September 26, 2004
The Real Election Issue Won't Be Debated
In 1992, we went from 6% budget deficits to 2% surplus in Jan. 2000. Due in no small part to the reductions in defense spending, the Clinton administration and Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board, saved our nation from potential economic demise in the years 2000 to 2004, when our society underwent huge shocks to our economic system.
Also, during the 90's, a balanced Senate between the political parties and a bi-partisan President willing to accede to some Republican conservative fiscal policy while expanding social programs to grow work forces and update education and worker qualifications allowed workers in large part to meet employment demands, and helped grow federal revenues during the nineties along with the tech bubble.
Kiss those days Good Bye, folks. Our options to deal with deficits and national debt which threaten every American's quality of life over the next 10 years to some extent, and 20 years to a huge extent, are becoming very limited. Where in the 90's we could reduce defense spending to turn deficits into surpluses, the 21st century will see dramatically increasing defense spending as a percent of GDP over the next decade and likely beyond.
In the 90's the tech bubble emphasized a huge growth in technical innovation and capitalized on a large growth in educational resources bent on high-technology disciplines. In the current decade, some foreign countries like India and Japan are growing their educational resources and innovative technology at rapid rates far exceeding our own, while American education is failing to produce the work force that will be necessary to compete.
President Bush announced in August political ads fostering the notion of an ownership society. Sounds great! But, there is one simple and hard tacked question that must be asked about Bush's proposal. Where is the money going to come from to create this ownership society? President Bush wants to pull federal funds now going into the Social Security program and allow workers to invest that money in private investment accounts.
Now look, that action has one very simple effect, it reduces the funding for the pay as you go Social Security program just a couple years before the baby boom generation is about to increase the demand on that program for decades to come. That means only one of two things. Either the Social Security system must cut back benefits and/or increase the retirement age to make up the short fall, or, the U.S. government is going to have to increase deficit spending and national debt already projected to be 10 trillion dollars by the end of this decade. Watch very carefully fellow voters, you will not hear this specific issue addressed in the upcoming debates.
President Bush, however, at least has proposed a non-solution solution. Sen. Kerry has not yet developed a policy on Social Security. This gives voters a choice between an incumbent whose answer is not an answer, or a challenger who so far, has not even proposed an answer.
But beyond the election, former Secretary Peter Peterson has posited that economic problems and solutions are theological in nature. The Republican conservatives have a theory based on capital formation and success trickling down to benefit all members of society. The Democratic liberals hold that consumer driven demand and increased disposable income will drive and support growing capital formation and corporate success in fulfilling that demand. These positions are beliefs, strongly held, fiercely defended, and uncompromising in their positions in the halls of Congress. This makes for a political climate that will for all intents and purposes yield no answers and no benefit to the American people.
What is needed is leadership focused on pragmatism, on historical facts, and on realistic non-ideological assessment of our present and future options for dealing with these difficult problems facing our nation. But, such leadership is not represented in the 2004 election race (Ralph Nader arguably excepted). Congress has something like a 90% incumbency rate which means the very folks who have failed to address our nation's economic situation are going to be reelected to take these difficult problems and make them intractable.
It matters little, with regard to our economic dilemma, which candidate becomes President in 2004. The President in 2005 is not going to be able to appoint a new Congress willing to set partisanship and economic theology aside to devise long, and very long term comprehensive economic policy which government can, and will adhere to resolve America's national and trade debt debacle.
And let's be clear about one other point. Economic policy absolutely will refuse to turn quickly. One thing nearly all economicians agree upon is that to steer a course for the economy 10 years out requires course adjustments at the helm today. Our economy is like the largest of all oil tankers on the high seas. To avoid colliding with a hurricane developing 1000 miles and 2 days away, the captain must alter his course NOW! In order to avoid deep, deep and very widespread poverty amongst the elderly in 15 years, we must make some non or bi-partisan decisions about Medicare and Social Security TODAY. To avoid foreign and domestic investors pulling out of the bond markets abruptly in 5 or 7 years, destroying our currency and the purchase power of our dollar, we must make non or bi-partisan decisions about our deficits and debt TODAY!
We can debate until the cows come home whether the U.S. should be world cop and oppressed people's savior, but, it is an impotent discussion if our nation undergoes economic demise over the next 5 to 10 years. Without a strong economic platform, the U.S. will be incapable of acting militarily on the global stage. What bankrupt nation ever successfully waged broad military campaigns? And it is an act of national suicide if we allow playing world cop or oppressed people's savior to become the straw that broke the economy's back.
Nothing is going to change or improve in America until the voters realize the wisdom of arming themselves with anti-incumbency sentiment BEFORE irreparable damage is done to our nation's future. Millions of Americans will vote anti-incumbent on November 2, but, unless it becomes a ground swell movement, political divide will only lead to national demise. Throw enough incumbents out of office, and the newly elected will get the message that voters expect results; not political bullcrap. As sure as taxes and death, this biggest of all issues will not be discussed in the Presidential Debates. It is up to the voters. Stay the course, or demand a change.
Posted by David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 10:31 AMDavid,
Interesting article/post, you go beyond the normal Bush bash I see most on this site.
Could it be a thread where people debate real issues ?, I hope so.
Our economy is now tied to the world economy and trade, no way to change that now.
Its to easy for some to say end all outsorceing and imports, What happens if the US company that you work for here is also heavily invested overseas and would go bankrupt ?
Reducing the debt is easy, raise taxes, never mind that may kill the personal budget of some comsumers that drives our entire economy. If the average “joe” is taxed to the point he can’t afford to hire a carpenter to build his new deck, the carpenter can’t afford a new truck, which forces automotive workers out of a job.
I could go on and on, but you get the point, Anything that effects part of the economy, effects the rest of it.
When the markets crashed in the 20’s many “working stiffs” were gleefull that the “fat cats” lost all their money, untill they found out that they lost their own jobs because nobody could afford to hire them.
When the tec-bubble burst in 99-2000 lots of “yuppies” lost their ass, but so did lots of “grannies” with a 401k.
Its a very complex issue that goes beyond “econ. 101”, and I hope some of the really smart guys from all 3 columns chime in to debate.
Ty David for starting a REAL debate on issues !
Beagle, answer me this:
Why doesn’t Bush want reaction shots of him, or shots framing the back of his head. Why is the debate commission balking on his thirty-two page list of rules? Why is the Bush administration being such a bunch of weanies concerning debate? Why must everything be done their way? If they were robust thinkers with the evidence behind them, they would not need to control and frame every P.R. event the president has so much. If you had a better candidate, he wouldn’t need such pampering.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2004 03:57 PM Well, Beagle asked for someone smart to respond, & fotunately someone did. Unfortunatley, I’m next with a post, and it’s like the friggin’ dancing scarecrow is waltzing down the middle column of the gree-brick road!
David, it’s certainly understandable to voice a ‘throw the rascals out’, anti-incumbent sentiment. I’ve expressed the same when contemplating the abysmal economic performance of recent years. In the first two paragraphs of your article you note the strong economic performance of Clinton, the Republican Congress (for most of his presidency)and Greenspan. Many of thoses incumbents are still in the legislature. Most people would agree the economic performance of the Clinton years is about as good is it gets. Instead of throwing out incumbents, why not simply return to that set-up? In other words, elect a Democrat for the Executive Branch to balance the Republican majoroties in the Legislative Branch. They may all be rascals- but they are our rascals! Let them balance each other out. They have proven before that the balancing act works very effectively.
Personally, I am not a budget hawk. I believe tax cuts, interest rate cuts, and increased spending are fiscal stimuli that all provide excellent ways of stimulating the economy, and that means, yes, running deficits in a recession is a good idea. I vehemently disagree with the spcific stimuli the Bush administration pursued as to where the tax cuts fell, but in general it was the right idea. I vehemently disagree with the incredible deficits racked up by the Republican Congress, the utter lack of discipline & planning & targeting of fiscal stimulus that went into the drunken spending spree; but once again, in general that was the right idea. Greenspan did a fine job, but the Fed is done, bless its heart. We’re roughly two years into the Bush recovery, believe it or not; interest rates are rising, and the next downturn is frightening to contemplate.
So! You’re right! We should demand a change! For the Legislative Branch, we can only vote locally or in-state, so it’s difficult to influence that government branch on a national level. However, each of us can make a difference with the Executive Branch. In terms of fiscal policy, that means splitting the government between the ‘tax-and-spend Democrats’ and the ‘borrow-and-spend Republicans,’ which in conclusion means we’re all in agreement! Aunty Em’s 401K will be safe! The flying yuppy-monkeys jobs won’t be outsourced after all! Social Security will resume the long-term solvency of the Clintonian era because we’re all voting for Kerry! Hooray!
( Don points his finger at his forehead, executes a spin, & in an explosion of straw, collapses to the ground)
(bonus points for the first to refute my ‘straw-man argument)… not really- but couldn’t resist the pun…
Great article, David.
Peter Peterson, who you mention, was a guest on NOW with David Brancaccio this week, and I believe he said he would recommend a non- or bi-partisan commission similar to the 9/11 commission specifically to deal with this issue. It is unfortunately not politically tenable for elected officials to make the hard choices that someone needs to make, when they can so easily be painted by opponents as hard-hearted. The last time I recall a President asking Americans for austerity now for the sake of our future was Carter and we know what happened to him.
But if we don’t own up to some austerity now, we’re going to face a consequence much worse down the road, and it’s clear that neither major party is willing to be the messenger. Maybe appointing a commission is the out needed for whomever gets elected this year, but my hopes for such are not too great with either Bush or Kerry.
Pete Peterson said
I want to believe that in their guts the American people are wise enough to know we’re living in a kind of surreal … economic Disneyland, and it ain’t really true.Are they that wise? I don’t really know, but you are right David that the debates are unlikely to address this issue honestly. Since the League of Women Voters left the debate business in disgust, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been owned by the political parties and caved to their demands to assure that the candidates could confine their “debate” statements to prepackaged, pre-practiced sound bites that assiduously avoid any real dialog. At least this year the Memorandum of Understanding (PDF) which so limits the debates is being made publicly available. George Farah, a guest on NOW who spoke to Bill Moyers, and executive director of Open Debates, explores the issue in depth in his new book, No Debate. Posted by: Walker Willingham at September 26, 2004 06:32 PM
Stephen,
I think both sides have been debating the rules for the debates. I think Nader should have been allowed into the debates.
I’m unable to speak for Bush, but I’ll betcha he would have been fine with that.
Do you feel that Kerry would have been “OK” with Nader being there ? How about the other Independants ?. I say let them all into the debates, and I see no reason to sue to keep them off the Nov. ballot.
I forget, but, how many suits were filed to keep Ross Perot off the Nov. ballot when he ran TWICE ?
Posted by: Beagle at September 26, 2004 07:11 PMBeagle, check out VoteNader.org and see if you still think Bush would be OK with Nader in the debates. If you were Bush, would you want both Nader and Kerry hitting on your ‘failed’ presidency? I don’t even think so.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 08:19 PMWalker,
(d) The parties agree that they will not (1) issue any challenges for additional debates, (2) appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate, or (3) accept any television or radio air time offers that involve a debate format or otherwise involve the simultaneous appearance of more than one candidate.
And thus ended Open Debate’s reason for being and the American people’s opportunity to witness a real open forum debate among the 4 major candidates (includes Nader and Badnarik) representing at least some views of most Americans. Regardless of who wins the election, the American people were the losers beginning with this one paragraph above.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 08:28 PMI don’t believe we can solve the social security problem at this time. The solution is essentially political, not economic and the political forces at work won’t allow a real solution. What will need to be done? We will have to address the three untouchables.
1. Increase retirement age in line with improvements in health and life expectancy. When Social Security was implemented, not many people survived long past 65. A similar age today would not be 66 or 67, but more like 75 or 76. Try proposing that at an AARP convention.
2. Cut benefits - nobody was supposed to live off social security. It is a supplement to savings. Pay out enough to supplement, not support. The retired poor will have to apply for the same types of public assistance as the non-retired poor. The elderly are the wealthiest part of the population. It makes no sense to redistribute money from the younger generations to the old. I think the grandchildren – with the lives ahead of them - are more important than the grandparents, who already enjoyed their moments in the sun.
3. Ration medical care - recognize why medical care is so expensive. It is not the drug companies, or the lawyers or even the bureaucrats. We have met the enemy and it is us. Everyone demands higher and higher levels of care. We can save people from diseases that would have killed them only a few years ago, but the cost is high and continuing. An old man with a hip aliment used to be given a cane. Now he gets major hit surgery with continuing care. I am not advocating we stop doing things like this, but we do need to recognize that the demand for “health” is endless. We have to come up with some form of rationing.
If we don’t address these problems, the whole American GNP will not be enough to “save” Social Security. I figure we will begin to get serious in about ten years, when we are forced to address the crisis.
Agree generally with basics of what Jack stated.
Think we need to do means-testing for Medicare benefits. Much more could be done for years re health care and taking care of your own problems (if possible)& prevention. Great need to cut govt.employee salaries and benefits as well as paper professionals across the board.
Further, another elephant in the room is the massive immigration & costs. We cannot afford to pay for people coming in here from all over the world. Strongly think that we need to mandate that 15 year American citizens are first in line to receive any govt. benefits usage. (also, strongly think that all the sponsor churches, etc. must pick up the tab that they dumped on us the taxpayers to pay for[know about the huge costs involved]).
Jack, good job on 1 thru 3, but you forgot #4. Prioritize our spending in such a way as to save SS and modify Medicare so that it can be saved. SS can be saved intact, it is simply a matter of coughing up the surpluses accumulated and using them to offset the deficits the program will run more than a decade from now. That of course would require applying SS surpluses to SS instead of pork barrel spending projects vit General Revenue funds.
Medicare cannot be saved intact. Peter Peterson holds controversial positions which can be debated on their merits. But, one is difficult to get around. Spending huge sums of money at the end of life staving off inevitable death for only a few months, is an activity of Medicare which simply cannot be afforded without bankrupting American tax payers. The counter argument of course is, if we ration medicine at the end of life, only the richest will extend their life. The American public will need to accept some inequity in order to salvage health care for the aging for all.
These are third rail issues, no doubt, and that is why anti-incumbency is the only method of forcing politicians to realistically and truthfully touch these third rail issues. They must be forced by the voters and told, ‘Don’t address these issues and you WILL have no political career’, touch these issues honestly and forthrightly and you MAY not have a political career. These issues will never get fair and realistic treatment otherwise.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 10:00 PMAlex, I agree with most of your points. But am very leery of cutting government employee salaries and benefits willy nilly. The problems faced by government have never been more complex, and never have they required more expertise in the areas of science, math, statistics, history, intelligence, analysis, econometrics, etc. etc. Cut salary and benefits below private sector competitive rates, and we will get Peter Principle government where decisions are made by incompetents and upon faulty data and information. We cannot afford an incompetent government work force. We may be able to afford less government agencies and beauracracy, but that which we keep should be well competitively paid.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 10:10 PMDavid
I don’t think that we technically can save the SS surplus. There is no such thing as a “lock box” as far as the USG is concerned. Leave any money laying around Washington and somebody finds a worthy program absorb it. We would have to invest the surplus somewhere. The government already has enormous powers to tax, regulate and destroy private enterprise. Investing the billions in SS would soon give politicians and bureaucrats controlling interest in all U.S. corporations. I don’t think they can handle it. (I know the companies can’t. Imagine the bureaucratic response to something like WINDOWS? They would say, “Do we really need to create something that will completely change the machines we already have?” and “the new technology would disadvantage minorities and the poor, who can’t afford new computers.” With the government in charge we would all be using dos on green screen computers.)
If the SS funds are “invested” in treasury bonds, we have just moved it for accounting purposes. I suppose we could invest it in government bonds of other countries, but I suspect they would object and find some way to cheat us out of our money in the long run. When you are the world’s biggest economy, the rules are different.
I agree with you about government employee pay. You tend to get what you pay for. Although the government can attract a certain type of person who will work for a little under market to be of service, if the gap gets too wide these paragons of virtue start feeling like chumps and the best of them move to greener pastures.
It will totally dispel any hope I have for the debates being productive if the format is strictly observed. I mean the debates are structured to hold one debate on foreign policy in which issues of America playing world cop and savior of oppressed peoples around the world should be central, and another entirely different debate at a different time and location on domestic and economic issues. These two issues are absolutely intertwined, and this bifurcation in the debates could end with the real realtionship between these two vitally important areas NEVER being discussed.
Can our economy afford world cop and savior military and nation building roles by America? Where do the candidates stand, can we afford some world cop and savior roles, and not others? Where will the candidates draw the lines? It appears from the agreement on the debates, such questions may never be posed or discussed, and NO issue is of more importance in this 2004 election.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 10:26 PMJack, if the IRS can track each and every working persons earnings and payroll taxes, there is no reason each and every SS contribution from worker and employer cannot be tracked in multiple investment funds managed by a bi-partisan oversight committee through private investment companies. This would allow the potential for greater earnings in the stock, bond, and fixed instrument markets, while allowing SS to continue to backed and insured by the federal government at the base of principal plus treasury earnings.
In other words, the oversight committee keeps two sets of books. One set which manages actual investments in multiple markets, and another set which tracks what the fund would be worth if invested in treasuries only. The government would insure the fund would never drop below that amount which would have been accrued by treasury earnings. This acts as a baseline guarantee for the funds and gives Congress the ability to use this baseline as the measure by which SS fund laws can be adjusted as necessary to insure its safety net for the elderly.
If the markets produce earnings greater than the treasury investment baseline, great, the surpluses can continue to earn interest as a hedge against demographicly bad years. If the markets fail and the SS fund drops below what it would have earned using treasury investments, the federal government supplements the fund with general revenues only to that point that the fund reaches parity with it would have earned in the baseline treasury investments.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 10:41 PMDavid
It sounds good, but I don’t share your confidence in the government.
One reason SS is in trouble today is the seemingly innocuous provision of tying benefits to the CPI. Economists have long known that the CPI overstates inflation, so the old folks are getting a bigger and bigger share of the pie. But nobody can mess with the CPI or the formula that goes with SS for political reasons. In the case of a guaranteed rate of return you propose, I have no doubt that enterprising politicians would periodically boost the nominal rate to reflect whatever special consideration they could come up with. It would work like a ratchet. If stocks were doing very well, the pressure to raise the floor would be enormous. If the markets declined, the pressure to raise the floor would be enormous. Government systems have upward biases. That is why we can’t use them.
If bipartisan committees managed the funds, we would just have let two foxes into the henhouse. Neither party would be enthusiastic about innovations that made their existing product lines obsolete and both of them would take turns stifling innovations.
I was born in Wisconsin and come from a long line of progressive and socialists. My ancestors of sainted memory had a point at the time they were making it. In the 1920s and 1930s government was small and society benefited from more involvement. Large, self replicating (borge like) bureaucracies had yet to take firm root. Conditions have changed. We can’t trust the government to do the all things our mothers and fathers advocated. No matter how much we want it, we just can’t have it. Government has simply grown beyond its capacity to do good in many areas. Some of the bureaucrats and politicians still ain’t heard the news; others ignore it. We have to see the truth and let the truth set us free.
Jack, great comments. And I share your distrust of government.
What are the alternatives, however? Abandon SS and let those, who for any of a myriad of reasons, live longer than their savings provided for, fall prey to the savages of poverty or become dependent upon the kindness of others (if others of kindness are available)? Charles Dickens is worth reading when one wishes to talk of the Elymosenary System of the 19th and early 20th century.
Mandated savings by federal law forcing folks to place a percentage of their earnings into investment accounts enriching brokers while forcing sacrifices upon the breadwinner without regard to their or their family’s needs or emergencies?
Privatizing SS into funds with no guarantee that those funds over a lifetime will in fact have earnings or won’t be absconded by unethical folks like Milken? This country has experienced more than one depression, the last one in just the last century. And should a depression occur, should the brokers retain their comfortable lifestyles on the profits of SS investments while 10’s of millions of Americans fall into abject poverty resulting from the loss of their SS investments? And if the Government were to guarantee those funds, why privatize it in the first place?
I don’t trust a great many politicians and I don’t trust the federal government. But, you know, if the federal government fails a majority of the people, that government can be held accountable and forced to change by the people. That is not true of private corporations. One only need read today’s headlines regarding US Air to see why privatizing is not the answer. If a poorly run or managed corporation fails, they file bankruptcy and no one is held accountable. I don’t trust government, but, I trust private investment companies even less, and the corporate scandals that have been witnessed during Clinton’s and Bush’s administrations stands as irrefutable evidence of that distrust, for me.
Bob Ruben and P. Peterson agree on one thing, corporate America is dependent upon a healthy American fiscal policy, and the next 5 to 7 years pose a serious threat to American corporations due to the uncontrolled rise in the national debt and subsequent interest burden accrued from it.
Greenspan agrees also, but, will not come out on this issue until after the election due to the political consequences of such a statement made prior to it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 11:38 PMHow bout we let the folks at the top, the congress, the president, the ex presidents etc, pay for their own health care, and anyone who can afford it, including those mentioned above, don’t recieve Social Security. These people live off the gravy train for far too long to expect the American people to support them for the rest of their lives.
About this trickle down theory. The rising tide raises all boats. What a crock. Why should the American people, most of whom don’t even own boats, belive this?
The more money you put in stockholder’s pockets, the more money stays in stockholder’s pockets. Where is the incentive to re-invest in this country.
Posted by: Rocky at September 26, 2004 11:58 PMDavid,
You and me have spoke at lentgh about the national debt and as I have suggested before Americans need to start reinvesting in America. Although I do not have any current figures that can prove my case, any economist will tell you that by lowering our national debt, improving our infrastructure, and providing a sound investment tool for the populace our country would see enormous growth.
Now for Social Security I will refer everyone to this web site. Just Facts about Social Security They put into plain english the history, the present, and the future of this issue.
One of the most interesting facts (which I haven’t found the exact figure on) is that our government owes the SS Fund a huge sum of money. Additionally, SS accounts for about 25% of all funds collected by our federal government.
What started out as a good idea back in the 30’s has turned into the biggest rip-off in history. For example, in the 30’s you and your employer payed 3 cents on every dollar you earn (each) up to $3,000.00. Today, that figure is 15.3% total of your income up to $76,000.00 (I think thats right). Now we know inflation has been bad from time to time, but an increase of 250%+. No, SS is not the problem and has never been. The problem lies squarely with our elected officials using it to supplement their budget. For it is by law that any and all SS surplus funds go to purchase federal teasury notes which allow our government to show on the books more money than is collected in taxes.
Rocky is right about investing in America instead of the market where a complete sector can go bust overnight. Americans really do own this country and it is time we start holding our elected officials accountable for their actions. They aspect responsiblilty from us citizens (that fair), but we should demand responsiblilty and accountability from them.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 07:19 AMSocial Security?
Why not let those of us who do not wish to be a part of this corrupt scam simply opt-out? That would save millions of dollars if the govt. would allow us boomers that “choice.”
kctim, why not let thieves opt out of the justice system, that too would save millions of dollars if the gov’t. would give them a choice of going free or going to prison?
Answer: because it is better for the general welfare of society if thieves are removed from society and our elderly are left to die in poverty and the streets of America. That is why.
Henry, getting Americans to save is truly one of the intractable problems that colors almost every other economic issue facing our nation. And it is intractable precisely because we have a political system that changes direction and message every 4 years. You can’t change a society’s behavior by inducement if the inducement comes and goes every 4 to 8 years. We certainly don’t want monarchs for life, but, politicians can’t seem to reinforce themes across party shifts in office.
This will always be one of the great weaknesses of our democracy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2004 08:23 PMkctim,
It would be nice to opt out of everything we did not want to do; however, I think that death may have a problem with the idea.
David,
I to wish our society and political leaders would take the idea of creating an investment society a reality. Can we create something bigger than ourselve? Absolutely, we now have IRA’s, Roth’s, and 401K’s to help people save for their retirement.
However, the last president to create a dream that carried beyond his term was JFK and his challange for us to go to the moon. I do not see that drive in the Dems or Reps so I guess that would be considered an opening for a third party candidate. Now, I have done a little bit on my own in seeing if the following dream would pull Americans together and have been surprised at the overwhelming positive response. My idea goes something like this;
1) Create an economy where every legal citizen in America will become a millionarie over the next 30-40 years.
2) Create a network of clean energy that doubles the US capacity in electricity. Approx. 6.6 GW
3) Add real land value to our market by requiring our city’s, industrail, and homes to have a positve environment impact.
4) Create an education system that allows every student to be taught by the country’s experts in the field of study.
5) Turn the world economy around so we are racing to the top and promote the idea that every human on Earth deserves a decent job at a decent wage.
Although I am not able to give exact details on how to accomplish these goals, I know America can and must work toward achieving them. So do you think thats a better idea than the Dems or Reps have come up with in the last thirty years?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 10:19 PMSorry, but I think the problem has been too many paper professionals, attorneys, and people educated to idiocy. Smart, savvy, multi-skilled people were not permitted to flourish in the past thirty+ years in the U.S. Those are the types that developed this country and maintained it for a few centuries.
I still think govt. salaries and benefits need to be cut way back —from feds on down. Sorry, but have thought for years that job security of govt. employ is worth at least half the value. We can’t and could not pay for all these lush salaries and benefits. Paper professionals, attorneys, etc. are way overvalued (of course, by their same type and across the country). They have ruined and hemorrhaged this country. Won’t bore you all with elaboration here.
Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2004 10:59 PMHenry said: “However, the last president to create a dream that carried beyond his term was JFK and his challange for us to go to the moon.”
I don’t think that is true. Reagan created a dream that extended well beyond his presidency and manifested itself in the Contract with America under the stewardship of Newt Gingrich.
That Contract is of course now falling apart with the Republicans ascendency to power in 2 out of 3 branches of government. Just as the Democrats do not know how to act as the minority party, the Republicans don’t know how to act as the majority party, and our government is in so many ways, putting carts before horses and dismantling any hope for a peaceful, prosperous, and bright future.
1) Create an economy where every legal citizen in America will become a millionarie over the next 30-40 years.
I have to disagree with this one. In order to bring it about, our nation would have to abandon too much of the capitalist and entrepreneurial basis for the potential wealth of the nation. One cannot think of such issues anymore in terms of domestic economy. The very concept of domestic economy no longer has any real meaning since our economy is intertwined and dependent upon global economic fortunes.
4) Create an education system that allows every student to be taught by the country’s experts in the field of study.
Well, the day for that suggestion is long past. Academia has been split down partisan lines and one person’s expert is another person’s brainwasher. Window of opportunity closed. It would take something monumental to create a national concensus on curriculum.
5) Turn the world economy around so we are racing to the top and promote the idea that every human on Earth deserves a decent job at a decent wage.
Noble idea. Fact: the study of economy is the study of limited resources distribution in a world of infinite demand. The earth is overpopulated many fold to make such a noble concept even dreamable, let alone practical, in my opinion.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2004 03:55 AMDavid and Henry: I thought this was the third party column? You two simply stated the typical liberal scare tactics in your responses and offer no valid reason why it would not work.
There is a huge difference between breaking the law and being punished, and being forced to pay an unjust, unfair tax.
General welfare of society? So, if I were given a “choice” to opt-out and was able to prepare myself and family for retirement and not have to rely on the govt. for anything, this would be bad for the general welfare of society?
A very hypocritical view.
kctim, fortunately for America, your view is a minority one. By your view, GW Bush has absolutely no right to take 6 or 8 billion dollars of American tax payer dollars and give it to those devastated by the Florida hurricanes. This socialized act by Pres. Bush of using the money paid in taxes by all Americans to aid a relatively small number in need is surely hypocritical in your view.
I for one, believe Pres. Bush is doing the right thing to aid those in need through no fault of their own, just as so many federal programs aim to aid those who through no fault of their own have fallen upon circumstances which threaten their modest quality of life in America. It is one of American’s great strengths that is holds aid to the needy as such a high priority.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2004 09:50 AMHenry,
The reason that many of your noble suggestions couldn’t work is that there are too many people that think that things are just fine the way they are.
We live in a society with an economy that must constantly expand. If it doesn’t it stagnates, and we all know what happens then.
For some reason the economy never seems to reach a balance, where the money the wage earner makes is more than adequate to feed his/her family, clothe them and provide a roof for them. Top that off with the American obssesion for stuff, and you have, in the best case senario, a two parent family, where both parents work, and barely scrapes by month to month, leaving very little in the way of saving.
Education takes a back seat to survival because parents are chasing the “American Dream” and don’t take the time to monitor their children’s learning.
After all, it is important, in this country, to keep up with the Jones’s. I saw that on TV.
As for the debt. This country is built on it (see above). Why would we think that our children, seeing mom and dad, and the government of this country up to it’s colective neck in debt, would do any thing differently?
Leadership needs to lead from the top down. We need the thinkers and do’ers of the expansion of the west and the industrial revolution. The computer has made this a country of thinkers and dreamers, not do’ers.
David: I am speaking only of socialist security in this topic.
Unfortunately for America, most people are dependent upon the govt.
By my view, Bush should not be using “socialist security” money to render aid to those who need it.
Of course the American people who need aid should be helped out in situations like natural disasters.
If my view is such a minority, then why should it matter if I plan for my retirement instead of the govt. doing it for me? Is it because I am to dumb to take care of myself and my family? Or is it because the majority of the people know they could do better and would be willing to take personal responsibility for themselves and choose to opt-out of socialist security? I believe the latter is your greatest fear on this issue.
“Forcing” people to use Schwab for retirement is wrong. So why is “forcing” people to use the govt. ok?
At least with Schwab, you know your money is going to your retirement and not being used to buy votes.
kctim,
The idea is for the able to help the unable. You should be investing in your own future. By the same token, there are those, because of circumstance can’t. It is the job of those who can to help provide for those who cannot. That, I belive, is the “Christian” thing to do.
Rocky, thanks for your response.
I understand the basic principles behind socialist security. I believe there are people, probably half of who get it now, that really do need alittle help. But the govt. is not the answer. Churches, neighbors and groups such as the salvation army would do alot better job.
I too believe it is the “Christian” thing to do. But the govt. is not a church.
It is the job of those who can, to decide if they want to help those who cannot.
kctim,
Your postulate assumes that the churches, neighbors and groups have the money to help thes folks. I probably should have substituted responsibility for job.
Look we write laws for the lowest common denominator. For those incapable of thinking for themselves. Why would you think that SS would be any different.
kctim said: “David: I am speaking only of socialist security in this topic. “
By your repeated use of the word socialist instead of social security, you imply your opposition to socialized programs. Just what do you think FEMA is? What do you think public education, our military, our government itself, the interstate highway system, and a host of other programs are? They are all socialized. The war in Iraq is a socialized program costing 4.5 Billion dollars a month, coming from taxes of Americans some 100+ million of whom are opposed to the war.
By your logic, we should fight in Iraq only with the tax dollars of those who support the war, Right? A half war with half the tax dollars, right?
C’mon. Socialized has been turned into a bad word by the right without acknowledging that each and every facet and act by government is socialized. Government exists by taking revenues from a myriad of minority and sometimes majority groups who, if free to do so, would choose not to pay it.
Your position has no merit unless you are an anarchist who states there should be no government at all, and each person should fend for themselves as best they can in terms of defense, housing, food, education, etc.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2004 11:39 AMRocky: If we were not taxed so heavily, I do believe those groups would get enough contributions to aid those who truely need help. I am an atheist but would still donate to churches and the such if they offered aid to those.
If we write laws for those “incapable” of thinking for themselves, then why is it not fair to write laws for those who are “capable” to think for themselves? Instead we punish those who take pride in themselves and work hard.
David: I love you man. Debating issues with you makes my day. But you should not jump to the conclusion that I am on the “right” side of the isle or an anarchist. I agree with you, I understand that our country is now 90% socialist and has almost done away with our great Constitution.
FEMA and public ed? Yes, I am totally against them. They are proven failures.
Military, and fighting half a war? I am totally against the Iraq war and any action which is not totally in support of national defense for OUR country.
Govt? I believe that our govt should follow the guidelines provided by the Constitution. Nowhere in it does it state the govt. is soley responsible for highways, education, health care etc… These programs are in there only because we have changed from a Constitutional Republic to a failed democracy.
This is the best though: “Your position has no merit unless you are an anarchist who states there should be no government at all, and each person should fend for themselves as best they can in terms of defense, housing, food, education, etc.”
What is wrong with taking care of ourselves?
I do believe in a CONSTITUTIONAL government though, and in one, people did and would take personal responsibility and pride to, as you stated “fend for themselves.”
kctim, very well. Then a little history of law in America would demonstrate that the government we have today was derived directly and legally from the provisions in the Constitution.
The only way to go back to the sufficiency of law under the original Constitution is to turn the clock back a couple centuries.
You are not really proposing that we should not have built public highways and that we all should still be riding horses across the plains, are you?
I did not characterize you as being on the right. From you last comment however, it would appear that your position stands firmly in anarchist theory. That’s OK. I know one anarchist, a good longtime friend, and he is a fine fellow. I wouldn’t want to be surrounded by them though.
You tout the Constitution. You appear to just not like the liberties the Constitution provided for posterity to shape laws in accordance with changing conditions (which most Constitutional scholars posit is the truly great strength of the document.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2004 12:27 PMDavid: While I do wish I was born about 200 years ago, I do understand the need for the highway system and many other projects that have helped build this country. I just believe that the states are responsible for them.
If wanting limited govt., lower taxes, property rights, individual rights etc… make me an anarchist, then I guess I am.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting though. You said to “change” the Constitution, not “rewrite” it.
There have been some changes that have greatly benefited our country, ie. 13,15 and 17 amendments, but the “rewritting” of the constitution with total disregard to previous amendments is wrong.
Bush has trampled our free speech guaranteed in the 1st.
The 2nd is all but gone. Another 5 years or so and it will be totally gone.
clinton helped destroy the 4th with the no knock rule. The IRS violates the 4th on an everyday basis. Illegal search and seizures.
Over taxation, welfare state and govt. dependacy are not in the Constitution and there is no proof supporting their existence is legal or justified by “changing conditions.”
kctim,
I can only go so far with your last post.
If the states took over the road building for instance, taxes would have to be raised by the state. The money has to come from somewhere.
The interstate highway system was built for the military, starting with Eisenhower.
The internet was built for the military.
The no knock rule was in effect in some states in the early 70’s.
No offence meant but if you don’t want to support the things that many have come to rely on you could choose to live somewhere else.
I myself am in the 35% tax bracket. Do you think I enjoy giving up that much of my money to support some government programs that I disaggree with?
Living here, and I have traveled all over the world, is a trade off. You have to take the good with the bad.
The writers of this Columns Posts do seem to be Nader types with socialist ultraliberal spending, view biases.
I am of Thinking Indpendents Grouping and feel some of the commenters are too.
Posted by: Alex at September 28, 2004 09:45 PMAlex said: “The writers of this Columns Posts do seem to be Nader types with socialist ultraliberal spending, view biases.”
No one in this column has been harsher or more prolific in writing against our current deficits and debt than I. Your statement above is completely without factual basis and your bias against Government which is by definition, supported through socialized revenue gathering and spending for the needs of the nation, appears to be clouding your statements.
I have the feeling you jumped into this without fully reading the thread. You are of course free to jump to conclusions about other folks here, but, your comments containing foregone conclusions without merit will not stand unchallenged.
So I challenge you to find in my writings anything to support my being a socialist ultraliberal spender. My arguments have always defended and supported a mixed economy which combines government which is socialist by definition, and capitalism which promotes entrepreneurial activity and acts as an engine for product innovation, development, and employment. All these arguments which try to label folks ‘socialist’ or ‘capitalist’ are false arguments. Anyone who believes society needs government is socialist and anyone who believes we should be free to labor and create in the marketplace as we choose is a capitialist.
The real debate has never been about who is and isn’t, but how much. How much government (socialism) and how much regulation on free enterprise. All who want government to provide a strong military are socialists on that issue, by virtue of government via law, taking money from everyone and spending it on a military which benefits some far more than others. And anyone who has a 401K or savings account, or debit card is a capitalist reaping the benefits of free enterprise.
How much government, and how much freedom and power over others should captains of industry have over society, laborers, consumers, and investors? These are the real questions that need to be addressed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2004 12:05 AMRocky: Nice post, but one I have heard so many times before. It is all about fear mongering. To simply say, “in order for the states to make roads, your taxes would have to be higher” is wrong. There are plenty of useless programs that can be done away with in order to make basic needs attainable. Of course there are some things that the govt. should pay for, as long as they make it fit into the budget.
The stricter no-knock was signed into law in the 90’s. Even though it has been around since the 70’s as you say, does that make it right?
No offense taken, I get that alot from people who do not want to see where this country is heading. I to have been all around the world and have seen their so called democracies and such, I do not want my country becoming like theirs. I know I am free to go if I want, but I would rather stay here and try to wake people.
I do not know which bracket I would be in, but I do not pay income taxes, never and never will. But that is a different topic. I was not posting about income taxes but about socialist security. And my question has still not been answered.
“Why is it wrong to allow a person the choice to take care of themselves?”
I am not saying to get rid of SS. I am not saying nobody needs SS. The people have become to dependent on the govt. to totally abolish SS, I just want to have the “choice” on whether to be dependent on the govt. or myself.
Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2004 09:18 AMkctim,
Hey it’s a great thought but I don’t see how it could be managed.
At a state level, what services would you cut?
Road building? Schools? Social Services?
Prisons, flood control, public works?
At a national level the DOD eats the largest chunk of the national budget. How much would you cut there?
Are you going to belive that big business is going to pick up the slack?
Carnegie is long dead, and Gates is only one man.
Philanthropy will only go so far.
Would you have every one investing in the stock market? Very few have the smarts to manage a stock market portfolio, as can be seen with the scams and debacles of recent times. Even without that we have the very real possiblity of a crash which hoses mainly those who can least afford it.
Yes, I would aggree that our government is unwieldly. If you opt out what services are you going to give up?
You say you don’t pay taxes, do you use the airports, public transit? Those were built with taxes.
Taxes are an unfortunate fact of life in this country.
If you want to live here, they are the price of admission.
Hey Rocky: Prisons and social services would probably need help from the federal govt. The others would definetly work better under private ownership. Especially schools. State run schools are horrible. States could quit giving tax money to churches and special projects like the save this or save that funds. Quit giving tax money to people who view it has a way of life instead of temp. aid. Quite giving tax money and tax breaks to sports teams and so-called non-profit organizations. I could go on and on.
I’m sure you don’t expect this, but the DOD would be drastically cut. It should only be to provide for our national defense. Not nation building in Iraq and other places. Not as part of a money making UN peacekeeping force. etc…
People would invest in what they chose to. It is not the govt. position to tell us if we are smart or not.
I said I do not pay income tax. I pay legal taxes on goods and services.
Legal taxes are a fact of life if one wants a country to run properly. I understand that and have no problem with it. But when the govt. tells me I have to give them my money because I am too dumb to think for myself, I have a problem with that.
Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2004 11:15 AMkctim,
So you think that for profit schools would do a better job? For profit is just that, for profit.
The children really will be only numbers. If the companies don’t do a good job do we fire them?
Especialy after these guys have done such a wonderful job with the privatized prisons.
I’m sorry, I’m just not buying it.
I’d like to think of myself as a pragmatist. There are just some things that just are what they are and no ammount of bitching will change them.
All the things you cite as to what you would cut create jobs for John Q Public.
Just because somthing is not in the Constitution dosen’t mean it’s illeagal.
Income tax is the law. Taxes were passed by Congress, signed by the President, and haven’t yet been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That would make them the Law.
If you are so set against income taxes, start a movement to repeal them, but not paying them is illeagal. Not paying them would make you a criminal.
Like it or not I will continue to pay my taxes until the day they are repealed. As I said before there are programs that I disaggree with but I am going to have to live with it.
Rocky: If public schools are so much better, then why do private schools and home schoolers consistently do better?
You show a misplaced and unjustified fear, which is touted by the left, that says govt. is the answer to all problems.
Income tax is actually in the Constitution, the 16th Amendment. But it totally contridicts the previous version of lawful taxes which was put forth by our founding fathers. Direct and indirect taxes.
Not paying them makes me a criminal? I have been audited 4 times in 20 years, I have not been found guilty of anything, but I am still a criminal?
All of this is off topic though. My initial question was dealing with SS and it still has not been answered.
“Why is it wrong to allow a person the choice to take care of themselves? or the choice to be dependent on the govt.?”
OK, I see where I went wrong in asking this question on social security. My personal views and beliefs have nothing to do with my question. Sorry about that. I will phrase my question without the anti-tax tilt I gave the previous one.
I am only asking about the SS tax.
If a person is willing to give up all their SS benefits, rely on themselves and not the govt. to plan for their retirement and agreed to pay, lets say $5 a month for other SS services for others, should they not be entitled to not pay SS, if they so choose?
Whatever issuses need to be talked about or debated those are the issuses that need to be brought out.
Trish!
Posted by: Trish at September 29, 2004 04:06 PMkctim
Rocky: If public schools are so much better, then why do private schools and home schoolers consistently do better?
You show a misplaced and unjustified fear, which is touted by the left, that says govt. is the answer to all problems.
This is such a crock.
Not paying them makes me a criminal? I have been audited 4 times in 20 years, I have not been found guilty of anything, but I am still a criminal?
You said you don’t pay any income taxes. Is this a trick question?
About SS. If you can get enough people together, put together a petition, and get it on the National ballot more power to you.
As for private school I’m all for them, I went to 11 years of them. I got a great education. However
they will not be the panacea that the right seems to think they are.
When private schools become as crowded as public schools, the education will falter.
The problem with home schooling is that a great many of the children come out of it with no people skills at all. I don’t see that as a benefit in this age of communication.
Rocky: A crock because it is right.
Not a trick question, a person must still fill out a 1040 and turn it in to the IRS, a non-governmental organization.
I realize I can try to get a petition together. I am just curious as to why some think it is wrong.
Please support your view that home schoolers are dumber with facts. You can’t, which is why you are getting frustrated.
Frustrated , hardly.
I didn’t say that home schoolers were dumber.
I said that a great many home schooled children have problems with people skills. Social skills, being able to deal with other people. Those are the facts.
Do I have an inordinate fear that government will take care of everything?
I’m one of the people that are paying for those govt. programs you think I’m dependent on.
Too much neocon talk radio will rot your brain.
I think that you have bought into the bull that Limbaugh and Hannity are spouting.
As for SS, hell, if you can get it on the ballot I’d vote for it.
Posted by: Rocky at September 29, 2004 06:32 PMkctim and rocky, it appears this discussion is getting personal. Please remember, there is no obligation to respond, nor is there any obligation to agree, but you can agree to disagree.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2004 07:27 PMDavid the point is that on several subjects we do aggree. But thanks.
Posted by: Rocky at September 29, 2004 08:50 PMDavid,
I would of said Reagan inspired Americans to look at the future, but the truth of the 80’s is that it brought out the worse in our citizens. We stopped being a nation of the “We” and started becoming a nation of “Me.” If you remember back than we had corporate raidings, savings and loan scandal, and the begining of our two teir economic system that has made more people millionaries at the expense of the populace.
No, Reagan’s idea was at face value good; however, bad oversight by our government coupled with the greed of the top players in this country has lead to a great divide in our society. Today, we have the top 20% financially secured while 70% of the population struggle to keep up with the “Jone’s.” Additionally, the bottom 10% of citizens have lost 13% of their income during the same time. Therefore, I can not give President Reagan a full passing grade on our goal to put America back as the leader of the free world.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 29, 2004 10:14 PMI think everyone is overlooking the main issue that is plaguing our country’s goal of a global economy. No matter if you live in America or any other country in the world, some people today a still struggling to even feed them on a daily basis. Now, I’m not advocating that America makes everyone else in the world rich, but it should be the duty of our elected officials to ensure that all Americans keep raising their standard of living. In order for our country to keep ahead of the game is to change the way we run our economy. Just like we did in the 70-80’s, America needs to layout a workable economic and social plan that lifts up our citizens, our allies, and our social evolution.
Not through rising taxes, not through more social programs, and definitely not by giving away money to anyone. No, the solution to our overall problem can be traced back to Henry Ford and his idea of paying his employee enough money so that they could afford his product. Gentlemen like Rockefeller, Hershey, and Ford were great capitalist that understood Americans can and do the right thing if given the chance. In the 90’s most Americans worked to bring up their standard of living as our economy gave everyone the ability to have “Spend-able Cash” and pay their bills.
Today; we face the growing problem of a flat market due to high energy costs, devaluing of the dollar, and lack of “Spend-able Cash.” In order for us to win the war on terror and expand our economy America must find a way to allow our citizens the ability to drive our economy. Right now the American consumer makes up 2/3rd’s of our economy and 25% of the world economy. Therefore, “We the People” need to take a serious look at the power we hold if only the majority of us really want to see this country change.
No one likes paying neither high taxes nor being told what to do or how to act. As we are a proud nation and a proud people, we deserve the ability to earn an honest dollar for an honest day of work so we can support our family at a standard of living that is bar none above the rest of the world. Why, because as Americans it is our duty to show the rest of the world how to get along and our right to keep telling our world leaders how to do their job. America must find solutions to the major economic and social changes required to allow us to lead the world into living in orbit and beyond.
Like the dream our parents had back in to 60-70’s of changing our nation from an industrial into a service driven economy, we must look at how we can turn the “Information Age” into an economy that reflects the true value and adventure of the American Entrepreneur Spirit.
Rocky: Thanks for your responses. Like you, I believe we agree on alot of things and if some of the stuff I wrote seemed personal, I apologize. I don’t mean any of it to be.
On the topic though, do you not think it is kind of funny how, we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but yet, when all is said and done, there is common ground. I believe this is what is missing in our leaders of today.
One last thing, Limmy and Blabbity drive me nuts! I can no more listen to these guys than I can Moore or Franken, who I have been equated with from the other side.
I have really enjoyed talking this issue over with you and I truely respect your opinions. I hope we can have many more.
Thanks
kctim,
I appreciate your comments. I think that the main problem in this country is that more people don’t take advantage of forums like these.
Thanks for the stimulating posts.
