About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Government Shut Down Begs Question - How Much Government Do We Need Or Want?

"Social Security payments at retirement are calculated on the amount of tax one pays. So imagine what Alex Rodriguez's payments would be at retirement — probably $1 million a year if his entire $25 million salary is taxed for Social Security. Think of the outrage that would incur, unless it is intended that he only pays the SS tax but receives nothing in return (then it is not a Social Security tax, but just an income tax)." -  Part of a letter to the editor published in a local NJ newspaper
"This writer is painfully uninformed.  I guess accuracy is no requirement for publication." – an online comment re the above letter
click on graphs to enlarge
The above graphs provide the starting points for a method to project Social Security outlays & number of beneficiaries in 2040 – just about the time A-Rod reaches his full retirement age.  He certainly qualifies to be one of the beneficiaries but even with inflation his retirement benefit will not distort the outlay curve any more than anyone else & his benefit will definitely not be $1 million as the letter-to-the-editor writer states above.
Now readers of RTE know that Social Security works just the opposite.  Someone like A-Rod will pay the maximum Social Security tax, which is capped, each of his high earning years but will find his monthly benefit @ retirement is not in proportion to the taxes he paid compared to someone who had paid into the system @ poverty level wages.  This is true because the Social Security benefit formula is steeply graduated in favor of lower contributions meaning that the program is a partial redistribution of income from beneficiaries who earned high wages to those who earned low wages meaning Social Security is a welfare transfer program.
It is hard to believe that the editorial page editor of the local newspaper that published the above letter does not know the above basics about Social Security  - so why did he publish such a confusing letter?
The media is the second point in the five points necessary for the statists to control the citizenry.  The above letter has a class warfare undercurrent to it involving the controversial baseball player – whom statists are hoping people will turn on.  With very few exceptions the media works – sometimes subtly – to lead & control the thinking of the poorly discerning public. 
This is why we need the alternative media like blogs.  Once people see the difference & know the way they have been played the onus should be on putting the hostile anti-American media out of business by not supporting them – cancel your subscription or don't watch the channel or listen to the station.  Why would anyone want to learn what is happening in the world from such a source?
A current excellent example of the dominant portion of the media trying to control people's thinking is when they tell you that "everyone is hurting because of the government shut down."  Sounds reasonable, but is it?  How much are you hurting because of the shutdown & for those who are inconvenienced how much of it is because BO is working double time to exacerbate any inconvenience like barricading open air monuments?
Many people have figured out that the cost of government is oppressive & in their own way started to shut it down long before the start of this fiscal year on October 1.  The size of government is not a static condition meaning that it can change – government does not always have to stay the same size or get larger.  As an example during the recession & slow growth years of 2008 to 2013 governments reduced their employment with federal government employment alone declining by 65,000 in the twelve months ended June 2013.  Who noticed?  Does it have to grow back to the previous size?
In addition please realize that people move from places like Long Island, New York to Punta Gorda, Florida & in the process have their property taxes reduced from $13,000 per year to just over $2,000 per year while receiving so much more house & amenities in Florida.  Florida also has no state income tax.

Or consider that in a proactive move the town of Sandy Springs, Georgia, starting in December 2005, privatized virtually every service their town of 100,000 people provided – garbage collection, road maintenance, cleaning parks, sewer, accounting, back office operations, & even the courts.  There are only seven people on the City Hall staff.  These steps reduced the cost of the Sandy Springs government by 50%.  Sandy Springs has no debt or unions.  They operate totally in the black.  The city charter requires cash operating reserves through which capital projects are paid.  Sandy Springs in effect shut down their old government & the residents are all the better for it.

The point is that every government should be acting in their taxpaying citizens best interests by adopting principles like Sandy Springs did - namely, providing the services desired in the most cost effective way.  The problems start when we lose sight of this by listening to a media that tells us things we do not know to be true – but hopes we will believe it.

But back to the editorial page editor who printed the confusing Social Security letter - the other question to consider is what if this editor did not know the above Social Security basics.  Once you realize his ineptness it still comes down to why would you want to get your news from him - doesn't it?


1 comment:

  1. It really isn't that hard to believe a newspaper editor printed such inaccurate information. I have had conversations with several of these so called "intelligent, college educated" editors to know that nothing they say, do or print surprises me.