Posts
Yesterday, President Bush was in Fargo, North Dakota, seeking to build support for his plan to dismantle Social Security. The fact that the president was out on the stump for another one of his policies designed to hurt and take away the future of working-class Americans, is not necessarily newsworthy. What was of interest to many free-speech advocates, was the blacklisting of dozens of Fargo citizens from attending his speech in that city. Included on the list of citizens denied access to this public event was a producer for the admittedly, left-leaning Ed Schultz program, as well as a local city commissioner, who has been an outspoken critic of the president.
This continues a familiar pattern of Bush events leading to the exclusion, or harassment of those who oppose our Fuhrer and his failed policies. Over the past year, we've seen several incidents of Bush appearances being tightly-controlled and choreographed, to avoid any appearance of dissent in proximity to the king.
--A man is arrested and charged for holding a small “No War” sign at the January Inaugural.
--The mother of a soldier killed in Iraq is ejected, arrested and charged while attending a rally for Laura Bush in September.
--Across the country, citizens are removed from public sidewalks because “the President had requested a federal protection zone."
--throughout the campaign season, opponents of Bush were routinely denied entrance to campaign events, from Maine to California.
My question for the President is this; in your coronation address, when you talked about freedom and liberty and the importance of democracy around the world, did you not include the same privileges for the citizens of your own country? Obviously you didn't, as your actions sir, speak volumes about just what kind of country you have in mind. I think your limited abilities at comprehension led you to mistake the meaning of democracy, with the definition of plutocracy. How else would anyone explain the wall of security and protection that you've erected around yourself?
Friday, February 04, 2005
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Churchill redux
Alexander Cockburn, who is best known for his essays at Counterpunch, offers a cogent analysis of the entire Ward Churchill affair.
It seems to me, that we've crossed some type of line of demarcation in America. There appears to exist some type of irrational need to embrace a belief in an American mythology of goodness. When someone like Churchill comes along and attempts to reexamine that, most Americans (not all, thankfully) react with a visceral response that borders on some type of survival reflex.
There is so much dishonesty wrapped up in the mythology of American triumphalism, which is so prevalent among the right-wing conservatives that are in power at the moment. I watch with great interest the developments that follow from our current dominant ideology.
It seems to me, that we've crossed some type of line of demarcation in America. There appears to exist some type of irrational need to embrace a belief in an American mythology of goodness. When someone like Churchill comes along and attempts to reexamine that, most Americans (not all, thankfully) react with a visceral response that borders on some type of survival reflex.
There is so much dishonesty wrapped up in the mythology of American triumphalism, which is so prevalent among the right-wing conservatives that are in power at the moment. I watch with great interest the developments that follow from our current dominant ideology.
The Bush master plan for your retirement
This is what Peter Orszag had to say about the Bush plan to dismantle Social Security. Orszag, btw, is a Social Security analyst at Brookings and a former Clinton White House economist:
Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system.
The mechanism, detailed by a senior administration official before President Bush's State of the Union address, would hold down the cost of Bush's plan to introduce personal accounts to the Social Security system. But it could come as a surprise to lawmakers and voters who have thought of these accounts as akin to an individual retirement account or a 401(k) that they could use fully upon retirement.
"You'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children . . . or grandchildren," Bush said last night. "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."
The plan is more complicated. Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent.
That money would augment a guaranteed Social Security benefit that would be reduced by a still-undetermined amount from the currently promised benefit.In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate -- the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.
"I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account so you can build a nest egg for your own future," Bush said in his speech.
Orszag retorted: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan.
"Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.
Read the full article.
Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system.
The mechanism, detailed by a senior administration official before President Bush's State of the Union address, would hold down the cost of Bush's plan to introduce personal accounts to the Social Security system. But it could come as a surprise to lawmakers and voters who have thought of these accounts as akin to an individual retirement account or a 401(k) that they could use fully upon retirement.
"You'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children . . . or grandchildren," Bush said last night. "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."
The plan is more complicated. Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent.
That money would augment a guaranteed Social Security benefit that would be reduced by a still-undetermined amount from the currently promised benefit.In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate -- the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.
"I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account so you can build a nest egg for your own future," Bush said in his speech.
Orszag retorted: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan.
"Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.
Read the full article.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
A fair tax plan
Anyone who has been reading my blogging since last year knows that I've written extensively on the taxation issue. Being able to bring about true reform to our tax code, creating a progressive vs. the current regressive system, would go along way towards creating a more equitable society.
From the Center for American Progress is the following summary to their call for a plan for a tax code overhaul:
The current tax code is unfair, unnecessarily complex, and has failed to meet our national priorities. Today, we are faced with a fundamental choice for our tax structure: continue the policies that have failed the vast majority of taxpayers and our country for the benefit of a few, or reform the tax system consistent with progressive principles. It is time for a fairer and simpler tax system that reduces the massive deficits created over the last four years, strengthens the middle class while honoring their work, and creates opportunity for Americans of all income levels to succeed.
You can read the entire plan here.
From the Center for American Progress is the following summary to their call for a plan for a tax code overhaul:
The current tax code is unfair, unnecessarily complex, and has failed to meet our national priorities. Today, we are faced with a fundamental choice for our tax structure: continue the policies that have failed the vast majority of taxpayers and our country for the benefit of a few, or reform the tax system consistent with progressive principles. It is time for a fairer and simpler tax system that reduces the massive deficits created over the last four years, strengthens the middle class while honoring their work, and creates opportunity for Americans of all income levels to succeed.
You can read the entire plan here.
College degree becomes more elusive
I have a son in college. He attends a private, liberal arts college. It's become increasingly difficult for my wife and I to meet the rising costs of his education. Fortunately, the combination of his being an outstanding athlete, combined with a strong academic performance in high school, allowed him to receive an adequate financial aid package. Yet, despite the help, my wife have had to take on a significant load of debt. Believe me, I'm not complaining. Hopefully, this opportunity won't require him to scratch and claw his way through life like his self-educated, public university father had to. I'm not sure however, if there will be better opportunities, despite a good school and above average abilities. Despite the indoctrination that we are given about achieving success, most people don't rise above the class of their fathers--sorry about that, son!
I have been following the various articles regarding the cost of education, the reductions in Pell Grants, as well as other forms of financial aid. Now comes this article.
One of the great equalizers within the last half century was the post-WWII access to higher education for not only the sons and daughters of the ruling class, but young men and women whose dad was a plumber, or a bricklayer. Alas, those days seem to have passed us by, as we are descending back into a meritocracy, where only the privileged can access the American Dream.
I was planning to write about the state of the union, but I just can't make myself write about the loathesome 30 minutes I watched (I bailed at 9:45 and have flicked on AirAmerica).
I'm listening to Malloy--I'm feeling better, because he at least is giving voice to the rage and disgust I'm feeling right now. I'm a bit rung out; it's been a long day from spending several hours trying to let as many people know about the Ward Churchill situation, as well as making some really good progress on the book. I think I'll go and grab that last Bud Light, because I may not be able to fall asleep otherwise.
I have been following the various articles regarding the cost of education, the reductions in Pell Grants, as well as other forms of financial aid. Now comes this article.
One of the great equalizers within the last half century was the post-WWII access to higher education for not only the sons and daughters of the ruling class, but young men and women whose dad was a plumber, or a bricklayer. Alas, those days seem to have passed us by, as we are descending back into a meritocracy, where only the privileged can access the American Dream.
I was planning to write about the state of the union, but I just can't make myself write about the loathesome 30 minutes I watched (I bailed at 9:45 and have flicked on AirAmerica).
I'm listening to Malloy--I'm feeling better, because he at least is giving voice to the rage and disgust I'm feeling right now. I'm a bit rung out; it's been a long day from spending several hours trying to let as many people know about the Ward Churchill situation, as well as making some really good progress on the book. I think I'll go and grab that last Bud Light, because I may not be able to fall asleep otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)