A Letter, Intercepted - Eleanor Clift and a painless fix for Social Security

TO: Eleanor Clift
C/O The McLaughlin Group
www.mclaughlin.com

Dear Ms. Clift:

Several weeks ago, on McLaughlin, you made a statement that one of the painless ways to solve the Social Security problem is to simply raise the retirement age. We are astonished and disappointed that you would join the likes of Pat Buchanan and Charles Krauthammer. Pat Buchanan, the great protector of the working class, wants to raise the retirement age to 70. Charles Krauthammer, in his customary arrogance, says “fixing Social Security is simple. It just requires raising the retirement age.” To arrive at this conclusion involves a process of reasoning which violates nearly all of the 8 rules of the syllogism.

It simply does not follow that because one lives longer, one can work longer. This is unjust, and an insult, to the millions of Americans who work with their arms, legs and backs. These people are the assembly line workers, the men and women who hang sheet rock, the brick layers, the concrete finishers, the coal miners and all the people who toil with their bodies from the time they are 18, or even earlier. We would suggest that you ask your doctor, but we are afraid your doctor wouldn't have any idea what the working class endures. The fact is, that these people, after at least 40 years when they reach age 60, cannot work at their trades or jobs any longer. Even hairdressers who stand on their feet for 40 years are usually finished by age 60.

Of course, it's not expected that those among us who have never lifted anything heavier than half a ream of paper would give this a second thought. The elitists of this country don't even know that these people exist. They think that all these myriads of jobs performed for them to make their lives easier in all respects, are performed by some invisible robot. These working Americans do exist, their bodies do wear out, no matter how long they live. Yet, their lives are affected by the positions that people of your ilk take concerning their future.

We urge you to think more in depth about this subject before, so cavalierly, adopting an idea which is so detrimental to the millions of Americans of the working class. We also suggest that you take a hard look at the present system historically. For the first 50 years, 1935 to 1985, the system worked moderately well. Then the tinkering started and it will continue until it becomes evident to all that the present system was never designed to be viable over the long haul. There are plans on the planet which are designed to work for centuries. No doubt, there will be objection to this, especially from our leaders who will say that we know best and that we don’t have to lift any ideas from any other countries. Our response is what H. L. Mencken said when the situation demanded it. Bosh and folderol.



We would love to hear your thoughts on raising the retirement age.

Justice with Michael Sandel

Justice is one of the most popular courses in Harvard’s history. Now it’s your turn to take the same journey in moral reflection that has captivated more than 14,000 students, as Harvard opens its classroom to the world.

In this twelve part series, Sandel challenges us with difficult moral dilemmas and asks our opinion about the right thing to do. He then asks us to examine our answers in the light of new scenarios. The results are often surprising, revealing the important questions are never black and white.

This course also addresses the hot topics of our day—affirmative action, same-sex marriage, patriotism and rights—and Sandel shows us that we can revisit familiar controversies with a fresh perspective.

Visit JusticeHarvard.org

The decision by the AP to publish photo of dying Marine

The AP recently published a picture of a dying Marine in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Gates wrote a pleading letter to the AP asking that the picture not be published out of respect for the family. The AP staff reconvened and decided to stand by their decision to publish the photo. Should the family's wishes have been respected in this matter or should the public’s "right to know" outweigh the wishes of the family? What are your thoughts on this?

Here is a link to the photo:

http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/article1033549.ece

**The AP warns Graphic Content.

Deregulation, Demise of Savings and Loans, The Beginning of the End

In 1970, President Richard Nixon appointed a commission known as The President's Commission on Financial Structure and Regulation also known as The Hunt Commission. The primary accomplishment of this commission was to abolish the power to establish interest rate ceilings on time and savings accounts.

At the time of the commission, interest rate ceilings were established by the federal government on savings accounts, wherein savings and loans were permitted to pay 1/4 of 1% (25 basis points) more to their depositors than that paid by other depository institutions, principally commercial banks. In exchange for this advantage of 25 basis points, savings and loans were required to lend 80% of their deposits on home mortgages. The abolition of the power to establish interest rate ceilings meant the demise of savings and loans in the United States. The commission attempted to allow sufficient time for smooth implementation. However, it erred in the timing and failed to allow for a recession which ensued. This caused the savings and loan debacle, at a cost of more then $200 billion dollars to the U.S. Treasury.

By 1980, all state usury laws were, for all intents and purposes, involuntarily repealed; deposit money floated freely in the market place; savings and loans, as such, disappeared; the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation ceased to exist, and all bank deposits were insured by the FDIC. Also, in 1987, President Reagan did not re-appoint Paul Volcker, a proponent of regulation in the financial markets, as chairman of the Federal Reserve System. On the contrary, he appointed Alan Greenspan, who was one of the chief proponents of deregulation. There were a number of laws enacted that set us on the road to complete deregulation including the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982.


In 1994, the congress saw fit to allow inter-state banking with the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. This was the beginning of the creation of super banks and the ultimate end, for the most part, of large community banks. In 1999, banks were allowed, not only, to cross state lines, but also, to cross state lines and buy other banks. Also, in 1999, Congress repealed what was left of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was enacted in 1933 to separate commercial banking from investment banking. The bankers had been lobbying for years, with the complicity of Alan Greenspan et. al., to have this law repealed. To add to the economic upheaval which was yet to come, both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration steadfastly refused to regulate derivatives. Some economists feel that this was the biggest cause of the present recession.

And, so, by the turn of the 21st century, the bankers had achieved almost total deregulation of the banking system. We know from sad experience that this was a serious mistake. We also know that "too big to fail" is intolerable. Last week, on CNBC, a guest made the statement that world powers must have super banks. There is little basis for this statement. Twenty years ago, Japan had very few banks, and many of those were classified as super banks. Japan has not been heard from as an economic world power for the last decade.

Toomey to challenge Specter

We are pleased to welcome Mark as our guest blogger. Mark is a sports radio talk show host and political enthusiast who engagingly blogs about sports and politics at Spolitics - Sports and Politics so be sure to drop by and take a look!

Being from Pennsylvania, this was the best news story of the day. Incumbent Republican Senator and RINO (Republican in Name Only) Arlen Specter has gotten a primary challenge from conservative Pat Toomey. Pat was the president of Club for Growth and also mounted a primary challenge for Specter in 2004, which he lost narrowly. Specter is thought to be very vulnerable because of his vote for the stimulus package, a package that only 3 other Republicans voted for. Specter knew a challenge was coming, and even prematurely ran an ad about Pat Toomey criticizing Toomey for being a Wall Street Trader. A hypothetical matchup between Toomey and Specter conducted by Quinnipiac University had Toomey leading Specter 41%-27% with 28% undecided. This could turn out to be a great race, and while I think Specter has a much better chance in the general election, he is basically a Democrat anyway so I hope Toomey can pull it out.

http://www.spolitical.blogspot.com/

Big thanks to Mark for his informative article! To read more, click on the title link.