Whenever citizens are prevented from doing something (like keeping the money they earn), the government is exerting its control. In the case of prohibiting murder or injury to another, it’s a good thing. Removing criminals from society and protecting citizens is how the state’s power is most effectively flexed. This is for the benefit not just of the state but citizens as well.
Where the state’s power is most effective for itself but least effective for us is in exerting control over our ownership rights in the form of excessive regulation (land use, for example), burdensome taxes and gun control.
An argument can be made that the social security system is burdensome and broken and infringes on our freedom and ownership rights. Slavery was burdensome (to the slave) and broken and infringed on people’s freedom and “self-ownership” rights. Just as slavery was abolished, social security should be abolished. Is that line of reasoning a stretch?
Abolishing social security would be radical, wouldn’t it? The idea of outlawing slavery was once radical, too. Imagine that. Free Negroes walking around. There are so many ways we can go with this, but I’ll let you do that in the comments. Read Star Parker’s take on the issue:
Am I pushing the envelope too far to suggest that there is common ground between the politics of slavery and the politics of Social Security?When moral problems are transformed into politics, we can find surprising similarities in issues that otherwise might seem worlds apart….
Listening to the case for transforming Social Security to a regime of personal ownership is simple and compelling. The numbers no longer add up in our current system. Personal accounts would allow ownership and wealth creation. If we had to start from scratch, no one would want the system we now have. If the case is so clear, why isn’t it simple to change?
Good question. Anybody know the answer?
Star’s book, Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It, is a good read. I’ve blogged it (and Star) several times here and here.
Update (1:52 p.m.): I just got off the phone with Kevin McCullough, and we talked about this post (That’s what I like about radio interviews. The discussion at hand always leads to other topics. We talked briefly about Easongate and mostly about social security.) I was writing this post while I was on hold.
As we talked about social security, I realized that many people don’t want the system overhauled because it’s scary. With private accounts, we’ll assume control over our own retirement. I’m sure President Bush’s plan includes an option to keep the money safe in government bonds and such, as well as an option to invest in risky ventures, like the stock market.
If you have a 401(k) account, you already have an idea of what it takes to keep your nest egg relatively safe, so reforming social security shouldn’t be viewed as radical.
Unrelated Update II (3:23 p.m.): Visit the new CPAC Bloggers site.
Update III (5:25 p.m.): Kevin McCullough is interviewed on a show called ReachOUT.org. He talks about his faith, his radio show, blog, etc. It’s very good.
Professor Bainbridge on social security.
La Shawn,
The whole SS issue is one I’ve pondered over for so long. Unfortunately I’ve found it to be such an extremely grey area, with both sides (pro and con) offering good and bad arguments. In short, nothing less than me burying money in my back yard will make me feel “security” when I come due for retirement.
So, in response to your question: no, I don’t have an answer. And I feel anyone who says he or she does may not either. Sort of like answering “what’s the meaning of life.”
Comment by Mike M. — 02.15.05 @ 1:22 pm
Yes, Social Security is Like Slavery
La Shawn Barber asks: Where the state’s power is most effective for itself but least effective for us is in exerting control over our ownership rights in the form of excessive regulation (land use, for example), burdensome taxes and gun…
Trackback by The Everlasting Phelps — 02.15.05 @ 1:32 pm
I agree ss should be abolished altogether. All it does is takes the responsibilities off families. Families should be caring for the elders. People say we cant legislate morality. But isnt this the reason for ss, that its a moral thing to care for the old. While this is good the gov. has no authority under the Constitution to steal peoples money and give it to others. My husband and I have a right to save or invest our money for our future. someone start a campaigsn ABOLISH SOCIAL SECURITY
Comment by shari — 02.15.05 @ 1:43 pm
I think it’s hard for someone my age, 47, who has been paying a lot of money sort of for my retirement into Social Security for 30 years to contemplate never seeing what should be a mountain of cash. Never will see it. Now imagine what someone 20 years my senior is thinking.
I imagine when Social Security was instituted in the 1930s there was little faith in any sort of private investment. The stock market had recently crashed and it was the middle of the depression. You still see vestiges of the nervous mindset when anything but Social Security is characterized as a “risky scheme.”
The controls in place to buffer ill effects on private investments make today vastly different. Where do you see a retirement plan that provides the non-returns of SS? The idea of pouring more money down this rat-hole is maddening. There must be some cleverly wrought pallete of investment options for individuals to choose from, some mix of bonds, real estate, stocks, savings, mutual funds, etc. that will guarantee a much greater return at less risk than SS. Let’s face it, a scheme that is worthless to me, and that is what SS amounts to, is about as risky as it gets.
The issue is how to transition to private investments fairly and how to manage the financing of that transition. It will be very costly, but less costly the sooner it is addressed.
Comment by Nardo — 02.15.05 @ 1:46 pm
Well, to answer Star’s question, the Brits seem to want the system we now have, since they are planning to modify their own system in ways which match ours more closely.
As to the more general fantasy of the ungoverned free individual, not subject to taxes or burdensome regulation, I would point out that for 30 years before and 30 years after 1900 we had a country exactly like that.
I would reccommend to your attention a classic book about it, available online here:
http://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/about.html
The book is How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis. You can see the photographs he took of that world here:
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/R/riis/riis.html
If you have the courage to read and look at them, and at the utter squalor of that “free and unregulated” world, you will be looking at the primary reasons why we have things like our current Social Security System.
Comment by Joseph Marshall — 02.15.05 @ 1:51 pm
I said it a hundred times. Privitazation would be a huge benefit to the working poor and lower middle class in this country. Even if they reduced the proposal to say 3%, the opportunity to accumulate wealth would be sizable. The Democrats (most of them) are going to oppose anything the president proposes, however this is really big because they are somewhat dependent on keeping a good portion of the people reliant on that government stipend.
Comment by Ol' BC — 02.15.05 @ 1:57 pm
Ah, but Nardo. You never will see a mountain of cash. You may see a molehill, but never the mountain you put in, had it been getting decent intrest rate.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 02.15.05 @ 1:58 pm
‘Abolishing social security would be radical, wouldn’t it? The idea of outlawing slavery was once radical, too.’
I think it would be radical to go back to the era when we didn’t have social security, since it seemed to be such a bad idea that we implemented social security.
Comment by actus — 02.15.05 @ 2:30 pm
Joseph, the stories and pictures of poor immigrants and tenements is interesting but irrelevant to the question of SS. Moreso when SS will take from the poor and maybe give soime of it back in retirement. I fail to see point.
Now if the govt forced every worker to set aside 5% into a PIA, everyone would be the richer — and the politicians would be the poorer in terms of paying off their special interests. Such is the power of compounded interest. With SS, the money is only put to work for the govt to fund current pork and in return, you get an IOU. Trusting politicians w/ da dough is the riskiest thing anyone can do.
Hence the adage about the govt taking and not giving back…
Comment by Andy — 02.15.05 @ 3:03 pm
“Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Comment by Joseph Marshall — 02.15.05 @ 4:47 pm
Considering abolishing ss means that one must consider the disability insurance portion of the program. That is valuable to some people such as severely mentally ill people who, through no fault of their own, became disabled and were not able to plan ahead with disability insurance. Retirement and disability planning may not be on the mind of a 17-year-old, but schizophrenia might be consuming his mind.
Comment by Curtis — 02.15.05 @ 5:32 pm
Sure we need to learn from history, but again, poor immigrants and tenements have absolutely nothing to do with SS. Obviously you disagree and I’m all ears–scratch, all eyes.
What? Do you reeeeally believe that the single mom with 5 illegitimate children is incapable of setting side 5% in a PIA and wind up breaking even or better than what SS conditionally promises?
While you’re free to speak for yourself, I think you’re selling the average person short by insisting that it is necessary for the govt to withhold 15% of their pre-tax income, just so the gov’t can use it as an interest free loan.
On the otherhand, NYC’s ridiculous Rent Controls do contribute to the oppression of poor people by ensuring lousy housing for the money. As for the unheathly conditions of the tenements, ie damp, mold, soot etc, what does SS have to do with that.
Comment by Andy — 02.15.05 @ 5:52 pm
La Shawn, YOU GO GIRL! Why are black men subsidizing little old white women? Or as California State Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown [and hopefully soon to be Federal Judge] said “Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery,” Brown wrote. “Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.”
Comment by RKV — 02.15.05 @ 5:56 pm
As the final interpreter of the Constitution, we, the People believe the Supreme Court got it right – a tax on labor is a “slave tax,” and is a violation of fundamental, human Rights. In short, it is unconstitutional and intolerable.
http://www.givemeliberty.org
Please take a look at the website and comment on your blog. Thank you very much.
Comment by Doug Kenline — 02.15.05 @ 6:01 pm
“why isn’t it simple to change?
Easy. We owe current retirees a bunch of money. We’ve promised future retirees even more. If we go from the current pay-as-you-go to private accounts, we would lose the revenue stream to pay those promised benefits.
The rest isn’t easy or obvious, but this immense cost of private accounts is.
Comment by ptm — 02.15.05 @ 6:12 pm
ptm, someone is going to lose the revenue stream sooner or later. One of the questions that Bush is asking us, is whether we’ll take the hit now while the transition is cheaper, or do it later on the backs of our kids and grandkids at a much higer cost.
If I were a low-income/skill person, I’d rather know now, 20 years out that SS won’t be there. Better than waking up 5 years out from retirement and finding out that SS was all smoke-n-mirrors and that was all I was banking on.
I’d also rather have my kids enter the workforce 10-15 years from now with a reformed SS including the PIA than have our Uncle taking out 20% or 25% to prop up the Ponzi scheme to take care of me.
Comment by Andy — 02.15.05 @ 6:47 pm
Those who live in the past shall be, or perhaps should be, relegated to it.
It is farcical to believe that without SS we shall again be living under 19th century conditions. Social Security is by no means the only difference between then and now. SS was a short term answer for seniors who were destitute during the great depression. It is obviously not self-sustaining. The initial part of one’s paycheck in the 30s was much smaller than the present tax bite. It long ago failed to work under the original plan, and payroll tax was raised again and again. The SS plan failed to work long ago, but we refused to see it. Its solution to date is to ever raise the percentage of your pay. Where will it end?
Comment by Nardo — 02.15.05 @ 7:13 pm
Ol BC:
‘Privitazation would be a huge benefit to the working poor and lower middle class in this country. Even if they reduced the proposal to say 3%, the opportunity to accumulate wealth would be sizable.’
The current system allows for survivor and spousal benefits. Under the bush plan the private accounts would have to be annuitized at retirement, leaving nothing.
Comment by actus — 02.15.05 @ 7:20 pm
Actus:
“annuitized at retirement, leaving nothing.” Do you mean to say that your investments would be given to the federal government leaving nothing for spouse and survivors? That is not a private account, and that does not sound likely. I believe the prez said that the account would be yours and your family’s. If this is not the case, please reference where Bush or his admin outline what you say here. If you’re right this is a huge glitch.
Comment by Nardo — 02.15.05 @ 7:34 pm
This is similar to Alan Keyes’ argument that the income tax is a form of slavery:
I’m sympathetic to the notion that the income tax is incompatible with liberty — at best, it is a restriction on our liberty, since it means we are not free to do as we choose with 100% of the fruits of our labor.
However, there is one important — I would say, critical — difference between the slave and the taxpayer. The slave is does not simply do whatever he wants, and give 100% of the resulting income to the master — they slave is under the master’s complete control, and must do whatever he is ordered to do whenever he is ordered to do it. The income-taxpayer is free to take whatever job he wants, as long as he pays the percentage ordered to the tax collector. If the income-taxpayer chooses to make less income, he will pay less tax. If he chooses to make no income, he will pay no tax — and the tax collector has no authority to ahve him whipped for refusing to take a job.
In other words, if they declare a 100% income tax, I can — and certainly would — quit my job. The slave does not have that option.
Comment by Different River — 02.15.05 @ 8:22 pm
La Shawn Barber takes up a question asked by Star Parker: Whenever citizens are prevented […]
Comment by Different River — 02.15.05 @ 8:29 pm
Before I look at other posts…..
I believe the answer to your question is 2 fold:
1) Transforming a system from pay the recipient when they retire to putting the money in a save investment that is their nest egg that can be transferred to a beneficiary requires moving costs from future years to more current years This gives government oriented power hungry people the opportunity to demagogue about the costs , when there is no additional costs but in fact an opportunity for less costs because investments would provide more benefits to beneficiaries which would lessen the burden on the government to provide for the promised benefit at a 1% rate of return or whatever it’ll be.
2) Moving the center of money flowing to recipients from the government to investment firms takes power away from the politician to say, “I’m protecting you and providing for you”. While the majority of Americans may want a change the change will not happen on 2 issues
a) Social Security
b) illegal immigrants
Both of these above issues really need the politicians to step up to the plate and listen to the will of the people.
Comment by Baklava — 02.15.05 @ 9:09 pm
Did you forget to close a tag, Bak?
Comment by La Shawn — 02.15.05 @ 9:13 pm
After reading the posts…. I’d only like to respond to:
Mike M.
I don’t believe understanding costs, estimates, benefits, expenses, etc. equates to someone saying they know the meaning of life….
But if you insist….
The meaning of life is….
Love and happiness !
Comment by Baklava — 02.15.05 @ 9:13 pm
Baklava:
What I meant to say was that I feel there are too many twists and turns in the debate for or against maintaining social security for any one person to be completely decisive and “accurate” as to which way the system should go.
Sure, I agree somewhat with the train of thought that says people should be able to keep their money as opposed to the government taking it, with little assurance it’ll be there when he or she retires.
And people certainly survived–though nowhere near the record ages many are hitting nowadays–without SS.
As a young person, I feel many of my fellow young people are more interested in immediate gratification as opposed to saving and waiting until the right time to cash out.
Again, hypotheticals must be assumed when deciding on the fate of SS. What would become of those fools who’ve cut through all savings and have NOTHING when retirement comes. Does the US government just say “OK…well sorry. There’s no more SS, so there’s no lifenet for you. You’re gonna be evicted because you have no means of income and you have no medical coverage.”
Again, a very dramatic illustration of what COULD happen. But, because we’re talking the future here, all scenarios should be considered. Which is why I’m taking the safe route and insisting “I don’t know what’s best for Social Security.”
But, yes…I would concur (somewhat) that the meaning of life is love and happiness.
Comment by Mike M. — 02.15.05 @ 9:42 pm
Decisive is all about how we “feel”. I “feel” like the President’s plan is a good “start”.
Accurate is about facts and numbers and I feel that I’ve accurately represented the president’s plan. Those who oppose the president’s plan have represented their opposing feelings with inaccurate facts and misrepresentations about the numbers. I’m sorry but that’s the truth. Obviously there are Pros and Cons. But when the opposition inaccurately repsresents a plan then we are NOT hearing pros and cons.
You wrote, “As a young person, I feel many of my fellow young people are more interested in immediate gratification as opposed to saving and waiting until the right time to cash out. While this may be an accurate representation of baby boomers, generation x’ers and even those who lived their lives already, it doesn’t belong in this debate BECAUSE, wages are manditorily subjected to taxation for social security from both the employer and the employee to the tune of 12.4% total. Medicare is taxed at 2.9% total (employer and employee matched equally) and having the money redirected to a nest egg with safegards has no room in the debate for people who very stupidly don’t save for the RAINY day.
Also, the President’s plan cannot represent NOTHING as you stated for someone because there is only a SMALL percentage that Bush is talking about having redirected to private investments. His plan talks about 4% of the 12.4% being redirected. Wooptie. And given the LIMITED options of SAFE investments that is being allowed for with DOLLAR COST AVERAGING and RULES in place that only allow certain safe mutual funds (which none have gone belly up only certain stocks have gone belly up) what are we debating here?
While I appreciate the dramatization (as you mentioned the word) I believe quite inaccurate rhetoric is being represented by the fear mongerers.
The worst case scenario in your safe route is that the 4% that was redirected to the nest egg is at $0 which would be highly unlikely given the RULES OF DIVERSIFICATION that is represnted in his plan.
Comment by Baklava — 02.15.05 @ 10:03 pm
‘Do you mean to say that your investments would be given to the federal government leaving nothing for spouse and survivors? That is not a private account, and that does not sound likely.’
The bush plan as detailed in the briefings forces annuitizations of whatever personal account you have. I think they might allow to escape this forced annuitization whatever is above what you have put into it plus 3% growth. So if your account made more than 3% — average — that more than 3% is what gets built up.
Factor in the decline in benefits by changing to price rather than wage indexation, and the bush plan probably will pay out less than current survivor and spousal benefits.
Comment by actus — 02.15.05 @ 10:33 pm
broken record time again…
Actus, do you have a source so that the rest of the class can compare your numbers and analysis?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 02.15.05 @ 10:43 pm
Mike M. I believe the solution to your dilemna is to dig out Occam’s razor and just slice the political knot that is our SS.
Simple math (logic) shows that all the fear and loathing is much ado about nothing and everything about control of the money by politicians — your money becomes their money and their power.
As for a true safety net, where there is a will, there is a way, even if PIAs were 100% funded. Bottomline, the opposition needs to cut the naysay rhetoric and start talking about meaningful reform.
Dare I say it ought to be a moral crime that the vast sums of monies “invested” in the SS fund are in essence buried instead of being harnessed for usury and greater economic growth? Think of it, the US has been on an economic boom since the end of WW2 and instead of riding that wave, SS has been well, rather insecure and antisocial to boot.
Rather than take up bandwidth, I’ll refer you to a couple of links that go into greater detail:
SS systems from around the world, check out Chile’s in particular,
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/1999/
The Right Scale, a blogger blogging about your money and the ways the govt covets it,
http://dickmcdonald.blogspot.com/
Comment by Andy — 02.15.05 @ 11:08 pm
SS is a minimum living standard safety net insurance policy for the elderly, required to be purchased during the earning years of their and/or their spouses lives, by the gov’t.
The gov’t(you and me) will be required to step in and take up the slack if the equity in this insurance policy is poorly invested and lost through ‘private’ control, when the investor reaches retirement with no or little funds left.
Private investment for retirement, over and above the basic SS Insurance Policy, is already available called the 401K, SEP, IRA, etc. etc. etc.
Allowing young inexperienced risky and compulsive people, not even dreaming they will every get old yet, to gamble with even a portion of their basic Insurance Annuityis a dumb idea Prez. There is NO chance the gov’t is not going to pay SS due them when they retire. Paaleeeze!
Make the really tough political decisions Prez and call for an increase the retirement age for an increasing healthy, capable, and long living populace. Those who aren’t capable can get early retirement via disablility. Call for an increase in the income cutoff point at which you are no longer required to contribute to SS. Call for a crackdown on abuses by early withdrawers who are claiming disability, and/or claiming children with disabilities, as well a other liberal abuses.
Show some real ‘domestic’ courage Prez and spend some of that political capital right here. A good start is to put your FIRST veto on the yearly pork-laden omnibus political contributor payoff bill so our gov’t can begin to stop using the SS funds to payoff their monthly ‘minimum payment due’ credit card payment. Go ahead. Make my day.
Comment by Jim R — 02.16.05 @ 3:29 am
La Shawn, I live in Galveston County in Texas, the first Texas county which in 1981 ( under the old SS laws which were changed in 1986) exercised the right cities, counties and states had at that time to pull its employees out of SS and create their own private retirement funds.
It has of course been a raging success, with retired county employees collecting 2 or 3 or more times what SS pays.
Here is a link to a great story about it:
http://www.thetonyshow.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1037&PN=1
Later,
Tom
Comment by Tom Tyler — 02.16.05 @ 4:11 am
‘Actus, do you have a source so that the rest of the class can compare your numbers and analysis?’
The Bush administration background press briefing on social security.
Click on my name for the transcript as provided by the Wall Street Journal. Other major media organs should have it too.
Also lots of bloggers have been commenting — with knowledge of the proposal, rather than airy-fairy comparisons to slavery. I recommend J. Bradford Delong and Max Sawicki.
Comment by actus — 02.16.05 @ 8:52 am
Though I’m much too old to opt into it, the Bush Admin. plan makes a certain amount of sense. I have one major worry in this. How long will it be before our elected representitives pass some bill written by lobbysts that will wind up making a few people rich and leaving the rest of us with an empty bag that needs filling. Can you say savings and loan or Enron. No one doubts that the system needs fixing or it will fail. Well, maybe some Dems. but only since Bush started talking about fixing it. Still, without a very watchfull eye on congress, this looks to me like a scandal waiting to happen.
Comment by Mike O — 02.16.05 @ 11:17 am
I want a system which allows me the freedom to live a life in which I am no longer forced to rely upon THE GOVERNMENT’S SLAVE PLANTATION to save me.
What angers me is that certain people insist Social Security is a right by law yet inheritance is an evil which must be taxed far after death.
Why certain people wish to allow THE GOVERNMENT the power to control everyone and everything, even after we die, is SLAVERY.
All the way around the concept of entitlement is simply legalized theft behind a guise of false goodwill.
Comment by susan — 02.16.05 @ 2:54 pm
Social Security Reform and Freedom
Professor Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA) has just launched would could become an interesting discussion among conservatives (picked up by Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit), about how economics and ideology might intersect (or fail to) in the current pus…
Trackback by Kobayashi Maru — 02.16.05 @ 4:13 pm
the Bush plan seemed to offer the chance to invest 4% (or about a third of the 12.4%) in a set range of options while the rest still goes to the government, I assume to pay current and future retirees. So Jim R, it looks like your concerns are already answered. Not that you have an open mind for facts I’d guess, based on the tone of your post. I actually balk at the fact that it looks like we would still be restricted in terms of how and where we could invest the money. Why have the gvmt give us the list of “approved” investments? Why can’t we use the money to pay extra principal on a house loan? Sorry, but if I want to do something “risky” with my money, it’s MY MONEY, isn’t it?
And Jim, I realize you think the government is smarter than I am about my money, but I beg to differ.
Comment by amyc — 02.16.05 @ 4:31 pm
Wow. Social Security = Slavery. Boy do I feel dumb. I always thought that:
“Social security is the single most successful government program in American history. Without it, more than half of all seniors would live in poverty. For millions – for parents and grandparents with little or no savings – it is the difference between destitution and dignity.”
George W. Bush, May 15, 2000
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june00/socsec_bush.html
Little did I know that Social Security was really the functional equivalent of a system our President called “one of the greatest crimes in history.” http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/8/131142.shtml
LaShawn finds Social Security burdensome and an infringement on her freedom and ownership rights because it prevents her from keeping all the money she has earned. Of course, any tax whatsoever prevents a person from keeping all the money he/she has earned - thus, are we to conclude that all taxes, and indeed, all government programs supported by those taxes, are simply forms of slavery? What makes Social Security different from any other government program in this regard?
Look - I don’t like paying taxes anymore than anyone else and I am also of the belief that some action needs to be taken with respect to Social Security. But, c’mon - is the President’s proposal so lame that in order to promote it we need to demonize the current system by comparing it to slavery?
Remarks offensive to blog hostess removed. And yes, she does think paying burdensome taxes are a form of slavery denying ownership rights. Ronald Reagan should have dismantled the worthless Department of Education when he had the chance. - Admin
Comment by pat m. — 02.16.05 @ 4:53 pm
‘Ronald Reagan should have dismantled the worthless Department of Education when he had the chance. - Admin’
But then who would implement no child left untested?
Comment by actus — 02.16.05 @ 5:59 pm
Funny. I say get rid of the whole department, send the money back to citizens to homeschool or send kids to private schools. The money isn’t doing government schools any good, anyway, except maybe the unions. And Democrats.
Comment by La Shawn — 02.16.05 @ 6:11 pm
Pat M.
The issue with SS tax is that it is supposedly a tax to provide for “our own” retirement. The problem is that without raising the age at which it kicks in highly or raising taxes even more than they have already been raised, there will be very little in it for Lashawn, or me.
So the survival of SS depends on making it more expensive than ever with less returns. Sounds like sound government policy to me.
Comment by Nardo — 02.16.05 @ 7:41 pm
LaShawn,
I’m honestly sorry if what I considered a relatively mild comment was offensive to you - what I meant to imply was that I did not think you really thought things through very well in this post.
In any event, I’m curious whether there are any taxes you do not consider “burdensome.” If so, what is it that makes those taxes OK (or at least not so burdensome as to constitute slavery), and, by the same token, what exactly is it about SS taxes that makes them a form of slavery? I raised these same questions in my original comment, and I really don’t see where you offered anything in response.
Further, I fail to see what your commentary about the department of education has to do with the issue of whether the social security system is like slavery, unless you are arguing that using your tax dollars to fund the department is also a form of slavery. Don’t you think such an argument tends to minimize the horror of slavery just a tiny bit?
Nardo:
As I stated in my first post, I agree that some type of action needs to be taken with respect to SS. What I don’t agree with, at least so far, is the President’s “plan”, if you can call it that.
The Administration has acknowledged that its proposal to establish private accounts would have no effect on the shortfalls the SS system faces down the line. In fact, it’s my understanding that the trillion or two in borrowing that would be required to establish such accounts would only exacerbate the problem. So the Bush plan, so far, doesn’t address the problems we face and actually will make them worse. Does that sound like sound government policy to you?
Btw, I don’t know if I would rely on LaShawn for any info regarding the the Bush plan, as her claim that she is sure the plan will include “an option to invest in risky ventures, like the stock market” is absolutely false. “Any proposal will include limitations on the risk of investments permitted in personal accounts and will include low-risk, low-cost options like broad index funds similar to those currently available to Federal employees.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/
Comment by pat m. — 02.16.05 @ 11:22 pm
Some may have mistaken my previous comment as a liberal’s rant. The reality is it is a conservative rant from a pragmatist living in political reality, trying to minimize collateral damage to himself from self-serving Washington. Political reality is how people get an elected job there in the first place, and make a career by keeping it.
A minimum standard of living will be provided to the elderly by the gov’t; a place to live, something to eat, and medical treatment, regardless of whether they are able to pay for it themselves or not. A political reality.
SS is a method the gov’t uses to require people to pay for these minimum living standards themselves, so you and I don’t have to. I personally don’t want to pay for other peoples mistakes and poor choices. I am too busy paying for my own.
I am all for total privatization of SS as long as the investments are limited to gov’t insured and backed investment like Treasury Notes, FDIC Savings, etc investments.
I identify with those who want and value their right to total freedom, including the ‘right to be risky’. Political reality is if you gamble and lose, I and everyone else is going to be forced pay for your mistake when you’re old and destitute. I don’t want to and there is no way out of that political reality for me.
Thanks for your wise comment MikeO. Sounds like you have lived long enough to have earned it.
Comment by Jim R — 02.17.05 @ 10:20 am
Everyone should check out Patrick’s SS/PRA calculator. “This is the first that calculates the effects of the proposal outlined by President Bush in the State of the Union address and in this policy book, comparing the value of your retirement under personal retirement accounts (PRAs) vs. traditional Social Security”. Read more at
http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_bush_social.php
Looking at my own self-interest, I’m more than satisfied with my outlook, since I’m already stashing 10% on 401K. But if the reform allows me to sock 10% into my PIA and if I kept the 401K going, I’d practically quadruple my nest egg. With numbers like this, I would live off the interest w/o tapping into the principle.
I wouldn’t even mind if, say, the govt taxed me 5% during the retirement years to fund the safety net for fools (hey, that’s what the Book of Proverbs calls them) and the truly misfortunate. W/o more numbers crunching, I’d dare say that a scheme like this would generate MORE money for the safety net than the current system.
Just for fun, I also ran the numbers for a 24 year old earning minimum wage and needless to say, the case for economic self-empowerment is just as strong
The other point that Actus and other naysayers gloss over is that the SS is a restraint on my earning capability. The Govt already takes 15% (SS/Medicare) off the top before any other taxes, then I set aside another 10% in the 401K.
All in all, that means I have set aside 25% pre-tax income into retirement schemes before I even get to take a penny home. If there was no such thing as SS, would I still sock away 25%? Probably not, but I’d still do at least 15%. But that 15% would net me more than the current SS & 401K combined.
Apply that math to the minimum/low wage class, and yes, SS is robbing them of both an improved standard of living and future security. Why, because most of them struggle from paycheck to paycheck while congress mandates 15% of their income for the grand Ponzi schemes. The things they could do if only 5% of all incomes were set aside in a PIA & healthcare insurance and the remaining 10% returned to them for necessary/discretionary spending.
So yes, SS=Economic Slavery & Tort/Healthcare Reform = Better Healthcare.
Comment by Andy — 02.17.05 @ 11:26 am
‘The other point that Actus and other naysayers gloss over is that the SS is a restraint on my earning capability. The Govt already takes 15% (SS/Medicare) off the top before any other taxes, then I set aside another 10% in the 401K.’
I like how he uses a 6.5% expected rate of return, and 4% expected (real, I’m guessing) annual raise in the private accounts part. Its funny because those numbers are inconsistent with the economic projections that the social security administration uses when calculating its expected benefits under the current system.
If the economy did grow at those rates, then SS would be closer to solvent. Perhaps even just fine.
Comment by actus — 02.17.05 @ 1:55 pm
‘The other point that Actus and other naysayers gloss over is that the SS is a restraint on my earning capability. The Govt already takes 15% (SS/Medicare) off the top before any other taxes, then I set aside another 10% in the 401K. ‘
The point that this model you link to glosses over is that he is comparing apples to oranges. He assumes 4% (real, i’m guessing) wage growth and 6.5% risk free rate of return of private accounts. Those assumptions are of a much better performing economy than the one that SS admin uses to model expected payouts. If the economy really did deliver that, SS would be much closer to an infinite horizon solvency, and might even be positive.
Comment by actus — 02.17.05 @ 2:22 pm
Actus misunderstands and gets the facts wrong again…
Comment by Baklava — 02.17.05 @ 4:07 pm
That’s cause you’re hiding out in school and oblivious to reality.
I’ve been getting on average a 4% raise every year — sometimes a big jump as when I switch jobs. With my very first job I was earning $1.40 over minimum wage and within 5 years I had doubled. Currently I’d say my income has increased by about 500%. Although I could be earning at least another 30% - 100% by working for the big boys, I chose to be where I am for the time being.
As for 6.5% rate of return on investments, that’s about par for the average investor. Truth be told, I’ve seen my 401K average anywhere from 30% to -2% in a quarter depending on my risktaking. Now, I’m seeing about 7.3% according to my latest statement (40-40-10-10 mix from aggressive to guaranteed)
As for your 2nd comment, a Ponzi scheme is still a Ponzi scheme, no matter the rate of returns.
Get a clue before you spout off about know-nothing talking points.
Comment by Andy — 02.17.05 @ 4:16 pm
Andy,
If you really think Ruffini’s calculator has any utility whatsoever, I think it’s you who needs to get the clue. The “tool” (I mean the calculator, not Ruffini) is rigged in that it assumes that a continuously descending rate of return for social security which actually dips into the negative in 2023. This results in such absurdities as getting a better result under a personal account regime even when you project a negative rate of return for the personal account. I left a more detailed comment at Ruffini’s site that you might want to read. Or, if you want to keep believing in the magical powers of Dubya’s private accounts, you just do that.
Comment by pat m. — 02.17.05 @ 5:11 pm
Is Social Security like Slavery?
La Shawn Barber takes up a question asked by Star Parker:
Whenever citizens are prevented from doing something (like keeping the money they earn), the government is exerting its control. In the case of prohibiting murder or injury to another, it 
Trackback by Different River — 02.17.05 @ 6:22 pm
I should get a clue and may I ask who’s paying you to spread the myth that SS is fine and dandy as is?
Ruffini’s tool is just an estimate based on parameters as laid out on his website, like any honest estmate, mileage will vary. As for your “fisking” of his tool, I’m content to wait until Patrick gets around to responding to your critique.
But in the meantime, to posit that SS is better off in any shape or form that is controled entirely by the govt is pure hogwash and illustrates one’s misplaced faith that our legislative leaders present & future will keep the promise.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t LBJ come up with the bright idea to put our SS withholdings into the General Fund? No wonder he wrote the law to ban non-profit organizations from opining on ne’er do well politicians.
Ok, so you don’t like Ruffini’s model. Well try this calculator;
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/welcome.asp
Don’t like that either? Ok then try this one;
http://www.principal.com/calculators/retire.htm
Still don’t like any so far, well how about this from the keepers of the SS flame;
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/calculators.htm
Hmmm, 4 strikes and I’m out. How about you showing me one that is more to your liking? Perhaps Kos has one or perhaps the great Kruggerman?
Wait a minute,[smacks head] what was I thinking? Why don’t you produce one, you seem to know what you were commenting about ruffini’s calculator. Please do break it down for us, including assumptions that go into your formulas. I for one would like to check it out under the hood.
On the otherhand, I see you chose to only attack the perceived flaws in the calculator, but not the points of my comments, hmmmm. Well, I got another another 2 X 4 or 2 to point out in the donkey’s eye.
Your boy Clinton and every other swinging Democrat didn’t hesitate to anounce that SS was in trouble back when they were running the show. They so believed the “meme” that Gored campaigned on his lockbox message during 2000! Meanwhile, Bush was campaigning on privatizing a portion of it.
But now that the oppo is in control, the donks now claim there’s no problem with SS that can’t wait until they get back in power.
Finally, let’s talk about the lockbox meme. Anyone who believes that money is best protected by putting it in a lockbox or under a mattress is an idiot!! Especially when that money could be put to work. Heck, even sticking it in a simple savings account @ 3% is better than burying it. I’m here to tell you that even Jesus supports the idea of putting money to work and that those who just bury it are wicked stewards.
Comment by Andy — 02.17.05 @ 6:51 pm
‘That’s cause you’re hiding out in school and oblivious to reality.’
I’ve been in the labor force for several years before coming to school. Sometimes as an unemployed programmer, sometimes as a contractor and sometimes employed — in both for and non-profit settings. But I think you make a good point about assumptions because thats what my point is.
The problem is that the assumptions that he makes for returns require a certain long-term economic performance. I happen to think they’re long term unrealistic.
4% growth? Not everyone who starts at wal-mart making 20K a year is going to retire 45 years later with an annual salary of 116K.
6.5% risk adjusted returns? assuming a 3.0% population growth, this means either 3.5% productivity growth or some constantly decreasing labor share of national income. If 3.5% that means that total productivity doubles roughly every 20 years, meaning that the number of retirees that each worker can support doubles every 20 years. There go our ponzi worries.
But lets assume these are realistic assumptions. Lets not argue over them. The point is still that these assumptions are different than the ones feeding the SS planner’s forecast of future SS payments. So that the calculator mistakenly is comparing apples to oranges.
Check out my sig for a link to chuck schumer’s calculator. Its based on the price-indexing idea of Bush’s, and CBO assumptions for future economic performance.
Now you may disagree with the CBO assumptions, but at least he uses the same ones for both.
Comment by actus — 02.17.05 @ 7:10 pm
Actus, good point about income.
My answer would be why not? Let’s fire up MS Excel. If by 20K, you’re assuming $9.62/hr, upon their 46th year, one would be making $56.17/hr or $116,823.51
Let’s take 1980 as a benchmark, IIRC, the minimum wage was $3.35, which Joe Blow started out busing tables. 46 years later, in 2025, JB would be making $19.57/hr. Sounds reasonable income-wise, however, I doubt JB would make a career out of bussing tables.
Now let’s back up to 1960 for which a non-supervisory retail worker on average earned $1.79/hr. Source:
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ei/1960/
Extrapolate the 4% rule of thumb to 2005 and we come up with $10.46/hr (non-supervisory) at retirement. That to me seems to be below par with current rates, moreso when experience is factored in. But what do I know about what people make in the retail industry?
Remember we’re just talking about the so-called cost-of living wage increases. We haven’t even factored in experience, let alone continuing education and promotional opportunities. I would say that the average person that started out at minimum wages and working up thru the ranks to management would have experienced a composite raise of 8 - 10% at career’s midpoint.
So let’s say JB has pretty much reached the top and had to stop, while his career opportunities have stalled, he, still has the annual raises to count on, so his earnings have reverted to the 4% average. So come retirement in 2025, he would have every expectation of reaching approx $45 - $60/hr instead of the $19.57/hr mentioned earlier.
Now this is assuming that we have a stable and growing economy. That is a valid concern, however when compared to a dying continent, the EU has a debt burden of 78% to the US’ 64% — in 1944, our debt was over 120% of GDP.
Another metric would be the growth rate; we’re currently hovering at around 3.7%, while the EU as a whole is barely making 2%. Then we look at unemployment, we’re at around 5% while the double digits of so-called Euro powerhouses like Germany and France don’t do much to help the overall rate for the EU.
Let me refer you to a quote from LBJ’s Nobelist and economist, Paul Samuelson;
The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in — exceed his payments by more than ten times (or five times counting employer payments)!
How is it possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at a compound interest rate and can be expected to do so for as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population.
More important, with real income going up at 3% per year, the taxable base on which benefits rest is always much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired.
Social Security is squarely based on what has been called the eight wonder of the world — compound interest. A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.
– Article in Newsweek, 1967
Less than 30 years later, the democratic leadership weren’t so irrationally exuberent, as our Mr. Samuelson. Jump forward another few years, now the dems have done a 180 and are in full chorus, “Pay no attention to the numbers behind the curtain, everything is fine, we repeat, there is no crisis!!” Yet, we also have Greenspan giving his cautious approval today to PIAs.
Yes, Schumer uses CBO (owned and dominated by congressional donks) numbers, more appropriately known as “Commission Model 2″ which is a very conservative/pessimistic rate of 3% above inflation. I don’t feel like fisking Schummy at this point. Let’s just agree that Schummy is being disingenious in allowing only 2 variables, in order to depress and emphasize the doom & gloom.
For example, running my numbers, Schummy tells me that I am promised X, however, he neglects to tell me that SS can only afford to pay me about X-25% without increasing taxes or a importing more tax-paying workers to top off the SS coffers. Nice try Schummy, let’s see a real calculator!!
Furthermore, why is he acting like this model, based on a Bush “proposal”, is set in stone? There are so many ways to finese the final outcome of SS reform, why isn’t that idiot coming up with a win-win solution instead of being the problem?
Personally, I want to see 100% of my 10% income going into a PIA. Then when it’s time for me to retire, Uncle Schummy and his compadres are welcome to extract 5% to fund the Losers and Unfortunates Safety Net Fund. Run the numbers on that and see if the gubmint don’t wind up with more $$ to disburse monthly to the L&Us.
Comment by Andy — 02.17.05 @ 10:39 pm
‘Remember we’re just talking about the so-called cost-of living wage increases’
And I think its an assumption of real growth — so the 4% would be on top of any inflation and COLA. Its all the increases. Experience, economic improvement, etc…
‘For example, running my numbers, Schummy tells me that I am promised X, however, he neglects to tell me that SS can only afford to pay me about X-25% without increasing taxes or a importing more tax-paying workers to top off the SS coffers. Nice try Schummy, let’s see a real calculator!!’
He shows you that. Thats the Bush plan. The one that doesn’t take in more revenues in order to meet future benefits, but instead cuts the benefits
‘Personally, I want to see 100% of my 10% income going into a PIA. Then when it’s time for me to retire, Uncle Schummy and his compadres are welcome to extract 5% to fund the Losers and Unfortunates Safety Net Fund. Run the numbers on that and see if the gubmint don’t wind up with more $$ to disburse monthly to the L&Us.’
If the numbers on this truly are good, then the govt should be investing everything it takes in and doing that. In fact, it should be selling bonds and investing!
‘Yes, Schumer uses CBO (owned and dominated by congressional donks) numbers, more appropriately known as “Commission Model 2″ which is a very conservative/pessimistic rate of 3% above inflation.’
Funny you characterize it as pessimistic: its also the model that shows SS doing so poorly!
Comment by actus — 02.18.05 @ 12:33 am
Andy,
The only one around here spreading any myths is you.
Myth #1: That I’ve ever claimed that SS is “fine and dandy as is.” If you took a moment to read my comments here you would have seen that I twice stated my belief that some type of action must be taken with respect to SS.
Myth #2: That Ruffini’s calculator is an “honest estimate.” I contend that assuming a continously descending and ultimately negative rate of return for social security is dishonest - tell me how I’m wrong. Also, Ruffini’s calculator does not account for the massive transition costs Dubya’s plan would require - is this honest?
Myth #3: That I’ve “posit[ed] that SS is better off in any shape or form that is controled entirely by the govt.” Show me where I ever posited any such thing or admit that this is just another pathetic strawman to draw attention away from the rigged Ruffini calculator which you touted so highly and now can’t defend.
Myth #4: That LBJ came up with some bright idea to put our SS withholdings into the General Fund. Take a look at this FAQ by the SSA debunking Internet “myths”, http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html, and in particular, this sentence: “The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.”" Now don’t you feel silly?
Myth #5: That the three other calculators you provide links to are somehow useful in assessing whether Dubya’s private accounts proposal is a good idea. The Heritage calculator does not purport to be based upon the Bush “plan,” but rather on a fantasy scenario where we could immediately allow workers to put “the full measure of what workers pay into Social Security’s Old Age and Survivors program, 10.6 percent of wages” into private accounts without incurring the trillions and trillions in transition costs such a move would entail. Boy, that’s useful. Further, neither of the other two calculators have anything to do with private accounts. It’s a shame some people actually take the time to click on your diversionary links, instead of just assuming they provide some support for whatever argument your trying to make.
As to the remainder of your commmentary, a few remarks:
Given the few specifics offered by Bush and his complete refusal to address how he intends to address both SS’s looming financial shortfalls and the massive transition costs a move to private accounts would entail, only an idiot or a partisan hack would pretend at this point that they could create a “calculator” purporting to measure the effect of the Bush “proposal”. Being neither, I decline to do so.
Clinton and Gore were both right to observe that SS faced trouble down the line. I don’t dispute that fact, so quit trying to put others’ words in my mouth.
Finally, a friendly tip — before you make ANY attempt to ever again discuss “the lockbox meme”, figure out what the term means.
Comment by pat m. — 02.18.05 @ 1:48 am
Pat M,
Errrm,
Fact #1) Kinda hard to rebut, when parts of your comments get deleted. Suffice to say, the tone was overly defensive of the status quo and dismissive of PRA. If you had offered a counter-solution, then we could talk to that. Concurrently, no one is really disputing giving unto Ceasar what was his. On the other hand, Ceasar wasn’t collecting money to fund “social” plans for our well-being.
For Uncle Sam to surrogate himself as Papa knows best, is overreaching, even within the scope of our founding documents. Interesting that we refer to our govt as an Uncle, while the German idiom is Papa-Stat (Father State). It’s plain to see you’d rather embrace Father State rather than keep our conniving, and sometimes inebriated Uncle at arm’s length, especially from our wallet, and his propensity to blow it on self-gratification.
Fact #2) I already answered that earlier in another comment. Suffice to say, no matter how you slice it, our Uncle has promised us more than he’s got. Either we have to ante up or lower our expectations.
Fact #3)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0217robb18.html
Fact #4) Your source technically states The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government. [snip]Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the “unified budget.” This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are “on-budget.” This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken “off-budget.” This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are “on-budget” or “off-budget” is primarily a question of accounting practices–it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
Nonetheless, that doesn’t stop congress from “borrowing” up the gross national debt, which includes the entire $1.6 trillion Social Security Trust Fund, all of which has been borrowed and spent. We pay thru FICA to build up a surplus that is targeted to be over $3.5 trillion by 2012. But the General Fund, by issuing IOUs has an open tab to tap into this surplus at will, hence rising national debt.
If as you assert the two funds are completely separate, why on earth would Clinton propose to put out General Fund surpluses into the Trust Fund, instead of gioving our money back? As far as big-spenders are concerned, the two books are merely two accounts from which to write checks against.
IOW, you might claim that the monthly letter from your favorite credit card company is merely a “bill” that need to be paid — much like utilities & what not. I on the other hand say you’re running a deficit. No need to quail; you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. Hmmmm?
Fact #5) The point of other links is to see how tweaking various assumptions lead to differnent outcomes. How is that diversionary?
And yes, every single link has an unique approach to SS. Only one, the SSA doesn’t approach PIAs. IOW, there’s a lot of ways to skin this cat and maybe we-the-people ought to have a voice in deciding how we’re going to handle our retirement, instead of letting Uncle call the shots–I believe that’s called self-determination. So who’s zoomin’ who?
As for your other pointers, I’ve always maintained that rather than spell out a specific proposal, Bush has thrown a bunch of ideas onto the table for discussion and invited others to lay their 2 cents.
If you look at the debate from a game of poker POV, it looks like the donks are about to get called on their bluster. So far, I like the hand Bush is holding, while the donks were preoccupied with getting a full house (Josh Marshall & Kos berating “weak-kneed” democrats like Lieberman), Bush already scored tort reform over sKerry and John Boy Edwards’ dead bodies. I guess pretty hair makes for good trophy scalps.
Again, look at Schummy’s pathetic calculator in which there are only 2 variables, age & current income. I believe Schummy fits your definition of both idiot and partisan hack. Lucky for him, his hair won’t make for much of a scalp.
Finally, I’d love to figure out what “lockbox” means but Gored been rather incoherent ever since the debates. Best I can figure, for lack of initiative and creative thinking — inventing the internet was such a strain that he lost his marbles — he wants to take the money and bury it safe in the ground until his master comes calling.
Thanks for the stimulation and making me do some homework.
Comment by Andy — 02.19.05 @ 3:21 am
‘If you look at the debate from a game of poker POV, it looks like the donks are about to get called on their bluster. So far, I like the hand Bush is holding, while the donks were preoccupied with getting a full house (Josh Marshall & Kos berating “weak-kneed” democrats like Lieberman), Bush already scored tort reform over sKerry and John Boy Edwards’ dead bodies.’
Tort reform hasn’t gone through. At least not substantive. Just some class action erasings.
Comment by actus — 02.19.05 @ 2:46 pm
Incrementalism, Actus, incrementalism with an occasional jump forward here and there. We’re on the march to dismantle the worthless/junk science leftist gains of the past 2 generations.
Recall, tort reform was not on the table in a sKerry admin, nor did the breck girlie boy get where he was w/o massive trial lawyer support. Seems to me the losers were coughed up like so much hairball.
Comment by Andy — 02.19.05 @ 3:10 pm
‘Incrementalism, Actus, incrementalism with an occasional jump forward here and there. We’re on the march to dismantle the worthless/junk science leftist gains of the past 2 generations.’
Torts have been around for a long time. And I would imagine that judicial review is more scientific than congress.
Comment by actus — 02.19.05 @ 6:51 pm
I’ve got nothing against the concept of tort, as long as it’s on the order of 3 - 7 times damages. Class-actions and these sensational multi million/billion $$ verdicts ultimately only hurt us the consumers while fattening the lawyers.
How many suffered economically when WR Grace was brought down for doing essentially what was legal as opposed to the actual victims of abestos?
Stopping frivilous lawsuits is but a step in the right direction. It shouldn’t be too long before Newsom and ACLU won’t be able to threaten us with lawsuits in order to remove God from the face of His creation.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 1:38 am
‘How many suffered economically when WR Grace was brought down for doing essentially what was legal as opposed to the actual victims of abestos?’
I think in the case of asbestos, the question is who will bear the burden of the damage done — even if by innocents. Should it be just those victims? should it be all of us taxpayers? should it be ‘us’ to the extent that we are related to the asbestos industry, and profited and benefitted from it? I think the latter. And thats how we basically assign the damages to the industry as a whole.
Its a completely different justification than when people run into each other with their cars or when businesses engage in deceptive practices.
‘Stopping frivilous lawsuits is but a step in the right direction.’
If you can tell if a lawsuit is frivolous, then the current system can handle it at summary judgement.
‘It shouldn’t be too long before Newsom and ACLU won’t be able to threaten us with lawsuits in order to remove God from the face of His creation.’
What kind of tort reform do you think will accomplish this?
Comment by actus — 02.20.05 @ 11:26 am
“What kind of tort reform do you think will accomplish this?”
The return of common sense, aided and abetted by judges who stick to the constition as written and not parsed by activist judges who find or create law out of thin air.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 1:08 pm
Slaves to the taxman
Phelps has an interesting answer to La Shawn Barber's question. By the way, I tend to be a fan of abolishing Social Security, myself. Not right this minute (breathe, folks, breathe), but people my age certainly have time to plan sufficiently for o…
Trackback by Accidental Verbosity — 02.24.05 @ 12:29 pm