Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Social Security

Social Security

Securing Your Retirement

Politicians in Washington are stealing your future.

Every year, they take 12.4% of your income to prop up their failed Social Security system - a system that is heading toward bankruptcy.

If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year - about five times what you could expect from Social Security.

Even a very conservative investment strategy would yield three times the benefits promised by Social Security.

I believe you should be able to opt out of Social Security and invest your money in your own personal retirement account. An account that you own and control - one that politicians can't get their hands on.

Republicans and Democrats say it can't be done - that your Social Security taxes are needed to pay benefits to today's retirees. Instead of letting you invest in your own future, they want you to have faith that someone else will pay your benefits when it comes time for you to retire.

Although most won't admit it publicly, their "solutions" to the Social Security crises all come down to some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts.

But I know that there's a better way.

Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system. It's time America did as well.

The federal government owns assets worth trillions of dollars - assets that it simply doesn't need to perform its Constitutional functions. By selling those assets over time, we can keep the promises that were made to today's retirees, and to those nearing retirement, while freeing the rest of America from a failed Social Security system.

The Economy

The Economy

The Bush/Obama Bailouts

Everybody is looking for a handout.

Politicians looking to appease their nervous constituency, interest groups (both from the United Auto Workers and those representing Big Automotive) looking for a handout and know-nothing political pundits looking for a juicy story will all tell you this is necessary for the economic well being of the nation.

In this time of economic turmoil, it's easy to suggest government has the answers, especially when it is backed by sweet-sounding rhetoric and promises of better times. For those that don't know the historical failures of government intervention in the market, it just might sound good enough to swallow.

However, like most government programs, the reality is far, far different from the rhetoric.

Bailouts are ALWAYS bad for the taxpayer, for the economy, and for business. Why? Because rewarding the mismanagement of American corporations with a taxpayer-subsidized lifeline does NOTHING to encourage reform or fix the problems that pushed the companies to the brink of failure. As we said in a statement, these bailouts do nothing but prolong the inevitable collapse of companies suffering from extreme mismanagement and poor investments.

This is especially true in the case of automotive companies.

Detroit auto manufacturers have failed to keep up with trends in the automotive industry, locked themselves into destructive union contracts and demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in automotive innovations that make their products enticing to consumers.

Why are taxpayers being used to reward this mismanagement?

This is why Daniel J. Mitchell, a senior fellow at The Cato Institute, said the bailouts were like "giving an alcoholic the key to a liquor cabinet." Mitchell went on to list three important reasons why bailouts are bad news:

• A bailout will hurt the overall economy by misallocating resources. When politicians grant special favors to a certain industry or a particular union, such decisions necessarily mean that market forces are being replaced by special-interest deal-making. This type of interference with free markets is why nations such as France, Germany and Japan tend to grow more slowly and enjoy less prosperity.

But if America goes down this same path of government intervention, it is inevitable that we will suffer the same fate of stagnation and higher unemployment.

• A bailout will encourage other industries to seek taxpayer handouts. The Wall Street bailout was a disaster in many ways, most notably as measured by the weak stock market and economic volatility. But another negative aspect of the bailout is that other industries have now decided that it is OK to stick their snouts in the public trough, as well.

First Wall Street's high fliers get a bailout. Now the inefficient management and union at the Big Three want a handout. Who will be next in line to pillage taxpayers? Giving handouts in exchange for political support is akin to getting high. Once politicians decide they like the buzz of campaign contributions, they'll turn into junkies with ordinary Americans footing the bill.

• A bailout is a perverse transfer from poor taxpayers to rich taxpayers. America's Founding Fathers surely never envisaged that the federal government would take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group. Yet much of the federal budget is devoted to redistribution programs.

So, if the government can't bail-out these companies, what should happen to them?

Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy is by no means a no-hassle "way-out" for companies that have made bad decisions in the past, but it is by far preferable to taxpayers footing the bill for these companies struggling to stay afloat.

Bankruptcy will allow these companies to restructure to a more cost effective format, and it will allow them to "trim the fat" from their overhead so that they may once again become productive (and profitable) without risking trillions of dollars in taxpayer money. With court-oversight, these automotive factories may also redo expensive and entangling contracts with the Unions—a major reason why these automotive companies have become so costly to operate.

Overall, letting these companies go into restructuring, instead of preserving the status quo with taxpayer funds, is best for the long-term economic stability of both these companies and the nation.

There is no magic bullet for the current economic situation. However, we can learn from our mistakes, and refuse to repeat them—that is, don't run to the government to solve the problems that the marketplace should be taking care of itself.

At the beginning of the financial crisis, before government decided it would bailout these firms (by the way, check out how your money is being spent), other companies were looking to buy up their devalued competitors. Then, government rushed in to do a patch-job, and ended what could have been a very healthy market work-out without the government's help. Instead, government made the problem worse, with your money on the line.

Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats were behind it, leaving the taxpayers with no representation while their money was at stake.

Fiscal Responsibility

When the Democrats previously controlled Congress, they spent a lot of our hard-earned money on entitlement programs and pork barrel spending. When the Republicans gained control of Congress, they spent even more of our hard-earned dollars in the same reckless manner. Then Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, and have only added to the increasing government debt without slowing the spending of their Republican colleagues.

No where is this truer than with the current bailouts, where trillions of dollars will be borrowed with the expectation that future generations will pay for it.

Of course, Congress can’t take the entire blame for bad spending bills. George W. Bush never found it important enough to veto even one bloated Republican spending bill and Barack Obama is building on that Republican tradition of big spending.

While we are amassing a tremendous federal deficit, many Americans are forced to make tough decisions about retirement, health insurance and even the education of our children. It is imperative that we immediately cease the wasteful federal spending so we can pare down the national debt and significantly increase the amount of our own money we get to keep. The federal debts aren’t going away and there are but two choices we can make. We can either tighten our belts a bit today or force our children and grandchildren to starve tomorrow. It’s time that we start expecting our representatives in Washington to act with the national checkbook as we do with our family checkbooks.

Some LP statements on the economy:

Civil Liberties

Your Rights Are At Risk Under Obama

The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, significantly limit the power of the federal government to usurp the rights of private citizens. The Bill of Rights provides the well-known freedoms of speech, of the press, assembly and religious worship. It also provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, compelled self-incrimination and double jeopardy. It guarantees the right to an impartial jury and denies the government the ability to compel self-incrimination.

Over the past few years, we have seen repeated government attempts to circumvent or even blatantly disregard the most basic of our guaranteed personal liberties. Rarely a day passes where there isn’t some major media mention of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, secret prisons, the use of torture or domestic spying.

Under Obama, the government may still snoop into the most personal of your mail or your e-mail and you won’t even know they were there. People are arrested and held without trial or legal representation. Sometimes they are even tortured. They can now use your cellular phone as a bugging device, even if you aren’t currently talking on it at the time.

It is essential that we repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and that we restrain the Executive Branch to the limitations set forth in our Constitution.

Some LP statements on civil liberties:

Monday, December 21, 2009

Taxes

Americans already obtain a host of services from private providers. There is every reason to think that other services, from postal delivery to education to road building and maintenance, could be provided more efficiently and at lower cost by the private sector.
We should support all moves to reduce and repeal taxes because taxes are obtained immorally, by force. The income tax is particularly evil, since it penalizes productivity and forces all of us to expose our private affairs to government snoopers.
We had no income tax before 1914 and America prospered. Replacing the income tax with voluntary methods for financing services should be our goal, and we should begin right now.

I'm for cutting taxes, but as a practical matter, how do we do it?
Think of government as a conglomerate of service businesses. The providers of those services do not have to be government employees, and the services do not have to be paid for with tax dollars. Whether it is education, security, transportation, charity, energy, or whatever, the private sector is already doing it for less. To cut taxes, we must allow private service providers to replace inefficient bureaucracy. Market competition will give us better service at lower cost, and put the consumers in control.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Military Draft

Military Draft
History shows that free people can be counted on to defend their homes and their country. But the draft is slavery, and slaves make lousy defenders of freedom. I like knowing I'm being protected by people who are in the military because they want to be there, not because they were forced against their will to be there.
A military focused on defending America instead of policing the globe would reduce manpower needs and further eliminate any reason to have a draft or draft registration.
Let's let free people defend freedom.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Free Trade

ARE PEOPLE BETTER OFF WITH FREE TRADE THAN WITH TARIFFS?
Free trade provides consumers with better goods at lower prices. Trade restrictions produce the opposite: shoddy goods and higher prices.
With free trade, consumers pay lower prices for products and thereby have more money left to spend on other goods, domestic as well as foreign.
Free trade also helps the cause of world peace. In the 1920's and 30's, trade barriers went up everywhere, directly contributing to the outbreak of World War II. If goods don't cross borders, armies will.
Let's end all trade restrictions and free the world's resources to be allocated in the most efficient and productive manner.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Gay Marriage

GAY MARRIAGE.
Nothing is more personal than the way people chose to shape their sexual relationships. Government has no business intruding into people's bedrooms.
This doesn't mean we must personally approve of the sexual behaviors of others. It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting adults, no one has the right to use the force of government laws to try to stop or punish them.
There is no justification for throwing peaceful Americans in jail because of their sexual choices. Let's respect people's right to control their own bodies.
DOES THIS APPLY TO PROSTITUTION ALSO?
Every day millions of adult Americans agree to make love. There is no justification for throwing them in jail. These are peaceful voluntary agreements between consenting adults. A tiny fraction of these involve money.
Criminal penalties do not stop prostitution. They just create real problems. One study showed it costs taxpayers two thousand dollars every time a prostitute is arrested. Let's respect people's right to control their own bodies.
Decriminalize sex, and let it be a private affair.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Minimum Wage

MINIMUM WAGE

Skilled, experienced workers make high wages because employers compete to hire them. Poorly educated, inexperienced young people can't get work because minimum wage laws make them too expensive to hire as trainees. Repeal of the minimum wage would allow many young, minority and poor people to work. It must be asked, if the minimum wage is such a good idea, why not raise it to $200 an hour? Even the most die-hard minimum wage advocate can see there's something wrong with that proposal.
The only "fair" or "correct" wage is what an employer and employee voluntarily agree upon. We should repeal minimum wage now.

Now Me being a teenager, I think minimum wage is a good idea. but the difference is I don't have a family to support. So I think that there should be an age limit for minimum wage, say 18, around there. Regardless, minimum wage should be appealed, regardless of Union or Non-Union work.