Many Baptist ministers my age put money in a Convention operated retirement plan to supplement whatever we were supposed to receive from social security when we retire.
Suppose we got a letter from the President of the Convention telling us that if we didn't agree to drastic changes at the Annuity Board, and accept reduced benefits, the board was projected to go into bankruptcy. Suppose that at the same time we got our letter, all the younger preachers in the Convention were advised it would be best to stop sending money to the Annuity Board and start putting their money into their own private investment accounts.
Suppose that as we investigated the reasons for our Annuity Board's insolvency we discovered that the Convention had been providing exorbitant benefits and perks to the powerful executives and trustees and friends of those who run the convention and that they had been dipping into the funds at the Annuity Board to pay the expenses of the Convention.
Would we still line up like loyal lemmings following our leaders, or would we be looking for a District Attorney and some lawyers and accountants who would press charges for embezzlement or fraud?
What difference is there in the scenario I just described and the agenda of this Administration regarding their tax cuts for the wealthy and their revision of Social Security?
This Administration is using the suplus revenue we are paying into Social Security to reduce the size of its deficit spending. Spending is in deficit because they gave exorbitant tax breaks and tax credits to the wealthy and powerful people who run our country.
Why are Southern Baptists still lining up like loyal lemmings to follow these leaders?
6 comments:
You are getting there... You seem to communicate that this and only this administration is using (and has used) surplus Social Security monies to reduce the deficit in the general budget. This is not exclusive of this administration. Remember, the so-called balanced budget under Clinton was due to the inclusion of surplus Social Security revenues and not due to spending less than monies received. The fact is spending was also in a deficit under Clinton. Period. Only by borrowing (some would say stealing) money for Social Security was Clinton and the Congress able to claim a balanced budget.
Now regarding the tax cuts being just for the wealthy in America: the bottom 20% of tax payers are now paying about *half* of what they were paying 20 years ago, while the top *one* percent of tax payers are now paying almost 23% of the taxes versus roughly 15% 20 years ago. In other words, the poorest 20% among us are paying far less of the tax burden while the wealthiest 1% are paying far more. Only by talking actual dollars (rather than rates which is what our tax code is built upon) can a case be made that the wealthy got a bigger "cut." Obviously a guy earning a million a year will get a larger cut - in real dollars - than a guy who only earns 40k, even at the same *rate* cut. The fairest method of taxation is a flat rate. If Mr. Smith earns ten times what Mr. Jones earns, then Mr. Smith should pay ten times the taxes Mr. Jones pays. This is fair. Should a millionaire pay a higher percentage tithe (yeah...I know tithe means "tenth") than a poor man? No. That is not fair.
BTW, here is a link for the information I used above:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040406-105548-2639r.htm
jtr,
Trusting Sun Myung Moon's newspaper on matters of politics is not just risky, it is foolish.
Here's a better source of information:
Paul Krugman's latest reportAs for the deficits of previous administrations -- the U.S. government has always been in debt, the federal government began paying down the national debt in August 1999. At least 100 billion was paid in 1999-2000 before Bush gave the surplus away in tax cuts.
When Bush took office the National Debt was around 5.7 Trillion, today it is around 7.6 Trillion.
Here's a link
Is trusting a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (and not Moon's newspaper as you claim) really foolish or is it foolish because the data he provides is contrary to what you allege? C'mon Bruce. Is *your* link more trustworthy because it supports your position? If Mr. Bartlett's data is incorrect, point it out. Do not simply attack the owner of his newspaper. By the way, this column of his is also published in the Detroit News. Does that make it foolish?
This is not a legitimate debate tactic. It may be effective, but it is not legitimate.
If the deficit was actually paid down in 1999/2000 (and I concede the point), what happened in 2000/2001? Remember, Bush was not president until 2001 and his first budget was not effective until 2002. Therefore, how is he responsible for eating up the so-called surplus when his policies were not in effect yet? Also remember that the recession started in 2000 or early 2001. Again, this is before any of Bush's economic policies/tax cuts were enacted. If this is so, how is the recession and its subsequent lower tax revenues his fault? Actually, how is *any* recession *any* president's fault?
Let us get back to my original point because that is my real contention with your post. You have stated on many occasions that the president's tax cuts were only for the wealthy and yet the data shows that the wealthiest Americans are actually paying a larger portion of the overall tax burden. As Mr. Bartlett - a nationally recognized writer from the Los Angeles Times, the Detroit News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and yes, the Washington Times - pointed out the top 1% is paying more than 22% of the tax burden compared to just 14% 20 years ago while the bottom 20% of taxpayers are paying about *half* of what they were paying 20 years ago. Your assertion that the tax cuts only benefit the wealthy is inaccurate.
jtr,
It doesn't take much for a Baptist preacher to see through Bartlett's article.
I pay 15.2% in taxes to Social Security and Midicare before I even begin to pay any Federal taxes. Add that to the 10% federal taxes that the bottom 20% pays in taxes and it's 25.2%.
The difference between the taxes that the top 10% pays and the taxes that the bottom 20% pays is that all of it is called taxes for the top 10%. For the bottom 20% two thirds of it is called social security and medicare -- which is now going bankrupt.
The very least the top 10% could do is stop capping the amount that they have to pay into social security and medicare. That would go a long way toward solving the insolvency of social security and medicare.
When talking about tax rates and the fairness/inequities thereof, we need to keep Social Security/Medicare taxes separate from income taxes. When income taxes and rates are debated and legislated, Social Security taxes are not factored in to the issue. With that in mind, I am not sure through what you are actually seeing.
I agree with you that the cap for Social Security taxes needs to be raised. I know people who actually stop paying Social Security taxes in *January*. They are in the sales industry and receive their fourth quarter bonuses in January. That, combined with their current commissions, amounts to more than the $87,000 cap. This is absurd. I am amazed that the Democrats and other advocates of collectivist, progressive income taxes have not spoken out about this. Can you imagine if the Republicans proposed that only those earning less than $87,000 had to pay income tax? This is absurd. The tax - any tax - should be a flat rate across the board. CEO's and factory workers and ministers and burger flippers should pay the same rate. Period. As I mentioned, the fairest tithe is, well, a tithe. Whether earning $40,000 or $400,000, one should pay the same rate.
You stated that Social Security and Medicare are "now going bankrupt." Am I to understand that it is your position that Bush is responsible? Remember, it was Bill Clinton in the 1990's who was telling us that Social Security was in trouble. One cannot blame Bush for this since he was in Texas at the time. The President pointed out why Social Security is in trouble. When first enacted there were sixteen (or was it nineteen?) paying in to the program for every one receiving benefits. Sixteen to one is sustainable. Now, however, there are only *three* paying in for every one receiving benefits. Three to one is not a good ratio. What will happen as the 75,000,000+ Baby Boomers retire? The ratio of those paying in to those receiving benefits will only get worse as it moves toward one-to-one. Something *needs* to be done. Kudos to Bill Clinton for recognizing it and speaking out about it. Kudos to George W. Bush for trying to do something to fix it. Disagree with his method, perhaps, but do not blame him for the problem. It is inherent in the system.
Thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate your blog and your ideas.
Just read the editorial in the Feb, 7 US News. Can't remember the writer's name as I was reading it in the orthodontist office waiting for my daughter. He mentions several alternatives to make Social Security solvernt for the next one hundred years, and concludes that Bush's plan does not make it solvent and actually makes it worse.
Post a Comment