Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Supreme Court

Anyone got any feelings about the recent Court ruling allowing the Government to take your house for public good? Will they misuse it?

Saturday, June 18, 2005


Just got off the phone with Tony from across the Ocean. Sounds like he is having a good time. Anyone ever thought about what it would be like to leave everything and go somewhere like that?

Wednesday, June 08, 2005


Good to see some new names here, feel free to jump in , post, and comment on anything that interest you(well most anything:)

Saturday, May 28, 2005



Social Security:

Here's Your Problem
by Peter Ferrara on 03/07/2005

(Click here for the full text of this excellent article: Full Text PDF )

A common response to President Bush’s call for Social Security reform is to argue preposterously that there is nothing wrong (or not much wrong) with the current Social Security system, and so reform is not necessary. While there are many good reasons for fundamental Social Security reform involving personal accounts, there are two basic, overriding problems that compel reform now. The first is that the current Social Security system is going bankrupt and will impose huge burdens on taxpayers and retirees. Second is that the current system has become a bad deal for working people. Workers would be receiving much higher returns and benefits today had they been allowed to choose a personal account option. Every day that goes by, workers lose more and more that they cannot make up.Social Security’s Financing ProblemThe financial problems of Social Security are fully documented in the annual reports of the Social Security Board of Trustees, which are produced by the Office of the Actuary at the Social Security Administration. The latest report shows that Social Security will begin to run a cash flow deficit in 2018. That is when the financing crisis begins. Starting then, Social Security will have to begin cashing in its trust fund bonds to the federal government to get the money to pay all promised benefits. But the federal government has no cash or other assets dedicated to funding these bonds. To get the money, the government will then have to either raise taxes or increase federal borrowing and debt.

Monday, May 09, 2005


<>From: wallace embry [mailto:wembry@edge.net]
Sunday, May 08, 2005 5:41 PM

Subject: Social Security
Article on Social Security which I sent in today;
we'll see if it gets published in the local paper.

If you support the President in his discussions on Social Security;
write letters to your local papers. The Democrats do not want to make fundamental changes; their solution is higher taxes and lower benefits.
............ Wallace Embry: ............
Republican State Executive Committeeman
13th Senatoral District(...and a member of our network of Epals)

Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 9:51 AM
To: newsroomc@columbiadailyherald.com

This is a response to Congressman Lincoln Davis's 4/29/05 featured article and to syndicated columnists John Brummett's featured commentary on 5/1/05. Mr. Brummett asks "If Social Security is not broken yet, why fix it now?" Reminds me of the fellow with a leaky roof on a sunny day - it's not raining today, so it's not leaking today, so why fix it today.

Both Congressman Davis and Brummett say Social Security will be solvent until around 2041. That is simply false. The system will start spending more in 2018 than it takes in, that is it will go in the red. What Davis and Brummett are not telling is the time between 2018 and 2041 is the funds are in the form of bonds (or IOUs), not cash or assets in the bank. These IOUswill have to be paid somehow. Thus, either taxes go up, benefits are cut, or both. Simple mathematics. The year 2041 is the year the Social Security Trust Fund no longer contains any obligation bonds and social security and medicare will require 66% of all federal income tax dollars to pay benefits.

Congressman Davis says "Social Security has worked, as envisioned by President Roosevelt, for the last 70 years". Let's look at what FDR said. "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting sytem for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." It seems that FDR envisioned private accounts as part of a long term social security system.

A case for private accounts is Galveston, Texas. In the early 80s, three Texas counties developed an alternative to Social Security. Their system proved a rate of return betwen 7 and 8 percent per year, compared to less than 2 percent for Social Security. Their plan uses no stock
market investments, only commerical banking products, annuities and bonds that provide guaranteed fixed interest rates and no risk. In terms of retirement benefits, disability benefits, and life insurance, Galveston beats Social Security hands down. An example of life insurance, under social security you get a $255 death benefit. In Galveston, one gets up to $150,000 death benefit.

Our social security system is based on the system started in Germany in 1880 by Chancellor Bismarck. Bismarck set the retirement age at 65 years when the life expectancy in Germany =was 49.5 years. In the USA, the retirement age was set at 65 when the life expectancy was 59.5 years. Today the average life expecancy is near 80. The system was never designed for the situration when we have today.

When social security was started, there were over 45 workers per beneficiary, today there are around 2.5 and in a few years the ratio will be 2 to 1. Can the system continue as it is? NO! When social security started, the tax was 1% of the first $1,000 whereas it was 12.5% of $87,900 in 2004. By the year 2030, our children and grandchildren could be paying about 23.5% just for social secuirty - not including medicare. You can add medicare and then you are at about 28 to 30%. Then add in Federal taxes and it is over 50%. Then add in local taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and all the other taxes, and in 30 years our children are going to be looking at tax rates as high as 70%. Is that what you want?

When Bismarck (The Iron Chancellor) set up their system, he boasted "Whoever has a pension for his old age is far easier to handle and will become a servant in the chancellery or at court." In the present debate on private accounts, the democrats oppose private accounts because they want to keep us on Uncle Sam's Plantation - they do not want us to have ownership. They embrace Bismarck's thoughts on dependency and control.

References: Congressional Record, March 7, 2000 pages S1196-S120:, The New American, May 31, 2004: National Center for Policy Analysis - Study #266: Statement by Galveston County Judge Ray Holbrook.

Saturday, May 07, 2005


I urge you to consider what I believe the very best newspaper in the country:

This excellent newspaper, published in Washington, D.C., is arguably the nation's foremost newspaper of record. Their National Weekly Edition costs little more than a dollar a week - only $59.95 for a full year. Coming in the mail once a week, it is a compendium of all the major World, National, and State news and articles which have appeared that week in their daily papers. The paper is editorially Conservative, but its articles are straightforward, without bias or slant and is non-selective. It gives ALL the news ALL the time, without agenda, and it keeps me up to date and completely informed. When I was introduced to this paper some years ago (about the time Slick Willie Klinton was elected), I cancelled 5 prominent magazine subscriptions as well as my local and Nashville newspapers because I received far more true and unbiased information in it than all the rest of the left-leaning, agenda-driven publications combined. Unaltered truth and facts are what I require (I'll make my own mind up thank you very much), therefore I highly recommend this newspaper! ..TONY MILLER

Friday, May 06, 2005

Tactics to get their attention

They (national or state Republicans) are calling frequently asking for contributions for a variety of causes. I have begun telling them that unless I see appreciable movement by President Bush towards my concerns, I will not write out any more checks to them. In my case, the concern is Illegal Immigration.

Make them fear that the well will dry up and they may listen.