She has some thoughts on Morgan Griffith’s ‘survey’
Guest Post
Note from Dan: Susan Sweet is a graduate school administrator and resident of the 9th Congressional District who shared with me her response to Rep. Morgan Griffith’s survey, after my column on that subject appeared last week.
By Susan Sweet
Dear Congressmen Griffith:
I am including our response to your flyer with this letter. A few lines on the questionnaire were not adequate to provide you with my comments.
The manner in which your questions were asked is at once confusing and misleading. But I’m sure that was intentional so that you could get the answers you want rather than truthful answers based on clear questions that didn’t include any political bias.
My responses correspond with the questions from the questionnaire.
1. “Do you support or oppose adding a balanced budget amendment to the constitution?”
This question is ridiculous. Why would any federal government want to be tied to a balanced budget? Look at what happened to those states that have such a requirement when the economy tanked. Their citizens suffered, their state suffered. If we had a balanced budget how would we handle disasters?
To my knowledge, no state can handle the costs, the non-profit sector doesn’t have enough resources to handle the enormity of most disasters, nor is initial disaster recovery something the private sector can handle. The federal government has always and should continue to take that role—I don’t believe that any citizen wants that to change. And what about all those wars the Republicans seem to start? How would these get handled in a balanced budget?
I often wonder when people start talking about a balanced federal budget if they really understand how the public sector works.
3. “Do you support or oppose proposals that provide long-term stability to Medicare and Social Security by making adjustments to those programs for people who are currently under the age of 55?”
Keep your hands off Social Security. From what I read, Social Security is not a serious problem and with some tweaking it can continue to take care of the elderly regardless of how old they are now. Further, the current “crisis” is because we baby boomers are getting old (who would have thought?), but that isn’t a permanent problem either because just like we are getting old, we are also going to die.
And, unlike the Republican party, I have no problems with higher taxes to keep it solvent. This has been a highly successful program, why do you want to mess with it?
It may be politically expedient to mislead your constituents to believe that Social Security and Medicare (and sometimes Medicaid is also included) are one program, but some of us know they are not. These are separate and distinct programs. Medicare and Medicaid do need work, no question. But vouchers? With the private sector? Both are very bad ideas.
Medicare needs major work so that it remains a viable program for all US citizens—those of us over 55 and especially for those who are younger. While it is time to think outside the box, vouchers and the private sector are not viable solutions. The fact is the private sector is the reason our health care costs so much. Why would you want to give them more control and money? How do you think any savings would be achieved? Through competition? If you really believe that the public gains more competition and lower costs through the private sector I suggest you read any book written by David Cay Johnston.
5. “Do you support or oppose regulations enacted by the EPA that make it harder to mine coal and use coal as an energy source, resulting in higher electricity rates?”
This question is completely misleading. The EPA is doing its job of protecting US citizens so that we can have clean water and air—both vital necessities of life. Coal is not an end all energy solution. While it might provide jobs here in Southwest Virginia there’s a huge cost to those jobs. Health being one that has a huge cost to society.
It is time for us to develop reliable alternative energy solutions. Let’s start the future now; let’s engage our scientists, researchers and the energy companies to come up with viable, renewable and sustainable energy solutions. Fossil fuel is no longer an answer. The sooner we can break our fossil fuel habits, the better for all of us.
6. “Do you support or oppose U.S. action in order to prevent Iran from acquiring or building nuclear weapons?”
Really? Another war? In another Middle Eastern country? Haven’t we learned anything? One way to restrain our growing deficit is to not start any unnecessary wars.
Why Iran? Yes it is troubling that they seem to be on this quest for nuclear power, but that’s why the UN, US and its allies have implemented powerful economic sanctions, which are working. But why a war for nuclear power? The US never threatened war when Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons, or India.
What I see is an excuse to access oil. I see in Iran another Iraq—weapons of mass destruction were the code for getting our hands on their oil. How did that one work for us? Iran would be an even bigger quagmire than Iraq. Like Iraq, IRAN’S OIL IS NOT WORTH IT.
7. “Do you support or oppose passage of laws that would restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms?”
Another misleading question. Gun control has nothing to do with law-abiding citizens who wish to purchase and own guns. Gun control is about public health and safety. The 2nd Amendment is no more absolute than any of the other Constitutional Amendments. So, why are gun rights more important than the public’s right to be safe in their community? Guns don’t make us safe. More guns is not a solution.
The time to act is now. Better gun control will keep us all safe. I support and applaud President Obama’s gun control initiatives.
I agree that this country is facing some challenging and serious issues. But as I see it, the biggest problem this country faces is from Congress itself; the dysfunction cannot continue if we hope to find workable solutions. No one solution is best, which is why both parties need to work together to find reasonable solutions that are best for the majority of our citizens. Compromise is not evil, it is necessary to get our country’s business done.
The Republicans need to stop governing to their ideology and begin to govern for what’s the best solution. Those solutions may cost us money (more taxes), sacrifices will need to be made, many of us won’t like all of the solutions, but that’s life. Here’s my list of what this next congress should do:
- No more pledges, unless it is to pledge to do your job to the American people, not to a lobbyist;
- Stand up to the NRA for reasonable gun control measures that honor and respect those who are gun supporters, but also addresses the public health and safety of our communities,
- Agreeing to an immigration policy that gives amnesty for those who have lived and worked in the US for years and for the children who are born here, and
- Truly dealing with entitlements—that doesn’t mean Social Security and Medicare—but rather corporate entitlements that are tax breaks to companies that don’t need them.
One more comment, I noticed in your flyer that you spent time with business leaders and owners in the 9th District, but you had no pictures with private citizens. Are business leaders/owners more important than those of us who just work for a living?
January 14, 2013 - 6:00 AM
Excellent.A voice of reason and intelligence.
Wonderful! I filled in the questionnaire too, but then tore it up and discarded it per the questions being so stupid and obviously rigged. But it was designed to give him his “talking points” so he can claim the people want his agenda. Wish I had sent him such a thoughtful letter.
It’s interesting that Griffith will ignore the interests of the 9th district citizens in his zeal to appease such a limited list of corporate masters. It’s also ironic that so many in the 9th district will continue to vote against their best interests and re-elect him another dozen times or so. And folks wonder why SW Va lags the rest of the Commonwealth? Morgan Griffith, and those like him, are part of the reason.
LOL. . .social security is not a problem. LOL. . .gun control is not about law abiding citizens who wish to purchase guns. LOL. . .fossil fuel is no longer an answer.
“I often wonder when people start talking about a balanced federal budget if they really understand how the public sector works.”
I wonder if this poster has a clue about any
issue.
Nice letter Susan. (You put your shoe so far up his ass he’ll be tasting shoe leather.)
I disagree with your solution to the illegal alien problem though… if laws are enforced and they are sent back home (having come here illegally), then it creates job opportunities for our own poor citizens that are legal residents. They knew they were breaking the law, so why is there zero risk for them (your solution)? And greedy employers who hire illegal aliens at the expense of their unemployed fellow citizens should be fined right out of business.
It’s not okay for me to enter Mexico or other countries illegally, for which I would be detained and then deported. So why apply a double standard which seriously impacts our own employment health.
If Mr. Griffith was not merely playing to his crowd, this would be stunning in its take down of his ignorance and partisanship.
Why are tax increases the only sacrifice we need to make? What about spending cuts? Do we not need to make those sacrifices as well?
And the forced retirement planning (social security) crisis was caused by borrowing from social security for the general fund, which kept your taxes artifically low. So what you are saying is that I should pay for that (I’m 25) when they cut my social security instead of you taking responsibility. You are welcome.
Ohter than that Rep. Griffith’s was a stupid survey that has absolutely no statistical merit (sample size, margin of error, etc). It was a waste of our tax dollars to pay his staff and his postage (we paid for him to mail it) for this survey.
How old are you, Leon? Just curious how you would fix Social Security.
We have BEEN making spending cuts and we will have to continue to do so, although Congress does not seem to have gotten that memo on anything other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Everyone keeps seeing this in terms of the President “spending” but the reality is that Congress is our enemy and the ones who have wasted, mis-spent, and with their malfeasance and lack of good governance put us into this bind. The hyper-partisanship of the likes of Griffith are the problem, not the solution. Wait and see.
How old are you, Leon? Just curious how you would fix Social Security.
Comment by Newman — January 14, 2013 @ 10:21 am
Why fix it. . .phase it out since so many have become dependent on it but,
in time, it must go as it’s nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. What difference does my age make? If it please you. . .I’m the same age is Dan. . .just a lot smarter and better looking.
The privatization policies suggested by Bush made sense. Individuals must
be responsible for themselves and their retirement and the government is not a good manager of our money. Politicians have milked this cash cow for decades but the program is unsustainable. One can pretend otherwise but the reality of the situation does not change.
Right Leon. The most successful program in history for guaranteeing that people who get old and are unable to work will be able to survive with some measure of dignity and independence is “a Ponzi scheme” And it is Leon’s, the Republicans and Morgan Griffith’s idea that we should do away with it and turn that money over to Wall Street to “invest” it for us. We’d be just as well off taking it to Vegas and playing roulette with it. Not to mention that the program also provides for aqid to dependent children and disability benefits.
Right Leon. The most successful program in history for guaranteeing that people who get old and are unable to work will be able to survive with some measure of dignity and independence is “a Ponzi scheme” And it is Leon’s, the Republicans and Morgan Griffith’s idea that we should do away with it and turn that money over to Wall Street to “invest” it for us. We’d be just as well off taking it to Vegas and playing roulette with it. Not to mention that the program also provides for aqid to dependent children and disability benefits.
Comment by wayne goodman — January 14, 2013 @ 4:06 pm
Very astute Wayne. . .however. . .one additional pertinent point. . .there
is no money left in the program. . .it has all been spent. Otherwise, you
got it. Congrats.
Comment by Leon — January 14, 2013 @ 5:00 pm
“Very astute Wayne. . .however. . .one additional pertinent point. . .there
is no money left in the program. . .it has all been spent. Otherwise, you
got it. Congrats.”
Leon it is usually helpful to have information before making wild claims like, “no money left in the program” – this is the FACT about the solvency of Social Security.
“The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report”
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html
“The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report”
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html
Comment by Hillary — January 14, 2013 @ 6:02 pm
It also helps to think Hillary. Your link does not detail what the “intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions” assume.
I would venture a guess, however, that they include a funds earning rate of 5 to 7 percent and do not include the last two years of reduced inflow of the 2 percent SS tax reduction the expiration of which is causing much lament. SS inflows were short of outflows by about $45 billion last year.
But…it gets worse…BBB (Barack’s Buddy Bernanke) is printing $80 billion a month in currency (called QE III) to “bolster” the economy. Every $ he prints reduces the value of the $s in your wallet, paycheck or
SS check. When inflation really starts to manifest itself (likely this summer due to the effect of drought on the food supplies) everyone on SS will be demanding mo, mo, mo and the politicians will print more $ and give it to them increasing the outflows which already exceed the inflows.
Hopefully, you will have obtained a hardcopy of the actuary report to supplement what you will receive from SS. True comfort may be found in it
as toilet paper may become unaffordable and you will either have a ready supply or an item you can barter for food.
BTW…what are the earnings rate on your invested funds…probably close to 10% of what the government report assumes for your SS funds in trust.
News reports today indicate that the Obama administration will not have a budget proposal ready by the March deadline. . .further reinforcing the need to raise the debt ceiling which would be the responsible action per Mr. Obama. Sheeple Hillary. . .keep believing.
Wayne @ 11: personally, I prefer Blackjack as it is the only game in the casino where one can even the odds or actually get favorable odds. If they would offer the $ I’ll be taking it. I can easily manage $ better than the goverment. . .I don’t get hung up on redistribution and understand positive cashflow makes the world go ’round.
Look, Leon’s “guessing.” I’m impressed.
15.Wayne @ 11: personally, I prefer Blackjack as it is the only game in the casino where one can even the odds or actually get favorable odds. If they would offer the $ I’ll be taking it. I can easily manage $ better than the goverment. . .I don’t get hung up on redistribution and understand positive cashflow makes the world go ’round.
Comment by Leon — January 14, 2013 @ 7:34 pm
You are right about blackjack but I would not equate what wall street does to playing blackjack. Just take as look back to 2000 to 2008.
Every $ he prints reduces the value of the $s in your wallet
comment by Leon
This has been explained repeatedly Leon, if you don’t get it this time you either can’t or won’t get it. What you said above is only true when demand matches or exceeds supply. But we’ve been in a huge recession, with DEFLATIONARY effects. That means supply capacity was far greater than demand, after the bubble burst that had created artificial (therefore unsustainable) levels of demand. So printing money, rather than cheapening it as in inflation, has been bolstering it during deflation.
Whereas the goal in inflationary times is to tighten the money supply until consumption (demand) comes down to match capacity (supply), the goal in deflationary times is to create more liquidity until demand rises to match supply. Done judiciously, it will mean that we emerge with an economy at real levels of productivity and consumption that are more aligned to each other. In the case of the U.S. economy, it should get us to a point where we are restored to pre-recession levels, but with asset values that are economically sound instead of the unjustified asset valuations of before the crash. At that point the deflated dollar’s value will be restored, not inflated.
That’s the truth, and not to hard for average minds to understand. It may not suit the needs of dittoheads, but no one ever said dittoheads care about the truth.
Warren@18: As to the housing bubble and industry your point is somewhat valid. As to the rest of industries and goods…not so much. Deflation accross the board would be devestating…as will the inflation that the
present monetary policy is escalating. Economically, these be unusual times. Reducing spending and the size of government will, in time happen,
but by then the balance of the economy will likely be in shambles. My point on Bernanke’s printing of $ is valid…spread your truth elsewhere.
“…spread your truth elsewhere.”
Warren, Leon rejects your reality and instead substitutes his own alternative reality.
Comment by Leon — January 14, 2013 @ 7:28 pm
“it also helps to think Hillary. Your link does not detail what the “intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions” assume.?”
Are you really this dim? Unless those who provided the projected numbers are actually clairvoyant, how would they know what the economy, tax collected revenues, or what obstructionist republicans’ impact on SS will be in 2013?
They. Cannot. Read. The. Future.
According to the best economic estimates, SS “would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041″ [without some corrective measures] – your claim in your previous post, claimed there was no money left in SS – that was FALSE as my link demonstrated.
Can you predict the economic future, or the impact of the unemployment on FICA ? No? Well that was the point of their words: “intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions”
All the other smoke and mirrors, jibber jabber that you went on and on about, are not worth the time answering… Your very juvenile name calling “sheeple” – well, it sounds incredibly stupid, however, it is far better than my having to think you’re a dim bulb, no?