Swindle of the Year

If you thought the republicans won by forcing the president to concede to extending the Bush tax cuts for another 2 years, you’re wrong. The pres won big time, debt will soar, but oddly the dems don’t get it. Tea Party supporter where’s your voice? Don’t you know the old guard sold you out? Read what Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite wise men of politics, has to say.



About Well of Knowledge Tour Guide

I am a public policy thinker and amateur historian. My interests are seeking knowledge in all areas of life.
This entry was posted in Money, Public Policy. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Swindle of the Year

  1. Randall Lee Yow says:

    Please sir, you know as well as I that spending and deficits are just talking points for the Republican Party. The Republicans are willing to cut taxes, but not cut spending. They absorbed the Tea Party and their Libertarian views simply by being the other party. The most fiscally conservative thing President Bush could have done was not cut taxes, but used the surplus to start paying off the national debt (We still have debt on the books for battleships built in World War I). The most worrying thing to me about this plan is that we are cutting how much money is going into Social Security and supplementing it with borrowed money from Red China.

    -Randall Lee Yow

  2. Thanks for the comment. It is a weak argument to claim that leaving taxes as they have been for 10 years a “cut”. So each year I don’t get a raise in pay I’ve been given a cut? These are, as you say, “…just talking points…”, a way to phrase the argument to win support. In other words, politics as usual.

    That said, I agree with your and Charles Krauthammer’s point regarding spending. The current Republicans in office caved on spending. Tea Party members were limited in their ability to influence the current congress. This is really about the failure of the lame duck period than anything else. So maybe this should be the target of reform. Next year we’ll see if the new crop in congress have any backbone to cut spending.

    Regarding Social Security we both are smart enough to know that demographics in the US make the current SS system unsustainable. The history of payments to just about anyone down on their luck is quite a departure from SS’s humble beginnings. All politicians have used the candy of benefits to maintain power. Would you re-elect city and county officials if you’d just gotten a job at Coty, CAT or some other county located company at public expense?

    Just as Obamacare will force rationing in some fashion, by continuing to throw money at SS we’ll be forced to ration it as well. The recent debt commission has already suggested this by increasing the eligibility age by 2 years. Progressives call for no SS for the “rich” however that is defined so that they pay their “fair share” and because they “don’t need the money”. Of course these restrictions mean nothing to the millionaires in the White House and Congress.

    If a fix is not in place soon I foresee a lame duck congress and possibly a president doing something truly drastic like dropping payments to certain seniors altogether.

    My review of the current military retirement system leads me to believe the only rational and viable way to keep that going is to drop a fixed retirement entirely and replace it with vehicles already in place and currently available to the military; Thrift Savings Program and IRAs. This would not just save public money, but would improve the military, especially the officer corps, by making the corps less dependent on being yes men to their bosses ( the up or out system) to ensure promotion, and it would allow competent military members to sustain a 40-year vice 20-year career at a lower cost to the public.

    Industry, except those that are heavily unionized and public sector unions (especially in California) have drifted away from defined pensions because they are not sustainable. As we know there are various financial vehicles; Keogh, IRAs, stock options, etc that give the worker greater flexibility, choices and security at a lower cost to both the public and private companies. The military retirement system could do the same thing. Again thanks for the comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s