Social Security -- The Big Lie

Well, yes. But not the way you think. My take on this is that a great majority of our elected representatives in Congress actually have no clue, and think that ideas like "lock box" and "social security surplus" actually have meaning. These people are, of course, idiots. However, at the core of the dispute are two groups of people who understand the issues, disagree on the solution, and don't have the political will to discuss the issues with the public on an honest basis.

The big issue is that, under present law in about 2016 the Trust Fund will start running a deficit, and make claim on the Treasury for repayment of its surplus that it "lent" to Treasury. (See the Concord Coalition's position paper for a basic discussion of the problems facing the Social Security program.) Treasury doesn't have the extra money lying around, so we either run an ever-bigger deficit, increase taxes, or change current law.

The Republicans, to their credit, are willing to admit to the crisis facing the system. Their big lie, however, is that as a nation we can move to a fully-funded system. They assume that the government can efficiently get everyone invested in the stock market. And this is the party of small government? Besides the fact that the Republicans should recognize that it is a fundamental violation of their political philosphy to advocate such a solution, the future of the stock market might be very much in doubt. As a minor point, the market today is grossly overvalued compared to historical norms. Moreover, this nation has never had a large non-working cohort. It is possible that the economy may change in some very unexpected ways as the Baby Boomers start to retire, and this may lead to stagnation in the stock market. Witness, for example, Japan.

The Democrats are not exactly paragons of virtue either. So far they favor the Big Lie -- trust us, everything will be fine. Well, it won't, even if you believe, like I do, that the Democrat leadership on this issue know full well that the system is unsustainable. So where are the Dems going? One possibility is that they are moving towards a need-based system. If this is true, they would want to expand entitlements for the elderly to cover a basic suite of necessities -- like health care with a prescription drug benefit, affordable housing and cash for food. Then, as these entitlements increasingly devour the budget, move incrementally toward making the entitlements need-based. Of course, this means that taxes for entitlement spending are in fact taxes, not payments into a fictious trust fund. But you could also move toward making entitlement taxation more progressive, like eliminating the earnings cap, without necessarily admitting that the "trust fund" payments are in fact taxes.

Frankly, I see no worse posturing out of DC than on entitlement spending. Just writing about it makes me faintly nauseated (though it could be that my dog just farted). I believe that this country is wealthy enough to provide a safety net to its seniors; I just wish that our politicians would be honest enough to collapse all these programs, and the funding for them, into the existing budget and tax system.

Or I am being too cynical?

Regarding the Middle East -- Annexation is the Answer

There has been a fascinating debate in blogdom in recent days regarding the merits of the Israelis retreating to defensible lines and building a wall to separate themselves from the Palestinians. While it is probably not the smartest move for me to begin my blogdom career commenting on the Middle East, if I were all that smart I wouldn't be unemployed.

The debate has to start with the map that the Israelis provided the PA at Taba proposing an allocation of the West Bank.

The opening position on this debate was taken last August in the WaPo by Charles Krauthammer, who argued that the Israelis should strike hard, then withdraw behind defensible lines and build a wall.
Also in WaPo, Gershom Gorenberg wrote eloquently about the hubris of no fences.

The best opposition to the retreat and fortify argument I've read is authored by Stephen Postrel and found here at Unqualified Offerings. In sum, Postrel argues that there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by this option because the PA will use their proximity to Jordan to destabalize Jordan, re-arm and launch new attacks. UO provides solid reply to the Postrel position here, but I can't resist adding my two bits.

My position is that Jordan must annex the Palestinian portion of the West Bank, and Eygpt must annex the southern portion of Gaza, where most Palestinian Arabs live. This position is based on the following postulates, all of which are debatable:

1. Arafat is an unreconstructed and corrupt terrorist with no real interest in establishing and managing a separate Palestinian state long-term, at least not for the benefit of the Palestinians.
2. So many Palestinians have been indoctrinated into terror that Israel must find a way to disengage, or a campaign of terror will start again. By disengaging, attacks will not come internally, or at least not as much. Israel will be able to imprison and/or expel terrorists to foreign states with whom it has peace treaties. This will put tremendous pressure on Egypt and Jordan to control their new citizens.
3. The most recent proposals for a separate Palestine including both Gaza and the West Bank are fundamentally unrealistic on an economic basis. Putting the state of Alaska to one side, not many governments are responsible for managing two completely non-contiguous sub-states. A Palestine state would immediately become an immense drain on the international donor pool as two completely separate infrastructures would have to be built.
4. Abandoning the idea of a separate Palestine substantially eases the problem of Jerusalem, because there is no need for competing capitals in the same city.
5. The US CANNOT support or even be perceived as supporting terrorism, or it will most certainly return to our shores. Any solution which results in Arafat becoming the head of an independent Palestine means that the terrorists have won. This is UNACCEPTABLE to our national security.
6. Security can be provided in the newly-annexed territories by joint US/Arab police forces. This joint force must take responsibility for counterstrikes against any cross-border raids, including those out of Lebanon and Syria.
7. There is no real historical basis for Palestine as a separate political entity.

Comments, insults, brickbats and additional thoughts all welcome, as soon as I figure out how I want to build a comment section.

First Post

Nothing like being temporarily[!] unemployed to give one the free time to join the wide world of warbloggers. To summarize, I'm a late-30ish white male athiest democrat married to a beautiful Jew. I'm a land use [aka developer] attorney by professional; my wife is a public defender.