No SS COLA? Don’t Blame The Democrats
Oct 11, 2010 Political
In fact, don’t blame any politician.
The official announcement will soon be made that there will be no Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) for Social Security recipients next year. The announcement will come just before an election that is generally recognized as one that will be tough on Democrats and this announcement will not make the election any easier for them.
The lack of COLA next year marks the second year that there is no COLA and this year was the first. Why are the politicians picking on Social Security recipients? They aren’t. COLA is based on inflation and about 40 years ago Congress made Social Security increases (the COLAs) automatically index to inflation and automatically go into effect. Since there was no inflation the previous year there was no increase in 2010 and since there was no inflation this year there will be no increase for 2011. When inflation does arrive (and it will whether they intend for it to or not) Social Security recipients will get a COLA increase.
Of course, the fact that Democrats are not to blame does not mean the information should not be used against them for political gain. They are in charge and there will be no increase so beat them over the head with that information. Very few people will understand why there is no COLA and why they did not get the increase. Most people who receive Social Security feel entitled to the increases because they have always been there. They will associate the lack of increase with Democrat policies.
It is not like the Democrats don’t play politics with the issue. They sent out checks for $250 to each Social Security recipient this past year to make up for the fact that there was no COLA. There was no Cost of Living Allowance increase because there was no increase in the cost of living but Democrats ignored the law that governs COLA increases and paid recipients anyway. Not only did this cost us millions of dollars that we do not have but it also resulted in over 20 million dollars being sent to dead people and to those serving time in jail.
Government efficiency at its best.
Democrats played politics with Social Security because they know that seniors will be upset and vote against them (seniors are the most reliable voters). They will attempt to do the same this time around. Watch for some statement on the subject just prior to election day.
I personally feel that there should be no increase. The law provides increases when the cost of living goes up and is indexed to inflation. If inflation goes up the recipients get an increase and this has been happening for decades. The law also provides that if there is no inflation then there is no increase. Since we have been in a deflationary cycle, there should be NO increase.
What sense does it make to have a law if they are just going to ignore it?
This issue brings to light a much larger problem and that is letting the government run retirement in the first place.
People on Social Security are at the mercy of the politicians in DC. The government confiscates money in the name of Social Security and then spends that money on its pet projects. It leaves a worthless piece of paper (an IOU) for Social Security. This paper is worthless because the government does not have the money to pay back the debt. When Social Security takes in less than it needs and requires money to be paid on one of those IOUs the federal government must BORROW the money to make the payment. This is all because government looks at Social Security taxes as another pot of money to spend on its pet projects. If the money had been put away and dedicated for Social Security the system would be solvent and there would be no issue but we can never trust government to do this.
This is why each individual should be in charge of his own retirement. People should invest their own money in their own programs based upon what they think they will need for retirement. If you are in charge of your own money then YOU get to decide if you need an increase one year over the next. You get to invest and you are not limited to what some government bureaucrat says you deserve.
And you are not being paid with the money taken from today’s generation or money borrowed from the Chinese.
Social Security should never have been instituted. It is one more way for government to control a segment of the population and it is a Socialist scheme.
What we need is to be able to invest OUR money (it is OURS) and we need to be able to do so without government interference. If a system must be in place to assist those who do not have the ability to save for retirement or those who wish to abrogate that responsibility then it needs to be one that the people themselves control. People need to be able to say where their money gets invested and they need to maintain ownership of it so they can pass it to their heirs when they die. It is not right to work all your life and to pay into SS and then lose it all should you die before drawing any of the money. IT IS YOURS.
A market based system (much like the TSP retirement system federal workers enjoy) would allow people to control their money and they could pass it on when they die.
I know the arguments from the fear mongers who say that the market crash would have wiped out the savings of the elderly. The reforms proposed would not have applied to them and how much worse off could they have been?
The government has no money and it will not be long before something has to be done and no matter what it is it will only be a bandage.
Personal responsibility extends to planning for retirement.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: broken promises, cola, politicians, social security
Barack Obama And The Politics Of Fear
Feb 6, 2009 Political
During the 2004 election Democrats accused George Bush and Republicans of using fear to get the country to vote for them. Bush was reelected and the cries of fear mongering from the left continued. Barack Obama accused Bush of being a fear monger as well. The Democrats made snide comments when the threat level was raised or when elections approached. As the 2004 and 2006 elections drew near Democrats were asking when he threat level would be raised. The insinuation, of course, is that Bush would do that to scare people into voting Republican. During the campaign Obama said:
“They’re trying to fool you. They’re trying to scare you and they’re not telling the truth,” a fired-up Obama declared while campaigning in South Dakota. “But it’s not going to work.”
“Both Bush and McCain represent the failed foreign policy and fear mongering of the past,” Obama said. “I believe the American people are ready to reject this approach and to choose the future.” NY Daily News [emphasis mine]
This was not the only time that fear mongering was raised as an issue. Bush as a fear monger has been part of their overall message for years and the results of the last election confirm that it was effective. The results also show we have a lot of morons who vote (that and the videos showing people who knew absolutely nothing about the election – see the videos bottom sidebar).
One could certainly accept Obama’s words on this as how he truly felt (or feels) if he acted in a way that supported the conclusion. But, Obama has resorted to the politics of fear to get something accomplished. Barack Obama is fear mongering about the stimulus bill and the economy in order to garner support for it from the public.
President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible, a fresh call to a recalcitrant Congress to move quickly. Yahoo News
“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future,” Obama said in his prepared remarks. Breitbart
Barack Obama is using fear, or fear mongering, in order to scare people into supporting the crap sandwich he and the Democrats are trying to feed us. The bill contains almost nothing for stimulus and a lot of liberal projects that have nothing to do with the economy. The liberals who think it will work are delusional. Those who think that the majority of the items in the bill will stimulate the economy are devoid of brain cells and rational thought.
But make no mistake, Barack Obama, who said that fear mongering was part of a failed policy, is using fear to promote a failed attempt at a stimulus plan. This is a direct contradiction of his stated opposition to the past administration and it directly conflicts with what he said he would do when he told us people were ready to reject this approach and to choose the future. It should come as no surprise that Obama changed his tune. He has been in office for a little more than two weeks and he has changed (broken) many of his promises.
He promised transparency but he has chosen not to post some items to the White House website like he said he would. He is so transparent that his Birth Certificate is locked up tighter than Fort Knox so that people cannot verufy his status. He said that bills were run through Congress too fast and that he would post them on the WH website for five days before he signed them so the American public could review them. He has already signed at least one bill into law that was not posted and he is begging Congress to run the stimulus bill through Congress as quickly as possible.
Obama promised he would have the most ethical administration and we have seen four of his nominees plagued with tax problems. He said he would have no lobbyists and the last list I saw showed a dozen of them. It seems that every day he is granting a waiver of his ethical orders in order to get people on board.
Barack Obama is not keeping his word or as the Democrats use to say about Bush, he is lying. He has had a rough start and each day shows more and more his lack of leadership skills. He is a rookie and he is getting his head handed to him.
Obama will likely not get to his aggressive agenda anytime soon and that will tick off the moonbats who support him. He is going to be tied up with a bill that has fierce opposition and is not going to pass as quickly as he would have liked, if at all. It looks like this might have to be a do over if it is to have any chance of getting to his desk.
Obama is expending a lot of time and effort on defending the bill when he knows that it is losing support and contains too much pork. A leader would call the parties together and say that they were starting from scratch and then they would work out a compromise. A true leader would ensure the bill contained only items that would have an effect on the economy and would ensure the nonsense is cut from it.
Instead Obama, who promised no Washington politics as usual, is allowing his Democrats to play politics as usual and allowing himself to be played by them. That and he still supports it as the be all end all of stimulus packages. He believes that it will work and that it should be passed and he will scare you into believing it as well.
Bush was accused of fear mongering but what he did was in response to threats to this country. No attacks since 9/11 though many have been attempted.
Obama is using fear to get a bill passed quickly so that he can look like he is in charge.
The more people see, the less confidence they have in the bill. We need to keep the bright, white hot spotlight on them to keep them disorganized and at each other. We need to defeat this bill.
So far we are succeeding. If we fail our grandchildren and their children will be paying for this.
Now that is something that should scare you to death.
Related:
Wizbang Blue
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: broken promises, Democrats, fear mongering, lies, Obama, scare tactics, stimulus
It Depends on the Meaning of Campaigning
Jan 28, 2008 Political
The Democrats had an agreement not to campaign in Florida after the DNC stripped that state of its delegates because it moved the primary to before February 5th. Hillary is way in front in Florida but it does not matter because the delegates will not count even though Hillary is trying to get a new decision on this so they will. I am sure that she would not do that if Obama were ahead there.
Despite the pledge not to campaign, Hillary Clinton is in Florida and she is skirting the rules to have a presence there. After her stinging defeat in South Carolina she decided to visit the Sunshine State and make sure people knew who she was. Now there are no rules against fund raising there and Hillary supporters would point out that she is only doing just that. Perhaps, and if she is it would be kind of disingenuous because the message is, “I can’t have a real presence here and the DNC says your delegates will not count but your money is still good.”
The news reports are indicating that Clinton is there with a *wink* and that her presence constitutes campaigning. I guess that it all depends upon what campaigning actually means. Anyone who has a husband who can argue the meaning of “is” can certainly skirt the issue and argue the meaning of campaigning.
If the DNC has taken the delegates away then it should stay that way. A rule is a rule and a sanction is a sanction. I also think that if Hillary broke her promise not to campaign people should ask what other promises she would break.
Maybe folks will realize that the Clinton’s words mean nothing to them. Integrity is not a word in their vocabulary.
Sources:
Yahoo News
My Way News
Tags: broken promises, campaigning, Clinton, florida
Democrats Break Work-Week Promise
Dec 4, 2007 Political
The Democrats promised that they would work 5 days a week and that they would do more than the do-nothing Republicans. They started out like a ball of fire and worked nearly 5 full days while members from both parties complained about not being home (here is a clue. If you don’t like it get out). Then the work weeks started slipping and poof, they are gone. Next year the Democratically controlled Congress will only work a few 5 day weeks and they will be off for about 2 weeks every time a holiday pops up and of course, they will be off the entire month of August. I know that it is tough working all those days in DC when they have families and constituents at home but they are the ones who said they would do it.
As for this idea being floated around that they did more than the Republican led Congresses ever did, it is hogwash. They might have been there more days than when the Republicans are in charge but they have not done much of anything. They have not passed a budget and it is months overdue. Their irresponsibility will soon cause government workers to be furloughed (no one from Congress will miss a paycheck though) and our military will not have the things they need to fight the war. The Democrats have not done anything about the Alternative Minimum Tax which will bite a lot of people it was never intended to touch. The Democrats did pass a minimum wage increase by adding it to a DEFENSE bill and they have been pretty good at naming post offices. Other than that, they have done little.
I realize that it is hard for these folks to be away from their home districts and that it causes them problems. I have no sympathy for them because they ran for office of their own free will and if it were actually as terrible as they make it seem they would not keep running. Fact is, they keep running because they have a lot of power and do very little to earn a paycheck. Our military, on the other hand, has to be away from their families for a very long time and they are in constant danger and they sure as hell do not make anywhere near as much money as a member of Congress. However, there is no excuse for the members of Congress to get 2 weeks off every time a holiday rolls around and they certainly do not need the entire month of August off. They say they are working in their districts but it seems to me that their districts are not in Iraq, Israel, Syria or other places that they trek off to. Those who stay in their districts have a strange way of working. Must be difficult to get things done while standing on skis or sailing in a boat.
However, there is a solution to this. A commenter at The Politico mentioned it and I had thought of it before. Why do these people need to be in DC to do their jobs. We have some of the most sophisticated equipment in the world. Certainly they should be able to cast votes from their district offices. Congress could be in DC for two weeks (including the weekends) and then be in their districts for the next two. They can work on the committee stuff while in DC and their staff can put it all together. They can hold confirmation hearings and other things that require them all to be there at that time. Then, they can go home and work in their district offices where they would be in communication with other members when votes were taken. I am sure that it could be set up so they could vote electronically and I know it could be done via roll call.
They should use modern technology to alleviate the burden, and cost, of traveling all over the country. This would also ensure they are actually working during the 2 week holiday breaks and would negate the need to have all of August off. It would also put the members of Congress with their constituents instead of DC with the lobbyists. This would allow the people who the members should be listening to greater access and curb the access that lobbyists currently enjoy. It is not necessary for them to be in DC all the time they spend there and it is a waste of money to let them have off all the time. The rest of us have to go to work everyday or we don’t get paid.
There is one thing that the Democrats have shown with their latest work schedule. This country needs a smaller, less intrusive government. The work schedule shows that they believe they do not need to work more than a few hundred days a year and that they can take off a lot. Surely, they are showing we do not need them all the time and that a part time government would be satisfactory.
In any event, the Democrats broke the promise they made. I don’t care about all the circumstances, they made the promise. They knew they could not (or would not) keep it but they made it anyway. Seems the donks have broken a lot of promises this past year.
Is anyone surprised?
As an aside, since they are late with the budget and have not fixed the AMT shouldn’t we be able to file our taxes later this year? If they don’t have to do anything on time, why should we?
Tags: broken promises, Congress, Democrats, taxes, work week