"Duped by Congressional Lies"

An open letter to Walter Williams.

Dear Dr. Williams: I am a big fan of yours. Whether reading your books, or your columns or listening to you guest host for Limbaugh, I have enjoyed your gift for making economics both educational and entertaining. I read your piece "Duped by Congressional Lies" with mixed admiration and dismay. You certainly make a persuasive argument. And as one who has paid into Social Security for the better part of half a century, I can sympathize with the genuine feelings of "entitlement" that people feel about Social Security. It was sold to us as a retirement instrument, that the government managed for us (since we couldn't be trusted to manage our own money wisely ourselves). We knew for a long time that SS was a relatively "crappy investment" at best, maybe a 2% return, and that we could have done far better managing our "accounts" ourselves.

But faced with the reality that there are no "accounts", our money was stolen from us, and that the only way the government can pay us what it promised is to steal it from someone else, it would seem to put us on the horns of a moral dilemma.

Until I got to thinking how the government deals with the crooks that they catch. It's called "restitution". When Bernie Madoff was sent to jail for his Ponzi scheme, the government went to his estate, to recover as much of the stolen money as they could. In drug cases, if it could be reasonable assumed that a drug dealer's car or house or other assets were purchased with proceeds from an illegal activity, those assets are seized and sold.

Since the government has been buying up land and other assets with the money they stole from me and my generation for years, how about some simple restitution? We bring this before a Federal judge, (perhaps under a RICO statute, since this organized crime stretched out over every state in the union), or encourage our leaders in the House to get the ball rolling and make the government sell off or deed over their assets to their victims, and fund Social Security?

Instead of forty acres and a mule, give me forty acres of western land sitting over a vein of low sulfur coal or oil shale and the mineral rights to it, and, of course, remove all those ridiculous prohibitions about recovering the nation's wealth, and it's possible that I might call it even! I'd even settle for a good, productive uranium mine!

Or we could open up ANWR and earmark that revenue to current and future Social Security recipients. That way, we retirees and soon to be retirees, would not be stealing the bread from the mouths of current and future generations, and might possibly give us an alternative to either working 'til we die, or subsisting on cat food and dumpster diving.

The Federal government has more land than it needs and is sitting on a fortune in oil and mineral assets waiting to be unearthed. Since it can be reasonably assumed that those lands and mineral rights were procured with the proceeds from illegal activity, that is to say the Ponzi scheme that was and is Social Security, wouldn't you agree with me that a little restitution to the victims is in order? And that selling off government assets would be morally superior to stealing from future generations? Just a thought...

Respectfully yours,

Proof


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Can Fix Social Security, No Sweat!

And, he's got a bridge he can sell you!

“Social Security is not in crisis. We’re going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it.”

-Barack Obama

Isn't that just amazing? Who knew? This must have just happened recently. Otherwise, why didn't he implement these "modest adjustments" during the first two years of his term, while his party held both the House and Senate? But, assuming that this "Road to Damascus" revelation came to him in the last six or seven months, why hasn't he called Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in to his office to reveal to them the "modest adjustments" they need to introduce so that Obama can sign them into law and save Social Security?

Why not? Because, truth be told, the "modest adjustments" are not that modest. There is no way to reform a massive entitlement like Social Security without causing someone or a lot of someones, major pain. And those someones vote.

If there truly were just minor adjustments that would save the solvency of Social Security against the large number of Boomers about to retire in the next ten years, why not implement them as soon as possible? And why the lack of specifics? If Obama has a plan, he should spell it out! He's the leader of our country, he should lead!

It's funny. I recently heard a lib compare conservatives to "snake oil salesmen". Obama's vague, "Trust me, I'll fix it" smacks more of snake oil than statesmanship.

If he really has a plan, he should spell it out, or will he "hold Social Security hostage" until after the election. (I'm just channeling my inner liberal here!)

Cross posted at LCR.

Let's "Means Test" Congress

One of the points that tends to come up in discussions of making Social Security solvent, is "means testing" recipients. Is there anything wrong with this picture? Asking people who paid into a system all their lives, often against their will, with the promise of only a crappy return on their money, and now facing the prospect of being denied even that crappy return, because their income or net worth might be above some arbitrarily set level, which would indicate that they might not "need the money"?

Let's say there's someone eligible for Social Security, who had been paid millions of dollars in, say, book sales. Should that person receive Social Security, since it is obviously not "needed"? How about independently wealthy government employees? Should they receive government pensions on top of the salaries that they "don't need"?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 82% believe members of Congress should take a 25% pay cut until the federal budget is balanced. Only 14% disagree.

That 82% is seven per cent higher than this time last year. Is it too much to ask our ruling class to lead by example? Say what you will about Arnold Schwarzenegger, he didn't need the governor's salary and he didn't take it.

Before we "means test" Social Security, let's "means test" Congress and the Executive Branch. Before we take away the meager returns of Social Security from people who were forced to contribute, some for half a century or more, let's join Barack Obama in asking the "millionaires and billionaires" in Congress and the Executive to do what's "fair", and means test themselves turning down the salaries and pensions, that they are entitled to, much as SS recipients are entitled to theirs.

I'm going to hold my breath until that happens. (When I'm sufficiently blue, I'll audition for the Avatar or Smurf sequels. There's a better chance of that happening. )

Obama Gets His History Wrong...Again!

Ever get the feeling that this guy not only slept through twenty years in Jeremiah Wright's church, but slept through all his history and civics classes, too?

Listen to the bone headed blunder he makes about Social Security. Originally intended for widows and orphans??? Please! It was sold as a retirement plan, complete with Al Gore's "lock box" (full of I.O.U.s ever since Congress figured out they could raid those funds with impunity.)

BTW, is it safe to assume from his halting, near stuttering delivery and inaccuracy that he was not only off script, but off prompter as well?

More at theblogprof

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.