Why We MUST Save Social Security

I find it sad, and somewhat worrisome, that so many young people think Social Security will not be there for them when they're ready to retire. What they don't understand is they had better hope it is -- because if not, it's doubtful that the vast majority of them would ever be able to stop working.

The Republicans want to kill Social Security or privatize it (in other words, they want to invest all that money in the stock market, not exactly a great idea given what's happened to that in the last decade). They keep saying we have to cut Social Security to balance the budget, yet they don't want to increase taxes on the wealthy, even the capital gains tax, which is now only 15%. Many people who are wealthy make most of that wealth from capital gains, by the way, so their income is taxed at a much lower rate than the pay of most Americans.

As we know, the income disparity between the middle class and the wealthy has gotten wider and wider as time has gone on, and yet the Republicans continue to shelter them. Notice that they no longer refer to the wealthy as "the wealthy" or "the rich" - there must have been a memo that went out to all Republican lawmakers to now refer to them as the "job creators." Really! I know, it's hysterical. The wealthy are doing better than ever, so if they're the "job creators," why is unemployment over 9% again?

But back to Social Security. Only the first $106,800 of income is taxed for Social Security. So whether you make $106,800 or $20 million, you will pay the same amount of Social Security tax. Does this make sense to anyone? 70% of Americans agree there should be no income limit on these taxes. In September of this year a bill was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to remove this cap, but as yet it has not been brought up for a vote. That's probably because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed knows it won't pass the Republican-led House.

How many of you out there work for a company with a traditional retirement plan (known as a "defined benefit" plan), the kind your parents and grandparents had? Probably not many of you, because these kinds of plans have been disappearing. Some companies replaced them with what is called "defined contribution" plans, where you have an account with your name on it and the company can decide how much, if anything, it wants to contribute to that account each year. These accounts are almost always very poor replacements for defined benefit plans (trust me, they didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts). Recently companies have been ditching those as well, and relying on 401(k)s, if they give the employees anything. In my mind 401(k)s are very dangerous as it relies on the employees to be able to make the kind of financial decisions that most people just do not have the knowledge or background to make. Not only that, but it is very unlikely that most people, unless they make a huge salary, would be able to come close to saving enough money for retirement through a 401(k), even one with a company matching contribution.

With real estate losing value, people losing jobs, and the loss of traditional retirement plans, Social Security simply MUST be saved, or we will have generations of people who either cannot retire at all, or who will retire in very poor financial shape.

In addition, the loss of Social Security or the increase in the Social Security retirement age will mean a rise in unemployment, but the Republicans don't mention that. Why will this affect unemployment? The longer people have to work to receive their Social Security or to save for retirement due to the loss of other retirement income, the more young people will be frozen out of the jobs where they would have replaced the older worker who retired.

By the way, when the Republicans talk about raising the Social Security retirement age, guess what - they already have. They don't tell you this, either. But look on the Social Security website (www.ssa.gov) and you will see that the age for full Social Security benefits is 65 only for those people who were born in 1937 or earlier. It goes up after that, until it reaches 67 for people born in 1960 or later. So if you are now 51 years old, you will not be able to retire with a full benefit until age 67. You may say, that's OK, I'll take a partial benefit and retire at 65 anyway... but for each year you retire early you will sacrifice about 8% of your benefit for the rest of your life. So in that case, your benefit would be about 16% less than it would be if you retired at 67.

Make sure you understand the implications of any changes your lawmakers want to make to Social Security before voting. And if you're a young person, don't think of Social Security as something only for your parents and grandparents. If you ever want to be able to retire, you had better work now to make sure it will be there for you.

Mississippi's Abortion Law Insanity

On November 8th there will be a measure on the ballot in Mississippi to declare a fertilized egg a "person." This is just the latest in the overzealous, far-right evangelicals' attempt to create a workaround for the fact that they can't get abortion outlawed in this country. This law would, in fact, make abortion, some forms of birth control (the morning after pill, such as is used in cases of rape, for example), as well as discarding unneeded embryos created for in-vitro fertilization procedures murder. That's how ridiculous this gets.

See my previous posts regarding abortions and abortion law, including the outrageous law just passed in North Carolina. I have always said, and will always say, that I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control. However, there are occasions (again, refer to my previous posts) where it is medically necessary, where it is ethical (rape of a 10-year old, anyone?) or where it is the most humane thing to do (such as in the case of a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb). Making abortions illegal would take women back to the days of backroom, coathanger abortions, which are just damn dangerous and could mean death for the mother. But the so-called "pro-lifers" don't care about the life of the mother, apparently. All they care about is a fertilized egg.

By the way, in case those people neglected to sit through their junior high class on the subject, it takes more than a sperm meeting with an egg to make a baby. It also takes a third item, the most critical one - implantation into the womb. Without this element, there will be no baby. Got it? So why does this ridiculous law go so far as to protect fertilized eggs that have no chance of growing into human babies?

Now, as a secularist I don't believe people have souls at any stage of their lives. But anyone who thinks a few cells in a petri dish has a soul is just crazy. Period.

I have yet to see attached to a bill like this any funding for orphanages and caretakers for the children who will be abandoned should this bill take effect. If Mississippi wants to pass this bill, then they should make it clear to the voters that their taxes will go up to fund such organizations, but I never hear this talked about. What do these lawmakers think will happen to these children?

I hope the people of Mississippi, as well as Florida, Ohio and other states considering such laws, think about the other people involved in cases like this. If you seriously believe that a little girl who has been raped should have to carry that baby to term, endangering her life and mental health, then you live in a different moral universe than I do. That is simply using women as tools to obtain a political result, and that is wrong.

For Occupy Wall Street to Succeed People Must Stop Voting for the Wrong Candidates

When the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations started I figured they would last for a few days and then fizzle out, but they have been going for a month now. I had no faith because about half the voting population has no idea, if the polls are to be believed, exactly who or what they're voting for. Why are people so determined to vote for candidates who couldn't care less about them or their concerns?

Take the current Republican frontrunner, Mitt "I never met an issue I couldn't flip-flop on" Romney. He claims he knows how to create jobs, but how exactly did Mitt make his millions? Anyone ever hear of a leveraged buyout? Mitt went around taking over companies that were in trouble, cleaned their assets out and sold them, cutting as many jobs in the process as he could. Does this sound to you like someone who cares about middle-class unemployment?

Then there's Herman "Let 'em eat cake" Cain, the CEO of Godfather's Pizza. According to him, if you're not rich it's your fault. You're just "not working hard enough.". OK, Mr. Cain... I'd like to see you say that to a room full of firefighters, or teachers, or police officers. How about our men and women in uniform? Do you think they're not working hard enough? And what about his so-called 9-9-9 tax plan? Quite frankly I'm amazed anyone in the media is taking it with more than one tiny grain of salt, considering it's the most half-assed idea I've heard of in a long time. But then it does meet the Republican criteria for tax reform... make sure you give a big tax break to the wealthy while raising taxes on the middle class and the poor. It's even better is if you make it sound as though what you're doing is actually the opposite!

Rick "Really, I'm not George Bush!" Perry likes to tout his job creation record as governor of Texas. But if you look at the numbers you realize the bulk of those jobs came from an addition of jobs for the state and federal government, many paid for by the stimulus plan Republicans claim to loathe. Oops! His newest big plan for job creation? Drill, baby, drill! That's right - he wants to drill for "abundant" (it's not) oil in Alaska, and for more natural gas (ever seen someone light their tap water on fire)?

I could say something also about Michelle "I will single-handedly get gas back down to $2 a gallon" Bachmann, but suffice it to say I've figured out that she is just this year's obligatory female Republican presidential candidate designed to make us women think the GOP is serious about actually nominating one. In reality I think they just like to have one around that, just like last year's model, is attractive but dumb as a box of rocks. Oh, and did Ms. Bachmann mention all the federal money she and her husband have taken in? And how about the farm subsidies?

When Jon Huntsman jumped in the race I thought he would be big trouble for Obama, but instead he's been relegated to the back of the pack. It seems no one who votes Republican wants a moderate who knows how to work with Democrats. Huh, imagine that.

If the Occupy Wall Street protestors want to change things, then they need to stop voting for people who have done everything in their power to protect the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. They need to stop voting for people who put money ahead of the health of the environment. They need to stop voting for people who protect big corporations because that's where their campaign contributions come from. They need to stop voting for people who don't give a damn about them. I'm just not sure when, or if, enough of the people out there protesting are going to get it.