The notion of natural rights is not the same as that of the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. These are akin, but the declaration inalienable rights bestowed on man by his Creator is a declaration of faith, and, hence, of a Supernatural design and purpose for man. For or founders, diverse in belief, this was the least common denominator of faith. No one rejected these tenets. However, in the spirit of synergy, let us see how far we Conservatives may walk with our natural law Libertarian brethren.
Of what does nature’s design for humanity inform us concerning the purpose of mankind? Perhaps the least common denominator would be to consider a Darwinian view of the natural world. Man is designed, in so far as he is designed by nature, to survive.
I’m not sure why some enlightenment thinkers assume abundance of any element when discussing the state of man in nature. It seems that the lack of natural resources has driven humanity to war many times. Likewise, the most peaceful societies, and, historically, the most advanced cultures are not hunter-gatherers, they are agriculturally based, husbandry based. The notion of real property and property rights comes from agrarian roots and is in conflict with the ideals of hunter-gatherers.
Is man’s mind more functional as it exists in nature, or should it be augmented by mind altering agents? In which case is the human consciousness performing according to natural design? As that answer is obvious, so also is Darwinian nature plain concerning human sexuality. The needs of children show what is proper in the responses of males and females. We aren’t bugs, cats, reptiles, or apes. The complexity of the human mind requires time and nurture. It is not that because nature teaches morality, that a government must enforce each and every natural precept. However, one cannot claim as a natural right what nature teaches is amoral. Logical consistency among Libertarians concerning their own stated beliefs should take them thus far, for even the next thought, a transcendant thought, is often much beloved as a Libertarian ideal.
Stealing is wrong according to natural law. Why? Not because of a Darwinian world view, but because, even though a dishonest thief claims justification --see the Communist Manifesto for an elaborate example--, those who are stolen from clearly understand the wrong that is committed. Hence, natural law is not based only on a supposed ideal view of humanity alone in a Darwinian natural world but also on the writ of human decency found in the heart of every man. This is a notion of natural law that transcends the Enlightenment thinkers. A Darwinist might argue that it proves evolution designed man's survival through community action, but we have left the carte blanche of the tabula rasa far behind.
Humanity is a strange creature that knows how to deceive and yet, at the same time, knows deception is morally abhorrent. What sort of creature is mankind? Some would argue that the love of freedom and the prevalence of religion among this paragon of animals indicates a purpose for man that is higher than that of even the greatest of apes. People thirst for things not of this world. Are our brethren with us still? For since this last step is on a road higher than natural law, one may deny one's own heart and write off the course of human history as an escapade in ignorance. Without malice, I'd ask my cousins to tarry just a while. For while we walk apace a moment, we will soon return. Here, though, follow elements of the corallaries that are the framework and basis of conservatism.
From this recognition of man's highest longings flows a strange notion: freedom of religion and freedom of speech are more sacred than the rights of property, for from these arise our faith choices wherein lies the truth of human destiny and the essence of human liberty.
Of the hunger for glory not of this world, history testifies, and of the common calling of the family of man his experience proclaims. A propertied man in conflict with a government over freedom of religion is a subject of a greater tyranny than he whose property rights are violated by an onerous welfare system. Although it is hard to respect those of us who too readily accept the tyranny of property, history has shown that religious persecution produces rebellion far more quickly. The long train of abuses that Jefferson cites, and the tendency of humanity to suffer the abuses he detailws, relate to the tyranny over property. Some abridgement of property is often suffered as a tolerable tyranny; however, there is no partial abridgement of religious liberty.
Laws not only govern; they instruct. That which is higher in man recognizes laws, regularities in the natural world that may be harnessed for the purpose of work. Likewise, humanity is instructed by the laws of national governance. We can approve or despise a national government according to the morality of its laws.
Returning to earthly things, those Libertarian brethren who tarried can perhaps walk with Conservatives again on these final thoughts:
If there are natural laws by way of which humanity is instructed in the precepts of right living in this world, then it is by nature humans are best taught. The fewer laws providing a safety net against humanity’s tendency to ignore natural laws, the greater freedom those who obey natural laws can practice. Laws of generosity, of service, of courage, loyalty and faith are as faithful as gravity. Those who oppose themselves, though, must be granted as much freedom to learn these lessons as is possible, for none of these can be commanded but by governments.
Finally, a genuinely free people will be the most moral, and a genuinely moral people will be the most free.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Terminating CalWorks' SSI and Food Assistance Helps Everyone
Governor Schwarzenegger’s May balanced budget proposal included almost 650 million in savings from Welfare Reform. These reforms were enacted for the rest of the United States back in the 1990’s, the last time the federal government had even a look at a balanced budget. The reforms are good for everyone. They will work for the individuals involved. They’ll work for the State of California, and they’ll help the nation.
“A mouse! Whisky (the cat) has a mouse!” my daughter shouted. Then I knew it was on when I heard, “the poor thing. It’s so scared.” Scenes of chasing daughter, cat, and mouse around the house leapt to mind. Thankfully, it actually fell to my oldest to perform the mouse salvation attempts. Twice he spared the mouse and released it to freedom, and twice within that hour Whisky ended up catching it again and dutifully returning the little gray rascal to the living room. The catch and release ritual must be the cat version of “fetch.” With one last superhuman effort my son, a prayer on his lips, released the mouse far beyond our farthest fence. Needless to say, by dinner word reached us that the missus had found Whisky with a dead mouse. When it comes to animals I tend to be Roman: “May I fare as well when my day comes,” I thought…
There is a point to this parable. Life is filled with paradox and with unintended consequences. The most merciful thing might have been to simply kick the cat out of the house with its mouse and let nature take its course. The unintended consequences often cut both ways. While on the one hand, who would suspect that people who are giving often reap the most out of life? On the other hand, grey beards will note that it is the choice of the easier path that most often damages the lives of people. The Governor’s May budget proposal on CalWorks is a study of such instructive paradoxes. For instance, $647 million dollars of the Governor’s Proposal eliminates programs California enacted in the 1990’s to counter Federal Welfare Reform. This includes reductions in monthly grants ($614 million) to $1,407 per couple, for blind, disabled, and elderly couples, and reductions ($35 million) in food assistance (State Funded Food Stamps) for legal immigrants. Even with a 24 billion dollar deficit, no one is talking about eliminating programs. Five hundred million of the reductions are simply bring one program to the very generous federal minimum levels, and the other $147 million are reductions to programs the federal government eliminated in the 1990’s. Even in California’s penury, her generosity to the poor abounds. However, one of the paradoxes, the unintended consequences of being exceedingly generous is that California has more than 30% of the nation’s welfare recipients while having only 11% of its population.
This unintended consequence arises because the Federal Welfare Reform program of the 1990’s worked. Individual programs had been piloted successfully in the states (unlike the liberal plans for health care reform) and then applied with significant freedoms for individual states to continue experimentation. The welfare rolls shrunk, employment rose and, lo, for a brief shining moment the deficit appeared almost balanced. Welfare Reform is good for people. Prosperity cannot begin without first being profitable to others. Millions of people prospered because of those reforms, but not in California. California, feeling kind-hearted towards her hapless poor, enacted program after program to counteract these successful reforms. Hence, the large welfare rolls (see also: Tom Blumer, “California Draggin…”)
The other reason for these unintended consequences is, ironically, that supply and demand works every time it’s tried, even in the welfare state. Welfare recipients flocked to California because of the looser eligibility requirements and the higher returns. The greater the return on one’s investment in the government became, the greater the demand for the government’s program. This last paradox is the reasons these reductions and reforms must occur now. As unemployment grows, the numbers of dislocated workers will likewise grow. California will have challenges enough without attracting trouble from the other 49. One final irony: because these reforms were not enacted when first suggested, there is a serious possibility that California will not use the TANF Emergency Funds allocated in the Stimulus Bill because welfare rolls will go down. One can only hope this holds true. The stimulus bill was supposed to keep unemployment at 8%... We’re at 10% and still climbing. California’s welfare rolls are rising more rapidly than any state in the Union except Florida’s.
Some complain that losing the federal TANF Emergency Funds is bad economics. After all, the stimulus funds will stimulate the economy. This is cave man logic borrowed from ne’r-do-well economists like John Maynard Keynes. It is only repeated today because such discredited formulations worked so well in fooling so many in years gone by. Increases in demand not accompanied by an increase in profitable employment only results in inflation. The demand stimulated by welfare payments is inflationary because the dollars are not backed by labor, they are "funny" money. The economic troubles of the day are caused by fear. People are frozen by fear. They cannot act. The Stimulus bill, the increasing nationalization of the private sector has shown the common man the abyss. Let California show a glimmer of light in this darkened land. Make the reforms California. Lose some stimulus money, and make a big show of giving it back. Petition the federal government to take those extra funds to pay down the principle on our national debt.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Reforming the U.C. System: Saving 170 Million Dollars
California funding for U.C. research projects is $675 million dollars a year. Even as the state budget has collapsed, the spending of real U.C. research dollars has increased. Much of this "research" shows little evidence of fiscal or moral profit for the citizens of California. War with this behemoth could save CAL Grant aide for California's students. This is a prize fight worthy of the governor's most Herculean efforts.
In an age in which Six Flags Magic Mountain seeks bankruptcy protection and California is already twenty billion in debt, the U.C. research budget should be pared back to its historic roots. The proposed 2009-2010 U.C. research budget was $653,045,000 (item #10). This is an increase (in a year of real cuts) of ten million dollars over the estimated 2008-2009 expenditures. A conservative goal for real streamlining would be to reduce spending by 10% from the 08-09 heights. That would be 65 million dollars in taxpayer savings. Hence, even conservative cuts in the U.C. research expenditures would result enough savings to keep the Parks and Recreation funding in place for 2009-2010 (70 million dollars, see a May proposal–p.2). In fact, some of the research grants seem to be little more than a taxpayer sponsored study of a day in the park. Consider, for instance, The Studies of Food and the Body Multi Campus Research Group, that "brings together faculty and graduate-student scholars in the humanities and social sciences …who are exploring the relationship between food, the body and culture." I hear they even serve wine.
Whatever the relative merits of an increased awareness of food, body, and culture by the smartest people in California, the elimination of less critical research may, in turn, focus some of the mostly highly trained research minds in the state to more immediate issues. Though, in real dollars, the state funding for U.C. research increased in 2008, the legislature reduced the growth in all "line item research projects" by 10% (page 67 column b). Obviously, if a 10% reduction resulted in a ten million dollar increase in funding, at the very least the legislature must reduce the 09-10 "line item research projects" by more than 20%.
However, Governor Schwarzenegger plainly feels that the time for conservative budget cuts has passed. Is it possible to generate the $170 million in savings the Governor seeks through the elimination of Cal Grants (page 12) simply by streamlining the U.C. research budget? The list of multi-campus research programs reveals that the dead weight in U.C. research funding is considerable. Instead of seeking across the board cuts, the legislature and the governor should evaluate every U.C. research project and seek to terminate each one. The list of recommendations for project terminations should be part of the rationale presented to the U.C. when the total dollar amounts of U.C. research savings is sent to the governor. This emergency invasion into the province of the Board of Regents should be done with clearly articulated and legislated principles.
The first principle should be that, since all acknowledge that the historic charter of the U.C. system in California, including its research, has been the envy of the free world: all research should be conducted according to the U.C.’s own historic models. According to this principle new research programs, programs begun since 2005, that are not directly related to breakthroughs in math, science or medicine should be completely eliminated. All research programs begun after 2,000 that are not related to math, science, or medicine, should be evaluated according to their specific contributions to the wealth of the citizens of California. For instance, did the study of ancient cultures make new archeological finds in which Californians received benefits? A cost benefit analysis of the research program should then be done. The profitable research programs (if there are any) should continue and/or the least unprofitable twenty-five percent should be kept on budget. All other non-historic U.C. research programs should be terminated.
Governor Schwarzenegger set an excellent example for what it means to terminate a non-historic research project when, in 2005-2006, he terminated ILE (Institute for Labor and Employment) first instituted in 2001 (page 68). Even the toned down version of the research findings still available on U.C. Santa Barbara’s website shows that "research" can be added to the list of earthly words that have almost lost all meaning (see "California’s Excessive Liberty…"). Suggesting that such a propaganda program is "research" suggests that members of the U.C. board are in league with the forces of ignorance.
Applying the idea that U.C. current research should be reduced to its historic charter results in this list of multi-campus research projects that should be terminated.
African Studies
Asian American/Pacific Islander Policy Initiative
Institute for Research on Climate Change and Its Societal Impacts (Website has vanished: perhaps some one is listening? If not, great minds think alike)
Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) 1997 This project would be not be cut according to Principle 1. Funding, however, has already been suspended. Perhaps based on 9/11/2001 and Principle 2, (Historic Accountability) this is appropriate.
Japanese Arts and Globalization
International Performance and Culture (Sure doesn’t sound like research).
Labor and Employment Research Fund (what’s left of ILE –2.4 million in savings) – out!
Pacific Rim Research Program (no history given – savings $800,000)
Tranliteracies Project 2005
UC Digital Arts Network (UC DARNet) Notice how the colorful and carefree acronym seems to disparage responsibility.
UC Initiative in Human Rights (spring 2005) The image of the girl sticking her finger in her own eye says it all about this project.
Transnational and Transcolonial Studies
Transnationalizing Justice
UC All-Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity (UC ACCORD)
UC Committee on Latino Research (see the unfunded recommendation from state senate)
UC Cuba Academic Initiative (2006?)
UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability Institute (2006) – $ 950,000 dollars in immediate savings from suspending new funding is available.
Studies of Food and the Body
UC World History Workshop. This doesn’t sound new but based on available information – terminate.
In an age in which Six Flags Magic Mountain seeks bankruptcy protection and California is already twenty billion in debt, the U.C. research budget should be pared back to its historic roots. The proposed 2009-2010 U.C. research budget was $653,045,000 (item #10). This is an increase (in a year of real cuts) of ten million dollars over the estimated 2008-2009 expenditures. A conservative goal for real streamlining would be to reduce spending by 10% from the 08-09 heights. That would be 65 million dollars in taxpayer savings. Hence, even conservative cuts in the U.C. research expenditures would result enough savings to keep the Parks and Recreation funding in place for 2009-2010 (70 million dollars, see a May proposal–p.2). In fact, some of the research grants seem to be little more than a taxpayer sponsored study of a day in the park. Consider, for instance, The Studies of Food and the Body Multi Campus Research Group, that "brings together faculty and graduate-student scholars in the humanities and social sciences …who are exploring the relationship between food, the body and culture." I hear they even serve wine.
Whatever the relative merits of an increased awareness of food, body, and culture by the smartest people in California, the elimination of less critical research may, in turn, focus some of the mostly highly trained research minds in the state to more immediate issues. Though, in real dollars, the state funding for U.C. research increased in 2008, the legislature reduced the growth in all "line item research projects" by 10% (page 67 column b). Obviously, if a 10% reduction resulted in a ten million dollar increase in funding, at the very least the legislature must reduce the 09-10 "line item research projects" by more than 20%.
However, Governor Schwarzenegger plainly feels that the time for conservative budget cuts has passed. Is it possible to generate the $170 million in savings the Governor seeks through the elimination of Cal Grants (page 12) simply by streamlining the U.C. research budget? The list of multi-campus research programs reveals that the dead weight in U.C. research funding is considerable. Instead of seeking across the board cuts, the legislature and the governor should evaluate every U.C. research project and seek to terminate each one. The list of recommendations for project terminations should be part of the rationale presented to the U.C. when the total dollar amounts of U.C. research savings is sent to the governor. This emergency invasion into the province of the Board of Regents should be done with clearly articulated and legislated principles.
The first principle should be that, since all acknowledge that the historic charter of the U.C. system in California, including its research, has been the envy of the free world: all research should be conducted according to the U.C.’s own historic models. According to this principle new research programs, programs begun since 2005, that are not directly related to breakthroughs in math, science or medicine should be completely eliminated. All research programs begun after 2,000 that are not related to math, science, or medicine, should be evaluated according to their specific contributions to the wealth of the citizens of California. For instance, did the study of ancient cultures make new archeological finds in which Californians received benefits? A cost benefit analysis of the research program should then be done. The profitable research programs (if there are any) should continue and/or the least unprofitable twenty-five percent should be kept on budget. All other non-historic U.C. research programs should be terminated.
Governor Schwarzenegger set an excellent example for what it means to terminate a non-historic research project when, in 2005-2006, he terminated ILE (Institute for Labor and Employment) first instituted in 2001 (page 68). Even the toned down version of the research findings still available on U.C. Santa Barbara’s website shows that "research" can be added to the list of earthly words that have almost lost all meaning (see "California’s Excessive Liberty…"). Suggesting that such a propaganda program is "research" suggests that members of the U.C. board are in league with the forces of ignorance.
Applying the idea that U.C. current research should be reduced to its historic charter results in this list of multi-campus research projects that should be terminated.
African Studies
Asian American/Pacific Islander Policy Initiative
Institute for Research on Climate Change and Its Societal Impacts (Website has vanished: perhaps some one is listening? If not, great minds think alike)
Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) 1997 This project would be not be cut according to Principle 1. Funding, however, has already been suspended. Perhaps based on 9/11/2001 and Principle 2, (Historic Accountability) this is appropriate.
Japanese Arts and Globalization
International Performance and Culture (Sure doesn’t sound like research).
Labor and Employment Research Fund (what’s left of ILE –2.4 million in savings) – out!
Pacific Rim Research Program (no history given – savings $800,000)
Tranliteracies Project 2005
UC Digital Arts Network (UC DARNet) Notice how the colorful and carefree acronym seems to disparage responsibility.
UC Initiative in Human Rights (spring 2005) The image of the girl sticking her finger in her own eye says it all about this project.
Transnational and Transcolonial Studies
Transnationalizing Justice
UC All-Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity (UC ACCORD)
UC Committee on Latino Research (see the unfunded recommendation from state senate)
UC Cuba Academic Initiative (2006?)
UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability Institute (2006) – $ 950,000 dollars in immediate savings from suspending new funding is available.
Studies of Food and the Body
UC World History Workshop. This doesn’t sound new but based on available information – terminate.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Social Security and Bernie Madoff Style Pain
If Americans decided tomorrow that they wanted to be rid of Social Security forever, it would cost them about twenty trillion dollars over the course of a generation. It would cost about a trillion dollars a year, every year for over twenty years... and that's in a good economy.
This time it is not Madoff's fault and it is not Charles Pozi's fault, it is our fault; it is the fault of three generations of Americans who apparently haven't had the minimum economic sense required to properly participate in a democratic republic. Social Security has always had a design flaw. It is like a pyramid scheme. For instance, the first Social Security benefit recipient paid "$22.54 into the system and received $22,000 in benefits over her lifetime" (History of Major Changes). Where did those benefits come from? Were they a return on investment? No, as in Bernie Madoff's pyramid investment scheme, the benefits were paid directly from the payroll taxes of men and women still working.
At first most voters who understood this didn't care because the tax burden was so slight. The original rate of Social Security taxation was a mere 1%. that included Medicaid insurance. Moreover, when Social Security began, self-employed persons paid no payroll tax whatsoever. Such a wonderfully easy social largesse must have been so persuasive in the hard times of the Great Depression, but that was the bait, the first level of the pyramid scheme. As in a pyramid scheme, the first Social Security beneficiaries were far fewer in number than the number of workers paying into Social Security. When Social Security began, there were sixteen workers paying into the system for each worker receiving benefits. Today, there are about 3.3 workers paying into the system for each beneficiary. When Social Security began, only the first $3,000 of a worker's paycheck was subject to taxation, today the first $100,000 is subject. Today individuals are taxed at 6.2%, their employers match the 6.2% and the self employed pay 12.4% in Social Security taxes. Including Medicaid (which was once part of Social Security), and matching employer taxes, every United States employee pays 15.3% of every dollar they earn into Social Security and Medicare. If this money had actually been invested in any serious retirement fund, the resulting wealth would have been phenomenal. What a waste.
From its inception, the program was scheduled to reach a rate of 6% for each wage earner and 12% including the employer contribution. However, FDR postponed the full tax increase until 1960. Since the 1960's there have been at least nine more adjustments to the rates involved in keeping Social Security solvent (Just the Facts). Generally speaking, before each of the FDR "contribution" increases, an increase of benefits was emphasized. Nonetheless, the increase of the rates was most directly related to the decreasing number of workers paying into the system to support the increasing number of beneficiaries. Since it is hard to imagine that the generation of patriots and immigrants who gladly sacrificed for their children and their children's children would knowing threaten the futures they held so precious, it is plain our forefathers were duped. Just as Bernie Madoff duped universities and charitable institutions, the good people of twentieth century America were duped into downloading a Trojan horse. Like a Trojan Horse, the symptoms of Social Security's design flaw, its worm, only increase over time. Social Security's history of rate increases simply confirms what logic must tell us: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, a trap, a Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme that requires the blood of each new generation to sustain an illusion of prosperity. Dedicated to the horrid god atop the pyramid, the god of big communistic government, Social Security has become a religion of the far left fed by the blood of needless human sacrifice.
Now, at 12% of a workers salary, Americans who don't care about the effects of this tragedy are Americans who don't pay into security, don't pay into social security any longer, or don't have the prerequisite brains required to participate in a democratic republic. Just as Madoff victims who lost their family's life savings must feel great personal anguish, American workers must begin to allow themselves to feel that same pain over what has become our national retirement disaster. That's the only way we can move on. We need to find a solution without blaming one another.
Here are several estimates of the dimensions of the pain we must acknowledge:
If Americans stood up today and said "enough!" it would cost 22 trillion dollars. This includes benefits to those who have retired and benefits to those who will retire within the next ten years. From this amount one might fairly enough subtract the current Social Security trust fund surplus of a little more than 2 trillion dollars (2007). The American worker has already promised to pay these benefits, but it wasn't this generation that made the deal. It doesn't matter. That's the deal. Laws mean things. These benefits need to be paid out over a generation, twenty-two years. That's a about trillion dollars per debt a year that must be generated. The American worker is, seemingly broke. Our parents and grandparents made this deal. We need to come up with a trillion dollars a year for a generation to end it. That's pain. That's Bernie Madoff style pain.
This time it is not Madoff's fault and it is not Charles Pozi's fault, it is our fault; it is the fault of three generations of Americans who apparently haven't had the minimum economic sense required to properly participate in a democratic republic. Social Security has always had a design flaw. It is like a pyramid scheme. For instance, the first Social Security benefit recipient paid "$22.54 into the system and received $22,000 in benefits over her lifetime" (History of Major Changes). Where did those benefits come from? Were they a return on investment? No, as in Bernie Madoff's pyramid investment scheme, the benefits were paid directly from the payroll taxes of men and women still working.
At first most voters who understood this didn't care because the tax burden was so slight. The original rate of Social Security taxation was a mere 1%. that included Medicaid insurance. Moreover, when Social Security began, self-employed persons paid no payroll tax whatsoever. Such a wonderfully easy social largesse must have been so persuasive in the hard times of the Great Depression, but that was the bait, the first level of the pyramid scheme. As in a pyramid scheme, the first Social Security beneficiaries were far fewer in number than the number of workers paying into Social Security. When Social Security began, there were sixteen workers paying into the system for each worker receiving benefits. Today, there are about 3.3 workers paying into the system for each beneficiary. When Social Security began, only the first $3,000 of a worker's paycheck was subject to taxation, today the first $100,000 is subject. Today individuals are taxed at 6.2%, their employers match the 6.2% and the self employed pay 12.4% in Social Security taxes. Including Medicaid (which was once part of Social Security), and matching employer taxes, every United States employee pays 15.3% of every dollar they earn into Social Security and Medicare. If this money had actually been invested in any serious retirement fund, the resulting wealth would have been phenomenal. What a waste.
From its inception, the program was scheduled to reach a rate of 6% for each wage earner and 12% including the employer contribution. However, FDR postponed the full tax increase until 1960. Since the 1960's there have been at least nine more adjustments to the rates involved in keeping Social Security solvent (Just the Facts). Generally speaking, before each of the FDR "contribution" increases, an increase of benefits was emphasized. Nonetheless, the increase of the rates was most directly related to the decreasing number of workers paying into the system to support the increasing number of beneficiaries. Since it is hard to imagine that the generation of patriots and immigrants who gladly sacrificed for their children and their children's children would knowing threaten the futures they held so precious, it is plain our forefathers were duped. Just as Bernie Madoff duped universities and charitable institutions, the good people of twentieth century America were duped into downloading a Trojan horse. Like a Trojan Horse, the symptoms of Social Security's design flaw, its worm, only increase over time. Social Security's history of rate increases simply confirms what logic must tell us: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, a trap, a Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme that requires the blood of each new generation to sustain an illusion of prosperity. Dedicated to the horrid god atop the pyramid, the god of big communistic government, Social Security has become a religion of the far left fed by the blood of needless human sacrifice.
Now, at 12% of a workers salary, Americans who don't care about the effects of this tragedy are Americans who don't pay into security, don't pay into social security any longer, or don't have the prerequisite brains required to participate in a democratic republic. Just as Madoff victims who lost their family's life savings must feel great personal anguish, American workers must begin to allow themselves to feel that same pain over what has become our national retirement disaster. That's the only way we can move on. We need to find a solution without blaming one another.
Here are several estimates of the dimensions of the pain we must acknowledge:
If Americans stood up today and said "enough!" it would cost 22 trillion dollars. This includes benefits to those who have retired and benefits to those who will retire within the next ten years. From this amount one might fairly enough subtract the current Social Security trust fund surplus of a little more than 2 trillion dollars (2007). The American worker has already promised to pay these benefits, but it wasn't this generation that made the deal. It doesn't matter. That's the deal. Laws mean things. These benefits need to be paid out over a generation, twenty-two years. That's a about trillion dollars per debt a year that must be generated. The American worker is, seemingly broke. Our parents and grandparents made this deal. We need to come up with a trillion dollars a year for a generation to end it. That's pain. That's Bernie Madoff style pain.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Social Security's Design Flaw
Recently President Bush revealed during his final press conference that, in hindsight, he wished that he had begun his second term with immigration reform rather than social security reform. Hindsight is also very clear that the congress and the American people were proven prudent in rejecting the notion of transforming Social Security into a national 401K plan. The initial results of such a transformation would have been a disaster. The congressional Republicans would have been thrown out on their collective ears. Imagine that! Despite the fact that the wealthiest Americans supplement their social security benefits with 401K plans, the instability of our financial institutions and the absolute bankruptcy of ethical values on Wall Street and in Washington, has made it plain that serious moves to reform Social Security into an equity portfolio is a course fraught with peril.
Had President Bush successfully reformed Social Security, we would, of course, not be experiencing the world wide financial collapse that cost the Republicans two houses of congress and the White House during a single second term of the Bush presidency. No, the massive infusion of capital into the financial markets would have spawned dozens more reckless, unregulated, financial instruments so deceitful that we would be in a bubble that would last well into our children’s future. We would be in a delirium of euphoric delight over wealth we had on paper while the wickedness of our negligence continued to rot away the fabric of our financial institutions. The ultimate collapse would have dwarfed the calamity we are now, thankfully, forced, in part, to acknowledge. Let a politician even burp an accidentally slushy blerb at an innaugural party that sounds even remotely like Social Security reform and that unfortunate soul will be resoundly excluded from public office for a generation.
Nonetheless, although FDR has avoided a direct comparison with Bernie Madoff, comparisons between Social Security and illegal Ponzi schemes persist. Charles Ponzi, like Bernie Madoff, was guilty of fraud. Ponzi, of roaring 20’s fame, claimed to be passing on the 400% profit he was earning on "postal reply coupons." Bernie Madoff claimed to be passing on the profits from hedge fund investments. In truth both were simply paying initial investors with money taken from later investors. Since Social Security discloses that the benefits it pays retired workers comes directly from the money paid by current workers, it is not, entirely, fraudulent. However, like a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme, Social Security is, by its own definition, impossible to sustain. Like all pyramid schemes, sooner or later Social Security must go broke.
Though the Social Security trustees themselves cannot be called frauds, fine print, often passed over quickly in political sound bites, is filled with ominous double meanings. Even though the government websites about the Social Security trust fund plainly disclose the difference between the "special issue" federally backed securities held in the trust fund and the marketable securities that are widely sought as sound investments, the definitions of Social Security solvency based on any discussion of the trust fund can easily become misleading. Once, the difference between these securities and marketable securities becomes clear, the answer provided by the government that Social Security is solvent until 2041, when the "trust fund reserves are exhausted," is plagued with ambiguity. The special issue treasury bonds will begin to need "redemption" by about 2017. That’s when "Ponzi shceme" nature of Social Security really kicks in. In fewer than ten years social security will again be, by common bookkeeping practices, technically insolvent. After about 2017 only higher taxes or more government borrowing will allow Social Security benefits to be fully paid.
This social security crisis is not new. Such crises have happened repeatedly, throughout Social Security's history, because of the unsound pyramid scheme nature of the program itself. As one might predict by any common sense analysis of a pyramid scheme, each crisis in the Social Security program has made it more profoundly enslaving to each new generation involved in the program. Rates that began as low as 1% for participants have increased to 6.2% today. Likewise the value of benefits for participants has eroded. This must continue, no matter what "fixes" desperate politicians employ. The program itself must be completely overhauled, completely revised.
Hence, lesson one: we can no more afford Social Security than we can afford to invest with Bernine Madoff. Despite Wall Street’s complete loss of the public’s trust and respect, we have dodged no bullet by avoiding changes to the Social Security system that allows younger workers to have genuine investment accounts that they can leave to their children. The euphoric joy we might have experienced by the influx of payroll taxes into the hands of wicked investment bankers would have been no less illusory than the blessed ignorance politicians are currently bathing us in. Perhaps all future financial planning on a public level should be abandoned. Perhaps employers, state governments, and federal governments should all resist the arrogance that tempts them to think they know what is best for every American worker thirty years into the future. Perhaps we should simply call for the end of all payroll and employer taxes and contributions for retirement programs of any kind. Americans have been fooled too long into believing that the government is wiser than they are when it comes to planning for each American’s retirement. The consequences of liberty include responsibility. Americans might be well advised to demand their financial liberty again by reclaiming their individual responsibility for their own financial futures…
Oh, I forgot… We can’t…That’s lesson two: national debt means something.
Had President Bush successfully reformed Social Security, we would, of course, not be experiencing the world wide financial collapse that cost the Republicans two houses of congress and the White House during a single second term of the Bush presidency. No, the massive infusion of capital into the financial markets would have spawned dozens more reckless, unregulated, financial instruments so deceitful that we would be in a bubble that would last well into our children’s future. We would be in a delirium of euphoric delight over wealth we had on paper while the wickedness of our negligence continued to rot away the fabric of our financial institutions. The ultimate collapse would have dwarfed the calamity we are now, thankfully, forced, in part, to acknowledge. Let a politician even burp an accidentally slushy blerb at an innaugural party that sounds even remotely like Social Security reform and that unfortunate soul will be resoundly excluded from public office for a generation.
Nonetheless, although FDR has avoided a direct comparison with Bernie Madoff, comparisons between Social Security and illegal Ponzi schemes persist. Charles Ponzi, like Bernie Madoff, was guilty of fraud. Ponzi, of roaring 20’s fame, claimed to be passing on the 400% profit he was earning on "postal reply coupons." Bernie Madoff claimed to be passing on the profits from hedge fund investments. In truth both were simply paying initial investors with money taken from later investors. Since Social Security discloses that the benefits it pays retired workers comes directly from the money paid by current workers, it is not, entirely, fraudulent. However, like a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme, Social Security is, by its own definition, impossible to sustain. Like all pyramid schemes, sooner or later Social Security must go broke.
Though the Social Security trustees themselves cannot be called frauds, fine print, often passed over quickly in political sound bites, is filled with ominous double meanings. Even though the government websites about the Social Security trust fund plainly disclose the difference between the "special issue" federally backed securities held in the trust fund and the marketable securities that are widely sought as sound investments, the definitions of Social Security solvency based on any discussion of the trust fund can easily become misleading. Once, the difference between these securities and marketable securities becomes clear, the answer provided by the government that Social Security is solvent until 2041, when the "trust fund reserves are exhausted," is plagued with ambiguity. The special issue treasury bonds will begin to need "redemption" by about 2017. That’s when "Ponzi shceme" nature of Social Security really kicks in. In fewer than ten years social security will again be, by common bookkeeping practices, technically insolvent. After about 2017 only higher taxes or more government borrowing will allow Social Security benefits to be fully paid.
This social security crisis is not new. Such crises have happened repeatedly, throughout Social Security's history, because of the unsound pyramid scheme nature of the program itself. As one might predict by any common sense analysis of a pyramid scheme, each crisis in the Social Security program has made it more profoundly enslaving to each new generation involved in the program. Rates that began as low as 1% for participants have increased to 6.2% today. Likewise the value of benefits for participants has eroded. This must continue, no matter what "fixes" desperate politicians employ. The program itself must be completely overhauled, completely revised.
Hence, lesson one: we can no more afford Social Security than we can afford to invest with Bernine Madoff. Despite Wall Street’s complete loss of the public’s trust and respect, we have dodged no bullet by avoiding changes to the Social Security system that allows younger workers to have genuine investment accounts that they can leave to their children. The euphoric joy we might have experienced by the influx of payroll taxes into the hands of wicked investment bankers would have been no less illusory than the blessed ignorance politicians are currently bathing us in. Perhaps all future financial planning on a public level should be abandoned. Perhaps employers, state governments, and federal governments should all resist the arrogance that tempts them to think they know what is best for every American worker thirty years into the future. Perhaps we should simply call for the end of all payroll and employer taxes and contributions for retirement programs of any kind. Americans have been fooled too long into believing that the government is wiser than they are when it comes to planning for each American’s retirement. The consequences of liberty include responsibility. Americans might be well advised to demand their financial liberty again by reclaiming their individual responsibility for their own financial futures…
Oh, I forgot… We can’t…That’s lesson two: national debt means something.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Pastor Rick Warren: An American Heretic?
The venom of gay activist groups towards President-elect Obama over his choice of Reverend Rick Warren to lead his inaugural prayer reveals the extreme hatred and intolerance on the far left. These gay activist groups are so self-absorbed that they neither acknowledge the magnanimity of President Elect Obama nor the universal right of every man and woman to pray publically on behalf of all despite their sins of against mere political orthodoxy.
Perhaps the first thing that came to the minds of many who heard Reverend Rick Warren’s named to lead the inaugural prayer for President-elect Barrack Obama was “graciousness.” Perhaps the most important moments of the early campaign occurred in Reverend Warren’s church when the President Elect sat before religious conservatives and shared his views on a variety of issues relevant to all Americans. Besides bravely putting aside the notion that he would govern according to the view of his longtime Chicago pastor by going to church with the Republicans also, the open honest forum was one of the only bright spots in John McCain’s campaign. President-elect Obama’s acknowledgment of Reverend Warren was an olive branch to an entire spectrum of the electorate that has fundamental disagreements with the future 44th President of the United States. In that recognition of Obama’s graciousness, one is naturally drawn to appreciate a religious figure who held honest policy differences with a powerful political figure and yet remained on friendly terms. Reverend Warrens’ ability to transcend narrowly held political ideologies in view of the larger human concerns was only echoed by President-elect Obama’s request for the man to lead an the inaugural prayer.
If President Bush, in retrospect, bemoans his attempt at raising the tone of political discourse in Washington as a failure, he was perhaps, premature. Then again, perhaps not. Within a heartbeat of Barrack Obama’s magnanimous gesture, gay right activists were doing everything but burning crosses on Warren’s church lawn in order to brand the clergyman as a bigot. Likewise, with equal intolerance, they complained bitterly that the president-elect had chosen a person to pray who did not represent “all Americans.” One must assume that these groups would never pray with Reverend Warren, no matter how graciously he extended the invitation. However, the reason for their refusal is Reverend Warren’s intolerance. This is the continuing lie propounded by the gay marriage crowd. If you don’t endorse gay marriage, you are a homophobe bigot. In general, any group that insists that men and women pretend that others are married so that they feel “included” must be selfish to the core. This was once again plainly shown by the invidious bile spewed in President-elect Obama’s face by gay activist groups that are self-absorbed, self-obsessed, and harshly intolerant of the views of others.
These activists are plainly not victims. The precursor to all persecution is to establish the sinfulness of one’s opponent’s position. If you have and extreme disagreement with your opponent’s doctrinal position, you demonize the opposition and attack his or her credibility. After one’s credibility has been diminished and your opponent isolated, the persecutions begin. No one is persecuting homosexuals in 21st century America; however, the left is endeavoring to demonize those whose views on choice and matrimony they disagree with. The result would be to brand certain religious beliefs as a national heresy.
The far left groups are, on a personal level, trying to injure Reverend Warren and his standing, not only in terms of his political views, but as a spiritual person. This should be off the table and not part of the discussion. Reverend Warren may disagree with some on the left in a political sense, but Pastor Warren’s right to pray or lead prayer in a land were religious freedom is our most precious inheritance should never be impinged. President-elect Obama is correct, Reverend Warren’s spirituality and his standing as person whose religious values are sincere should be off the table when it comes to inauguration politics.
Perhaps the first thing that came to the minds of many who heard Reverend Rick Warren’s named to lead the inaugural prayer for President-elect Barrack Obama was “graciousness.” Perhaps the most important moments of the early campaign occurred in Reverend Warren’s church when the President Elect sat before religious conservatives and shared his views on a variety of issues relevant to all Americans. Besides bravely putting aside the notion that he would govern according to the view of his longtime Chicago pastor by going to church with the Republicans also, the open honest forum was one of the only bright spots in John McCain’s campaign. President-elect Obama’s acknowledgment of Reverend Warren was an olive branch to an entire spectrum of the electorate that has fundamental disagreements with the future 44th President of the United States. In that recognition of Obama’s graciousness, one is naturally drawn to appreciate a religious figure who held honest policy differences with a powerful political figure and yet remained on friendly terms. Reverend Warrens’ ability to transcend narrowly held political ideologies in view of the larger human concerns was only echoed by President-elect Obama’s request for the man to lead an the inaugural prayer.
If President Bush, in retrospect, bemoans his attempt at raising the tone of political discourse in Washington as a failure, he was perhaps, premature. Then again, perhaps not. Within a heartbeat of Barrack Obama’s magnanimous gesture, gay right activists were doing everything but burning crosses on Warren’s church lawn in order to brand the clergyman as a bigot. Likewise, with equal intolerance, they complained bitterly that the president-elect had chosen a person to pray who did not represent “all Americans.” One must assume that these groups would never pray with Reverend Warren, no matter how graciously he extended the invitation. However, the reason for their refusal is Reverend Warren’s intolerance. This is the continuing lie propounded by the gay marriage crowd. If you don’t endorse gay marriage, you are a homophobe bigot. In general, any group that insists that men and women pretend that others are married so that they feel “included” must be selfish to the core. This was once again plainly shown by the invidious bile spewed in President-elect Obama’s face by gay activist groups that are self-absorbed, self-obsessed, and harshly intolerant of the views of others.
These activists are plainly not victims. The precursor to all persecution is to establish the sinfulness of one’s opponent’s position. If you have and extreme disagreement with your opponent’s doctrinal position, you demonize the opposition and attack his or her credibility. After one’s credibility has been diminished and your opponent isolated, the persecutions begin. No one is persecuting homosexuals in 21st century America; however, the left is endeavoring to demonize those whose views on choice and matrimony they disagree with. The result would be to brand certain religious beliefs as a national heresy.
The far left groups are, on a personal level, trying to injure Reverend Warren and his standing, not only in terms of his political views, but as a spiritual person. This should be off the table and not part of the discussion. Reverend Warren may disagree with some on the left in a political sense, but Pastor Warren’s right to pray or lead prayer in a land were religious freedom is our most precious inheritance should never be impinged. President-elect Obama is correct, Reverend Warren’s spirituality and his standing as person whose religious values are sincere should be off the table when it comes to inauguration politics.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Limited Representative Government: Prop. 8 and Racism
Californians are now just racists (like they have always been) because its citizens won't allow same sex couples to pretend they are married. Direct democracy must not be allowed, they say, only the power of the state constitution is right! Well, if the state constitution allows for direct democracy, then to what constitution do they refer? Some say that constitutions are written to protect the minority from the majority. That is not correct, otherwise no majority rule could exist, hence no democracy and no democratic republics. Constitutions in constitutional republics represent a covenant among the people as to how their laws will work. When that covenant is broken, they owe the powers that broke the covenant no allegiance.
The biggest problem with more direct forms of democracy is that important issues are fought out in sound bites (like education becoming the focus of the last month's debate). During the 1960's revision period Bernard Hyink (see page 5 of article) made a series of serious arguments against the prevalence of direct democracy in California's constitution. Californians did not want any part of returning to a more representative form of government. It is this direct democracy that is more Libertarian because it liberally gives the people greater say. A reduced dependency on an independent judiciary is another libertarian notion that arose in California as the institutions of the federal constitution began to struggle under the pressures of massive industrialization during the Civil War period.
There have been many really stupid things written into California's constitution over time, including, as some rightly point out, racist notions in bold print. These things have all been eradicated, but the principles of greater direct democracy have been strengthened.
Constitutions don't come from a Divine Being. They come from people. Good people don't come from governments; good governments come from good people. There are those, (I am not among them), that argue that even our notions of right and wrong don't originate from a Higher Power. I do believe that things like passionate self-interest, greed, and jealousy often blind some people to the voice of conscience. These people, sadly, are too often the ones that are in authority in political parties.
Some folks talk about how health care must be reformed because of greedy and corrupt doctors. My response to this has always been to throw up my hands. If the people who deliver the health care are corrupt, it's over. What can anyone do? That's how I feel about the "checked" use of a greater direct democracy in not only California, but in the nation. If the people, of whom, by whom and for whom government exists, have lost their way, what's the point?
I think, because of the federal constitution, and the language of the California constitution regarding it's subjection to the federal constitution, the objections some raise about returning to a KKK society is a read herring. I say, "I think", because San Francisco seems to have seceded from the union relative to immigration law and no one cares.
In general, it is sad that people accuse the entire populace of hate because they don't want to lie to their kids and tell them that same sex couple are married... well not really... well legally... That's a bit much. What's wrong with civil unions anyhow?
I saw a good Wikipedia article on the language of Prop. 8. After great debate, "may" and "could" were the words left in the ballot initiative concerning required teacher participation in educational programs. The Supreme Court Justices had essentially ordered teachers to lie to little children, whether students could "opt out" or not.
The constitution of California never, ever provided for making people say that same sex couples are married when they are not. Four Supreme Court judges, perhaps inspired by some vision from of Saturn in red, exercised their authority to INTERPRET the constitution (if they did more than this they dare not admit it!). The simplest way to clarify the constitution was to do the people of California did.
The biggest problem with more direct forms of democracy is that important issues are fought out in sound bites (like education becoming the focus of the last month's debate). During the 1960's revision period Bernard Hyink (see page 5 of article) made a series of serious arguments against the prevalence of direct democracy in California's constitution. Californians did not want any part of returning to a more representative form of government. It is this direct democracy that is more Libertarian because it liberally gives the people greater say. A reduced dependency on an independent judiciary is another libertarian notion that arose in California as the institutions of the federal constitution began to struggle under the pressures of massive industrialization during the Civil War period.
There have been many really stupid things written into California's constitution over time, including, as some rightly point out, racist notions in bold print. These things have all been eradicated, but the principles of greater direct democracy have been strengthened.
Constitutions don't come from a Divine Being. They come from people. Good people don't come from governments; good governments come from good people. There are those, (I am not among them), that argue that even our notions of right and wrong don't originate from a Higher Power. I do believe that things like passionate self-interest, greed, and jealousy often blind some people to the voice of conscience. These people, sadly, are too often the ones that are in authority in political parties.
Some folks talk about how health care must be reformed because of greedy and corrupt doctors. My response to this has always been to throw up my hands. If the people who deliver the health care are corrupt, it's over. What can anyone do? That's how I feel about the "checked" use of a greater direct democracy in not only California, but in the nation. If the people, of whom, by whom and for whom government exists, have lost their way, what's the point?
I think, because of the federal constitution, and the language of the California constitution regarding it's subjection to the federal constitution, the objections some raise about returning to a KKK society is a read herring. I say, "I think", because San Francisco seems to have seceded from the union relative to immigration law and no one cares.
In general, it is sad that people accuse the entire populace of hate because they don't want to lie to their kids and tell them that same sex couple are married... well not really... well legally... That's a bit much. What's wrong with civil unions anyhow?
I saw a good Wikipedia article on the language of Prop. 8. After great debate, "may" and "could" were the words left in the ballot initiative concerning required teacher participation in educational programs. The Supreme Court Justices had essentially ordered teachers to lie to little children, whether students could "opt out" or not.
The constitution of California never, ever provided for making people say that same sex couples are married when they are not. Four Supreme Court judges, perhaps inspired by some vision from of Saturn in red, exercised their authority to INTERPRET the constitution (if they did more than this they dare not admit it!). The simplest way to clarify the constitution was to do the people of California did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
