Published: Monday, Jan. 9 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
I have a simple solution to the problems of Medicare and Social Security.Require Senators and Congressmen to be covered only by Medicare and
Social Security!Some how I think they might find a way to fund
both of these programs.Rather than give money away over seas or
being the world's policeman and fighting preemptive wars (Iraq or Iran) they
might be more included to fully fund their own health care and retirement
payments.As it stands now they are insulated from any of the cuts
they propose.They easily yield to most of the pressure groups who want
special treatment or federal money. Most pride them selves with their ability to
earmark funds for special interests.Each new candidate should be
asked to sign a pledge stating that he or she supports this idea that along with
term limitations should handle this problem.It is doubtful that this
will originate with them it needs to be forced on them.
The same logic should apply to our State Legislature.Have our local
representatives voted themselfs benefits more luxurious than that of the people
they represent?Can any one tell me how many years do our State
Senators and State Representatives need to be in the legislature to get State
Health insurance for themselves and their families for life when they are no
longer in the legislature? It seems to me other state employees do
not have this benefit nor does private industry.You do not have that
benefit Oh that's to bad. But you voted them in office didn't you?
Senator Bennett,Another way to decrease spending is to eliminate all
benefits that we pay to former congressmen. I believe that we are paying too
many federal employees pensions that "statesmen" like Ben Franklin
felt they shouldn't be paid. Why is it fair for people who pay into the system
to not have a return on their investment? Regardless of their wealth, this is
another way our government is penalizing success. I don't like Oprah, but I
believe she deserves the option of receiving her SS money when she is eligible.
The government can't continue to give so many entitlements. This is what is
ruining our country. Term limits.Flat tax.Simplify and reduce
the IRS.Reward success.Penalize laziness.Simple.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Bennett's assessment. The problem now becomes
where do you draw that line as to who receives and who does not receive. What
politician is going to say to that person who has contributed mightily to their
reelection campaign "Hey Bob, don't forget me when you draw that line.
Draw it so that I am just under it."
Lets start by restructuring the Health and Retirement entitlements of our
Congressmen/women and Senators.
Robert Bennett thinks "U.S. needs entitlement restructuring?." But
that's not telling us this. In todays real world, it's about these cafeteria
style Constitutionalist that uses their political theories if and when it fits
them and when it effects them alone, with a no waiting staff table service,
their private Patroit restaurant or within an institution of the Tea Party.
That's what they think is their "Constitutionalist Platform" is to
spout off about. But here's what's really wrong. They never discuss ways to
work together to restore our Constitutional Republic. Then a Revolution
consisting of mainly middle-class urbanites, liberals, and intellectuals stand
up and say "HEY", the rich get richer, we get poorer. Congress wants
their votes, and they can't think beyond their nose. If a Bank loans you money,
you have to pay it back, NOW, if the same bank loans K Street, Wall Street
money, GOP deregulations says it's ok, keep it, get filthy rich off of it, stuff
it in off shore tax safe havens, don't use it to create jobs, we want Obama to
fail, and they go along with the Koch Brother's wishes, that feeds them, and
don't pay it back. Congress restructuring?.
Here is the truth of the matter: Explanations of why one shouldn't be crossing
a raging river do little good for the person in the middle of the river.
Congress, of which Senator Bennett and a whole host of other representatives,
did little about our current problem except wave a hand, collect a check, and
moved on to another "partisan" issue, without returning to fundamental
principles to set our nation on a different course. Those fundamental
principles, Constitutional principles, would have made a difference. Government
should never have been into socialistic ideas from the start. I am no leader,
but I expect those who want to lead to do so. No, I'm not buying this cavalier
patronistic explanation from the former Senator. Are you?
No, I'm not buying this cavalier patronistic explanation from the former
Senator. Are you?Yes I am. It is alarming that this type of sane
reasoning has been replaced in Washington.
The majority of our long term deficits are produced by ever rising health care
costs. A much better way to reduce entitlement spending would be to get our
health care costs down to the level of the rest of the developed world.Just getting our per-capita costs down to the level of Switzerland, which
spends the second highest amount after us, would be the equivalent of getting
all our defense spending for free.
Hey Bob, how about we phase out the entitlements, and let people be responsible
for their own lives?If people don't want to save for their
retirement, that is ok, they are adults and are capable of dealing with the
consequences.It will take a generation to get this country back on
course, but we can't do it with people looking to the government to solve their
personal problems or to bail them out.Freedom is not just measured
in what we are allowed to do, but it is also measured on what consequences we
are allowed to suffer when we fail to plan.
FDR fan: So, what is it about the European financial crisis, not to mention the
morals, and socialistic ideas do you like? America has succeeded beyond any
historical marker anywhere and yet there are those who refuse to acknowledge how
that came about!
@bandersenYes those filthy European morals, European countries have
the highest:Divorce rateTeenage pregnancy2nd highest
number of abortionsLargest producers and consumers of pornDUI'sRate of STD'sLargest prison population in the worldOh wait a
minute.......America has all those prodigious titles!!! What was that about
I would suggest anyone commenting about Congress' benefits to first inform
themselves. Suggested reading at senate gov: "CRS Report for
Congress Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress."
RedShirt. If you phase out all the entitlements of our government,
our government would no longer exist. And even adults have been
known to resort to killing and eating each other to avoid the consequence of
starving. So do you take away their freedom when young to spend or take away
their freedom to kill people when they are starving. Force.The only things we are forced to do is those things that alleviate pain
or uncontrollable desire in our own physical body, and also the natural
processes of birth. Eating is one of those things. Everything else
that we do, we do voluntarily as the result of choosing between consequences.
Consequences are mostly peculiar to ourselves. In our own mind, we
decide the weight and importance of different consequences. Even though the
value of different consequences may be different for different people, that
particular person makes their own choice. It just might be
promoting the general welfare if we prevent people from making decisions that
will harm themselves.
To "Ultra Bob | 10:08 a.m." so what you are saying is that I have no
need to actually plan for retirement, and that you (or your children) will take
care of me through the force of law.So you think that retirees will
resort to cannibalism if we phased out Social Security and Medicare? Isn't that
a scare tactic?FYI, the general welfare clause only referrs to those
specific duties of congress as outlined in the constitution. Otherwise, it
could be used to establish a socialist state all under the name "general
welfare".But to summarize your statements, you would use force
to ensure that everybody is taken care of. You do not believe that people are
inherantly good and would take care of their neighbors.
Ut. Brit: Oh, wait a minute. You about had us fooled. We just about took the
bait! Yes, America has many of the problems that you outlined, and a lot more.
All that is the result of choice. Yes, America has all been about choice. You
make bad choices, you get a bad result. You make good choices, you get a good
result. Europe has all the problems we have and many more, except the
opportunity to correct them as we do. They have given up the ship of morals and
wealth creation, something that America hasn't completely done,except for those
who no longer believe in choice and want government to make those choices for
them. No thanks. Liberty is still the best hope for a bright future.
Again, I encourage Red Shirt to read Dickens and find out what the world used to
look like when "inherantly (sic) good people took care of their
neighbors." Or not. Interesting how my loudly right-wing uncle
stopped complaining about entitlements for lazy people when he had a heart
attack and Medicare paid his $100,000 hospital bill...
On one side of the fence are those who work; on the other, those who are
retired. Workers both produce and consume goods and services, and when the level
of production is greater than the level of consumption, wealth is created.
Retirees only consume, so on their side of the fence, wealth is used up.QUOTEThe whole premise is a lie.Actually if there is a
fence it is between the non-productive and the productive but this does not
translate to those working and those retired.The line, the fence, is
actually and really between those who work unproductively or
counter-productively and those who live off their current earnings or their
investments (including the massive 12.8% per paycheck forced investment of
social security).This produces an entirely different and an accurate
dichotomy:On one side of the fence are those employed in parasitic
occupations, bureaucrats, politicians etc, including Bennett, and on the other
side those employed in productive occupations and those retired on their
savings, investments, and insurance including the mandated Social Security
payments adjusted for inflation.
I realized as a young worker in the Eighties that Social Security was
unsustainable and destined to end badly. I started then to plan for a secure
retirement even if I was not able to recover a single cent of the countless
thousands I would pay into the system over my career. Now when I retire in five
or ten more years, I will be entitled to a check I really don't need and would
really rather see the money spent on those workers who were never paid enough to
be able to retire without Social Security.
There should be some sort of reasonable means testing. Like say if you make over
a million dollars in any sort of income during the current year, you don't need
social security, >250k but
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments