Redstate

I frankly don’t get any pleasure in being able to blame profligate spending on the other party because I and other taxpayers get stuck with the bill either way. We had our best chance at trying to fix Medicare and Social Security before the baby boomers began to retire and because of “leaders” like Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, and George W Bush we wasted six years and it looks like the next two will be wasted as well.

I’m not sure what the margin is for having Democrats in office and being able to say “see, now you have to govern.” Seems to me that the toughest decisions foreign-policy wise were already made and/or are still in the hands of the President.

The media’s obsession with highlighting the death of every serviceman in Iraq notwithstanding, I suspect we’ve already done a lot of the hardest work in rebuilding and reforming the Iraqi military which is a necessary prerequisite to any withdrawal and when not if we begin leaving Iraq, it will be because of what we did the first few years. The problem politically is that if the withdrawal happens under the watch of either a Democratic Congress and/or Democratic administration they’ll be able to take credit for and the MSM will shift the story to how now that we’ve “changed direction” things are working better.

but that presupposes that what the Dems get done actually appeals to voters.

Raising the minimum wage: 86% of Americans favor it according to CNN, 85% according to CBS, and 83% according to Gallup. Poll after poll after poll showed the American public would be more willing to vote for a politician who promised to raise minimum wage over someone who promised to keep it the same. We Republicans are simply stupid to keep fighting against this issue. Romney has it right: tie minimum wage to inflation and be done with it forever.

Lowering student loan interest rates: Another losing issue for the Republicans. What possible reason, other than the slew of lobbyist donations from the lending companies, did they have in raising rates this high? President Bush's Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 raised the rates as a way to eliminate $12 billion in education spending from the budget. Are you telling me that putting more of a burden on students - to the tune of $12 billion - is an economically feasible long-term solution to the budget problem? It's ridiculous, and it's certainly going to hurt my wife and I as she graduates with her masters degree in five months. My loans were something around 2 or 3% interest. Now the rates are up around 8.25% or even 9% for these loans! No thank you. I'll be cheering on a cut in the student loan interest rates.

Ethics reform: Again, the Republicans didn't get it done, so now the Democrats are going to be known as the party of ethics reform. Way to go, GOP elected officials. Americans support every kind of ethics reform that the GOP Congress didn't bother with, and yet somehow we just didn't think they were a good or useful idea.

These are all issues the Republicans should have taken care of while they were in power and not allowed the Democrats to make issues out of. We governed stupidly and are now paying the price for it. If these were the only three issues the Democrats take care of, I think it might actually be an improvement over the GOP-controlled Congress. The issues I am more concerned about are the funding of the war in Iraq, making the tax cuts permanent, and immigration policy.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

Minimum wage and student loan interest rates are bread-and-butter issues that should have been put at the top of the congressional list instead of constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage (which is legal in only one state) and flag-burning (which almost never happens). As to ethics reform...what voter is NOT going to approve of efforts to make their legislators, you know, more ethical.

Although people of good conscience are going to disagree on a variety of issues (for example, I'd support repealing the tax cuts you obviously support), I think we can, or should, be able to agree that high-priority legislative actions should be those that affect large numbers of Americans in a significant way, and not waste-of-time sops thrown to this or that narrow constituency.

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

what do they do for the next two years?

#1 - Investigate EVERYTHING!
#2 - Immigration since it's one area Bush agrees more with Dems then his own party.
#3 - If I had to guess I'd say Health Care.

As I said, it's what they do after these big three issues that scares me. But had we as the majority party dealt with them (minimum wage, student loan rates, and ethics reform) before the election instead of fighting against all three of them, then we might not even be having this conversation.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

What happens when the feds mess with "education spending", be it student loans or grants, colleges and universities simply make tuition more. The end result is the same, students graduate with huge loans to pay off and the schools have no accountability for their costs.

You want to lower student loan rates or increase grants, force universities to make their majors pay for themselves. In other words, if they want to have a "women's studies" major, it has to attract enough tuition to support the faculty. If if doesn't, kill off the major (or the department) or let the faculty teach for a greatly reduced rate.

Spending by the feds for anything to do with education is money down a rathole. Only the rats benefit in the long run.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

an earned income tax credit would arguably help more working Americans than raising the min. wage. heavyM and trackerNeil, there was a great post about this on redstate a few weeks (months?) back. you should check it out.

I agree.

And by the way, "education" is the only commodity in the last 100 years that has consistently increased in cost faster than inflation, year in and year out. And at the same time, the results keep getting worse at pretty much all levels.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

So has healthcare

Of course, the primary factor in both of these is that the primary consumer is not the primary contributor to paying the cost of the good received, and Congress keeps trying to keep it "affordable" for the average person.

Oh, and while I don't have the numbers in front of me, I think the outpacing that MBecker908 is referring to isn't the 3.6% vs. 3.3% its more like 12% vs. 4%. I don't recall a single year I attended Penn State that the tuition increase was less than 10%, and in theory, they are primarily funded by PA to be affordable to those who live in state.

but you and I are in the same ballpark.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

In my 6 years up there (starting at $179 per credit-hour in 1992 for in-state), they raised tuition each year, such that by the time I graduated, it was well above $300 per credit-hour. (Full-time was 12 credit hours or more at a cost of only 12 hours). I recall stories in the local papers that it was a streak of a couple decades of tuition increases every year. And I am sure it has continued since I've been gone.

It is a situation not all that dissimilar to health care - providers will charge whatever insurance companies will pay, and, likewise, colleges will charge whatever the government will loan, if not more.

---
Say if ever thou didst find a woman with a constant mind

Lowering student loan interest rates: Another losing issue for the Republicans. What possible reason, other than the slew of lobbyist donations from the lending companies, did they have in raising rates this high?

Try basic fairness as in those who actually use or benefit from a government program ought to bear the financial burden of the program rather than forcing some innocent third party to pick up the cost. Besides which if higher education is supposed to enable the student to get a higher paying job than they would have otherwise gotten, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect them to pay the cost of getting the education.

President Bush's Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 raised the rates as a way to eliminate $12 billion in education spending from the budget. Are you telling me that putting more of a burden on students - to the tune of $12 billion - is an economically feasible long-term solution to the budget problem? It's ridiculous, and it's certainly going to hurt my wife and I as she graduates with her masters degree in five months. My loans were something around 2 or 3% interest. Now the rates are up around 8.25% or even 9% for these loans! No thank you. I'll be cheering on a cut in the student loan interest rates.

By all rights you, your wife, and everyone else ought to be paying market rates for their student loans without any sort of government subsidy. That you whine about paying up to 8.25% or 9% (for a consolidation loan) while I’m subsidizing your education with my tax dollars and paying for my own post-graduate degree by working full-time without getting a dime from the State or federal government is enough to make me want to vomit.

Basic fairness?

A lending institution loaned me money at a rate set by the federal government. (This inherently has problems in and of itself, but that is for another time and place.) I paid back every dime of my loans plus the interest on top of those loans to that private lending institution. More or less, the government just set the rate of interest, paid some of the interest while I was in school, and guaranteed the money should I happen to default on my loan (which I did not).

Which "innocent third party" is being forced to pick up any costs whatsoever?

So you got up on some high horse and decided to do grad school with no student loans. Good for you, and ask me if I care any farther than that. It doesn't mean those of us without the financial means to pay for our entire schooling are any less of human beings than you... or parasites, for that matter. Get a grip and quit your ridiculous moral crusade. You are not subsidizing my education with your own money. The only thing you could argue you're paying for is the interest on the loans that she has that are subsidized by the federal government, and in that case, it seems to me you would want the interest rates lower anyways.

If myself and my wife receiving students loans to make it through college makes you want to vomit, then it would seem to me that you don't have many friends - since taking out student loans is an activity in which a vast majority of Americans engage.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

I am not asking to be given anything. I am asking for the privilege of less being taken from me. There's a big difference.

Long-term, the solution to eliminate $12 billion by raising interest rates saddles graduates with higher loan payments, meaning they have less new money from new jobs to pump back into the economy. Long term, you will see the economy in general begin to suffer because of it.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

I didnt' think you were asking for anything and my comments were intended to address the "general subject".

Actually, if market forces were put into place, the cost of education would drop like a rock and the economy would prosper.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

I don't much care if you have student loans. What I do care about is the government setting the rate (typically a below market rate), and guaranteeing them.

With respect to "a vast majority" of Americans, all the more reason for the government to NOT be involved. If a student knows that they will pay a market rate, they will likely be more attentive to the cost of SCHOOL, as opposed to the cost of the loan. Second, why should I guarantee your loan? I'd like a new car (actually, Mrs. 908 would), would you guarantee that?

Bottom line is that YOU get the benefit of your loan. If the perceived benefit to you doesn't offset the cost, you won't take the class. I'm not sold on education for the sake of education, I expect it to pass a cost benefit analysis. And no part of the equation should be underwritten by the feds.

And, FWIW, I had no student loans for either of my degrees, my wife had none for hers, neither of my sons have student loans and my DIL had one and Josh insisted she take no more. It can be done, it's just a pain.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

The government should have no business being in the area of student loans. It should all be done privately, a la car loans, personal property loans, computer loans, mortgages, etc.

That being said, that's a perfect world that's probably never going to happen. Since the government is involved in student loans, wouldn't it behove us as conservatives to demand the lowest rates possible for these services, much like we demand the lowest tax rates possible for government services?

I think it's to your advantage to make it through school with no loans, and if we could have, we would have. As it is, though, I had around $4,000 in loans (for a Bachelor degree) that have already been paid off and my wife will graduate with around $10,000 in loans (for a masters). As you can see, we took out what we needed and nothing more. But just because we took out student loans doesn't give anyone the right to call us parasites, as I think you'll agree.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

that are not subsidized in any way, and that the government (you and & I) has no liability for. I'm not quibbling about your personal loans, even if they were x10, they would be water over the bridge.

One of the biggest things nobody wants to talk about is unfunded liabilities. Student loans are part of that and they need not be.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

That would be me. If the government paid some of your interest, it did so with my taxes. Would you mind mowing my lawn or washing my car a couple of times so I can get some value from your subsidized life?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

If I were you, I wouldn't start on a tear about public subisidies unless I had never used a bus or a train; never driven on a highway; never attended a public school or university; never had something shipped to me by ground, air or sea; never used a public library, never took a tax deduction on a mortgage or anything else; never took a drug; and never bought anything produced on a farm. All these things involve some level of public subsidy, and everyone benefits from 'em. When Uncle Sam wheels out the government trough, every little piggy, rich or poor, liberal or conservative gets a snout in there.

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

Let them get all that through in the first three months and it will be forgotten 12 months later. It's all about what have you done for me lately with the voters and once the Dems get through the easy pickings, they'll be in trouble. Then the hard decisions have to be made and we get to move into real budget decisions, real tax rate decisions, real priorities while their kook base demands a defunding of the military in Iraq and all the kooky economic and social stuff.

Voters in November 2008 aren't going to vote Dem based on what they got done in the beginning of 2007. They'll be voting on the issues of 2008 at the minimum wage garbage won't be on the table anymore.

were thing Bush said he wanted to do in the campaign. If you weren't paying attention shame on you. He didn't sell out, those were the positions he explicitly took. The only one that wasn't was CFR, and Bush wasn't about to stand in front of that train.

Bush threw vouchers overboard before the inaugural hangovers even passed. Yes, legislation is a process of compromise, but the one piece of No Child Left Behind campaigned on for conservatives was the first piece to go. So no, that is not what he campaigned on.

He also said he believed CFR as McCain had crafted it was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, which means according to his oath of office he had a duty to veto it despite how scary the train may have been.

It's always bothered me people believe defending the Constitution is a purely physical act on the part of the military and Commander in Chief, but never an intellectual matter for legislatures or Presidential veto pens. If he believed CFR was unconstitutional, as he said to George Will during the campaign, he had a duty to veto it.

He’s already caved on the minimum wage and the Democrats have so-far focused on issues that poll rather well and will be politically difficult (if not nearly impossible) for Republicans in Congress to oppose.

He hasn't actually caved until the bill has gotten past him.

Run like Reagan!

However Bush’s past performance over the last six years and the signals that have been sent (okay with raising the minimum wage and tax increases are no longer off the table as far as Social Security is concerned) lead me to believe that I won’t be dining on crow anytime soon.

Who cares? The rate in most states is already well above the federal rate and as long as it simply indexes the rate to what it was six or eight years ago, not much damage done. It's not going to throw the economy into recession, but a continued Presidential veto for two years is a gift to the Democrats in 08, like family leave was in 1992.

That hill isn't worth dying on.

We don't flip the bird to the poor the way the left does. This most certainly IS worth fighting for. This isn't just about economics. This is about values. Entry level jobs develop work ethics, and the minimum wage brings a wrecking ball into those.

Run like Reagan!

if you believe nothing deeply and are of the view that elections are something to keep the plebians happy while the cognoscenti "govern."

Personally, my view is that you only reason to compromise is weakness or condescension. If you have the votes to do things the way you wish, why would you give up your objectives for unnecessary votes?

It seems to me that allotting some real power to the minority party, you *prevent* rule by the cognoscenti, yes? Handing out power only to long-term party loyalists, based strictly on perceived pliability to leadership, is what gets you an out-of-touch Congress, or so I perceive.

I'm sorry you view compromise as a sign of weakness. Personally, I agree with Barry Goldwater when he said that compromise is not only desirable but necessary; government just won't function without it. The lack of compromise is what gets you filibusters and all of that legislative nonsense, in my view.

<>

Because our Congress exists to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted the bare majority of them into office. Talk about rule by the cognoscenti! As you might be aware, our current system of electing congresspeople can be easily manipulated to produce non-majoritarian results, so the fact that one party or the other is in the majority does not necessarily mean that the majority of Americans put them there. I recommend to you "Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner-Take-All Politics", by Steven Hill. It's an interesting look at how one can change the results of elections simply by fiddling with the mechanisms.

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

government functions without it. It ceases to function because of compromise. Look at any parliamentary system that rules without a coalition, Labour in Britain, for instance. If Goldwater said that, Goldwater was wrong.

This may be news but serving all the people doesn't equate to adhering to their political desires. During the Cold War, communists were served by the Congress be we didn't pay a lot of attention to their wants-needs-desires and we damned sure didn't compromise with them based on some diversity fetish.

Congressmen serve their constituents, regardless of how they voted, but their policy recommendations should follow those of the people who elected them.

For instance, HeavyM seems to think that the government paying the freight for student loans is a good idea. I see that as a distortion of capital markets and only support the government's interjection of itself into this as a lender/guarantor of last resort with above market interest rates to cover the increased risk. Regardless of his views, I think he would be better served if the Congress adopted my views on the subject.

If compromise is truly the bane of government, Streiff, then one would think that the GOP, which controlled the federal government for most of the last six years, should have been passing major conservative legislation like a well-oiled machine, but that did not happen. In my view, that's because they ticked off their opposition with their "majority of the majority" strategy and thus turned the Dems towards total obstinancy. If they'd worked with the Democrats instead of trying to screw them, the GOP efforts might have yielded more than a do-nothing Congress, which many political observers thought the last Congress to be.

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

Don't worry, we'll keep reminding you.

Moe

PS: Extra points for blaming the Democratic Party's logrolling on the Republicans. But, since you clearly think that things should be different this go-round, your next post will contain a list of policy positions that the Democrats should compromise on in order to keep the GOP sweet.

Specifics, please. Platitudes we can get on C-Span.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I will now respond. I'm not claiming, and never have claimed, that the Democrats are well-intentioned little lambs who will now usher in a utopia. I'm certain they'll put the hammer to the GOP now that they've got it. That doesn't mean the Republicans weren't guilty of the same thing, however.

Policy positions on which the Dems should compromise? I'm not sure...may I see what they come up with first, and how the Republicans respond? Or do you require an exhaustive list this very moment to excuse me from using platitudes?

At heart, I take a pragmatic view of politics, and I don't align myself very strongly with political parties. I support what I think works best, and no matter what you may think, I believe government works best when its operators do their reasonable best to forge consensus, instead of throwing rhetorical grenades that stir the blood but prevent meaningful across-the-aisle cooperation. Some say that's a sign of weakness, but I think that a focus on practical productivity over bombastic chest-beating is a strength.
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

reading of history. As obstinancy isn't a factor in the House, the only place where the "majority of the majority" rule existed, I don't see how you can front this view with a straight face. What things did the House Dems defeat? None by my count.

A lot of good initiatives died in the Senate because the Dems weren't going to support them and because the filibuster exists.

Although it's true that House rules don't allow as much minority obstruction, it's also true that Bush might have gotten somewhere with his Social Security initiatives if House Dems had been approached in a spirit of compromise. The Washington Monthly had a really interesting piece about how the Democrats' silence on that issue was not from a lack of ideas but a tactical maneuver designed to embarrass Bush. And it worked. His SS initiative was a tremendous failure, and a waste of any political capital he thought the 2004 elections had gained him. So that's the straight face that allows me to "front" this view. :-)

Your statement about the Senate proves my point, however, because in that chamber is where the minority party can really wreak havoc, whether by filibuster or by "blue-slipping" judicial nominees. (I believe blue-slipping has been done away with, but as I understand it senators even from the minority party can bottle up judicial nominees from their own states.)

I must confess that I'm baffled that anyone can think that compromise in government is a bad thing. Perhaps we're dealing with a difference of opinion over what government should be doing. For me, I don't take moral stances over most government initiatives, so I therefore don't feel bad about compromising my position on them. I realize that others take a more moralistic view of government activity, so maybe that's our disconnect here.

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

Pity.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*Referencing this.

So you're saying that the Democrats shafted the country, but you're cool with that because they embarrassed Bush and burnt up his political capital?

For a guy loudly proclaiming his belief in compromise, you seem remarkably happy for the Democrats to do the exact opposite.

In point of fact, if you read it carefully, it is explicitly anti-majoritarian on this point. It was the Grand Comprimise which permitted the formation of the Union, or perhaps you or the "comprimise is always needed meme" missed that.

I didn't say "comprimise" is always needed; I said "compromise" is always needed, and I didn't even say always. I said government can't function very well without it, and I stand by that statement. The antimajoritarian stance of the Constitution was designed to protect individial liberties from the tyranny of the majority, not to grant 100% of the governing power to 51% (at best) of the nation.

Also, see my book reference up-thread. It's interesting to find out how a minority view can carry the day even in a majoritarian government.

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

But it's close.

In order for your proposal to work, you have to be dealing with people of good will who care more about what's right for the country than they do about accumulating personal power.

The second reason it won't work is that the minority and the majority seldom have a vision of what the Fed's are supposed to do that's even in the same zip code let alone the same ball park.

It's a warm and fuzzy idea that, like all warm and fuzzy ideas, is totally unworkable. It's simply nonsense.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Your position is that which is more likely leads to the nation getting the worst of both worlds far more often than getting the best.

The excerpt below is the key part for me in Tom DeLay's last speech on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Whatever it is you may say about him - and one of the things would be that he did not live up to his words here - I admit that he got this right.

There are times and issues where compromise is necessary. But more importantly, there are times and issues on which compromise should never be an option.

It is worth considering - though I'll admit, it is considerably easier to consider after you've announced your retirement - whether the days we lead here, the debates we wage, the work we do is always worthy of the elevated ideals embodied in that dome.

I submit that we could do better, as could all people in all things at all times, but perhaps not in the ways some might think.

In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy.

Well, I can't do that because partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy's weakness but of its health and its strength, especially from the perspective of a political conservative.

Liberalism, after all, whatever you may think of its merits, is a political philosophy and a proud one with a great tradition in this country, with a voracious appetite for growth.

In any place or any time on any issue, what does liberalism ever seek, Mr. Speaker? More - more government, more taxation, more control over people's lives and decisions and wallets. If conservatives don't stand up to liberalism, no one will. And for a long time around here, almost no one did.

Indeed, the common lament over the recent rise in political partisanship is often nothing more than a veiled complaint instead about the recent rise of political conservatism.

I should add here that I do not begrudge liberals their nostalgia for the days of a timid, docile and permanent Republican minority.

If we Republicans had ever enjoyed that same luxury over the last 12 years, heck, I'd be nostalgic too.

Had liberals not fought us tooth and nail over tax cuts and budget cuts and energy and Iraq, and partial-birth abortion, those of us on this side of the aisle could only imagine all the additional things we could have accomplished.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, they didn't agree with us. So to their credit, they stood up to us, they argued with us, and they did so honorably, on behalf of more than 100 million people, just like we did against President Clinton and they did against President Reagan.

Now it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that by my count, our friends on the other side of the aisle lost every one of those arguments over the last 22 years, but that's beside the point.

The point is, we disagree. On first principles, Mr. Speaker, we disagree. And so we debate, often loudly, and often in vain, to convince our opponents and the American people of our point of view.

We debate here on the House floor, we debate in committees, we debate on television and on radio and on the Internet and in the newspapers and then every two years, we have a huge debate. And then in November, we see who won. That is not rancor, that is democracy.

You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.

Indeed, whatever role partisanship may have played in my own retirement today or in the unfriendliness heaped upon other leaders in other times, Republican or Democrat, however unjust, all we can say is that partisanship is the worst means of settling fundamental political differences - except for all the others.

Now, politics demands compromise. And Mr. Speaker, and even the most partisan among us have to understand that, but we must never forget that compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles.

It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle.

For the true statesmen, Mr. Speaker, are not defined by what they compromise, but by what they don't.

I sincerely have little regard for people who go around on broadcast, print or the blogosphere whining and moaning that people should abandon deeply held beliefs and principles to political expediency even though they sincerely believe that it would cause ... just to get some vague "things" done.

You don't elect people into office to get "things" done ... you elect them to get the right things done and the wrong things undone. Where compromise is possible fine ... if not, then stick to your guns. It's why you're there.

I hope to all that is holy that people who hold to your philosophy of compromise as a first principle, finger-in-the-wind politicians never get near public office. I'd sooner have Ted Kennedy representing me that one of those types.

So even when a issue enjoys 85% support among Americans you believe that Republican politicians should stick to their guns and fight that issue? Understand that not only are Democrats overwhelmingly in support of an issue at that approval but so are Republicans.

Yet you would rather see them fight over this issue in a Pyrrhic battle in oder to show their principles?

I agree that there are times when people must stand by their beliefs. But there are times when people must accept that their views on an issue may not be representative of their constituents wishes.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

So even when a issue enjoys 85% support among Americans you believe that Republican politicians should stick to their guns and fight that issue?

If the Republican politicians are actually, you know, right.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Right about what? Republicans claim it hurts the poor and the economy but don't have much evidence to support that claim. The Democrats claim it helps the poor and the economy but don't have much evidence to support the claim.

The Democrats have the advantage of being on the politically popular side of the issue.

If you guys want to fight this fight, have a good time. Understand, however, that fighting this is the sort of thing that loses people elections. The reality is that minimum wage laws have a minimal impact on the economy but opposing them makes you appear heartless and cold.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

...minimum wage laws? I was speaking in generalities*. So was streiff MartinAKnight. Come to think of it, so was TrackerNeil.

If you weren't, it'd be helpful to let us know when you're interrupting in the future.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*I actually don't have much of an opinion on that particular subject.

We were talking in generalities and I turned it to a specific point. My bad.

In the abstract, yes, a politician should stick to his guns if he is right. But there are very few times when a politician is incontrovertibly right.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

...but the devil is in the details, wouldn't you say? You:

"You don't elect people into office to get "things" done ... you elect them to get the right things done and the wrong things undone. Where compromise is possible fine ... if not, then stick to your guns. It's why you're there."

Yes and no. Depends on the issue. For example, I wouldn't expect a politician to compromise on a bill that would legalize the eating of babies or the establishment of New Auschwitz, but most bills really don't involve those kinds of moral absolutes. For example, where's the morality in the privatization of Social Security? Or making 401K contributions tax-deductible? You can be on one side or the other, but neither position is good or evil. It's just policy, like most of the other stuff with which Congress deals. I find this modern insistence upon making every single congressional vote a matter of highest principle both simplistic, naive and frankly, exasperating.

Also, may I say that it probably *doesn't* strengthen your argument to rely upon a farewell speech from a rep under indictment for ethics issues who had to resign his office to avoid giving up the seat to the opposition party (which happened anyway). Call me crazy. :-)

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

the morality of Social Security and the taxes he will be paying to support it in another 25 years. You bet it's a moral issue.

It's also one that could be fixed by making the government follow the same accounting rules as private individuals.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Well, MBecker, you and I will have to agree to disagree on that. I don't see how Social Security, or the taxes one pays to support it, are "evil", though, and your comments really haven't enlightened me.

As to government and accounting, you've got a point, to be sure. The terms "government" and "fiscal irresponsibility" have on occasion been used in the same sentence. :-)

Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense

I am the CEO of a Corporation employing 15,000,000 people. We have a retirement system modeled on Social Security. Several things will happen...

1. My company will be audited and it will be determined that our retirement system is a ponzi scheme.
2. The DoJ will show up at my office before I finish my first cup of coffee some bleak morning and they will frog march me out the door.
3. I will be above-the-fold on page one of every newspaper in the country and on every TV news show. I will be headlined in terms that would embarrass even the guys who ran Enron into the ground. I will be shown to the Devil incarnate.
4. The government will attempt to seize all of my assets and I will spend the rest of my misspent life in a very nasty, cold place.

And as further evidence you know I'm right, look at your last sentence: The terms "government" and "fiscal irresponsibility" have on occasion been used in the same sentence. While I don't necessarily equate fiscal irresponsibility with evil, when it's carried out on the scale of the federal government, it's evil.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Social Security does not require an ever increasing pool of payers and thus is not a ponzi scheme.

If you were to implement a Social Security modeled retirement that would mean that you would need to give every single employee who never paid a dime into social security, full benefits.

Also since you would not be creating the retirement to personal advantage I'm not sure why the Feds would come knocking of your door regardless, unless you violated GAAP.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

"Social Security does not require an ever increasing pool of payers and thus is not a ponzi scheme."

You would be right if there weren't an ever increasing number of beneficiaries.... but there is.

In order to pay more people something has to change...

1. The taxes paid by individual workers could increase.
2. The benefits paid to recipients could be cut.
3. The number of workers could increase to match the number of beneficiaries.
4. The whole structure could be changed to move from a paygo system into an investment based system to allow the potential for economic growth to provide future benefits.

Number 3 is NOT happening and the number of beneficiaries is growing faster that the number of workers, so that leaves the other options.

Option 1 appeals to most libs, but as I asserted there is a point at which taxes become excessive. A payor to payee ratio of 2:1 is difficult to maintain.

Option 2 is what is currently mandated by law. SSA estimates benefits will be cut by 26% in 2040.

Option 4 seems the most realistic since the current Ponzi scheme can not be sustained.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Sure it would be great if a viable investment based system were put into place. But the costs would be huge. And politically you will need to convince a whole lot of workers that they need to pay to both the existing Paygo system and to the new investment system. Not an easy sell.

FTR, there are numerous things that can and will be done to Social Security. The first thing will be a raising of the retirement age to 70. The 2nd will be a significant increase in the FICA cap. Those are near term solutions that will extend SSA indefinitely.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

to put part of my payroll taxes into a personally directed investment account. You won't have to sell the idea. The example that I and the others who choose to use the personal accounts set will be enough to convince others.

But the selling job wouldn't be so difficult if the missinformation put out by Harry Reid and friends hadn't got top billing with the MSM.

And yes, option 4 will cost money, but the other options will either cost MORE money or lead to a complete collapse of the system.

I note that your idea to provide a "near term" (can I read that as temporary?) fix for SS is to both cut benefits and raise taxes.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

A choice for what? The money you are paying to FICA need is already being spent on current and near-term recipients. If they were to allow you to move some to personal accounts that would accelerate the shortfall in SS.

So you still pay your 15% but you want the government to ALSO charge you more for a personal account plan?

I fully realize that higher taxes and lower benefits are on the horizon. Unavoidable no matter plan you suggest.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

with the excess being put into IOU's that the government owes itself and spends in the general fund....

But be that as it may, what I am asking for is control of some of my own money in exchange for a cut in my future "guaranteed" benefits. Yes it will accellerate the point at which the general fund has to start paying back the IOUs, but it will create a more sound system in the long term. It's better to take a small hit now than have the system collapse by the time my children need it.

And the SS tax rate is currently 12.4% not 15%. The remainder of the 15.3% is for Medicare (another unsustainable program, but I don't have a fix for that one).

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

so many people oppose the privatization plans. Because they will ultimately accelerate the shortfall.

ANY plan that converts the system from a paygo system to an investment system will improve SS. However the transitional costs are huge and you can't just ignore them or pretend you can just whittle them away with no pain.

3 to 5 trillion dollars. Where do we get that kind of money from?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Yes, it will accellerate the decline. Yes it will cost us money NOW rather than later. The current system is unsustainable and will also cost billions to fix and keep a PAYGO system. You're recommending a tax increase and benefit cuts to raise the money to make a temporary fix to the system. Why not take the short term hit now and permanently fix the system? We'll have to wean the general fund off the extra money they've been spending from the SS surplus and also make other cuts. We'll have to let people take some personal responsibility for their own future welfare (gasp!).

But the costs associated with the change are exagerated and the benefits outweigh the cost. Realize that a change this major would have an effect on the economy. It's likely that the extra capital that's available for investment will cause a surge in GDP and thus help offset the costs. In addition the reduction of future government obligations will make US debt less of a risk and reduce borrowing costs (and I suspect a large portion of personal accounts would be invested in government bonds anyway).

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

You are just wishing away some pretty massive costs. Thinking that increased GDP growth will somehow resolve the transitional costs is not something even the most strident privitizing economist is willing to do. I would like to know why you think that the costs are exaggerated. Somehow the system needs to go from pay as you go to personal accounts. Doing basic match the current SS budget is somewhere around 500 billion, if I recall correctly. So let's assume that we need to cover at LEAST 10 years worth of recipients via a transitional cost. That's 5 billion dollars. And honestly we would need closer to 20 years of recipients to be covered.

If you want to advocate taking the short term hit now then say so. Are you willing to have an additional tax on your income while also sacrificing the benefits you are currently paying for? Because that is what we are talking about.

The SS surplus will end in less than 10 years. At that point monies received will be outstripped by monies spent.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Your numbers are for a complete instant transition from PAYGO to investment. So your basic math is based on a straw man.

The proposals on the table suggest about 1/3 of the tax be allowed to be diverted to a personal account. That alone cuts your transitional costs from $5 trillion to about $1.5 trillion. But you are also ignoring the current surplus. Using the surplus reduces the cost of the transistion by about $200million/ year (last I checked, it's probably less this year).

As I said, the costs of transistion have been exagerated.....

And I AM saying and HAVE said "Take the hit now!".

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I am talking about the total transitional costs. Of course we wouldn't be paying 5 Trillion dollars in one lump sum. More like 500 billion to 750 billion a year for 10-20 years.

Taking 1/3 of current taxes doesn't change the actual transitional costs.

If the surplus is currently used that means that come 2017 the SS will be defaulted. Instead of the 2073 or 2042 numbers being the drop dead dates, it would be 10 years from now. And no matter how you slice it you have AT LEAST 30 years of beneficiaries you will need to pay for.

You also haven't explained how this would work. If you join the personal accounts plan do you give up on your SS benefits? If the answer is no then you will need ADDITIONAL taxes to offset the cost of the personal accounts. If the answer is yes then how will you convince anyone who has invested any notable amount of money into SSA to cut into the personal accounts plan? The PSA would not only need to outperform the SSA, not hard to do, but also overcome the lost money that went to SSA.

You keep saying take the hit now but then try to play a shell game with the SS surplus to pay for it.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You cannot have it both ways. SS is not a lockbox. It is a general obligation of the government. Pay-ins and pay-outs are independent and really have nothing to do w/ each other. I cannot tell my mortgage company my mortgage portion of my paycheck is gone. Neither can the government w/ SS. They need to bring in more revenue and/or decrease spending instead of treating SS like a separate entity because it is not.

If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents

You are talking about what the SSA does with the money, not whether the SSA system is effective or worth keeping.

A nice little landmine the next few Presidents are going to enjoy is that the SS largess is going away. So each one will have to actually admit, more and more, how much our budget deficit really is.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Please explain why tax increases and benefit cuts are necessary given your earlier assertion that SS is not a Ponzi scheme....

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

The growth of recipients has far outpaced the growth of payers.

I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but in 1940 there were about 15 payers to 1 recipient. That was good for the plan at the time since they were paying for people that never paid into the plan.

Slowly the rate of recipients to payers has declined to somewhere around 9 to 1. It is further expected to decline to something like 4 or 5 to 1. Note:these numbers are likely off but are illustrative nonetheless.

If the rate of recipients to payers were to stabilize the plan would be sustainable. But it hasn't and it's likely to in the near to mid future.

That is the problem. And that is why it is not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme REQUIRES an ever increasing payer to recipient rate. If we still were at the initial rate SS would be fine and dandy.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Even for you, this is a bit much.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Yes you're numbers are off. I just checked the SSA site. Their numbers are currently 3.3 - 1 and expected to drop to 2-1. But as you say, you've got the idea.

What you are describing IS a Ponzi scheme. In order for it to work, it requires an ever increasing amount of REVENUE (generated by more investors or more revenue per investor). Social Security is running in the wrong direction for it to work. If there were an ever increasing number of workers, the system would have no problems, but there's not. Ponzi's scheme also worked great until he could no longer recruit enough new investors. Then he had to start cutting payments. Eventually the whole thing collapsed because he couldn't attract new investors with the lower payouts.... Sound familiar?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Are you suggesting that the number of older people will always grow in relation to the general population? Any evidence to support this claim?

Your logic could be applied to just about ANY investment. The stock market is a ponzi scheme because it requires an ever increasing number of people willing to pay more money for a product that, usually, has not materially changed.

BTW, there IS an ever increasing number of workers. However due to somewhat unique birth rates after World War II and significant increases in life expectancy, the number of recipients has cosiderably outstripped increases in the number of workers.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

The stock market is a ponzi scheme because it requires an ever increasing number of people willing to pay more money for a product that, usually, has not materially changed.

That is not the way the stock market works, at all. Although the fact that you think this way explains a lot.

Stock prices are not at all dependent on increasing numbers of people bidding for a fixed number of shares. Unless the people buying stock are what as known as "suckers".

all the time, most are suckers some of the time. Having been a public company CEO, afforded me a different perspective on the stock markets than most people. The reality is that public companies are seldom dissolved with assets distributed, and only occasionally sold for cash and few pay dividends. As such, the value of public shares is only set by the people who buy them. They actually have no intrinsic value. Just paper or electronic bits. If for any, or no particular reason, at any hour of the day, more want to buy than want to sell, the price goes up.

This is separate from the pervasive and continuing manipulation of share prices by the market makers, clearing houses, brokerages and analysts.

This is not to say that investing in shares is not a good way make money as is poker, craps, etc. However, working for GS is a much better way to get rich in the stock market. I wonder why that is?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

When Tbone and I are in agreement over something.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

even you aren't wrong all the time and the fastest horse doesn't always win the race. However, that is the way to bet. :-)

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I believe I said the current and projected trend is for the number of beneficiaries to grow faster than the the number of payors. Argue the projections with the SSA, not me.

And because companies produce more products more efficiently, they DO materially change.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.