|
|
|
I've mostly remained undecided on the Social Security issue that has taken the US by storm. The choices have often seemed to be between bad plans (most of the Republican ideas) and denial by the Democratic leadership that there is even a problem. Sure, I'll agree that health care is a bigger problem that we seem to be ignoring - Medicare/Medicaid faces worse fiscal problems than Social Security, the cost of health care and insurance is continually rising, and the number of uninsured citizens is frightening. Perhaps that is a more important problem, but that does not mean that Social Security isn't in serious danger a few decades down the road. I applaud the Republicans for looking beyond the next election on something for once. But the solutions that the Republicans have so often been proposing miss the point of what Social Security is.
Social Security is basically bad luck/fouled up insurance for people who worked hard their entire lives, paid taxes, helped grow America's economy, but have little or nothing to show for it in retirement. It's insurance for your great aunt who never had kids, worked her whole life, and thought that putting a few dollars in a shoe box every once in awhile would get her through her retirement years. It's for the married 60 year old who had to wipe out his savings to pay for his wife's hospital bills, and who never made that much at his factory job anyway. If you are responsible and don't have any major uninsured disasters in your life, then Social Security will be a small portion of your retirement income. You can retire to Florida and live the good life. But if you dilligently worked most of your life while you were physically able (ie, you weren't a bum), regardless of the employment you found and the events in your life, you can at least afford food and a television set to see shows set in Florida - because Social Security will send you a monthly check.
People who argue the other side typically tell me that it is individual responsibility to save for retirement. I agree, but I say "how many people do you know who are putting away enough money for retirement right now?" It's always later, and later turns out to be too late. Numerous stories are out there about retirees having to depend on the equity of their homes in retirement, and Americans' savings rate is worse than almost any other developed nation, including those European countries with more socialist tendencies. We are a debtor nation, whether you are talking about our government, our trade, or our citizens. Social Security is insurance for an unlucky working life, disability, and the all too common tendency for Americans to choose a new car over investing $20,000 in a mutual fund or retirement account.
There are other solutions for that - economic and financial education being a basic subject in school along with science and math, or making IRAs mandatory (which would not be a new tax since it would still be your money). But neither of these would be very popular, and mandatory investment accounts would be yet another government intrusion on our lives. So, let's keep Social Security as insurance, and keep our freedom to finance our lifestyles with loans and credit cards! You might be thinking that I don't like Bush's private accounts idea. That's not entirely true - in a surplus situation it would be a golden idea. But taking money away from a system facing a shortfall in order to solve that shortfall just doesn't sound logical to me. If implemented without his idea for a 3 percent fee, I probably would buy into it for myself. But Social Security is designed to be old age insurance. Be ready - investing for your own retirement might become more than a personal responsibility, becoming a necessity for survival.
So what is President Bush starting to get right? Well in particular, in his recent press conference, he endorsed the use of a sliding-scale benefit formula to determine future retirees' starting benefits. Wow - that's such an awesome idea that I'm surprised I haven't heard of that before. That would ensure that all retirees would have a base line retirement level, just slightly above poverty, but above poverty. And responsible folks with decent luck would have better retirements than the unwise grasshoppers. It sounds like a good compromise between rewarding wise behavior and insuring that our parents don't have to depend on us to survive, even if things go wrong in their lives. People who work will be able to retire when they get old, and most of the funding shortfall will be taken care of.
Something else that I've heard that he has tacitly supported (ie, not stated any opposition to) is lifting the cap on high income individuals. This cap allows those that make more than $90,000 per year to pay less in social security taxes as a percentage of their income than a minimum wage worker. Lift this cap, and you solve the funding issue for Social Security. Combine lifting the cap with a sliding-scale benefit for the insurance portion, and there might even be enough money for the private accounts idea.
Congress should also be responsible enough not to spend our future away, whether dipping into the Social Security trust fund or not (and preferably not!). But even under a two party system congress couldn't find enough ways to spend our tax dollars. Under a one party system, why bother even pretending to have restraint? Trillions of dollars is too big to be a real number, right? The national debt, government deficit, and national trade deficit are all part of a liberal media conspiracy - debt really is OK. Deficits don't matter. That's what the guy on the radio said!
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
Wow. The first President with a true popular vote majority in 16 years. This is very important.
It appears that traditional moral values are what drove this majority, coupled with Bush's popular support in the War on Terrorism. But it really seems to me that moral values are what pulled the far right evangelicals out, which is what pushed Bush to win in the tight states.
There is no doubt even in my mind that George Bush is a moral man in his personal life. I think that, for a politician, he is reasonably ethical in his political life, too. However, it was primarily his mishandling of international relations and his abuse of military power that drove my anger against him. His fiscal irresponsibility also did not make me happy. But he won a majority of the popular vote.
Remember the two greatest commandments. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" - I have no doubt about Bush in this. Where I doubt him is "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". Certainly, "You shall love your fellow Republican, or even fellow American, as yourself". But I think that "neighbor" does not apply strictly to your fellow countrymen. Do not have a different standard for other nations. Do not expect any non-Americans to welcome our domination of them any more than you would think that Americans would welcome foreign domination. If an unprovoked invasion or attack of our nation would anger us (such as 9/11), why do you think any other nation, or anyone, would feel differently? Apply your personal values and ethics to your use of military power.
And for goodness sakes, don't listen to your NeoConservative advisors, or at least not solely. They are unethical hypocrites, and will lead you, and possibly our nation to defeat. Mr. President, there is much anger directed toward you - please try to return to the vision you put forth in 2000.
For your reference, the US Constitution as originally passed, and, separately, its amendments.
It seems as though some people have misunderstood my "Terrorist Teachers" article, even though I thought it was dripping with sarcasm, perhaps soaked in it. To clarify:
I am passionately opposed to the Bush Administration, and this is the first time that I have actively campaigned against anyone (and thus for someone, out of the pure necessity of increasing the chances for defeat of the incumbent.) The article is bitter sarcasm directed at the Bush Administration. Bush and a significant number of his supporters (not all) consistently say that if you are against the Iraq war, you are - pick your label - unamerican, unpatriotic, unloyal to the troops, supporting the terrorists, etc. VP Cheney has even suggested that a vote for Kerry is a vote for another terrorist attack (he's retracted it, and said effectively the same thing several times again). This terrible "terrorist" rhetoric has been applied rediculously to all sorts of people and organizations, which emphatically do NOT support terrorism. The most absurd - and yet true - example is Secretary of Education Paige referring to the NEA as a "terrorist organization." Read this article if you don't believe me.
VP Cheney routinely insults me and a large number of Americans - including the bipartisan 9/11 commission - by repeatedly insisting that the Iraq War was -
About point no.3 - there was no consensus that there were any WMDs after roughly 1994, with most generally doubting that Iraq had anything more than a few old chemical weapons. In fact, no WMDs have been found. Plenty of standard munitions/missiles, but nothing that could have threatened us, except maybe - an extremely slim maybe - our forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, if the Iraqi troops ever figured out how to aim. Hussein seems to have perversely believed that our superior intelligence and intrusive inspections would prove the lack of WMDs, while hoping to intimidate his neighbors with talk of WMDs. But even if you believed Iraq to be a legitimate threat, then you certainly should have believed Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea to be far bigger threats. However, the biggest direct threat is Anti-American Islamist Terrorism, specifically Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations - and there are probably more serious members of those organizations in the USA than there were in Iraq before our unprovoked invasion of that sovereign (though unfriendly and undemocratic) nation. Also, lest we think that Muslims or Arabs are the problem (thus legitimizing an attack on Iraq), you might find it interesting that "crusade" has a similar meaning to many middle-easterners to what "jihad" has to us. Blaming Arabs or Muslims in general for Radical Islamist Anti-American "Jihad" is like blaming ordinary Christians for the Crusades!
Family members of mine have asked me to take back some of my comments, but I am leaving my opinions and sincere concerns posted on this, my personal, website. Some of them thought extreme my conclusion that the Bush Administration, or at least Secretary Paige, considers NEA supporters to be supporters of terrorism. It doesn't seem a big jump to me to think that supporters of a "terrorist organization" are supporters of terrorism. This would implicate some loved ones, and myself, too - for I think the NEA is a great organization. Of course, it is absurd and wrong to think that I or any of my immediate family are terrorists, but the fact that several people misunderstood and thought just that shows the danger in using fear and fascist rhetoric for political gain. Look up fascism at Onelook.com, an online dictionary search engine, if you think I am simply throwing out an offensive word. Or use your own dictionary. We're not there yet, but Italy was on our side in WWI, and Germany was a "liberal" - in both the good and not-so-good senses of the word - country in the 20s.
You might also want to check out my link to the NewAmericanCentury.org website - it's an organization comprised of some surprisingly high ranking people who have called for the invasion of Iraq since before the War on Terrorism began or even 9/11. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - they're all there. This administration routinely bends the facts, or even makes them up (uranium from Nigeria?) in order to support its neoconservative ideology. This is a seriously immoral, indeed scary, way to govern. I am fearful of another four years. The world might unite against us.
Oh, the NEA, with some reservations, supported the NCLB Act, but the Republican controlled Virginia House of Delegates (which I worked for as a page in 8th grade) passed a resolution against it - not because they were against education, but because it was severely underfunded, leaving the states with the necessity of RAISING taxes just to meet the provisions of the act, unless they wanted to emulate the government's deficit spending, which is against the law in Virginia. But I guess giving Bill Gates a multi-million dollar tax break was more important than balancing the nation's budget or fully funding legislation better left to the individual states anyway. I paid less in taxes last year, too, although as near as I can tell, that was mostly because of the combat zone income tax exclusion.
Hope this wasn't too confusing! I write most of these thoughts on the fly...
And now, the earlier confusing article (only slightly edited):
Ordinarily I am an Independent politically. I have voted Republican in the past, although typically I vote split tickets, sometimes including independent and third party candidates. With this administration, though, I have been forced over to the Democrats. I likely will not remain a Democrat, especially if they ever become as bull-headed as the Republicans have become. But back in 2000, I voted for Nader. Why? Because I saw no significant difference between Bush and Gore, especially after Bush worked so hard to disprove the misconception that he was unintelligent. Plus Bush seemed to be moderate - a good example of "Compassionate Conservative", and as he said, "a Uniter, not a Divider". Well, what is the big difference between a Compassionate Conservative (a label I used to not mind applied to myself) and a moderate Democrat (which is how Gore seemed to me)? So, I supported Nader in the hopes of pushing America to a multiparty system, not because I support all of the Green Party's positions. I considered voting for Browne, being more of a Libertarian myself, but saw that the Green Party had more of a chance at achieving this multi-party goal.
After September 11, I actually started to like President Bush. He acted very Presidential, and started to prosecute the War on Terrorism very effectively in my estimation. After the announcement that Taliban POWs would not be considered POWs, I had some doubts about Guantanimo Bay, but still trusted that this would not be a long term situation - surely most of the prisoners were guilty (which I still believe), and those few not guilty would be quickly freed (imprisonment for 2 or more years without being charged isn't too much of a price for an innocent person to pay for freedom, right?). Furthermore, I figured that the US being a nation that loves justice, we would give our prisoners the justice of a trial, but this hasn't happened - most of the prisoners are, years later, still being interrogated. But even so, I still trusted Bush in the early days of this.
Then I started to see the war machine focus on Iraq. "Why?" I asked, and I diligently waited for answers. I looked forward to Secretary Powell's UN speech, although I had to catch the highlights later online because I was in the field. I was unimpressed - the worst CURRENT offense being the As Sammoud missiles' capability of greater range than allowed by treaty. No "smoking gun" evidence of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons was shown. Anyway, to make a long story short, I did not participate in any demonstrations or protests against the Iraq war until days before it started, and even then with a slight doubt in the back of my mind. I knew Saddam Hussein's history, and never thought him worthy of any defense, but felt that this would be an unjust war that would hurt Americans and Iraqis, and would unnecessarily distract from the War Against Terrorism. So with it becoming evident that the US would push forward without world support, without clear evidence, without giving diplomacy a chance, and in spite of another war already testing our resources, I felt it was my duty to oppose the war. I am sorry that all I did was publicly denounce it and pray it wouldn't happen. I should have started earlier, I should have done more. But I trusted President Bush.
I of course continued to read and watch the news, and it became ever more evident that, despite my love of the US Constitution, my love of my nation, and my service in the military, that I am not a patriot. This was a surprise to me. I learned that protest against a popular war is unpatriotic and anti-american. This was reinforced through some Republican friends of mine, and the Administration tacitly supported this view (and sometimes not tacitly). So, like any other unpatriotic, anti-american citizen, I obeyed the orders of the President of the United States and those appointed over me, and went to Iraq with the rest of my unit and division. I felt bad about it at first, but fortunately my job involved helping to improve the lives of other soldiers and service members, so that lessened my guilt. I also was involved in several memorial services, which provided a sense of atonement. What I don't want to imagine - what I can't imagine - is how those soldiers felt who had to use lethal force, who watched their friends die, and who still felt that this was an unnecessary, unjust war. My hope is that they took some solace in the hope that ridding the world of Hussein would eventually help bring liberty to Iraqis.
After returning from Iraq, I started to see more of the effects of Bush's tax cuts. I am not opposed to tax cuts, but I am opposed to Bush's tax cuts. Why? Although they did help stimulate the economy - the benefits have primarily been for the rich and upper-middle class (and mostly for the rich). This has been couched in deceptively easy terms, such as elimination of "double taxation", but I challenge you to find anyone middle class or lower who faced heavy, or any, taxation on stock dividends, the other term for "double taxation" being "dividend tax". Most ordinary americans can only afford to own dividend paying stocks as a portion of their IRA or 401k plans, and poor americans tend to not own stocks at all. But, I suppose it does make the tax code more fair. And the economy is indeed out of recession and growing again, even though ordinary Americans are not feeling this because they are primarily affected by employment and wages. (See my earlier entry on Income taxes below.)
Why am I "opposed" to cutting taxes? Well, again I'm not, but I am opposed to any net reduction in government revenues while there is a DEFICIT and a LARGE NATIONAL DEBT. Government revenues primarily come from taxes in a truly capitalist, as opposed to socialist, nation - a capitalist nation expects private businesses to make profits in industries which allow this, while the government remains small, only entering into unprofitable but necessary enterprises such as education, road-building, national defense, and law enforcement, the funding of such works coming from taxes. Fiddle with with fiscal policy all you want - increase import taxes to reduce income taxes on the working poor and middle class, or cut spending - but don't give the RICH a tax break while there is a DEFICIT and a LARGE NATIONAL DEBT - they are the ones who have already benefitted. I realize that such views make me a liberal commie bastard in conservatives' eyes, but in my defense, I would like to say give everyone, including the rich, a huge tax cut - after there is no longer a DEFICIT and a LARGE NATIONAL DEBT. And I used to think I was a patriot, an american...
Then I recently found out that I am a supporter of a "terrorist organization" known as the NEA (National Education Association). I also once worked for a "terrorist organization" - the Virginia House of Delegates, which voted 98 - 1 to ask Congress to exempt Virginia from the "No Child Left Behind" Act. Of course, this places the Republican administration in the awkward position of working against a Republican controlled legislature due to its "terrorist" leanings.
98-1... Democrats being primarily concerned about "electability" instead of their many conflicting fringe issues... Me supporting Kerry despite not particularly liking him... Maybe Bush is a "uniter". But damn it, don't think I am anti-american or unpatriotic because I oppose the President and think he is one of the worst presidents in recent history. I've read the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, and I love them. I have sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, and although my four years enlistment are nearing the end, I see no specified time limit in that oath. I will continue to support and defend the Constitution of the United States even when this defense does not entail taking up arms. And I am not a Terrorist!
Why are the Democratic candidates making such a big deal about repealing the tax cuts? Tax cuts benefit everyone, right? Didn't you appreciate that extra couple hundred dollars last year? Well, check out this chart, from Fool.com - an excellent and fun site for aid in personal investing and financial matters.
| Taxable Income | 2002 Taxes | 2003 Taxes | Difference |
| Single filers | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| $20,000 | 2,704 | 2,654 | 50 (1.9%) |
| $35,000 | 5,803 | 5,566 | 237 (4.1%) |
| $50,000 | 9,839 | 9,316 | 523 (5.3%) |
| $75,000 | 16,823 | 15,753 | 1,070 (6.4%) |
| $100,000 | 24,308 | 22,739 | 1,569 (6.5%) |
| $200,000 | 57,253 | 53,571 | 3,682 (6.4%) |
| $1,000,000 | 362,199 | 331,332 | 30,867 (8.5%) |
| Married filers | |||
| $20,000 | 2,404 | 2,304 | 100 (4.2%) |
| $35,000 | 4,654 | 4,554 | 100 (2.1%) |
| $50,000 | 7,289 | 6,804 | 485 (6.7%) |
| $75,000 | 14,053 | 12,376 | 1,677 (11.9%) |
| $100,000 | 20,789 | 18,614 | 2,175 (10.5%) |
| $200,000 | 51,813 | 47,446 | 4,368 (8.4%) |
| $1,000,000 | 356,759 | 325,207 | 31,553 (8.8%) |
First of all, most of the candidates only want to roll back the tax cuts on those with incomes over $100,000 (Dean being the big exception). Secondly, several have plans to leave or increase the middle class tax break through increased credits. In a perfect world with a fiscally responsible government, I would be in favor of reducing everyone's taxes, including the rich. But, in this time of record deficits, these numbers matter. If the tremendous tax cut for high income individuals significantly benefitted you (maybe you were hired as a house keeper with their tax savings!), then by all means, vote for Bush. But, I encourage everyone else to support whichever democrat they feel has the most responsible plan for fixing our national budget.
Our national debt is more than 7 Trillion dollars - yes, that is a real number, and written out it is roughly $7,055,000,000,000. To put it in more easily understandable terms, every baby born in this nation is born more than $24,000 in debt (if you are a US citizen, that is the amount you owe, too). Every time congress and the president run a budget deficit, your debt, as a citizen, increases. A deficit is simply the government spending more than it takes in. "Spending" includes things like wars, the upkeep of the military, that health care plan everyone seems to want now, and basically anything the government spends money on. "Takes In" would be taxes, so a decrease in taxes without a commensurate cut in spending also raises the deficit. Remember, the government isn't some abstract evil in Washington DC, it is the congressmen and president that you elect.
There was a time when the Republicans were fiscal conservatives. And many still are, so don't jump to conclusions about your congressman or senator until you see where he or she stands on this issue, regardless of party. But, strangely, it seems as though the Democratic candidates for President are actually more conservative than our current Republican one, at least in the area of fiscal responsibility.
Oh, and incidentally, if you happen to own a lot of dividend paying stocks outside of your Individual Retirement Account or 401k, you also got a big tax cut from President Bush. In fact, you now only pay 15% federal taxes on this income! So I highly encourage those millionaires out there who benefitted from this to vote for Bush. Everyone else, well, think about it.
I have arrived in Fort Leonard Wood, MO, my home for the next year or so. I am now a member of the 399th Army Band, and am excited to be here - I am looking forward to focusing on music again!
Check this out:
New American Century Statement of Principles
And notice who signed it...
I do not think it is in America's interests to found an Empire - even though the words used were "American Global Leadership" and "preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles". We've had bad experiences with this in the past, and thankfully did the right thing by giving independence to most of our conquered, such as the Phillipines. The very idea of an empire is against American principles, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the US Constitution. However, it is quite arguable that we already have an Athenian style empire when one considers our world dominance and the fact that we have troops in roughly 170 nations right now. Most nations have given their consent to this, so that does make it more "Athenian" (like the Delian League), but it sure resembles empire.
What happened to the Republic of Rome when it got too into empire building, and it's citizens lost interest in government? Caeser, complete decadence, and loss of respect for human rights and life. We can also learn much from the history of democratic Athens, particularly how its domination of the Delian League, pursuit of an Athenian Empire, and foolish abuse of its military strength resulted in its destruction.
I will try to quit complaining so much about Apple on my site. I do like my computer, and I love OSX. It's just that the company has been irritating me a lot lately. I ended up giving in and staying with ".mac" - I registered and paid during the extended period after the deadline. I know services change, and price has to reflect actual cost, but it's annoying to pay for something that was free, even if the new version is a little better. So, go check out my photos - I'm now paying for the space to host them and the software to automatically format them for the web. The expense was justified in my mind because I know some of you are actually entertained by my life and travels. :-)