This:
How much of Donald Trump's
early presidential campaign success is attributable to his not being a
Washington insider? It is difficult to determine, but we are hearing more and
more folks, including some of the candidates, express hope for a President from
outside the Beltway, new blood so to speak, someone not steeped in the old
politics. Trump, and earlier Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and some of the various
governors, have enjoyed poll popularity over the insider candidates. If space
between the new president and the old DC ways is what the people want, the
people might want to be careful what they wish for. Do you remember 2008 when a
then Washington outsider, a first-term DC newbie senator with only four years
in office, won the presidency on the wings of a "Hope and Change"
motto? Since then we have had nothing but rancor and malfunction between the
executive and the legislative branches, and polarization among the American people.
It shows that picking an outsider for president is not necessarily a
prescription for harmony and progress in the federal government and
satisfaction among the electorate. If Trump wins, would he be able to exert
sway over the Congress? Would Washington suddenly morph into a model of
cooperation and good judgment? Hah! Yeh, you bet. I suspect we could count on
four or eight more years of stalemate, bickering, and ineffective government.
That:
Many things puzzle me, but one
I understand the least is the slogan "We must take back the country!"
When people say this I wonder who took the country, when did they take it, and
where did they go with it? Apparently, the slogan is a metaphor for government
having done something offensive to the right wing. Does it mean someone
breached the Constitution? Does it mean white, Anglo-Saxon, protestants no
longer constitute a majority? Does it mean foreign labor has relegated American
manufacturing to second place? Does it mean the rich now have all the money? Does
it mean having a President with an un-American sounding name makes us hostages
to the Middle East? Does it mean we should demand that Pittsburgh start
belching smoke again? I just do not know what it means. The only people I have
heard threatening to "retake the country" are frustrated libertarian-type
thinkers who seem to eschew any form of governmental intervention in any facet
of American life. Those people apparently think the United States has been hijacked
somewhere along the way and that we should mount up, strap on our six-shooters,
form a big posse, and rescue it.
The Other:
One other thing, I am getting tired
of people claiming that Social Security is an investment program when in
actuality it is simply, by design, a federal welfare program, no different than
food stamps or Section 8 housing. People often cite payment of payroll taxes as
their "premium" that funds their future SS income. Thus, they think
they are "investing" in Social Security. It is not so. Our payroll
taxes go into the same federal accounting black hole as do our income taxes and
all federal taxes. By collecting taxes, including payroll taxes, the federal
government destroys dollars. It always pays for all its spending with newly
created federal IOUs, that is, new US dollars. In short, we pay taxes, we do not
pay premiums, and the federal government can and does fund SS independently of
any tax collections. Only the people who meet the eligibility requirements of
SS receive SS payments just as only the people who meet the eligibility
requirements of food stamps receive SNAP payments. If you are one of those who bitterly
despise federal welfare you should, in good conscience, forego your Social
Security checks when the time comes. In the meantime, if you want to complain, complain
about rising payroll taxes that reduce the national money supply, pay for
nothing, and fool you into thinking you are investing in Social Security.
No comments:
Post a Comment