Letter to WaPo on Obama's 'strengthen SocSec'

Wednesday 23 February 2011

Editors, The Washington Post

Gentlepeople:

The Washington Post article “Could Obama decide a deficit deal is in his interest?” of Sunday 20 February quotes the President: "I believe we should strengthen Social Security for future generations, and I think we can do that without slashing benefits or putting current retirees at risk."

No one wants to put current retired citizens subsisting on $1400/month Social Security at risk. And there is no need to, since that situation will solve itself: In 40 years they will all be gone.

And how about a little means testing. Since the President wants to raise the taxes of people making over $200K/year, why not start by taking away their Social Security? And why limit it to over $200K, how about all who make over $50K? They will all come runnng at you with fistfuls of pay stubs saying “You earned, and your employer paid...,” but no wage earner has ever sent in even a nickel of contribution to Social Security. The actual $ that went to the feds came from the employer bank account, never the wage earner's. If the feds don't get the check, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner.

It has been a tax on employers from the start. Since all employers must pay the tax, there is no competitive advantage for any employer to do any more than add it to the price of their product, thus converting the 'Social Security tax' to a silent, painless national sales tax. In 2009 this tax was 36% of total federal income.

What must be done is to stop adding people to the system. A step in that process would be making sure potential enrollees are made aware of what Social Security is. The United States Supreme Court did a pretty good job of describing it with these 87 words in the 1961 Supreme Court Fleming vs Nestor decision:

'The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind [?!] when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act.'"

And you want to “strengthen Social Security for future generations”?

There is nothing to strengthen. And if you continue to run a $135 billion monthly federal deficit, there won't be any future generation to strengthen anything for.

The Congressional Budget Office was recently quoted saying that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more this year than what it takes in. Isn't that what Bermie Madoff got caught doing? He got 150 years in jail, and we are afraid to just put Social Security out of business?

Our President has made more impression than any of his predecessors saying no more than smoke and mirrors but replaceing the smoke with television.

Arnold H Nelson Chicago ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Letter to WaPo on Obama

Wednesday 23 February 2011

Editors, The Washington Post

Gentlepeople:

The Washington Post article “Could Obama decide a deficit deal is in his interest?” of Sunday 20 February quotes the President: "I believe we should strengthen Social Security for future generations, and I think we can do that without slashing benefits or putting current retirees at risk."

No one wants to put current retired citizens subsisting on $1400/month Social Security at risk. And there is no need to, since that situation will solve itself: In 40 years they will all be gone.

And how about a little means testing. Since the President wants to raise the taxes of people making over $200K/year, why not start by taking away their Social Security? And why limit it to over $200K, how about all who make over $50K? They will all come runnng at you with fistfuls of pay stubs saying “You earned, and your employer paid...,” but no wage earner has ever sent in even a nickel of contribution to Social Security. The actual $ that went to the feds came from the employer bank account, never the wage earner's. If the feds don't get the check, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner.

It has been a tax on employers from the start. Since all employers must pay the tax, there is no competitive advantage for any employer to do any more than add it to the price of their product, thus converting the 'Social Security tax' to a silent, painless national sales tax. In 2009 this tax was 36% of total federal income.

What must be done is to stop adding people to the system. A step in that process would be making sure potential enrollees are made aware of what Social Security is. The United States Supreme Court did a pretty good job of describing it with these 87 words in the 1961 Supreme Court Fleming vs Nestor decision:

'The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind [?!] when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act.'"

And you want to “strengthen Social Security for future generations”?

There is nothing to strengthen. And if you continue to run a $135 billion monthly federal deficit, there won't be any future generation to strengthen anything for.

The Congressional Budget Office was recently quoted saying that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more this year than what it takes in. Isn't that what Bermie Madoff got caught doing? He got 150 years in jail, and we are afraid to just put Social Security out of business?

Our President has made more impression than any of his predecessors saying no more than smoke and mirrors but replaceing the smoke with television.

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to ChiTrib on Skilling wave height

Chicago PM Wednesday 16 February 2011

Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune

Gentlepeople:

The Chicago Tribune article “The Big Dig” of Wednesday 2 February included the sentence “Waves of up to 25 feet were predicted on Lake Michigan, which could cause flooding along Lake Shore Drive.”

On Wednesday 15 December 2010 in the daily 'Asl Tom Why' feature, a reader asked Tribune meteorologist Tom Skilling:

“What are the greatest wave heights recorded on Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes?”

Mr. Skilling's answer: “The highest waves measured on Lake Michigan have been just over 20 feet, occurring at the south end when storm-force north winds (55 mph and greater) blow down the entire 325 mile length of the lake.”

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to WSJ explaining Social Security

Monday AM 14 February 2011

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal's Tuesday 8 February Rand Paul “Modest $500 Billion Proposal” to solve our out-of-control federal spending binge is as calm and thotful a solution to a serious problem as has been offered by anyone.

But then in only the 13^th sentence he comes back to the inevitable: “It would... not touch Social Security....”

Social Security, no less unconstitutional than Medicare or ObamaCare, is what started this whole mess 76 ears ago.

No wage earner has ever sent in even a nickel of contribution to Social Security. Oh sure, you get a pay stub that says: “You earned, and your employer paid....” but the actual $ that went to the feds came from the employer bank account, never the wage earner's. If the feds don't get the check, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner.

It has been a tax on employers from the start. Because all employers must pay the tax, there is no competitive advantage for any employer to do any more than add it to the price of their product, thus becoming no more than a silent, painless national sales tax. In 2009 this tax was 36% of total federal income.

But no one wants to take away the entire income of retired citizens subsisting on $1400/month Social Security. And no one is proposing that we do so, becaue it alone is a problem that will solve itself. In 40 years they will all be gone.

Right now, how about a little meanse testing. The President ius so intent in taxing people who mae more thatn $200K/year. Certainly if that $200K includes $1400/month from Social Security, you can sure stop that.

What must be done is to stop adding people to the system. A step in that process would be making sure potential enrollees are made aware of what Social Security is. It has never been better defined than by these 87 words in the 1961 Supreme Court Fleming vs Nestor decision:

'The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind [?!] when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act.'"

The Congressional Budget Office was recently quoted saying that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more this year than what it takes in. Isn't that what Bermie Madoff got caught doing? He got 150 years in jail, and we are afraid to just put Social Security out of business?

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to WSJ on Mitch Daniels and ObamaScare

Chicago Monday AM 7 February 2011

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' needs only 120 words of the second and third paragraphs of his Monday 7 February Wall Street Journal article “An ObamaCare Appeal From the States” to describe the disaster that is ObamaCare better than it's been done anywhere.

He follows that with a list of seven conditions that his state needs to participate in the program. At first glance these appear to be just 'tweaks' to the ObamaCare train wreck, but careful reading shows them to be very good tweaks. Politics is the art of the possible, and Governor Daniels is a very good politician, so maybe he's on the right track to make his proposal in language the opposition can understand. He further states that he has 21 other states that agree with him, further confirming the value of his article.

Accepting Governor Daniels' conditions will make us a much more prosperous nation, but somewhere along the line we must face the facts that we have ObamaCare because we accepted the equally unconstitutional Medicare, and we got that because we accepted the federally managed Madoff ponzi scheme of Social Security. Until we fix these two problems, we will always be subject to more ObamaCare type scams.

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to NYTimes explaining 1st amendment...

...people peaceably assemling.

Chicago Monday PM 7 February 2011

Gentlepeople:

A New York Times Editorial of Saturday 5 February refers to the United States Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling as “unleashing corporate money into politics....”

Since Times' editorials have referenced the First Amendment to the United States Constitution at least twice in just the past 30 days, could we expect you to have some familiarity with the the part where it says “Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble?” What is a corporation other than people peaceably assembling, spending group money or not?

Arnold H Nelson