Don't Shoot the Messenger

I came upon an interesting preliminary article on Social Security after a committee convened regarding its future solvency and what intermediate steps should be considered to maintain and support its growth. Simpson and Bowles are the heroes of the day, for their clear vision to even consider what they are considering. And of course there's a long way before anything emerges even remotely resembling a consensus -- and then we have to witness the legislative bloodletting on both sides of the aisle as they fight for their way of life and favorite earmarks.

Simpson had a fun comment during the first draft presentation, and that was:  "We'll both be in a witness protection program when this is all over."

No kidding. All civility aside, we simultaneously revere and despise the truth especially when it is in our best interests. Intellectually we understand the importance of boundaries to keep life on an even keel, balance perspectives with reason and create a vision of society that can function and thrive. But don't dare tell us no.

Reigning US in

It's dangerous to be the messenger. Remember Gray Davis and his doomsayer projections about the looming fiscal deficit catastrophe in California? We ran him out on a rail.



 (begin) "America cannot be great if we go broke," Simpson and Bowles declared at the start of their proposal. "Our economy will not grow and our country will not be able to compete without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our back." And so with no fanfare at all, they sketched out smart preliminary ideas on how to face the national deficit head-on. To wit: {my comments in brackets}

SOCIAL SECURITY -- Try to make Social Security more solvent by reducing annual cost-of-living increases for many recipients; {What's that mean, precisely?}

• Raise the regular retirement age to 68 years by 2050 from the current 66, and to 69 by 2075 {my children have plenty of warning}
• And make benefits more progressive to help Americans in lower-earning tax brackets{???}. But changes would only benefit the Social Security program, not broader budget deficits.

•TAXES -- A gradual 15-percent a gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax from the current 18.4 cents. {Because no matter how ridiculous it is, we will never give up the God Given Right to a Suburban, even if gas is $5 a gallon}

•MILITARY RETIREE AND CIVILIAN PENSIONS -- Reform cost-of-living increases for early civilian and military retirees. {Extending retirement dates, is that it?}

•GOVT BUDGETS -- Reduce Congressional and White House budgets by 15 percent {it's about damned time!}; freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation at non-Defense agencies for three years {indefinitely would be better}; cut the federal workforce by 10 percent {here! here!}; and slow the growth of foreign aid. **

•SOOOUIE! -- Eliminate all congressional earmarks. {Seriously- ALL} 

•NASA -- Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight. {Must we give over  EVERY challenge to our competitors?}

•AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL -- Sell excess federal property. {The Governor's mansions, legislative jets, and summer homes go first. So Arnold wasn't far off ... ?}

•THE IRS -- Consolidate the tax code into three individual rates and one corporate rate {So ... large and small businesses would pay the same rate?}; eliminate the alternative minimum tax and some expense-write-off programs {like interest on home loans, for instance?}; increase the federal gas tax and some other user fees. {you said that already}

•FOOD SOURCES -- Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year by reducing direct payments and other subsidies. {Don't mess with our food, pal}

•"WHY-ARE-WE-DOING-THIS-ANYWAY" COLUMN -- Make scores of other changes, including an end to payments to states and tribes for abandoned mines; an extension of the Federal Communications Commission's authority to auction radio spectrum licenses; a requirement that the Tennessee Valley Authority impose transmission surcharge on electricity sales.  (end)

I must be missing the bullet point that involves the personal sacrifice of our hired help. You know, the one where every voted-in servant (except the President and VP) is put on a sliding retirement scale similar to CalPers where they cannot draw a retirement salary until they are vested.

Imagine if legislators (et al) were required to serve ten full years of verifiable work weeks - less 4 wks vacation a year (=some 17,600 hours), which would then entitle them to a modest accrual of their active salary as a basis for retirement ratios.

Let's use Jerry Brown for an example. Talk about vested! He earned 4 yrs as Secretary of State, 8 as the prior Governor, 3 as Attorney General, 8 as Mayor of Oakland and now as Boomerang Bob for another 4 as Governor Part II. Geez, aren't there term limits?! He's surely vested by now, although we'll have to add up his actual days of work to be sure: he's not at his desk much and commute time between Oakland to Sacramento doesn't count.

Wouldn't it be nice to cut off all this AIG insurance nonsense while we're at it? We could sit back and watch our legislators scramble to fix this whole insurance mess if they were part of our system. And I'd wager that would apply to Social Security too.

Hey, it stings to be told a resounding and emphatic no. Hold! That! Line!