The Democrats’ Hot, New Plan: More Social Security


Social Security has a long-term funding gap that just keeps growing. Neither political party has a plan to pay for the promises we’ve already made to people contributing to the system. But Democrats are bringing a new idea to the table: make even more promises.

Almost all Senate Democrats have lined up behind a proposal by Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to expand benefits for current retirees. Liberals are exulting that Warren has shifted the politics of Social Security to the left: Where once we were debating cutbacks to the program, now we’re debating benefit increases. Too bad that also means the debate is shifting further away from fiscal reality.

Social Security is becoming a worse deal for each generation. Those now joining the workforce are expected to pay more into the system than they get out of it. Warren’s plan is to shower more money on the current generation of retirees, but without increasing the deficit over the next 10 years. That means, in all likelihood, raising taxes on current workers while also increasing the program’s long-run fiscal deficit…

Now, in raw politics, this is a good idea – you see, elder voters are increasingly trending GOP and they tend to vote very consistently…thus playing a huge role in the anti-Democrat blow-outs of 2010 and 2014. In 2016, which is expected to be a close-run race, getting a few more elderly voters to pull the lever for the Democrats might make the difference between President Hillary and President Walker. So, off we go: raise social security benefits for current retirees and hope that out of gratitude they vote for you.

Of course, as noted in the quote, this can only be done by increasing taxes on current workers and it would also, naturally, put a heavier strain on social security in later years. The bottom line is that social security just doesn’t work – it is predicated upon a very large number of working people supporting a relatively small number of retired people. Trouble is, the work force keeps getting smaller and the miracles of modern science are keeping us alive ever longer. My father retired in 1992 at the age of 65 and died in 2009 at the age of 82 – seventeen years of picking up the SS check. Suppose I live 10 years longer than my dad did…even if I retire at 67, that will still work out to 25 years of SS payments for me. And a kid of 25 today might easily live until his late 90’s, or even longer. Meanwhile, we’re not having all that many kids. The program eventually goes belly up. But what is that to Democrats? What they need is a way to buy votes now – what will happen later is irrelevant; whatever happens, their program to deal with it will be to promise more free stuff.

Ok, so how do we fight against this? Can’t just say, “screw the old folks”. That would just play into Democrat hands. We have to come up with some sort of program which both benefits the oldsters while also helping out the younger folks who are paying for the goodies. My preferred option is to start implementing a privatization of social security without being too explicit that full privatization is the ultimate goal (politics is the art of the possible, folks). Something along the line of “10% of the money you pay into ss, today, will go into a private account owned by you and your heirs”. Whatever we do, we have to do it well – because this will be a potent weapon for the Democrats in 2016.

White House is Staging A Bloodless Coup!

OK, folks–here’s the deal- I don’t think too many people are realizing this:

1. We currently gather TEN TIMES the amount of revenue required to service our debt, EVERY MONTH.

2. The 14th Amendment states that WE MUST honor and service our debts; meaning that paying and servicing debt MUST COME FIRST.

3. Barack Obama has been threatening that we WILL DEFAULT on our debt if the debt ceiling is not raised in two days.

4. The ONLY way this can happen, is if Barack Obama IGNORES the 14th Amendment and REFUSES to service the debt. This means that Barack Obama MUST OPENLY DEFY the Constitution to bring about what he threatens will happen.

5. Understand also that I believe that Barack Obama FULLY INTENDS to carry out his threat. I believe that Barack Obama MEANS, in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment, to ALLOW the United States to go into default. Like a terrorist with his finger on the button of his suicide vest, he is threatening to DESTROY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES, placing our economy in RUIN, unless Congress meets his every demand.

6. In effect, Barack Obama is staging what amounts to nothing less than a COUP– a complete usurpation of the power of the purse that IS EXCLUSIVELY THE PURVIEW of the duly and locally elected United States House of Representatives.

7. In completely and WILLFULLY ignoring his Constitutional responsibilities with respect to the 14th Amendment, Barack Obama has effectually denounced the primacy of the U.S. Constitution. He is effectively governing by EXECUTIVE FIAT.

In other words, Barack Obama HAS THROWN AWAY THE CONSTITUTION and is in effect GOVERNING AS A DICTATOR!


Can You Guess Who?

I got this idea from a member of the BlogsforVictory Google Group.  I’ve redacted details that would give the answer away.

WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT spiraling out of control, many Americans sense an urgent need to find a political leader who is able to say “no” to spending. Yet they fear that finding such a leader is impossible. Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is [redacted]. President from [redacted], [Redacted] sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was [redacted] penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, [redacted] was the Great Refrainer.
Following [redacted], the federal debt stood ten times higher than before the [redacted], and it was widely understood that the debt burden would become unbearable if interest rates rose. At the same time, the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, veterans were having trouble finding work, prices had risen while wages lagged, and workers in Seattle, New York, and Boston were talking revolution and taking to the streets. The [redacted] administration had nationalized the railroads for a time at the end of the [redacted], and had encouraged stock exchanges to shut down for a time, and Progressives were now pushing for state or even federal control of water power and electricity. The business outlook was grim, and one of the biggest underlying problems was the lack of an orderly budgeting process: Congress brought proposals to the White House willy-nilly, and they were customarily approved.

The Republican Party’s response in the [redacted] election was to campaign for smaller government and for a return to what its presidential candidate, [redacted], dubbed “normalcy”—a curtailing of government interference in the economy to create a predictable environment in which business could confidently operate. [Redacted], a Massachusetts governor who had gained a national reputation by facing down a Boston police strike—“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time,” he had declared—was chosen to be [redacted] running mate. And following their victory, [redacted] inaugural address set a different tone from that of the outgoing [redacted] administration (and from that of the Obama administration today): “No altered system,” [redacted] said, “will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.”

One of [redacted] first steps was to shepherd through Congress the Budget and Accounting Act of [redacted], under which the executive branch gained authority over and took responsibility for the budget, even to the point of being able to impound money after it was budgeted. This legislation also gave the executive branch a special budget bureau—the forerunner to today’s Office of Management and Budget—over which [redacted] named a flamboyant Brigadier General, [redacted], as director. Together they proceeded to summon department staff and their bosses to semiannual meetings at Continental Hall, where [redacted] cajoled and shamed them into making spending cuts. In addition, [redacted] pushed through a tax cut, lowering the top rate to 58 percent; and in a move toward privatization, he proposed to sell off naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming to private companies.

Is there any doubt that history repeats itself?  Read the whole piece here, and pray that another [redacted] comes along soon.

If You Liberals Really Want a Class War…

…then we on the right are pleased to give you one.  From National Review Online:

…While we would prefer no tax increase at all, eliminating this deduction (for State and local taxes) would be a sensible reform of the tax code, and could be paired with tax cuts elsewhere for a fiscally neutral simplification of our byzantine tax code.

Estimates suggest that eliminating this deduction would raise as much as $900 billion over ten years, though it may well turn out to be less as taxpayers modify their behavior in light of the new incentives. That won’t balance the budget with deficits running that much or more every single year, but it is nothing to turn the national nose up at, either: $900 billion would completely offset the estimated deficit for 2013. Progressives should welcome eliminating the deduction in that the new tax burden would fall much more heavily upon those earning $200,000 or more. As Reihan Salam points out, households in the $200,000-and-up range would pay an average of $5,166 more without the deduction, while those in the $30,000-to-$50,000 range would pay only $70 more…

Wouldn’t cost me a penny more, of course, as I live in a no-income-tax State.  But it would cost people in New York and California a bundle, especially if they are making more than 250 grand a year and are getting hit with those very high California and New York State income taxes.  But, given that those two States voted overwhelmingly for Obama, it stands to reason that they’ll be pleased as punch to fork over a bit more to Uncle Sam.  Unless, that is, they were just stupid and thought that Obama was talking about people like Bill Gates when he said “make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share”.  We on the right can’t be blamed if people didn’t bother to actually look past Obama’s rhetoric and examine his concrete proposals.

This is not quite up to the standards I want – I still prefer my “wealth tax”, and I’ve actually come around to turning the screws a little harder on it.  While still excluding farms/ranches, mines and factories which are family or individually owned, I’m thinking that a 10% annual tax on all wealth in excess of $2 million should do the trick.  Which trick is that?  The double trick of both making rich liberals pay for their liberalism and showing lower and middle class Americans just who’s side we’re on.  The dirty secret of liberalism is that it is run by rich people and largely for the benefit of rich people – I want to drive that home.  Next step is to eliminate charitable deductions for any organization which does not provide direct housing, clothing, food or medical aid to poor people…no more tax write-offs for donating to liberal political groups which have got themselves a tax exemption.  Oh, and the group dispensing the help to the poor better have administrative expenses down to no more than, say, 30% of expenditures or it gets reclassified as a very heavily taxed racketeer influenced/corrupt organization.

I’m all set for the class war.  Are you?

Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff

Well, the agenda media is tripping over itself speculating on how Congress and the President will avoid the fiscal cliff, and what the ramifications are if they do (or don’t).

An on-line AP article today makes some of the most ludicrous statements and assertions I’ve seen in a while, illustrating the fact that they haven’t got a clue as to what’s going to happen — or why.

President Barack Obama and leaders of the lame-duck Congress may be just weeks away from shaking hands on a deal to avert the dreaded “fiscal cliff.” So it’s natural to wonder: If they announce a bipartisan package promising to curb mushrooming federal deficits, will it be real?

Come on, now — this is Washington D.C. where perception is reality, and the MSM is all about creating perception.

Obama and top lawmakers could produce an agreement that takes a serious bite out of the government’s growing $16 trillion pile of debt and puts it on a true downward trajectory.

On what planet could (or would) they do that?  Certainly not this one.  Even during the Clinton administration when the budget was supposedly “balanced”, the debt never went down year on year.  If they taxed the top 2% at 100%, they couldn’t even erase the current deficit, much less “take a serious bite” out of the debt.

Or they might reach an accord heading off massive tax increases and spending cuts that begin to bite in January — that’s the fiscal cliff — while appearing to be getting tough on deficits through painful savings deferred until years from now, when their successors might revoke or dilute them.

Now that sounds more like what we’re accustomed to from our political class.

Historically, Congress and presidents have proven themselves capable of either.

Not recently.  Since 1961 the debt has done nothing but increase.  In all fairness, the biggest jumps came during the administrations of Ronald Reagan ($2 trillion) and George W. Bush ($5 trillion).  But Obama has already exceeded Bush’s total and is likely to exceed that combined $7 trillion well before the midpoint of his second term.

Passing a framework next month that sets deficit-cutting targets for each of the next 10 years would be seen as a sign of seriousness. But look for specifics. An agreement will have a greater chance of actually reducing deficits if it details how the savings would be divided between revenue increases and cuts in federal programs, averting future fights among lawmakers over that question.

Say what?  Can anyone read that and not laugh?

Better yet would be including a fast-track process for passing next year’s tax and spending bills if they meet the savings targets so they can whisk through Congress without the possibility of a Senate filibuster, in which 41 of the 100 senators could kill a measure they dislike.

Is that the same Senate that hasn’t passed a budget in 3-1/2 years?

Raising money from higher rates, closing loopholes or a combination of the two would create real revenue for the government.

As opposed to what? Fake revenue?

The problem is many tax deductions and credits , such as for home mortgages and the value of employer-provided health insurance, are so popular that enacting them into law over objections from the public and lobbyists would be extremely difficult.

D’ya think?

With the price tags of tax and spending laws typically measured over a decade, delaying the implementation date can distort the projected impact of a change on people and the government’s debt.

But it does give the perception that they’re doing something.

Even more questionable are assumptions that overhauling tax laws will boost economic activity and thus produce large new revenues for the government. Many Republicans and ideologically conservative economists contend that’s the case, but most economists say there is no sound way to estimate how much revenue can be generated from strengthening the economy by revamping the tax system. Many believe the amount is modest.

Well then, we are just fluked!

Savings that come from weeding out waste, fraud and abuse, which sounds good but are difficult to find, or rely on one-time sales of federal assets should be treated with suspicion.

Of course — there’s no waste, fraud or abuse in the federal budget.

Deep cuts that take effect in the future, say after Obama leaves office in 2017, might be better than imposing them now and hurting an already weak economy by reducing spending.

Now were talkin’

Proggies Act Surprised ….. We Told You So!

“On Obamacare……

As a result of obAMATEUR’s re-election and the highly improbability that ObamaCare being repealed, we’ve had several businesses come forward and state that this is going to affect the number of workers they have and hours they can work – two of them are  CEO of Papa Johns John Schnatter and Applebees franchisee owner Zane Tankel.  While these aren’t the only two, they are the latest business owners who have publicly stated the harmful impact that ObamaCare will have on their businesses, their workers’ jobs and benefits.

The proggies are “shocked”.  They took to Twitter to demonize these business owners (hey they learned from the professional agitator using Alinski, his mentor’s tactics) , and pushing for others to boycott their businesses.  Hey you proggies – Can’t say you weren’t warned!  Business owners have been out there telling you exactly what you had coming to you if obAMATEUR was re-elected and ObamaCare stayed the law of the land.  Of course, you chose not to listen to those warnings.  It doesn’t make it these business owner’s problems! We told you so!!!

On to raising taxes……..

obAMATEUR is consumed with obsession about raising taxes on the “rich”.  We hear it in the press about his “wanting to make a deal” with Republicans for the so-called “balanced approach”.  All we have heard so far is the raising taxes on the “wealthy” – some balanced approach!  The complicit media (aka the propaganda arm of the White House) has done nothing but interview Republican and talk about raising taxes.  They have yet to question the obAMATEUR about the other half of the “balanced approach” – spending cuts.  Recently, on Good Morning America, they stated concern how “spending cuts will affect the economy”!  Excuse me?  We have seen MASSIVE government spending stagnate an economy.  We have proof that tax cuts work – several instances in fact.  Even the CBO disagrees with the lopsided “balanced approach” on raising taxes – Raising taxes has nothing to do with our fiscal cliff and getting our finances in order..

Just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney.”

If we gave you your way and CONFISCATED ALL THE WEALTH of the so-called targeted “wealthy”, you would have enough money to run the government for a few months.  That’s it!!!  We have a spending problem in this country.  This pResident who has ran up the debt than the first 42 presidents COMBINED!  Again, it is not our problem that you PREDICTABLY ignored FACTS and re-elected this buffoon.  We told you so!!!

More recent higher jobless claims ….

We now have 439,000 new jobless claims for the first full week after the disastrous reelection of the “one we have been waiting for” – the obAMATEUR and I do mean AMATEUR!  Pennsylvania and Ohio led the pack.  Two unionized states.  Two crucial states won by obAMATEUR.  The obAMATEUR sycophants are trying to put the best possible spin on these numbers — saying that they’re due to layoffs from Hurricane Sandy.  What utter CRAP!.  Layoffs in Ohio?  Pennsylvania?  Heavy union states?  We had New Jersey turn away NON UNION ELECTRICAL WORKERS, as an example of their dedication to union labor even in a disaster such as this!!!!

These layoffs are the direct result of re-electing this anti-business failure (a failure at everything he has put his hands on) of a pResident.  Businesses have been struggling that last four years.  There has been no recovery.  There have been BILLIONS of dollars spent by these businesses to comply with new regulations coming from this White House and the EPA.  The EPA will soon unleash the flood of new so-called “clean air” rules that will send energy costs through the roof.  Taxes on small business owners are going to rise.  Capital gains taxes on investors – going up.  There is absolutely NOTHING on the horizon with four more years of obAMATEUR that gives one iota of hope for a better business and economic climate ahead.  So … it’s time to go lean … and that’s just what these businesses are doing.  They’re shedding employees to get under the ObamaCare threshold. They’re looking for ways to get more efficient so that they can rid themselves of unnecessary workers.  As a result we see jobless claims are on the rise .. the highest number since the middle of 2011.

The obAMATEUR, his sycophants, drones and lemmings want to blame it on the storm.  Well .. .they’re half-right.  It’s a storm all right, but not Hurricane Sandy.  It’s the storm of taxes and regulations that are coming with the reelection of an anti-business, tax and spend president.

Elections have consequences.  Here’s your pink slip.  Enjoy.  And if you’re an obAMATEUR voter, I’m enjoying it right along with you.  You did it to yourselves.  We told you so!!!


Economic Growth

This AP article is at the top of my home page this morning, and, after reading it, this little light went on in my head about the main difference between the approach to government by Obama and Romney. Actually, it goes back to a comment I made the other day about the relationship between economic growth and employment. Obama believes government can create jobs, and actually claims his policies have done so. But there can be no meaningful private sector job growth without economic growth. In each of the last 3 years economic growth has been slower than the previous year, and yet, according to the BLS, unemployment has declined from 10.1% to 7.8%. That’s sort of like a college student telling his parents that his grade point average has gone from a 2.5 to a 3.0, but he’s only attended half of his classes. It’s just not believable.

Now are there things that government can do to affect economic growth? You bet, and our lack of economic growth is largely due to uncertainty in the market place caused by things governments have done over the last 4 years. And no amount of stimulus or QE infinity can erase the negative effects of bad fiscal, monetary and regulatory policy.  Government can’t just say to a private company: here’s some money — go hire someone.  The purpose of business is not to provide jobs.  Business exists to make money, and employees are nothing more than a by-product of a successful business.  Progressive Democrats (I know — redundant), by and large, don’t seem to be able to grasp this simple concept.  A President Romney may not be able to do any better, but a growing number of people think he couldn’t do any worse.

I know we have business people who frequent this blog — I’m one myself.  Let’s have a discussion about the circumstances under which you’ve hired people, how government actions, tax policy and regulations affect your business, and what changes a President Romney could make that would have a positive effect on the growth of your business.


Time For the Proggies and Their Mindless Drones to Put Their Money Where Their Mouths Are!

IF this gets through and pResident signs it, then the screeching proggies and their mindless drones, who believe that they don’t pay enough in taxes, can contribute more to pay off the debt.

Of course, they won’t pony up any extra money.  Their philosophy is what is theirs is theirs and what is ours is theirs as well.

I don’t expect this to get past the obstructionist Senate (they haven’t passed a budget in three years)!

Update: Fixed the link for those too lazy or incompetent to type in the text.

How “Progressive” is our Tax System?

Professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University, Greg Mankiw, took the latest CBO report and ran some numbers for 2009, the most recent year for which we have records.   He wanted to look at not only the amount of taxes someone paid, but also how much money individuals got BACK from the government in the form of refundable tax credits, welfare payments, entitlements and other government goodies.

So here are his calculations for the taxes each income level pays.  What this economist measured here is the amount of taxes the members of these income groups paid TO the government minus the amount of money these people got back in the form of various government payments:

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent
Top one percent: 28 percent

As Mankiw explains the bottom quintile of Americans are essentially receiving $3 in UNEARNED income from the taxpayers for every dollar they earn.  He also points out something rather critical, and this is the fact that the middle quintile of taxpayers is in the negative, which means that they are net tax consumers.  That is almost a 20 point swing since 1979, when middle income earners were tax contributors.

This explains how 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all … and instead absorb tax money paid by others.

As Ben Franklin has said:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

These FACTS do not bode well with the proggy LIE, in their class warfare, that the “rich are not paying their fair share”!

Our Rich Pay More Than Your Rich

I’ve lost track of the number of time our resident Liberals have cited the “fact” that American tax rates are among the lowest in the world, and our rich aren’t paying their fair share.  Now, however, a noted liberal pundit is admitting publicly that that’s not true

On CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS Sunday, the perilously liberal host actually complained about America’s tax code being too progressive while noting, “The top ten percent in America pay a larger share of total taxes, 45.1%, than do the top ten percent in any of the 24 countries examined” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

I hope that one of the major focuses of this election campaign will be our tax system.  For too long we’ve punished initiative and entrepreneurism and rewarded sloth.  That has to change.

Hat tip to Cluster for the link for this post