If you have a problem to solve; you first define that problem, face it head on,
and then attack just that problem from all angles and you will solve it That
problem should be the sole focus of your attention. Forget other problems for
now. Don't try to solve multiple problems with one solution. Never, ever start
problem solving with a preconceived "agenda". Remember the old adages "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it": and sometimes the simplest solution is the right
solution.
These proven guidelines are as true in solving the problem of Social Security's
insolvency as they were shown to be true in the war on terror. We didn't find
Osama in Iraq, nor did we find WDM's; because we approached Iraq with the
Administration's hidden agenda. Was it oil? Was it dominionism? Was it to
"one-up" Daddy or maybe avenge him? We mere mortals will never know, or
agree. But one thing is for sure, we did not go to Iraq to free the Iraqis. That's
just the happy consequence we must weigh against: 10's of thousands of dead
Iraqis, a country in ruins, a trashed image worldwide, tons of money spent, and
thousands of our own young people dead or injured for life. We didn't need to
use dynamite to get rid of the dandelion!
Social Security Solvency - The Bush administration is approaching this problem
in the very same way, with an agenda. President Bush, for reasons still unclear,
decided way back in his history that privatized accounts (or whatever the new
politically correct name is today) should be added to Social Security. Maybe the
ultimate objective is to get rid of Social Security. I certainly don't know, but that
will be the likely result, intended or not. Maybe he is just trying to line the
pockets of his Wall Street pals (those people he calls his base). I have no idea.
But If his true intent is to solve the Social Security problem, he is again way off
base. Like a little leaguer; he isn't keeping his eye on the ball. Instead, he's
keeping his eye on the bat he carried to the plate. He is not trying to solve a
problem; instead, he's just pushing his agenda.
To solve the problem of Social Security's insolvency; he needs to define the
problem honestly and focus only on what will fix Social Security. Forget all of
the side issues. Then look for the obvious answer. Click on the Social
Security card above and then click on Start > to view a really quick simple
answer.
If the President thinks privatized accounts can be an added benefit for
retirees; attack that as a separate issue. Maybe broaden the various IRA
programs. IRA's give people who can afford to gamble, and are willing to
gamble, an opportunity to do so. If they gamble and lose ; Social Security will
still be there to help when it's needed. And the happy consequence?: The
President can still line the pockets of his Wall Street friends (his base).
Warren Buffet, whose comments appeared in the KC Star recently, made two
poignant observations about Social Security: "it's an interesting idea that a
deficit of $100 billion a year, something 20 years out seems to terrify the
administration. But the $400-plus billion currently does nothing but draw
yawns". And he followed that with this personal note, "I pay very little in the
way of Social Security taxes because I make a lot more than $90,000... And I
would means test - I get a check for $1700 or $1900 or something every
month. I'm 74. And I cash it. But I will eat without it".
I know that some people who make large amounts of money feel it is unfair
for their wealth to trickle down to the less fortunate. They call this:
redistribution of their wealth to the less ambitious. Or, as I have heard it
stated, "picking on the rich because they have achieved, to give to the weak
and lazy". I wonder if executives have ever considered how many
automobiles would be built at Ford or GM using just their abilities alone? Or
how many battles would be won if just the congressfolk, Administration, and
the generals fought? Those who feel they are 'robbed by redistribution of
their wealth' should ask themselves this question; if the profits of businesses
were distributed more evenly on the front side, would the workers who
produce, sell and distribute their products even need trickle-down?
How many of you executives out there can look in the mirror and honestly
say, "What I do is 25 or 50 or even 15 times more valuable than what my
secretary does"? (you probably couldn't get any of it done without her/him).
You sales managers, who were salesmen last year; do you really generate
more money for the company today than you did last year? Or does the guy
that replaced you? CEO's, are you really a thousand times more valuable than
your line employees? How much does it really cost the company to keep you
around? How does 'you as overhead' impact the profit picture of your
company?
We all know life's unfair. Those of us who have been, or still are, in the upper
salary brackets need to recognize; it's been a little less unfair to us. If you
answered yes to any of the self worth questions in the previous paragraph;
"Get Over Yourself"! (I say that with all affection) You are just another cog in
the wheel that slips if any of the cogs are missing. Understand that
sometimes you have to give back to those that have helped support you all
of these years. You could never have done it alone.
Response received Read on:
This response provided by a lady who works with the poor and disabled in
North Kansas City. Though these examples don't directly address Social
Security but they do relate to the budget cuts enacted by our Missouri
Legislature, withdrawing help for 90,000 people in our state needing medical
help.
Amen!!
Comment: I know a person who felt things were going pretty well, then one
day they found that they had to quit work and take care of a sick parent until
they died. After that, the spouse became terminally ill and it basically took
everything they had. This person now exists on $500 a month and pays 5 bills
each month. This person is worried about the medicare cuts and is worried
that some of the medications prescribed are going to have to be cut.
Another person is also concerned about the medicare situation because he
is partially paralyzed. He had polio as a child and requires a wheelchair. He
also has diabetes and sleep apnea. He has been told that he cannot be
without his oxygen at night or he will not wake up the next day. He gets by on
$500 or a little less than that.
These people are not lazy and would prefer not to be in the situation they are
in. The only other alternative for some will be moving in with their children,
or doing without that wheelchair that has to be replaced about every three
years because it wears out, or the oxygen. These people are not n'er do
wells; they are just plain ordinary common folk who got caught in unfortunate
circumstances, and they are truly appreciative of anything you do for them.
The end of our lives is hopefully several years away for the majority of us,
and a lot can happen to us, to our pensions, to our medical benefits; then
where would we be? Who would be there to help us?
