HERE'S WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING...

I say "do nothing" on Social Security...and apparently, I've gotten some rather broad ranging support. Maybe even enough to form my own coalition. Here's a sampling of some of the best.

I was in my car and listening to your program on Social Security. Good program you have. I do agree with you on this topic for one thing The President says we can have control of our own money!! He says we can invest up to $1000 of our money and get 8 % interest . What world is he living in? There is no place here that is paying more than 3%to 4% on our money. If you add up what the government takes out of your check a week times 52 weeks you will see that most people in our income bracket is paying $1040 a year and our employer matches this amount. If you are allowed to put $1000 a year in to a special saving who will be paying into Social Security, and your employer will not be putting anything into the Social Security fund. You are correct to say there are other ways to save and most of the workers are offered 401KS.

Carol

I'm not saying there are other ways...well, there are...but I'm saying we shouldn't do ANYTHING about Social Security...leave it as is. When it goes bankrupt in 2017, our children and grandchildren can fix it then. For those who don’t have any extra money left over after taxes and Social Security are taken out of their checks…they’ll be the most motivated to fix the system.

Not sure where you invest your money, but I'm getting at least 10-percent return on my 401K and money market account with my broker. Even an index fund will get you more than 4-percent easy. Maybe in a CD or bond you get only 4-percent – you should check with your
broker.

You are seriously misinformed on how the Social Security system currently works and obviously delusional about how the President’s proposal is structured. It’s his fault for being a rotten salesperson on that, so I don’t fault you entirely…but you should really try and get out of the house once in a while. Or stop listening to NPR...

As for me, I plan on using my Social Security check I'll receive (maybe) when I retire to buy beer for all my friends each month.

Next?

I have two words which would solve several of the problems emanating from
Washington DC-TERM LIMITS.

America is a country based on the concept of limited government and founded by those who held actual jobs within the general population, career politician not being one of these.

Problems such as Social Security and others could be prevented through common sense, long-sighted legislation and fiscal discipline as opposed to short-sighted pork barrel politics and wasteful spending aimed at "career" preservation.

The American taxpayer has more than upheld his/her end of the deal. It's time to give term limits serious discussion and consideration in America.

You actually were the one who inspired me to take the opposite approach. Do nothing on Social Security. Wait until its a problem. Call the Dems bluff. Sometimes we need a major event to happen to wake us up to a looming problem. 9/11 comes to mind...

Jay weighs in too...on a similar slant:

On Social Security: I have been in the life insurance business for over 40 years. In that time I have had to know a lot about the Social Security System as a salesman and as a trainer. For the last 15 years I have had to DEFEND this Federal program to young people who have been telling me, "I don't count on Social Security, it probably won't be there when I am ready to collect." Now, suddenly, according to "the polls" young people are opposing Social Security reform so it won't be "taken away." What's up? Either the President is the world's worst salesman (a possibility) or the education system has rotted out their brains. To the best of my knowledge, the president has only proposed so far that what ever reform occurs - one aspect of that reform should be ONE element of that reform should be individual ownership in a portion of ones "account."

I have been trying to promote a SLOGAN which applies to the subject of Social Security above, and just about everything else you can think of - PAY ATTENTION! Wouldn't it be great if we could get this message across to everyone for their own good - PAY ATTENTION! Stuff is going on around you that you ought to know about.

You’re correct…the President is the world’s worst salesman. I’m suggesting he should quit while he’s behind and leave the problem to the next generation. We have the internet now and we’ll be able to look back and say he was right when we get around to it again. My slogan? PAY NO ATTENTION until it bites you in the ass.

Seriously, we could form the DO NOTHING COALITION and sell bumperstickers as a fundraiser: I’m spending my grandchildren's inheritance!

Believe it or not, several Democrats have called and suggested I am right…and several Republicans agree with me. This could be the first time those two groups actually agreed on something in a long time.

And now…the kicker:

Greg: I understand your current "sarcastic" position on Social Security. It is really sad for America that "politics" recently enters EVERY issue and it ends up one party versus the other party and discussion about the facts of the issue lost.
I would agree with your position if there is going to be a bill drafted with the name of the bill "The Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin Bill for Do Nothing About Social Security until the Democrats retake the presidency and congress again".

I'm being serious, Karl...it's a win win for Bush to just drop it. He's holding pocket Aces right now and he should call the bluff from the Dems and do nothing just to see their hand...

He wrote back:

Excellent analysis and conclusion. Great strategy! Karl (P.S.You don't need to take your time and reply. Your show is outstanding and thought provoking, a breath of fresh air for Eastern Iowa.)

If only the President were listening.

REGARDING YESTERDAY'S POST

People think I'm being sarcastic...while I'm a very sarcastic person by nature, I was being totally serious about the Social Security debate. The President should give up and do exactly as I suggested.

I see he's giving a prime time press conference this evening at 7:30pm. Why in the world the White House chooses "must see TV" night to hold a press conference is beyond me...but nonetheless, he's free to cut and paste my speech. I hope he does.

Later today, I'll post some of the overwhelming response I've received regarding the post and my idea.

It's not that strange, by the way. I see Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard takes a similar stand.

A SPEECH THE PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE

The headline in this morning's Cedar Rapids Gazette (again, it's a pay only website so I can't provide the link):

"Doing nothing not an option" Grassley challenges critics at Social Security hearing

I'm suggesting just the opposite...as a way out for the President, he should give the following speech as soon as possible. Ready for direct input to a teleprompter:

MY FELLOW AMERICANS

I HAVE WORKED HARD TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU OF THE DANGER COMING TO AMERICANS AND THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IN NUMEROUS TOWN MEETINGS AND APPEARANCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE SYSTEM IS AGING AS AMERICANS AGE. CURRENTLY, THREE WORKERS ARE PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM FOR EVERY AMERICAN THAT RECEIVES BENEFITS. AS IT STANDS, THAT IS PROJECTED TO BECOME WORSE…WITHIN 10-YEARS, IT WILL REQUIRE MORE FROM THOSE EMPLOYED TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE IN THEIR GOLDEN YEARS.

OTHERS HAVE LISTENED AND NOT HEARD THE CALL FOR REFORM. I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR CONCERNS…AND I NOW MUST SUBMIT TO THEIR WISHES AND END THE DEBATE.

I DO THIS WITH RESERVATIONS, OF COURSE…AND WITH SOME FEAR FOR THE FUTURE. I HAVE A STRONG BELIEF THAT WHEN THE PROBLEMS I OUTLINE HERE IN 2005 BECOME MORE APPARENT TO THOSE RECIPIENTS IN 2017 THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC WILL ANSWER THE CALL.

WE MUST HAVE FAITH TODAY, THAT THE GRANDCHILDREN OF TOMORROW WILL BE ABLE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS TODAY.

UNTIL THEN, WE MUST END THE DEBATE ABOUT CHANGES IN SOCIAL SECURITY AND MOVE ON TO IMPORTANT MATTERS FACING OUR COUNTRY…

THANK YOU, AND MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA

THE MOST DANGEROUS POST TO DATE

I'm going to give up the ghost today. Today's post is sure to anger some Repubs and most Dems because I'm releasing what I believe to be the truth about our immigration problem.

People have all sorts of explanations about why we seem to tolerate illegal immigration. Some have alleged that greedy Republican businesses just want cheap labor...sneaky Democrats want voter fraud and a new coalition voting base...and others simply say we tolerate it because "those people" will do the jobs that "Americans don't want to do" anymore.

All are partly true...combined, that's a legitimate conclusion to make.

Almost.

Take, for instance, this morning's Cedar Rapids Gazette story about population growth. Since it's a paid website, I cannot provide the link...just what I transcribe for you.

Iowa is slated to grow only 1% in population over the next 25-years...that's an increase of only 28-thousand people between now and 2030. That, in turn, leads to problems with regard to our representation in Congress.

A new U.S. Census projection showing slow growth and then population decline in Iowa is likely to cost the state another voice in Congress when seats are divvied up in 2010.

FACT: Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that a census be taken every 10-years for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Since the Constitution does not specify who qualifies to be counted, we count all those living in the US - including illegal immigrants. A person is considered to be a resident if he/she meets the definition of "usual residence"...meaning to stay in a particular place "most of the time."

There have been several lawsuits to stop the counting of illegal aliens, but the US Supreme Court has so far refused to take up the case. Congress could certainly pass a law preventing the counting of illegal aliens, but no one so far has the guts.

FACT: The year 2000 Census and reapportionment was the first in history to include the count of between 10-and-12 million illegal aliens. A lawsuit filed by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 40-members of Congress in 1988 was the last case to test the inclusion of illegal aliens in US Census figures.

FACT: The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat they otherwise would have. (Montana only has ONE House member representing the entire state)

FACT (Gazette Story): Iowa nearly lost a seat in the House by a margin of only 44,338 people. Down from 11 in 1900...Iowa most recently lost a seat following the 1990 Census to maintain 5-seats.

FACT: The presence of all non-citizens contributed to a toal of nine seats being redistributed. Since we are currently limited to 435 members of the House, once one state loses a representative, another state can add one. It's a zero-sum situation.

FACT: None of the seats lost to a state due to non-citizens is declining in population.
They include Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Utah and the others mentioned above.

FACT: California picked up six of those seats...New York, Texas, and Florida the rest. Between 1-in-7 and 1-in-10 of the residents of those states are non-citizens. In California's 31-st District, 43-percent of the population are non-citizens - it's 38-percent in California's 34-th District. Others range from 28-percent in Florida's 21-st District, and 23-percent in New York's 12-th District.

So imagine...43-percent of the residents in that California district ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, yet they have a Congressperson.

It is my contention that Representative Becerra would not be in Congress today were it not for the fact California picked up the seat due to the increased population of ILLEGAL immigrants.

Since more members of Congress = more power for that individual state...you can begin to understand why some state's don't really care that they're encouraging illegal immigration through the granting of things like drivers' licenses. Since they get more of a voice in Congress (and more electoral votes for Presidential elections), why stop the gravy train?

It might also explain the reason Senator Tom Harkin had very little wisdom and/or concern for the possible loss of another member of the House.

"There are two ways to get clout in Congress," Harkin said. "One, you have a lot of people there like California, Texas or Florida. The other one is you have people with a lot of senority."

Harkin could care less because he knows Iowa is likely to lose a Republican seat. The other reason? He doesn't care that non-citizens are getting representation otherwise due to other states with REAL citizens. When they complain about intrusive government, he doesn't have to listen to them because they can't vote.

Like he would listen anyway...

THE TRUTH: Democrats AND Republicans could care less about illegal immigration because it doesn't affect their jobs. In fact, it makes it easier for them to get elected. Especially when you only have 57-percent of the population who can vote in your district.

Well, not yet they don't...

WEEK OF HECK AT THE LEGISLATURE

The Iowa Legislature is working hard to wind up the session this week, with a number of weighty issues yet to be decided:

• Sex Offender Registry and punishment changes
• Death Penalty
• Cigarette Tax
• Medicaid

And....

A resolution recognizing Annette Bening. Yes...an actress who wasn't even BORN in Iowa is being honored for her "Iowa-roots" (the mere fact her parents lived/live in Iowa). Here's the transcript of the resolution (Senate Resolution 45).

Might I suggest a resolution honoring another famous person not born in Iowa, but recently returned to the state he spent much of his childhood and radio career in?

IN OTHER NEWS...

Major news outlets have announced the layoffs of all religion correspondents. The news comes following a hiring announcement just one month ago. A spokesperson for the vast media establishment said, "We no longer require their services. We appreciate the contribution they provided to our news staffs in helping us understand religion a little better. We hope to retain their services in the future sometime during the winter months when some Americans celebrate religious holidays."

It's probably true...

HE STILL WEARS A FUNNY HAT

Not being Catholic, I know all I need to know about the new Pope...and I almost want to sign up to help the guy.

I have witnessed bias in my lifetime...some small, some of it blantant...but I have never witnessed it en mass like I did the instant the announcement was made by the Vatican. I won't publish a list because most of you will have more proof of your own just by listening to the talking heads tell you how "conservative" and "hard-line" Benedict XXVI he will be.

The Des Moines Register (print version only so no link, sorry) went so far as to point out that "he took a hard line against the rewriting of Scripture for gender sensitivity" as an example of his rigid views on the doctrine of the Church. Well, gee...that IS a very extremist view. Imagine me having to stick with my old Bible instead of a new "gender neutral" one!

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

THAT's hard-line, Des Moines Register!

The bottom line is: The Church...and all churches and teachings of Christ for that matter...must stand for something - or they may fall for anything.

My, how quickly the wolves reveal their teeth.

AND HERE WE GO...

Well, as promised…here are some alleged conservative voices who have written me regarding the Iowa legislature’s plan to force a feasibility study before allowing local governments to get in the business of providing broadband internet access and cable TV. Several communities already do…and it’s a dangerous idea for us to suddenly allow government to decide what a necessity is and begin “investing” and competing with private industry.

Kathy writes…

KATHY: I am originally from St Cloud and we had broadband from the city. As a result of the competition, you have lower prices and more available options. The only real broadband access in this area is Mediacom. The DSL that is available in this area is only 256 k and the 1.5 Mbps isn't available. I think there needs to be more competition for Mediacom.

Sounds good so far…pretty sensible, actually. More competition? More choices…more incentive to provide good service at a low price.

KATHY continues: …I'm saying that there needs to be more available in Cedar Rapids and more competition. How is it that St. Cloud can have that many options and they are a smaller community than Cedar Rapids? What is the matter with Cedar Rapids that we don't have the same kind of competition.

Well, there’s the rub. You see, Cedar Rapids has a Cable Commission, like a lot of municipalities. It is up to them to wheel and deal and invite the regulations that control those that operate cable companies.

KATHY also says: What is the barrier to companies who would like to be in the Cedar Rapids area, but are being kept out of the picture????

See above. It is the Cable Commissions who regulate the availability of cable services and allow companies to provide the service.

My chief complaint is a fear of the future if we allow city utilities to begin offering more and more “necessities” like cable TV and internet services. Since they regulate private industry already…who’s to say they’ll be any more competitive when they are the competitor? Wouldn’t the smart thing to do be to regulate your competition out of business? Since they’d have the power to do so…my fear is they would limit the availability of new technologies like hi-speed broadband. Primarily because they would have to “keep up with the Joneses” and invest more themselves (and that’s taxpayer money). They would also have no real incentive to be profitable…and we’ll end up with a Social Security plan for our Televisions and Computers.

And then there is this, from Russ…

RUSS writes: The issue of government involved in providing broadband utilities is not any different from many cities who provided electrical or telephone utilities for citizens.

Since when did internet and cable TV become necessary? In fact, to be as cold as possible, where is it written that even electricity and telephone service should be a function of government?

RUSS: I see no problem if you have at least two providers in an area…

Again, people should remember that it is GOVERNMENT that makes the rules and regulations as to placement of power lines, and even to make deals with cable operators. That doesn’t mean they should do it themselves. The question of IF they have at least two providers in an area is up to the regulating board of the government in charge.

Then, RUSS unloads a soft-ball: AND the city could provide the service at a reasonable rate without costing the taxpayers anything to subsidize the operation. The cost of the service should be paid by those who want it. Broadband internet service could become as important for communications as telephone.

Since when did government start providing ANY service at a reasonable cost…much less without any subsidization? And because we have some really screwy accounting systems for government, there are no compartmental funds where only the people who want something pay for it. From schools, to Medicare, and Social Security…the examples are legion.

I have said for a number of years while doing talk radio that conservatives have lost the war of ideas, really. There are so many people who can be easily lured by the actions of a few socialists still alive in the halls of our government. Liberalism is easy. All you have to do is say you want something and have someone else pay for it. Conservatives need to keep fighting back if we are to now believe that Cable TV and Broadband Access to the internet has become a necessity for government to provide.

CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED CONNECTIVITY

I have been very busy with some upgrades to my computer and the server. You may not notice, dear readers, but believe me - it's a pain in the ass keeping up with the Joneses.

It just so happens to be the topic of this post...and some future ones.

When I left Iowa years ago, there was a constant battle in my previous market between dreamy-eyed idealists and common sense folk like myself. The government of the town I was in had invested millions in a cable television operation and high speed internet service for their constituents. Now, I can understand how some municipalities might take on the responsibility for providing some of the bare necessities of life - water, electricity, sewage, roads, etc. But where is it written in the Constitution that government has to provide other things like cable TV, garbage collection, recycling, etc?

As a strict market-based semi-pro economist, I can't see how local governments can get away with saying most of those things are a necessity. Cable TV? Why in the world would a city government decide that cable TV is a necessity and begin investing tax dollars in order to provide it?

There's an on-going fight in the general assembly of Iowa these days over the telecommunications bill. It would allow local municipalities to get in the business of providing "broadband access" for underserved communities. This opens up a whole can of worms for me.

Tomorrow, I'll post some of the emails and conversations I've had with locals here in Cedar Rapids (population about 200,000) who are in favor of the idea. Some are rather twisted in their logic...as an example, "We need more competition because we only have one cable operator in town." Yes...look to government to provide competition...

Unbelievable stuff, really.

Bottom line for me: If it's a good idea, then let private industry make money off of it.

DELAY

Sorry for the delay. Server difficulties and software upgrades at the Alan household. Stand by for new content...soon, I hope.

Thank you, Mr Gates...you owe me a billion or two. You can spare it.