SamSaid!

VOLUNTARY

     The verbal warfare over the Social Security issue still rages with no end in sight. However, more and more knowledgeable people are speaking out and opining, so there is a chance that John Q Public will be better and better informed as time passes. Even at this relatively early stage of debate,  it is clear that the Democrats are deeply concerned about the “ownership” aspects of the program advanced by President Bush.

     A key element of Bush's proposal is to create private savings accounts for those who wish to invest a portion of their social security taxes in mutual funds or bond funds. Very clearly, investing in these private savings accounts would be voluntary. No one would be compelled to have 4-5% (or any part) of their tax contributions  invested in this fashion. So we might ask ourselves a simple question. Why should the Democrats violently oppose a program that is voluntary? Is there risk? Of course there is. There is risk in anything. Absent reform of the Social Security System, there is a huge risk in retirees getting the scheduled benefits 20-30 years from now. Nothing is risk free.

     Let's concede that the Democrats very strongly oppose tampering with a system that is a bedrock foundation under their welfare state politics. And  also concede that Social Security is the legacy of Franklin D Roosevelt and the New Deal which has been passed down to current leaders from their statist ancestors.  Even so, why should they object to a change that is voluntary. Not mandatory, voluntary. Do they believe that ordinary Americans are too dumb to invest their own funds and watch them grow? Don't they understand that most Americans are familiar with Savings Accounts, CDs, stocks, bonds, IRAs, 401Ks etc etc ?

     I think their real concern is that folks who would invest in the private savings accounts would get up in the morning and turn to the Financial page in the newspaper instead of the Sports page. These hard working people would be able to measure their relative gains week by week and month by month. In short, they would turn into mini-capitalists who rely on investments instead of Federal payments. Is that bad??

     When I run into those who oppose the Bush proposals, I ask a simple question  — what is wrong with a VOLUNTARY choice? Why not let the people choose? Most people understand that establishing  the voluntary private savings accounts will not rescue the Social Security System and restore fiscal balance to a program headed for disaster. But the PSAs are a distinct benefit to individual citizens. Why not give them a choice? 

     I am still looking for a lucid answer from my friends on the left.  None so far.

THE RULES

     Americans like games. All kinds of games. Athletic games, card games, puzzles, mind games, quiz games  –  you name it. Poker, gin rummy, bridge, skill sports, team sports, video games  –  the list goes on and on. These games vary enormously from one to another, but they all have one thing in common. They have rules. Whoever plays a game plays to win  —  by the rules. To be sure there are those who stretch the rules to the limits and even disregard or break them on occasion. But those who break the rules pay a price  –  some sort of penalty.

     Nowadays, the rules are too often ignored  – as though the worst thing about breaking the rules is getting caught. The current steroid flap in major league baseball is a perfect example. Over 80 years ago, the best player in Major League baseball, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, was banned brom baseball for life for his role in “throwing”  world series games. It was the infamous Black Sox scandal over gambling (betting) on the outcome of games  — in this case, the World Series. From time to time there have been efforts to rescind the harsh penalty, even to the point of seeking to make Jackson eligible for entry into Baseball's Hall of Fame. No go. He paid the price.

     Since the Black Sox scandal, gambling on baseball games by players, coaches, etc., has been a “no-no”, much to the distress of Pete Rose who was  arguably one of the 10 best major league players in history. Several years ago, Pete got caught betting (gambling big bucks) on his own team. He knew what he was doing, he knew what the penalty would be if he got caught, he got caught red handed, and he too has been banned from baseball for life. Now he is going to great lengths to enlish support for his powerful desire to enter baseball's Hall of Fame. Absent the gambling matter, he would have been a shoo-in for the Hall years ago. But he sits on the outside loking in.

     The use of steroids (performance enhancing drugs) by players is just another form of cheating  –  breaking the rules. Now we hear all kinds of rationalizations and excuses from those who have broken the rules as a way to gain an unfair advantage. Some are in denial, and others take the Fifth or plead ignorance. Worst of all, the players' Union is seeking to lessen penalties and downgrade the seriousness of the offenses. And they poo–poo the question of records set while using the steroids. Maybe baseball just doesn't want to face into the issue of enforcing the banned performance enhancing drugs. But if they do want to face into the problem and resolve the steroid problem,  the solution isn't difficult.

     Here is all they need to do.  One, categorically ban the use of performance enhancing drugs. No ifs ands or buts. Two, those caught using the banned substances will be banned from baseball for life. First offense. No questions.  Three, all records or statistics for those players will be accompanied by an asterisk saying, “banned drug user”.  Will it work?  Just ask the descendants of Shoeless Joe Jackson. He was an unsophisticated country boy who got caught up in the big time, and what a tremendous price he paid. Who would be a Shoeless Joe for steroid use?  Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire or who?? It will take a big name, and a big lifetime ban penalty. It is long overdue.

     My choice would be Bonds. Then everyone whould know that baseball is serious, and most fans wouldn't miss him.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

     Since the passage of the Patriot Act following the 9/11/01 attacks, the ACLU and other left wing groups have painted (or at least tried to paint) a grim picture of the loss of civil liberties, and have repeatedly urged that the Patriot Act be rescinded  –  at least, the parts of it that they find to be offensive to their concerns. Yesterday. I read an editorial opposing the notion of a Nationl ID card because such a card would be “infringing on individual rights and eroding liberties”.

     Two aspects of such an assertion bother me. First of all, there are  5-10 million people roaming around in the USA without any kind of proper Identification. We don't know who they are or what they are doing. As one citizen, I would feel much more comfortable if we would identify these people   –who they are, where they came from, what they are doing, etc etc. While we express concern over domestic security, these unidentified millions just sort of vanish into the crowd. If we have to accept limits on our “rights”, then so be it. Times have changed. So have priorities.

     The second item of concern is the ominous phrase, “infringing on individual rights and eroding liberties”. The people on the left like to use these kinds of terms — scare terms if you will  — and go no further. In thinking about “infringing on individual rights”, WHAT rights?  Or in “eroding liberties”, WHAT liberties? We never see a specific list or itemization of the rights or freedoms or liberties being threatened. Just the vague and generalized threat. And in the meantime, 5-10 million unidentified people still are at large in the USA.

     I take citizen rights very seriously, and limiting those rights is a very sensitive action to be taken by Big Brother government. But the mindlessness of left wing scare tactics presumes that the status quo is just fine, and all of the 5-10 million unidentified strangers loose in the USA are well intentioned. I have a hard time buying that.

    Before buying the party line of the ACLU et al, I want to know precisely what rights are  being infringed upon and what has been eroding  –  not just ominous vague threats without concrete support.

VACATIONS

     Vacations in the sun and surf have a very good way of restoring persective to a badly distorted world, and even a lot of badly played golf shots do not affect that sense of balance. While in Hawaii I read about a truly horrifying incident where a suicide bomber killed 400 Iraqi Shiites attending a funeral of other Shiites who had been killed by Sunni terrorist suicide bombers a few days earlier. While pondering over a matter of such contempt and disgust, I read another article in which several of our bleeding heart liberals affirm that we should seek and find ways to “negotiate” with the terrorists, and also find ways to include the Sunni terrorists in the new Iraqi government.

     Can you imagine the reaction in the USA if 400 bereaved  friends and relatives were blown to shreds at a funeral of other relatives and friends. Is there anything lower on the scale of human behavior? But of course, if we capture some of these religious raghead fanatics we must observe the Geneva Convention and provide them with lawyers. And of course, we have to court martial our soldiers who treat them impolitely. Yeah, sure.

     Goeorge and Rummy have it right. Find them and kill them. A bullet between the eyes is about the right sentence. No prisoners and no questions. And tell the liberal left wing American do-gooders to stuff it. So far, the Shiites have been very patient, but that patience can last just so long. Until the Sunni leaders point the finger at the terrorists, many Iraqi people will not relax in peace. And if the Sunnis do not point the finger at the killers there will be very tough days ahead. Iraqi Sunni leaders may rue the day when they had a chance to make a big difference. If I were in the Shiite camp, I'd give the Sunnis 3-4 months. After that, the gloves come off.

     In the meantime, we are captivated by the death sentence for Scott Peterson and whether Sammy Sosa used steroids. Gotta stay with the big stories!