The Social Security Debate
Everybody knows by now that this debate is going nowhere. I read pundits from both sides that do nothing other than stymie the move to reform this ailing dinosaur.
Since I would like to go to my proposal quickly, let's summarize what both sides are doing in this debate.
The Democrats, whose power base are left wing liberals, refuse to concede that there is a problem [whether or not it manifests itself today or in the future is completely irrelevant]. Their motives are sinister and self-serving, the biggest of which is it's over-their-dead-body [hmmm, not a bad idea] that George W. Bush and the GOP get the credit not only for the ultimate destruction of their much beloved Social [IN]Security System but credit for giving the people a much better alternative. Note that even Alan Greenspan himself believes privatization is a good idea.
The Republicans on the other hand, are not using their resources to sell the idea "the American way" [which has always worked]. The White House is in the news as of this writing for publishing "propaganda" disguised as news. Since this practice is condoned by the Department of Justice and tradition [all other presidents have done the same thing], why not use this resource to generate testimonials of average Joe's and Jane's comparing the Return-On-Investment of their SSS contributions vs. say, their 401K contributions or IRA's [which are great examples of an existing private accounts]. Publish this in all the 50 states and let the liberal Dems challenge this numbers to numbers!!!
The only argument the Dems can offer is the supposed "trillions" that it will cost, as if its not the cost of the existing system already [but then that is the Dems propaganda].
Enough said. Here is my proposal.
The reform has to occur in stages. The timing is up to congress.
STAGE 1: Do NOT touch the SSS contribution yet. Everyone who wishes to do so may create a private account contribution THAT IS FULLY TAX DEDUCTIBLE, the amount of which maximizes at about double the amount of the SSS contribution. The rationale is this: Private accounts are such a great idea that we have to put our money where our teeth is and even double it for those who can afford. Three to five, or ten years from now, lets compare the ROI [Return on Investment] of SSS contributions vs. the Private Accounts. I am wagering that politics cannot stop the avalanch of income worker in all spectrum to move toward private accounts.
Why double the tax deduction? Well, warts and all, it sends the subliminal message that the Federal government rewards achievers, albeit purely financial, without necessarily penalizing the under achievers, albeit financially [but it is a might good subliminal message]. Negative repercussion? Tough, it's not a perfect world, unless you are dreaming and don't want to wake up!!!
STAGE 2: Similar to the FDIC insurance, a Federal Insurance agency can be created to insure private accounts up to say, $500,000.00. The amount is again up to Congress to determine what is fair, an amount that still sends the message of rewarding the achiever without penalizing the under-achiever [albeit, financially speaking only]. At this point the SSS contributions still continue, i.e., still mandatory up to the $80,000 cap or whatever Congress decides. At the same time a relatively small government agency can be established to audit investment companies involved in privatization.
STAGE 3. Start reducing SSS contributions. The SSS system is really an uncouth multi-level marketing scheme anyway, let's start getting rid of it. At this point, income earners may chose to voluntarily contribute to SSS an amount over and above the required and have it tax deductible as a "charitable contribution" which it is at this point. Note that we are still using moral suasion in all these procedures [no totalitarian measure which the SSS, and the existing liberal left, in terms of our taxes, desire]. Note that at this point, it is possible that the mandatory contributions will never yield the contributors anything but it should be more than offset by the private accounts. But a "reliable" congress may come up with a better deal.
STAGE 4. Retire the SSS system. Here is what we have accomplished: We have eliminated the most inefficient agency in the scenario, the SSS system. Note that anything managed by the government is almost 100% of the time financially inefficient. We have not only privatized the retirement account, we have also privatized the managers. Security? Hopefully, the "big-brother" government insurance agency can fill up the slack, that is their only reasonable role in this issue, and they may also spread the risk further to private re-insurers.
Prayer by Rev. Joe Wright - A commentary on the redefinition of VALUES
This is not exactly new, but I a friend just reminded me of it.
This Pastor has guts!!
Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer still upsets some people.
When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:
"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.
We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and call it Pluralism.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Amen!"
The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central ChristianChurch, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively.The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired.With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called "one nation under God."
The Constitution: Living Document? or Will of the People?
Treatise in progress (not yet complete)......
The above title is understandably confusing unless explained fully. Much of the conflict emanating from decisions made by the courts in the last 30 years, First Instance, Appellate, or even the Supreme Court have emanated mainly from the philosophical approach of judges to the concept of Constitution and Law.
Conservative judges believe that the constitution and the law should be interpreted based on the letter and spirit of that law at the time it was written. They presume that the formulators of either constitution and law made the law as timeless and universal in its application and put extra effort on the clarity of the language
so as not to be misinterpreted by future generations. There is an inherent presumption that room for misinterpretation is much smaller if future generations made such an attempt as to determine what the framers meant and intended the details to mean in the space and time context whereby it was written. Hence, these judges believe that the Constitution of the United States, its amendments and the Bill of Rights are "timeless" in terms of applicability until superseded by additional amendments or the framing of an entirely new Constitution. Nevertheless, the most current version is the
clear and unquestionable will of the people.
Liberal-activist judges, on the other hand, presume that even if the constitution or law was wisely written "during its time and for its time", it did not take into consideration the nuances of the progress of society and changing values on specific issues and hence, may need to be re-interpreted to be applicable to the current environment to which it is applied. These judges believe that such documents are "living documents" as the prefer to call it. The presumption is that the letter of the law is not exactly meaningful until interpreted according to the values of the current day in which it is applied. Since they are charged with interpreting the law, their research delves more on the spirit of the times instead of the spirit of the law at the time it was written. At best, they believe that they carry the same spirit of the law but applied with the knowledge of the current socio-political atmosphere. At its worst, as we shall see, this is an elitist angle with the arrogant presumption that they possess an exclusive in knowledge of how to apply the law. Embedded therein is the false presumption that they know better than the people who wrote the law.
I would propose that the ultimate logical resolution to this matter relies heavily on the principles of one's hermeneutics. This concept is more familiar with people who have Jewish or Christian Education backgrounds. Nevertheless, we will open it up for discussion since it is the heart of the matter in this debate and one's set of hermeneutic principles (or the lack thereof) is really the foundation for determining not only whether or not one supreme court judge is a conservative or a liberal-activist judge, but more importantly, who has the right angle on this.
to be continued....
NY Times March 14,2005: Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban
[Judge Richard A. Kramer of San Francisco Superior Court held, in an opinion that will surely be appealed, that "no
rational (emphasis mine) purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners."]
Where is the wisdom of Solomon when we need it? Had these liberal activist judges been faced by those two women in the Bible who contested baby #1, how would they have ruled? I am going to wager they would first request a huge budget from the people's money and Solomon would have to raise more taxes from the people to fund their research and these judges would still have the baby end up with the wrong mother.
There are several common sense arguments which I believe are both above the law as well as foundational to law as to why gay marriage should be banned. It is quite unfortunate that these current breed of liberal activist judges would rather baseline on written "black-and-white" law from the books and find a technicality that would prevent the ban and NOT USE COMMON SENSE AT ALL. King Solomon, in that famous case, simply appealed to common sense.
First is the argument of rights, in this case, civil rights. Look, any gay or lesbian has the same right as anyone to marry into the opposite sex. That is guaranteed in any state either by law or by tradition. Hence, their request to marry INTO THE SAME SEX, is a "special" right, and NOT a civil right by any objective comparison. This argument is just plain common sense: gays and lesbians have EXACTLY the same rights on marriage as heterosexuals; both are permitted AND encourage to marry into the opposite sex. So the gay marriage lobby is not a question of civil rights but an issue of public sanction of a selfish passions or convenience.
Look at polygamy as an analogous example. Polygamists involve consentual relationships. Why then can't we legalize this as a "civil" right?
Even adultery is involve mutual consent, why then can't it be legalized and given "civil right" status? It is obvious at this point then that homsexual rights are special rights and NOT or NEVER civil rights for as long as the gay movement cannot offer a significant difference from the other aberrant behaviors.
The second argument is that of biology. Can homosexuals NATURALLY procreate? Societies have always encouraged the expansion of families, tribes and races. Anthropologically, marriage is a particular society's sanction on a specific pair of man and woman (in polygamous countries, it is still man and women). It has been the proclamation of a claim of a man on a woman or vice versa, in order to publicly acknowledge that cohabitation between the two are acceptable. In most civilized societies, this also means that no external party has the right to get inside that specific marriage to cohabit with any of the two. Furthermore, despite the technological breakthroughs on trans-gender operations, male transexuals still cannot carry a viable fetus to term like a natural mother. Hence, approving such a right is not consistent even with scientific and technological breakthroughs.
The third argument is tradition and traditional law. Tradition has not only looked down on gay cohabitation, but also on polygamy, incest, adultery, pedophiles, bestiality, etc. The point here is that most civilized societies have "naturally" classified homosexuality, or the practice thereof with the rest of these obscene activities. At the very least, therefore, the sanctioning of gay marriage should be a result of public sanction from elected officials or a referendum from the electorate and not from the courts.
It is very important that in the reversal of tradition for the sake of the minority, the rights and beliefs of the majority are not trampled upon. Take the example of slavery. Tradition previously sanctioned slavery, but the reversal of such tradition was consistent with the feelings of the majority (the Union, many Confederate non-plantation owners, the slaves themselves). In the homosexual case, homosexuals don't even hit 10% of the population, and even if you classify the "homophobes (loosely, let's call this one who won't concurrently share the same toilet with a homosexual)" as one sector, they would still comprise over 50% of the population. If ever the majority sentiment changes, I am willing to concede, but that won't happen in my generation.
The fourth argument is that of the implications of rebelling against a divine order which would cause chaos in society's order. The higher law argument was used successfully in the Nuremberg trials. Although there have been modern civilized societies that have accepted polygamy based on religion, there is no civilized religion that has sanctioned the other offensive activities listed in the tradition argument. There seems to be a common "higher law" that defines via human conscience and therefore, societies majority, what is acceptable and what is not. Even during the Roman Empire days when homosexuality was prevalent and even the ceasars were guilty of it, it was never looked upon as a model (let's not even mention "model for family" here).
The fifth argument has to do with genetics. Is homosexuality something one is born with? Are there any parallels in life that justifies this? Homosexuality, until the latter part of the 20th century has always been classified as "aberrant" behavior, i.e., behavior that is not expected of a normal, socially, emotionally, intellectually and psychologically healthy individual.
Following this traditional line of thought, I propose that homosexuality because of its intrinsically sexual nature is psychologically, emotionally, socially and psychologically similar to adultery or pedophilia. It is in fact a significantly worse category compared to polygamy (although genetics may not be involved here but you get the point), and yet there are many societies (including Mormons) that accept polygamy.
I would venture to guess that adulterers and pedophiles will eventually be found to have some genetic influences if studied as deeply as homosexuality with the same technologies and yardsticks. These are people who would claim that they cannot help thinking the way they do (which REALLY is the strongest argument so far in favor of homosexuality).
Genetics, however, should not be an excuse in the same way that insanity is not really a good plea for a mother killing all her five young children (but then our courts and judges have lost their screws a long time ago. There was a time that the only basis for "putting away" people was whether or not they were a menace to society, so that normal people can live and go about their day to day affairs without fear of danger or harrasment from the aberrants!).
Repercussions: Let's paint a picture or some scenarios of the future SHOULD gay marriage become a legitimized lifestyle.
1. Should we now have restrooms that say "Gays" or "Lesbians" (God knows what the universal symbol for either would be), or just combine them into one restroom and say Homosexual. Let's stretch this farther, since gender is becoming vague, can we just have a Homosexual Toilet and a Homophobe toilet (that would seem to be more well-defined in such a scenario, since Male and Female are no longer clear terms).
2. What would be the toilet symbols? One would have 2 icons in sodomy, the other would also have the same but superimposed by a red circle with a slash. (A day will come when terms and symbols will have to be WELL-DEFINED). Of course, it could also be mis-interpreted as "Sodomy Allowed Room" and "No Sodomy Allowed Room", but at that point, who cares?
3. Adopted children will have a warped concept of Father and/or Mother in a family. One's mother will have a penis, and the other's father will have a vagina.
4. Concepts or right and wrong (even from the viewpoint of the majority of society) will further erode. We shall now have the polygamy lobby, adulterers lobby, legal prostitution lobby, yes, even bestiallity lobby (on the grounds that it is consentual), all asking for "civil rights".
5. If a man gets caught peeing in the LADIES room, he may just act gay and claim his (or her? or his? now, i am confused) civil rights, how about that?
See the following link for an interesting discussion thread on this originally posted March 15
http://over-a-cup-of-coffee.blogspot.com/2005/03/over-cup-of-coffee.html
Over a Cup of Coffee
Welcome to my blog.
Over a Cup of Coffee was a regular column in a retired newspaper back home, The Manila Times. The editor, Teodoro F. Valencia, always entertained me with his wit and humor on current events and politics. I adopted his Column Title in his honor and hope to pursue at least half of his wit but double his candor.
This blog spot is an extension of my first one at
http://spaces.msn.com/members/coffee-cup/
