Editor
My letter is a response to Jay Miller’s recent letter. I would like to compliment him on a well-written summary of the progress that we as a country have made over the years, however his conclusion that the current administration’s actions are based on “cruelty” I find to be ludicrous; misleading; and an emotional appeal based on wishful thinking not based on facts.
Although we as a country have made progress in the areas that he listed, this has not come without new challenges that the current administration is working to correct. Let’s consider some specifics:
The challenges we have overcome regarding racism in my lifetime have been incredible. The previous administration’s pursuit of racist policies has taken us backward. When Biden announced before his selection that he was picking a woman of color as his running mate, he did just that. Favoring someone based on race or gender is the very definition of racism. Picking future air traffic controllers and other positions based, under the guise of DEI, on the same immutable characteristics instead of on ability, which was also done by the previous administration, is further evidence of this problem.
Current efforts to only consider ability, as we now see across the federal service and in the military, are long overdue and is fairness and not cruelty.
We as a society have many social programs to protect the unfortunate. The previous administration’s priority was to expand these programs as much as possible to buy future votes. The Democratic Party’s Political Machine and some red states ignored massive fraud in these programs amounting to tens of billions of tax dollars stolen. The current administration’s efforts to resolve this is not cruel but good stewardship of our limited tax dollars.
Not wanting biological men to compete in woman’s sports is not cruel but science. Expecting able bodied individuals on assistance to work 20 hours a week, attend school or volunteer is not cruel but benefits both the individual and society. Addressing the year-long delays for projects caused by the bloated environmental industrial complex and permitting process is not cruel but common sense. Cutting funds to nonprofits that have officers making massive salaries and which never fix the problems they were created to correct is not cruel but smart. Removing illegals and violent criminals who entered the country facilitated by the previous administration’s desire for future votes and cheap sweat shop labor is not cruel but overdue. Vigorously going after drug traffickers is a recognition that previous methods practiced for decades have not worked and is not cruel but a recognition of reality. Pressing for voter ID and proof of citizenship is common sense, and claiming minorities are unable to do so is itself racist. Forcing NATO members to pay for their fair share of defense spending is not cruel but stops the US from being Europe’s sucker. Europe for too long has been letting us pay for their defense while they fund massive social programs. Defending private gun ownership is not cruel, it is covered by the 2nd amendment.
So, is the current administration and Republican Party perfect? Far from it, but in the real world few things are. Is the current administration fixing real world problems? Yes, and one reason this is happening is that Trump is not owned by either political machine. So, I reject your conclusion and counter that cruelty is a bunch of self-promoting professional politicians selling feel good crap that ignores human nature and does not work in the real world but keeps them in lifetime jobs and enriches them.
Joe Kaffl
Hillsboro
Editor:
The last time the Social Security program was revised to ensure its long-term financial viability was during the Reagan Administration. Structural problems based on projected annual revenues vs. annual expenditures should have been fixed for 75 years (or until 2058). But it turns out, that projection was only good for about 50 years. Now, the annual report on the Trust Fund projects that it will be depleted by 2032 and that, unless Congress does some- thing to increase revenue, benefits will have to be cut by about a quarter.
Social Security system is a pay-as-you-go system which means that payroll deductions from current workers are used to pay monthly benefits. Until recently, annual revenues received by Social Security exceeded benefits paid – with the “surplus” being parked in a Trust Fund invested in U.S. Government bonds. But five years ago, Social Security payments started being subsidized by drawing down an increasing percentage of the Trust Fund to make up the difference from lower payroll deductions.
Only Congress can revise the laws governing Social Security and the current Congress and Administration show no sign of acting to prevent financial disaster for all current and future SS recipients. Proposals that do exist in Congress focus on cutting benefits,
Whether the current majority in Congress likes or not, all Americans have a contract with the Government that allows future retirees to plan their lives around possible early retirement at 62, or “full” benefits at 67, and maximum payments at 70. American workers earned these timelines; Congress must find the solution by raising revenue, not cutting benefits.
Voters should ask candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, what steps they would take to fix the Social Security system so that it can reliably pay expected benefits in the future.
When Social Security was enacted in 1935, it was based on outdated assumptions about an aging society. It assumed that a large working population would support relatively few elderly survivors – to reduce “old age poverty.” Then, life expectancy was 58 for men and 62 for women. Barely half of adult men were expected to live past 65 to collect a check – and relatively few women worked in occupations covered by the original Social Security Act.
Today, lower birth rates and reduced immigration have combined to reduce re-venue needed to pay current benefits. To ensure long-term stability, Congress must make several modest changes that would allow payroll deductions to equal monthly payments over time.
First, the amount of income subject to Social Security tax should be raised from $184,500 to $250,000, and then gradually increased to $500,000, so that high income earners contribute fairly to the system. Sources of income such as deferred compensation including bo-nuses and stock options should be subject to payroll taxes. Eliminating this loophole and lifting the income cap would eliminate about two-thirds of the projected revenue shortfall.
Second, payroll taxes of 6.2% should be increased by 0.1% annually for three years to a total of 6.5%. Actuarial models show that this minor adjustment would account for another major chunk of projected shortfall.
Third, the annual cost of living adjustment should be changed to the Consumer Price Index rather than annual growth in wages – which would bend the curve downward by about 1% per annually.
Finally, we must reform how benefits are taxed. Currently, benefits paid to households making more than $32,000 are taxed at 85%. But income is income, whether from Social Security or not. So, this cap should be raised 1% per year for fifteen years with additional revenue going to the Trust Fund.
Jay Miller
Hillsboro
