Killing trees

If the environuts really want to save trees they shouldn't burn down new housing developments they believe are encroaching on their beloved woods. No. They should do something really meaningful, like take on the volume of paperwork required after someone dies.

An example?

I'm eligible for survivor's benefits under Hubby's pension. In addition to the application and (10) other forms that must accompany it, I also had to include a copy of my original Social Security card. And, you'll never guess what I can't find!

(The last time I saw it only a few months ago I decided to put it in a place I'd easily remember except ...)

Since the application and (10) other forms were all completed and only needed to be mailed, I called the pension office asking if they could waive the requirement for a copy of my original Social Security card. That might sound like I was asking for special treatment or something completely unreasonable but, to me, there was a very simple logic behind my request. Since my own bi-weekly pension check comes through the same office, they already have it on file . . . somewhere.

Their answer? No. I had to include a copy of my original Social Security card.

So, when not tearing the house apart hoping to locate the easy-to-remember place I put my original Social Security card, I began trying to contact the local Social Security office by phone. No luck. With as hard as their recorded message ("All lines are busy. Call back later. <click>") is working, it definitely deserves a raise.

A visit to their office . . . four hours before I can talk to someone? But all I need is ...

Their answer? No. I gotta wait.

Or, I could call the toll free number. Which I finally did. And after working my way through the menu system the computer-generated voice, recognizing the information on file for my telephone number, said that some time within the next two weeks I could expect receipt of the form I needed to complete and submit in order to get a replacement Social Security card. (The form is also available online BUT when I printed it out the fields had been obliterated by a gray mass that popped up on the screen. And no. It wasn't from me.) Except, I'd already picked the form up while I was at the local Social Security office. If it took two weeks just to get the blank form sent to me, I could only imagine how much longer it would take for them to process it and finally send me the danged thing.

So last Friday I went to the Social Security office. The wait was (supposedly) only 45 minutes and Herself suggested we wait. BUT she and I had other running around to do and I have the benefit (???) of 24 years, 5 months and 8 days working in and around local social service agencies. (I'm retired now, thank gawd.) Which translates to although we'd been told 45 minutes, I knew we'd still be sitting there in the lobby hours (and hours) later waiting for my number to be called. Besides, when someone in the packed waiting area overheard the security guard say 45 minutes, she began laughing and said he'd told her the same thing two hours ago.

Today I had more running around to do. Drop this form off here, get copies made of this and that and mailed out . . . and take my completed application for a replacement Social Security card to the Social Security office. I'd have to wait, I knew. How long, I didn't, but I was certain it would be the last trip I'd have to make there.

The application form states that picture identification must be presented before a replacement Social Security card can be authorized, to verify that you really are the person you claim to be. It specifies a driver's license although other forms of official identification such as a passport could also be used.

Three hours after arriving, I finally left the Social Security office with a printout saying my Social Security Number is assigned to someone with my name. That's all.

Social Security won't replace my card until I return to their office — (again) and sit there for more hours waiting for my number to be called — to provide one more verification: my birth certificate.

Things had changed, the woman behind the counter explained, since my last card was issued some thirty-odd years ago, and they have no information on file regarding my mother's full name (or her Social Security number), my father's full name (or his) or my place of birth.

No, it's not my identity that's being questioned. My citizenship is.

Funny how illegal aliens don't have to go through any of this bull shit.

(I know where my birth certificate is but I'll be damned if I'm going back to the Social Security office with it unless I have to get a replacement card. Which, now, I don't because the pension office said it will accept the printout provided as a substitute for a copy of my original Social Security card.)

"[T]hey don't care."

"People need to wake up to this problem," said Richard Hamp, an assistant attorney general for the state of Utah who has prosecuted several cases involving stolen IDs and illegal immigrants. "They are destroying people's credit, Social Security benefits, and everything else. This problem has been ignored by the federal government, and it's enormous." -- chart and quote, MSNBC

As the MSNBC article also explains, an illegal using your Social Security Number could also wreck your chance for a job or credit history . . . and you'll never know it until it's too late.

You'd think somebody would notify the person the SSN belongs that information on someone with a different name is being added to their file. But . . . nah. And good luck trying to get it straightened out and get your good name back. Lotsa luck.

From Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: Tonight, our nation's elected officials are ignoring a widening identity theft crisis that threatens all U.S. citizens. Illegal aliens are stealing the identities of American citizens so they can remain and work in this country illegally. One northern California woman says her identity was stolen more than 200 times by illegal aliens. Casey Wian has her story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Audra Schmierer has been a stay-at-home mom for six years. Now that her son is in school, she wants to return to work. So she applied to a temp agency.

AUDRA SCHMIERER, ID THEFT VICTIM: They called me three or for hours later and said, "Mrs. Schmierer, I don't understand why you're applying. You already work here."

WIAN: At a big tech company, a similar experience.

SCHMIERER: There's my driver's license, my passport, my Social Security card. I gave them everything. And she said, "Well, really, how can you actually prove you are you? What if those people have the same documentation you do?"

WIAN: Schmierer has discovered more than 200 illegal aliens throughout the United States are doing jobs Americans supposedly won't do by using her Social Security number. They work in fast-food chains, cosmetic companies, even receive dividends from Microsoft.

SCHMIERER: I started to gather all this information and really found out how extreme the situation was. It's scary.

WIAN: Her ordeal began last year with a bill from the IRS for nearly $16,000 in back taxes for a job in Texas. She lives in Dublin, California.

SCHMIERER: My husband was actually quite upset. He asked me when I had ever been to Texas.

WIAN: She tracked down the illegal alien whose phony tax return triggered the IRS bill. He told her he bought her Social Security number and a fake green card at this Texas flea market.

SCHMIERER: I don't under how illegal aliens can come across here and commit a felony -- identity theft is a felony -- and be excused from that felony to continue living their life when I cannot live my life.

WIAN: By January, Schmierer faced a $1 million IRS bill. She was temporarily detained by Customs, returning from a foreign business trip with her husband. And her Social Security account now shows a zero balance, erasing 14 years of work before her marriage.

SCHMIERER: Social Security right now sends me to IRS. IRS sends me to Social Security. Every now and then, they'll send me to the FTC, whom I have a case with.

No one wants to do anything about it. Right now, I have nowhere to go.

WIAN: Schmierer spends several hours a day trying to clear her name. The IRS has cancelled her bill, but Social Security won't give her a new number. She says all 35 employers she's contacted have refused to take action against the workers using her number.

SCHMIERER: It's cheap labor, and they don't care.

WIAN: Neither do most senators. John Ensign brought Schmierer's case to their attention, and they still approved Social Security benefits for illegal aliens using stolen identifies.

SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R), NEVADA: The crime of identity theft and Social Security fraud are not victimless crimes. The victims of these crimes are American citizens and legal immigrants.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: And in this case, the victim is the granddaughter of a World War II veteran who emigrated legally to the United States from Guadalajara, Mexico.

Meanwhile, the Social Security Administration says it investigates reports of fraud but wouldn't say if it's investigating any of the cases related to Audra Schmierer. The IRS says it can't penalize employers who believe they are accepting legitimate Social Security numbers -- Lou.

DOBBS: Of course not. Not in the system that has been created by our elected officials.

Casey, we can only hope that every one of those senators who voted for amnesty so proudly are watching her story and your report here tonight. We thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Because Schmierer's Social Security records were such a mess, SSA finally broke down and issued her a new number. But look at that chart again and remember, hers is only one story.

I'm calling "Bull Shit!" ...

. . . on the entire amnesty for illegal aliens immigration reform bill the Senate's debating. All of it.

So there I was ranting and raving (politely, of course) about the Senate's decision to legalize identity theft by illegal aliens, but something kept bugging me.

You know the way it is I'm sure. There's something. You know it and it's floating around in your mind but when you try to grab it, it just keeps slipping away. The harder you try, the faster it slithers behind something else, while ducking out periodically going, Neener! Can't catch me!

Was it that if amnesty is given to the current batch of illegal aliens who've stolen the Social Security numbers of American citizens and screwed up those peoples' lives, that the precedence will be set allowing all future illegal aliens to legally do the same thing? That it will make the problem even worse?

Nah, that's a given.

The talking heads and pundits have been split.

On one side those like me argue it's insane to reward those who've repeatedly broken the law, and illegal aliens who boosted the the Social Security numbers of others paid into the system with absolutely no expectation of return.

The other side says it doesn't matter whether the illegals broke any laws. They paid into Social Security and that's all that matters. It is, after all, money they earned and not giving back to them what they paid in would be just be so unfair.

(One person repeated, "It's not fair!" at least five times in a less than two-minute interview. In fact, that's pretty much all she said.)

The talking heads and pundits were still yammering away this morning, and for the umpteenth time I heard just how unfair it would if illegal aliens who've worked and paid into the Social Security system couldn't . . .

And there it was, what I knew all along and know all too well:

[W]hen I went to my pre-retirement seminar years ago . . . I discovered no matter how much I'd already paid into Social Security or paid into it in the future, the Windfall Elimination Provision meant the government doesn't have to return to me a stinkin' dime I paid into Social Security or in the future ever will. And under the Government Pension Offset, my local government pension [also] eliminates Hubby's Social Security no matter how much he paid into it in the past or might in the future. -- Doyle (11-07-04) (Please see that post for links to the specific legislation underlined.)

Well, dang.

It's fair to deny US citizens any benefit from a system they've legally paid in to, BUT it would be unfair to illegal aliens who've paid into the same system but by fraudulent means if they can't.

Gag me.

LATER: Norma notes the irony -- and what would be poetic justice -- in her closing paragraph.

LATER-LATER: Bill Quick bellows, "That's Outrageous!"

There's only one rational answer: They're insane.

I watched the debates on C-Span this afternoon, concerning one of the amendments proposed to the amnesty for illegal aliens immigration reform legislation before the Senate.

The purpose of the amendment is quite simple and straight forward:

To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.

In other words, IF an illegal alien has been working and part of their pay went into Social Security because they'd ripped off someone's Social Security number (which, by the way, is a felony), IF they become "regularized" they can't, then, go back and then make a claim and be rewarded for their illegal actions.

When an illegal alien becomes "regularized" (the Senators debating used that word a lot) and start paying into Social Security under their own identity, fine and dandy. No problem. That's when their Social Security record starts.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Aside from identity theft being illegal, it may have caused or will cause a problem for the U.S. citizen who . . .

1. Has been a stay-at-home mom since 2000 who got a bill from IRS for back taxes on $1 million on earned income in 2004, when 218 illegals used counterfeit Social Security cards with her number on it.
   
   
2. Applies for Unemployment Compensation and is told they're not eligible because based on their Social Security number, they're still working . . . in lotsa different places.



3. Gets turned down for a job because based on their Social Security number, they're already working for the company.



4. Has their own, actual, official and real Social Security records deleted by the SSA because so many illegals have used that number, there's no way to sort anything out. So, the file is wiped clean, and now it's up to the U.S. citizen to come up with W-2s going back umpteen years IF they want to file a claim and expect an eligibility determination.

Those are a few of the actual examples given, but guess what?

By a 50 - 49 vote, our glorious United States Senate sided with the illegal aliens.

Bunched undies

In the true spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats -- the party of NO! -- continue their refusal to even discuss overhauling Social Security unless Dubya publicly abandons individual private personal accounts as a part of it.

Social Security is collecting far more than it pays out. It's been doing that for decades. That surplus hasn't been and isn't put aside for future payments. There is no Social Security Trust Fund with real money in it. Instead, there's actually a filing cabinet filled with printer-generated IOUs because the government has been "lending" money to itself.

Think of it this way: You have envelopes marked Utilities, Rent, Car Payment and Mad Money. When you get paid each week, you put a set amount inside each in order to pay the bills when they come due. But since there's not enough Mad Money for you to do what you want, you use money from the Utilities Envelope and replace it with an IOU. When the electric bill does come in, the only thing in the Utilities envelope is a crumpled wad of IOUs.

Excess Social Security revenue goes into the Fed's general fund, to be spent by congress critters on gawd only knows what pork so they look really good to their constituents when it's time for re-election.

This week Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint proposed legislation that not only would require the surplus in Social Security payments remain within that system, but (Oh, the horror!) that the people paying that excess actually have a claim to it.

Under the GOP proposal, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. , the money would instead be apportioned to workers according to their payroll tax contributions and invested in marketable Treasury bonds with their name on them. In two years, a special government board would decide whether those investments could be expanded to other assets.

"It has more momentum than any bill has so far," DeMint said, citing 11 Senate co-sponsors. Private-account strategists said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had quietly signaled his approval, and DeMint said he had White House support. - San Francisco Chronicle.

Paul Ryan noted three principles behind this legislation:

The Social Security surplus should only be used for Social Security.

The surplus should not be used to fund other government programs.

The surplus should not be used to mask the true size of the national debt.

It's not a complete solution but it's a start. And it makes sense.

You can immediately tell it does by just how quickly Nancy Pelosi responded with the standard rhetoric that, as usual, all translates to NO! But . . .

We are eager to discuss how to make Social Security strong into the next century, and we have many ideas on how to do so.

How Kerry-esque. They have a plan!

Have they shared it with anyone?

Yes. Pelosi herself did last March in an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Pelosi, you complain — and I think there's some legitimacy to it — about where is the president's plan, but Democrats like to say that Social Security is a hallowed Democratic idea, created by FDR. Where is your plan?

PELOSI: The facts are that we want to wait and see the president's plan.

And no matter what's floated, they'll say NO!

But that may be about to change. The Wall Street Journal's Political Diary noted:

[Clay Shaw, R FL] believes that when it comes to a vote, as many as 30 or 40 Democrats will likely jump onboard for two reasons. One, this bill is going to be rolled into a larger package to include pension and other reforms aimed at helping older Americans. And secondly, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have put a "gag order" on their party, preventing members from saying anything positive about Republican reform proposals. "But you can't stay silent on a vote," he said.

Why the possible change?

Could it be they're starting to sense that the voters back home may be just a little tired of them blindly following the party line, rather than serving the people that elected them?

After all, 2006 is coming.

NOdometer

I've noticed someone poking around this little blog the last few days. Not just any someone but someone based in Washington, D.C. whose names you'll recognize: Townhall.com and the Heritage Organization. Did I feel speshul or whut?!

I felt even more speshul this morning when I received an email from an actual person at The Heritage Foundation that reads in part:

I see that you have taken quite an interest in Social Security reform, and have linked to our websites before. I thought that you might be interested in a new gadget that we've recently added to our website.

The gadget — the NOdometer — "measures what saying no to social security reform is costing the next generation" and is now in my sidebar. And every second, the already horrifying amount increases even more.

If you'd like to add it to your site, the script is here.

If after you've put it in your sidebar it doesn't display correctly or just doesn't work, it didn't for me either. It does now because I took the emailer up on his offer of help IF I needed any.

(Me? Need help with HTML or coding or . . . WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

Anyway, try the original first but if you need the modified script they provided by return email, let me know in a reply.

Oh, and the next time somebody tells you that little blogs don't get noticed . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Carnival of the Trackbacks!!!

The mother of all rip-offs

"While the vast majority of retirement plans are run responsibly, unethically using workers' retirement contributions to fund current expenses, instead of saving them for workers' retirement, is still an all-too common occurrence."

What's the biggest perpetrator? United Airlines? Unions that are diverting funds from its members' pension plans into other activities?

No. It's the United States government.

More here.

Elsewhere, Brooke Oberwetter wonders why Democrats are so against changing a system that discriminates against two groups it claims to be the great defenders of: women and unmarried couples.

And today is Thursday. You knew that I'm sure but what you may not be aware of (and I keep neglecting to mention) is that at Will Franklin's, every Thursday is REFORM THURSDAY. This is his 20th installment.

Quotable Quotes

"Democrats have a great deal of political power to lose by allowing large numbers of people to reduce their dependence on government" - Ross Kaminsky

"If you asked Americans under 40 today what kind of public pension system they would create if we were starting from scratch, an overwhelming majority of them would tell you that a personal retirement account should figure prominently in the new system. Sadly, the voices of these younger Americans are not well represented in the debate today because there is no well-heeled interest group speaking for them." - Richard Parsons

Both via RealClear Politics

Social Security: The Ponzi Scheme

You've probably seen blog "Carnivals" mentioned and possibly participated in a few. I know I have.

When I do, I feel compelled to check out what everyone else has submitted. Why?

I hope everyone else is, too, so that everyone involved gets -- even if it's only temporary -- a boost in hits. (It also gives me a chance to see what other bloggers are writing about and how.) To top it off, it brings attention to little-known, low-traffic blogs that except for a small circle of regular readers go unnoticed.

Blogs like this one for instance. But, I digress.

I spotted one entry at Wizbang's weekly carnival this morning that I think you should read also. What's it about?

At Vagabondia, The Indigent Blogger writes:

Charles Ponzi couldn't have dreamed up a better scheme. Our government claims 12.4 percent of every worker's wages couched as a retirement investment, then steals from the retirement Trust Fund to mask excessive spending, and guarantees to payback those retirement investments with the power to tax those workers to any extent necessary.

And that's only one paragraph.

You definitely need to read it all.

Picture this?

Ed Gamble

"It amazes me that leader Pelosi and the Democrats continue to criticize the president's proposals when they've offered no plan or ideas of their own. Just yesterday, leader Pelosi blocked members of her party from attending a bipartisan meeting with Republicans and the AARP to discuss reforming Social Security." - House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) April 28, 2005

~~~~~~~~~
A welcome to those readers coming from Carnival of the Trackbacks!

Presidential Press Conference: 8 p.m.

In addition to talking about the energy program he submitted to Congress FOUR YEARS AGO, tonight Dubya's expected to begin providing the details of his proposal to overhaul Social Security.

The Lefty-Loons will waste no time squawking in rebutal. Then again, from the start they've been saying how bad Dubya's plan is, and he hadn't even announced what it was.

Neil Cavato writes:

I cannot fathom anyone saying [Social Security] doesn't need fixing. Anyone telling you that is lying to you. Period.

As I wrote here, Dubya's not backing up or backing away. The Loons are, NOT that they're going to come right out and admit it. No, they'll continue to blither and blab, and comission push polls with carefully crafted questions designed to provide the results they want.

Their disinformation has worked with some but obviously not all:

Though President Bush has talked about voluntary accounts, the new poll finds that while 57 percent of Americans understand the accounts would be voluntary, 27 percent believe they would be mandatory, and the remaining 17 percent are unsure.

Maybe Dubya should have done a better job explaining? But explaining what? How could he have explained a complete plan, that hadn't yet been developed? Don't ask me.

What he has been saying, however, is getting through:

On the personal level, 53 percent say they want the choice to invest a portion of their contributions, up from 48 percent in early February — soon after President Bush spoke in his State of the Union address about offering investment accounts. Among those under age 55, almost two-thirds (64 percent) want the option to invest.

More here.

(And I'm still trying to track down the complete results. They're there! I know they are! Somewhere!!! But I'm out of time.)

That's TWO!

Social Security has been in trouble for a LONG time. A Ponzi scheme, it was doomed from the start.

Every few years someone would yelp, "It's sinking!" and a new fix -- always the last one that would supposedly ever be needed -- would be enacted.

The "tweaks" over the many years consisted of increased payroll taxes, reduced benefits, forcing people who'd previously been exempt because they were already paying into other plans to "contribute," and / or exempting people who'd already paid into the system (or would in the future) from ever receiving Social Security BECAUSE of the type of pension they'd paid into.

Amazingly as soon as Dubya sounded the alarm, the Lefty-Loons conveniently forgot that Clinton had said the same thing.

"Social Security is in just fine and dandy shape and always will be!" they bellowed and screamed in editorials and interviews. "Dubya's lying!"

Eventually, the Lefty-Loons began to change their script:

"Social Security is in just fine and dandy shape . . . except it just needs to be tweaked!"

That was ONE: An acknowledgment by the Loons despite their best attempts, the public understands Dubya wasn't the one lying.

"No private personal accounts!" the Loons have shrieked from the start. "Ever! Yer all too dumb to survive without somebody (Us!) taking care of you. So for the greater good, you and yer income . . . y'all must.be.assimilated.

Deborah points to this article from the Washington Times.

House Democrats have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts. The switch in strategy comes after Democrats learned from focus groups that people frown on the lawmakers for being obstinate.

Read that again.

I'll wait, no problem.

Back?

Note the change in the DEMAND for dropping private personal accounts?

That's TWO!

Despite all the times someone has written or snorted changing the current Social Security system is dead, Dubya's still not backing down or away.

The Loons are. Why?

"It makes us seem like we're `typical politicians.'"

Really?

Overhauling Social Security is going to happen, people.

And quietly behind it gathering momentum, The Fair Tax.

~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to readers coming from Carnival of the Trackbacks.

Random thoughts

The next time you hear someone yammering that the way to "fix" Social Security is to either raise the current income ceiling of $90,000 to (fill in the blank) or do away with with the cap completely so that all earned income is subject to FICA, remember . . .

Payroll deductions for Social Security are already creating a surplus even after current recipients are paid. That "extra" is then then used to fund desperately needed projects like these.

Increasing the income ceiling or completely eliminating it will generate even more, so that after current Social Security recipients are paid, the politicians will be able to fund endeavors even more worthwhile.

Debunking Myths

I got an email after I blogged about Social Security the first time. Not a comment added to what I'd written, but an honest-to-goodness email saying that they'd never thought about it like that before.

Few do. Then again after spending mumble-something years working in and around social services, I tend to have a different persective than many do. It's not that the idea of Social Security was bad at the time it was first introduced, it's just that the concept -- aside from being outdated -- is based strictly on political expediency.

The government giveth and taketh away. Actually, it's mostly taketh away with some of the suggested remedies being considered now to once again shore up Social Security: reducing benefits and extending how long you'll have to continue working -- if you live that long -- before you are old enough to begin receiving "benefits."

There's so much disinformation to start with and it's only getting worse.

President Bush, in his State of the Union address, asked why certain members of Congress seem to be against private retirement accounts for the public when they, themselves, have them. That's led some to believe that Congresscritters don't pay into Social Security.

They do, now.

I'm doing this from memory so while my dates may be off, the outline of what happened isn't.

Federal employees were exempt from FICA, paying into a pension plan instead. But with Social Security facing a projected fiscal crisis in the years ahead (Gee! I thought that was something that Dubya just made up!) in 1983 in order to bring more money in (And fix Social Security so that it would be and remain solvent forever and ever.) Federal employees lost that exemption. Instead of having a pension plan for their retirement / disability needs that they paid into, all employees hired after a certain date had was Social Security.

(Also affected were Congresscritters.)

Federal employees were less than pleased. Their unions were not happy, either, saying that forcing its members to rely only on Social Security was a really bad and mean thing to do, 'cause in their old age Federal employees would be living in poverty and having to eat cat food in order to afford their prescriptions . . . well, they didn't put it exactly that way, but you get my drift.

In order to make sure Federal employees (including Congresscritters) didn't have to rely solely on Social Security, the Thrift Savings Plan was added so that they didn't.

Both USA TODAY and the National Center for Policy Analysis note that the "risky private investment scheme" that's part of Bush's plan for overhauling the current Social Security System for we regular folk, would be modeled after the plan Federal employees (including Congresscriters) already have.

The results of a survey in today's paper showed that those surveyed were against the idea of private personal accounts because of stock market volitility. People could lose their entire retirement nest egg, so Social Security is safer! Oh, and its return is better!!!

Gag me.

Both USA TODAY and the NCPC articles above explain the fund choices available under the TSP. None are based on a single stock, or the total retirement plan based on the stock market alone. And compared to the 2 percent return on the T-bills held as IOUs in the Social Security "Trust Fund" (that you may or may not live long enough to ever get a thin dime from) these are the 10-year returns for the five different funds available under TSP.

Funny the disinformation. Like the latest reports that Dubya's plan for overhauling Social Security is dead.

That's what, the second or the third time?

UPDATE: Texasbig links with MORONS! (that doesn't sound right, does it)

UPDATE 2: Welcome Wizbang! readers. I just put a fresh pot of coffee on. It'll be ready in a second.

Echoes

"Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised." William J. Clinton, January 19, 1999.

Funny how the lefty-loons ignore that, and now pretend that Social Security is just fine and dandy. Dubya's making it all up, they claim.

(Also see: “Save Social Security First”? ).

Clinton also said, "The best way to keep Social Security a rock-solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; and not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it."

This wasn't the first time Clinton had addressed the problems that were looming with Social Security. (It was just the easiest citation for me to find.) I suspect that last part, about not draining resources from Social Security, was in answer to proposals made even back then, which would have allowed workers to divert a portion of what was being confiscated from them under FICA, into personal investment accounts. Even then, that was anathema.

Clinton's proposal was to take part of what had been a projected surplus, and invest in in the stock market and other equities, to help offset the shortfalls. A year later, of course, in 2000 the dot.com bubble began to rupture, so did Clinton's mythical surplus.

Mythical?

Correct me if I'm wrong with this. I don't mind it because I admit, I could be.

I've been looking for citations and coming up blank, but it's like snippets of an old song that keeps echoing faintly in the back of your mind and as soon as you try to grab it POOF!, it dances just out of reach . . . until it begins taunting you again at some ungawdly hour like 2 ayem. And then you can't go back to sleep no matter how hard you try.

I think Clinton was the first president to include in his surplus/deficit projections, the value of the bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund. And since they have no real value outside of redemption by the Treasury Department, it was really only robbing Peter to pay Paul. Which, to me, would make it a mythical surplus.

Confused? Don't feel badly. You should see if from this side of the screen. Be grateful for this, though. At least I kept what I was writing about the "imaginary rectangle" in DRAFT.

Defining AARP

Writing for The American Spectator, David Hogberg says one word defines AARP's stance on overhauling Social Security: hyprocracy.

Here's why.

Galveston, oh Galveston!

Relax everyone. No need to run in terror. I'm not singing or going to.

The negative talk about overhauling Social Security is coming in hot and heavy from the usual sources. Funny thing about their squawking is that they admit it's going bankrupt, but claim everthing's still just fine and dandy until . . . well, they're not sure when but it's not now so, why worry about it. It's decades away.

Writing for National Review Online, Donald Luskin says the Social Security crisis begins in just 5 years.

These aren't loose words as Luskin shows. He also shows with links to reports from the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds and the GAO, it gets worse. No games, those are the numbers.

What exactly will overhauling Social Security to allow private investment do for future retirees? That's where Galveston comes in.

With all due respect to the "New Deal," I believe it is time for "A Better Deal." Thus, what I ask the President and the distinguished members of his Commission to consider is not a Chilean model, or a British model, or an Australian model or a Swedish model of Social Security reform, though I’m sure those are all fine as far as they go.

What I ask the President and his Commission to consider is an American Model, a real life American success story found deep in the heart of Texas. -- Statement By Galveston County Judge Ray Holbrook (ret.) for the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security

More here. (Note: 5-page .pdf, but well worth the bother.)

Social Security Info

"Social Security is just fine. There won't any problems with it until . . . "

For a long as I can remember, the primary argument concerning Social Security has been not that it will eventually go broke, but when.

With me, it went in one ear and out the other for decades. At first I was young, mid-twenties? With so many working years ahead, what did it matter? Besides, Social Security had always been there -- which, of course, isn't true but it seemed that way -- so it always would be!

In reality, it won't.

The system is on the path to its own self-destruction by dint of its very design and pay-as-you-go structure.

From the Wall Street Journal, background information on the crumbling pyramid scheme known as Social Security: Without reform, it will destroy itself

(bugmenot.com sign-in: politico@aol.com)

Reforming Social Security

You'll hear (and read) a bunch about the privatication of Social Security. As I said here, that's actually a misnomer. Many are still referring to it as a privatization effort and will continue to do so. The Lefty Loons are bleating louder and louder that it will wreck the current system leaving old folk starving and homeless and . . .

And now AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, has joined in the spreading of disinformation, coming out against it without bothering to wait until any actual debate has occurred or the plan has been developed.

It is a cause of dismay, if not outright sadness. Young people, by and large, just can't seem to get worked up about matters political. That's too bad, because they might be interested in knowing that one of America's largest and most effective lobbying organizations has just declared war on them. The AARP has now decided that it's going to fight any effort by President Bush to privatize, even partially, that debacle known as Social Security. If younger
Americans had any idea what was happening to them here they would demanding change. If young Americans truly had a handle on the future, and on the fact that they will one day reach that magic age when they stop working and live on their retirement income, they would be marching on DC and occupying congressional offices until change was made.

Neal Boortz had quite a bit more to say, including information that the AARP either didn't bother to find out about or didn't want its membership to know when it declared war on younger Americans.

Makes sense

George Will has a suggestion for Dubya on who should replace John W. Snow, the departing Treasury Secretary: Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan, a black hole of charisma, is, because of his reassuring lack of dash, precisely the person to embody sobriety in defense of bold changes, of which there soon will be many proposed. Greenspan, whose demeanor -- call it caution cubed -- does not suggest a man hurrying to Mardi Gras, has an unrivaled reservoir of credibility . . .

Will goes on to explain that one of the primary goals Bush has laid out, where someone of Greenspan's ability and credibility will be crucial, is reforming Social Security.

The Lefty-Loons are already out there spreading their disinformation on this proposal.

A great source of information to counter it is The Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice.