Category: Uncategorized

This entry was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Lesson 6 discusses the Bush administration proposal to privatize Social Security. One aspect of that plan was to allow individuals to invest most, if not all, of their own money into investments, rather than into the Social Security System.

Was this proposal a good idea or not? Why?

Do some additional research on this topic (how Social Security can be changed or if it should remain as is) and include it in your discussion.

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Social Security being likened to a “third rail” is quite apropos; never have I heard a discussion of any part of the system without a heated debate among the participants. For that very reason I tend to stray away from conversations involving any part of Social Security and other government aid or assistance programs. Unfortunately, this task proves difficult at times as I am a part of and live amongst the communities which take advantage of these benefits.

A few months ago I had been stopped by a neighbor of mine who had wanted to ask whether I had heard any of the news surrounding the current discussions of Social Security reform, and whether I had an opinion. I told her that I had not even known that there was another debate going on, and I had even admitted that my ignorance was rather stupid as I should be aware. Later, I discovered that she had actually gotten some of her wires crossed and was actually referring to the news of a reform in the Commonwealth’s Medi-care/caid programs—something I should have been more abreast of, as these programs relate closer to the health and well-being of my children.

The neighbor, though, had every right to be concerned as she is legitimately—to my knowledge—taking advantage of disability benefits which are paid via the Social Security Administration. This woman, who is of the same graduating high school class as I, lives in fear of changes to any portion of the welfare system.

I, too, fear changes to welfare. For the short-term, my fears surround my children—the ability to receive medical care and afford food and housing; the long-term fears of my wife and I being able to care for ourselves when we are older I rarely think about—though thought has been given.

Having been told for well over fifteen years now of the possibilities of working well beyond our retirement ages should we choose to attempt to rely upon Social Security, my wife and I have become believers in paying into private retirement funds. Another reason for our personal desires to pay privately come from our lackluster work histories—our benefits from Social Security as it currently stands are well below what we foresee as being necessary due to our having not paid much into the system. Finally, we believe that it would be nice for us to not rely upon the government when we are elderly as we have had to rely so heavily upon the system during our youth.

In a sense, we are following Bush’s ideas by paying into a private system to have a better shot at retirement than if we relied solely upon the government.

Realistically, we are screwed either way.

Having stated that we have and continue to rely upon the government one could easily assume that we are a low-income family. We most certainly are. Unsurprisingly, we have had to withdraw monies from our private retirement funds to aid in covering current bills—I now have no retirement benefits and my wife has less than $200 saved. My wife’s retirement is building back extremely slowly as we cannot afford to save much more than 3% of her wages. I cannot see there being any retirement being built for me as I have yet to find a job that will work around my school schedule, my wife’s work schedule, or the children’s schooling and activities.

Ideally, the thoughts of having private retirement are excellent—relieving an (foreseeably) overburdened system of the excess weight by asking the public to save a portion of their own makes sense. The actual application of it, however…

Along with my personal example of how saving privately can fail—through the early withdrawal of funds—there remain questions surrounding other forms of failure—as was noted in this week’s material. If a private fund were handled through the investment into stocks or bonds that can fail, what then? What of investing into a private fund which is held by some institution which goes bankrupt? Who is going to come to the aid of someone who has had these misfortunes? Would someone burned by these failures be able to then rely upon Social Security? (Unit 6, 2010)

Shapiro noted that Bush’s generic plan did not give detail into these circumstances (Unit 6, 2010). We could assume that since the Social Security Administration was to keep operating as it had—though possibly paying out lesser amounts—that it would be made available to those who had the aforementioned misfortunes. My question then, if we make that assumption, is how much more of a burden would be placed on the system with the unknown number of cases requesting aid due to having private funds depleted or negated in some fashion?

Ultimately, there does need to be some sort of change made to the entire system. The only solution that I can fathom would be that of requesting that the public pay into a private fund of their choice (if the individual elects to) as well as a flat percentage of gross salary/wages per pay period into the SSA funds. I would also suggest changes be made to the Social Security Wage Base (SSWB)—the cap placed on the amount of monies that can be paid to the SSA. Two possible changes to the SSWB would be either the raising or elimination of this figure—ideas which have risen before (Miller, 2008). Another option that I might suggest would be setting the SSWB at a certain limit and then increasing the tax rate incrementally on a slope for individuals with an income above the SSWB—one caveat being that there would be a cap set for the amount paid back.

From what I have gathered, my thoughts on changing Social Security have even better potential to benefit than those thoughts proposed by Bush. Bush’s plan called more for a redirection of an individual’s funds into a fully private account rather than the more general SSA funds (White, 2011). Bush’s redirection would possibly cause more harm to the SSA as there would be less monies being deposited with a continued and possibly growing number of funds being withdrawn to pay for the benefits to widowers, children, and those receiving other SSI or medi-care/caid benefits. Bush’s plan also left the cap in place, whereas I propose raising the cap for funds to be paid in. My idea also gives the potential for allowing someone who may end up with less from a private fund to still draw from the SSA, while Bush never really covered that.

[…no, I don’t see my plan going anywhere as it calls for higher taxation of the wealthy.]

References

Miller, J. "Go Ahead and Lift the Cap." 2008. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html

Unknown. "Unit 6: The Bureaucracy." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%206:%20The%20Bureaucracy/Unit6_TheBureaucracy.pdf

Weisman, J. "Skepticism of Bush's Social Security Plan Is Growing." 2005. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2

011, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35231-2005Mar14?language=printer

White, D. "Common Sense Says No to Privatization." 2011. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurity/a/SocSecReform.htm

---

…and on a different note, I kept trying to think of some way of referencing Tom and Dick Smothers… I couldn't… click here to see the joke I was desperately trying to work in.

This post was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Congress now has some difficult times ahead – and some difficult decisions to make for the American people. After reading Lesson 3, answer the following questions: 

Given what you now know about how Congress works and how a bill is passed, what do you think the likelihood of success will be for President Obama to implement his agenda? 

In retrospect, identify at least two past presidents and explain how well they were in implementing their agenda?  (Please stay out of the politics and use the PROCESS of implementation as the foundation of your answer.) 

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Prior to reading this week's material I had a general understanding of how bills may or may not become law thanks to Schoolhouse Rock! I remember seeing a poor, depressed Bill sitting there on the steps of Capitol Hill, explaining the processes he would have to go through in order to become Law, and the fears he had for being turned down in the House, Senate or even vetoed by the President. Sure, Bill told us that it was possible for him to be modified for re-introduction, or that if he went through everything just to become vetoed he could still become Law if the members of Congress had enough votes to overrule the veto. The troubled road that Bill was facing was understandably depressing; fortunately he seemed to pass quickly and was signed by the President. Congratulations, Bill, you are now a Law.

The way that our government has been established, with the system of “checks and balances” that attempt to keep fair and common interests in mind with the passing of laws, it can be difficult for any bill to pass whether or not the thoughts are introduced by a President and regardless of political affiliation. To postulate on whether the recent plans of our current President can become law is beyond my abilities and interests. I can say that in order for any plans to reduce taxes, create jobs and stimulate economic growth, the plans would have to go through the House and then Senate for review before being enacted by the President. Likelihood of this? I cannot say.

For the most part, every President has had issue with introducing his plans. There have been a few which have had various ideas go through with relative ease—these Presidents have usually had such success due to the nature and the state of the nation at that point. Presidents F. D. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson are a few that are known for having strong plans for aid to the public in their respective time-period's need—Johnson's work being an extension of the late Kennedy's plans.

Roosevelt managed to introduce, pass, and implement several plans for recovery during a great economic depression. Kennedy/Johnson managed to make more argument on the topics of rights and bring about aid and resources to everyone with focus on the young, elderly and underprivileged with programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

This post received the following comments:

From Joseph Butvilas:

Jeremiah,

     I have to admit that I laughed a little when you mentioned schoolhouse rock and what you remembered of how a bill becomes a law. While I have never personally watched the show, I am aware of what it is, and was amused to learn that it actually is a good learning tool. 
     I do agree with you that every president has at least some trouble passing laws, but that is how it is supposed to be, right? With out the power of Senate and Congress coupled with the system of checks and balances, our government would be nothing more than a dictatorship. The president would have absolute power and it would negate everything our founding fathers envisioned for the United States. 
     JFK and Lyndon Johnson were successful when it came to signing bills into laws. One key issue I think you may have overlooked is the Civil Rights Act. While it was John F. Kennedy's vision, he was assassinated before the bill could be signed into law. It was Lyndon Johnson who eventually followed through on it. 

Very interesting post,

V/R,

Joe B.

From Harold Armstrong:

Funny you mention Schoolhouse Rock because as I post this it is actually on TV right now in Korea. I am although actually interested on what your views with President Obama introducing his Bill. While he managed to entise the younger voters to check his name on the ballet, I think his approach to getting bills signed off on is a little flawed. I find it funny that he thinks he can bully his bills into law. Honey is sweeter than vinegar there Mr Prez.

This entry was originally posted as a homework assignment:

In UNIT 1B, the concept of Federalism was discussed. Included in the readings were examples of issues that have arisen under the umbrella of state's rights. Pick one of the examples from the readings, or use one of your own, and discuss it here based on what you learned in Unit 1.

What is the issue? Describe it briefly.

Is it appropriate to be regulated by a state or should it be regulated at the national level?

Why is this issue important? How do you feel about it?

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive responses to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Marijuana has to be, in my opinion, the one issue where conflict between State and Federal governments is well known. Though the public may not be well educated on the matter, myself included, the vast majority seems to have an opinion. Through some hasty research on the matter for this forum posting, I have a better understanding and some stronger opinions. I will concede, however, that the issue is not of great importance to me; therefore my knowledge is still lacking and I have no interest in researching the issue further for the sake of this writing.

Marijuana is classified, federally, as a Schedule I drug—one which holds a high potential for abuse and has no medicinal purpose. The federal government seems to wish to continue to keep this classification and enforce the penalties of use or possession of the drug, and has continued to do so in some part through the commerce clause, as noted in the text. By making an argument over the possibilities of a black-market (which, as many of us know, already exists—it would simply go through some interesting changes) the Supreme Court ruled the growing of one's own marijuana in a state which allows for medicinal use to be illegal.

For this post, we were asked to answer whether the issue is one which should be handled on a state or federal level. In thinking about this topic, I believe that I see evidence off our Supreme Court asking itself that very question. Rather than giving better argument on what may be a more obvious piece of federal law—rather than arguing that federal law sees the drug as being as dangerous as heroin—the Supreme Court uses the commerce clause. Why? Perhaps the Court feared taking that step which would actually challenge the boundaries of what rights the federal and state governments have.

Personally, I believe that the issue of the legality of marijuana in any form taken in any manner should be at the discretion of the states. I do, however, believe that a firm decision needs to be made at the federal level in either direction.

This assignment received the following comments:

From Ryan McFarland:

Jeremiah, very well stated, but where did you get your information from? I have say that because I deal with the drug marijuana day in and day out at work, I do not think leaving the law up to the state will be good enough. By giving each state a choice is only making the law more difficult. It needs to either be illegal or legal. By all means I feel it should be illegal, no matter what. In my state, Connecticut, they just decriminalized marijuana and we have to issue infractions for possession of marijuana. If your going to decriminalize the drug, why not make it legal, sell it in a store and tax the sale of it. Get something out of everyones habit. It would be a start if nothing else.

Ryan

From Prof. Keith Carlson:

Remember to cite your sources for all submitted posts in this course.Thanks!

From Jessica Meehan:

Hi Jeremiah!

I think you had a lot of very helpful information in your post. I agree that many people do not know many facts about this, myself for example, but we do seem to have somewhat of an opinion on this matter. I also agree that the goverment should have an opinion. I myself dont know enough about this issue to really make a firm decision whether it should be legalized for medical use or not. Good post!