Monday, March 21, 2005
Dusty Harry demands the continued "Fiscal Rape" of the American Taxpayer
Senator "Dusty" Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader has written an opinion piece on the Social Security debate in today's USAToday.
Actually, let me clarify that statement. A Dusty Harry staffer wrote the piece, which reads like something an 8th grader would submit to his middle school government class - and subsequently receive a failing grade for the work. Dusty Harry being far too busy whining on the floor of the US Senate, signed off on the work.
(Many apologies if I've offended any 8th graders in the audience)
Dusty Harry decries the proposal to "privatize" Social Security. He uses the word "Privatize" (or a derivative thereof) four times in his short editorial. Each time the word comes with in five or six words like "harmful", "dangerous", "steep tax", and "challenge".
Does Senator Dusty Harry give any alternative? No. He demands the GOP Plan be taken off the table in favor of the current system and his three point plan be adopted:
First, do no harm. We should not cut Social Security's funding by diverting trillions of dollars from the trust fund.Um, Harry, there is no money in the Social Security "Trust Fund". The harm has already been done. You and your congressional cohorts have spent it.
Second, we should pay back the Social Security Trust Fund for all money used for other purposes. If we simply honor existing obligations to the trust fund, Social Security will be solvent for 40 to 50 years.Sure, Harry. Pay the "Trust Fund" back with what? In 40-50 years, you'll be dead. Not that you participate in the Social Security Program anyway. I, however, will (God and the fetching Mrs. Cordeiro willing) be about 10 years into my retirement when your plan goes belly up (or as my military friends say - Tango Uniform).
Third, we should promote savings. That means exploring new incentives for personal savings and increasing public savings by restoring fiscal discipline and ending the Bush administration's record run of deficits.Harry, the concept of Personal Accounts promotes savings. Remember, you myopic windbag, this is My Money we're talking about.
Dear reader, the next time you get your paycheck, take a close look at all the stuff that's taken out of it before your get your share. Pay special attention to FICA. That's the 6.2% of your income the Feds take to support the Social Security system. Your employer pays another 6.2% on a quarterly basis. That's 12.4% of your income that you never see. If the current system stays in place, you will never see it. If you had to actually pay this tax - and by that I mean the money comes into your checking account and you have to cut a check to the Feds for the entire amount - you'd be furious. I know, I've had to do it before. That, dear reader, is what I call "Fiscal Rape".
Now ask yourself a question: Would you take investment advice from Dusty Harry? How about Babs Boxer? What about Ted "Dude, Where's My Scotch" Kennedy? If your answer to this question is anything but "Hell No!" you need to have your head examined. Hillary "We Are The President" Clinton may be an exception to this question - after all she's got a great track record predicting cattle futures.
If you don't trust these Jackasses (that is, after all, their mascot) to give you investment advice, why on earth would you trust them (or any arm of government for that matter) with such a huge chunk of your income?
The Social Security debate is fundamentally about freedom. Freedom to have a say in what happens to money we work very hard to earn. Freedom from a government program which, in its current form, is doomed to end up in the ash heap of history.
So, Senator Reid, I have but one thing to say in response to your editorial. Its short, so hopefully you'll manage to remember it.
If you want to keep your money in the system, that's find by me. Stop telling me what to do with my share.
Here endeth the lesson.