Text 9036, 195 rader
Skriven 2005-02-12 07:22:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av STAN HARDEGREE
Ärende: Amtrak should be preserve
=================================
On 02-11-05, STAN HARDEGREE said to TIM RICHARDSON:

TR> Oh wait! I see........its another chance to blame George Bush
TR> for something some democrat started, a democrat Congress
TR> signed onto, and nobody has had the guts until now to bring
TR> to a halt. Gotcha!


SH>Bingo!  And it will be this way as long as they keep morons like Howard De
SH>the helm.


SH>What on earth are they thinking?


Dean could be the best thing that could happen to the republicans, in the same
sense that Terry McCauliffe was the best thing that happened to the
republicans when he took over.


By the way, here's a portion of a mailing I get two or three times a week,
that talks about the Social Security setup:



______----********O********----______
THE FOUNDATION

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison

______----********O********----______
THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Top of the fold -- What Social Security Crisis?

In 1935, wealthy liberal do-gooder Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the most
notorious violator of Constitutional federalism in the 20th Century,
found a clause in that venerable document authorizing the central
government to provide retirement benefits for all Americans. Apparently,
100 years earlier, that clause did not exist. So claimed another
Democrat, Tennessee's Davy Crockett, who rose on the floor of Congress
and chastised his colleagues for their proposal to appropriate benefits
for the widow of a distinguished naval officer.

Crockett protested: "I will not go into an argument to prove
that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of
charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right,
as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please
in charity; but as members of Congress we...have not the semblance of
authority to appropriate it as a charity."

Crockett was echoing the words of our Constitution's author, James
Madison, who said, most eloquently, "I cannot undertake to lay my
finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to
Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
constituents...." Madison further noted, "If Congress can do whatever
in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General
Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated
powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

However, those words were long lost on FDR, who eviscerated federalism
in his relentless endeavor to make the central government the agent of
salvation for all ills.  In June of 1934, he announced to Congress one
lasting example of that endeavor -- his intent to create a nationalized
Social Security program, ushering the United States into the ranks
of Europe's welfare democracies. The nation was in the midst of
the Great Depression, and FDR was funding his political dynasty by
redistributing wealth. After all, as noted by George Bernard Shaw,
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the
support of Paul." FDR's plan, like all unbridled populist-entitlement
programs, was popular with the democratic majority -- and helped ensure
his re-election to office three times.

Social Security's first beneficiary was Ernest Ackerman of Cleveland,
Ohio, who retired one day after the Social Security Act was signed
into law 14 August 1935. A nickel was withheld from Ackerman's final
paycheck, but he received his one-time lump-sum Social Security payment
... 17 cents.

That 12-cent return was the beginning of unforeseen things to come. Soon,
congressional amendments added benefits for spouses, minor children
and survivors, and by 1950 the program assured virtually universal
coverage. 1972 saw the addition of the Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) program (AKA "welfare"), and by 1975 the addition of annual Cost
of Living Adjustments (COLAs) assured the SS juggernaut's exponential
growth. In 1977, Medicare became an independent entitlement, spun off
from the Social Security system. Today, despite its humble beginnings,
the Social Security system confronts our young people with the grim
prospect of paying for unfunded promises made to past generations.

Notwithstanding the "welfare reform" acts of the 1990s, when Social
Security turned 65, SSI benefits covered 6,688,489 Americans at a
cost of $32,165,856,000, while Social Security itself disbursed some
$431,949,000,000 to 45,877,506 beneficiaries. However, those staggering
numbers are mere chump change compared to what lies ahead.

President George W. Bush's modest proposal to reform Social Security
appears to be a good start at diverting this behemoth from its collision
course with insolvency. Predictably, though, the latest retort from
the Left is, "What insolvency? What crisis?" Indeed, these do-nothing
Demos claim the Fed's IOUs in Social Security's so-called "trust fund,"
combined with minor tweaks to the system, will keep it solvent for
generations.

Well, not exactly. Unless Democrats plan to "tweak" the system by
increasing both the retirement age and the current 12.4% SS tax,
adding more government debt and reducing benefits, Social Security will
not have the revenues to refund current IOUs and meet the SS revenue
shortfall. IOUs? For generations, every dime forcibly taken from worker
paychecks -- ostensibly to finance the non-existent SS "trust fund" --
has been taken from that fund and applied to other massive entitlement
programs.

Social Security outlays now consume 4.28 percent of GDP but will
exceed 6 percent in 20 years. There are two reasons for this growth:
demographics and benefits increases.

There are 48 million Social Security beneficiaries today, but in 2030
there will be 84 million. In 1950, there were 16 SS taxpayers for every
recipient. Now there are only 3.3 taxpayers for every recipient, and that
will be reduced 30 percent by 2030. Additionally, when SSI was formed,
life-expectancy was 61 years, which is to say, most Americans did not
make it to 65. Now, however, average life expectancy is 77.

The second reason for the SSI balloon is that benefits have not been
indexed to inflation. Future retirees are being guaranteed retirement
increases that grow substantially faster than inflation.

Social Security, as currently managed, will incur an estimated unfunded
liability of 27 trillion 2003 dollars over the next 75 years. To
offset this jaw-slackening shortfall, President Bush has proposed the
incremental privatization of some SSI taxes by allowing individuals under
age 55 to invest in personal retirement accounts (PRAs). Additionally,
Congress must resolve to index benefits to inflation.

The President's three-year PRA opt-in for SSI taxpayers born after
1950 would allow them to put up to four percent of their wages in
their PRAs. At retirement, those invested in PRAs would be guaranteed
to receive at least what their payout would be if they only had SSI
income. But those beneficiaries whose PRAs have a higher return can
share in that return, which reduces the burden on the SSI fund, and
the principal balance is fully inheritable.

The PRA plan would "cost" about $664 billion in "lost" SSI revenue over
the next ten years. Of course, this lost SSI revenue is merely revenue
that's been moved to PRAs, and thus isn't available to "borrow" from
the SSI trust fund for other entitlement programs -- and that's why the
Demos are hopping mad. Still, all Americans need to understand that the
PRA plan does not fully address the revenue shortfall crisis looming on
the horizon. That crisis can be resolved only when Congress commits to
bringing SSI benefits in line with SSI revenues. (For a comprehensive
review of Social Security and the Bush Administration's proposal,
link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/news/ssi.asp)

Quote of the week...

"Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to [members of
Congress], because you already have something similar, called the
Thrift Savings Plan, which lets [you] deposit a portion of [your]
paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's
time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young
Americans." --President George W. Bush

On cross-examination...

"Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is
spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government. The
Social Security trust fund does not exist, and Social Security
'surpluses' are nothing more than an accounting ledger showing that
contributions exceeded benefits paid for a given calendar year --
not that the excess was put aside. ... Allowing people to opt out of
Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been
stealing money from Social Security for decades. ... No matter what
politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact
that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington,
where it will be spent." --Rep. Ron Paul

Open query...

"My financial adviser Ric Edelman...thinks the time to start educating
people about money is when they are children. He's set up a retirement
plan called the RIC-E-Trust that can provide retirement security. A
$5,000 one-time tax-deferred investment at birth, with an average
interest rate of ten percent compounded, means that a child would have
$2.4 million when he or she is 65 years old. Who needs Social Security
with that kind of nest egg?" --Cal Thomas




---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)