The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM
Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM
Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM
Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM
The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM
From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM
Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008
Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008
The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006
Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008
Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007
Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006
A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006
Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori
WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):
The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Seventy -- Don't Raise The Cap.
Thursdays are good days for reform, because they fall between Wednesdays and Fridays.
That's why WILLisms.com offers a chart or graph, every Thursday or so, pertinent to Social Security reform.
This week's topic:
Making A Terrible Deal Even Worse.
Imagine for a second that you are from someplace like North Dakota or Montana, and have made your career as a Senator. You plan on spending another decade or three in Washington, DC.
Question: What would be your philosophy on Social Security?
"Both sides have to be willing to give up their fixed positions," [North Dakota Democrat Senator Kent] Conrad, 58, said at a Washington press conference last week. "There needs to be more revenue."
Answer: More revenue. Higher taxes, in other words.
Kent Conrad, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, views his role in government as a revenue maximizer. In order to keep the Democrats' 1930s-style dream government afloat, perpetually more tax revenues are required. For Democrats like Conrad, the only way to earn more tax revenue for the government is to confiscate it from Americans.
While entrepreneurs and corporate leaders must generate revenue through superior products/services, competitive pricing, innovation, and creative marketing, Conrad doesn't need to worry about any of that. He can simply compel Americans to pay more for less.
It's an unfortunate view of government. Instead of viewing his role as an innovator, a facilitator of a superior Social Security system, Conrad views himself as a revenue maximizer.
What's even more unfortunate is that Democrats hold such a narrow and reactionary view of revenue maximization. Democrats believe that raising the wage cap on payroll taxes will maximize revenue enough to save FDR's legacy.
Here's what raising the cap would do:
* Reduce the annual take-home pay of 10.3 million workers by an average of $5,650 in the first year alone after the cap is removed. Most of these workers have incomes below $125,000.
More than that, it would basically mean that millions of Americans would be paying more into a broken system, without getting more out of it in the end. Social Security, then, by definition, becomes a full-fledged welfare program. It becomes a full-fledged rob from the rich and middle class to give to the poor, but even then, give the poor the shaft program. It becomes a full-fledged Marxist tool of forced wealth confiscation/redistribution.
How is that program supposed to survive election after election, through the generations?
If it's not a welfare program, what is it? A retirement program?
Coyote Blog looks at Social Security as a retirement program:
Fine, let's call it a retirement program. Well, as a retirement program, it is a really, really big RIPOFF. Ever worker in this country is being raped by this retirement plan. In fact, it is the worst retirement program in the whole country:
Just how bad is your Social Security rate of return? Find out here.
Under the current system, as we move into the future, the average worker will already be paying far more per retiree than ever originally intended:
Conrad wants to "increase revenue," something that won't fix Social Security but will make Social Security a worse deal than it already is.
Why not instead fix Social Security permanently? Why not instead make it a better deal? Why not personal accounts?
Previous Reform Thursday graphics can be seen here:
-Week One (Costs Exceed Revenues).
Posted by Will Franklin · 1 February 2007 10:08 PM
Can you say . . . ponzi scheme?
Posted by: Ken McCracken at February 2, 2007 12:58 AM
Ponzi schemes are illegal are they not?...
Posted by: zsa zsa at February 2, 2007 07:11 AM
IF this had been a large Corporation??? Look at the Enron situation and compare?
Posted by: zsa zsa at February 2, 2007 07:13 AM
I want to know what fixed position of the Democrats he wants them to give up. If there really anything is behind that statement, I'll listen.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at February 3, 2007 01:12 PM