----------------------------
(Pat Williams was a Congressman in the US house from 1978 to 1996. He was reliably Left, but inexplicably managed to win with large majorities in conservative Montana. Except his last election in 1992 when he managed only 51%. I suspect he realized the handwriting was on the wall, and decided against running again.)
--------------------------------
Pat Williams served nine terms as a U.S. Representative from Montana. After his retirement, he returned to Montana and taught at the University of Montana.
Imagine if tomorrow morning’s headline was this: “Four hundred thousand to get one half billion dollar boost in income.” The underlying news story announces that hundreds of thousands of people here in three states of the Northern Rockies whose good earning jobs are behind them will share $500 million each year for the rest of their lives.
One half billion dollars distributed among people in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, particularly the 15 percent who no longer bring home good salaries, would be one of the greatest bursts of targeted payroll in our history, a boon for spending in our small businesses and a continuing economic shot in the arm for our region.
Of course, this vital economic engine already exists — Social Security. (An astounding departure from rationality. Mr. Williams is identifying a pot of money, $500 million, that is sourced from Social Security. This "vital economic engine" is supposedly helping an economy where 90 million people are out of work, where people are settling for part time employment in record numbers, where the unemployment rate is stubbornly above 7.5%, and where the annual deficits have exceed One TRILLION dollars every year since President Obama took office.
One half billion dollars distributed among people in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, particularly the 15 percent who no longer bring home good salaries, would be one of the greatest bursts of targeted payroll in our history, a boon for spending in our small businesses and a continuing economic shot in the arm for our region.
Of course, this vital economic engine already exists — Social Security. (An astounding departure from rationality. Mr. Williams is identifying a pot of money, $500 million, that is sourced from Social Security. This "vital economic engine" is supposedly helping an economy where 90 million people are out of work, where people are settling for part time employment in record numbers, where the unemployment rate is stubbornly above 7.5%, and where the annual deficits have exceed One TRILLION dollars every year since President Obama took office.
Did this $500 million magically appear, Mr. Williams? Is it somehow just sitting around, waiting for someone to tap into it? No, that money is extracted from workers' wages and transferred to retirees and others who are no longer contributing economically to society. The money that first belonged to someone else is being spent by people who did not earn it. We are left guess as to how this constitutes a "vital economic engine."
Yes, yes, those retirees did contribute while they were working. Their money was shifted to prior retired workers, who spent that money just like today's retirees are spending today's workers' money. And we know it only takes a few years to fully recoup contributions. After that, Social security is nothing more than a welfare program for the aged.
There is no new money here, only someone elses' money. There can be no enhanced financial benefit to the economy, because the same amount of money is still in play. The only difference is the money is in the hands of different people.)
The first monthly Social Security check was cut for $22.54 and delivered to Ida May Fuller in Brattleboro, Vt., 73 years ago. Today’s Americans receive Social Security checks averaging $1,180 per month.
Both critics and supporters of Social Security are justifiably concerned about the financial solvency of the system. (Justifiably concerned? Why?) Although the retirement fund enjoys by far the largest surplus, $2.7 trillion, of any government trust fund, that money is expected to start being reduced in 2021. (Wait, wait, wait. It has a surplus? I thought we could be "justifiably concerned?" With a recrd surplus, why should we be concerned?
Please forgive me for rehashing this, but there is no money at all in Social Security. Its assets are non-marketable bonds issued by the Federal Government. The government creates a special bond [an I.O.U.] that only it can buy or sell, and gives it to the SS trust fund. It then takes money in an amount equal to the bond, and spends it in the general fund. Therefore, the trust fund loans money to the government. The trust fund contains nothing but government promises to pay back its debt. The fund has no cash.)
Low employment, the Great Recession that began under President George W. Bush, (He has to get in the obligatory Bush-bashing.) and increasing life spans have all presented unanticipated difficulties for the fund. (I thought it had a record surplus? How can it be having difficulties? And who says they're unanticipated? Economists have been warning us for decades, while politicians like Mr. Williams have been poo-pooing them.) However, the worry about future fund shortages has happened several times during the past half century (Um, yeah. So he negates his assertion about being "unanticipated" by admitting the fund has been repaired several times.) and each time was easily repaired by adjusting benefits for future retirees or increasing the payroll tax known as FICA. (Translated, that is increasing taxes and delaying and reducing payouts. This is what constitutes repairs. But if something is repaired, why does it keep needing to be repaired?)
There is a proposal by the president and many members of Congress to make small reductions in benefits to those retiring in the future. ("Small reductions," which means lower payments to retirees who already have to choose between food and medicine? I thought the eeevil Republicans we doing this?
And I thought SS was an "economic engine." So shouldn't Congress be increasing benefits because of the supposed boon to the economy? Wouldn't cutting benefits reduce the economic engine? Whaaa?) One of the more interesting legislative proposals ("interesting" always means "higher taxes" to a liberal. I'm surprised he didn't use the term "thoughtful," or "nuanced" as well.) on the tax side is this: People earning up to $110,000 each year now pay a Social Security (FICA) tax, but those earning above that amount pay no additional FICA. If that tax was applied to all earnings up to $250,000, (Why stop there? Why not take the cap off entirely and watch the "economic engine" really heat up!) Social Security would not only be financially sound for the rest of this century, but monthly benefit payments could be increased. (These are the words of a true believer, where tax increases are the solution to every problem, where simply adding money will make a bad program good, where the rich are the perpetual scapegoats. Oh, and by the way, SS benefits are tied to the inflation index, so they are already increasing on a regular basis.
Once again, I apologize for covering this ground again, but with the Left, every day is a new day. Nothing has ever been done before, every idea is a novel solution that has never been tried. They start each day fresh, like their propositions are unique and innovative, breaking new ground and blazing new trails.)
Whatever the solution, our moribund, reluctant congressmen and women ought to get a move on and readjust our essential Social Security system, which provides our states with an enormous economic boost.
(Well, Mr. Williams restates his thesis without ever offering evidence that it is true. Apparently it is self-evident. It's an article of faith with the Left: government programs are always good, always help, and never fail. And anyone who even mildly criticizes them are characterized as being in favor of the problem.
Moribund: 1. in a dying state; near death. 2. on the verge of extinction or termination. 3. not progressing or advancing; stagnant. Probably the most accurate thing Mr. Williams has wrote. One could only hope that these buddies of his in government, who have mismanaged the economy, violated the Constitution, and padded their own pockets while doling out huge sums of money and political favors to their pals were indeed moribund. Here's wishing for a moribund Congress.
But what they certainly ought not do is implement another tax increase "repair" to the SS system, especially at the prodding of an economically illiterate former congressman who is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.)
There is no new money here, only someone elses' money. There can be no enhanced financial benefit to the economy, because the same amount of money is still in play. The only difference is the money is in the hands of different people.)
The first monthly Social Security check was cut for $22.54 and delivered to Ida May Fuller in Brattleboro, Vt., 73 years ago. Today’s Americans receive Social Security checks averaging $1,180 per month.
Both critics and supporters of Social Security are justifiably concerned about the financial solvency of the system. (Justifiably concerned? Why?) Although the retirement fund enjoys by far the largest surplus, $2.7 trillion, of any government trust fund, that money is expected to start being reduced in 2021. (Wait, wait, wait. It has a surplus? I thought we could be "justifiably concerned?" With a recrd surplus, why should we be concerned?
Please forgive me for rehashing this, but there is no money at all in Social Security. Its assets are non-marketable bonds issued by the Federal Government. The government creates a special bond [an I.O.U.] that only it can buy or sell, and gives it to the SS trust fund. It then takes money in an amount equal to the bond, and spends it in the general fund. Therefore, the trust fund loans money to the government. The trust fund contains nothing but government promises to pay back its debt. The fund has no cash.)
Low employment, the Great Recession that began under President George W. Bush, (He has to get in the obligatory Bush-bashing.) and increasing life spans have all presented unanticipated difficulties for the fund. (I thought it had a record surplus? How can it be having difficulties? And who says they're unanticipated? Economists have been warning us for decades, while politicians like Mr. Williams have been poo-pooing them.) However, the worry about future fund shortages has happened several times during the past half century (Um, yeah. So he negates his assertion about being "unanticipated" by admitting the fund has been repaired several times.) and each time was easily repaired by adjusting benefits for future retirees or increasing the payroll tax known as FICA. (Translated, that is increasing taxes and delaying and reducing payouts. This is what constitutes repairs. But if something is repaired, why does it keep needing to be repaired?)
There is a proposal by the president and many members of Congress to make small reductions in benefits to those retiring in the future. ("Small reductions," which means lower payments to retirees who already have to choose between food and medicine? I thought the eeevil Republicans we doing this?
And I thought SS was an "economic engine." So shouldn't Congress be increasing benefits because of the supposed boon to the economy? Wouldn't cutting benefits reduce the economic engine? Whaaa?) One of the more interesting legislative proposals ("interesting" always means "higher taxes" to a liberal. I'm surprised he didn't use the term "thoughtful," or "nuanced" as well.) on the tax side is this: People earning up to $110,000 each year now pay a Social Security (FICA) tax, but those earning above that amount pay no additional FICA. If that tax was applied to all earnings up to $250,000, (Why stop there? Why not take the cap off entirely and watch the "economic engine" really heat up!) Social Security would not only be financially sound for the rest of this century, but monthly benefit payments could be increased. (These are the words of a true believer, where tax increases are the solution to every problem, where simply adding money will make a bad program good, where the rich are the perpetual scapegoats. Oh, and by the way, SS benefits are tied to the inflation index, so they are already increasing on a regular basis.
Once again, I apologize for covering this ground again, but with the Left, every day is a new day. Nothing has ever been done before, every idea is a novel solution that has never been tried. They start each day fresh, like their propositions are unique and innovative, breaking new ground and blazing new trails.)
Whatever the solution, our moribund, reluctant congressmen and women ought to get a move on and readjust our essential Social Security system, which provides our states with an enormous economic boost.
(Well, Mr. Williams restates his thesis without ever offering evidence that it is true. Apparently it is self-evident. It's an article of faith with the Left: government programs are always good, always help, and never fail. And anyone who even mildly criticizes them are characterized as being in favor of the problem.
Moribund: 1. in a dying state; near death. 2. on the verge of extinction or termination. 3. not progressing or advancing; stagnant. Probably the most accurate thing Mr. Williams has wrote. One could only hope that these buddies of his in government, who have mismanaged the economy, violated the Constitution, and padded their own pockets while doling out huge sums of money and political favors to their pals were indeed moribund. Here's wishing for a moribund Congress.
But what they certainly ought not do is implement another tax increase "repair" to the SS system, especially at the prodding of an economically illiterate former congressman who is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.)
Pat Williams served nine terms as a U.S. Representative from Montana. After his retirement, he returned to Montana and taught at the University of Montana.
No comments:
Post a Comment