Third Party & Independents: Archives

My problem with your suggestion to do away with SS benefits for those who do not need it is that SS then becomes an additional tax to those who decide to invest for their future. I understand the social argument for keeping seniors from becoming destitute, and I agree. However, means testing as you suggest changes the expectations on the American worker. He/she may now accept the limited and guaranteed(?) compensation from the US government, or they plan for their own retirement and in doing so, they accept a tax hike for which they receive nothing in return (other than the assurance that they won’t make less than if they did nothing at all…). The net result is fewer individuals investing in their independence from the Government for their retirement. I would argue that the reason your solution even presents itself currently is due to the motivation to supplement SS benefits through lifetime investment. A plan such as the one you suggest would likely see a decline in such motivation, and thus a return towards the government providing SS benefits to %100 of the eligble senior population, the only difference being a new, increased dependence on the government.

Secretly, Bush probably wants to dismantle
Social Security, because he doesn’t believe
the government can ever not mismanage it.
He probably thinks government shouldn’t
try to run entitlements, because, the government
always abuses and mismanages such systems.
He also believes the government over taxes.
I agree on both issues. It should be very easy
to resolve the S.S. problem, except for one
inescapable fact: politicians can’t help
but plunder and mismanage such entitlement
programs, which is one of the reasons it’s in trouble.

However, the following statement surprises me.
Not because we should have sympathy for the wealthy,
but it just seems so wrong in so many ways; it
seems to violate some very basic philosophies:
|
| Those who don’t need Social Security
| checks to retire comfortably should not get
| any benefit payments
|
You’re not going to like this,
but the statement above sounds very much like
envy, disquised as demand-for-equality.

Or, perhaps, there’s no envy or malice,
but a genuine feeling of entitlement to
other people’s money (for what ever rationalization)?

Regardless, it fails some very basic tests
of “fairness” and “equality”.

In theory, Social Security sounds like a great system.
In reality, politicians will always find ways to plunder it and mismanage it, while also finding
a way to be total unaccountable.
Some have benefited from S.S., but in time,
younger generations are going to get cheated.

AParker-

That’s been the resistance to means testing since the eighties; means testing will damage the widespread political support for the program.

David-

Do you think the current SS model is the most efficient, cost effective method for providing a minimum retirement benefit plus minimal catastrophic insurance coverage?

OSI, “some have benefitted”? Millions upon millions have benefitted and so have the wealthy. SS helped create the great consumer middle class we and capitalists enjoy the fruits of today. Get off it already. SS was, is, and can continue to be a cornerstone for a healthy dynamic economy and insurance against a caste system that puts 10’s of millions of beggars on the streets as in India.

We all pay for military defense and roads and space missions whether we believe we need those programs or not. Hell, half this country opposed invading Iraq, but, they are paying for it anyway, because that is democracy in action. Surely, if we can afford space missions to Mars, we can agree that a safety net for our elderly who fought our wars, maintained our economy, and paid into the system with taxes to support our current way of life, surely we can afford to insure that our senior citizens who gave us so much, do not die or wither in old age in poverty. The price of social security is a small price to pay for the respect and honor we owe our parents and grandparents for this great nation handed to us.

If the price is too high, then let’s get on down the road toward becoming another Calcutta where children are sold, the disabled beg on every street corner, and the elderly die in alleys when family can’t afford to maintain them. Yes, let’s do get busy saving this great nation or kill it outright. Enough of this tinkering around. Save Soc. Sec. and dignity for our elderly or dump them into poor houses of abuse, neglect, and quiet desperation as a sign of our me generation values.

they accept a tax hike for which they receive nothing in return (other than the assurance that they won’t make less than if they did nothing at all…).

Not having my doorstep littered with homeless people is certainly something to invest in.

|
|| they accept a tax hike for which they receive || nothing in return (other than the assurance
|| that they won’t make less than if they did
|| nothing at all…).
|
| Not having my doorstep littered with homeless
| people is certainly something to invest in.
|

Wow! I wasn’t expecting that.
It seems contraindictory to your previous assertions.

oops….maybe not contradictory…
depending on your viewpoint.

Higher taxes to prevent it ?
Or, no riff raff in your neighborhood ?

David, how the hell did, “SS helped create the great consumer middle class we and capitalists enjoy the fruits of today?” I’m assuming you have some sort of logic to back this up but I can’t imagine what it would be.

S.S. may be a blessing to some now, but it’s
going to be a curse to the younger generations,
being taxed much more to fund S.S., while
recipients will receive less (if almost nothing).

David
“do not die or wither in old age in poverty”

“then let’s get on down the road toward becoming another Calcutta where children are sold, the disabled beg on every street corner, and the elderly die in alleys when family can’t afford to maintain them”

These are YOUR predictions. You cannot prove this is what will happen anymore than I can prove that by people being able to take care of themselves it would create a sense of self responsibility and they would plan and save for their retirement on their own. Which would lessen the burden placed on SS.

Obviously you don’t believe my views are worthy enough to be on here but I will continue to ask my questions.

How is it fair to LOWER one persons quality of life in order to make another persons quality of life BETTER than the persons lowered?

This is about retirement planning, not public services that everybody contributes to.

kctim,
| How is it fair to LOWER one persons quality
| of life in order to make another persons
| quality of life BETTER than the persons
| lowered?

You are absolutely correct. It’s not fair.

What we have here is a difference of opinion that
really reveals and boils down to a very basic
and fundamental difference in philosophy and
sense of fairness and rights.
Some people, for what ever reason, feel they
are entitled to other people’s assets.

It is so foreign to my values, and sense of
fairness, that it facinates me to a degree.

|
| This is about retirement planning, not
| public services that everybody contributes to.
|
Well, almost anyone who works, pays S.S.
S.S. is an entitlement, but not a human right.
S.S. was originally touted as a supplemental savings system,
but in 1939, politicians discovered ways to plunder S.S.

To me, S.S. is a sort of contract, and that
contract has been violated. The government
has mismanaged S.S., and violated our trust.

Politicians are always testing the levels of
abuse that the people will tolerate.
Perhaps, the politicians have gone too far this time…it may be too late to save S.S.
It will be interesting to see what people do when S.S. becomes so
pathetically mismanaged.
Perhaps, they’ll get fed up?
And, perhaps, like sheep, they do nothing.
Politicians are hoping on the later.

Some people, for what ever reason, feel they are entitled to other people’s assets.

Mind-bogglingly greedy.

A society is a group of people living or working together. (From wikipedia, but feel free to check the definition of society in a dictionary of your choice) For better or for worse, we’re all stuck on this planet, TOGETHER.

kctim, let’s look at some facts:

The average household income for those over 65 is about 56 percent of the average of all
households.(2)

As the President indicated this week, pensions are in very, very big trouble. In fact, it is going to be much more difficult and expensive to save pensions than it will be to save SS. In 1998, private pensions had assets of $5,732 billion, and state and local pension funds had assets of $2,344 billion.(3)

If pensions are failing, no need to take the President’s word on this, plenty of conservative and liberal think tanks have been pouring over this problem for years, and the Social Security program is ended and seniors have only 56% of the national average of income, what does that spell? It spells senior citizens dying or withering away in poverty, my friend. If you don’t want to follow that logic, fine, but, the facts and logic are sound nonetheless.

Some more facts: In 1970, those over 65 years of age were 9.8 percent of the population. By 1995, seniors were 12.7 percent of the population. In
2010 seniors will account for 13.3 percent of the population, and in 2020 they will account for
16.5 percent.(1)

This is from the SS Adminstration:

Approximately 1 of every 6 Americans receives Social Security benefits and nearly 1 in 4 households receive income from Social Security.
For a third of our beneficiaries, Social Security contributes almost all of their income.

So let’s do a little math in round numbers. Population: 300 million. Divide by 6 for number of folks receiving SS assistance: = 50 million Americans. One third of those (50/3), or almost 17 million would have no income at all if it were not for Social Security.

So kctim, you are wrong. I can prove from the numbers that if SS were ended today, more than 20 million Americans would be destitute and homeless. And from the figures above about the aging population, by 2020, that number would grow by about 4%, or another 2.5 million.

So you can deal with the numbers or deny them as suits your prejudices about social programs vs. pure capitalism. But, the numbers don’t lie, and 1/6 or America’s population would cut their consumption of goods and services were it not for Social Security. Guess what that would do to the economy. Tank it, that’s what. Corporations and small business can kiss their profitability good bye if 1/6 of the nations population stops or dramatically reduces their consumption.

1 Middle Series, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999, Table 17, p.17.

2 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999, Table 744, p. 475.

3 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999, Tables 850-853, pp. 538-539.

|| OSI wrote:
|| Some people, for what ever reason, feel they
|| are entitled to other people’s assets.
|
| Taylor responded:
| Mind-bogglingly greedy.
|

Taylor,
For once, I agree with you.

| Taylor wrote:
| A society is a group of people living or
| working together. (From wikipedia, but feel
| free to check the definition of society in a
| dictionary of your choice) For better or for
| worse, we’re all stuck on this planet,
| TOGETHER.

And? How does that justify legal plunder.

More or less, you’re saying:
[X] We can all believe the “great fiction through which
everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else” — by Frederic Bastiat 1848.
[X] Society can not function unless we take from the rich and give to the poor.
[X] The ranks of the poor will grow if we don’t tax the rich more, and give it to the poor.
[X] Poor people will be sleeping on my doorstep if we don’t make the rich pay more.
[X] The rich deserve to pay more, because they’re rich. Duh !
[X] The rich are arrogant, and don’t work for their money anyway….some of them sink as low to inherit money.
[X] The rich should be responsible and give us their money without forcing it from them.
[X] People are entitled to other people’s money (especially if those other people are rich).
[X] Continue to not hold politicians accountable for most of these problems, and voters accountable for letting it happen

Perhaps, we shouldn’t even let rich people vote
or hold office. That would keep them from
abusing tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

OSI,

Now you’re just building strawman.

: )

One good :) deserves another….

:)

I mean no malice.
This all makes me think,
and sometimes, I learn something.

A good tax system is hard to create.
But, David R. Remer had some good points about
Sales Tax versus Income Tax. I’ve always hated
the idea of taxing income, and thus, thought
Sales Tax was better, but I may be leaning back
over to the Income Tax side again. But, I’m
definitely against graduated (progressive) tax
scales.

However, what we have now is a Tax Everything System (tax income, sales, property, fuel, autos, trucks, etc.).
I surprised we don’t have a poll tax yet ( a tax
for simply existing ).

Excellent article, David.
Yes indeed, you are so right. Like the reality of global warming being confirmed by Nasa scientists yesterday, we may now all acknowledge the fact that ending SS, not mending SS, is Dubya’s nefarious goal. I hope you’re right about the majority of American’s being smart enough to grasp this though, because with the way this is being presented, I’m a little worried about that.

Taylor:
“Now you’re just building strawman.”

That’d be one simple strawman, no? ;^)

Right!
One Simple Solution” is better than Over-Complicated.

However, what we have now is a Tax Everything System (tax income, sales, property, fuel, autos, trucks, etc.). I surprised we don’t have a poll tax yet ( a tax for simply existing ).

On that, I will agree wholeheartedly. Tax on my income, tax on my spending, taxs from every direction I turn, it’s maddening. I actually think the US used to have a poll tax, did they not? (Historians feel free to confirm or dispute)

In any case, yeah, it’s too much. I believe in the K.I.S.S. rule, Keep It Simple, Stupid. Our tax laws are outta control.

Taylor: “Now you’re just building strawman.”

That’d be one simple strawman, no? ;^)

I’m not sure how to respond to that! =)

Yes, the US and many other countries used to have a Poll Tax….
___________________
Poll tax:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A poll tax, head tax, or capitation is a tax of a uniform, fixed amount per individual (as opposed to a percentage of income). Such taxes were important sources of revenue for many countries into the 19th century, but this is no longer the case. There are several famous cases of poll taxes in history, notably a tax formerly required for voting in parts of the United States that was often designed to disenfranchise African Americans, Native Americans, and whites of non-British descent, as well as two taxes levied by John of Gaunt and Margaret Thatcher in the fourteenth and twentieth centuries respectively.

The word poll is an English word that once meant “head”, hence the name poll tax for a per-person tax. However, in the United States, the term has come to be used almost exclusively for a fixed tax applied to voting. Since “going to the polls” is a common idiom for voting (deriving, of course, from the fact that early voting involved head-counts), a new folk etymology has supplanted any knowledge of the phrase’s true origins in America.

The jizyah is a poll tax that, according to Islamic law, Islamic states must take from dhimmis (non-Muslim people of the Book).

United States
The capitation clause of Article I of the United States Constitution, requiring apportionment among the states of “direct taxes”, makes imposition of a poll tax by the federal government unfeasible.

However, states sometimes made payment of a poll tax a pre-condition of the exercise of the right to vote. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws which often included a grandfather clause that allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted to vote without paying the tax. These laws achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African and Native Americans, as well as whites of non-British descent.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, outlawed the use of this tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition in voting in Federal elections. A 1966 Supreme Court decision held that the poll tax as applied to state elections violated the equal protection clause of United States Constitution. Currently no state imposes a poll tax.

|| Taylor: “Now you’re just building strawman.”
|| That’d be one simple strawman, no? ;^)
|
| I’m not sure how to respond to that! =)

That would be referring to my Name/URL One Simple Idea,
or someone’s simple mindedness, or both ?

Either way, that’s a good one :)

I think it’s interesting that President Bush offered a plan at all. Too bad he won’t let go of the wacky privatized accounts.

It’s interesting that the Republicans put the committee writing the bill in the hands of not so prominent Congresspeople. SS reform may start to take on a life of its own, and if they keep screwing around, they may come up with something that actually does strengthen the program - and won’t that tick off a bunch of conservatives in Washington. ;)

Bush committed himself to privatization. To give it up would be to admit defeat. You ever get the feeling BushCo is just making things up as they go along?

It’s doubtful Privatization of Social Security will succeed:
(1) because there’s not enough support by politicians;
(2) because too many politicians are saying there’s really no problem at all;
(3) because Privatization seems more complicated, and seems to create more questions and problems, than answers and solutions;
(4) because Privatization begs the question (even for those not so good in math); since S.S. is a pay-as-you-go-system, and people start putting their money in markets and bonds, where does the money come from to keep paying current S.S. recipients? Smells like more huge deficits and higher taxes, and we already have a $8 trillion national debt; which seemes to be the goal of governments: take much from the people, and give back little in return;
(5) because politicians would lose the ability to plunder S.S. if it is privatized;
(6) because politicians are not going to abandon the biggest ponzi scheme ever created;
(7) because politicians are not going to abandon the biggest control mechanism ever created;
(8) because most Americans don’t believe the stock market is a good gamble either;
(9) because people don’t like change, and people are wary of over-complications, which are usually a favorite tactic of politicians to hide what’s really happening;
(10) because politicians will never do the simple things required to fix so many problems, such as reduce government and spending and borrowing and legal plunder (i.e. spending surpluses in S.S. over the last 65 years); i.e. greed and corruption can’t be reduced without transparency and accountability;
(11) because, it’s the nature of politicians (i.e. parasites) to suck the life (i.e. money) out of all entitlement programs (i.e. ponzi schemes), until there’s nothing left; after all, examine the definition of politicians:
_________________
MAIN ENTRY 1: Politician
Part of Speech: noun
PRONUCIATION: paw-leh-ti-shun
DEFINITION: [n] politician ; [plural] politicians ; derived from poly (meanging many) and tic (a blood sucking parasite); thus: many blood sucking parasites
_________________
MAIN ENTRY 2: Politician
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: office seeker
Synonyms: baby-kisser, boss, chieftain, congressman, flesh presser, glad-hander, parasite, grandstander, hack, handshaker, double-talker, lawmaker, leader, legislator, office seeker, liar, officeholder, orator, con artist, partisan, party member, pol, politico, cheater, public servant, speaker, statesman, warhorse, theif, whistle-stopper
Source: Roger’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus

We all have crossed that dark and bloody battle ground of the SS debate so many times, we could write each others’ posts. One thing has changed with the President’s speech.

President Bush has seized the moral high ground. I don’t know if the details of his plan will work or what it will result in, but now everyone has to assail his ostensibly progressive positions. It is a brilliant piece of agenda setting that has changed the face of the debate. I don’t believe the Dems can win on this one.

What Bush is doing to the Dems is what Clinton did to the Republicans. He has triangulated and come up behind their position. Kudos to Bush; woe to those who try to get around him.

I supported Bill Clinton because he was doing good work. I didn’t care about the reasons. He passed welfare reform. No Republican could have done this good work. He got NAFTA through Congress, something a Republican could not have done easily. In those cases, he also did what was right for the country. Bush is doing the same thing. He is doing what is what is good for the country. Democrats should recognize this, as I do re Clinton.

Jack,

Many Dems are ashamed of the things Clinton did (no, I’m not talking about Monicagate). The capital gains tax cut, the welfare reform, NAFTA and a whole bunch of other crap. Why? Because they were more “Republican” things, Bush, on the other hand, is going hard-line Republican which is alienating a lot of Dems.

“Bush is doing the same thing. He is doing what is what is good for the country.”

You don’t know that, and I’d wager that you have no credible evidence/logic to support this.

Both Democrats and Republicans should be ashamed.
But, then I don’t care much anyway for greedy politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats.

Too often, most of what politicians do is not
based on what is just, fair, or even necessary.
Too often, most of what politicians do is based
on power, money, control, and (in Clinton’s
and JFK and some others cases) access to women
that will throw themselves at them.
And, once in a while, they do something good
for everyone (for awhile anyway…but, given time,
they’ll screw up most things they meddle in).

It does appear that each at first (before being elected)
appear to be more conservative or more liberal,
and then after they’re elected,
they do things you would have expected from their opponent.
Such as growing Medicare, the National Debt,
never vetoing the pork-barrel.
And, Republicans used to be viewed as the more
conservative, but they now get 1st prize for
over spending.
And, ironically, Clinton almost balanced the annual
budget during his last year in office (something I never expected).
But, in reality, both parties and too many
politicians only know how to tax-and-spend
and grow the government larger and larger every year.
One day, those fat tics (uh…I mean politicians) will over
gorge and finally fall off, or suck the country dry.

OK, some taxes go back to the people for
National Defense, Social Security, Medicare,
Welfare, Roads, Highways, the Energy Department
(what a waste), the Agricultural Department
(Farm Subsidies), etc.

But, a huge part of the money is wasted on a portion of the millions
of government employees (many just dead weight) doing things
that provide no net-benefit to society
(there are more people in government that all manufacturing jobs in the U.S.),
politicians cu$hy multi-million dollar pensions,
pork-barrel (to pay off their constituents) that
often provides no net benefit to society, and
unnecessary travel all over the planet at the
tax payers expense, etc., etc., etc.

We need to ask ourselves…why send money to
the government (at any level), only to get a
fraction of it back? Ah, some will say
redistribution of wealth is necessary to prevent
rebellion/revolution. I don’t buy that. In fact,
it may in fact, create rebellion/revolution.
Some will say we need to care for the poor.
Most agree with that. But the poor too often
are NOT the ones receiving the welfare.
Some will say it is for the common goals and
needs of society. Most will agree with that.
But too often, government plunders and mismanages
the programs designed to meet the goals of
society (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, HUD,
Energy Department, Welfare, etc. etc. etc.).

Regardless of what program we allow government to manage,
they seem quite talented and have a great track record for mismanaging it.
Regardless of what programs we allow government to manage,
we must demand transparency and accountability.
Nothing will ever improve or be fixed, without first addressing the root cause, and solution.

Jack, as long as he continues to torpedo the revenue needed to pay SS benefits he promises by diverting revenues away from the program, the President’s plan will go nowhere and all he will garner from the public is more distrust of Republicans where domestic policy is concerned.

The President is becoming an albatross around his party’s neck all because of this privatizing scheme. I couldn’t have wished for Bush to assume a more unpopular and logically indefensible position. I recall a previous president having assumed the same position with sex in the whitehouse.

The options keep shrinking as the debt grows.
In fact, debt can become a security risk to the nation.

How did government grow so big, and does it need to be so big ?
Do we really need all of these offices, departments, agencies, commissions, etc. etc. etc. I didn’t see a National Debt Department ,
so I guess nobody is working on that problem.

_______________
The President
The Vice President
The President’s Cabinet
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Defense (DOD) , Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Federal Advisory Committees
Quasi-Official Agencies
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
House Leadership Offices
House Organizations, Commissions and Task Forces
Office of Inspector General
Office of the Clerk
Architect of the Capitol
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Government Printing Office (GPO)
Library of Congress
Stennis Center for Public Service
U.S. Botanic Garden
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Federal Judicial Center
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. Bankruptcy Courts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Courts of Appeals, by Geographic Location and Circuit
U.S. Sentencing Commission
U.S. Tax Court
Accessibility - Access Board
Accessibility - Section508
Acquisition ? Federal Business Opportunities
Acquisition - Business Partner Network
Acquisition - Federal Technical Data Solution
Acquisition - Past Performance Information
After School Programs
Aging Statistics
Americans Living and Traveling Abroad
Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government
Biometrics Catalog
Business Gateway
Business Law
Businesses
Careers
Child Care
Childrens’ Statistics
Citizens
Climate
Clinical Trials
College Students
Consumer Action
Consumer Publications
Consumers
Customer Service and Satisfaction
Disability Info
Disaster First Responders
Economy
EConsumer e-Commerce Complaints
Educational Resources
Electronic Funds Collection for Federal Agencies
Electronic Government
Emergency Preparedness
Exports
Federal Asset Sales
Federal Employee Personnel and Payroll Gateway
Federal Employees Gateway
Federal Jobs
Federal Laws
Federal Resources for Educational Excellence (FREE)
Fire Safety
Firefighters
Food Safety
Forms
Geographic Data
Geospatial One-Stop
Government Benefits
Government Purchasers
Grants
Health ? MEDLINEplus
Health - Healthfinder
Hispanic Business Owners
Home Sales
Intelligence Community
Invasive Species
Jobs (America’s Job Bank)
Kids
Knowledge Management
Loans ? GovLoans.gov
MedllinePlus
My Money
Native Americans
Nonprofits
Nutrition
Parents
Partners Against Violence
Persons with Disabilities
Plain Language
Press Releases from Federal Agencies
Recalls
Recreation
Regulations ? Comment Online
Regulations - Federal, State and Local
Science
Science Portal for Technical Reports, GrayLit Network
Self-Employed Persons
Seniors
Spanish Speakers
State and Local Governments
Statistics
Student Jobs
Teachers
Telephone and E-mail Directories
Telephone and E-mail Directories for Federal, State and Local Government
Telework in the Federal Government
Thrift Savings Plan for Federal Employees
Training Online for Federal Employees
Tribal Governments
Usability
Volunteers
Women-Owned Businesses
XML
Youth Violence Prevention
9-11 Commission (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration on Aging (AoA)
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Agency for International Development
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Agriculture Department (USDA)
Air Force
Alabama State, County and City Websites
Alaska State, County and City Websites
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
American Battle Monuments Commission
AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Appalachian Regional Commission
Architect of the Capitol
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
Archives (National Archives and Records Administration)
Arctic Research Commission
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Arms Control and International Security
Army
Army Corps of Engineers
Army Environmental Center
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Bankruptcy Courts
Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation
Botanic Garden
Broadcasting Board of Governors (Voice of America, Radio|TV Marti and more)
Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (Treasury)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Justice)
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS)
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Bureau of Industry and Security (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Bureau of Prisons
Bureau of Public Debt
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of the Census
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Census Bureau
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board
Chief Financial Officers Council
Chief Information Officers Council
Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee
Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service)
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq)
Coast Guard
Commerce Department
Commission of Fine Arts
Commission on Civil Rights
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Community Development Office (Agriculture Department)
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Community Planning and Development
Comptroller of the Currency Office
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Constitution Center
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Copyright Office (Library of Congress)
Corporation for National and Community Service
Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
County and City Governments
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Court of Federal Claims
Court of International Trade
Customs and Border Protection
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Department (DOD)
Defense Field Activities
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Defense Security Service
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Delaware River Basin Commission
Denali Commission
Disability Employment Policy Office
District of Columbia Home Page
Domestic Policy Council
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Economic Analysis, Bureau of
Economic and Statistics Administration
Economic Development Administration
Economic Research Service
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (State Department)
Education Department (ED)
Election Assistance Commission
Elementary and Secondary Education
Employee Benefits Security Administration (formerly Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration)
Employment and Training Administration (Labor Department)
Employment Standards Administration
Endangered Species Committee
Energy Department (DOE)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Information Administration
Enforcement (Treasury Department)
English Language Acquisition Office
Engraving and Printing, Bureau of
Environment, Safety and Health
Environmental Management (Energy Department)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Export Administration (now the Bureau of Industry and Security)
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office
Farm Credit Administration
Farm Service Agency
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Consulting Group
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Election Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Executive Boards
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
Federal Financing Bank
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
Federal Interagency Committee on Education
Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
Federal Judicial Center
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Federal Library and Information Center Committee
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Reserve System
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Student Aid
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Federal Transit Administration
Federated States of Micronesia Home Page
Financial Management Service (Treasury Department)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Forest Service
Fossil Energy
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
General Services Administration (GSA)
Geological Survey (USGS)
Global Affairs (State Department)
Global Communications Office (White House)
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Government National Mortgage Association
Government Printing Office (GPO)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
Health and Human Services Department (HHS)
Health Resources and Services Administration
Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe)
Holocaust Memorial Museum
Homeland Security Department (DHS)
House Leadership Offices
House of Representatives
House of Representatives Committees
House Office of Inspector General
House Office of the Clerk
House Organizations, Commissions and Task Forces
House Representatives on the Web
Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)
Housing Office (HUD)
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bureau of
Immigration and Naturalization Service (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services)
Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Indian Arts and Crafts Board
Indian Health Service
Industrial College of the Armed Forces
Industry and Security, Bureau of (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
Information Resource Management College
Innovation and Improvement Office
Institute of Education Sciences
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Institute of Peace
Inter-American Foundation
Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
Interagency Council on Homelessness
Interagency Electronic Grants Committee
Interior Department
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB)
International Labor Affairs, Bureau of
International Trade Administration (ITA)
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
Japan-United States Friendship Commission
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
Joint Forces Staff College
Joint Task-Force Armed Forces Inaugural Committee
Judicial Circuit Courts of Appeal, by Geographic Location and Circuit
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Justice Department
Justice Programs Office (Juvenile Justice, Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women and more)
Justice Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Department (DOL)
Labor Statistics, Bureau of
Land Management, Bureau of
Lead Hazard Control (Housing and Urban Development Department)
Legal Services Corporation
Library of Congress
Local Governments
Marine Corps
Marine Mammal Commission
Maritime Administration
Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department)
Marshals Service
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (formerly the Physician Payment Review Commission and the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission)
Merit Systems Protection Board
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Minerals Management Service
Minority Business Development Agency
Mint (Treasury Department)
Missile Defense Agency
Mississippi River Commission
Morris K. Udall Foundation: Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Multifamily Housing Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National AIDS Policy Office
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
National Capital Planning Commission
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission)
National Communications System (Homeland Security)
National Constitution Center
National Council on Disability
National Counterintelligence Executive, Office of
National Credit Union Administration
National Defense University
National Drug Intelligence Center
National Economic Council
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Gallery of Art
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Guard
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Institute of Justice
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Interagency Fire Center
National Labor Relations Board
National Laboratories (Energy Department)
National Marine Fisheries
National Mediation Board
National Nuclear Security Administration
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Park Foundation
National Park Service
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
National Reconnaissance Office
National Science Foundation
National Security Agency?Central Security Service
National Security Council
National Technical Information Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
National Transportation Safety Board
National War College
National Weather Service
Native American Tribal Government Websites
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Navy
Northwest Power Planning Council
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Compliance
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Office of Special Counsel
Office of Thrift Supervision
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Pardon Attorney Office
Parole Commission (Justice Department)
Patent and Trademark Office
Peace Corps
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (now the Employee Benefits Security Administration)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Policy Development and Research (Housing and Urban Development Department)
Political Affairs (State Department)
Postal Rate Commission
Postal Service (USPS)
Postsecondary Education
Power Administrations
President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond
President’s Commission on the U.S. Postal Service
President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency
President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Presidential Inaugural Committee
Presidio Trust
Public and Indian Housing
Public Debt, Bureau of
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (State Department)
Puerto Rico Home Page
Radio and TV Marti (Espa񯬩
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Radio Free Europe|Radio Liberty (RFE|RL)
Railroad Retirement Board
Reclamation, Bureau of
Regulatory Information Service Center
Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department)
Research and Special Programs Administration (Transportation Department)
Research, Education and Economics (Agriculture Department)
Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department)
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Science Office (Energy Department)
Secret Service
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Selective Service System
Senate
Senate Committees
Senate Leadership
Senators on the Web
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Smithsonian Institution
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Social Security Advisory Board
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
State Department
State Home Pages
State Justice Institute
Stennis Center for Public Service
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Superfund Basic Research Program
Supreme Court of the United States
Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
Surface Transportation Board
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Tax Court
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Technology Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Territories of the United States
Trade and Development Agency
Transportation Department (DOT)
Transportation Security Administration
Transportation Statistics, Bureau of
Treasury Department
Tribal Government Websites
Trustee Program (Justice Department)
U.S. Border Patrol (now Customs and Border Protection)
U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. International Trade Commission
U.S. Mint
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
U.S. National Central Bureau - Interpol (Justice Department)
U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
U.S. Trade Representative
U.S. Virgin Islands
Unified Combatant Commands (Defense Department)
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Vietnam Educational Foundation
Vocational and Adult Education
Voice of America (VOA)
Washington Home Page
Washington State, County and City Websites
Weather Service, National
White House
White House Commission on Presidential Scholars
White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance
White House Office of Administration
Women’s Bureau (Labor Department)
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Worldnet Television

_______________

Ooopps….there is a Department of Public Debt

All I can say is, they’re doin’ a really crappy job.

…. well … a crappy job if their job is to
find ways to reduce debt.

Maybe they misunderstood their instructions
and thought their job was to find ways to
increase the national debt…in that case
their doing an excellent job.

Zeek you say:

“Bush is doing the same thing. He is doing what is what is good for the country.”

You don’t know that, and I’d wager that you have no credible evidence/logic to support this.

This is a normative statement, an opinion. I can’t bring up evidence to support it nor can you bring up evidence to deny it. That is why we have disagreements. Where we can prove something, we generally don’t argue. I believe the President is generally doing what is good for the country. If I did not, I would not support him. Opponent of bush believe that he is generally not doing what is good for the country. If they believed he was good for the country, they would support him. Both sides are likely to be wrong on specifics, but since we don’t have conditions to actually experiment, we will probably not come to consensus.

David:

By the reaction of you and Democrats it is possible to see the Democratic plan. Bush did not come up with the idea of private accounts. These of course were promoted by Democrats in the past. Clinton and Moynahan come to mind. Secondly, this proposal to cut increases in benefits did not come from Republicans either. It as well is one that came from a Democrat.

This painting Bush as evil for promoting plans that Democrats themselves have proposed or are proposing to me is very interesting politics.

Now there is only one more option left. Raising taxes!! Now if Bush came out in favor of raising taxes, private accounts and reducing benefits for more affluent citizens, all three of which Democrats have proposed in the past, he would still be villianized.

If I were Bush I would keep on going.

Polling data clearly shows that Americans want taxes to remain the same, and for the deficit to be cut by spending cuts.

Since Congress and the President have been spending money like drunken sailors that last few years, (and even before Bush II), I think the American people are right. Cut spending first, THEN raise taxes if need be.

I agree with the tax proposal because we need to get a hold on the budget. When I see Congress put back in place the spending ceiling from the nineties, and make a good health effort a budget cuts, then I would be open to tax increases.

Craig

| Craig Holmes wrote:
| Polling data clearly shows that Americans want
| taxes to remain the same, and for the deficit
| to be cut by spending cuts.

I really wonder about that.
It would be great if it were true.
If it is not true, government is still irresponsible.
If it is true, it means government doesn’t do what most of the people want.

Either way, we’re all screwed.
It would be nice if the people could vote on
some of the issues…say once per month?
On some important issue? After all, isn’t it
supposed to be a government of/for/by the people?

OSS, please, where possible, please link to lengthy lists like you provided above rather than eat up server space and forcing readers not interested in it to wade past it.

Jack,

“This is a normative statement, an opinion. I can’t bring up evidence to support it nor can you bring up evidence to deny it.”

True, but you must have some reason for supporting Bush, some reason for thinking he’s doing what’s right for the country. Maybe you can’t back it up with hard evidence; that’s fine, just tell me what your gut feeling is. Because regardless of whether you have solid proof or not, you still have to have some form of logic/reasoning.

My reasoning for saying he’s not “doing good for the country,” is that the only notable things he’s done in 4 years are take us to war (bad), take a hard-line supply-side approach to taxes (IMO, bad), and push through the USA PATRIOT Act (bad). I also find he has few redeeming qualities. So, what’s your response?

Zeek

I have been writing reasons for my support of President Bush since before the election. I have argued them all at one time or another and others have disagreed. I have also said that I don’t agree with everything he has said or done, but compared with the alternative (Kerry) I didn’t see that there was any contest. I have also said that I supported President Clinton, who I also think did a good job, although I also didn’t agree with everything he did or said.

You can find the various notes in the archives where I have discussed and defended what I believe. It took me hours to write them all. Let me give you the top ten off the top of my head.

I believe that:

President Bush’s robust response to terrorism prevented further terror attacks on the U.S. after 9/11.

His tax cuts caused the downturn of 2000 to be shorter and shallower.

The Patriot Act is in general necessary. There is a lot of talk of potential problems, but nothing concrete that I consider makes the act bad.

Bush’s market based proposals on the environment will result in a cleaner environment at a lower cost.

The war in Iraq was a good decision and the right thing to do based on the information available and was executed well. Despite setbacks, I believe it has the potential to transform the Middle East, which will make us all safer and more prosperous.

I like the President’s ideas on the ownership society.

The Bush Justice Department has been less aggressive in pursuing affirmative action cases and has sometimes opposed them.

I believe the President is being courageous in addressing SS.

I believe we have a better chance of getting school choice with Bush

Bush’s judicial philosophy leans to stricter constructionism, which I think is legitimate.

You see, we just plain disagree. I have explained my reasoning many times. Generally, I believe that my children have a better chance of living in the kind of America I want them to with President Bush than they would with the alternatives. In the last election, about more than 50% of the voters agreed with me. A little less than 50% disagreed.

Both side presumably thought they were doing what was best for America.

And that is what we are debating each day.

When I see Congress put back in place the spending ceiling from the nineties, and make a good health effort a budget cuts, then I would be open to tax increases.

The you’ll ask your Senators to support Senate bill S.19 (full text).

Unfortunately, Republicans believe no one is interested in balancing the budget,

“You cannot manufacture a consensus for statutory controls when the consensus for budget discipline is not strong enough,” said Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the House Budget Committee. “I do not believe, unfortunately, there is a broad enough consensus necessary to enact budget controls into law.”

Let them know they’re wrong.

Kerry Threatens to Unveil Social Security Plan
by Scott Ott (scrappleface.com)
(2005-04-30) — While he was campaigning for president, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA, often noted that he had a plan to save Social Security.
Today, in his boldest move yet, he threatened to unveil his plan unless President Bush backs away from his proposal to reform the taxpayer-funded retirement system.
Mr. Kerry, during his 2004 White House bid, suggested he would not “privatize” the money that Americans put into the government-run system, and he would not cut benefits.
However, America’s failure to elect him to the White House seemed to ensure that his Social Security plan would remain cloaked in mystery, since as a mere Senator he can do little more than introduce bills and lead his colleagues to turn them into laws.
“As you’ll recall, my plan is better than the president’s,” said Mr. Kerry at today’s news conference. “It saves our beloved Social Security without any changes to benefits, taxes, or any other element of the system. If the president persists in attacking the co-dependent relationship between America’s seniors and the Democrat party, I will unleash my plan in all its magnificent glory.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, wondered aloud if the Kerry plan might be the hoped for “miracle” that would catapult the Democrat party back to majority status in the Senate in 2006.
Party insiders said that Mr. Kerry’s revived suggestion of a plan also helped to cement his position as “the visionary leader” among Democrats and the frontrunner for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination.

Report: U.S. Foreign Policy Hurting American Students’ Chances Of Getting Laid Abroad

AMSTERDAM - American students traveling abroad confirm the findings of a study indicating that Washington’s unilateral approach to foreign policy has seriously undermined Americans’ chances of getting laid. “I’ve been in Amsterdam for two months and have yet to begin a conversation with a cute girl that hasn’t ended in a lecture about how big, evil America is taking everyone’s oil,” said college sophomore Brad Higgs, a participant in Johns Hopkins University’s study-abroad program. “I offer to buy them a drink, and they tell me I shouldn’t just stand by and watch Bush destroy the world. Look, if I had that type of pull with the president, I obviously wouldn’t be out trolling for anonymous Dutch pussy.”

I figured a scrappleface article deserved an answer from the onion. I hope that wasn’t inappropriate. :)

You mean those stories aren’t true?

Wonderful debate by all! Thanks for starting this one, David!

I do have two questions, though:

(1) To those who support Bush’s plan: Where do you propose the money for private accounts come from? Do we cut benefits now, drain the surplus faster, incur more debt, raise taxes, or something else? Bush hasn’t really explained this one sufficiently. (As a side question, if the Federal Government can’t be trusted to manage S.S. properly, can it be trusted to manage a private account system, where the risks/rewards are even greater?)

(2) To David: What is your proposal? You’ve done an excellent job in picking apart Bush’s plan. Now provide an alternative! I’m fairly certain you’re not suggesting we leave things the way they are, are you? Let us pick apart YOUR plan! :-)

ANSWER to (1) above:
Cut spending, departments, offices, etc.,
and stop spending the S.S. surpluses, so that
there’s a reserve when needed (as now) for
times when number of recipients increases.
Taxes are high enough; never raise taxes.
People should ALSO prepare for their own
retirement plans (e.g. pensions, 401Ks, stocks,
etc.), and they are free to choose those.

ANSWER to (2):
First, get some control over an out-of-control government, growing larger and larger all the time. Improvement is unlikely until core changes are made:

(1) Vote out all incumbents, and vote in ordinary “John Q. Public” into office, until things improve (every election, until improvements are made).
(2) Too many things are hidden in large bills. Allow only ONE item per bill, to reveal what is really going on (i.e. more transparency).
(3) Reduce government, cut spending, eliminate, unnecessary departments, agencies, offices, and simplify the tax system (remove loop holes, deductions, etc.);
(4) Implement an “Approval Voting” system.
(5) Enforce the laws better, and stop perverting the law for legal plunder (e.g. raiding S.S.)
(6) Protect or phase out entitlement programs.
(7) Pass a “Balanced Budget” amendment and/or set a limit on borrowing, and start reducing debt. Also, remove Congress’ automatic periodic raises. Let the people vote on their raises.
(8) When there is grid-lock in Congress, the people get to vote on the issue.
(9) Stop perpetuating the “great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else” — by Frederic Bastiat 1848.

However, this plan can only work if voters can ever all agree on one thing using one thing they already have, that’s already built into the system, and costs nothing: their vote.

Seems like there are more posts “picking apart proposed plans” than presenting a “solution”.
For every idea shot down, a “solution” to replace it would be more constructive.
Our knack for disagreeing with everything, while
providing no solution results in one thing: nothing; grid-lock.
While we never will agree on everything, more
“solutions” and “ideas” are needed, and less “picking apart” and less “grid-lock”, and then it would be nice if we could all vote on WHICH plan is best.

Rob, I outlined a plan much earlier in these comments. It would be redundant to repeat it again.

David,

I’ve read over your post and comments three times now, and, unless I’ve missed something, the only solution you’ve mentioned is means-testing. Are you suggesting that means-testing alone is the solution? Unless you plan to lower the testing criteria every year, it’s a short-term solution at best. Something else is needed, too.

One Simple Idea,

You’ve confused me. In previous comments, you’ve complained that the federal government has “plundered” the S.S. fund for other purposes, when it was supposed to be separate from other funds/budgets. Now you recommend that the solution to S.S. is to cut other departments and their spending (presumably to use that money for S.S.). Do you favor a separate S.S. fund, or not?

While I agree with most of your suggestions for governmental improvement, they wouldn’t effect S.S. either way if it were protected from “plundering” (as it should be), so that alone won’t save S.S.

Thoughts?

Well, the government has filled the S.S.
lock-box with a bunch of I.O.U.s
so if S.S. is going to be saved, it may be
necessary to cut spending, cut duplicate and
unnecessary departments, agencies, offices, etc.,
and temporarily route those funds to pay back
the funds plundered from S.S.
As soon as S.S. is fixed, then taxes can be
reduced for all of those spending cuts for
eliminated duplicate and unnecessary departments, agencies, offices, etc.,

Do we really need all of these government agencies, departments, offices, committees, etc.

Either we fix S.S., protect it, stop plundering it, or phase it out gradually (which will take
a lot of money and a long long time).
It seems logical that S.S. can be fixed.
But, greed and corruption always gets in the
way. So, we need ways to reduce greed and
corruption, so that government can accomplish
simple things, instead of screwing up the most
simple things.

If government could demonstrate the ability to
do what is necessary, it would go a long ways
to restore some of the people’s faith in the government.

Rob Cottrell,

Click on my Name/URL.

OSI,

I did. It’s an interesting proposal. There are a great many merits to it. But, again, it will not save Social Security. Even if the government fulfills its IOUs to the SS fund, if we don’t increase payments or decrease benefits, there will eventually come a day when there’s not enough money to cover the tab.

David suggests means-testing (one way of decreasing benefits) as a solution. What do you recommend?

Rob, and eliminating the income caps on FICA premiums so that Bill Gates pays the same percentage of his income as I or any working stiff making less than 80,000 a year.

Rob,
I was once opposed to taxing income, but I think
a Flat Income Tax Rate may be the best approach,
since it’s already being taxed.

But we should try to keep it simple:
(1) eliminate ALL deductions
(2) eliminate ALL tax loop holes
(3) eliminate ALL upper-level caps
(4) everyone pays the same Flat Income Tax Rate (except those living below the poverty level, who pay nothing (or get a refund))

Before, I felt a National Sales tax would be
better. But it seems unlikely, since too many
feel the rich won’t be taxed enough, despite
the fact that the rich spend a lot more than
the average tax payer, and that the poor would
pay too much. Perhaps that is true.

Thus, I think the rich will find it difficult to
argue against a Flat Income Tax Rate. That’s an
improvement over the graduated progressive tax
system as currently exists.

A Flat Income Tax Rate would also make the Tax
Code MUCH more simple, and save Americans
$billions (due to time and money spent managing
data required to file tax returns).

My Tax Returns are sometimes 20 or 30+ pages long.
It’s ridiculous. It wastes many hours of time every year saving and organizing receipts, tracking certain deductible expenses, portions of utilities, services, repairs, mileage, etc. etc. etc. April always puts me in a bad mood.

Just think how happy Americans would be if all
of that was eliminated.

OSI,

“Just think how happy Americans would be if all
of that [tax returns] was eliminated. “

Hm, I’m not sure if there are enough accountants in the WORLD to do that…

Please take the above joke in the spirit it was given :P

You’ve done an excellent job in picking apart Bush’s plan. Now provide an alternative!

I say we do nothing for a couple decades and see what the projections look like then. After all, we’ll still have three more decades to make adjustments if necessary. :)

OK…it took a minute. I’m slow.
Some companies like H&R Block (a very large
corporation…I often buy their Tax Cut Software)
and Quicken/Intuit (TurboTax) will be affected by
Tax reform, which will put a whole lot of Tax Professionals out of business.
HRB (H&R Block’s Stock Symbol, currently about $50 per share) would probably drop like a rock. Should we be cognizant at all of these companies? I don’t think so…they’ve profited plenty over the years due to a nightmare tax system where many profit from chaos while never providing any net benefit to society.
I don’t demonize HRB or Quicken. Them and all
tax accountants are only providing a much needed service created by an incredibly complicated tax system.

AP,

Since I doubt Congress has the discipline to
manage S.S. or anything correctly, I agree with that.
Do nothing for 20+ years. By then, it will be too late,
the system will finally die a slow and agonizing death,
and we’ll finally be rid of a the anvil that’s been hanging around
our neck while we’ve been swimming upstream.

There will also be a lot of pain and misery as
people realize they’re getting nothing back
from the thousands they’ve paid into S.S.
over their lifetime.

Social Security will be in a bit of trouble
by 2017 (probably sooner with so much national
debt and record deficits). S.S. will be in
big trouble by 2041. 77 million baby boomers
is not a trivial matter to be ignored, but let’s all watch as government does exactly that.
Just wait and watch the huge train wreck that’s coming.

Oh well, C’est la Vie ! What will be will be …

AP, the amount of underfunding come 2041 is too large to ignore today. Saving SS means making small changes today and avoiding huge ones later which either will not pass muster or will cost America far too much in other ways.

I say wait until Bush is out of office. Then regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in office, small changes to fully fund the system through the next 75 years is a duty and responsibility. Privatizing is not an option for saving SS nor is waiting decades.

David, the 2041 date is based on an economy that grows at 1.5% annually. We’re doing twice that, and the latest projection pushed out the date to 2052 - a full decade later.

Do nothing for 20+ years. By then, it will be too late

How so? Thirty years seems like plenty of time to take remedial action if necessary.

This is what I’m talking about.

During a Feb. 4 speech in Tampa, Florida, President George W. Bush pointed to a chart showing the Social Security system running out of money by 2042.

“What are you going to do about that chart?” he urged the crowd to ask their senators and representatives.

What Bush didn’t tell his audience was that if the forecast is correct, the U.S. will have its worst economic performance since the Great Depression. He also didn’t say that his own White House economists disagree with some of the basic assumptions of the chart, which was drawn up by the Social Security Administration.

Telling me that Social Security is going to go “bankrupt” fifty years from now is just like predicting that I’m going to have 38 cents in my pocket on May 3, 2052. There’s no way you could possibly know that.

Currently, the system is running a surplus. Talk to me when/if it stops taking in more money than it pays out.

Of course no one has a crystal ball, but
some simple calculations can show the probable
outcomes in S.S. in the future. For example,
take 77+ million baby boomers, and estimate their
benefits (S.S. and Medicare).

In 2003 there were 47 million S.S. recipients
receiving $471 billion.

The total recipients will jump to 77+ million
receiving about $771 billion (in 2003 US dollars).

But, also, the retirement age is set to increase
from 65 to 67 (for people born after 1959).

In 2003, due to surpluses from various sources,
there was a surplus of over $153 billion. There
will be more surpluses in the near future.

If surpluses are spent, and the national debt
continues to rapidly grow, there will be trouble,
and government will run higher deficits to cover
the short fall in S.S., or resort to reduced
S.S. benefits, if forced to.

If surpluses are protected, there should be
plenty to fund S.S. way beyond the near future (e.g. 2078).

The wild card in the entire plan is the
growing national debt (now about $8 trillion),
which should be taken into account.
The debt isn’t helping provide options for
solutions. If spending and waste continues at
the current rate, all bets are off for the future of S.S.

Clearly, Bush doesn’t trust (understandably) the
government to manage S.S., so he must think
privatization is the solution. Odd. If Bush wants
out of the entitlements business, why did he
grow Medicare ever larger?

If government takes the simple steps needed to
protect surpluses (and pay back some of the
I.O.U.s in the S.S. lock-box, or reduce debt so
that government can borrow to cover short falls),
then the S.S. system should be fine for a long time.

But, will government act responsibly enough to protect S.S. far into the future?
That’s what is causing doubt…obviously, the government’s track-record is not very comforting.

At any rate, it’s not wise to wait and do nothing.
It would be beneficial on many levels for
government to start to reduce the national debt,
cut spending, and significantly reduce government.
The national debt magnifies all other problems.
A quarter of every dollar of revenue to pay
interest on the national debt (about $1 billion
per day) is making everything more difficult.

David
Thanks a million, that is the kind of answer I was looking for from you. Very informative.

Now, everybody knows that we can not just simply end SS today and I haven’t heard of Bush or anybody saying they wanted to end it today either.
But couldn’t a PRA or some type of similar system be slowly phased in?
That way, those worthy of receiving SS will still get their benefits and would not be cut-off from what they have contributed.
And would it also not be possible that of those 17 million who are dependent on SS as retirement, that at least half, to be conservative, would start saving for themselves?
Having 9 or 10 million on SS would be a lot less of a burden on SS than 17 or 20 million, right?

That is what I am trying to get at. You cannot prove that NONE of the people will save for their own retirement and I cannot prove that ALL of them would.
No matter what numbers and projections we us now, we do not know how many people will or will not take it upon themselves to start saving.

I am sure we can agree on one thing though. The fewer number of people who depend on SS for retirement would make for a much better SS plan with better benefits for those who truely need it.

The biggest problem with phasing out Social Security in favor of something else is that S.S. is, essentially, a debt. The elderly of today borrow from the working class of today. When the working class of today becomes the elderly of tomorrow, tomorrow’s working class pays them back.

So if you let tomorrow’s working class invest elsewhere, who pays for today’s working class when they retire?

A true measure of the National Debt should include all promised Social Security benefits as well.

“So if you let tomorrow’s working class invest elsewhere, who pays for today’s working class when they retire?”

Nobody is saying end SS as retirement TODAY.
If you give the future working class the freedom of choice to plan for their own retirement, then there is a chance that far fewer would need someone else to pay for them to retire.
There is even a better chance that they will be able to retire SOONER and MORE comfortably.
Less people on SS means less money needed to run SS.

But today’s working class (my generation) is banking on that “future working class” paying for OUR retirement. If that future working class is given the “freedom of choice”, they’ll probably choose to keep their money instead of giving it to us. We can’t save for our own retirement right now, because we’re paying for our parents’ retirement.

Currently, no generation pays for its own retirement. Generation N pays for the retirement of generation N-1, while generation N+1 pays for generation N’s retirement. If we let N+1 invest their money for themselves, who pays for N’s retirement?

It’s like paying my utility bill. I’m paying about $100/month now. If, instead of paying it now, I save that $100 for 20 years or so, I would be able to afford to pay $1,000/month for utilities — but how do I keep the lights on for the next 20 years if I do that?

Nobody is saying to end SS today.
It would take time.

“But today’s working class (my generation) is banking on that “future working class” paying for OUR retirement.”

Should you not be banking on YOU paying for your own retirement?

“If that future working class is given the “freedom of choice”, they’ll probably choose to keep their money instead of giving it to us.”

But it is THEIR money and not yours. What right do you have to expect them to GIVE you their money?

“Currently, no generation pays for its own retirement”

I know and its sickening. Even still though, it should be voluntary to have the govt think for you.

I’m sure we would have to start with a fresh workplace force.
Tell them that they can pay 2% instead of 6% in SS and plan for their own retirement or they can pay 10% and let the govt take care of them.
Either way, it should be a choice.

kctim said: “Should you not be banking on YOU paying for your own retirement?”

That is the most anti-insurance statement I have ever heard. Do you really oppose insurance that vehemently, kctim? Life insurance, property insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, FDIC, etc? Do you really believe we should all self-insure our own futures and put insurance companies out of business for taking premiums from everyone and paying them out to only a few while keeping a nice chunk back for themselves?

SS is an insurance policy against widespread poverty amongst our parents and grandparents. Are you really that opposed to the concept of insurance, because in large part, that is precisely what the SS program is, and insurance policy that ensures consumption even in bad times which, like this last recession, kept the economy afloat. Consumers were the mainstay that kept our economy from a far deeper recession than we had and 50 million of those consumers used SS money to keep consuming drugs, medical care, food, housing, rent, utilities, gas and transportation, etc. etc. etc.

Got to see the big picture to understand why the majority of Americans believe in the Soc. Sec. program. It is an insurance plan against poor management by government of the economy or other economic events or personal tragedy that would put 50 million Americans into poverty without the SS benefits. And it works precisely because the law mandates everyone pay the premiums for the insurance, making it affordable and sustainable.

kctim,

Nobody is saying to end SS today. It would take time.

No matter when you do it, or how long you take doing it, you still have to make up for the shortfall. Taking money out of the system to put into another system (such as government-mandated private accounts) just makes the shortfall bigger. Eventually, you’ll reach a point where nobody new is paying in, but people will still be drawing out. You have to be able to cover that gap.

Should you not be banking on YOU paying for your own retirement?

Personally, my plan doesn’t rely on SS being there when I retire. But others in my generation are planning to hold the government to its promise, even if I’m not.

But it is THEIR money and not yours. What right do you have to expect them to GIVE you their money?

Only the promise of our government. We’ve been promised that, if we pay for the previous generation’s retirement, the next generation will pay for ours. To end this is to tell one generation, “you have to pay for the previous generation AND your own”.

I’m not saying that the system is right. I’m simply pointing out that you can’t end it without either leaving one generation out in the cold, or bringing in one hell of a lot of external money to pay for it first. Private accounts won’t change that.

I know and its sickening. Even still though, it should be voluntary to have the govt think for you.

So, are you suggesting that it should be voluntary whether we contribute to roads, military, schooling, police departments, and fire departments? If so, then I want back every penny of mine that Mr. Bush spent on his crusade in Iraq!

I’m sure we would have to start with a fresh workplace force. Tell them that they can pay 2% instead of 6% in SS and plan for their own retirement or they can pay 10% and let the govt take care of them. Either way, it should be a choice.

At what point in their lives would they have to decide? Would you make them decide when they started working as teenagers, or could they change their minds later?

Social Security is like a huge asteroid headed for Earth.
We need to nudge it a small bit now off it’s present course,
or risk a disasterous catastrophe many years from now.

Just stop spending the surpluses, pay back some
of what was borrowed from it, lower the national
debt, which will allow more options later if
S.S. does run into trouble, and all will be fine.

What ever happens, government must not let
current and future recipients get cheated.

The purpose of privatization is to achieve better
returns on investment, and give some control back
to the people.

But, what if many people lose money in the markets?
Will they then end up on welfare?
How will the new privatization system most likely be abused?
Will such a privatization system create instability in the market?
Will it be safer? Will it be more simple?
Are the potentially slightly higher returns worth the risks?
Many that make money in the market, make it from the loses of others’ in the market.
Will privatization, with huge amounts of S.S. funds being invested, create an imbalance
in the economy? It sounds risky, despite the potentially higher returns and
rights of people to manage their own S.S.

If this system was brand new, it would be easier
and perhaps make more sense, but one obvious
risk is interruption of benefits for the current
and recipients, due to the current pay-as-you-go-system.

David
“Do you really believe we should all self-insure our own futures”

What is wrong with doing that? Every American should be doing that right now. Instead, most people rely on govt and it puts a strain on current programs.

“Got to see the big picture to understand why the majority of Americans believe in the Soc. Sec. program. It is an insurance plan against poor management by government of the economy or other economic events or personal tragedy that would put 50 million Americans into poverty without the SS benefits.”

Then how do the other 250 million people make it through the tough times?
I will agree that some people really do need help, but there are alot of people who choose not to save anything for their futures.

Rob
“No matter when you do it, or how long you take doing it, you still have to make up for the shortfall.”

That is why proper management is a must. We will never be able to terminate SS, to many people are unwilling to do it themselves.
But, if done right, less people would be dependent on SS which would relieve the burden.

“So, are you suggesting that it should be voluntary whether etc…”

Totally seperate things. Those are all public services. Individuals can’t really make roads, build schools etc… on their own, but they can plan their own retirement.
I too would like all the money clinton blew by blowing up aspirin factories, lying, killing civilians in bosnia/kosovo, innocent people in America etc… Thats tit for tat that works both ways.

“At what point in their lives would they have to decide? Would you make them decide when they started working as teenagers, or could they change their minds later?”

Start when they enter the workforce.
Personally I would say no they could not change their minds, but I know thats not feel goodie enough for some people who worry more about others than themselves.
Guess we could pro-rate it somehow so they could still sign up if they got lazy.

I also believe people should be able to designate which program any EXTRA tax money they wish to contribute goes to.
If the half of the country who supposedly is liberal REALLY believes in what they preach, SS and other programs would be in the black for years to come.

But, if done right, less people would be dependent on SS which would relieve the burden.

Having less people dependent won’t relieve any burden unless those people actually stop drawing SS. So are you suggesting means-testing as well?

Start when they enter the workforce. Personally I would say no they could not change their minds, but I know thats not feel goodie enough for some people who worry more about others than themselves.

It also has the downside that you’re essentially asking teenagers to decide if they’re good investors or not. And, if they don’t think so, but later get an economics degree, and learn how to invest, too bad….

Guess we could pro-rate it somehow so they could still sign up if they got lazy.

Or opt out if they got smarter?

I also believe people should be able to designate which program any EXTRA tax money they wish to contribute goes to. If the half of the country who supposedly is liberal REALLY believes in what they preach, SS and other programs would be in the black for years to come.

I’m in favor of giving the taxpayer control over a percentage of his taxes (maybe 5%), letting him choose which program it goes into. It would give legislators a yearly measure of what’s really important to people.

“Having less people dependent won’t relieve any burden unless those people actually stop drawing SS”

Thats right. If you plan for yourself, there is no need to draw SS.

“So are you suggesting means-testing as well?”

I have no problem with fair means-testing. Govt programs are so abused right now that most are ineffective.

“Or opt out if they got smarter?”

Absolutley!

“I’m in favor of giving the taxpayer control over a percentage of his taxes”

Thats not what I am saying. I said EXTRA tax money that is contributed.
I think you guys can check a box and send a dollar to a presidents legal fund(lol) or something now, why not be able to check a box and send whatever amount you wish to a pet program you have.

The Bush proposal for cutting SSI benefits for people making over $59,000 by 30%, and for people making over $90,000 by 40%, is laughably bad.

Immediately after the press conference, on MSNBC, Chris Matthews asked conservative Joe Scarborough if he thought of the proposal would go anywhere. Joe laughed… and laughed some more… and said, in a ‘you’ve got be ******** me’ tone, “NO.”

Bush is a lame duck.

He can make laughably bad proposals, but it doesn’t mean Congress will pay any attention. Unlike Republican Representatives in the House, Bush doesn’t have to worry about winning a midterm election in ‘06.

As a result, Republican Senators are running interference on SSI. On “Meet the Press” Sunday, Tim Russert interviewed Sen Chris Dodd (D) & Senator George Allen (R).

In general, Democrats favor addressing revenues. Dodd suggested repealing the tax cuts for a few years & funneling it to the SSI trust fund. Obviously that idea will go nowhere with Republicans. For heavens sake, it’s not a big enough crisis to do anything outside of SSI, like addressing demographics & immigration, is it?

A relatively easy fix is an increase of the cap from $90,000 up to $200,000. Interesting, Allen did not dismiss the idea out of hand. DeLay, from the House, said this was off the table, so we’ll see.

In general, Republicans favor cutting benefits. The most likely and least painful Republican solution would be to increase the retirement age by a year. I believe Senator Chuck Hagel (R) is fronting this idea.

Ever see a president turn into a lame duck so fast?

Thats right. If you plan for yourself, there is no need to draw SS.

But, again, even though you don’t have a NEED to draw SS doesn’t mean that you won’t, unless the system is changed.

Of course, that means that we’re changing SS from a retirement program to a welfare program.

You don’t need SS if you use YOUR money and plan for yourself.

“Of course, that means that we’re changing SS from a retirement program to a welfare program.”

Thats basically what it is now. The govt is saying that you are too dumb to plan for your own general welfare when you retire, so we will do it for you.
Who cares if you could possibly do better with your own money, give it to us and we will make sure you can eek by.

You don’t need SS if you use YOUR money and plan for yourself.

I agree (again). And I AM using my money and planning for myself. But, at the same time, when I retire, if I can live on my money and still draw (unneeded) SS, I will. Removing the need for SS won’t prevent people from drawing it. Bill Gates can still draw SS when he retires. He doesn’t need to, but that alone probably won’t stop him.

Thats basically what it is now. The govt is saying that you are too dumb to plan for your own general welfare when you retire, so we will do it for you. Who cares if you could possibly do better with your own money, give it to us and we will make sure you can eek by.

SS isn’t about the government babysitting investors, since they’re not investing your money anyway. It’s about the government using your money to buy someone else’s retirement.

“I agree (again). And I AM using my money and planning for myself. But, at the same time, when I retire, if I can live on my money and still draw (unneeded) SS”

You HAD to contribute to SS and that “promise” said you could get your money back, whether you need it or not. You deserve every penny due.
I know I say YOU and YOURS, sorry. I’m trying to refer to all the people. Not trying to mean only you.

“Bill Gates can still draw SS when he retires. He doesn’t need to, but that alone probably won’t stop him.”

I don’t think Gates should be able to draw SS benefits. But I also do not believe he should pay into the retirement portion of SS either.
Would be nice if he could designate his SS benefits to go back into the program though wouldnt it.

“It’s about the government using your money to buy someone else’s retirement.”

Yes, I agree but it is at a cost to my retirement.
Thats not right and I have