Paging Mr. Swift...

The Smirking Chimp

Paul Krugman explains why the latest push to dismantle Social Security is a scam. He's saying that if the economy grows as expected, the trust fund will last through this century, which is what I gather Bruce Webb was saying in a comment below.

Meaning that nothing needs to be done to Social Security, probably.

And then this section of the interview caught my eye:

If you really want to get scared about something that can happen between now and 2052, you should talk about Medicare and Medicaid. The entire system of private health insurance is gradually collapsing. And as the share of people getting medical insurance through their employers continues to decline, the number of people who have to rely on the government for health insurance keeps going up. At the same time, medical costs keep on rising, because doctors keep on figuring out new stuff to do -- procedures that didn't exist ten or twenty years ago.

So if Medicare and Medicaid go bellyup, the people who rely on both programs will die, and end the pressure on Social Security!

It would be nice to have a reality-based president again, wouldn't it?

Modern Mississippi Dotheboy's Academy

Jesus' General

Couple of additions to the blogroll today. First off, an new boldfaced entry: Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy and Tactics. You should read this fellow before you come looking at my wee blog.

And also a new e-zine: Commotion.

Have fun storming the castle.

500 Days

I've been using one of my trackers here for 500 days today. It lists 19487 unique visitors. Thanks for dropping by.

A friend from Middle Earth, Ron Beasley, is posting some pictures at a new blog he started, Just Pictures. The guy's got a knack with the shutter - I particularly like the iris photo.

His news blog, Middle Earth Journal, is over in the blogroll. Go say hi.

Latest FOX Lie: School Didn't Ban Declaration

Media Matters for America

An elementary school teacher was using handouts in his class that excerpted several references to God in the Declaration of Independence, along with other statements that emphasized the singular importance of Christian faith in U.S. history. Several parents complained that the handouts were crossing the line into evangelism, and the principal began supervising the teacher's lesson plans. Here's an example of one of the handouts that the principal blocked from usage:



Looks like that violates California code to me:

The California Education Code allows “references to religion or references to or the use of religious literature…when such references or uses do not constitute instruction in religious principles…and when such references or uses are incidental to or illustrative of matters properly included in the course of study.”

Teaching kids that the Christian Bible is the only right and proper way to live is kinda outside that line, wouldn't you say?

That quote, by the way, comes from a press release from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group trampling on the Constitution in the name of Jesus promoting the First Amendment rights of Christian teachers to proselytize their young students. They've filed a lawsuit against the school district on behalf of the teacher.

FOX News has been reporting that the Declaration of Independence has been banned from a classroom. Surprisingly, that's the headline of the Alliance Defense Fund's press release about the lawsuit. That is complete elephant dung, by the way - what's been kept out of the classroom are the teacher's proselytizing handouts, which selectively quote the Declaration to show how much it focused on God.

Silly me. I thought the small matter of King George was what had the colonists all worked up, but I also didn't have Stephen J. Williams as a history teacher.

Meanwhile, The Other Half Of The Federal Budget Speaks Up...

The Smirking Chimp > Boston Globe

A forthcoming request for additional funds to continue waging war in Iraq will not begin to address the "hidden cost" of the conflict, according to Pentagon officials and other government authorities who say that tens of billions of dollars more will eventually be needed to repair or replace heavily used equipment and to compensate for the wear and tear on members of the armed services.

Well, well, well. Can't you see the Carlyle Group and Halliburton lining up at the trough?

Over 90% Of Americans Would Be Unaffected: Fixing Social Security

I've been a one-trick hobbit here recently. The only thing that works me up enough to post is this outlandish Social Security debate we're having in this country, thanks to Our Georgy Boy. He wants us to imagine a Social Security "flat broke", the same way we imagined that international terrorism could never pull off an attack on America. The same way we imagined that Saddam helped plan 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction.

Think about that "busted" Social Security. Think about it hard.

I was just watching Green Acres the other day, and Our Everbeloved Leader reminds me more and more of Mr. Haney. Why the hell would Jeb ever buy anything from that greasy salesman? Because Jeb is a simplehearted knucklehead, that's why.

And that's what Bush is after - the knuckleheads. He's already got the mainstream media clucking around, looking for cracks in the Social Security sky. Get enough knuckleheads in the fold and maybe we can put Reagan on the dime in the same bill that fatally wounds Social Security. Who'd vote against Reagan? Who'd want to run against that headline next election?

The truth is: Social Security is like a car with a slow leak in the tire. We've taken it to the shop and Bush the mechanic is telling us that we need to replace the transmission. "You see," Bush says, wiping his greasy hands on a red rag, "if you drive this car for an infinite number of miles, that transmission's gonna grind itself into tooth fillin's. Think about that transmission snarling around your axle at eighty miles a hour while you got the baby in the car. Let's go 'head and pop you a new one in there, 'kay?"

There's a simple fix to the minor problem in funding Social Security: eliminate the ceiling on payroll taxes. Currently, Social Security taxes are only paid on the first $90,000 you make in a year. Most Americans don't know this, because most Americans don't make $90,000 a year as individuals.

But I started wondering: How many Americans would be affected by eliminating the payroll tax ceiling?

According to these latest figures from the IRS (Excel file), there were 110 million individual tax returns filed in the year 2002.

101 million of these returns had an adjusted gross income of under $100,000.

That means that over 90% of all Americans will see no increase in payroll taxes if we lift the payroll tax ceiling.

Some will ask: "How do you figure that, Bolo? The payroll tax ceiling isn't $100,000; it's lower. And adjusted gross income is after a lot of deductions have been made, so that number's inaccurate."

I understand that. I also know that we should be hauling in the next higher bracket to account for double income returns (married) whose combined income exceeds $90,000, but whose individual incomes would never have hit the ceiling. So I think the number of "over 90%" is fair and accurate.

We can fix the slow leak in Social Security with one simple proposal that will not burden the vast majority of individual Americans with one single cent more in tax. But this common sense solution isn't being discussed by anyone in Washington or on our public airwaves because they'd be seeing an increase in the tax they're currently paying.

If anyone's got a more charitable motive for why this solution is off the public table, I'd be happy to hear it.

Sound Bites I'd Love To Hear

Daily Howler

Scene: Talking heads at a roundtable discussion of Social Security

How many people at this table make over $90,000 in a year? All of us do, right?

Well, we know something that a lot of Americans watching us don't: after the first $90,000 in a year, we stop paying Social Security tax.

That means the payroll tax is regressive. Poor people pay a greater percentage of their income than we do. If this ceiling were eliminated, there would be no problem with Social Security. It would be fully funded.

Now why do you suppose we aren't talking about that?

Hey, a hobbit can dream, can't he?

Virginia Lawmaker: Have Miscarriage, Go To Jail

Smirking Chimp > Democracy For Virginia

Imagine the following scenario.

You are at home alone at 8:00 on a Friday night.  You are 8 weeks pregnant.  You are excited about the pregnancy, but being cautious, you haven’t told anyone about it yet except your partner, your best friend, your parents, and your doctor. 

All of a sudden, you begin to experience heavy cramping.  Bleeding ensues.  You realize with shock and sadness that you are probably experiencing a miscarriage.  You leave a message with your doctor’s service.  The on-call doctor calls back, offers sympathies, and advises taking pain medication or going to the hospital if the bleeding gets worse. She offers you the next available appointment for a follow-up exam - Monday at 3PM.  You accept. You are overwhelmed with grief and surprised by the intensity of physical pain involved. You call your partner and ask him to come home from his “boys night out”, sparing him the reason over the phone.  You call your best friend.  She offers to come over immediately and make you cocoa.  You cry. 

You decide not to tell your parents yet; let them sleep through the night before delivering the terrible news.  Your partner comes home and you break the sad news to him.  He holds you on the couch and you both cry together.  Your best friend comes over with cocoa.  You cry some more.  Over the next few hours, you suffer pain, cramping, and intermittent bleeding.  Exhausted, you finally fall asleep in your partner’s arms around 4 AM.  You sleep until noon, and then gird yourself for the difficult call to your parents, who were so eagerly anticipating their first grandchild.

Guess what?  You just earned yourself up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.  Why?  Because you failed to call the cops and report your miscarriage within 12 hours.

This isn't law yet, it's the latest attack on women coming from the prolific pen of John A. Cosgrove, a Virginia state legislator.

Born in Montgomery, AL, John's a Southern Baptist. Here's the text of this proposed law (still in committee for the moment):

Report of fetal death by mother; penalty.  Provides that when a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the proper law-enforcement agency within 12 hours of the delivery. Violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Cosgrove really gets off on these types of laws - he formerly sponsored an amendment to make the failure to report a birth without doctor's care a Class 1 misdemeanor as well.

Any woman who, without the assistance of a health care professional, gives birth after more than 24 weeks have elapsed since the beginning of her last menstrual period and who, though she is reasonably able to do so, fails to report the birth, whether a live birth or stillbirth, within 12 hours of the event, to the local sheriff, police department or fire department is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

I don't know if this is law or not - it doesn't seem to have passed.

He got a feticide bill passed last year:

Feticide. Provides that any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony. The bill also provides that any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously kills the fetus of another is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than 40 years. This bill is identical to SB 319.

"Del. John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, the sponsor of the feticide measure, said the bill has nothing to do with abortion; he called the proposal 'a murder bill, pure and simple.'"

Isn't there something about lying in the Ten Commandments? Because once Roe v. Wade is buried at a crossroads with a stake in its heart, laws like these will be all about abortion.

The feticide bill became popular after the death of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. Can't you just see it? The Scott Peterson trial kicks off and all around the country, Republican eyes light up - "Say, we could use all this free publicity to make it harder to have abortions!"

How else do you get a rating of 100% from the Virginia Society for Human Life?

America, this is your future. You voted for it.

Tsunami: World Disaster or Bill Frist Photo Op?

thedailytimes.com

Just before his helicopter lifted off, Frist and aides took snapshots of each other near a pile of tsunami debris.

"Get some devastation in the back,'' Frist told a photographer.

I've got your back, Senator.

Friday Cat Blogging

That's 18 pounds of "You interrupted my nap for what?"

Reagan v. Bush

The Rude Pundit

The Rude Pundit wisely counsels us to sic Reagan on George Bush's Social Security PR campaign.

So as we gear up for the battle over Social Security, the greatest tool in the toolbox of the Democratic Party is actually Ronald Reagan. Because, you know, history is a series of repetitions: "As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fund could encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens." That's from Reagan's 1981 Letter to Congress, setting up a bipartisan commission to look into solutions for Social Security. Reagan said there were three goals in preserving Social Security: "First, this nation must preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust fund and the basic benefit structure that protects older Americans. Second, we must hold down the tax burden on the workers who support Social Security. Finally, we must eliminate all abuses in the system that can rob the elderly of their rightful legacy."

Very nicely done, RP.

All Hail The Honorable Barbara Boxer (D-CA)!

The Smirking Chimp

Senator Boxer became the single Senator needed to force debate over voting irregularities in Ohio before the Electoral College votes can be counted.

There will be lots of Repuke-olicious rhetoric decrying this move during the debate. But Senator Boxer just ensured that the asterisk remains next to Bush's name for his second term.

This is still America.

Let's See If They Publish It

Dear Editor (of the Tennessean):

Bill Frist opened up the new session of Congress seething about the Democratic filibusters of President Bush's extremist judicial nominees. The Senate, he said, failed to give their Constitutional "advice and consent" to the President's nominees.

Senator Frist, let me set you straight on a couple of things. Consent to a president's nominees is not a constitutional mandate. The various senators should give their consent only when they feel such consent is warranted. And in the cases of the very few judicial nominees that were filibustered, such consent was not worth giving.

Still, somehow, the Senate was able to confirm 204 of President Bush's nominees. At this rate of confirmation, President Bush is poised to have appointed more judges than any other President in our history. And yet you hector the Democrats for obstructing his agenda?

You yourself voted on March 8, 2000 to filibuster one of President Clinton's judicial nominees, for the express purpose of blocking that nominee from consideration by the Senate as a whole. In other words, you voted to do exactly what you condemn the Democratic Senators for doing. Your hypocrisy on this issue is astonishing and a black eye on Tennessee.

Get off your high horse, sir, and get to the real problems facing this nation.

Bolo Boffin
Nashville, TN

UPDATE (Jan. 6, 2004): They didn't dood it today...

UPDATE (Jan. 7, 2004): They didn't dood it today, either...

Romans: Reflecting

Instead of continuing with the text, I think it's fair to stop and take a reflective moment of what this all means to me.

Because at this point, it may seem that I'm agreeing with Paul and his religion. Explaining clearly what he means doesn't mean I agree wholesale with it, though.

Here's the mechanism that I see Paul advocating: All are sinners, Christ provides a safe haven from God's just wrath, and humans take advantage of it by believing that the haven is actually available. It's all a bit ontological, isn't it? Much like Dorothy and her ruby slippers, or better, how Harry Potter gets the Philosopher's Stone from the Mirror of Esired. You see it happening, and it happens.

Paul's very apparent rejection of the flesh is going to appear soon here in Romans. It's a constant theme of his: he advocates no marriage if possible, and derides his theological opponents for their preoccupation with circumcision (in one of his cattiest remarks, he wishes that if his opponents like cutting down there so much, they should just cut the whole thing off and be done with it!).

It's a symptom of Paul's ultimate orientation to the Greek mindset, where body and soul were so seperated. His writings reveal to me someone who had rejected this background to become a passionate student of the Law, and then just as violently rejected this for his new purpose, synthesizing both viewpoints.

Such a mindset couldn't have thought much of the daily animal sacrifices at the Temple. How much neater the one sacrifice of Jesus, once for all, so that the effluvia and slaughter could cease! It was a modern take on the old religion - by separating the fleshly bias of the Torah from its spiritual underpinnings, Paul hit upon a system to convince the world of the value of the Jewish revelations, one much easier to understand than the writings of his contemporary Philo.

Because all things Jewish are Paul's true concern - how to preserve the specialness of the Jewish covenant in the modern Greek world. For Paul, the answer was the gospel he was called to preach, the reason for his existence and opportunities: the story of Christ crucified and exalted. Jesus becomes as vivid a turning point in Paul's history of the Jews as the Exodus, and it is this history that gives the life and death of Jesus any significance at all. It is the context. You would think it impossible to honor the Messiah and dishonor the people who produced him, wouldn't you?

We know the unfortunate falsity of that sentence, though.

And isn't reuniting the two viewpoints of my past what I'm up to here, in a way? Convinced of the value of my youthful religion, yet stuck smack dab in the middle of this modern world, here I type, working out a way to understand both while respecting both. The respect for both may not always be perceived, just as Paul, and God forbid I kick off a new religion. Mormonism and Scientology are enough modern religion for anybody. The world doesn't need any more religion - we're all eaten up with it as it is.

No, I'll be content with understanding where Paul's coming from, and if there's any value to that message today, and how to apply it. Joseph Campbell had no affection for Christianity - he labeled it a sick religion, and did give his reasons for doing so. Yet his ultimate summary of the spiritual core of mythology is this: Follow your bliss. No one can deny that Paul did just that. Paul had the temerity to suggest that a particular bliss might be worth more than the others, and gave his reasons as well. Romans is one of his greatest statements on the matter.

Where Paul is going is this statement: "Welcome one another, as Christ has welcomed you, to the glory of God." It's the Pauline version of John's "Love one another." The greatest bliss is finding a way to live among each other in peace, and sharing that way with others. Seeing how this message worked its way through the life and writings of Paul can only help us as we labor to bring that message out into our world today.

GOP Abandons Ethics Changes

Washington Post

Awww. All the really fun stuff happens while I'm at work. I was all set to come home and get C-Span hooked up to the VCR - I was even going to have my roommate change a tape for me.

To think of the sheer unadulterated fun that the American public has missed now that the Republicans saw the error of their ethics-loosening ways...is it going to be enough that the Republicans are still pressing ahead with one of the controversial measures?

Republicans voted to go ahead with another of their controversial ethics proposals and will ask the full House to approve a change that could curtail ethics committee investigations. Under the change, a Republican vote would be required before an inquiry can begin. The committee is evenly divided between the two parties, and under current rules a deadlock means an investigation begins automatically.

That's a little too obtuse to understand - the "Republican vote" required is a single Republican member of the ethics committee. In other words, ties no longer trigger an automatic investigation. A majority of the panel must agree.

So if the Republicans ban together against strong Democratic opposition to the latest ethics outrage, no investigation of said outrage will occur. How special.

Friday Cat Blogging

Okay, so it isn't Friday, but this is my kitty. And getting this picture only took a couple of minutes! Sorry about the quality, but I'm dealing with a little webcam.

Happy New Year 2005

Ford Issues Non-Denial of Social Security Destruction

Talking Points Memo

According to Josh Marshall, Harold Ford has issued a new statement on the Social Security mess he finds himself in:

I do not support changing the Social Security system as has been proposed by President Bush, nor do I support Social Security proposals advanced by the CATO Institute. In fact, both of these proposals have the potential to harm current beneficiaries by paying for the transition costs by issuing debt. Piling on more red ink to the existing federal budget deficit and the national debt will do both long and short term harm to our economy. I do believe that the system needs to be reformed but I do not support changing the Social Security system as President Bush has proposed.

Wow, that was a turn-around!

Or was it? Ford tells us the reason that he doesn't support Bush's proposal or the CATO Institute's proposal: transition costs. Which is exactly his problem in the article quoted below. In this non-denial, he clearly states "I do believe that the system needs to be reformed," which means cut it to pieces, let Wall Street stay warm on the administrative fees, and damn the people who lose their shirts in the stock market.

It doesn't matter, Mr. Ford, that you don't support Bush's plan to kill Social Security. It doesn't matter that you don't support CATO's plan to kill Social Security. You still are working to eliminate the universal guarantee of benefits. You're still in favor of destroying it.

Shame on you.

Harold Ford (D-Tenn): The Grinch That Destroyed Social Security

Talking Points Memo

Let's be clear: any plan to "reform" Social Security that eliminates the uniform guarantee of benefits is a plan to destroy Social Security. Tieing your Social Security benefits to the ups and downs of the stock market will eliminated the uniform guarantee of benefits, because some will do quite well, some will do okay, and some will be SOL.

You would think that members of the party who enacted the most successful government program ever would be fighting this Republican attack on Social Security tooth and nail.

But Harold Ford has a dream:

I dream of the day when a little girl living in a public housing community in my district can come home, and flip on the TV, and know when she sees a FedEx commercial, that not only does FedEx employ the most people in her district, but that she also owns stock in companies like FedEx, and she has a financial stake in how well the company’s doing. That she will know the harder she works, the more likely she’ll have something to own -- to be able to point to a part of America that is hers, and not just lean on America to give her something.

"Not just lean on America to give her something."

Mr. Ford: Social Security benefits are not "leaning on America to give us something." We pay in for today's retirees, and when we retire, tomorrow's workers pay in for us. You're a Congressman, you should understand the difference.

"Well, right now we only have 3 workers supporting every retiree..." Yes, and the program's running a surplus.

There is a simple fix to this program that extends Social Security's solvency into the next century: eliminate the ceiling on Social Security taxes. Currently Social Security taxes are paid on the first $87,000 of yearly wages. In 2005, that ceiling lifts to the first $90,000.

Get rid of the ceiling. That isn't changing the rate, and that's not a new tax. But the money raised from this one simple fix will completely fix Social Security for generations to come.

Another quick, easy fix: instead of raising the system, switch Social Security funding from a dedicated portion of payroll to a dedicated portion of income. In other words, people who earn their income from investments escape supporting the Social Security system altogether, even though they're usually eligible for benefits. If all income was subject to the Social Security tax, instead of just payroll wages, Social Security would again be solvent. Self-employed workers have to pay in at the end of the year - why shouldn't self-sufficient investors?

Neither of these proposals involves carving Social Security up like the Christmas goose, Mr. Ford. Instead of trying to find a way to lessen the economic impact of transition costs, why don't you just find a way to fix the problem? Fixing Social Security isn't this hard.

Romans 4: Paul's Favorite Scripture

After a long hiatus, I'm resuming the blogging of Romans.

If ever Paul had a stump speech, Romans 4 was a big part of it. Paul's argument from Genesis 15:6 was evidently a favorite of his: it's used also in Galatians, and James reacts against it in his letter to the church.

This is prooftexting at its finest. Because the Hebrew Scriptures say that Abraham believed God's promise, and that that belief was accredited to him as righteousness, Paul argues that it is this faith that we must have in order to please God. How does that happen? Jesus was faithful and provided the place of safety - we believe God's promise that he will save us through Jesus and so enter the place of safety. Just like our father in faith, Abraham.

James and company react to this because Paul is easily misunderstood here. Faith without works is a dead faith. Abraham's faith led him into many obedient acts - leaving Mesopotamia, circumcision, sacrificing Isaac. So too will a follower of Christ do many things because of his faith, showing his faith to be a living one.

But Paul gets adamant with us. This may well be, but many times men get their own requirements for righteousness mixed up with God's commandments. Any way that they can legislate their own morality on others - whether commanding circumcision of Christians, or commanding new converts to divorce if one or the other has a marriage in the past, or even taking over school boards and getting creationism on the curriculum - they will do so in the name of Christ. Paul wants no part of this.

To reach forward, Paul is aiming for a particular statement: Welcome one another, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. That is what basing salvation on belief in God's ability to save (within Jesus) is all about for him. Christians are redeemed from the punishment for their sins because of what God is going to do - not what they have done or are doing or will do. No one can boast before God.

So if you didn't save anybody from their sins, who in Hades are you to boss other people around? Let's leave God up on the judgment throne: God doesn't need our help sorting people out.

This is where I think Paul's gotten hold of something - something real. People who want to judge and condemn and legislate have something fundamentally wrong at heart. It's fear that drives you to do things like that, and fear is not part of what Paul is preaching. Fear isn't something to nurture - it's something to heal. Jesus feared the cross, but he mastered that fear and took it up. Paul feared the early church and persecuted it, but broke through that fear and took up the cause he'd persecuted.

Fear, then, is the enemy - fear of God for punishment. Fear of our cravings, fear that our cravings will never be satisfied, fear that others will get away with what we dare not attempt. Fear that it's all for nothing.

There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out fear. Paul is not after a power base, he's after love. That's where I can respect his efforts.

Is There A Better Word Than Schadenfruede?

Guardian

I'm laughing, but I'm not really amused and taking no real pleasure in this story. Perhaps this is the Daily Howler's "low, mordant chuckle".

If you don't want to click over, it's Guiliani apologizing to Bush about Kerkik, Cricket, whatever the thug's name is. It's becoming clear that Bush approved the meathead because Bush liked his image. Why are our leaders even hanging out with these characters?

Hannity's Rethinking the Jihad Thing

Sean Hannity - Hannitization of America Tour

Go on, click on over, and watch the second video clip. Sean cracks a joke about being willing to fly planes into buildings if he knew God had 72 virgins waiting for him.

I mean, that's what it sounded like to me.

Bucky Rea, the Brown Bag Blogger, has started a new blog article at the Democratic Underground, the Blog Box. He was kind enough to mention this blogger in his opening article. Many thanks, Bucky, and when this Christmas rush is over, I'll get back into blogging more regularly. (And I was a Merry Chimpster long before I found DU, but I'm proud to be a member of both communities.)

And it's about time to get back to the blogging of Romans too, isn't it? I had some research and thinking to do about the next chapter, and well, I've made up my mind about what I want to say, finally. So I might as well say it. No earthshaking revelation is in store, mind you - I had a yen for a particular theory of how the letter of James was written and I've decided against it. What does James have to do with Romans? Well, you'll just have to wait until Tuesday...

To all that come here from DU, welcome, look around. The Old Winyards is long gone, but if you're lucky, I'll uncork a bottle of Aberlour a'bunadh.