In the current job climate with unemployment hovering around 9% the real push with the electorate is jobs. What is interesting is that both sides really have not changed the overall thrust of their sloganeering, they have just changed the slogans to match the push for jobs. Republicans still want low taxes to increase the investment dollar, and Democrats want to make sure that the middle and lower classes have the money and resources necessary to consume enough to drive the economy. Both sides have finally agreed that the deficit is a problem.
One of the key issues with cutting the deficit is the Social Security. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and others have talked about raising the retirement age to 70, which would lower the amount of benefits paid out to everyone.
An Unforeseen and heretofore undiscussed consequence of raising the retirement age will be the increase in people working to an age closer to 70. The current average retirement age in the United States is 62. This dovetails neatly with when Social Security benefits kick in.
As the elderly face the reality of not having a paycheck coming in until they reach the age of 70 they will choose to stay in the labor pool. Much like how creating mandatory schooling and having child labor laws drove the number of applicants seeking a job down, so too does having a paycheck going out to older people. The increased number of people hanging onto their jobs for approximately 5-8 years will cause the number of openings for the advancement of those already in the labor force and the number of jobs for those just entering the labor force to go down. This will cause the unemployment rate to go up.
In the end it comes down to a conundrum of "should we raise government income to keep the system workable for the next 20 years?" versus "should we just brace for greater unemployment rates in at least the short term to keep the tax rates low?"
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
The One Time I See No Equality
Often in American politics we hear the phrase "but both sides do it." A good example is the outrage over the Tea Party being told to sit down and shut up. That elections have consequences, and the healthcare bill would become law. Now those same Tea Partiers are telling the protesters in Wisconsin to sit down and shut up. Elections have consequences after all...
The one thing I have not seen any inverse to is the treatment of Michelle Obama. It really is ridiculous. I remember watching the Family Guy episode in which Laura Bush was mocked for having "killed a guy" over and over, which referred to an event when she was a teenager and killed a classmate. At the time I thought this was an extremely low blow, but have to admit that it was humor from someone not affiliated with any party or particular mainstream movement.
Laura Bush was a fairly innocuous First Lady. As First Lady she picked an issue and spoke out about it. Laura Bush's issue was childhood reading. She was concerned about teachers and actually championed a program called "Troops to Teachers" that moves servicemen into the classroom by using federal dollars to make them more attractive to school districts who hire them. I pride myself on consuming more news coverage than most anyone I know, and I never heard anyone say anything good or bad about this program. Keith Olbermann never claimed that Mrs. Bush was attempting to indoctrinate America's underprivileged children into a pro-military outlook so they would be more likely to enlist directly after high school. Chris Matthews never cited any study that showed Mrs. Bush was just trying to get more children to read the Bible only.
Fast forward to First Lady Michelle Obama has decided to take up the massively controversial issue of childhood obesity. Currently she is being lambasted by the right for her controversial findings that American kids are fat, need to eat right and play more. Apparently all of this is part of a controversy to keep Sarah Palin from feeding her children cookies as they dodge death panels.
I'll be honest with you, this is not a call to open up on the families of politicians. This is a call for people to bring some civility into politics. I often use this question to judge what I should think "if someone I liked did that would I be mad?" I can honestly say 90% of the uproar in our system is based on people not using that statement in their evaluations.
The one thing I have not seen any inverse to is the treatment of Michelle Obama. It really is ridiculous. I remember watching the Family Guy episode in which Laura Bush was mocked for having "killed a guy" over and over, which referred to an event when she was a teenager and killed a classmate. At the time I thought this was an extremely low blow, but have to admit that it was humor from someone not affiliated with any party or particular mainstream movement.
Laura Bush was a fairly innocuous First Lady. As First Lady she picked an issue and spoke out about it. Laura Bush's issue was childhood reading. She was concerned about teachers and actually championed a program called "Troops to Teachers" that moves servicemen into the classroom by using federal dollars to make them more attractive to school districts who hire them. I pride myself on consuming more news coverage than most anyone I know, and I never heard anyone say anything good or bad about this program. Keith Olbermann never claimed that Mrs. Bush was attempting to indoctrinate America's underprivileged children into a pro-military outlook so they would be more likely to enlist directly after high school. Chris Matthews never cited any study that showed Mrs. Bush was just trying to get more children to read the Bible only.
Fast forward to First Lady Michelle Obama has decided to take up the massively controversial issue of childhood obesity. Currently she is being lambasted by the right for her controversial findings that American kids are fat, need to eat right and play more. Apparently all of this is part of a controversy to keep Sarah Palin from feeding her children cookies as they dodge death panels.
I'll be honest with you, this is not a call to open up on the families of politicians. This is a call for people to bring some civility into politics. I often use this question to judge what I should think "if someone I liked did that would I be mad?" I can honestly say 90% of the uproar in our system is based on people not using that statement in their evaluations.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Donald Rumsfeld Pisses Me Off
I just got done watching Donald Rumsfeld's interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.
On March 30, 2003 Don Rumsfeld said about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD, and the reason for going to war) "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
On the Daily Show he said that in the lead up to the war he made a list of things that could go wrong. Not finding any WMDs was on the list. I count this as a lie to the American people. If you can't make your case on substantiated facts, or you believe something to be true, then SAY IT! The American people deserve to know the truth.
If you voted for George W. Bush in 2004, punch yourself in the dick.
On March 30, 2003 Don Rumsfeld said about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD, and the reason for going to war) "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
On the Daily Show he said that in the lead up to the war he made a list of things that could go wrong. Not finding any WMDs was on the list. I count this as a lie to the American people. If you can't make your case on substantiated facts, or you believe something to be true, then SAY IT! The American people deserve to know the truth.
If you voted for George W. Bush in 2004, punch yourself in the dick.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Wisconsin Debacle
Someone on my Facebook posted this Article
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116355379.html
This was my response that pretty much sums up the issues as I see them:
He echos my thoughts on a lot of things you wouldn't agree with when he talks about elections having certain consequences, but Governor Walker is removing their right to bargain on everything. "Walker, remember, is not removing unions' fun...damental power to bargain for wages" but he is removing their right to bargain for everything else. According to the new legislation they could only bargain over wages and nothing else. My Congressman talks about "over regulation" all the time, and this is just another step towards that. If they want to force public employees into a better deal for the state, that is within the employer's rights, but as someone who receives a yearly letter telling you what all your benefits would actually cost you on the outside I would think you would see the benefit in the state being able to bargain to cover those things in exchange for lower pay. It's not like it hasn't worked for that very state in the past.
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/club-growth/group-says-wisconsin-state-workers-havent-had-sacr/
The yearly certification of the union is another issue I can see going either way, but it definitely helps the state and the accusation of the NFL Player's Union that the NFL is trying to decertify it's union really highlights the benefits.
I think the argument that has been a Tea Party standard is "We didn't vote for this!" really applies here much more than it did in the healthcare debates. Governor Walker didn't run on getting tough on unions. Here is his campaign page about how to reign in government spending:
http://www.scottwalker.org/issues/government-reform
It has several bullet entries, and a word that starts with "Uni" doesn't even appear, much less "unions". The claim that elections have consequences is true, but this is clearly an unforeseen consequence as Governor Walker never ran on doing this.
This is all, of course, just my humble observation as an unbiased person who is admittedly part of what has become the increasingly left wing "factinista". I guess maybe I should get a job at the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel with this hardcore investigative work that took all of 5 minutes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116355379.html
This was my response that pretty much sums up the issues as I see them:
He echos my thoughts on a lot of things you wouldn't agree with when he talks about elections having certain consequences, but Governor Walker is removing their right to bargain on everything. "Walker, remember, is not removing unions' fun...damental power to bargain for wages" but he is removing their right to bargain for everything else. According to the new legislation they could only bargain over wages and nothing else. My Congressman talks about "over regulation" all the time, and this is just another step towards that. If they want to force public employees into a better deal for the state, that is within the employer's rights, but as someone who receives a yearly letter telling you what all your benefits would actually cost you on the outside I would think you would see the benefit in the state being able to bargain to cover those things in exchange for lower pay. It's not like it hasn't worked for that very state in the past.
http://politifact.com/wisc
The yearly certification of the union is another issue I can see going either way, but it definitely helps the state and the accusation of the NFL Player's Union that the NFL is trying to decertify it's union really highlights the benefits.
I think the argument that has been a Tea Party standard is "We didn't vote for this!" really applies here much more than it did in the healthcare debates. Governor Walker didn't run on getting tough on unions. Here is his campaign page about how to reign in government spending:
http://www.scottwalker.org
It has several bullet entries, and a word that starts with "Uni" doesn't even appear, much less "unions". The claim that elections have consequences is true, but this is clearly an unforeseen consequence as Governor Walker never ran on doing this.
This is all, of course, just my humble observation as an unbiased person who is admittedly part of what has become the increasingly left wing "factinista". I guess maybe I should get a job at the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel with this hardcore investigative work that took all of 5 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)