Disgusting.

The second ‘Pub debate occurred last night.  It was hosted by the Tea Party Express and CNN (!?!?!).  Yes, CNN and Wolf Blitzer. The cable company and liberal media talking head who called the Tea Party racist.  Talk about opposites.

Romney attacked Perry for calling Social Security a ponzi scheme.  Perry was correct. It IS a ponzi scheme. If an individual or a company does what the government does with Social Security, we send them to jail. Ever hear of Bernard Madoff? What is legal for the government is illegal for everyone else.

Romney, however, took his attacks from liberal talking points saying Perry wants to shut down Social Security and citing Perry’s book as proof.  Romney lied.

I’ve followed Perry’s statements. I’m not a Perry follower, but he has, in a short time, placed himself well in the lead of the pack.  Perry has proposed returning control of Social Security to the states.  He likes the Ryan plan and has said so.

Ryan’s plan keeps those currently on Social Security as-is.  No change.  Ryan’s plan does provide alternatives for those who are years from retirement.  Eventually, Social Security will change, but not immediately. 

Perry’s book, touted by Romney as proof, does not propose ending Social Security.  It does propose changes that will over time, shift the entitlement into a self-managed plan, not a governmental monolith out of control. 

Bachmann attacked Perry, correctly, over signing the defunct HPV bill that forced teen-aged girls to take immunizations for a cancer that was only transmitted via a STD.  Yes, it had an opt-out option but the whole idea of forcing such an action is untenable and contrary to the concept of personal freedom and responsibility. 

Perry had reversed himself and the HPV bill was rescinded in 2007.  He admitted he was wrong.  

Perry also said that the executive order was a mistake and he should have worked with the legislature instead of issuing it. He also noted the order gave parents the right to opt their children out of the vaccination. — CNN.

That goes far in my book—being able to recognize and admit a mistake.  Too often, politicians will attempt to hide mistakes thinking they can deceive the public.  They fail.  It’s better to admit a mistake in public and let it go. 

Romney’s actions last night, however, was disgusting.  When you have to use liberal talking points to score against another ‘Pub, it proves you’re a RINO and aren’t fit for elected office.  As I said above, Romney was disgusting last night.                             

Who decides?

Pure extortion.
The short answer is, “Yes.”  You see, the Social Security Administration doesn’t cut the checks.  All they do is qualify recipients, determine the amount of the payments and account for the revenue.  The SSA sends the revenue to the Treasury Department. When it’s time for payments, to cut the “checks” (usually direct deposits to recipient’s accounts,) the Treasury department performs that job.  Yep, Little Timmy Geithner is the one who cuts the SS checks.

Hot Air posted a video of Huelskamp discussion with Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration.  There’s a lot of interesting information there.
Goss confirmed the decision to send out Social Security checks (or not) would, indeed, be a Treasury Department (a.k.a. the administration’s) decision.
“The responsibility of the Social Security Administration per se, my boss, Commissioner Astrue, is to in fact determine how much in the way of benefit payments people are supposed to receive,” Goss said. “We send that information actually over to the Department of the Treasury. They are the ones who actually send out the payments, whether it’s electronic funds, transfers, or check.”
As I said yesterday, Lies and more damned lies.  Oh, and Obama blew out of the water the myth of the “Social Security lockbox.”  There hasn’t been one since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. In fact, FICA, those Social Security deductions everyone sees on their paychecks, is nothing more than another income tax and the money goes to the same place as does your withholding taxes—to the US general treasury.

Not my 401K!

The democrats have set their sights on the next item to be raped by their pathological need to control every aspect of our nation. Their next target is the pensions and savings the people have set aside to supplement their retirement. I’m included in that population segment.

I’m approaching retirement next fall. I was kicked loose by my employer last December. Because of my 18 year tenure, I accumulated enough time for a severance package that will, with some husbanding, last until next October. Then I have a decision to make.

In October, I will be age 63. I can retire at that time and accept reduced payments from the Social Security Administration and my corporate pension plan. Normally, I would be eligible for full SSA payments at age 66. That amount is reduced for every year earlier. I would be eligible for full pension from my employer at age 65. That amount is reduced by 5% every year earlier. If I retired at age 63, that would mean a full 10% less for my pension.

I would prefer to wait until March 2011, when I’m 64 to retire. Waiting that long would increase my SSA and company pension payments significantly. So, the decision is how to subsist from October 2010 until April 2011. The obvious answer is through my savings—my 401K for example.

Like most Americans, my 401K is not infinite. My adviser has said that I can withdraw 4-5% per year and have a realistic expectation that the fund will last the rest of my life. Given the sum of my expected SSA and pension payments, I could add increase my monthly retirement income by 1/3rd.

That is IF I can retain control of my 401K. The democrats think they can manage my money better than I.

Thieves!

Nancy Pelosi has said that retirement funds should be managed to guarantee equal amounts. That is my retirement funds, including my life-time savings, must be managed to let those who have done nothing for retirement receive an equal amount. In other words, my money will be stolen by the government and given to those who have saved nothing, those who have not worked and slaved, and have not saved, nor planned for retirement. The money will be used to subsidize union pension plans who are running out of money through the union’s mismanagement, theft and malfeasance.

That is theft by governmental fiat. I worked for every penny of my savings and NO ONE will take it from me!

Federal Mutual Fund

Posted 05/11/2010 06:32 PM ET

Government Retirement: Democrats have obliquely admitted they covet Americans’ pensions. Last week, congressional Republicans told them to stay away. The shame is that they had to do anything at all.


IBD Exclusive Series:
American Freedom And Prosperity Under Attack


The first rumblings were heard in the 1990s, when Democrats were said to be coming after our retirement accounts. Back then, the warnings were easy to pass off as hyperbole or a cranky conspiracy theory. Today, they pass as prescient.

In January, Bloomberg reported the “U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and individual retirement accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry.”

Alarms went off. In February, former House Speaker New Gingrich and policy analyst Peter Ferrara warned in our “On The Right” column that “Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings.”

“The idea,” they said, “is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.

“They will tell you that you are ‘investing’ your money. … But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.”

Last week, Connie Hair wrote the following in Human Events about the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class released in February:

“The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.”

Hair says a “backdoor bull’s-eye is on your 401(k) plan and trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.”

Republican lawmakers are taking the threat seriously. They have expressed to the administration through a letter their “strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans.” These congressmen know that among their Beltway brethren there exists an eagerness to “essentially dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan.”

This isn’t the first time Democrats have eyed Americans’ retirements. In 1993 the Washington Post reported that the Clinton administration considered an “unprecedented effort by the federal government to deal with its budget woes by turning to the more than $4 trillion in cash, stocks and other investments held by pension funds.”

They made another pass in 2008, when Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research who was invited by Democrats to testify, brought the idea of government “guaranteed retirement accounts” to the House subcommittee on income security and family support. Such accounts would be administered by the Social Security Administration. “Contributions” would be required and the payout would be a lean 3%.

Ghilarducci didn’t suggest that 401(k)s be eliminated, but she didn’t have to. She supports removing the favorable tax treatment they receive, which would virtually destroy their reason to exist.

To close the loop, we refer back to the White House’s middle-class task force report. It mentions guaranteed retirement accounts as a way to “give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk and, in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation.”

Or, as Gingrich and Ferrara say, the government would treat ostensibly private retirement savings the same negligent way it’s treated Social Security. Let’s not forget: The courts have ruled that Washington isn’t obligated to pay back a dime it’s seized from paychecks to fund Social Security.

Don’t think Washington would never wreck private pensions in the name of the collective good. It happened in Argentina, and if the same group that’s determined to take over the U.S. health care system stays in power long enough, it could happen here.

Not my 401K!

The democrats have set their sights on the next item to be raped by their pathological need to control every aspect of our nation. Their next target is the pensions and savings the people have set aside to supplement their retirement. I’m included in that population segment.

I’m approaching retirement next fall. I was kicked loose by my employer last December. Because of my 18 year tenure, I accumulated enough time for a severance package that will, with some husbanding, last until next October. Then I have a decision to make.

In October, I will be age 63. I can retire at that time and accept reduced payments from the Social Security Administration and my corporate pension plan. Normally, I would be eligible for full SSA payments at age 66. That amount is reduced for every year earlier. I would be eligible for full pension from my employer at age 65. That amount is reduced by 5% every year earlier. If I retired at age 63, that would mean a full 10% less for my pension.

I would prefer to wait until March 2011, when I’m 64 to retire. Waiting that long would increase my SSA and company pension payments significantly. So, the decision is how to subsist from October 2010 until April 2011. The obvious answer is through my savings—my 401K for example.

Like most Americans, my 401K is not infinite. My adviser has said that I can withdraw 4-5% per year and have a realistic expectation that the fund will last the rest of my life. Given the sum of my expected SSA and pension payments, I could add increase my monthly retirement income by 1/3rd.

That is IF I can retain control of my 401K. The democrats think they can manage my money better than I.

Thieves!

Nancy Pelosi has said that retirement funds should be managed to guarantee equal amounts. That is my retirement funds, including my life-time savings, must be managed to let those who have done nothing for retirement receive an equal amount. In other words, my money will be stolen by the government and given to those who have saved nothing, those who have not worked and slaved, and have not saved, nor planned for retirement. The money will be used to subsidize union pension plans who are running out of money through the union’s mismanagement, theft and malfeasance.

That is theft by governmental fiat. I worked for every penny of my savings and NO ONE will take it from me!

Federal Mutual Fund

Posted 05/11/2010 06:32 PM ET

Government Retirement: Democrats have obliquely admitted they covet Americans’ pensions. Last week, congressional Republicans told them to stay away. The shame is that they had to do anything at all.


IBD Exclusive Series:
American Freedom And Prosperity Under Attack


The first rumblings were heard in the 1990s, when Democrats were said to be coming after our retirement accounts. Back then, the warnings were easy to pass off as hyperbole or a cranky conspiracy theory. Today, they pass as prescient.

In January, Bloomberg reported the “U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and individual retirement accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry.”

Alarms went off. In February, former House Speaker New Gingrich and policy analyst Peter Ferrara warned in our “On The Right” column that “Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings.”

“The idea,” they said, “is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.

“They will tell you that you are ‘investing’ your money. … But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.”

Last week, Connie Hair wrote the following in Human Events about the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class released in February:

“The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.”

Hair says a “backdoor bull’s-eye is on your 401(k) plan and trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.”

Republican lawmakers are taking the threat seriously. They have expressed to the administration through a letter their “strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans.” These congressmen know that among their Beltway brethren there exists an eagerness to “essentially dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan.”

This isn’t the first time Democrats have eyed Americans’ retirements. In 1993 the Washington Post reported that the Clinton administration considered an “unprecedented effort by the federal government to deal with its budget woes by turning to the more than $4 trillion in cash, stocks and other investments held by pension funds.”

They made another pass in 2008, when Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research who was invited by Democrats to testify, brought the idea of government “guaranteed retirement accounts” to the House subcommittee on income security and family support. Such accounts would be administered by the Social Security Administration. “Contributions” would be required and the payout would be a lean 3%.

Ghilarducci didn’t suggest that 401(k)s be eliminated, but she didn’t have to. She supports removing the favorable tax treatment they receive, which would virtually destroy their reason to exist.

To close the loop, we refer back to the White House’s middle-class task force report. It mentions guaranteed retirement accounts as a way to “give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk and, in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation.”

Or, as Gingrich and Ferrara say, the government would treat ostensibly private retirement savings the same negligent way it’s treated Social Security. Let’s not forget: The courts have ruled that Washington isn’t obligated to pay back a dime it’s seized from paychecks to fund Social Security.

Don’t think Washington would never wreck private pensions in the name of the collective good. It happened in Argentina, and if the same group that’s determined to take over the U.S. health care system stays in power long enough, it could happen here.

Cartoon of the Day: Gary Varvel

For the first time, the Social Security Administration (SSA) paid out more money than in took in from payroll deductions. In order to meet expenses, the SSA had to cash in some IOUs from the federal government. That’s money paid in, in years past, that the feds stole embezzled borrowed from the FICA payments to pay for pork out of the general fund.

Gary Varvel says it best.

Social Security Trust Fund—What Trust Fund?

A news item yesterday said that the Social Security Administration (SSA) must cash in some chits, read IOUs, in order to remain solvent. Chits? How about promissory notes. There is NO money in the Social Security Trust Fund. All the money paid into Social Security since the Johnson Administration has gone into the government’s General Fund. That’s the fund that is used to pay the government’s bills. The feds took the money and gave IOUs to SSA to be used when needed. That time has come and guess what? The feds have spent all that money and more. The till is tapped dry.

This shouldn’t be news for anyone except perhaps for the Obamabots who think the government has an bottomless “stash” of money. Well, here some news for you Obamabots. The “stash” is empty.

The Heritage Foundation goes more into this situation.

In theory, the federal government has $2.5 trillion stashed away in a nondescript office building in the sleepy little town of Parkersburg, West Virginia. That is where the Treasury Department keeps stacks of nonnegotiable Treasury bonds payable to the Social Security Administration. But as the Associated Press [1] reported yesterday, for the first time since the 1980s, the federal government will not be adding to that stack. Thanks to an aging population and slow economy, Social Security will pay out $29 billion more this year than it takes in. And the Congressional Budget Office reports that after small surpluses in 2014 and 2015, the program is projected to be in the red from 2016 until forever.

But what about Al Gore’s Social Security “Lock Box?” Can’t we just spend that $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund? As Heritage experts David John and Brian Reidl explain [2], since 1939 federal law has required Social Security to “invest” its extra money in Treasury bonds. Those bonds are really just IOUs from the government to the government. The feds already spent that $2.5 trillion long ago on programs such as education, foreign aid and defense. Add the $2.5 trillion Social Security obligation onto our other obligations and our current national debt stands at $12.5 trillion, or nearly $42,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. And it will only get worse under President Barack Obama’s Budget [3]. It would: 1) borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; 2) leave permanent annual deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020; and 3) dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.

Responding to such unsustainable borrowing, Moody’s rating agency announced [4] Monday that the United States needs to make deep spending cuts or risk losing its AAA credit rating. From the report [4]: “growth alone will not resolve an increasingly complicated debt equation. Preserving debt affordability at levels consistent with AAA ratings will invariably require fiscal adjustments of a magnitude that, in some cases, will test social cohesion.”

Losing our AAA rating would send interest rates higher, increase our borrowing costs, and send the percentage of GDP we spend servicing our debt sky rocketing. Bloomberg adds [5]: “the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013.” The message from Moody’s was clear: the U.S. federal government must change direction on spending or face economic disaster.

The leftist majorities in Congress and the White House are not listening. Instead of reining in federal spending and tackling our existing Entitlement crisis, they are locked in an all out push to create a brand new $2.5 trillion health care entitlement [6]. The President may say his plan is deficit neutral, but the American people do not believe him [7]. And they are wise not to. The President tries to pay for his plan with over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts over the next decade. The president’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports [8] that these cuts would cause one-fifth of all health care providers to go bankrupt. Congress would never allow those hospitals to go out of business. Congress will never actually make those Medicare cuts. So already Obamacare is half a trillion dollars in the red, and we haven’t even tacked on the hundreds of billion of dollars the doc fix [9] adds on.

Reducing our entitlement obligations is the only way to prevent our nation from becoming another Greece. We need to [10]: 1) to show these programs’ long-term obligations in the budget; target these programs to only who that need them; and strengthen personal responsibility by making it easier for people to build personal retirement savings and use health care savings accounts. But first we must avoid the fiscal insanity that is Obamacare.

My wife and I will be drawing Social Security probably later this year. Philosophically, I’m against Social Security but I’m also a realist. We will need that money for however long it lasts. I will also receive a small pension from my last employer. That pension will probably go to pay for healthcare—it that is still legal by then. And, we have some savings. All in all, it will be about 70% less than my salary I earned in 2009. Fortunately, with the exception of our house payment and monthly recurring costs, we’re debt free.

From the last reports, Social Security will run dry before 2020. Sooner if the dems continue with their plans to bankrupt the entire country.

Social Security Trust Fund—What Trust Fund?

A news item yesterday said that the Social Security Administration (SSA) must cash in some chits, read IOUs, in order to remain solvent. Chits? How about promissory notes. There is NO money in the Social Security Trust Fund. All the money paid into Social Security since the Johnson Administration has gone into the government’s General Fund. That’s the fund that is used to pay the government’s bills. The feds took the money and gave IOUs to SSA to be used when needed. That time has come and guess what? The feds have spent all that money and more. The till is tapped dry.

This shouldn’t be news for anyone except perhaps for the Obamabots who think the government has an bottomless “stash” of money. Well, here some news for you Obamabots. The “stash” is empty.

The Heritage Foundation goes more into this situation.

In theory, the federal government has $2.5 trillion stashed away in a nondescript office building in the sleepy little town of Parkersburg, West Virginia. That is where the Treasury Department keeps stacks of nonnegotiable Treasury bonds payable to the Social Security Administration. But as the Associated Press [1] reported yesterday, for the first time since the 1980s, the federal government will not be adding to that stack. Thanks to an aging population and slow economy, Social Security will pay out $29 billion more this year than it takes in. And the Congressional Budget Office reports that after small surpluses in 2014 and 2015, the program is projected to be in the red from 2016 until forever.

But what about Al Gore’s Social Security “Lock Box?” Can’t we just spend that $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund? As Heritage experts David John and Brian Reidl explain [2], since 1939 federal law has required Social Security to “invest” its extra money in Treasury bonds. Those bonds are really just IOUs from the government to the government. The feds already spent that $2.5 trillion long ago on programs such as education, foreign aid and defense. Add the $2.5 trillion Social Security obligation onto our other obligations and our current national debt stands at $12.5 trillion, or nearly $42,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. And it will only get worse under President Barack Obama’s Budget [3]. It would: 1) borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; 2) leave permanent annual deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020; and 3) dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.

Responding to such unsustainable borrowing, Moody’s rating agency announced [4] Monday that the United States needs to make deep spending cuts or risk losing its AAA credit rating. From the report [4]: “growth alone will not resolve an increasingly complicated debt equation. Preserving debt affordability at levels consistent with AAA ratings will invariably require fiscal adjustments of a magnitude that, in some cases, will test social cohesion.”

Losing our AAA rating would send interest rates higher, increase our borrowing costs, and send the percentage of GDP we spend servicing our debt sky rocketing. Bloomberg adds [5]: “the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013.” The message from Moody’s was clear: the U.S. federal government must change direction on spending or face economic disaster.

The leftist majorities in Congress and the White House are not listening. Instead of reining in federal spending and tackling our existing Entitlement crisis, they are locked in an all out push to create a brand new $2.5 trillion health care entitlement [6]. The President may say his plan is deficit neutral, but the American people do not believe him [7]. And they are wise not to. The President tries to pay for his plan with over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts over the next decade. The president’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports [8] that these cuts would cause one-fifth of all health care providers to go bankrupt. Congress would never allow those hospitals to go out of business. Congress will never actually make those Medicare cuts. So already Obamacare is half a trillion dollars in the red, and we haven’t even tacked on the hundreds of billion of dollars the doc fix [9] adds on.

Reducing our entitlement obligations is the only way to prevent our nation from becoming another Greece. We need to [10]: 1) to show these programs’ long-term obligations in the budget; target these programs to only who that need them; and strengthen personal responsibility by making it easier for people to build personal retirement savings and use health care savings accounts. But first we must avoid the fiscal insanity that is Obamacare.

My wife and I will be drawing Social Security probably later this year. Philosophically, I’m against Social Security but I’m also a realist. We will need that money for however long it lasts. I will also receive a small pension from my last employer. That pension will probably go to pay for healthcare—it that is still legal by then. And, we have some savings. All in all, it will be about 70% less than my salary I earned in 2009. Fortunately, with the exception of our house payment and monthly recurring costs, we’re debt free.

From the last reports, Social Security will run dry before 2020. Sooner if the dems continue with their plans to bankrupt the entire country.