Monday, September 26, 2011

OBOF SS & MORE PART 20

WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	JULY 05,2011
SS & MORE PART 14A	JULY 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	JULY 19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	AUG. 03, 2011
SS & MORE PART 17	AUG. 15, 2011
SS & MORE PART 18	Aug. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 19	Sept. 12, 2011
SS & MORE PART 20	Sept. 26, 2011

SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 20

IN THIS ISSUE

1. What a way to run a railroad!

2. What is happening between the Republicans in Congress and the President?

3. What does "neighborly" mean?

4. The President's Jobs Bill.

5. A parting thought.

~~~

"VOTE AN EDUCATED VOTE"

~~~

WHAT
A WAY
TO RUN A RAILROAD!

I am originally from the Mid-west, and when we had a messed up operation we use to say "What a way to run a railroad." This certainly applies now to the Republican ran House of Representatives.

On September 15th, Speaker John Boehner gave a speech to the Economic Club of Washington, DC, in which he said "If we want to create a better environment for job creation, politicians of all stripes can leave the, 'my way or the highway' philosophy behind." Sounds great, and like it is a signal that they, the Republicans, want to work in a different atmosphere with the Administration. Whoops! not so fast. Actions speak louder than words.

It's a normal practice, in Washington, to use Continuing Resolutions (CR) to provide finances for the Government to continue operation when agreement of a final budget has not been reached. If one is not passed by both Chambers of Congress by September 30th, there, once again, is the likelihood of a Government shut down.

Early last week the House of Representatives failed to pass the needed CR. After some minor changes they passed it late Friday. HOWEVER, there are some major differences between what they passed and what the Senate will pass, mainly, that the CR did not provide enough money for the Disaster Relief Fund. Speaker Boehner, was told this by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, before the House passed the CR.

Normally, the Senate would pass what they felt was needed and then there would be a conference between members of both Chamber of Congress to reconcile the differences and then both Chambers would pass the CR.

BUT NOT THIS TIME. Speaker Boehner said, in essences, that this time the House Republicans are going home for a scheduled recess, so take this bill or let the Government shut down. Sound familiar? So much for leaving the 'my way or the highway' behind us. Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, says this is called "Jamming." You hand the other chamber a must-pass bill and you walk from the table.

BUT NOT THIS TIME, MAYBE. If President Obama will continue his firm approach, and I sure hope he does, he may just let the Republicans shut the Government down. The Republicans talk about all the threats by the Democrats, but maybe this time the President will call their bluff. If he does, I'll bet a dime, that's all I could spare, that the Republicans will be back in Washington pronto.

~~~

WHAT IS HAPPENING BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT?

The past two weeks have been frustrating to me. There has been so much said that just, simply, doesn't make any sense. I started to try to keep track of it, but it just got too ridiculous to even think about putting it in this posting.

I did get to thinking about, overall, what has happened, since Mr. Obama became President? I believe we have seen about three different Obama's. Why is that and who are they?

I believe that when he came into office, he truly thought that he had a chance to change Washington. However, in a very short time, he found out that he wasn't going to be able to do some of what he had planned. So, what did he do?

He tried to be a nice guy and work with the Congress in any way possible. He had a Democratic Congress in the beginning, but he also, had a group of Republicans, that had an agenda, that he had not counted on. Their agenda was to do anything that would defeat and tear down the President. They were very open about it. Even the Minority Leader in the Senate, Mr. McConnell, said that their agenda was to see to it that President Obama was a one term President.

Even though the Democrats held the majority, in both Chambers of Congress, the Republicans were able to stop almost everything he tried to get done, thru procedural rules in the Senate. The only exception was the Affordable Care Act.

Then came 2010 and the Republicans took over the House of Representatives. Then came budgets and the debt ceiling.

The Republican agenda is now in full swing. Now we see Obama number two. He tried to compromise, but that didn't work. He became timid, it seemed, and I am sure you all know how that period went without my detailing it.

Now he has tried most everything, except one. He needed to be the original Obama. The one that campaigned and won the election.

All this time, the Republican agenda was working. They would not pass anything, he wanted to get done. He tried to get jobs going and make the economy better. They were going to beat him no matter what.

NOW I ASK WHY? WHY HAVE THEY ADOPTED THIS AGENDA? HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING TO REPUBLICANS, PERSONALLY. WHY WERE THEY SO DETERMINED, RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, TO MAKE HIM LOOK BAD AND DEFEAT HIM IN ANY WAY THEY COULD, EVEN OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY. WHY!!?

There are no FACTS that can answer that question. My OPINION IS NOT BASED ON FACTS. I want to be very clear about that. This is just my personal opinion. You may agree or disagree, but I feel compelled to call it as I see it. I would like to hear from you either way.

I can only find two reason. He is a Democrat and he is a Black Democrat. They just are not going to let a Black Democrat President succeed in anything they can stop. I have come to that conclusion because, for one reason, they don't make any personal attacks on him as they did Clinton. As much as I hate to say it, I think being a BLACK Democrat President is the primary reason. It's hard to believe, that in this time in the history of our country, there is still so much plain hatred toward blacks. BUT, I guess I am going to have to admit, that it appears, that there is no other reason to not work with him on anything.

I am really sorry to say, that I believe Racism, to some degree, is alive and well in the Congress of the United States.

SO, now we see the third Obama and it's about time. He took a vacation and many even criticized him for that. I showed in a recent posting that he hadn't taken nearly as much vacation, as Geo. W., so that kind of got back at that criticism.

Anyway, when he came back he had decided to try the one thing he hadn't done. Be direct, firm and engaging. He sent a JOBS BILL to Congress and he took it to the people. Maybe, just maybe he has now found the way he has to work with this Congress. HE IS NOW LEADING AND IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW HE IS GOING TO THE PEOPLE. LET'S ALL HOPE HE STICKS TO HIS NEW APPROACH.

~~~

WHAT DOES BEING "NEIGHBORLY" MEAN?

The portion of the article that I have listed below sparked some concern in me. The article is short and leads into some thoughts that I had about it. After you read it, and if you are so inclined, I would like to hear from you, in the comments section, as to your thoughts on the subject.

Eugene Robinson, Columnist

__________________________

NATIONOFCHANGE / OP - ED

published: Sunday, 18 September 2011

We heard plenty of contradictions, distortions and untruths at the Republican candidates’ Tea Party debate, but we heard shockingly little compassion — and almost no acknowledgement that political and economic policy choices have a moral dimension.

The lowest point of the evening — and perhaps of the political season — came when moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question about a young man who elects not to purchase health insurance. The man has a medical crisis, goes into a coma and needs expensive care. “Who pays?” Blitzer asked.

“That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks,” Paul answered. “This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody. . . .”

Blitzer interrupted: “But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?”

Paul, a physician, went on to say that, no, the hypothetical comatose man should not be allowed to die. But in Paul’s vision of America, “our neighbors, our friends, our churches” would choose to assume the man’s care — with government bearing no responsibility and playing no role."

Blitzer turned to Michele Bachmann, whose popularity with evangelical Christian voters stems, at least in part, from her own professed born-again faith. Asked what she would do about the man in the coma, Bachmann ignored the question and launched into a canned explanation of why she wants to repeal President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

At this point you may get the idea that the following paragraph is Bachmann answer. It is not. It is Mr. Robinson's commentary.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus told the Pharisees that God commands us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” There is no asterisk making this obligation null and void if circumstances require its fulfillment via government.

NOW, my question is, WHO IS OUR NEIGHBOR? Is it the people that live on each side of us? Is it our neighborhood, whatever that is? Is it our community? Is it the people on the east coast that are hit by a hurricane? Maybe it goes so far as, to include places like Israel that we certainly help a lot and other similar places?

You see, the definition of "neighbor" is all important and I am not sure just what the answer is that would be definitive. I suppose the definition may change from time to time depending on the circumstances and what you might be able to do about it.

In the case of the comatose man, referred to above, it sounds as though he is in a situation that is going to require a great deal of expense. In most probability his next door neighbor would not be in a position to pay for his care. I would doubt that any church would have the kind of resources that would be required.

You know, this makes me ask "Who is our Government? Isn't the Government the people in a Democracy? Our Government represents the people and the people are the ones that put those who are in charge of our Government in that position. Doesn't that make us all neighbors, in a sense?

When our Government, representing all of us, provides some relief to those in a disaster area, isn't that being neighborly? And when people donate to the Red Cross and directly to services in a disaster area, isn't that being neighborly?

So you see, when, at least, a majority of our Government says that they want to provide some relief to those who can't afford all their medical needs, isn't that being neighborly? I kind'a think it does.

I guess being neighborly depends on so many things at any given time and how much God has been able to put in us.

~~~

THE PRESIDENT'S JOBS BILL.

(The format below is not the way I set it up. The blog does this when I transfer it from Word. I can't seem to correct it. I think you can still read it.)

The President completed the detail of his Jobs Bill and presented it in an address in the Rose Garden of the White House on Wednesday September 21st. It was a package of tax increases and cuts from projected spending totaling nearly $ 3.1 trillion over 10 years.

The plan calls for:

1. Tax increases of $1.5 trillion over 10 years starting in 2013 on incomes above $200,000.

2. Cuts of $580 billion in projected federal spending plus another $1 trillion savings from planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

3. A total of $3.1 trillion spending cuts over 10 years will be proposed to the Congressional Supercommittee, which is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts. His total cuts are greater than that in part to cover the one year $447 billion costs of the proposed jobs bill.

4. Closing loopholes for oil and gas companies. Total: $40 billion.

5. Raising taxes on investment fund managers. Total: $18 billion.

6. Raising taxes on owners of corporate jets. Total: $3 billion.

7. Cuts of $248 billion from spending on Medicare (not cutting benefits).

8. Cuts of $72 billion from Medicaid, again not cutting benefits.

9. The plan also included principles for tax reform - - including one he calls the "Buffet rule after statements previously made by Mr. Warren Buffet, which were reported in posting #19.

10. No changes at all in Social Security.

As is said, that is the high points in a nutshell.

~~~

A PARTING THOUGHT.

It's exciting to get old, with a body that still functions, though these days my spirit is doing most of the work. The early and middle experiences of your life take on a greater reality with age, and you gain an overview. by Barbara Morgan, at age 83

~~~

If God is willing and the creek don't rise I'll talk with you again on October 10. God bless you all.

Floyd

no asterisk making this obligation null and void if circumstances require its fulfill

Monday, September 12, 2011

OBOF SS & MORE PART 19

WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	JULY 05,2011
SS & MORE PART 14A	JULY 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	JULY 19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	AUG. 03, 2011
SS & MORE PART 17	AUG. 15, 2011
SS & MORE PART 18	Aug. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 19	Sept. 12, 2011

SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 19

IN THIS ISSUE

1. Most important issues facing our country.

2. Social Security ~ a must right now.

3. Privatizing Social Security.

4. A new way to steal from Social Security.

5. Who stole the Social Security money.

6. JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

7. Penny Plan to balance the budget.

~~~

"VOTE AN EDUCATED VOTE"

~~~

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW?

That's a hell of a question. You could probably make a long list and it would be different for different people. I'm going to give you my take, at this time, and why.

To me, there are three issues at the front door right now; 1) Final steps of the debt ceiling debate (Super Committee and it's deliberations), 2) The status of the Big Three, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and 3) Jobs & the Economy.

One and two go hand in hand. As you may or may not know, the function of the Super Committee is to come up with deficit reduction of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by Thanksgiving. This is the first step of the final steps of the debt ceiling proposal.

The Super Committee had its first meeting last week and already one member has said he would walk out, if there was any more talk about reducing Defense spending. They're off to a real good start. Threats are not what is needed. Sounds just like the Congressional mess we have had all year.

What they definitely will be looking at is deficit reduction by way of reforming the Big Three. What little I know about Medicare and Medicaid, it seems that there is some room for reform that will bring about some reduction in spending.

HOWEVER, SOCIAL SECURITY IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM. WHY DO I SAY THAT?

While recipients pay some for Medicare, the Government pays the largest portion, thus contributing to the deficit. In the case of Medicaid, a combination of Federal and State Governments pay the entire cost of that program, contributing to the deficit.

WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL SECURITY IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CAN OF WORMS. WHY?

Social Security does not cost the Government anything. It never has and, depending on what they do to it, it never will, at least it shouldn't. IT DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEFICIT.

I want to explain that and also to show you why we all must start, right now, talking and writing to our Legislators about the difference and why it should be treated differently than Medicare and Medicaid.

THIS IS URGENT AS THE SUPER COMMITTEE WILL BE LOOKING AT SOCIAL SECURITY THE SAME AS MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. IT CAN'T BE!!

A little background is necessary, in order to understand why SS does not and never has contributed to the deficit.

In 1983 it was recognized that outgo was going to be exceeding income soon. Also, in the future, Baby Boomers were going to be starting to retire and that was going to make things worse.

First, it should be understood that Social Security is not an entitlement program. An entitlement program is one in which the Government pays all or the largest part of the cost. As you will see, the Government does not and never has paid a dime for Social Security. Social Security is an insurance program and workers pay a premium taken out of each pay check called FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Account). That is your account not the Government's.

President Reagan appointed a committee to study the future of SS and they set up the following plan. Before this plan, workers paid to cover the cost of SS for the previous generation. In order to make the program solvent thru 2040, FICA was raised, so that workers were paying for the needs of the previous generation and their own generation.

The idea was, that a surplus would build up, so that when the Baby Boomers started to retire in about 2018 there would be a surplus of more than $3 trillion. This was determined to be sufficient to meet the added outgo when Baby Boomers retired and when worker FICA would be reduced.

It was a great plan and would have worked, except for one thing. Presidents and Congresses of both Democrat and Republican just couldn't stand to see all that money just sitting there, being invested to add the interest to the surplus. So, what did they do? They STOLE the entire surplus that had amounted to $2.6 trillion at the time it was depleted. This was fraud pure and simple. It was against the law to use the surplus in this manner. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 made it illegal.

Starting in 2010, SS income did not meet outgo, so the Government had to put money into the SS program. Now many are claiming that this adds to the deficit and that SS is now costing the Government. I maintain that this is not true and that the money the Government is putting into the SS program now is simply a small down payment on the $2.6 trillion that has been stolen from the Social Security Trust Fund. If that money was in the Trust Fund, as it was suppose to be, the Government would not be putting any money into the SS program and the program would be solvent till 2036. The youngest Baby Boomer will be 79 by 2041.

There does need to be some reform in, the future, in order to keep the program solvent for 75 more years, but it shouldn't be, and can't be, treated the same as Medicare and Medicaid.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS EVER DEVELOPED.

PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY

DON'T EVER DO IT!!

EXAMPLE: WHY NOT?

I am a perfect example of why we should never privatize Social Security. There are a few in our population that could probably invest the money that they put into SS and do better than what SS pays. On the other hand, I think there are a number of those that are just like me. I feel that I have a little above average intelligence, yet I lost my money by bad investments that I thought were solid.

There would be a number of people that could wind up the same as me and if there were no SS, because of privatizing, what is going to happen to them. As that happens, and I feel it certainly would happen, there would have to be some way of not just letting them die. We wouldn't do that, so here we go back to some kind of program to take care of them, like maybe Social Security. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO DO AWAY WITH SS.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE THAT SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INVEST THEIR MONEY OR DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY MONEY TO INVEST? To think that most people would save the money they didn't pay into FICA is simply putting your head in the sand. It will be used for things that they feel they need. That is one of the reasons SS was started in the first place.

REMEMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. IT IS AN INSURANCE PROGRAM. YOU HAVE PAID PREMIUMS TO HAVE THAT COVERAGE WHEN YOU QUALIFY. IT DOES NOT COST THE GOVERNMENT ANYTHING. IT IS SELF SUPPORTING.

CALL AND WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS TO TELL THEM YOU DON'T WANT ANY CHANGES TO SOCIAL SECURITY NOW.

ALSO, TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT STEALING THE $2.6 trillion FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.

All that I have told you here is true facts that can, and have been proven. Dr. Allen W. Smith Ph.D. has spent the last 10 years of his life researching and trying to get the facts about Social Security out to the public. He has written three books on the subject. Most legislators either don't know these facts or if they do, they don't want to admit them.

A NEW WAY TO STEAL FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

Not only has Social Security been successful in meeting its original intent, it has been successful as a BAILOUT RESOURCE for the Federal Government for the last 25 years. Now that they have depleted the SS Trust Fund, they still look to SS for another BAILOUT.

They have, I think for the past year, and now want to continue another year of reducing, even more, the FICA. That's right, they are using SS once again as a way to accomplish something that the program was not intended to do.

It sounds great right now, BUT in the future the Federal Government will have to put more money into the SS program, which does add to the deficit. This then gives those who want to do away with SS all together, more ammunition to make their case, saying that the program just costs too much.

If they ever did do away with SS, I don't know what the Government would do for a kiddie bank, when the next need for extra cash comes up.

The President is making this as a big thing, "cutting taxes," but a year or a year and half from now it isn't going to sound so great when they, the Republicans, mount a drive to get rid of SS all together. This is going to be just like they have done with the Trust Fund. Nobody realizes what is happening until it's too late.

WHO STOLE THE SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY & WHAT ONES ARE STILL IN THE SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Scott Burns, Universal Press Syndicate and published on "chron.com," conducted some research relative to what legislators were in office in 1983, when the Social Security reforms were passed and who are still in office today.

While his findings are interesting, I don't agree with the final action he is advocating. I will provide his information and you can decide for yourself what you feel and want to do.

He found that there are 44 Senators and Representatives still in office that were in office at the time of the vote on the Social Security Reforms of 1983.

Of the 44, 23 voted for the bill. It is Burns' belief that the 23 made the $2.6 trillion theft possible and supported it for 28 years.

He further states that "If they voted against it, as 16 did, we have to ask what constitutes cosmic ineffectiveness in office, surely they qualify."

The remaining five didn't vote "on the most important program run by the U. S. government. And they are still in office."

According to Burns, 9 of the 44 are Senators who have held the same seat since or before 1983, 7 are Senators, who voted in their earlier position as a Representative. Twenty-eight are Representatives who have held that office, since 1983 or earlier.

This group of 44 either watched or participated in the outright stealing of the $2.6 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. Burns wants us to "Work hard to get the 23 who voted for the bill out of office."

This is where I disagree with Mr. Burns. There may be other reasons to vote them out of office, such as longevity. Mr. Burns wants them out, because they made possible the stealing of the $2.6 trillion. That, alone, doesn't warrant voting them out.

I think the Bill was a good Bill. It would have done what it was suppose to do, if the greedy legislators had not ignored the law and turned into criminals. The 23, by themselves, did not cause the stealing.

At any rate, for whatever it is worth, I am listing below the 23 Mr. Burns refers to.

Name - State - Party - Office

Burton, Dan IN R C

Baucus, Max MT D S

Bingaman, Jeff NM D S

Cochran, Thad MS R S

Dicks, Norm WA D C

Dingell, John MI D C

Durbin, Dick IL D S*

Grassley, Charles IA R S

Harkin, Tom IA D S*

Kaptur, Marcy OH D C

Leahy, Patrick VT D S

Levin, Carl MI D S

Levin, Sander MI D C

Lugar, Richard IN R S

McCain, John AZ R S*

Miku43lski, Barbara MD D S*

Miller, George CA D C

Petri, Tom WI R C

Rangel, Charles NY D C

Rogers, Hal KY R C

Shelby, Richard AL R S*

Stark, Pete CA D C

Young, Bill FL R C

Note: C=Congressional Representative, S=Senator, S*=Currently in Senate, was a Representative in 1983

REMEMBER!! Call and write your Senators and Representative. Tell them that you don't want any changes now in the Social Security Insurance program. Point out that SS has never and isn't now contributing to the deficit.

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS

PRESIDENT OBAMA

HITS A HOME RUN

In his speech to a Joint Session of Congress, President Obama finally did what we Progressives have been wanting to hear, a forceful, serious,and determined presentation. There were no light moments

throughout his 34 minute speech. There could be no question, at the end, as to what he meant to say.

Having said that, however, it must be remembered, that the President actually can do very little, beyond asking Congress to pass his bill. He has only one more thing that he can do and that is to take his plan to the people and try to create enough pressure on Congress, from the people, to get his bill passed.

His plan, while not yet complete, sounds like it should have bipartisan support. HOWEVER, the Republican agenda remains the same, and that is to, defeat the President in anyway they can. I have little faith that the Republican House is going to pass his bill, UNLESS, we, out here in the field, can mobilize strongly behind the President.

THIS, AND SOCIAL SECURITY, ARE THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT NEED OUR VOICES TO BE HEARD, LOUD AND CLEAR, IN WASHINGTON. DON'T DELAY!! DO WHAT, WE ALL KNOW, IS NEEDED.

In my opinion, the following is worthy of your time to read.

Breaking from Newsmax Published 8-4-11

Connie Mack’s 'Penny Plan' Can Balance Budget

By Lanny Davis

Now that the national debt-ceiling deal is done — and liberals like me are unhappy and conservatives deservedly have more to cheer about — Thanksgiving 2011 will be more than about good turkeys.

This is the deadline for the so-called “super” congressional committee of six Democrats and six Republicans from the House and Senate to cut at least $1.2 trillion in the projected budget deficit for the next 10 years.

I favor at least one-half of this $1.2 trillion to be funded by a combination of tax reform — closing tax loopholes — and increases in marginal tax rates of upper-income taxpayers (including me).

But if you are an anti-tax conservative who sincerely believes that you have to cut spending and not “feed the beast” with more revenues, then one approach on spending cuts for the super committee to consider is the simple and creative “Penny Plan” introduced by Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla.

Mr. Mack’s bill, H.R. 1848, would cut one penny out of every dollar actually spent by the federal government from year to year for the next six years, from FY 2012-FY 2017.

Beginning in FY 2018, there would be a budget cap of 18 percent of GDP (the average federal revenue as a percentage of GDP over the past 30 years). And by FY 2019, America would finally have a balanced budget — that is, assuming revenues naturally increase from the current 14.8 percent of GDP to 18 percent of GDP by 2019, after which the budget would be in surplus.

There is an automatic spending cut “trigger” under Mack’s plan — one he came up with well before the trigger used in the recently passed national debt ceiling bill.

If Congress failed to enact a budget implementing the 1 percent actual spending cut required under Mack’s measure, then there would be automatic, across-the-board actual cuts in all federal programs to meet the 1 percent reduction, and that means all: in defense, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, defense, and national security spending. Everything.

Mack’s plan may seem draconian to some. It would cut the accumulated budget deficits by an estimated $7.5 trillion over 10 years — more than three times the amount achieved by the debt-ceiling deal that Congress approved last Tuesday.

But it actually has a rather modest impact on reducing our total national debt. It won’t be until eight years from now that the budget will be in balance and the national debt starts getting paid down.

We had $1 trillion in surplus — money in the bank — when Bill Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001, just eight years after he began his presidency inheriting a $300 billion deficit. Now we are heading toward a $15 trillion debt. How did this happen? Both parties are guilty.

I am a liberal Democrat who believes that the national debt and annual deficits are the country’s greatest moral issues. We cannot continue to use credit cards to pay for wars, corporate jet write-offs, and Social Security and Medicare — and leave it to our children, grandchildren, and probably great-grandchildren to pay our bills.

That is simply wrong. It is a moral stain on our generation if we leave this red-ink legacy for generations to come to deal with.

Mack’s Penny Plan may be imbalanced from my perspective, lacking in the revenue-raising component endorsed by the bipartisan Gang of Six and the Simpson-Bowles commission.

I believe Republicans will have difficulty in the 2012 congressional and presidential elections defending the proposition that the national debt can be significantly paid down from budget cuts alone, or that the wealthier in our society shouldn’t pay more or at least stop taking advantage of tax loopholes to pay less.

But since the “balanced” solution of both increased revenues and spending cuts entitlement reform is supported in virtually every poll by substantial majorities of all voters, including large numbers of Republicans, Democrats need to find a spending cut formula that they can live with.

The Mack Penny Plan seems a good place to start — it is simple, it makes common sense, and with some adjustments protecting the poor and the unemployed, it could be seen as fair even to many of the most liberal Democrats.

Despite our philosophical differences, I am a great admirer of Rep. Mack. I respect his deeply felt conservative philosophy and values. Most of all, I respect his ability to disagree agreeably.

In this time of crisis — and I believe our national debt is a genuine and historic crisis — we need members like Connie Mack who know how to reach across the aisle, as I have seen him do many times, to find common solutions.

The Mack Penny Plan deserves serious consideration — as serious as the man who proposed it.

Well I think that will about do it for this time. If God is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again on Sept. 26th. Till then, keep the faith and help the President. God bless you all.

Floyd