Back in 2004 when John Kerry mounted his horrendous campaign for the presidency, I wanted to do my part. I'm an attorney, so I thought I could lend a hand, maybe in Ohio or Pennsylvania. But I couldn't get my act together in time to make that happen. Then I heard someone on the radio mentioning that a lot of places needed poll workers, so I called my local board of elections to volunteer. Only they told me I couldn't volunteer...they would pay me. Score! I've been doing it pretty much ever since, with the exception of the occasional primary election. This was my first one. Unlike in years past, where people voted by the election district (basically a selected geographic area) in which they lived, this time the board of elections decided to combine the districts but separate the voters by what party they were registered with. Democrats here, Republicans there. An interesting concept, but it messed with people who were used to the way things use to work. And people apparently don't read well (Democrat or Republican), because we kept getting Democrats coming to our table to vote, and vice versa at the Democrats table, not to mention the independent voters who ignored the sign that said only registered Democrats and Republicans could vote.
Being a poll worker isn't a gig for the lazy. We work from 5:30am until 9:00pm. For $150 (from which no taxes are withheld). Don't ask me how most poll workers do it, what with the apparent average age being about 80 (my unscientific estimate), but they do it.
The polling place where I was working was in the elementary school that my kids attend. I was stationed at the Republican voting table. In order to ensure no funny business, there are 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats stationed there. We had about 1,050 registered Republicans and one voting machine, compared to the 1,200+ registered Democrats with 2 machines at the other station.
Things started out slow. At least for us. Not much action in the early morning hours. A few folks on their way to work, probably getting their vote cast before they hit the train to Manhattan. Some of the elementary school students started arriving around 8am, apparently for string ensemble rehearsal. Regular classes begin around 8:30am. My wife stopped in with my kids to say hi before she dropped them off for the school day.
After the students were let in it was time for the pledge of allegiance over the loudspeaker system, followed by a quick salute for Black History Month, which was inappropriate, I thought, for its content - they were paying tribute to Barack Obama. The announcement was clearly heard in the voting booths. I seriously doubt it swayed the vote of anyone who came to vote, but I think better judgment would have been to discuss Obama the day before or after the election.
The morning plodded along, at least for us. We averaged about 8 voters per hour. Around noon the Democrats had 160 voters to our 40. An interesting statistic that the group of us working the table tried to figure out, throwing out our myriad theories. McCain is not inspiring; McCain has New York locked up so people probably figured their vote wouldn't make a difference; Nobody likes any of the Republican candidates; the Democrats have more interesting candidates; Democrats are more likely to vote because they want to take part in the historic event of voting for either the first strong female candidate or the first black presidential candidate; Obama is inspiring. Who the hell really knows? It's all a bunch of speculation.
I went home for lunch and to see if there were any updates on any of the races, even though I knew it was too early for there to be anything of significance to report...and I was right. The New York Giants parade was going on in Manhattan, and that was the big news of the day thus far. After a quick trip to Best Buy, it was "back to school" to wait out the day until dinnertime.
Still averaging about 8 voters per hour in the afternoon. Not much of anything exciting happening, though I did kill some time trying to guess the party affiliation of each person who came through the door...with a fair amount of success.
I do have to say that it was interesting seeing how many people came in not knowing that they could only vote if they were registered with either the Democratic or Republican party, and that they could only vote for candidates in their party. We got a lot of people who were registered but not affiliated with any party, some of whom swore that they were registered with a party. And a bunch who wanted to vote Democratic who were registered Republican. Not many Democrats who wanted to vote Republican interestingly enough. And we had a few people who, not realizing that they were registered Republican, decided that they didn’t want to vote for a Republican candidate. We ran out of registration cards giving them out to people who wanted to either switch parties or who wanted to actually affiliate themselves with one party or the other (again, mostly Democrats).
Back from dinner. Two hours to go and we're up in the 170's. Things have picked up since about 3pm. Lots of couples coming in. Older men and women too, walking with canes and walkers, whatever it takes to get their vote in. I had to admire that. One older woman was so determined to vote, even though she had to pause and take a seat half way across the gymnasium because she couldn't otherwise make it to the voting booth.
At the end of the night, turnout was about 30% combining together both Democratic and Republican turnout. But that hides a serious discrepancy. Republican turnout was about 19%, while Democratic turnout was 42%. A drastic difference. And, in my very small snapshot of the electorate, Barack Obama eked out a close victory over Hilary Clinton, while John McCain took about half of the Republican vote. Rudy Giuliani, out of the race, took 3% of the vote, and Mitt Romney took 33%. Don't extrapolate anything from this, because as I'm writing this, CBS is predicting Clinton to win New York.
And now, off to bed.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
There's more a-comin'
For the 2 of you out there who read my posts, there's good news. I have committed to writing more regularly in '08, so check back for more of my ramblings soon...
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
NEWS FLASH: Mexicans and Gays are NOT ruining this country!
OK, so I’ve had it up to here (note hand raised above head) with this illegal aliens issue. The final straw was an email I received that had the following text superimposed over a picture of an American flag: “Why the hell do I have to press 1 to English?” Or something like that. The lack of logic and the blatant bigotry behind this email and others like it that I have received didn’t really shock me as much as piss me off. Of course, being me, I had to respond to this email: Uh, maybe because this company wants to make money. And maybe they realize that there are a lot of potential customers out there who don’t speak fluent English – even those who maybe learned enough English to actually become US citizens – and that would be better served by instructions in English. It’s basic business sense. Duh. Besides, even someone who learns enough English to become a US citizen would probably have issues comprehending the legalese in your typical credit card bill or cellular phone statement and might want someone to explain it to them in a language they could comprehend. Hell, I know some people born in this country who need help understanding this stuff. In English.
So everyone in the US should speak English? Sure, I think that, if you want to become a citizen, you need to learn some basic level of English. But emails like the one I mentioned above seem to indicate that everyone who comes to this country should have a high school understanding of the English language. And let me ask you this – do you watch sports? Do you like the Yankees? Would this intolerance extend to someone like Hideki Matsui? Should he have to go back to Japan because he doesn’t speak English? Or Ichiro Suzuki? What about all the basketball players and hockey players that don’t speak English? Should there be an exception for them? Do these same people who scream about people who speak Spanish protest against MLB, NHL and NBA teams? Do they boycott the games on TV and protest outside stadiums? Somehow I don’t think so.
No, this is about intolerance, plain and simple. Lazy-ass Americans who want to feel comfortable by having everyone around them look and sound the same. I think it’s great that people speak all different kinds of languages around me. It makes me want to learn those languages. I love the Spanish language. I’ve got in-laws and co-workers who speak Tagalog frequently, and I think it’s great. Sure, when I’m shopping, I want the store worker to be able to speak English and I get frustrated when they can’t. But that’s minor inconvenience. And someone who works for the government should have a high school understanding of the English language.
Here’s the thing that most of those who are bitching to me about illegal aliens haven’t figured out. Illegal aliens aren’t ruining this country. Neither are homosexuals. These issues are just fear tactics thrown out there by the fear-mongering corrupt Republicans in the Bush administration who are really the ones ruining this country - how many billions of dollars are missing in Iraq? And let’s not forget Enron, folks. There has not been any sudden increase in the flow of illegal aliens into this country in recent years. It’s been pretty steady. So why in 2006 is this an issue? Is there some overriding need to protect America from terrorists sneaking across the border? To some extent yes, but if it was such a big problem, why wasn’t Dubya doing something about it before this year? And, truth be told, the 9/11 hijackers didn’t sneak across the Mexican border. In fact, most people in this country illegally came here legally, with legitimate Visas, and then stayed longer than they were supposed to. So the border fence will have limited impact.
Again, homosexuals aren’t ruining this country. If the sanctity of marriage was so important to my Republican friends in Congress and in the Executive branch of government, why are they not taking aim at lenient divorce laws in most states that make it pretty easy to get a divorce? Where are the protests against California’s divorce laws that let you get divorced for something as simple as “irreconcilable differences?” If marriage is so important, than divorce shouldn’t be so easy. But no one in Congress is railing against divorce laws or proposing debate about that, or a Constitutional amendment prohibiting divorce.
If you are reading this and you think that illegal aliens and homosexuals are ruining this country, then you are an intolerant, ignorant person and you need to stop watching Fox News, put down the Washington Times, and pick up the New York Times or the Washington Post. Or else you should be taken out behind your barn or your double-wide and shot. We’ve got quite a large number of Spanish speaking people and homosexual people round about where I live and work in New York, and New York’s doing pretty damned well. Our economy is booming. And I don’t see anyone’s marriage failing because gay people date other gay people. Some of my good friends are homosexual, and I don’t feel like my marriage is threatened by them or by other homosexuals getting married in Massachusetts. What I do feel threatened by is a freakin’ HUGE national deficit, an equally freakin’ HUGE trade deficit, and incompetent military leadership inciting radical Muslims to attack us. And I work in Manhattan, where we’ve been attacked twice by Osama’s buds, not Kansas or Oklahoma.
These are the things what worry me. I don’t need Congress debating a freakin’ amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I need Congress debating how to end the war in Iraq, how to balance our budget so that my kids don’t have to pay for this Administration’s bullshit tax cuts for the rich while spending goes through the roof. Those are real issues.
So everyone in the US should speak English? Sure, I think that, if you want to become a citizen, you need to learn some basic level of English. But emails like the one I mentioned above seem to indicate that everyone who comes to this country should have a high school understanding of the English language. And let me ask you this – do you watch sports? Do you like the Yankees? Would this intolerance extend to someone like Hideki Matsui? Should he have to go back to Japan because he doesn’t speak English? Or Ichiro Suzuki? What about all the basketball players and hockey players that don’t speak English? Should there be an exception for them? Do these same people who scream about people who speak Spanish protest against MLB, NHL and NBA teams? Do they boycott the games on TV and protest outside stadiums? Somehow I don’t think so.
No, this is about intolerance, plain and simple. Lazy-ass Americans who want to feel comfortable by having everyone around them look and sound the same. I think it’s great that people speak all different kinds of languages around me. It makes me want to learn those languages. I love the Spanish language. I’ve got in-laws and co-workers who speak Tagalog frequently, and I think it’s great. Sure, when I’m shopping, I want the store worker to be able to speak English and I get frustrated when they can’t. But that’s minor inconvenience. And someone who works for the government should have a high school understanding of the English language.
Here’s the thing that most of those who are bitching to me about illegal aliens haven’t figured out. Illegal aliens aren’t ruining this country. Neither are homosexuals. These issues are just fear tactics thrown out there by the fear-mongering corrupt Republicans in the Bush administration who are really the ones ruining this country - how many billions of dollars are missing in Iraq? And let’s not forget Enron, folks. There has not been any sudden increase in the flow of illegal aliens into this country in recent years. It’s been pretty steady. So why in 2006 is this an issue? Is there some overriding need to protect America from terrorists sneaking across the border? To some extent yes, but if it was such a big problem, why wasn’t Dubya doing something about it before this year? And, truth be told, the 9/11 hijackers didn’t sneak across the Mexican border. In fact, most people in this country illegally came here legally, with legitimate Visas, and then stayed longer than they were supposed to. So the border fence will have limited impact.
Again, homosexuals aren’t ruining this country. If the sanctity of marriage was so important to my Republican friends in Congress and in the Executive branch of government, why are they not taking aim at lenient divorce laws in most states that make it pretty easy to get a divorce? Where are the protests against California’s divorce laws that let you get divorced for something as simple as “irreconcilable differences?” If marriage is so important, than divorce shouldn’t be so easy. But no one in Congress is railing against divorce laws or proposing debate about that, or a Constitutional amendment prohibiting divorce.
If you are reading this and you think that illegal aliens and homosexuals are ruining this country, then you are an intolerant, ignorant person and you need to stop watching Fox News, put down the Washington Times, and pick up the New York Times or the Washington Post. Or else you should be taken out behind your barn or your double-wide and shot. We’ve got quite a large number of Spanish speaking people and homosexual people round about where I live and work in New York, and New York’s doing pretty damned well. Our economy is booming. And I don’t see anyone’s marriage failing because gay people date other gay people. Some of my good friends are homosexual, and I don’t feel like my marriage is threatened by them or by other homosexuals getting married in Massachusetts. What I do feel threatened by is a freakin’ HUGE national deficit, an equally freakin’ HUGE trade deficit, and incompetent military leadership inciting radical Muslims to attack us. And I work in Manhattan, where we’ve been attacked twice by Osama’s buds, not Kansas or Oklahoma.
These are the things what worry me. I don’t need Congress debating a freakin’ amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I need Congress debating how to end the war in Iraq, how to balance our budget so that my kids don’t have to pay for this Administration’s bullshit tax cuts for the rich while spending goes through the roof. Those are real issues.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
U.S. Wants Companies to Keep Web Usage Records - New York Times
U.S. Wants Companies to Keep Web Usage Records - New York Times
Um...if they're already collecting our phone records without a warrant, they're probably already collecting email and web sites we visit without a permit also. And it wouldn't matter, even if they get the legislation they are seeking, because they don't seem to feel they are bound by the law anyway! And notice that they'll use 9/11 to sell their position, but the article mentions that they'll use this information for all types of other crimes. Big Brother keeps growing bigger!
Um...if they're already collecting our phone records without a warrant, they're probably already collecting email and web sites we visit without a permit also. And it wouldn't matter, even if they get the legislation they are seeking, because they don't seem to feel they are bound by the law anyway! And notice that they'll use 9/11 to sell their position, but the article mentions that they'll use this information for all types of other crimes. Big Brother keeps growing bigger!
U.S. Wants Companies to Keep Web Usage Records - New York Times
U.S. Wants Companies to Keep Web Usage Records - New York Times
Um...if they're already collecting our phone records without a warrant, they're probably already collecting email and web sites we visit without a permit also. And it wouldn't matter, even if they get the legislation they are seeking, because they don't seem to feel they are bound by the law anyway! And notice that they'll use 9/11 to sell their position, but the article mentions that they'll use this information for all types of other crimes. Big Brother keeps growing bigger!
Um...if they're already collecting our phone records without a warrant, they're probably already collecting email and web sites we visit without a permit also. And it wouldn't matter, even if they get the legislation they are seeking, because they don't seem to feel they are bound by the law anyway! And notice that they'll use 9/11 to sell their position, but the article mentions that they'll use this information for all types of other crimes. Big Brother keeps growing bigger!
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Bush Slips Social Security Plan Into Budget - Allan Sloan - Business Edge - Newsweek - MSNBC.com
Bush Slips Social Security Plan Into Budget - Allan Sloan - Business Edge - Newsweek - MSNBC.com
Here's the part I find most interesting. The previous commission examining Social Security had to agree to support private accounts.
Bush's 2001 Social Security commission had members of both parties, but they had to agree in advance to support private accounts. Their report, which had some interesting ideas, went essentially nowhere.
Is it really a fair, unbiased report when you predetermine the outcome?
Here's the part I find most interesting. The previous commission examining Social Security had to agree to support private accounts.
Bush's 2001 Social Security commission had members of both parties, but they had to agree in advance to support private accounts. Their report, which had some interesting ideas, went essentially nowhere.
Is it really a fair, unbiased report when you predetermine the outcome?
Monday, February 06, 2006
Excite News
Excite News
Tax cuts for those with money, while those who are just scraping by have to dig even deeper. Most of these cuts have no chance of passing...in a year when members of Congress are running for re-election, but just wait until 2007 (assuming the Republicans retain control of the House). If this stuff passes, what it means is that state and local taxes will just increase to cover the difference, screwing the lower and middle class yet again. Who voted for this joker in office? Not me.
Tax cuts for those with money, while those who are just scraping by have to dig even deeper. Most of these cuts have no chance of passing...in a year when members of Congress are running for re-election, but just wait until 2007 (assuming the Republicans retain control of the House). If this stuff passes, what it means is that state and local taxes will just increase to cover the difference, screwing the lower and middle class yet again. Who voted for this joker in office? Not me.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Thursday, February 02, 2006
New York Daily News - Home - Bush on move is Guzzler in Chief
New York Daily News - Home - Bush on move is Guzzler in Chief
So, just after he tells us we're addicted to oil, he goes on another of his "road trips" to tell us over and over and over again, using buckets and buckets of the addictive stuff. What a freakin' idiot.
So, just after he tells us we're addicted to oil, he goes on another of his "road trips" to tell us over and over and over again, using buckets and buckets of the addictive stuff. What a freakin' idiot.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Intelligence Committee Senators Discuss Pakistan Airstrike - New York Times
Intelligence Committee Senators Discuss Pakistan Airstrike - New York Times: "Of the civilian casualties, he said, 'It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?'"
OK, so this is DEMOCRAT, Evan Bayh, making the statement. What the hell? Does someone want to explain to me the difference between an "insurgent" killing innocent Iraqis and an American air strike that kills innocent Pakistanis? We're supposed to be angered by the insurgent strikes but when our guys kill innocent people, that's OK? Me thinks not, Senator.
OK, so this is DEMOCRAT, Evan Bayh, making the statement. What the hell? Does someone want to explain to me the difference between an "insurgent" killing innocent Iraqis and an American air strike that kills innocent Pakistanis? We're supposed to be angered by the insurgent strikes but when our guys kill innocent people, that's OK? Me thinks not, Senator.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted - New York Times
On the topic of NSA spying, a non-partisan Congressional research group has confirmed what all logical, reasonable people already knew - the Bush Administration's nonsensical reasoning for not seeking warrants for its wiretaps.
Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted - New York Times
Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted - New York Times
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
It's the money, stupid.
OK, so now it’s become imminently clear to me what’s going on in Washington. Sure we know that this administration somehow can’t tell the truth. Honestly, at first I thought Dubya was just a complete moron. But now I see that he embodies the evil that he projects onto the leaders of countries like Iran and North Korea. These lies that he and his administration are on a tear to dismantle this country and put it in the hands of the corporations.
We all know by now that the administration lied about the WMDs. But what irks the hell out of me now, after hearing about the budget they just submitted, has to do with the lies they tell about the costs of their programs. First, they told us that the Iraq war was only going to cost US taxpayers a couple billion dollars, and that oil revenues would pay for the rest. Well, we’re now talking in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Whoops, small rounding error. It’s interesting to note that the administration plans to submit a request for another $80 billion for the war, yet that amount is surprisingly absent from the budget.
Next was Medicare reform – adding the prescription drug benefit. First it was going to cost $400 billion. I seem to recall that someone in the administration informed them that it would cost a lot more, and that person was fired. No undying loyalty to Dubya, no job. Surprise, surprise, the administration letter fessed up that the plan would cost $534 billion. And now, today, they tell us it will cost more like $724 billion. Another rounding error. And now Bush says we’ll need to address this problem. Or is it a “crisis”?
If you add to this the fact that the administration was told that we would need a lot more troops in Iraq than they actually sent in and you can see that they’ve got a problem grasping the truth when it doesn’t fit in with their plans.
Now they want to reform Social Security. Private accounts, they say, are the answer, yet they won’t explain how much it will cost. And if they did come up with a number, they’ve got no credibility, so how can we believe them.
Here’s what I have come to realize. There is a method to the madness here. The idea here is simple. Right wing Republicans have always wanted to shrink the size of government. OK, so I don’t have a problem there if there’s a good reason to do it and it actually makes sense. But not when it’s simply based on a belief that our way is the way things should be and that's that. First they increase the size of government by adding tremendous costs to Medicare. Then there’s the cost of the war. And don’t forget the tax cuts, which drove up the deficit to record numbers. If you consider the tremendous cost of their Social Security plan, all of a sudden there's too much money going out and not enough coming in. We’ve got ourselves a financial “crisis” that needs some tough actin’ cowboy to fix it. Voila, now Dubya’s got the justification he needs to cut government programs. Pretty ingenious. Run up huge debts and then claim there's a fiscal crisis.
Honestly, if he had his way, he would get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and every other program that seeks to protect those in need from succumbing to lives in poverty. Everyone should be able to take care of him or herself without government sticking their noses in. That’s what Dubya would say. Too bad that he never really had to fend for himself in all of those failed business that he got bailed out of. Oh and I’m sure he got his Yale degree and MBA because he was gifted student.
Don’t let these guys fool you into believing there are crisis-like problems with government programs. They actually run pretty efficiently, from a cost perspective. Let’s not forget that the Medicare reform that was passed prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of prescription drugs. Where’s the benefit to Medicare recipients there? And the answer to the Social Security problem is to give that money to private investment firms. Weakening environmental regulations because they cost companies too much. Isn’t government supposed to protect its citizens? It’s not supposed to be all about putting money into the hands of big business. I’m pissed, can you tell?
We all know by now that the administration lied about the WMDs. But what irks the hell out of me now, after hearing about the budget they just submitted, has to do with the lies they tell about the costs of their programs. First, they told us that the Iraq war was only going to cost US taxpayers a couple billion dollars, and that oil revenues would pay for the rest. Well, we’re now talking in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Whoops, small rounding error. It’s interesting to note that the administration plans to submit a request for another $80 billion for the war, yet that amount is surprisingly absent from the budget.
Next was Medicare reform – adding the prescription drug benefit. First it was going to cost $400 billion. I seem to recall that someone in the administration informed them that it would cost a lot more, and that person was fired. No undying loyalty to Dubya, no job. Surprise, surprise, the administration letter fessed up that the plan would cost $534 billion. And now, today, they tell us it will cost more like $724 billion. Another rounding error. And now Bush says we’ll need to address this problem. Or is it a “crisis”?
If you add to this the fact that the administration was told that we would need a lot more troops in Iraq than they actually sent in and you can see that they’ve got a problem grasping the truth when it doesn’t fit in with their plans.
Now they want to reform Social Security. Private accounts, they say, are the answer, yet they won’t explain how much it will cost. And if they did come up with a number, they’ve got no credibility, so how can we believe them.
Here’s what I have come to realize. There is a method to the madness here. The idea here is simple. Right wing Republicans have always wanted to shrink the size of government. OK, so I don’t have a problem there if there’s a good reason to do it and it actually makes sense. But not when it’s simply based on a belief that our way is the way things should be and that's that. First they increase the size of government by adding tremendous costs to Medicare. Then there’s the cost of the war. And don’t forget the tax cuts, which drove up the deficit to record numbers. If you consider the tremendous cost of their Social Security plan, all of a sudden there's too much money going out and not enough coming in. We’ve got ourselves a financial “crisis” that needs some tough actin’ cowboy to fix it. Voila, now Dubya’s got the justification he needs to cut government programs. Pretty ingenious. Run up huge debts and then claim there's a fiscal crisis.
Honestly, if he had his way, he would get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and every other program that seeks to protect those in need from succumbing to lives in poverty. Everyone should be able to take care of him or herself without government sticking their noses in. That’s what Dubya would say. Too bad that he never really had to fend for himself in all of those failed business that he got bailed out of. Oh and I’m sure he got his Yale degree and MBA because he was gifted student.
Don’t let these guys fool you into believing there are crisis-like problems with government programs. They actually run pretty efficiently, from a cost perspective. Let’s not forget that the Medicare reform that was passed prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of prescription drugs. Where’s the benefit to Medicare recipients there? And the answer to the Social Security problem is to give that money to private investment firms. Weakening environmental regulations because they cost companies too much. Isn’t government supposed to protect its citizens? It’s not supposed to be all about putting money into the hands of big business. I’m pissed, can you tell?
Monday, January 24, 2005
Social Security Crisis My Rearend
OK, let’s get back to business here. I know it’s been a while, but I’ve been busy. Reading. And reading. Most of you probably aren’t as obsessive as I am, but that’s good, right? You gain the benefit of my need to read by checking in here from time to time. So enough of the pleasantries, let’s get on to today’s big questions:
Is there a Social Security “crisis” as our fearless leader claims? Contrary to what approximately 45 % of the country believes, according to Time magazine, No.
Is there a problem with Social Security? Possibly, but not at the moment.
Do we need to take action immediately and change the Social Security system? No.
Do we need to create private savings accounts in order to “save” Social Security? No.
Will private savings accounts solve whatever “problem” there may be? No.
Should you be worried about Social Security? Sure, why not? I am, but not for the reasons you are probably thinking.
Should you do something about it? Yes. Contact your representatives in government and let them know how you feel.
There. Done. No need to read further, if you just want to take my word for it. But if you are interested in seeing me back up my conclusions, then read on.
So you know what Social Security is, right? For most of us and our parents, it’s the monthly check that comes once a month after we reach the government dictated “retirement” age. According to the New York Times, there are about 47 million people who receive a Social Security check each month. Everyone who works…on the books…has money deducted from their paycheck every week. Most of this money goes to pay benefits that are currently due to people who are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. That’s how the system works. It’s a “pay as you go” system. Currently, there is more money coming into the system than is paid out every month to beneficiaries. The excess money is used to buy US Treasury securities. Bonds. These bonds are part of the “trust fund” that was such a big part of the discussion during the 2000 presidential campaign. These bonds are essentially just IOUs from the federal government. The money is actually spent by the government for current expenses, like Medicare, the Iraq war, tax breaks for the rich. But I digress.
There is no current crisis with Social Security. I can’t say that loud enough. If nothing at all is done, there is enough money coming into the system every month to pay Social Security benefits for the next 13 years, according to most estimates. The prediction is that the Baby Boomers will start retiring en masse around 2018, at which point it is also estimated that there won’t be enough money coming into the system to pay the benefits that will become due. Oh lawdy, so there is a problem coming up soon! Um…no.
After the Baby Boomers retire, and at the point where there’s more money scheduled to be paid out than there is coming in, we’ll just need to start cashing in some of those Treasury bonds. The Social Security Administration itself estimates that there are enough of these bonds to keep the system solvent until 2042, a full 37 years from now. The Congressional Budget Office puts that date at 2052. Doesn’t sound like a current crisis to me. After that, there will only be enough money to pay about 70% of benefits, according to estimates. Conservative estimates. More optimistic projections indicate that Social Security, if left untouched, would be able to pay full benefits for all for at least the next 75 years.
Dubya and his cohorts in Congress think that private savings accounts will solve the problem. But they won’t, at least not by themselves. Remember that I said the money that comes in pretty much goes right out to pay benefits? If you are allowed to divert part of your Social Security taxes into a private account, there won’t be enough money coming in to pay current benefits, so the government will have to borrow money to make up the difference. And, according to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, extra borrowing could raise interest rates, and that could put a crimp on the economy. In addition, by all estimates, Social Security benefits that younger workers will receive when they retire many years from now will still have to be reduced.
Republicans hate to increase taxes. In fact, there are a number of Republicans in Congress that have actually pledged never to raise taxes. Really. See “BREAKING THE CODE” from the NY TIMES, January 16, 2005. One of the solutions put out, mostly by Democrats in Congress (who, truth be told, don’t have as many qualms about raising taxes) is to raise Social Security taxes about 2%. Another solution is to make Social Security taxes more progressive. At the moment, we all pay Social Security taxes on the first $90,000 of our income. This number is adjusted over time to keep pace with increases in wages. Kind of odd, in my opinion, that the tax cuts off at a certain income level because income taxes don’t cut off at any point. So increasing the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes is another proposal. I kind of like this one. And, apparently, so does at least one Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, who, according to Time magazine, proposes raising the income cut-off to $200,000. Way to go, Lindsey.
Now, lest you think I’m just a bleeding heart liberal, I don’t have any hard and fast objection to personal savings accounts. Apparently other countries are doing it. And, if it can be done better than Social Security does it, cool. But Social Security is incredibly efficient in terms of the expense of running the system. With private accounts, money will be handled by private parties, like Vanguard and Fidelity (just examples, these are not companies named in any plans), that charge management fees. And, if the Bush Medicare drug plan is any indication (the government can’t negotiate for a lower price with pharmaceutical companies), any changes that are passed by this Congress are likely to favor businesses, so who knows what kind of fees these firms would charge. One estimate that I have read indicated that a management fee of 1% of assets would reduce money in the affected accounts by 20% over time.
According to Business Week (January 24, 2005 issue), Wall Street doesn’t have a lot of interest at the moment, because there is concern that, if private accounts come to pass, the options for individuals will be limited to index funds and other low margin accounts. But the choices are likely to increase over time, so Wall Street will be all in, believe me. Again, according to Business Week, if funds charged just 0.8% of assets, Wall Street could rake in $940 billion in investment fees over 75 years. Holy crap!
I think what it comes down to is this. Republicans hate big government. Social Security is a big government program. Hence they want to get rid of it. Even if it works. A 70-year-old program created by a Democrat that has been successful and will be successful for at least another 37 years by conservative estimates? According to the New York Times, for about 2/3 of the elderly, Social Security supplies the majority of day-to-day income, and for the poorest 20%, about 7 million, it’s all they’ve got. Yeah, it makes total sense to phase it out.
We already have risk in our 401(k)s. Social Security is that stable portion of retirement planning that used to be provided by corporate pensions. Let’s not risk the security of many millions of people.
For what I think is a pretty good article (sorry, it’s the economics geek in me), by economist Paul Krugman, op-ed contributor to the NY Times and a professor of economics at Princeton, check out The Economists Voice at www.bepress.com/ev.
Is there a Social Security “crisis” as our fearless leader claims? Contrary to what approximately 45 % of the country believes, according to Time magazine, No.
Is there a problem with Social Security? Possibly, but not at the moment.
Do we need to take action immediately and change the Social Security system? No.
Do we need to create private savings accounts in order to “save” Social Security? No.
Will private savings accounts solve whatever “problem” there may be? No.
Should you be worried about Social Security? Sure, why not? I am, but not for the reasons you are probably thinking.
Should you do something about it? Yes. Contact your representatives in government and let them know how you feel.
There. Done. No need to read further, if you just want to take my word for it. But if you are interested in seeing me back up my conclusions, then read on.
So you know what Social Security is, right? For most of us and our parents, it’s the monthly check that comes once a month after we reach the government dictated “retirement” age. According to the New York Times, there are about 47 million people who receive a Social Security check each month. Everyone who works…on the books…has money deducted from their paycheck every week. Most of this money goes to pay benefits that are currently due to people who are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. That’s how the system works. It’s a “pay as you go” system. Currently, there is more money coming into the system than is paid out every month to beneficiaries. The excess money is used to buy US Treasury securities. Bonds. These bonds are part of the “trust fund” that was such a big part of the discussion during the 2000 presidential campaign. These bonds are essentially just IOUs from the federal government. The money is actually spent by the government for current expenses, like Medicare, the Iraq war, tax breaks for the rich. But I digress.
There is no current crisis with Social Security. I can’t say that loud enough. If nothing at all is done, there is enough money coming into the system every month to pay Social Security benefits for the next 13 years, according to most estimates. The prediction is that the Baby Boomers will start retiring en masse around 2018, at which point it is also estimated that there won’t be enough money coming into the system to pay the benefits that will become due. Oh lawdy, so there is a problem coming up soon! Um…no.
After the Baby Boomers retire, and at the point where there’s more money scheduled to be paid out than there is coming in, we’ll just need to start cashing in some of those Treasury bonds. The Social Security Administration itself estimates that there are enough of these bonds to keep the system solvent until 2042, a full 37 years from now. The Congressional Budget Office puts that date at 2052. Doesn’t sound like a current crisis to me. After that, there will only be enough money to pay about 70% of benefits, according to estimates. Conservative estimates. More optimistic projections indicate that Social Security, if left untouched, would be able to pay full benefits for all for at least the next 75 years.
Dubya and his cohorts in Congress think that private savings accounts will solve the problem. But they won’t, at least not by themselves. Remember that I said the money that comes in pretty much goes right out to pay benefits? If you are allowed to divert part of your Social Security taxes into a private account, there won’t be enough money coming in to pay current benefits, so the government will have to borrow money to make up the difference. And, according to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, extra borrowing could raise interest rates, and that could put a crimp on the economy. In addition, by all estimates, Social Security benefits that younger workers will receive when they retire many years from now will still have to be reduced.
Republicans hate to increase taxes. In fact, there are a number of Republicans in Congress that have actually pledged never to raise taxes. Really. See “BREAKING THE CODE” from the NY TIMES, January 16, 2005. One of the solutions put out, mostly by Democrats in Congress (who, truth be told, don’t have as many qualms about raising taxes) is to raise Social Security taxes about 2%. Another solution is to make Social Security taxes more progressive. At the moment, we all pay Social Security taxes on the first $90,000 of our income. This number is adjusted over time to keep pace with increases in wages. Kind of odd, in my opinion, that the tax cuts off at a certain income level because income taxes don’t cut off at any point. So increasing the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes is another proposal. I kind of like this one. And, apparently, so does at least one Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, who, according to Time magazine, proposes raising the income cut-off to $200,000. Way to go, Lindsey.
Now, lest you think I’m just a bleeding heart liberal, I don’t have any hard and fast objection to personal savings accounts. Apparently other countries are doing it. And, if it can be done better than Social Security does it, cool. But Social Security is incredibly efficient in terms of the expense of running the system. With private accounts, money will be handled by private parties, like Vanguard and Fidelity (just examples, these are not companies named in any plans), that charge management fees. And, if the Bush Medicare drug plan is any indication (the government can’t negotiate for a lower price with pharmaceutical companies), any changes that are passed by this Congress are likely to favor businesses, so who knows what kind of fees these firms would charge. One estimate that I have read indicated that a management fee of 1% of assets would reduce money in the affected accounts by 20% over time.
According to Business Week (January 24, 2005 issue), Wall Street doesn’t have a lot of interest at the moment, because there is concern that, if private accounts come to pass, the options for individuals will be limited to index funds and other low margin accounts. But the choices are likely to increase over time, so Wall Street will be all in, believe me. Again, according to Business Week, if funds charged just 0.8% of assets, Wall Street could rake in $940 billion in investment fees over 75 years. Holy crap!
I think what it comes down to is this. Republicans hate big government. Social Security is a big government program. Hence they want to get rid of it. Even if it works. A 70-year-old program created by a Democrat that has been successful and will be successful for at least another 37 years by conservative estimates? According to the New York Times, for about 2/3 of the elderly, Social Security supplies the majority of day-to-day income, and for the poorest 20%, about 7 million, it’s all they’ve got. Yeah, it makes total sense to phase it out.
We already have risk in our 401(k)s. Social Security is that stable portion of retirement planning that used to be provided by corporate pensions. Let’s not risk the security of many millions of people.
For what I think is a pretty good article (sorry, it’s the economics geek in me), by economist Paul Krugman, op-ed contributor to the NY Times and a professor of economics at Princeton, check out The Economists Voice at www.bepress.com/ev.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Movin' On
Well, folks. It's over. The election, that is. But in many other ways this is just the beginning. This political race has sparked something in me, as many of you already know. Before our President came to office, I was not very politically active, though I did vote. After seeing what our President did to our country, and the world, over the past 4 years, I couldn't sit by idly and not educate myself fully and try to educate others. I spent Election Day as an official, paid poll worker (not a poll watcher for some of the organizations like MoveOn.org) locally here in New York. It was a very interesting process. You should all do it sometime. I worked about 16 hours and didn't feel the least bit tired. In fact, I came home and watched the news (and the Daily Show) for another 2 hours before heading to bed, somehow thinking that Kerry would pull this thing out.
I woke up this morning disheartened and disappointed. And a bit worried about the future of the country. I saw a lot of people at the polls who only voted for President. But what's just as important as who occupies the Executive office is who controls the Congress. Both the House and Senate moved further into the controls of the Republican party. What this means is what really frightens me. It means that the Republicans have a greater chance of pushing through legislation that favors their party values, rather than legislation that may be more inclusive of everyone in the country. Privatization of Social Security, more tax cuts like the recent corporate tax cuts put through just before the election, you know the deal. Essentially laws and polices that favor corporations and the rich, to the exclusion of those in the lower economic classes. Yes, Republicans will claim that they cut taxes across the board for everyone, including the middle class, and that's true. But the vast majority of the money returned to people's pockets went into the pockets of the wealthy. And those tax cuts came during a time of war, the first time in our country's history that taxes were cut in a time of war. It's irresponsible and has created some of the largest deficits in this country's history. And with all of these tax cuts, you would think that the government would curtail spending, but spending actually increased! Expect more of the same.
Expect more of the same and possibly worse. This President doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in 4 years, so he's got very little to lose. I also predict that we're in for a lot of bad news in the coming 6 months or so. This way, by the time the next election rolls around, everyone has already forgotten about it. Who did Cheney invite to his "energy" policy meeting?
How much worse is the Iraq war going to get?
This President presides over massive budget deficits. Not since the Great Depression has a President actually lost net jobs. More people have fallen into poverty and have lost health insurance during his first 4 years in office. He brought us into an unjustified war in Iraq and has consistently lied to the American people. He ran in 2000 as a "compassionate conservative," but after getting into office swung way to the right. Now he asks that we, the supporters of John Kerry, work with him to unite the country. I, for one, am not falling for his bullshit again. I am generally a pretty positive spirited person, so I remain somewhat hopeful that he will make efforts to actually follow through, but I'm going to be paying close attention to what goes on in Washington over the next four years. If he makes honest efforts to work in the interest of the whole country and not just his right wing zealots, I'll get behind those efforts. I am not a left-wing, rampant liberal. I'm a realist and therefore more moderate in my beliefs, though I lean Democratic. But I have voted Republican, not only in past elections (I voted for Rudy Giuliani for mayor of New York City), but even in this election, believe it or not - though not for President. I believe that a good mix of people on both sides makes the system more representative of the country.
Clearly there is a deep divide in the US and, as the leader of the country, Bush has the responsibility of bringing us together. Will he make the effort? That remains to be seen.
I woke up this morning disheartened and disappointed. And a bit worried about the future of the country. I saw a lot of people at the polls who only voted for President. But what's just as important as who occupies the Executive office is who controls the Congress. Both the House and Senate moved further into the controls of the Republican party. What this means is what really frightens me. It means that the Republicans have a greater chance of pushing through legislation that favors their party values, rather than legislation that may be more inclusive of everyone in the country. Privatization of Social Security, more tax cuts like the recent corporate tax cuts put through just before the election, you know the deal. Essentially laws and polices that favor corporations and the rich, to the exclusion of those in the lower economic classes. Yes, Republicans will claim that they cut taxes across the board for everyone, including the middle class, and that's true. But the vast majority of the money returned to people's pockets went into the pockets of the wealthy. And those tax cuts came during a time of war, the first time in our country's history that taxes were cut in a time of war. It's irresponsible and has created some of the largest deficits in this country's history. And with all of these tax cuts, you would think that the government would curtail spending, but spending actually increased! Expect more of the same.
Expect more of the same and possibly worse. This President doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in 4 years, so he's got very little to lose. I also predict that we're in for a lot of bad news in the coming 6 months or so. This way, by the time the next election rolls around, everyone has already forgotten about it. Who did Cheney invite to his "energy" policy meeting?
How much worse is the Iraq war going to get?
This President presides over massive budget deficits. Not since the Great Depression has a President actually lost net jobs. More people have fallen into poverty and have lost health insurance during his first 4 years in office. He brought us into an unjustified war in Iraq and has consistently lied to the American people. He ran in 2000 as a "compassionate conservative," but after getting into office swung way to the right. Now he asks that we, the supporters of John Kerry, work with him to unite the country. I, for one, am not falling for his bullshit again. I am generally a pretty positive spirited person, so I remain somewhat hopeful that he will make efforts to actually follow through, but I'm going to be paying close attention to what goes on in Washington over the next four years. If he makes honest efforts to work in the interest of the whole country and not just his right wing zealots, I'll get behind those efforts. I am not a left-wing, rampant liberal. I'm a realist and therefore more moderate in my beliefs, though I lean Democratic. But I have voted Republican, not only in past elections (I voted for Rudy Giuliani for mayor of New York City), but even in this election, believe it or not - though not for President. I believe that a good mix of people on both sides makes the system more representative of the country.
Clearly there is a deep divide in the US and, as the leader of the country, Bush has the responsibility of bringing us together. Will he make the effort? That remains to be seen.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
More stuff you should read.
OK, so my postings haven't been very consistent recently. Sorry, but it's MLB playoff time and the tension is just killing me. But, since the Yanks are about to blow it against the Red Sox, I figured I needed a distraction. And you needed some things to read, if you haven't read them already. Here goes.
You know it's bad when a conservative newspaper, one that has NEVER endorsed a Democratic candidate and has only once before not endorsed any candidate, doesn't endorse the current Republican president. Check out this from the Tampa Tribune.
If you haven't seen this article from the Sunday, October 17th New York Times Magazine, it's a must-read.
Salon.com had a companion article, written by Eric Boehlert, but you need to pay to read that article. It's worth reading. Here's how it opens:
You know it's bad when a conservative newspaper, one that has NEVER endorsed a Democratic candidate and has only once before not endorsed any candidate, doesn't endorse the current Republican president. Check out this from the Tampa Tribune.
If you haven't seen this article from the Sunday, October 17th New York Times Magazine, it's a must-read.
Salon.com had a companion article, written by Eric Boehlert, but you need to pay to read that article. It's worth reading. Here's how it opens:
--During the closing weeks of the 2000 presidential campaign, at a campaign rally, George W. Bush spotted a veteran political reporter and turned to Dick Cheney, standing next to him on the platform, to remark, "There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times." "Oh yeah, big time," replied Cheney.
If you've got some vacation days to waste, use one on November 2nd (that's election day) and go help out in a swing state. I have taken the day off. Not sure if I'll trek to Pennsylvania yet to offer my legal services, or if I'll just work the polls as an official poll worker here in NY. Most of the 527 organizations, like MoveOn.org and ACT.org are looking for both legal and non-legal volunteers, so consider it. If you want to work the polls, call your local department of elections and find out more.
And don't forget to vote!
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Facts you should know
Words of wisdom and knowledge from our good friend Paul Krugman at the New York Times.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Things you can do...
Here's some things you can do before the election in November:
Write a letter to the Sinclair Broadcasting Group voicing your concern over their decision to force their stations to broadcast an anti-Kerry film before the election. These guys donate a nice amount of money to...you guessed it, the Bush campaign. Get the contact info for Sinclair from Media Matters for America
OR
Volunteer on Election day. Either here or by calling your local Board of Elections.
AND check out what Bruce Springsteen has to say here. It's brief but worth checking out.
Write a letter to the Sinclair Broadcasting Group voicing your concern over their decision to force their stations to broadcast an anti-Kerry film before the election. These guys donate a nice amount of money to...you guessed it, the Bush campaign. Get the contact info for Sinclair from Media Matters for America
OR
Volunteer on Election day. Either here or by calling your local Board of Elections.
AND check out what Bruce Springsteen has to say here. It's brief but worth checking out.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Watering Down Regulation
For those in the Long Island area who haven't already seen this, and for those outside of the Long Island area, check out Newsday's series on George Bush's watering down of America's regulatory agencies by installing industry-friendly people into positions of power. It's incredible and somewhat embarrassing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)