The Obama Presidency in Perspective

Any text in italics is mine, otherwise the remainder is from a supposed article/blog/comment post that occurred in 2010.

A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America . - by Eddie Sessions:

Although this article was not written by someone named Eddie Sessions, it doesn’t matter. It is an eye-opening, thought provoking look into President Obama’s ascension to the most powerful position in the world. I would add that FOX news has been roundly criticized on many fronts in terms of trying to understand and vet the real Barack Obama. For simply trying to find out who the man is, they have been excoriated for it. Do you not find it peculiar that segments of this man’s past is as mysterious as William Shakespeare? Will someone 200 years from now say, Barack Obama? He never existed. He was a fictitious character derived by a sensational public that yearned for a President such as this. Enjoy the read. I have removed the last two paragraphs because I do not engage in inflammatory rhetoric. I did not appreciate it when President George W. Bush was called certain names, and I will not resort to similar action. I have added some comments along the way.

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.”

My comments regarding Obama’s 2004 Illinois Senate campaign: “State Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic primary, as Jack Ryan won the Republican primary, but three months later Ryan announced his withdrawal from the race — four days after the Chicago Tribune persuaded a California court to release child custody records. Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate.” Obama won going away. For a more in depth analysis as to the launch of Obama’s career, go to: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm.

“In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know who has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and close friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.
He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year [article written in 2010] into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain ..

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his [content removed] ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allah Akbar."

The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this [removed content] individual's life.”

My final comments: Articles, such as the one you read above do not inflame me or anger me to the point of incoherent random shouts of vitriol, on the contrary, articles like these give me pause to consider what is going on here? Disturbing information, policies, and/or philosophy that is not of a republic nature, make me concerned for the greatest country on this planet. One that is changing in a profound way that I do not believe is the right way. So my response is to try and make reasonable people more aware of the situation, and that is why I posted this today. I feel that the gentleman who posted this article was very articulate, created some thought provoking questions, and who is concerned for this country as well. There were points of dramatic overkill, but on balance, he articulated his belief in a very reasonable manner.

Now a sliver of defense for President Obama. I understand some of the debt associated with the Obama Administration as being legitimate debt. We had and continue to have very serious issues, and sometimes you need to counter the fallout with some cash/reform/deeper regulations, etc. And, sometimes certain debt is good debt. However, I do believe that there have been opportunities where the President could have gotten us out of this quicker, and now he continues to ask for our patience.

I understand the push for health care, but not to the extent with which the President wants to take us. In fairness, for his plan to work it would take 100% of the people to be in, but the cost is far beyond our comprehension. So I understand the essence of humanitarianism that exists within him, but the realities of the costs cannot be discounted, and yet I fear money or debt are not priorities to the “grand plan.”

Also, I want to hold the Republicans greatly responsible here as well. For too long they went against the very thing they like to run for office, limited spending, lower taxes, etc. The Republicans have let us down in so many ways. Their exorbitant spending in the second Bush term was nothing short of political treason; which is another reason why I am giving up my Republican membership and going Independent. I belong to no one. I belong to the Republic of Reighard.
To finish this point, I am not going to nit-pick here, there’s too much to discuss. Suffice to say, the big ideas the President sets forth alarm me. It’s not because he is black. I don’t care if he’s Hispanic, Asian, Navajo, or whatever. Our country’s identity is now being exercised in the public square and the world is watching. What will our country look like with four more years of Obama? To profoundly change our country, of which he denies and is the songbird of every deceitful act, into a country that is sorely divided between cultures/classes/race is not the path we were on.
There is no doubt that three years in we are beginning to see a pattern with this President.
The recent events of the tragic Trayvon Martin murder have once again shown us the deep divide that comes, not from the Right, but the left and those who wish to exacerbate a horrible tragedy for their own public agenda; shame on them. I spoke of how the national media is complicit and/or the masterminds in the social and cultural destruction of America and the fruit of that poisonous tree is bearing fruit and has been for the last 20 years. The country seems to be so divided now because many have been awakened by this underhanded and surreptitious game plan. And, since we (growing segment of Americans) have had enough we are trying to play on the common sense of the good people of this country, and we will win.
The Democrats and the Obama Administration are not dumb. Why not create a division of the so called “haves” and “have-nots”? It’s worked so well in the past, to create a mob mentality. Let’s inflame the voters, get them mad, insert race, or create a division relative to religion/freedom of individual rights. Hopefully you all are beginning to see more clearly now because a lot of this nation got blindsided by a poetic speaking, slick/hip man who exuded the idea that I am every man. I am the Old Spice guy, the GQ man, the Jet exec, or even the Axe dude. I am everyone and everything.
In 2008, about 46% of the people recognized that Obama was not the real deal and that the caution flags should fly high, but that wasn’t enough, 54% saw it otherwise. Even my fellow Catholics fell prey to the honey tongued Obama. The margin of victory was similar to how the Catholics voted as well 54-46. I hope the Catholics remember how he turned his back on them here recently at the slightest chance. Do you think he would do it again? Another interesting note is how the President seems to be alienating the Israeli’s as well. Nothing like alienating two large voting blocks, the Jews and Catholics, yep he definitely seems to know how to unite people.

What we need now is for the majority of the country to say, “You know what, been there done that. It’s time to get back to the basics, the reality of what and who we are.” It’s time to bench the No. 1 draft choice quarterback who has been a virtual bust and go with some real experience. The Republican candidate that receives the nomination may not be a “Manchurian Candidate” or the perfect candidate, but he will be infinitely better than the current occupant.

How the National Media is Failing America

For those of you who watch TV news programming, you are one of the shrinking few in America who rely on TV news. In this digital age, more and more people are relying on alternative forms for their news.

Most of us are getting our news online with our computers, via Smart phones, or tablets, etc. And, as an English teacher I can appreciate this because it means that people are reading. Also, you can target your news better by selecting what you want to read; that could be a good or bad thing if you have a limited lens for which you wish to see the world.
Most of us have been there, we sign in to our homepage, which oftentimes is a news feed site and there they are, catchy headlines that beg us to click and go. But this article is not about consumers getting most of their news online it’s about the irresponsibility of the national news stations that, in many ways, are failing America. This is not directed at CNN, FOX, or even MSNBC, albeit a surrogate of NBC. No, this is geared more toward the big three with NBC taking center stage this week.

I deliberately focused my attention this week on NBC’s Today show. It is important to cover the No. 1 morning show on national TV. Plus, many Americans are busily getting ready for work while the Today show carries on in the background as they move about.

Here is what I learned. It is Thursday and I have basically seen enough to give me a good idea as to what they want the viewer to take away from their programming.

Here are a few topics discussed this week:

Trayvon Martin – yes an appropriate topic, but to the degree they are covering it makes me suspicious.
The millionaire in WPB on DUI and vehicular homicide
The Royal Family – yet ironically their (NBC) agenda seems to be anti-American wealthy, but it’s okay to flaunt the exploits of a monarchy that has exploited, enslaved, created wars, etc.
The murders in Toulouse, France
The campaign – who’s making gaffes this week, or Romney a shaky front runner? Etc.
The President’s energy tour
Hollywood pregnancies
Christie Brinkley's custody battle
Former Desperate Housewife Nicollete Sheridan's wrongful termination lawsuit
Brief mention of rising gas prices with cursory mention that “there isn’t a whole lot that can be done right now” reinforcements
A few feel good stories

Here are a few stories that seem to be absent from NBC’s agenda:

The ongoing slaughter in Syria
A debt that is going to cripple our nation
Focusing on an unfortunate murder in Florida when the top five cities: St. Louis, Camden, NJ, Detroit, Flint, MI, and Oakland, CA are posting more than 300 murders per year. How many of those killed were unarmed?
How rising gas prices are affecting grocery prices, running the kids to their activities, or businesses having to readjust prices due to energy costs?
Why President Obama’s Union waiver that gives 500,000 union workers exemptions from Obamacare?
The incessant corruption within Labor itself?
Why there is a double standard when it comes to disparaging/critical statements made toward women?
Being intellectually dishonest about the contraception issue.

I don't expect NBC's Today show to browbeat us with heavy topics from the time they come on the air until the end of the show, but during their peak time 7-7:30, it's been an interesting week in how they cover the various topics and at what times. There are more instances where the national media is just not doing its due diligence for the American people, and they wonder why we have resorted to alternative sources for our news?

I find it unfortunate that an industry we should trust has fallen prey to partisanship and cleverly disguises it through deflective propaganda. I am not afraid to state that the national media in many instances has been complicit in the current cultural and social dynamics going on, and not in a good way. Oh sure, sometimes they throw the "real" dog bone out there for us to gnaw on, but many times they deflect and direct, and for that shame on them. Juan Williams is right, we have lost the ability to have an intelligent debate anymore. We get into name calling, mockery, and derogatorily denigrate and attempt to annhilate those who disagree. Both sides shout "double standard" and "hypocrisy" and in the meantime our nation suffers, and the national media is complicit because they have decided to choose sides rather than be the true arbiter of the civil debates we should be having.

I support both the Tea Party and the Wall Street Protesters, but the media excoriates one while propping up another. Why, because the one suits their agenda over the other, and so immediately this creates a divide rather than a topic of civil discussion that is serious to many Americans. I just find it apalling. Let FOX and MSNBC battle over the right and left, but surely the big three should remain neutral and impartial, or at least that is what we would like for them to be, but clearly they are not. Shameful!

I am planning on a series of articles relating to these topics, plus a few others. They all have the beginning title The Invisible Earthquake: Series. I hope you check them out.

The Lost Decade: Born From 1960-1970, Part II

This is a continuation of the article published yesterday.

If you were born from 1943-1954, your full retirement eligibility kicks in at 66-yrs old. If you were born in 1960, full retirement benefits kick in at 67-yrs old. So, you will be eligible for social security at age 67, and that would occur in 2027.

Of course, you can get benefits as early as age 62, but your benefits are far less than what you would get at 67, or you could wait until your 70 and enjoy greater benefits.

Now, here’s the real rub, if you make a certain amount in social security, those benefits may be taxed. That’s right, taxed. Nearly one-third of retirees pay taxes on their social security income. Ah, what a racket!
Also, if you are fortunate to work with a company, organization, agency that has its own separate pension plan, then you could enjoy a less stressful retirement. I am speaking to many teachers in this article, and although we have a separate retirement pension, we are seeing that some of those benefits are now being manipulated and massaged.

For those born in 1970, your benefits at 67 will kick in 2037, a year after the experts predict that only 77-percent of benefits will be able to be matched. What does that mean? Either benefits will be significantly reduced or people will be taxed beyond comprehension.

Again, I am a simple man, so I try to boil complex things down to as simple a solution/result/explanation as possible.

SS is a pay as you go system. Retirees right now rely on the current work force to pay their benefits. In 1950 there were 5 people working for every person retired, and because of that payroll taxes were 2% (1% employee, 1% employer). Today, there are 2 workers for every retiree and payroll taxes are 15.30% (7.65% employee, 7.65% employer). The President’s recent payroll “tax holiday” reduces payroll taxes by 2%, of which about 105 Billion was lost in SS revenue. More on that was chronicled in Part I of this article.
As of this time there is a surplus in the social security system due to the fact that in times past the Federal Govt. was able to convert those surpluses into, get this, Federal Bonds, so in essence borrowing from itself to pay itself. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.

So what does this mean to those born from 1960-1970? According to most experts, the Baby Boomers are going to completely exhaust the system. There is so much focus on them right now that the generation that follows them will not get the attention they need or deserve, and who will most likely have to endure some of the deepest cuts or have to endure a defunct system that cannot support them? That’s right the decade beginning with those born in 1960.

The information below indicates such.

The Problem
• Social Security is an "unfunded" income transfer scheme—the benefits paid out to retirees are financed by taxing the current income of working people.
• It is not a "funded" approach, where an individual's taxes would be invested, and the proceeds used to provide their retirement benefits (like an IRA or a 401k).
• This system worked for decades because there were many workers and few beneficiaries—16 to 1 when the program started.
• Because of declining birth rates and increased life expectancy, there are now only 3 workers for each beneficiary, and soon there will be only 2. The system will not be able to support itself with so few workers to pay for so many beneficiaries.
• According to the best estimates, the Social Security system will go into the red in 2017—just over a decade from now. Here is an even more alarming statistic. According to this article, written in 2007, and I apologize for not having the source, I read about 10 separate articles from a variety of websites. The system is already beginning to be in the red. It has accelerated in terms of losses, and especially with the slow recovery the revenues just aren’t there, and yet the President pushed the payroll “tax holiday” anyway.
• In 2041, less than 25 years later, it will be completely out of money.
• If we continue under the current system, the only way to address this problem is to either cut Social Security benefits or raise payroll taxes. But even these will only put off the problem, not solve it.

The problem is not just one that can be pushed down the field for another day. There are two systems looming very large and do not seem to have any foreseeable solution: health care and social security. In 2010, health care and social security consumed 40% of the total federal budget, not too bad, right? Also, defense consumed another 20%. Safety net programs and interest on the debt were another 20%. However, it’s what the future holds that concerns me most. Again, I admire the President for his idea to have everyone covered, but by 2025, and that is just over a decade from now, social security and health care will consume more than 70% of the total budget. Think about that for a second. Imagine your budget and that two items consume more than 70% of your household budget, and maybe for some it is, like a house and a car. You have 30% for the rest. And to further obligate the government just sounds counter-intuitive to me.

We have education, infrastructure, defense, commerce, trying to pay down the debt or default, etc. and only 30% to work it in to the total budget. If this does not frighten anyone under 50 you need a refresher course on “That scares the sh** out of me.”

In 1984 there was a similar problem with social security, but then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, came up with the idea to save social security by creating the so called, “lock box” that is sometimes used as a political football. But in today’s political environment, I am appalled at the lack of foresight by so many politicians who only care about the next election rather than the next 20/30/40 years. But you know what, why should we be surprised? We have so many Americans who can’t even see past next week, or their next paycheck. I believe there are so many people who are unaware and one day will be subject to being told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it; which contrasts with a young generation that seems to have its own idea about doing whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want. Oh, the irony is not lost on us reasonable people, I assure you.

Look, The Bottom Line is that neither party can run from this. They can’t just “hope” that the economy bounces back and our country becomes a beacon for unprecedented economic growth. You know what I see as a growing problem? The Administration and many on the Liberal Left love to target the rich man, or at least the one that doesn’t agree with them, so what I think we are seeing is that guy on Wall Street is going into defensive mode. He sees what’s going on and is looking to protect his family. It’s a natural defense mechanism. Once someone knows that someone is after them what do they do? They hunker down. They begin to protect and hoard. If a financial Armageddon is on the horizon, how could anyone blame someone for trying to protect their interests?

I encourage you to read the following information posted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), scroll down to The Budget Outlook and prepare to be awakened. And even the CBO has to readjust their numbers. What they projected as an annual deficit for 2012 of 1.11 trillion has been readjusted to 1.12 trillion. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but most of you understand how things can increase exponentially, and that would be very dangerous for our financial health.



Lastly, the Bush tax cuts, which have been roundly criticized as adding to our debt, and yes, they may have had some impact on it, but if they are so bad why did President Obama have to move forward with yet another round of tax cuts? If the President meant what he said, then he should have discontinued the Bush tax cuts and that added debt would have discontinued, but he saw that he couldn’t and even had to go so far as to provide yet another round of tax cuts.

The Bottom Line?

The federal government spends way too much money. Their priorities have gotten us so far down the railroad track that any brake system will inevitably cause whiplash, and no party wants that to happen, so we continue down the track with no brakes, or very little brakes, and if we don’t get a grip on “reality” and stop thinking that money can just be printed or mysteriously wiped away with an eraser, those people are sadly mistaken. Try that number with your lenders and see how far you get.

Politicians need to think more seriously about the financial future of this country instead of pointing fingers at one’s faith as being too radical, or whether the contraception argument is more about women’s rights or religious rights (can’t we all agree that it’s both and just move the heck on?) or the class warfare issue (which is dirty politics), or pie in the sky hopes and dreams, let’s be realistic and get this country back on a strong financial track; one that was (not is) admired and emulated world wide.
If something is not done by the next administration then our 2020 financial crisis will make Greece’s default look like a pimple on the ass of the Jolly Green Giant.

I want to be more optimistic, trust me I do, but when I see a debt that almost seems insurmountable, a lackluster energy plan (BTW, President Bush introduced a comprehensive energy plan in 2004, which was highly criticized, is now the resulting in the drilling on private land), a seemingly insolvent social security system, a Medicare/health care monster (people living longer and that by 2020 an estimated 70% of male and females will be considered obese) potentially breaking the bank on the horizon it’s hard to shout from the mountaintop. As a 48-year old man who has almost 20 years to retirement, I do not see a rainbow, but more of a storm.

Many of my liberal friends call me several things, one being that I live in a bubble, or that I am just plain wrong. Well, if being reasonable, practical, realistic, honest, and personally responsible is living in a bubble, I’ll take it. And, as always, GBA.

The Lost Decade: Born from 1960-1970, Part I

Ironically, and completely unintended, I post this blog on the Ides of March; a time known as the assassination of Julius Caesar and synonymous with a "time of foreboding."

The following essay is broken down into two parts because it is very important and there is a lot of information to put out. The first part of the article addresses the current “tax holiday” and some historical perspective and referencing regarding social security, which the media often overlooks when it does not meet their agenda or narrative. This bleeds into my overall theme of the title The Lost Decade: Born from 1960-1970. it is my view that this particular decade of babies will be affected by the Baby Boomers that will dominate the retirement landscape very soon and the Gen Xers that followed will rely heavily on Millenials and Gen Zers for their retirement, but I digress.

As most of you are aware we are now in the second year of a “tax holiday” that was only supposed to last one year, but since the economy has been so slow to recover – I wonder why – the “tax holiday” was extended for another year.

Side note: We were hit on 9.11.2001, one of the worst economic attacks on this nation. We had to reconfigure our whole security structure in the United States. Companies, businesses, states, our Federal government all had to be reconfigured to meet current and future physical security threats. States’ revenues plummeted due to fears and lack of travel/tourism, and to all the costs incurred by security spending either in technology or manpower. Not to mention, we had that little squabble in Afghanistan that we were dealing with, but by 2003 we were back on our feet kicking ass once again.

This current so called economic disaster began in 2008, admittedly by both parties. A different dynamic choked the economy, and one I felt was improperly dealt with. It is now 2012 and there is no real end on the horizon for this economy to bounce back as robust as it was from 2003-2007. Experts still do not know if we have bottomed out on the real estate bubble. My point is, the government tried to infuse hundreds of billions of dollars to save us from deeper depression. We bailed out companies on the verge of collapse, then there was the stimulus, TARP (Bush’s greatest mistake) and yet we are still mired in a sluggish recovery. The administration levied some of the harshest regulations on ALL banks that they could not loan money. What man in their right mind would do such a thing, knowing it would stifle growth and/or recovery? Add insult to misery, our debt has only worsened and threatens the very future of our financial solvency, power, and influence, yet the man gets a virtual pass. I don’t get it.

What should have been done, and I am a simple man folks, is that the government should have immediately enacted business tax cuts, because after all, small businesses are not Wall Street, they’re Main Street remember, the one’s so many politicians love to tout. Also, the government could have made a deal with the banks to immediately reduce mortgage rates for every homeowner, not just those about to slide to “under water” status. I have argued this point since 2009. Yes, that would have placed a temporary burden on banks accounting sheets, but the government could have guaranteed a recoup, if not total pay out recovery for the banks burdens. Look what they did for the heavy handed auto industry. Hmm? Which, by the way, how many small dealerships did we see go out of business during this process? A lot.

The Liberals seem to care more about social engineering than they do about our financial influence around the world. As a weird analogy, steroids will only get you so far, and this administration’s policies seem to hinge on then candidate Obama’s motto: Hope and Change. If we pump (steroids) the economy will bounce back quickly, but again the short sightedness of this administration surely knows you cannot manipulate a naturally occurring event. Hence, the “natural” economy thus far has fiercely rejected the notion it can be manipulated, but with businesses “naturally” being proactive and entrepreneurial, the economy is beginning to “naturally” rebound, which Obama is “Hoping” for. Did I use enough quotation marks there to drive home my point? This is a whole other argument so I will stop there.

Back to the social security/”tax holiday” issue: In a December 15, 2011 New York Times article, Disagreement Over Payroll Tax Cut’s Impact on Social Security, Jackie Calmes states,
Social Security is essentially a pay-as-you-go system, with payroll taxes from workers flowing back out to retirees, survivors and the disabled. Last year, before the tax cut, the system for the first time since 1983 collected less in taxes than it paid out to 55 million beneficiaries — $49 billion less.

The program’s operating deficits will grow as more of the 78 million baby boomers become eligible. But trust fund reserves built up over years of annual surpluses will not run out until 2036, when tax revenues will cover three-quarters of benefits, trustees project.

55 million retirees to a high of 78 million is surely a worrisome figure.

To the naked eye this sounds okay, and the liberals are so happy to provide this “tax holiday” to the middle and lower class. This is a temporary band-aid to a deep wound that will be social security in about 20 years, but there is a segment of Congress that does not worry about that because you can always tax the rich and create that revenue. Now that’s real vision there. The facts state there are less workers kicking into the social security fund these days and therefore revenues will be significantly reduced over the next two decades. And these happy go lucky liberals want to create a more dependent society? Where is all the money going to come from? It’s a double edge sword. If there are less workers and you are creating more government dependency, who in the world is going to pay for all of this? The picture is getting clearer isn’t it? However, and cleverly disguised, this puts the Republicans in a tricky situation. If they disagree with the tax holiday they will be seen as being against the middle class, meanwhile opposing taxes for the upper class, they will be seen as anti-middle/lower class. You see the plan? I knew you would.

The article goes on to say that, “Sixty-one liberals in the House, nearly one-third of the Democrats there, wrote to Mr. Obama in July to say they were “gravely concerned that yet another, unacceptable cut to Social Security’s revenue stream appears to be on the table.”

Six years ago, Democrats successfully derailed President George W. Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security by letting workers divert 2 percentage points of their payroll taxes to personal retirement accounts.
Charles Blahous, Mr. Bush’s adviser on the issue, recently wrote that the payroll tax cut and the extension that Mr. Obama initially proposed would reduce revenues to Social Security more over two years than Mr. Bush’s plan would have over its first decade. The Bush plan, however, also would have reduced workers’ future benefits commensurate with the taxes they diverted to personal accounts — a feature that helped defeat the proposal.

First of all, read the last sentence again… Why would it matter if future benefits were reduced if people were able to invest and perhaps gain greater interest and/or money for those personal accounts? It’s a personal risk, and clearly up to the individual. The Democrats were basically saying we don’t trust you to make your own decision. I don’t want to make this discussion about tax cuts, and I am no financial wizard, but here is what that long quote tells me. The payroll tax was at 6.2%, meaning both employer and employee paid that amount. If you have ever owned a business, you know that paying quarterly employee taxes is required. When you get your paycheck there is a standard payroll deduction of 6.2%, and that comes out of your paycheck and the employer also pays 6.2% for each employee, so in essence the government gets two taxes for one individual. The current payroll tax cut is a benefit for both the employee and employer in that we are now paying a 4% payroll tax. However, what that creates is a void in revenue being set aside for social security.

Liberals will argue that this “tax holiday” which has now been extended to 2 years, would not really affect social security in the long run, but to rob social security of more than 100 billion dollars in the first year, and most likely the second year, you cannot tell me that does not create some issues in the overall scheme of things. Do the math, 200 plus billion added to the current revenue gaining a modest interest over a twenty year period is not significant?

Critics felt that President Bush’s social security plan of diverting 2% to individual savings accounts would rob social security of those potential revenues. What the Democrats didn’t like was that perhaps that same 2% being touted by the Left for the “tax holiday” did not want to let go of that 2% in the system creating a greater interest earnings and yet they argue that the current tax holiday will not significantly impact social security revenues. Hmm?

Okay, here’s the bottom line, if young people were able to take that 2% and divert it to a personal savings, 401, IRA, whatever, they would be able to create an avenue of building a nest egg separate of social security. The media cleverly clouded the issue by saying that what if those investments go bad and people start to lose money? It’s a good question, but the argument for long term investment is and has been good/healthy/robust, and that is why it’s called personal savings account, meaning personal responsibility and care. Conversely, this “tax holiday” does not get replaced and most people are probably bringing in an additional $30-40 a month. That is being offset by higher gas prices, grocery prices, etc. Again, critics would argue, well at least they are able to continue to buy gas or groceries. If we had created an energy plan when President Bush wanted to, maybe we wouldn’t be at the whims of this crazy market and hostage to foreign oil, or reduced domestic production.

In another article, How Payroll Tax Cut Affects Social Security’s Future, by David Welna of National Public Radio (NPR). Note the two articles I pulled this information were not from FOX news or the Wall Street Journal, but the New York Times and NPR, not exactly conservative bastions.

This particular article pointed out three facts. One: “Last year, for the first time in its 75-year history, SS took in less money than it paid out.” Two: This year, [2011] the first baby boomers reached retirement age and began collecting SS benefits. And Three: The payroll tax holiday that Congress approved a year ago reduced SS revenues by $105 billion.” This year roughly the same amount is predicted. So, that is more than 200 billion dollars not going toward SS.

I am not making this up, and do we even want to start talking about the debt? The article continued to point out that, “Obama showed no sign of being troubled by those facts at a White House press briefing by saying, ‘It will help families pay their bills, it will spur spending, it will spur hiring, and it’s the right thing to do.’”

This is a long term solvency issue, not just some hiccup along the way. I am not surprised by the President’s reaction, and the part about spurring hiring? Last year was the first year for this “tax holiday” and the unemployment rates were showing some positive signs, so let's see if they are falling as a result of this plan, or if it's just America being America with its capitalist structure that oftentimes dwells in the land of "survival" and will, at all costs, do what it can to survive.

We’re just burning facts here folks, burning the heck out of facts.
This brings to a close Part One; Part Two will deal more with how this affects the Lost Decade overall. I hope you click in to find out more.