already sick or handicapped and why they drop people who get sick. These special interest groups keep the opponents stirred up with negative advertising and even lies. You should see the garbage that circulates on the internet. Oh, yes, you probably have.
So, let the law alone. It's bugs will show themselves as the launch persists and the kinks can be worked out in the future. It's too late for big government, small government arguments pertaining to this issue. Let this done deal alone so we can move on to unsolved deals.
As to large government, small government issues, I look at it this way. The less government institutions we have making laws and people telling us what to do, the better. Most Americans have Federal, State, County and Local governments taxing them and pushing them around. For me, less government would be one governing body, not four. If you don't believe me, try living in a coop for a while and add another bunch of bullies telling everybody what to do and wasting your fees on things you don't care a fig about.
It is obvious Congress cannot move on so complex a set of issues. So, separate the issues. Surely members of Congress know how to do goal setting. Set long-range goals. From these, design short-term goals. Break these down into smaller goals. Prioritize these smaller steps.
When it is time to increase the debt ceiling, that is your priority goal. Between debt ceiling crises, reduce the budget -- eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending. Stop pork barrel finance like Mitch McConnell's vote sold in return for Kentucky infrastructure improvements. After all, most states need work on infrastructure. Duh! Won't Kentucky infrastructure improvements require taxes, that conservative Republican no-no? Conservative Republicans don't like taxes? Who are they kidding? They just don't like to be taxed for someone else's needs.
Think of Congress as caught with too much to do. Because of it, they can't do anything, like a deer caught in the headlights. To recap, they need to break their tasks down, prioritize and make small steps toward each goal. Now, please just do it. It will cut down on your stress level as much as ours. And do it soon, not the day before the next debt ceiling deadline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)