As the Deadline Approaches...

Congress is at it again. Another deadline is at it's critical point to keep the government funded and congress wants to hurry up and get it passed so they can go on yet another break. The problem is the territorial wars are back at it with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate and White House, and this time it may just come down to a compromise. 


Republicans introduced a $915 billion spending bill in the House on Thursday trying to force the Democrats to pass the legislation that would keep the U.S. Government funded beyond this weekend when the "Holiday" break is set to occur.


And again it comes down to another deadline for the bill to be passed as the government shutdown would be in just two days. The temporary funding measure set to expire on Friday would, if not renewed or revised, shut down major services run by the departments of defense, education, health and labor.


But both Republicans and Democrats are arguing over how to extend an expiring payroll tax cut that would affect 160 million Americans and each side is attempting to use the bill as a bargaining chip. Included in the bill are funds that would provide crucial government functions such as patrolling the U.S. borders, but has little chance of passing unless the Democratic-controlled Senate can agree that the bill is complete. But at the White House request, the Senate Democrats are attempting to force the Republican "hands" to agree on payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits even if it means delaying their "vacation".


In other "news":


The House voted 283-136 for the $662 billion measure Wednesday night, a rare bipartisan vote the reflected the strong support for annual legislation that authorizes money for the men and women of the military as well as weapons systems and the millions of jobs they generate in lawmakers' districts.

The Senate was expected to clear the bill Thursday and send it to President Barack Obama.

The House vote came just hours after the administration abandoned a veto threat over provisions dealing with the handling of terrorism suspects.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought modifications in the detainee provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

"I told you so..."

My last post of November 14th was about the upcoming failure of the "Super Committee" to reach any sort of agreement and I was right. The deadline past without much fanfare by any media reporting or political backlash. It proves once again the truth about Washington being broken. The only winner was President Obama, that is, if his real purpose was to highlight that a "two-party" system can no longer provide for the American people, he succeeded.


On Saturday night, December 10th, the latest round of Republican debates was featured and for the most part, I haven't watched any of the others, but there was literally nothing else on television besides Christmas shows I have already seen, so I decided to watch most of the sparring by the six major contenders. Honestly I think ABC and Yahoo would have been better off simulcasting The "Grinch Who Stole Christmas" rather than a night of misleading speeches by those that can't decide on who their enemy is. 


Yes, there were a few light moments on stage. Mitt Romney offering a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, a faux pas that could take serious numbers away from Romney. Michelle Bachmann and her consistent reminder of her "tragic" upbringing of being in a broken family. And, even the sparring between Romney and Newt Gingrich arguing about who was the closer friend to Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.


I really have no idea who might have won the debate as there was more sparring among the participants than actual posturing on key election topics. Maybe Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, or former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania actually came out on top because I heard very little from them about anything. 


I guess it's true that it's not what is said, but what you hear. For example, Romney incorrectly stated that President Obama said Israel must "go back" to the 1967 borders. That is simply not true! Obama stated Israel should go back to those borders as a starting point for "mutually agreed swaps".


Perry states that over the past 11 years Texas, under his leadership, has created over a million jobs, while there has been over two million job losses across the rest of the country. A statement that is both misleading and false. Numbers are inflated by Perry to make himself look good because as a matter of fact the U.S. has only lost 897,000 jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the same period of time.


The one thing this over-used forum has proven is that it's really difficult to know who a Republican should vote for. With little criticism lobbed at Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, maybe they can sneak away some of the lead of the career Washingtonian, Newt Gingrich. I wish you good luck when you finally go to vote in the primaries across country. My advice...eennie meanie minee mo!

Myths and Truths About Social Security

Exploding 5 misconceptions that threaten the system

Reprint from AARP Bulletin of 11/1/11: by: Jane Bryant Quinn 

It happened during the stock boom of the 1990s, and it is happening again. Social Security is coming under attack. The first challenge arose from hope — that savers would get more retirement income for their money if they bought stocks. But the idea of privatization was not popular with the public.

See also: Social Security recipients welcome 3.6 percent COLA.

Now, the attack comes from fear ­ ­ — that Social Security has serious financial problems and can only fail. Younger people lean more toward change than older people do. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted a year ago found that 60 percent of adults who aren't retired expect to get nothing — zero — from Social Security in their older age.

Myth No. 1: Social Security is going bankrupt. No, it's not. Even in the unlikely event that nothing changes and the program's entire surplus runs out in 2036, as projected, checks would keep coming. Payroll taxes at current rates would cover 77 percent of all the future benefits promised. That's true for young and old alike, and includes inflation adjustments.

Myth No. 2: I'd be better off if I'd kept my Social Security taxes in my own investment account. Hmmm ­ ­ — you're saying that you'd faithfully put that money aside, every year of your working life, in a mix of stocks and bonds, without ever skipping a year, drawing on your nest egg or selling when the market dropped? Few such paragons exist.

You'd need to invest far more than you probably realize to match the benefits Social Security pays. As an example, take a 65-year-old couple with a single breadwinner who earned the average wage. At retirement, they'd currently get about $2,170 a month, plus inflation adjustments, for life, the Urban Institute reports.

To equal that sum in private savings, they'd need to have about $580,000, says Michael Kitces, director of research for Pinnacle Advisory Group, and the money might last only 30 years. How many average earners are likely to save that much?

Myth No. 3: In 1983, Congress made changes to Social Security to build a fund that would pay for boomers when they retire, so it's not fair to change benefits now. No, Congress did not intend to "advance fund" the boomers, according to a study of the record by Charles Blahous of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It raised taxes and cut some future benefits to cure an imminent insolvency. The trust fund reserves — now $2.6 trillion — were a by-product of the decisions made. Congress never veered from its vision of intergenerational compact: Working people pay for those who don't, or can't, work anymore. On the flip side, the compact requires older people to make some concessions so that younger people can afford it.

Myth No. 4: You should get out of Social Security the amount you put in. No. Social Security is not an individual investment program (see Myth  No. 2). Your taxes paid for the earlier generation of retirees. Current workers are paying for you. The total amount of your benefit depends on how much you earned, whether you get a spousal benefit, when you retire and how long you live.

Myth No. 5: Social Security helps old people, not younger people like me. Wrong. It provides income support to qualified widows and widowers with young children, as well as orphans. Just as important, it saves young families from the cost of supporting older parents who, without Social Security, wouldn't have enough money to live on. It also provides benefits for workers who become disabled.

My final point … and it isn't a myth, it's a fact. If young people switched their payroll taxes into private accounts, the government would have to borrow $6.5 trillion or more (depending on the details) to keep paying out benefits to current retirees.

That means higher deficits, higher income taxes, further slashes in spending, or all three. It's smarter — and cheaper — to fix the current program and put everyone's mind at rest.