"Social" Security

I've been following the debate over the future of social security from a slight distance. I haven't delved into the details of any of the proposals. I have the feeling that doing so would be a waste of my time, mostly because I am unlikely to understand the intricacies of some of the language, both political and economic. However, I do have a few opinions regarding the matter:

1) I am opposed to allowing workers the use of private accounts to invest the amount of social security taxes that they pay. This, in effect, eliminates the "social" security "tax" and creates a social security "investment." My view is that the social security tax that I pay out of every paycheck is not specifically or directly for ME or MY retirement, but for a social fund that benefits those most in need according to standards accepted by the majority of society. Similarly, when I pay local taxes I don't expect to have a policeman stationed at my door, but I expect to be able to call on one when in need. This analogy is not well developed, but I hope it serves to illustrate my point. Sure, I will be happy to receive a social security check when I retire, if I am lucky enough to live that long. However, I am not "counting" on this social security check, and I am planning my savings today accordingly. These terminology distinctions may be interpreted as splitting hairs, but they demonstrate my opinion that the debate should first be focused on the question of whether to have a social safety net program before shifting the talking points to various ways to "fix" the program. Why do we have to talk about whether or not we should have a social program in some sort of a code language. My opinion is that we should have a program, but I'm willing to debate the point with those that think that we should not have such a program.
2) George W. Bush DID NOT receive a mandate for changing social security. I am growing tired of this administration claiming that they have received a mandate for every policy decision that they propose when they barely won both the popular and electoral votes, and did this probably because of foreign policy issues as opposed to any of their domestic agenda.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An
Read more