Significance of Older People in our Economy

Adults age 55 and older constituted 31 percent of the voting-age population and 35 percent of those who voted in the 2004 presidential election, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Currently 43 million Americans receive social Security benefits. There are 76-million baby boomers and the first of them are just turning 62 this year. None of us are happy about this. AARP starts sending out solicitations to everyone at age 50. I ignored the solicitations until I was 60.

A chart published by the U.S. Census Bureau < http://www.census.gov/population/pop-profile/dynamic/AgeSex.pdf> graphically shows the increased population by age of the baby boomers and that the numbers of people born after that generation have not declined substantially. This is a situation that will benefit all older people.

As the 50 and older age group grows into a large percentage of the population we have the power to influence our society and our government. This can be accomplished in both locally and nationally. When my wife and I vacationed in Vancouver British Columbia in 1999 we found that city to provide a variety of services for the elderly including a chirping bird sound at every corner with a traffic light (for those that cannot see clearly). Another example of helping the elderly and disabled is Los Angeles modification of many corner curbs with ramps that help crossing streets. Social Security and Medicare are two examples of national services.

We have the power of the vote and pen to pressure government and society to do the right thing. Active participation in the AARP < http://www.aarp.org/> and the Alliance for Retired Americans <http://www.retiredamericans.org/> is a good way to obtain the services and support that is needed. Both of these organizations have similar goals and both are worthy of support. The Alliance for Retired Americans is allied with the AFL-CIO and other unions. Active participation in either or both of these organizations will impact the voting of our representatives and the outcome of the coming presidential election.

Saving Social Security

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson appeared on today’s “Fox News Sunday” to say that his plan for saving Social Security is to cut the benefits. Mr. Thompson has not actually said how much the benefits would be cut. The typical monthly benefit for 2008 is $1,044. The median savings of Americans age 51 to 62 is $63,116. There have been discussions on the radio about the fact that 80% of the population has savings of less than $50,000. Just how much cut in Social Security payments can the average retired family handle? My opinion is NONE. Clearly most retired people need the monthly retirement income they receive from Social Security. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) published “Retirement Income The Crucial Role of Social Security in May 2005 <http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/book_retirement_income>. Key conclusions were:
In examining Social Security benefits within the context of other retirement savings programs, the data show a number of striking results:

For the typical person approaching retirement, the value of expected future Social Security retirement benefits represents the largest single source of wealth. That finding is consistent with the well-known fact that Social Security provides more than half of all income for about two-thirds of people over age 65.
Social Security provided a larger addition to wealth than any other form of wealth between 1989 and 2001 for the average person near retirement. As labor markets tightened and annual earnings improved over that period, the expected value of Social Security benefits rose. Although stock market and home prices rose significantly over that timeframe, these increases had only a modest effect on the wealth of those in the middle of the income spectrum; their stock market holdings were too low to be affected, and increased borrowing kept home equity in check.
In terms of the adequacy of workers’ retirement savings, the data indicate that the retirement system outside of Social Security is a system with many holes. Despite large tax incentives from the federal government for workers to save for retirement, more than one-fifth of households nearing retirement (those between the ages of 56 and 64) had no retirement savings other than Social Security. In contrast, nearly everyone can expect to receive some benefits from Social Security.
Even among the households that have private pensions, savings are very unevenly distributed. Indeed, one of the most dramatic transformations over the last two decades has been the replacement of traditional Defined Benefit (DB) pension plans with Defined Contribution (DC) plans such as 401(k)s. This shift has actually been detrimental to a large share of the working population. Despite increased coverage by DC plans and the rise in the stock market, the total DB plus DC wealth of the typical person nearing retirement was no higher in 2001 than in 1983.
Retirement savings, including Social Security wealth, notably improved from 1989 to 2001, although large trouble spots remain. The share of households that could expect to have retirement income of less than twice the poverty line declined. Also, the share of households that could hope to replace at least half of their current income with benefits from their savings in retirement rose from 1989 to 2001.
There is significant inequality in the retirement preparedness of different demographic groups. Minorities and single-female-headed households saw larger than average improvements in retirement preparedness, although they remained less well prepared than other groups. Much of this inequality results from an uneven distribution of retirement savings outside of Social Security, while expected Social Security benefits are an equalizing force. The tight labor market was particularly helpful in raising the annual earnings and future Social Security benefits of these groups. In addition, these groups depend more heavily on Social Security for their retirement income than do other groups.

The many ways in which Social Security has proven superior to private retirement benefits should give pause to those who want to carve up Social Security through privatization. Social Security is universal, and its value has risen faster than other forms of retirement savings for the vulnerable households that need additional retirement benefits the most.

The Republican obsession with not raising the Social Security cap of $97,500 is remarkably out of touch with reality. Even conservative Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, has said that the fix for Social Security is to raise the cap. In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.00.Clearly $97,500 is well above that average.

The Bush Mideast Peace Conference At Annapolis

In 14 months President George W. Bush will leave office. His accomplishments have been few. There are only three significant things he has done as president. First he lowered tax rates (this may have been a greater impact on the rich than the poor), second he created a prescription drug program for Medicare participants (some would say this was mainly a benefit to drug companies), and third he was instrumental in removing Saddam Hussein from power (and left this nation with a serious problem in Iraq).

Bush’s mistakes are to numerous to list here. I want to focus on peace in the Middle East. His objective is to obtain one really wonderful success that will enable him to be remembered in a positive light. It’s called “his legacy”.

A reading of history tells us that the likelihood of success is very remote. Bill Clinton, the master of communications, was unable to bring Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to agree on a peace settlement. George W. Bush is not known for is diplomatic talent. This AP analysis dated November 25 is worthwhile http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071125/D8T4Q05O0.html. How can he bring two groups that have been fighting for 60 years together in peace?

It is a nice gesture to bring all the Arab nations to this conference but the only two groups needed for peace are the Israelis and the Palestinians. As long as Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists continue to attack Israel there will not be a sustainable peace. The Palestinians do not have the will to stop the terrorists.

I expect that the Arab nations will demand land from Israel as a trade for peace. Israel has already withdrawn from southern Lebanon, the Sinai Peninsula, and Gaza but those withdrawals have not brought any peace. Will Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights and all of the West bank territories bring peace? Sorry to say but I do not believe the Arabs will be satisfied until there is no state of Israel.

Presidential Candidates With Nothing To Say

Today’s appearance of Fred Thompson on This Week with George Stephanopoulos does make me wonder why presidential candidates are so unprepared to talk about issues and why they even bother to appear on morning talk shows. It’s not just Fred Thompson that has come on to these shows unprepared. Tim Russert of Meet the Press is a master of interviewing. He invariably surfaces some really embarrassing contradictions in the previous campaign events (e.g. John Edwards’ interview on Feb. 4, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/) or other events that fly in the face of the candidates current positions.

Fred appears to be a nice man who has had the benefit of small appearances on the TV series “Law and Order” and has filled in for Paul Harvey on ABC radio. His views or positions are not well thought out for a man running for president. Today’s interview brought out the following:

He is in favor of state laws helping to determine the maintenance of life when someone is seriously ill or may be brain dead.
We should address the coming social security funding issue now rather than later but offers no solution.
The fight against radical Islam is primarily a military fight.

Fred offered no vision for America and no road map for the 21^st century.

Candidates who have no message or vision are wasting our time. “The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama was at least a vision of the future. It’s too bad Mr. Obama has not followed up on his book when appearing on television.

Presidential Debates Have Been Disappointing

How boring! Most of the candidates in each party’s debates (they are really forums) mimic each other. The contenders of each party try to catch their opponents in an error. The one exception is Ron Paul. He is a Republican who actually brings his own thought to those utterly uninspiring debates. He has raised enough money to actually become a contender.

The Democrats are particularly unanimous in their views. Each of them tries his/her very best to avoid taking a stand on any issue. Actually they try to avoid all issues. The best example is providing a commitment to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Hilary Clinton flipped on this issue for two weeks and then said no. At the November 15 debate Barack Obama used 192 words before finally saying “yes”.

The Republicans also take the same views with the exception of Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani. Unlike Ron Paul the other Republicans subscribe to the idea of not telling voters anything about their views. Rudy Giuliani’s social liberalism and Mitt Romney’s religion have become talk show fodder. I find it utterly dismaying that Mitt Romney’s religious belief have become an issue. That Romney’s Mormon religion is being discussed is an indicator that bigotry still exists in the United States or that it is at least important in the Republican party. No wonder I have become an Independent. I personally dis-associated myself from a friend who showed himself to be a bigot and I would not be part of any group that stood for any bigotry.

I like Rudy Giuliani. His social liberalism makes him an excellent candidate for president against any Democrat. He could win next November. He and Hillary will have to take firm stands on real issues to win.

We Really Want Your Illegal Aliens

Yes it is true, we really want your poor and down trodden population here in the USA. However, there is little chance we will recognize their rights to live here any time soon. We won’t force them to return to your country but we won’t give them any legal status. That means we will not issue them a license to operate a car nor any other legal identification.

Basically we need those people to take the menial jobs that even our teenage children won’t do. You know the jobs I am referring to like cutting lawns, taking care of our elderly parents, watching our children, washing our cars, and other boring and disgusting jobs. After all those jobs only pay minimum wage or a few dollars above minimum wage.

You may wonder how I know this is true. Just listen to our candidates for president and our congress. The best example most recently is Hillary Clinton who now opposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. She decided on that view after realizing that a majority of Americans oppose the idea. She does not advocate forcing illegal aliens to return to their home countries.

Mrs. Clinton is not alone in this view. The predicament is that issuing any legal documents for any purpose to illegal aliens seems to be tantamount to granting amnesty for many politicians. Many people do not want to grant amnesty to those here illegally and as a result we have reached a stand off that puts those poor immigrants in a limbo that creates a two level economy. I suggest that we are creating a sub-culture that could rise up against our laws and cause considerably more harm than we are prepared to face. There could be an American version of an Intifada.

How many of us are prepared for an uprising of the down trodden?

Political Junky

I am a political junky. Some people love sports so much that they stay home to watch every game no matter what the sport. I would watch political show all the time if it wasn’t for my lovely wife. Even as I am watching This Week on ABC, I am recording Meet The Press on NBC. The DVR is a wonderful thing! I listen to talk radio all the time, even when I do not agree with the hosts. Know thine enemy would be my reasoning. I admit I have been watching all the Dancing with the Stars programs but that’s because of Julieanne Hough. This only proves that there are some things that will distract me (please don’t tell my wife, she never reads these blogs).

I do not have access to any of the politicians so everything I write is based upon all of those columnists that I admire. I put together the pieces by reading their commentaries and adding the news reports.

I read blog writers become recognized by writing almost daily. That is now my objective. Yes I am envious of the columnists in Newsweek, Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post. I am not earning a dime but I am having fun doing these postings.

If Illegal Aliens Are not Deported They Must Be Given Legal Status

Americans are really a generous people. Despite our stated objective of keeping illegal immigrants from entering this country, the borders have not yet been closed to their continuing entry. Even more surprising is that we are not sending most of them back to their native countries. Is the reason we are not sending them back because these people, that everyone says are mostly Mexican, are doing jobs that most Americans won’t do or is this a corporate conspiracy to lower corporate labor costs? The answer is not clear.

Just enter the words “illegal aliens” into your internet browser and it becomes evident that opinions about these people are primarily against any legalization of their status. Starting with http://www.illegalaliens.us/ that claims “AMNESTY means never having immigration enforcement!”, to CRIME VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html to World Net Daily’s claim that illegal aliens threaten the U.S. medical system. Most talk radio hosts are rabidly opposed to giving any harbor to anyone who has entered the country illegally. Most of them stand with a crowd who do not want to grant any privileges to illegal aliens. Still, those same people usually acknowledge that we are not likely or able to deport those aliens.

However, enter the words “undocumented workers” into your internet browser and the first site listed is the “American Immigration Law Foundation” site that features “The Value of Undocumented Workers”, followed by many other sites that defend illegal aliens including one that states “About two-thirds of undocumented workers earn less than twice the minimum”. Twice the minimum wage is $11.70 per hour. It is obvious to me that we are not going to arrest all the illegal aliens in the U.S. and deport them. If we are going to permit those aliens to remain here we will have to provide them with documentation. This does not mean we immediately put them into the pool of those now here legally who have made application for citizenship. Here is my plan.

Close the border to more illegal aliens effective December 31, 2007. This should be done with walls, barbed wire, and monitoring towers.
Provide identification documents to every illegal alien who can prove he/she was here prior to that date. The identification would include social security cards that are similar to credit cards.
Issue every legal resident in the country with new credit card style social security cards. If VISA and Master Card can manage their enrolled card holders then the holders of social security cards can be managed.
The new social security card must be used by all employers to confirm the legal status of all current employees and new employees.
Enforce high fines on all employers who defy the new regulations.
All newly documented residents must learn English and apply for citizenship which will be granted after a ten year waiting period. Within a five year period all newly documented residents must be able to demonstrate their English proficiency.

English Should be the Official Language of the United States

As I went to my creative writing class today I knew that all 15 people attending would be speaking and writing in English. The class is being conducted at a community college (Pierce College in Woodland Hills, California). The background of the people attending is varied.

The one thing we all have in common is language. Perhaps some do speak another language. One Caucasian lady told us that she accompanied her husband to Taiwan for a one year job. She probably learned some Standard Mandarin as that is the language common to most people living there. However, she has spoken to all of us in English. Two Asians are in the class. Based upon their appearance they are most likely from China. They only speak English in the class and for all I know that may be the only language they speak.

English is not the official language of our country. We have no official language. That is a problem for our nation. Recently this country has become divided by language. By not having English language competency many people do not consider they are part of this country. Those immigrants who retain their native language are continuing to consider themselves part of their homeland. More than 10% of Californians speak little or no English.

Both government and business are to blame for this situation. Some Bank web sites are in both English and Spanish. When you telephone most businesses they give you a Spanish option. Election ballots are now in Spanish everywhere in the United States. Los Angeles County now offers ballots in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Spanish. The argument for this is that many citizens do not understand English sufficiently enough to understand ballot measures. “Thousands of Americans are voting in foreign languages, even though naturalized citizens are required to know English.” How did they pass the test to become citizens? The Hoover Institution documents this issue (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574512.html) in an article dated in 1996. Federal law required California’s Yuba County to spend $12,000 printing voting information in Spanish even though there was no request for the documents. Oddly, the State of California has an amendment to its constitution making English the official language. CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SECTION 6.

I am sorry to note that my position is not popular with Democrats. Newsmax.com reported on this issue (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/28/230903.shtml?s=us).To my dismay the Speaker of the House supports the idea of ballots in multiple languages. What could Nancy Pelosi have been thinking when she supported this idea?

Debates for President are in English, laws are written in English, our primary TV stations are broadcast in English, English is the language used for all communication between towers and commercial aircraft in all countries in the world, many countries print their postage stamps with both their native language and English.

Wolf Blitzer of CNN has asked all the candidates, in the debates of both political parties, if they favored making English the official language. All the Republicans support the idea but all the Democrats except former Alaska Governor Mike Gravel oppose it.

There is hope for a change. Representative Peter King of New York, has introduced HR 769, a bill to make English the official language of the United States of America. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has introduced a companion bill, S 1335 in the Senate. Pro-English (http://www.proenglish.org/issues/offeng/769.html) is an organization dedicated to “working to educate the public about the need to protect English as our common language and to make it the official language of the United States.”

The principles of Pro-English are a list I whole heartedly support and so should all Americans:

In a pluralistic nation such as ours, the function of government should be to foster and support the similarities that unite us, rather than institutionalize the differences that divide us.

Our nation’s public schools have the clear responsibility to help students who don’t know English to learn that language as quickly as possible. To do otherwise is to sentence the child to a lifetime of political and economic isolation. Quality teaching of English and America’s civic culture should be a part of every student’s curriculum. The study of foreign languages, as an academic discipline, should be strongly encouraged.

All candidates for U.S. citizenship should be required to demonstrate knowledge of English and an understanding of our system of government, at a level sufficient to vote in the language of our country English.

Naturalization ceremonies, including the Oath of Citizenship, must be conducted in English.

The right to use other languages must be respected.