In The Immortal Words of Walter the Ventriloquist Dummy

We pay our congressmen and senators $174,000 each per year. The majority and minority leaders $193,400 and the speaker of the house, $223,500. That is just their salaries. They also have an allowance. In 2008, the most recent year I could find, they received allowances ranging from $1,299,292 to $1,637,766 for office space, secretaries and aides, and mail. Consider that we have 100 senators and 435 congressmen plus their expense accounts, we’re looking at roughly another $500 million. Then there’s those travel allowances. The congressional travel budget is somehow combined into a larger budget involving State Department and Military travel and is never made public. When a representative travels, he can pocket as much as $3,000 per trip in per deim for food and lodging due to an accounting system that does not require itemization nor demand return of unused cash.

Some lawmakers can pocket up to $3,000 a trip in cash, thanks to a system that does not require itemization and rarely demands refunds of unused cash.

They will not defund their income or benefits. They are, in my words, greedy dumb asses and think we are not watching them.

Social Security: Part Two

I have long been angered by politicians and news media calling Social Security an entitlement as though it is a FREE GIFT from the government. Yes it is an entitlement because senior citizens who paid into the fund are ENTITLED to receive the promised income from it.

Since 1937, American citizens have been involuntarily paying a percentage of their income, now up to 7%, matched by their employer, into a fund set up to provide for people who live past 65 years, or in some cases younger. They are to the point of insolvency they are considering raising the age. Yet, politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a democrat, will stand and tell lies to mislead taxpaying citizens. Following is some of Reid’s misspeaking I found recently in a news blog.

In my previous, Social Security: Part One, I presented some harsh evidence and truth on the matter. Read the following lies the democratic Majority Leader had to say about the matter. Do you think he is lying again?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on disputed warnings that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy, calling those assertions an “outright lie.” And he says the huge federal entitlement program has not added “one penny” to the federal deficit.

Both of Reid’s claims are misleading.

Reid made the comments at a “Back Off Social Security” rally at the Capitol on Monday. Reid was joined by other Senate Democrats and liberal activists, who accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize Social Security. Democrats have used similar tactics in the past to scare senior citizens, who vote in large numbers.

“Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt or the deficit ever in its 75 years,” Reid said at Monday’s event.

The claim is false. According to the actuaries for Social Security and Medicare, the Social Security program ran a deficit of approximately $41 billion, excluding interest on the bonds in the Social Security trust funds. Those bonds, which are a special type of Treasury bond, are placed in the trust funds in place of the cash surpluses Social Security has taken in from payroll taxes.

Because there is no cash in the Social Security trust funds, any deficits the program runs, including the 2010 deficit – and those projected into the future – must be repaid from current tax revenue.

Since the federal government was already running a deficit in 2010, and ran one in 2009, the money required to pay the Social Security deficit would have had to be borrowed, meaning it was added to the deficit and the national debt, contrary to Senator Reid’s claim.

Reid also rejected warnings that Social Security is going bankrupt, saying that the New Deal-era entitlement program was in sound fiscal shape. 

“We hear pundits and politicians take the bait that’s been thrown to them by these Republicans over the last few decades,” Reid said. “You throw it to them, and they grab it. They grab it, and they claim Social Security is headed for bankruptcy. It’s not just an exaggeration that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy — it is an outright lie.”

This statement is misleading. According to the Social Security actuaries, the program will no longer be able to pay out full benefits beginning in 2037, at which time it will have exhausted both its dedicated tax revenue and the value of the interest from the government bonds in its trust funds. 

“The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037,” the actuary reported in August 2010.

What this means is that Social Security will begin using income tax revenue to make up the difference as it runs continual deficits from now until 2037. In 2037, the program will have completely exhausted the Treasury bonds in its trust funds – meaning it will not be able to take any more extra tax revenue. At that point, the income from the program’s dedicated payroll taxes will only be able to pay approximately 75 percent of promised benefits.

The statement is misleading because if Social Security were a private-sector pension, the federal government itself would consider it insolvent or bankrupt. 

According to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation – the federal entity that manages and bails out bankrupt or defunct pension plans – a pension must be taken over if it is insolvent and does not have enough money to pay out current benefits, or if it will go bankrupt.

“PBGC must terminate a plan if assets are unavailable to pay benefits currently due,” the agency states on its website.

In other words, Social Security is heading towards a level of insolvency that the federal government itself considers to be of such danger to its beneficiaries that – were it a private pension – the government would step in, take it over, and bail it out.

MY NOTE: When FDR established SSI (Social Security Insurance) in 1937, It was understood by most that it would be a separate fund managed by the government and would not be dipped into to pay America’s overspending appetite. In other words, it would used only for the purpose it was intended. HAS IT? There has been more abuse and vote buying with this fund that can be understood or even completely discovered by the average American. People drawing disability who are not disabled, illegal imigrants drawing SSI who didn't pay into it nor even deserve it. If the SSI funds had been used as intended...as promised years ago...there would still be plenty of money go to around.

Social Security: Part One

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR (that’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt to you uninformed about who the presidents were), on August 14, 1935. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. 

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts. Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 

(1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary. 

(2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

 (3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible. 

(4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent. 

( 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' — you may be interested in the following: 

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? 

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. 

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. 

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? 

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? 

AND MY FAVORITE: 

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers

Gun Control

I want to share this letter to the editor written by Walter “Digger” of New Shady Grove (Newspaper and state not mentioned)

To The Editor:

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 870 right in the doorway. I gave it four sells and left it alone and went about my business

 .

While I was gone, the mail gal delivered my mail, the trash man pick up the trash, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few of my neighbors drove past.

Well, after about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there on there, right where I had left it. It hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself.

Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, and it is the misuse of guns by criminals, or I have one of the laziest shotguns ever made. I must hurry off now and check on my spoons. I hear they are making people fat.

Walter “Digger” New Shady Grove.

The High Cost of Representation

Every time I hear politicians talk about reducing government spending, the next word I hear is “entitlements”, Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is the only retirement many of our nation’s lower income citizens have and since people are living longer and healthier lives, politicians think that changing the age of eligibility to 70 is the right way to solve the problem. Raising the retirement age to 70 will cause many to have less than cat food to eat. The fact that people are living longer and healthier doesn‘t mean they will be able to keep a job or find another job if replaced by a younger person. There may be a few who have jobs past age 65 but I doubt if many of them are in the lower income bracket. This sounds more like a “from the bottom up” effort in finding places to cut back government spending.

I have been thinking more about a “from the top down” spending cut. We pay our congressmen and senators $174,000 each per year. The majority and minority leaders $193,400 and the speaker of the house, $223,500. That is just their salaries. They also have an allowance. In 2008, the most recent year I could find, they received allowances ranging from $1,299,292 to $1,637,766 for office space, secretaries and aides, and mail. Consider that we have 100 senators and 435 congressmen plus their expense accounts, we’re looking at roughly another $500 million. Then there’s those travel allowances. The congressional travel budget is somehow combined into a larger budget involving State Department and Military travel and is never made public. When a representative travels, he can pocket as much as $3,000 per trip in per diem for food and lodging due to an accounting system that doesn’t require itemization nor demand return of unused cash. That would allow a lawmaker to pocket quite a hefty sum of left-over cash. Is it any wonder that most of our elected leaders are millionaires.

But all this generosity did not start with this year's crop. Benefits payments for some 400 retired members of Congress, who receive an average benefit of $45,000 a year, cost taxpayers about $20 million annually, says the National Tax Payers Foundation. Future costs depend on the turnover rate: The more who leave before they reach the five-year vesting threshold, the lower the annual payouts are required. Over time, congressional pensions are expected to accumulate more modestly as fewer members stay on beyond six to 12 years, according to the NTUF.

My Flag

By Ray Rogers

This is my flag, I mean that in the sense that not only is this my flag it is the flag of the greatest country that ever was or ever will be and I'm proud to call it my flag.

Everyone should memorize the preamble to the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It has been the greatest experiment of all time: a nation where the people govern themselves. Not only was it a success we became the richest nation on the planet with the most powerful military in the world. Where people would come from all over the world to achieve for themselves the American dream. Some countries loved us, others feared and hated us. We were a proud people, we were free.

For years I can remember saying the pledge of allegiance to this flag, not knowing the full extent of why. As I grew older and became more educated I understood more of why I was pledging allegiance to our flag.

This flag represents strength, honor, courage, purity, innocence, perseverance, vigilance, and justice.

To me it's a symbol of freedom and sacrifice. The sacrifice that our forefathers (patriots) made for us.

A patriot is a person who has committed their self to realizing a vision for their country, no mater what it cost them. They would give everything they had for freedom and liberty.

Great patriots like Patrick Henry who said at the end of a very powerful speech "give me liberty or give me death."

Throughout the history of our country there were times when father, son, and brothers fought together side by side for the same cause (freedom). Sometimes seeing one another fall and would still counted all as righteous.

If it weren't for our patriots fighting for freedom around the world tyrants would be able to take a foothold and take over the weapons and forces of our allies and use them against us. This is why we have troops stationed at strategic locations around the globe.

So next time someone refers to our military as war mongers think about the price that was paid by these brave men and women that made it possible for them to have the freedom to speak their mind.

Our flag has changed 26 times throughout our history. Starting out with 13 white 5 pointed stars in a circle on a blue background, with 13 stripes, 7 red and 6 white. Also known as the Betsy Ross flag. Still having the original stripes we now have 50 five pointed stars to represent our 50 states.

These flags have flown over the battlefields of our victories and our defeats. They have flown proudly over our schools, court houses, capitols, fire departments, police departments, and other public buildings. They have draped over the coffins of our fallen soldiers, our presidents, and other of our public servants. For some reason even though I was only 3 years old I can still remember seeing pictures on TV of our flag covering the coffin of President John F Kennedy.

Our flag has been stomped on, spit on, and burned by people who hate us and hold our nation in contempt, all the while being adored by other people because this flag gives them hope.

Here lately I've seen people change our flag to their own version to suit themselves. As for me, I'll stick with a winner. 'Old Glory'. The flag that my great grand father, grand father, and father served in the military under.

I don't understand how anyone that was born in this country could hate it. Do you really believe that you would be better off in another country? We have such a great history. I'm proud of our history, our heritage, and our flag. God bless America once again.

Hate Crime

By Ray Rogers

I’ve heard the term hate crime for years even as far back as the 1990’s. First of all I’m a middle aged white male. I hold all life to be precious regardless of the color of someone’s skin or their sexual preference. I don’t agree with everything that other people say or do, but I believe that we will all stand in judgment for ourselves alone. No one else’s behavior or action is going to give anyone an excuse for what we do in our own lives.

I noticed that when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin certain people in the main stream of the media immediately started calling it a “hate crime.” Now I’m not going to get involved in the whole debate whether or not it was self-defense or murder. I just want to talk about the term “hate Crime.” It is my understanding that the hate crime bill was introduced to protect certain ethnic groups.

What I’m wondering is how calling something a “hate crime” is helping anyone. I thought that all innocent people are supposed to be protected by the law no matter what color, religion, or sexual preference they may happen to be. Doesn’t the statue of lady justice have a blindfold on? Why are we trivializing one crime and holding other crimes to be more serious because some form of racism is involved.

How many people were severely beaten, stabbed, or shot, or dragged to death by someone who loved and cared for them? It would seem to me that all crimes of this nature are “hate crimes.” What difference does it make to the victim or the victim’s family if the crime was motivated by this type of hate or the other? Would you refer to the attack on the twin towers a hate crime or a war crime? I’m almost certain that people of the protected classes were in this building.

I think that when we are allowing some crimes to be labeled with the term “hate crime” which is usually done when the news media decides that a particular crime was motivated by racism I think the only thing that is being accomplished is stirring up more hate.

Don’t get me wrong. I know that racism is alive and well, but remember racism comes from all directions. It’s not just white people who can be a racist. I refuse to associate with people who are racist. I learned from that bible that all of men are created in God’s image. So according to God’s word if we choose to hate someone we are the same as a murderer. 

God’s first commandment is for us to love him with all of our heart mind and strength and our neighbor as our selves. Jesus went a little further by saying love one another as I have loved you. Now think about that for a few minutes. He died for us and called us his friends.