Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Lets consider some added ways to fund the system!
Published on January 6, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics
Another major priority of the Bush administration appears to be Social Security. President Bush and his staff have been closed mouth as to the exact proposals they plan to recommend. Now the camel's nose is beginning to appear under the tent.

First we heard that the 2% diversion of worker Social Security taxes to private accounts might be recommended. That was immediately followed by where is the money to come from to allow Social Security taxes to be diverted into private accounts? Again the answer begins to appear by Mr. Bush saying no tax increases to pay for the transition cost to partially privatize the system. Now we are hearing a 4% option which would double the amount of the transition funds required and again no real explanation as to where these monies would come from.

Within the last several days we have heard about increasing the retirement age and cutting back benefits more significantly in the out years to pay for the transition costs. That also seems to imply that Bush intends to borrow the transition costs and repay them at some future time by reduced payouts and increased retirement age. Who will pay the interest on any borrow transition funding? In other words it looks as if he is proposing the very same solution he has for everything else and that is borrow and pay some time in the future.

Many people believe that the federal government misspent some of their Social Security taxes and that is the reason why the trust fund is not large enough to cover the baby boomer retirement. Some years ago, I obtained my parents Social Security lifetime statements and compared the amount of tax they and their employers paid over the years with the money they received from Social Security. This analysis made it crystal clear why the Social Security trust fund is not large enough to deal with the baby boomers. Although my parents were covered by Social Security from its inception my mother in the 18 years that she drew Social Security received 20 times more in benefits than both she and her employers paid into the system. My father, who received Social Security for 26 years, got about 27 times more money than he and his employers paid into the system.

So before we become too critical of how our Social Security taxes have been used lets take a look at who has received them. No investment, including the Bush equity plan for Social Security, would have generated the income necessary to pay 20 to 30 times the amount contributed to the system. In fact when I looked at my parents Social Security statements I found that during the 30s 40s 50s and 60s the amount paid into the system was very small. Thus, even if it had been invested in equities the way George W. Bush is suggesting, they still would not have had nearly enough money to receive what they got from the Social Security System. In addition, where would the account maintenance fees come from? That is certainly a question that needs to be asked of President Bush. For the small taxpayer even today, an investment of five or six hundred dollars per year will see a great deal of the added income that Bush is touting as a solution paid to investment bankers. How will that help the workers making an average income? Today the White House admitted that the creation of the individual accounts Bush wants will not solve the funding needs of Social Security.

We should be looking at other ways to resolve the funding issue with Social Security. All we're looking at is what Bush proposed. When the President selected the members of the Social Security Commission he made sure all the members shared his notion of the individual accounts and other possible suggestions were not considered. Below are specific alternative suggestions to provide the funding necessary for Social Security without borrowing more money:



Stop any attempt to extend Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.

Continue the gradual increase of full retirement to age 70.

Consider limiting the payout to retirees with non-Social Security income above $150,000 per year. When a retired couple has non-Social Security income above $150,000 per year (index this amount each year by cost of living), the benefits under Social Security would end at the point when the individual’s contribution had been completely returned to the taxpayer. For example, if an individual during their lifetime paid $70,000 in Social Security taxes, excluding their employer contribution, their Social Security payments would terminate if their non-Social Security income exceeded the maximum amount when they reach a total payout of $70,000 in this example.

Should a retiree’s non-Social Security income fall below the maximum amount, the Social Security payments would resume based on their original entitlement so long as their non-Social Security income remained below the maximum amount.

Re-examine the option to set aside 2% or 4% of their Social Security tax to individual accounts. Issues to be evaluated should include:

Evaluate whether or not the creation of these individual accounts will make Social Security solvent. If the creation of these individual accounts does not solve he funding issues of Social Security, then why create massive change to the existing system? Look at the Transition costs to supplant the removal of the younger workers 2 % or 4% of their taxes into individual accounts. Develop realistic estimates as to the transition costs. Identify the source needed to fund this transition amount before deciding to implement this change without borrowing more money.

Consider the impact on a worker who selects the private account option wherein the value of their account at the time of retirement was less than the total benefits that would be paid under the traditional Social Security amount. Would there be a provision to subsidize the payment of the amount received under the individual retirement option to bring it equal to the traditional Social Security benefit?

Evaluate an alternative to the individual equity account that would allow portions of the Social Security Trust Fund to be invested in stock market index funds. This would provide the advantage of increased earnings equity investments produce without the high cost to maintain millions of small accounts that would be required under the individual account concept. This idea has been successfully used by every state pension fund of the United States as well as many large corporate pension plans. Lift the income limit upon which Social Security taxes are paid to include all earned income similar to the current Medicare tax. This additional revenue would increase the Trust Fund and with the higher earnings from investing in equities should fund the system without borrowing more money!


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 06, 2005
Save us all from more of your stupid rants.

Crawl back in your hole please. The peace and quiet while you were virtually gone in the last several weeks was nice. Bring back that Christmas present you had given us all.
on Jan 06, 2005
Why don't you just shut your pie hole woman. I would not want to speak for you! And Just an FYI, if you go back and LOOK once more you'll see it's more than just me saying it.


/agreed on all counts.
on Jan 06, 2005
You don't seem to understand! Nobody wants to listen to your idiotic pose.
on Jan 06, 2005
COL Gene, drmiler does not speak for me. I want to read your take on issues. I'm happy to read your evaluation of the social security issue. I'm not going to blindly buy into bonzai bush's demolition of a system that mostly works, and replace it with one that will dunk this country deeper into debt, and line the pockets of his buddies already bulging wallets. Do I trust that bonzai bush is trustworthy to make these determinations about what's best for the people in this country? Do I trust his dummy bosses?

FUCK NO Please keep the articles coming, COL. I am interested.
on Jan 06, 2005

Reply #3 By: dabe - 1/6/2005 1:14:41 PM
COL Gene, drmiler does not speak for me


Why don't you just shut your pie hole woman. I would not want to speak for you! And Just an FYI, if you go back and LOOK once more you'll see it's more than just me saying it.
on Jan 06, 2005
Sanchez and others, you can rail against Dr. Miller, myself and others all you wish.

I've posted my own comments and suggestions on how to fix Social Security, do a simple search of the forums and find them. You may be pleasantly surprised at the simple economic sense of same.

As to the "col."'s credentials, pieces of paper and long paragraphs that spout supposed accomplishments do not an educated or intelligent individual make.

His clear hatred of all things "Bush" devalue his opinions to a point that leave his own opinions and comments worthless.

You may follow the comments all you wish, but please don't come crying later when you realize that you were following a pipe dream off a cliff like many of the lemmings have in the past.
on Jan 06, 2005
terpfan1980 and drmiler

The BS you two spread on the Blog site is constant. You are good examples of what is wrong with the people who support Bush. You do not know what you are talking about and do not care to learn the truth. No matter, you will pay the price of the Bush policies in the future!

I will be happy to compare my accomplishments with either of you anytime. I have included the section,"About the Author" from my book:

About the Author

Gene P. Abel is a person that is not satisfied with the status quo and has always been in the forefront of change. He was born in Allentown, Pennsylvania in 1941. Mr. Abel is from a German and Scottish heritage and was educated in the public school system. He earned a B.S. from Penn State in finance/economics and an MBA from Lehigh University. He was a distinguished military graduate and received a regular army commission as a second lieutenant in the field artillery branch of the Army in 1963. Abel served as a nuclear weapons officer in Germany and a member of the nuclear release authority that begins with the President and ended with Lt Abel. Upon the completion of his tour in Germany, he spent two years as a finance officer at Ft Lewis, Washington. After four years of active duty he accepted a reserve commission as a Captain in the Army Reserve and left active duty in 1968.

He remained in the Army Reserve until 1993 and retired at the rank of Colonel. He is a graduate of the Army War College and was awarded numerous medals including a Meritorious Service Medal on two occasions. He was promoted to Colonel after only 18 years of service and was nominated for promotion to general officer soon after completing the Army War College. However, his lack of combat service, which is most likely the result of his very sensitive assignment in nuclear weapons, prevented his promotion to the ranks of general officer. Colonel Abel’s last assignment was as the Commander of the US Army Financial Services Activity. This unit had the responsibility to insure payment of up to 500,000 troops in time of war.

After leaving the Army, he became a financial analyst in the space and electronics industries. In 1969 he began a13 year career as a mid-level executive at the University of Pennsylvania and then at the Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital. In 1981, he was asked to return active duty to head the team redesigning the military pay system of the Army Reserve and National Guard.


In 1983, upon returning to civilian life, he became an officer of a 2-billion-dollar bank where he was in charge of the bank operations at over 50 locations. In 1985, Mr. Abel returned to education and was appointed Dean of Business Services at the Reading Area Community College. His last position was the chief operating officer for one of the largest school districts in Pennsylvania. During the more than 12 years he served as the chief operating officer of the Central Bucks School District, he built over $120 million of new schools in addition to running this rapidly growing school system.

Mr. Abel was active in politics in the 70's and served as a committee person and campaign chairman for the state legislator in his area. His biography appears in Who’s Who in the World and Who’s Who in Finance and he was certified for Federal Senior Executive Service positions. He has written scores of articles that have been published throughout the country.

In 1998 he retired to Southwest Florida with Carol, his wife of 26 years. He is president of the Cape Coral Housing, Rehabilitation and Development Corporation, a nonprofit organization, that provides low-income senior housing and helps low income homeowners repair their homes. He serves on the board of the Christ Lutheran Church School in Cape Coral, Florida. Mr. Abel has three children, three stepchildren and three grandchildren.


on Jan 06, 2005

Reply #6 By: COL Gene - 1/6/2005 2:11:41 PM
terpfan1980 and drmiler

The BS you two spread on the Blog site is constant


SO IS YOURS! Consistently BS that is.
I'm supposed to be impressed? NOT! Actually I could care less. If you think your degrees and the fact that you *were* an army officer means that your words should carry more weight than someone elses or that you have a better understanding of what's going on, then you are sadly mistaken!
on Jan 06, 2005

COL,


For probably the first time in human history, dabe and I agree. I think you should continue on with your blog (it's YOUR blog, after all), and blacklist if necessary. I don't always agree with your positions, but appreciate your take on them. Please keep it up!

on Jan 06, 2005
Nice article Col. G. I'm happy to see that someone with actual training and education in economics is posting here. I'm sorry that The Idiots (Dr. Miller and co.) have sullied such a good article. It speaks to their madness that a sensible article on SS reform is so viciously attacked. Animals.

You are the first person I've seen who has made plausible, concrete proposals on what to do about SS. I'd be curious to see what Dr. Miller's economic training is, and to hear his plan for reforming SS.
on Jan 06, 2005

terp,


I'm not following any pipe dreams, simply advocating for freedom of speech. The Constitution is, and remains, something we should hold dear.


As for the "col", I assume nothing from his title and proclaimed accomplishments. Such proclamations are hardly new to JU, and should be taken with a 20 pound BAG of salt, rather than just a grain.


I agree with what you say of his hatred of all things Bush. While I'm not a fan of the commander in chief, I do defer a certain degree of respect to the office. But I also know of several conservatives who held an equally virulent automatic hatred for all things Clinton, and can't help but think of this as another side to the coin.

on Jan 06, 2005
Here is a selection of uncivilized talk from Twerpy and Doc Evil, you tell me if these guys have any business posting on this or other threads. Keep in mind Col. G is a highly educated and highly accomplished man and his article is pretty damn good:

" Save us all from more of your stupid rants."
"Crawl back in your hole please."
" Nobody wants to listen to your idiotic pose." (Nothing idiotic about Col. Gene, he gets his point accross without barbaric grunts like you bozos)
"Why don't you just shut your pie hole woman." - (note to moderators: if this doesn't warrant a warning I don't know what does)
"agreed on all counts." - (Yes! I am an uncivilized misogynist too!)
"If you think your degrees ...means that your words should carry more weight than someone elses or that you have a better understanding of what's going on, then you are sadly mistaken!" (Actually, having an economics degree and strong public/private finance experience makes him eminently more qualified than most to analyze the SS conundrum)
"As to the "col."'s credentials, pieces of paper and long paragraphs that spout supposed accomplishments do not an educated or intelligent individual make." (Actually, that's precisely what makes one educated - education. Duh.)

It's time to identify and take out the trolls, and Twerpy and Doc Evil are High Value Targets.

on Jan 06, 2005

Reply #9 By: Dirty Sanchez (Anonymous) - 1/6/2005 2:48:34 PM
Nice article Col. G. I'm happy to see that someone with actual training and education in economics is posting here. I'm sorry that The Idiots (Dr. Miller and co.) have sullied such a good article. It speaks to their madness that a sensible article on SS reform is so viciously attacked. Animals.


What's with the name calling? Have I ever done such a thing to you? If not then please knock it off!
If you don't like what I write then please feel free not to read it.
on Jan 06, 2005
drmiller & and terpfan 1980

My grandfather had a saying that I think properly describes the both of you it goes like this, "better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

I do not hate anyone including George W. Bush. I do look at the results of his policies and see we are not moving this country forward in a way that will benefit the majority of Americans over time. If you believe thelack of job creation, deficit, the trade deficit, the increasing energy prices, the lack of a coherent energy policy, more children without enough food or health care, fewer dollars to help the poor heat their homes, the Iraq war which has done nothing to make us safer and has killed or injured thousands of our best young men and women and is costing several hundred billion dollars are good accomplishments of the Bush policies, than you fit my grandfather's saying. Every Bush supporter I've ever spoken with tells me the same thing, "he is a strong leader". Well a strong leader going in the wrong direction is not a good thing is a bad thing. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin were all strong leaders. Which one of them do you think was a good leader? And No I am not saying Geoegre W. Bush is a tyrant merely that they were all strong leaders. What America needs is a leader that produces results that bebefit the majority of our people. That is not what is taking place!
on Jan 06, 2005
Dr Miller - I have decided that you and I are both wrong in our initial responses.

How did I reach this conclusion, and several others?

Well, I just work up and realize that we really do need the people like COL (which I've determined is a label applied because it means Clueless Old Liberal) Gene, Dabe, Sanchez and others to keep ranting and raving.

We need them to piss off more people like Myrr and others that might actually be moderates, or tilt somewhat liberally, but who have now grown so weary of the carping and whining by the left that they are seriously vowing never to support another liberal candidate.

So please, Dr Miller, see the light, encourage these liberals to keep whining. In fact, help them at every turn. Put up new articles that antagonize their favorite positions and point out the right way and give these great folks a chance to show us all again what the wrong way really is.

It'll do the electorate a huge favor and leave the decision that much easier in 2006 and 2008 as the Democratic party becomes a complete and total party of loons.
3 Pages1 2 3