May 06, 2005
New Age Social Security
There`s no doubt that something needs to be done about Social Security now, before it`s too late.
The degree of any politicians opposition to Bush`s Social Security proposal can be measured in direct proportion to how often that politician dips in to SS to fund Pork Projects, but Free Money it ain`t.
The money allocated for Social Security is OURS ! WE paid it so WE should get to spend it as WE see fit.
Dipping into Social Security to fund "Special" projects that weren`t authorised in Federal Spending Bills goes back to the good 'ol days of LBJ and Vietnam.
Now legislators have become so reliant on it that it is going bankrupt.
The Social Security Trust Fund that they refer to is nothing more than a piece of paper in a filing cabinet in Parkersburgh, Va.
Is it any wonder that when Bush first hinted at his proposed changes, we heard Whisper of Chaos from the Dems and the media? And now that people are starting to take notice, understand what he`s been saying about the deplorable state of Social Security, we`re hearing Screams of Doom from the opposition.
So, how will the Social Security proposals affect you?
You be the judge.
- Joatmoaf -
March 02, 2004
The Unbearable Immorality of Free Trade
WSJ's OpinionJournal neatly skewers Senators Edwards and Kerry:
Trade is a "moral issue," declares Senator John Edwards. The Democratic Presidential candidate is in high dudgeon that "bad trade agreements," by which he means those signed by Bill Clinton, are stealing jobs away from American workers.
It should be no surprise by now that his main competitor, Senator John Kerry, has responded by saying, "Me too." Just as Mr. Kerry parroted the rhetoric of Howard Dean on Iraq, the man who voted for Nafta now claims there is no difference between him and Mr. Edwards on trade. This scion of a Boston Brahmin family that made its fortune from the China trade is now accusing "Benedict Arnold companies and CEOs" of exporting American jobs.
One might ... ask the Democrats, is it moral for a government to deprive Americans of their freedom to enhance their standard of living by buying foreign goods and services? Or is it moral to stop foreign people from working their way out of poverty by closing access to the U.S. market? The moral imperative of trade looked very different to John F. Kennedy, who proposed an Alliance for Progress to open the U.S. to goods from Latin America because reducing poverty saves lives.
It is also hardly moral for the U.S. to foist its own policies on other democracies as a precondition for trade. Mr. Edwards complains that past trade deals allow companies to profit by "paying people pennies a day to work in disgusting conditions." Even if this is true in some places, the legacy of trade is that it raises living standards over time. In any case even the world's only superpower doesn't have the right to micromanage the developing world's economic policies, and it would be bitterly resented if it tried. Isn't that "unilateralism"?
As always, the Democrats rely on the ignorance of the American voter. They say they want jobs and prosperity, but demonize the companies that create these things. They advocate policies that minimize incentives, stifle growth, and drive jobs overseas and then blame corporate America for the predictable results of their own shortsightedness.