Mar 15
AndrewPolitics and Nation
The Social Security Administration announced over the weekend its intentions to cash in government IOUs in order to support the federal program in 2010. Social Security is collected out of your paycheck and pooled to pay out benefits to workers who have retired. In the last two decades, the amount collected exceeded the amount paid out in benefits. During that time, the government was borrowing against the pool of Social Security dollars and now that the program itself is facing a shortfall, it must collect against the federal government IOUs in order to stay solvent.
Social Security is designed so that enough money is paid into the system by working individuals to cover what needs to be paid out to retired individuals. There is an explicit understanding that the day might come when there was not enough Social Security dollars coming in to cover the benefits going out. That day has arrived.
The problem with collecting government IOUs is that Obama has already encumbered a trillion plus dollars to fund bailouts and there is no reason to believe that the government can stop spending at those levels right now. Obama’s moves were meant to triage a number of economic issues that all seemed to detonate at once. Social Security’s announcement is now another economic concern to add to the list.
It also may be a warning that the program is facing a death knell. Ironically, the end of Social Security benefits (or a significant reduction) is more or less expected within the next 30 years, but that hasn’t prompted politicians to take decisive action to reduce benefits now to mitigate the current shortfall and extend the life of the program for future beneficiaries. Yes, the minimum age to collect benefits was raised to 67 for those born after 1960. But the reality is that the shortfall has been projected for a long time, it was just a question of when. At the end of this decade, the baby boomer generation is reaching retirement age which is a two-fold problem. If they stop working, they stop paying into the system and at the same time, they are (or soon become) eligible to receive benefits. That’s a shift of 78 million people on an already strained system.
It has not been politically acceptable to talk about substantially reducing benefits but the necessity of running out completely may force the issue. The government is going to have to make tough decisions to figure out how to honor the IOUs to Social Security with the national debt already around $12.5 trillion and expected to grow by as much as $2 trillion dollars a year. The IOUs to Social Security alone account for an additional $2.5 trillion.
But individuals who expect to tap into Social Security when they retire may be in a rude surprise, particularly for those in their late 20′s and early 30′s, who have thirty or more years before reaching retirement age. Social Security may not even exist then.
The politicians will do what they need to do to help, but even with well-meant intentions, the very nature of politics can delay meaningful action. The lesson to individuals is to plan for the worse and take steps now to save yourself from Social Security’s shortfall.
In my last post, I wrote that personal financial plans must be tailored to the individual. But if you need a place to start, consider the following target goals.
1) Pay off credit card debt
2) Save 10% of your salary until you have 8mos-1year of your month to month budget in savings
3) Open a Roth IRA and contribute up to the maximum (currently $5K / year for most employed individuals)
4) Pay off your car loan
5) Pay off your student loan(s)
6) Save for house down payment or pay down your mortgage
--
Andrew Marx is a long time writer on SmartReMarxcom and recently published a new work of fiction Accidents Happen. You can contact him on twitter or leave a comment below.
Mar 13
AndrewPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture gay marriage, State Government
Same-sex marriage advocates are holding their breath as the California high court weighs the decision whether to overturn a state ban of same-sex marriage that voters approved last November. The same court, by a vote of 4-3, legalized same-sex marriage last year when it was held that a prohibition against gay marriage was a civil rights violation.
Proposition 8, which received 52% of the vote on the November ballot, effectively banned same-sex marriage in a constitutional amendment, but only after approximately 18,000 same-sex couples were married in the state under the court’s ruling. Advocates are attempting to overturn Proposition 8 by arguing that the effect on the state’s constitution is so extreme that it amounts to a constitutional revision. If the court concedes their argument, then by law, the legislature should have voted and approved the Proposition before it appeared on the ballot (and by extension, that would invalidate the ban itself).
Same-sex marriage advocates are going to lose in California. (Though for what it’s worth, the court has 90 days from the March 5th hearing to deliberate on the issue). The last time the high court weighed in on gay marriage, they were ruling on a civil rights issue. This time, however, the civil rights of homosexuals is a peripheral matter. Advocates will have a hard time meeting the high threshold of reasoning to show that Proposition 8 is really a constitutional revision instead of an amendment. For the court to hold to that reasoning would severely strain the state’s electoral process by questioning its legitimacy.
The political strategy by those advocating for the ban was fucking brilliant. They have thrown the weight and power of the majority of the voting public behind the ban. Against that, same-sex marriage advocates have few options. Bringing the civil rights issue back to the fore is unlikely to sway the court since this is largely a matter of how California’s election process works. Outside the courtroom, advocates are arguing that this is both a matter of how California’s constitution can be rewritten and whether civil rights are being violated in the process of the rewriting. But the courts are not beholden to address the second matter, particularly if they eventually hold, as is expected, that California voters have the right to amend the state’s constitution exactly as they did.
The saving grace appears to be that the court has shown little inclination to retroactively apply the same-sex marriage ban to the marriages that took place before the Proposition was voted on. The court seems disinclined to punish them for opting to get married when it was legal to do so, despite an argument by the ban’s political constituency that those marriages will be left in limbo otherwise. This could give equal rights advocates a small wedge with which to continue to push for equality and gay rights within the state.
Jan 15
AndrewPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture Laws, Smoking
Question: Do you buy the smoking ban argument as a public health measure?
Answer: The “public health” concern isn’t actually addressing the smokers, but the damage caused by secondhand smoke. Employees who work in smoking environments, like casinos, suffer similar damage to their bodies as their smoker counterparts. Susceptibility to lower respiratory track infections and asthma have been identified as damage from secondhand smoke, and in some cases, so has lung cancer and stroke.
Secondhand smoke makes for an easier political argument because it doesn’t explicitly single out the smokers (even if the law itself does). Of course, what has happened in cities where the smoking ban is in effect is that smokers just stand in the doorway and patrons have to walk through a cloud of smoke just to get inside (ever try going to a bar in Boston on a cold winter day and you are practically enveloped by a cloud of cigarette ash making your way inside). Why not make them stand at least 10 feet from the building if you’re going to push them out in the cold anyway?
The state of Indiana is going through the process of trying to pass a bill that would ban smoking in workplace environments. They are deliberately playing up the secondhand smoking effects as a worker protection right. The first attempt at a bill failed last year, and it’s not clear that enough traction exists to get a new version to the floor of the state legislature.
Part of the problem is that employers don’t necessarily support the bill. Casinos and bars, for one, often find themselves lobbying against new legislation, or at least arguing that the bill include certain exceptions to allow them to conduct business as usual. And those employers maintain that if you apply for that kind of job, it is with the understanding of the kind of environment you will have to work in.
Interestingly, the American Lung Association and other organizations that lobby for smoking restrictions play up the number of deaths caused by tobacco use and often talk about how the government has failed to enact enough measures on behalf of the American people. By one estimate, more than 400,000 Americans die every year from diseases related to smoking and secondhand smoke. The premise is the basis for the State of Tobacco Control 2008 report that graded state governments and the federal government on regulations and policies related to tobacco. Those policies would include smoke-free work environments, higher cigarette taxes and tobacco-cessation programs. Twenty-three states currently have smoke-free air laws that are aimed at places of employment.
New York City is currently running an anti-smoking campaign on television that is pretty hard to watch. The commercials are graphic representations of the physical damage smokers suffer. The effectiveness of those types of cessation programs is debatable, but since New York leads the pack on smoking regulations, it seems like this is the next step in the fight to eradicate cigarette use.
It is always interesting to me when the government gets involved in health issues (like the trans fat menace and nutrition facts on restaurant menus) to see which issues have the momentum with the public. The smoking ban definitely does. But here’s one curious fact, while cigarette sales have declined around 20% in the last ten years, sales of other tobacco products has seemingly taken its place. So are Americans smoking less but using largely the same amount of tobacco? The American Medical Association, for one, says that is probably the case.
The public health argument around banning smoking has always been that while smokers themselves have a choice whether to smoke, those around them are given little choice whether to be exposed to secondhand smoke. It is always going to be a more compelling argument than protecting smokers from themselves. I’m not a big fan of excessive government regulation and I do think smokers have paid the freight on this particular issue for a while now, from social pressures to higher taxes. But ultimately, the role of the government is to represent what the majority of Americans support, so as long as reflects that outlook, it’s hard to argue against.
Nov 09
JeremyPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture california, gay marriage, prop 8, proposition 8, yes we can
There has been much rejoicing in the past few days on the part of the socially and politically liberal with the election of Barack Obama as US president. Everywhere I go, there seems to be a renewed sense of hope so strong it even seems to infect those who wished for a different outcome. It’s worthwhile to remember, though, that there are other outcomes of this year’s elections that the same people cannot look at with the same joy. While the nationally the voters may have said “Yes We Can,” the voters of California told many of its citizens “No You Can’t” with the passage of Proposition 8 against gay marriage in that state, along with voters in Florida and Arizona who approved similar bans and those in Arkansas who approved a ban on gay couples adopting children.
The success of Prop 8 by half a million votes is a very real setback for gays and lesbians and the ongoing fight for equality. California was one of only three states in which gay marriage has been legally sanctioned; now only Massachusetts and Connecticut remain. Frankly, its passage has also been a nasty surprise to all of us who think of California as the veritable home of liberalism, unlike passage of those measures in other states which were a foregone conclusion. While I heard concerns from friends in California before the election, I (and many others outside that state) didn’t pay enough attention to really get that Prop 8′s passage was a potential reality. Honestly, I chalked it up to something along the lines of Question 1 in Massachusetts, which I knew would attract some support, but never nearly enough to pass. Sometimes, however, the voters surprise me.
All of this is enough to remind me of what the political state of this country really is. Looking around at all those acolytes of “Yes We Can,” I want to remind them that even our President-elect has said “No You Can’t” to that same population of people. While it may be political suicide to declare support for (or even indifference to) gay marriage, it is still a disappointment that the most vocally liberal major politician elected in our generation can’t even find a way to defer the question. Instead, even Barack Obama has quite clearly and in no uncertain terms told us that he does not support the right of gays to marry. Despite this, I hear many of my friends rationalizing his position away by saying “Well, he HAS to say that.” While this may be sad, it is also a reality check reminding us how far there really is to go yet.
However, if this is really the case, where can we find hope that things will change someday? For me, I look to my friends. For the past week, I would venture to say that Prop 8 has probably been the second most discussed issue among my friends on Facebook. Given the kind of stuff I write about here, maybe that doesn’t surprise you, especially if you assume that my friends list is made up primarily of gay men. That assumption, however, would be grossly inaccurate, as would any assumption that it’s the gay men and women who have been discussing it the most. No, the place where I find my hope for change is in the number of straight friends who are absolutely outraged by this legislation. Their discussion has met or exceeded that of my gay friends, the population actually directly impacted. Their expressed disapproval does not seem to be directly on the behalf of others, despite the fact that nearly everyone these days has a gay friend, relative, or colleague; rather, it is a straightforward belief in social equality.
In expressing his disappointment, a (straight Republican) friend said to me a few days ago, “I don’t care who wants to get married as long as they are subject to all the rights and responsibilities I am, so that if his husband cheats on him, he gets the house in the divorce.” Listening to him made me realize how proud I am to have friends who are willing to stand up for others, something we don’t see enough of in our increasingly ego-driven, self-centered society. They give me hope that as my own generation ages and slowly wrestles the reigns of authority from those who came before, progress will be made in our lifetimes. More than that, this experience has also made me understand that “Yes We Can” is not a motto that is the sole province of one politician’s campaign, but rather a reminder that grassroots organizing can and does work to effect change. And while the thousands of protesters who spilled into the streets of California’s major cities this weekend might be viewed as too little, too late, perhaps this hateful experience has reminded them too. Just maybe, this very loss has brought the hope of change back to us all.
Nov 04
AndrewPolitics and Nation Election, Obama, Politics and Nation
It is always weird to me to watch the gloves come off during election season. For weeks now, my friends have been jousting over their support for Obama and McCain in ways that are none too pretty and seriously intolerant of the diversity of views that our country is supposed to stand for. Sure, so-called open-mindedness is largely a myth of inaction as opposed to some Utopian state where we exist in harmony, but does that really mean we have to go slinging insults just because someone disagrees with our political views?
I am sure if I confronted my friends, some of them (but not all) would express contrition and say that the war of words is all in good fun. It’s not a concession to the (lack of) strength of their political beliefs, but rather a concession that nobody takes the abuse seriously.
I guess I do take it seriously because it scares me to see the fervency with which people embrace their candidate. I have no problem with the strength of belief, and little problem with the attempt to convert people to your way of thinking than I do the method by which you go about it. It is no more comfortable for me to watch the candidates’ mudslinging commercials than it is to listen to my friends to rebuke and provoke people for supporting a different candidate.
It is fascinating to me that since Obama was declared the frontrunner in the election, McCain supporters have largely gone underground. I sat at a round table with friends who all said outright that they were “in the closet” of their support for McCain at work. They would rather pretend to be democrats than risk being ostracized at their jobs. That’s a value system we are trying to emulate in this country? (And no small irony the metaphor of being a Republican closet case, but I digress.) Those of my friends who haven’t backed down in supporting McCain have faced zealous opposition. Sure, it is still just words, but those words are merciless and sadly hostile.
The upside of all the talk is the heightened awareness that this campaign season is a big deal. Maybe you only go to the polls knowing the Republican and Democratic candidates, but while you are there, hopefully you see that there are initiatives and measures and other seats to be voted on. You are participating because you begin to understand the importance of participation, no matter that Obama is a surefire bet to take the presidency and that you have never heard of Proposition 1 before you got to the polling place. Every presidential election is an historic vote, and it is nice that we as a country are starting to get it. And next time, maybe you will vote in a non-presidential election year and maybe you will read up in advance on the measures being voted on in your precinct.
The downside is a stunning lack of respect that has been on display the last couple of weeks. Oh, it will evaporate tomorrow, regardless of the victor in the presidential election. I know that for another four years, at least, the political digs will take the backburner for most of us. But I can’t help but notice that all the talk and backtalk this election season has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Oct 29
AndrewPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture Election, Politics and Nation, President
As I was pulling into the parking lot at work, I saw a squirrel and a crow picking at the same layer of grain that lay smashed across the road. It was probably someone’s hamburger, dropped on ground before the last bite, ground into the gravel by a couple dozen cars driving back and forth over it since yesterday. This morning, it became a grand feast for two little creatures and blatant multi-cultural symbolism.
As much as the economy has sort of trumped any news stories lately including, remarkably, anything to do with the presidential election next week, I’m surprised the race issue isn’t more of an issue. It seems like Obama is the perfect target for the peculiarity of American-ized intolerance. It surprises me that religion is the greater trepidation. Romney was targeted for being Mormon, a few years ago, Lieberman was a controversial pick largely because of his religion, and even McCain has been charged with being deliberately vague about his faith. On the face of it, Obama is the ideal target to lobby slurs at from both sides. Either the fact that he’s black, or the fact that he’s not black enough will do. Everyone can take their shot.
Have we suppressed the bigotocracy? I would be doubtful except that when it was Clinton against Obama, there again, gender was a largely besides the point (unless you count the Hillary has a penis jokes but maybe those were kind of inevitable.) But is the alternative that we are more actively avoiding making the election about bigotry, that we aren’t judging our candidates based on stereotypes of race and culture but treating those things as ancillary?
Any talk of diversity acceptance (because let’s face it, tolerance is just a kind way of saying “out of sight, out of mind”) is supported only by anecdotal evidence. Even if Obama is elected, it’s hard to quantify just how much race affected, or not, people’s vote. Maybe a McCain/Palin ticket is just that hard to swallow (though it’s more likely that the Bush has set up the entire Republican party to be perceived by the general public as V.E.N.O.M.) But that’s just it. If that is true, then has race really not factored in by any substantial measure? That would be remarkably heart-warming.
I typically hate conversations about diversity because I think they largely miss the point. It is emphatically not about bridging the gap of racial and ethnic boundaries just for the sake of this “we are the world” shit. People are different, raised from different stock and with different traditions across huge cultural divides that make humanity so varied and interesting. Embracing the traditions and values of other cultures and ethnic groups (at least in so far as respecting their prerogative to celebrate those traditions away from you) just suggests that you are open-minded. Which is great for a short-term goal.
But the end goal of diversity should be about looking at the individual and seeing each person not as broad swaths of cultural and ethnic fabric, but as one person with all the idiosyncrasies, talents and quirks that separates us from one another. True diversity is looking to the individual and stripping away the broad categories. Then you can judge and embrace and accept as you see fit because you aren’t making sweeping generalities about one person based on your perception of a whole group of people who by and large are representative of their cultural upbringing and traditions, but not the sum total of it.
That is, in part, what fascinates me about this election. To all appearances, we have done that with our candidates. Sure, it’s not a perfect analysis. Racial and cultural biases are deeply ingrained in all of us. But there does seem to be an almost conscious effort not to give in to stereotyping and expansive generalities when talking about the candidates (except, and this part is strangely ironic, when it comes to Palin.)
Yes, all of that came to me while watching a squirrel and a crow share a meal on the road. But if they can do it, then we can too.
Older Entries Newer Entries
RSS
