Bush presses argument for Social Security overhaul - Apr 30, 2005

All this talk of social security reform... and yet there is no real reform here, simply an attempt at slight restructuring, as I see it.

Social Security started because the government felt that people needed to be protected from their own lack of foresight in saving for the future. For some reason, since most people were too weak-willed to save and put away money for the future, the government felt the need to force everyone to save through Social Security, whether they wanted to or not.

Changing where you put the money that you are forced to give to the program isn't a reform, it is just a change. And making it so people who work harder have to put in more to the system and get out less is just wrong, and just teaches people to be lazy so they can get more "free" stuff. I have a better idea...

The name of this idea is Personal Responsability. It goes something like this: The government pays out all benefits currently required as one lump sum, getting into a large amount of debt obviously to do so. The pain of doing that is unfortunate but must happen, and will only happen once. Long before this happens, and once such a move is announced, many private firms will begin plans to offer serivces to americans to make up for it. Some of that money will undoubtedly go into people's existing retirement and personal accounts. Other people won't know what to do with the money and won't have existing accounts, which is where new and existing firms will pick up the baton. Now people are responsible for their own destiny, and nobody is taking their freedoms away by forcing them to pay into a retirement program.

Actually, I also envision a move away from the Welfare program to be simultaneous. Rather than forcing people to pay out more money in their income taxes, that money goes right to people, who then must decide how responsible they will be with that money. Private firms will come into existence with something akin to auto insurance now, but it will be unemployment/underemployment insurance. To apply for it, you'll have to give a lot of information, much like auto companies now look at your age, driving record, claims history, dedcutible, coverage amounts, etc. Some information that would probably be required for the company to know would include: age, employment history, education, skills, monthly payout amount that would be needed, maximum number of months that benefits would be received, etc. Although people wouldn't be forced to have nemployment/underemployment insurance, if they became unemployed or underemployed, they would be on their own, which some people may choose to do and just put money away.

The point is that it is not the goverment's job to force us to give up what we earn (in effect legalizing stealing and taking away our freedoms) so that it can "protect us" from ourselves. As long as the government sees fit to let us get away with as little personal responsability as possible, society will continue to deteriorate into a litigious, self-centered, "me-me-me", "I deserve this" society.

Federal Panel Sees Too Many Tax Breaks

Its about time! Somebody in government actually looks at the tax code and all its deductions and credits and sees it for what it really is: a complicated, unproven, untracked, inefficient waste of our tax dollars in an attempt to legislate morality. Maybe there is yet a glimmer of hope.

But a glimmer is probably all we can hope for. The commission's chairman, former Florida Sen. Connie Mack, said, "Anytime you've got a benefit, wherever it happens to be, whether it's spending or taxes, people don't want to give them up."

And so we'll run into the same old problems... there are things in the tax code that should be fixed, but that nobody in the government will have the guts to stand up and get to work on. Too bad... I was starting to think our government actually had a chance to do the right thing.

More legislative squabbling...

You know, sometimes I just get tired of hearing about all the squabbling and fighting that happens between the two major policical parties. I know I'm not alone.

But one thing that has truly confounded me is the question of why there are only two major political parties. Is it truly possible to fit most of America's political opinions into one of two boxes? In America, of all places, the people are known for their desire to have many choices. American individuality and individual differences in tastes, opinions, and preferences usually mean that there are 20 different choices in just about everything. And yet, when it comes to politics, somehow 99% of americans fit neatly and nicely into one of two descriptions: Republicans or Democrats.

Is it laziness? Are people just too lazy to put forth the effort necessary to inform themselves of what all the parties believe so that they can choose the one which truly represents them? In the 2004 presidential election, about 60% of americans turned out to vote, one of the higher percentages in a while. That's means that 4 of your 10 friends didn't vote at all. Are these people lazy? Are they disenfranchised? Do they just feel that no vote at all is a protest vote? Can that many americans be so indolent that they do not even vote once every 4 years?

Is it ignorance? Due in part to laziness and in part to stupidity, do people not realize there are more than two choices to pick from? There are at least 30 political parties in the country that could be considered at least regional, and at least 6 to 8 which could be considered national parties. Do people not know these exist? Do they not know what these parties believe? Do they not even know what they themselves believe?

Is it money? Is this two party-system due to two parties getting a majority of the funding and therefore capturing a majority of the advertising and publicity? Wouldn't it be a shame to have american politics now decided by two parties just because they had the most money?

Is it attitude? Americans like to be winners. We've grown up where our country is always a winner, where a lot of importance is placed on becoming a winner, or at the very least, liking the winners. This phenomenon is well shown by watching the sales of a professional sports team's apparel and other items when they go from mediocre to great. Suddenly everyone likes the team, because it is number 1, and everyone wants to identify with and be associated with the winner. So does everyone gravitate to one of the two major parties simply because they are the biggest winners and seem to have the only chance to win an election? I hear people say that they didn't vote becase they wanted to vote for a third party candidate, but figured it didn't matter since that candidate would never win, so they either didn't vote, or voted for the major party that was closest to their belief. I've also heard people say, I don't really like this party, but the party I normally vote for fielded a candidate I didn't like so I voted for the other party. Isn't that insane when you think about it? So rather than voting for something closer to your own opinions, you vote for something that is almost a complete opposite? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

For whatever reason, we're now stuck with two major parties. Even though we want to choose between 10 value meals, 8 different models of camcorders, endless models and colors of vehicles, and millions of different pieces of clothing, we still only want to have two choices when it comes to politics. And that's what has gotten us into the mess we're in.