Social Security

Republicans have stated that he would like to see people be able to make alternative investment decisions for 4% of their Social Security contributions. Democrats have stated that any changes to the Social Security system would be the undoing of the federal government. However, I feel very strongly that the federal government's retirement plan should be only one of several different options that people have in saving for their retirement. If the federal government wants to continue to offer Social Security, it should have direct competition in the financial markets to be the caretakers of our retirement accounts.

Sadly, over the past 30 years, the federal government has taken money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for many other endeavors, like war. Every election cycle, the candidates from the two big parties promise to put a wall around the Social Security Trust Fund. But then, as President Bush demonstrated last year, if any crisis occurs, they once again treat the Social Security Trust Fund as a bank. Unfortunately, the trillions of dollars in loans they have taken out from the Fund have never been repaid.

Mr. Lindsey, President Bush's chief economist, estimates that it may cost us at least $200 billion to go to war with Iraq.  This estimation emphasizes the point that we can no longer afford to just take a little off the top of the revenue stream of a fund that is already $7 trillion in the red.  I believe that a law must be created requiring the U.S. Congress to pay for wars either from surplus operating cash on hand (not currently likely) or by issuing war bonds.

Of course, the federal government must make good on its promises to pay full benefits to the current participants in the Social Security system. To make this happen will require large budget cuts across the board. From my work experience, diligent financial planning will always reveal ways to save large amounts of money on any project while still achieving its objective. On the federal government level, this would require that members of the U.S. Congress actually read the annual budget and only fund activities which are defined by the U.S. Constitution, activities that are ethical and financially sound. Every year I watch CSPAN around the time of the annual federal budget vote. As ridiculous as this sounds, every single member of Congress approaches the 5 foot high pile of paper that represents the budget and proceeds to bemoan the fact that they have not read a single page! But in the name of moving the country forward another year, each member pledges to vote to pass the budget in its entirety.

Pork barrel spending is the order of the day in the U.S. Congress. There are countless examples of pet projects attached as amendments to otherwise potentially valid and ethical appropriation bills. The media typically highlight only two or three bills, when in fact there are almost 1,000 appropriation bills pending in Congress during each session. I propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would require, as in Texas, that only a balanced annual budget can be passed. As I stated previously, any emergency funding should come from operating surplus and/or issuing new general obligation bonds. In this same amendment, the process of how a bill becomes a law needs to be made clear. After a bill is drafted and approved by the appropriate sub-committees of each chamber, the bill would be required to be posted for public review no less than ten days before it is scheduled to be voted on by the full body of Congress. After the public review period for a bill starts, no changes to it would be allowed. The public would then have the opportunity to contact their representatives with a yes or no opinion about the bill. Those interested in participating earlier in the process could of course continue to send their views on issues to their representatives at any time.

I firmly believe that the reforms I am proposing would lead to a financially sound federal government, including its retirement plan option - Social Security.

The Patriot Act needs to be repealed immediately. Sadly, in addition to it violating most of our U.S. Constitutional rights, it was also the biggest pork barrel in the history of this country. The Act was passed in Congress by standing ovation voting in both chambers but only reduced to writing and compiled a week later so that it could be sent to the President to sign. Americans have not failed to protect themselves because they have yet to give up enough of their rights and liberties. This bizarre law, with its secret search warrants, administrative-only review process for government agents killing people, and ad hoc military tribunals, takes us to the brink of ending our country's proud history of democracy, trust, and freedom.