A plan to guarantee a livable retirement and keep Social Security from collapsing. This isn’t my idea. I got it from John Anderson. For those who don’t know, before Ross Perot caused a stir in 1992 as a popular third party candidate, John Anderson did almost the same thing in 1980. He was technically a member of the Republican Party, but he had enough liberal ideas he couldn’t get Republicans to vote for him in the primary. However, he discovered he had better support with the nation as a whole than he did amongst the Republicans, and he also was very popular with prominent liberals who weren’t happy with Jimmy Carter. Those two facts led him to run for president as a third party candidate. Truth is, had it not been for the fact he wanted to create a licensing system for gun ownership, and he wanted to put a tax on gasoline that would have doubled the price at the pump, he might have had a real shot. As it was, support for his ideas burned out rather quickly.

Nonetheless, he did have one idea so good no other politician has ever wanted anything to do with it, but the American public probably would have endorsed it, had they ever been given a chance to examine it honestly. You may not have heard of this idea because it makes Washington insiders, from both parties, extremely uncomfortable. John Anderson’s simple idea was to keep the deductions in people’s pay for Social Security exactly the same, but, instead of sending the money to Washington, it would go straight to an IRA account. The banks would then be responsible for taking care of and distributing the funds, so there would no longer be a need to keep spending huge sums of taxpayer money on running the Social Security Administration.

You might think politicians would
have been happy when they realized this meant the government would suddenly have
a large amount of money left over they could then spend on other things, but,
oh no, politicians are far more interested in power than anything else, and,
besides, they always spend more money than they have, so why would they ever
think it was a good idea to reduce their spending in any particular area? In their eyes cutting down the Social Security Administration would only take away a large chunk of the power they hold over
the lives of the elderly, and it’s the use of that power by which they keep
retirees voting for them. Until the general population ever figures that out,
the politicians will tightfistedly keep the power all to themselves, and they
will never publicly discuss John Anderson’s idea. This is a change we can only
get by having voters demand it.

Why would the voters want to do
that? Well, wouldn’t you want to have a monthly retirement check at least three
times bigger than the one Social Security distributes? For anybody inclined to
say, "No", I can only assume you have too much money already, so I’ll help you
out a bit. Just send all your unneeded money to my Tip Jar, and I’ll make sure
it gets spent on something useful, such as Lionel Trains or trips to Hawaii.

I’m not going to try explaining all
the ideas John Anderson had for such things as making sure people didn’t exceed
the maximum allowable deposits for an IRA, nor any other of the "nuts and
bolts" aspects of this proposal, but I will tell you the plan was to keep
people from drawing any of the money from that account until they were retired,
at a certain age, and then a percentage of whatever was in the account would go
straight to the government.

There are roughly 64 million people
drawing Social Security right now, and that number is going to get a lot bigger
soon, so just imagine what the situation would be like today if the government
had implemented this idea back in 1980. There would be very few people still
getting the old Social Security check, and, rather than continuing to fork over
billions of taxpayer dollars in retirement checks, the government would now have
a huge amount of money coming in each year. By bringing in more revenue from
retirees than the government was paying out there could have been a large sum
of extra money to help pay for health care and other entitlements, thus
reducing the tax burden on the middle class. More than that, by storing
billions upon billions of revenue dollars in non-government financial
institutions there would not have been all the bank closures we just recently
experienced, so the government wouldn’t have had to waste all that money on the
bale out.

This is especially important for
those of you who care about such things as equality, livable wages, and
everybody having a safety net. The IRA’s would have ensured everybody retired
with more than enough money to comfortably live on for the rest of their lives,
and we wouldn’t be worrying now about the Social Security system collapsing in
the future from political mismanagement.

In short, had politicians cared more
about the people of America than themselves, we’d all be more financially
secure now.

Stop blindly trusting politicians and make them pay for their failures. It doesn’t matter
whether you are conservative or liberal, the politicians you support are
letting you down. As with their failure to keep Social Security monies safe and
solvent, they are failing to do anything either for the good of the country, or
for the good of the people voting for them. In case you haven’t noticed, when a
politician promises to work as hard as he or she can on the issue you care
about, it isn’t the same thing as promising to actually get it done. All it
means is this politician will vote for a bill you’d like, but is unlikely to
pass, and then he or she will help pass a different bill with no real teeth in
it. This trick allows politicians to say they supported an issue (and they love
to throw around the resolution number of the failed bill as proof), but the
reality is they didn’t do anything serious about it at all. As long as they
keep getting away with this trick they will keep doing it, so we need to give
them some incentive to give up the tricks and start listening to us.

How? Easy; just put their jobs on
the line. Politicians treat us like idiots simply because they know only idiots
would keep voting for these Bozos, so let’s just stop voting for the same Bozos
over and over again. You’ve heard of "Three strikes and you’re out", correct?
Why not apply the same idea to politicians? After you’ve voted for a particular
politician who has repeatedly promised to do something about an issue you care
about, and that person has failed to do anything for a third time, just don’t
vote for him or her the next time.

No, you don’t have to vote for the
other party. Nobody is asking you to give up your beliefs. All we want to do
here is get politicians back on track with following the will of their voters.
To get rid of a failed Bozo all you need do is vote for somebody else in the
primary. It’s that simple. Even in the event the Bozo squeaks by in a primary
the message the voters will be sending is, "We’ll get you next time!" For House
representatives this can be done every two years, and that means the politician
will eventually get replaced. As soon as people massively boot out a few
leeches, the rest of the bloodsuckers will learn the lesson, and then we can
get back to making politicians do what the people actually want.

Ah, I can already hear the next
question. "Well, how do we do that?" For the answer I refer you to the next

Help get out the facts on what your politician is doing. Every time an election comes up the
politicians know what issues will get us to vote for them, and/or donate money,
but they never tell us what they have actually managed to do about those
issues. Let’s face it, they really haven’t done anything, and they also don’t
plan to do anything after they get re-elected. When we give them money it’s
usually wasted. They spend far more money on themselves than they do on the
issues they allegedly support, and by getting us to keep giving them money they
are pretty much keeping us enslaved to them.

This is because most people aren’t
paying attention. They don’t care about political issues until elections come
along, and even then they don’t do any research for themselves. The average
voter’s decision on how to vote is based solely upon whatever ads had the most
impact. You may not know it, but political ads are allowed to lie, so a glitzy
ad full of frightful falsehoods directed at an uninformed populace can often carry
enough weight to swing a vote. Politicians know this, and we all know very few
of them have scruples against deceit, so fabrications have become the norm.
Those of us who care about certain issues, even when it isn’t election season,
may be aware of the lies, but we are massively outnumbered. For that reason
alone the real truth on any given issue is pretty much a non-factor. Therefore,
conservatives who care about one side, and liberals who care about the other
side, will both usually end up feeling disgusted afterwards. The people and propositions
we support may win, but for some odd reason neither side ever gets what it was
expecting. Unfortunately, our issues will never be treated seriously until we
put pressure on the people who have the power to fix those issues – the politicians we elect.

The only way to build up that
pressure is for people to stop letting the game be played unsupervised. We need
to put some referees on the field. No, that doesn’t mean you should turn to
existing watchdog groups and just blindly start giving them the money you were
going to donate to a politician. In case you haven’t noticed, most of these
groups aren’t much better than the politicians. For proof, just ask yourself
this question: When was the last time you saw a watchdog group put out an ad
exposing some form of political corruption?

Odds are you have never seen such an
ad. The reality is these groups normally don’t do anything except scare you into
giving them money. For the ones who do get involved politically, all they are
is support systems for one of the major political parties. Sure, they will put
out "news" items telling you terrible things about people they don’t like, or they
may occasionally run some political ads in support of an issue on the ballot,
but they don’t put any real pressure on politicians at all. In fact, as long as
any politician is from the ‘proper’ party, the watchdog group will not even mention
it when that politician lets the cause down.

What we need are serious watchdog
groups running ads telling the people whether or not their politician is
actually doing anything important. The ads could compare promises to actions, and, in the event the politician concerned is merely playing games, they could also encourage support for a different candidate in the primary. Those ads would certainly
get politician’s attention, and if enough groups were out there running such
ads you could see the will of the people come back into play.

The problem is the people who either
have the skills to create such organizations, or have the money to help get
them started, are putting their backing behind politicians or organizations who
aren’t really trying to educate the populace.
If anybody ever does set up such
a watchdog group, we all must donate money to it.

Call for a change in the Eminent Domain laws. This law is used to abuse all Americans. It is almost never done by one political belief strictly for the purpose of destroying people of a
different belief, so sharing the same political viewpoints as the a-holes doing
this will not be enough to save you. No, even when eminent domain is imposed
for political reasons, such as "protecting the environment", it is still done
to anybody who gets in the way, no matter what their political persuasions are,
and it is usually only done for reasons no real American would support.

Here is one fine example: Kelo
versus City of New London. You may remember this one; it went to the Supreme
Court. The city of New London, CT stole houses and land from private citizens
under "Eminent Domain" and offered the land (we’re talking more than 90 acres
of waterfront property) to a large corporation for a measly $1 a year. Think
this was a case of liberals sticking it to conservatives? Think again. The city
council may have been liberal, but so were most of the homeowners. Connecticut
is not a conservative state.

How did it all turn out? Well, not
only did the corporation later decide they no longer wanted the land, after the houses had already been destroyed, but the city also tried to get the former residents to pay five years of back
rent for the time they spent living in their own houses while they fought the
city through the courts. Evil does not even begin
to describe what the idiotic city of New London did here. The city wasted 78
million dollars doing this, and even though the residents did get some
compensation, it was nowhere near enough to make up for what they lost. Basically,
everybody involved got hurt, and for what? Thanks to bureaucratic stupidity the
land now belongs to the city, and all they have ever done with it is use it for
a dump. Whoopee! Ain’t trusting the government fun?

Thanks to the publicity this case
got, several states passed laws making it illegal for land to be taken under
eminent domain for purposes of economic development, but most of those states
have plenty of other ways to steal your property. One such state is Washington. Around
the Seattle, WA area private property has recently been stolen for such stupid
things as to turn a parking lot into a city owned parking lot, and one really
nice cabin in the woods was taken away because its city council didn’t like the
owners using golf carts on a dirt road to drive a few miles to their property.
The city said the dust being kicked up was pollution. Can you imagine this
excuse being good enough to condemn a property that was miles away from any urban
environs? I can’t, but the city got away with it anyway. Know why? The city had
deeper pockets than the residents. In this case the poor owners would have been
ruined financially if they had decided to fight.

These are just the tip of the
iceberg. Cincinnati, OH, Mesa, AZ, Cypress, CA, and probably just about any
city within fifty miles of you has abused the laws of eminent domain. All too
often the people doing the abusing have a financial stake in the outcome, such
as is claimed concerning Dennis Hastert and the unnecessary Prairie Parkway,
but even if the proponents don’t gain monetarily, they are still getting away
with the worst kind of robbery.

This is one major area where we
citizens have to make our politicians obey us. If we run the ads and make
enough noise to get the voters to respond, our feckless leadership will have to
pass some laws to protect us from this abuse. You’ve no doubt heard the saying,
"You can’t fight city hall", but do you know why? It’s only because city hall
says so. Why should any government, especially one inside a country
specifically created to prevent such governmental abuse, be allowed to exercise
such power? There is no good reason, and it’s time to put a stop to it.

The folks in Washington D.C. have
the power to change this. All they have to do is pass a law saying no case of
eminent domain can be attempted until the residents are given a fair chance to
fight back. After all, if it’s fair for the government to use taxpayer funds to
take your land, it’s also fair for each victim to be granted taxpayer funds to
hire lawyers. We need to demand a law be made giving the owners of private
property all the advantages the city, state or feds have. In short, they should
be allowed to hire any lawyers they choose, at
government expense!

Hey, if the weasel-wienies truly think they have just cause to take away our land,
the least they can do is be willing to prove it in a fair fight.

Don’t just claim your ideology is correct; prove it! The biggest reason our
elected officials get away with screwing things up is because they always have the
other side to blame for everything bad their actions cause. They are actually
counting on you to place your anger upon the opposition instead of on them.
Unfortunately, all you do when you get mad at the other party is make it easier
for your party to lie to you, but, beyond that, it’s also entirely possible in
some cases the other side really did screw things up. Therefore, as long as the
two parties have each other to blame, and the power in your state continues to
shift from one party to the other, no serious change you may be hoping for will
ever occur. If you really want your side to get total power to make the changes
you crave, completely unhindered by the other party, you need to put yourself
in position where the other side is powerless.

No, you don’t have to resort to
cheating in every election to help your side win; all you need do is get your
vote counted where it will add weight to your party. To do that you may have to
move, but are you serious about your beliefs or not? If you are a true believer
in your ideology, and you honestly want to prove the ideas you support are
better than the other side, you need to help the states who are already on your
side. I like to think of this as a campaign to either "Head for the red" or "Be
true to the blue". For liberals this means move to the states in the East or
West Coast, such as California or New York, and for conservatives this means
head for the southern states or mid-western ones. Texas is currently popular
for conservatives, but if it seems too populated for you, there’s still Utah,
Idaho, Montana and Alabama to consider.

The point is, by moving you add to
that state’s population, and that means you are more likely to get
Representatives from your party elected. This is important because every ten
years when the census is done every state has a change in the number of
representatives assigned to it. If you want your side to get more power you
need to increase the population of a state that shares your ideology. Conversely,
if you remain in a state that doesn’t share your philosophy, the presence of
your entire family adds to the population count and only helps to ensure the
other side will have more representatives. More than that, the taxes you pay
also will be spent by the other side. Simply put, liberals in red states and
conservatives in blue ones only help their political enemies.

Enough is enough, get off your duff!

If you are wealthy you should have
already done this, but even for those of you who work for a living this doesn’t
mean you must throw everything away. Nothing says you can’t find a new job in
the state you like before you move. Thanks to the computer world we live in,
job applications, job interviews, and the acceptance of employment can all be
done before you pack your bags and leave forever. It isn’t even that hard to
sell your house anymore. The housing market has improved enough this is no
longer the obstacle it was a few years ago. Basically, if you are more than
just a chronic complainer, there are steps you can take to solve the problems
causing you the most aggravation, and it’s time to finally do something more
effective than whining.

I don’t know, maybe most folks
prefer whining. Lord knows I hear more complaints than solutions. If fifty one
percent of the country has already converted to the Crybaby Faith then I’m
probably just peeing in the wind, but at least I still have enough freedom to
pee the way I want.

Until such time as I am required to
only pee in a biodegradable, compostable, government approved, and
environmentally friendly container made from nothing either man-made or
destructive of nature, I shall continue to fight on.

(Oh, and just in case you are
thinking that last remark was merely an attempt to be witty, I assure you there
are lunatics out there already thinking about doing something along those
lines. Even now we have municipalities begging us not to flush Q-Tips and baby
wipes anymore – things our sewer systems once easily handled before the
government started treating our sewage process as if it was a Brita
Purification System – and the day is coming when sewage will not only be
declared a hazardous pollutant to the earth, but flushing your toilet at all will
be declared a waste of our precious water resources. Unless we stop the loonies
now, they will eventually force you to do things you once thought were too
stupid to even be considered).

PS. Life to America!

0 0 votes
Article Rating