We elect those that promise to change government policies, limit regulations, reduce taxes, bring down our $19 trillion national debt, control illegal immigration, stabilize our failing Social Security system and create an atmosphere favorable for jobs. Yet all we get time after time are the same Ivy League schooled empty suit professional politician’s that just want to get along until the next election.
For instance, just why was Galveston vs. Social Security rejected in 2005. We all have been told Social Security is headed for a steep cliff in a speeding wagon yet our so called liberal representatives rejected a proven way to correct most of it’s short falls in: Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a normal rate of return — all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:
— Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security – $1,036 instead of $683.
— Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return — $1,500 instead of $853.
— Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
— Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security – $4,540 instead of $1,645.
— Galveston County’s survivor benefits pay four times a worker’s annual salary – a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 – versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children and upon your passing your dependents would receive the balance of funds in your account, not the Government.
In 2005, George Bush 43, tried to get a Galveston County-style modification to the National Social Security Insurance program, however the congressional Democrats uniformly opposed any of his changes. These changes would have turned Social Security reserves into money available for VA, FHA, small business loans, city and state bond money and so on. That instead of social security reserves being taken to buy votes from the poor and indigent.
We also had the choice of the fair tax or flat tax waiting to replace our burdensome, bloated bureaucratic enigma of a tax system. An individual filing their personal income taxes on April 15, 2014, would have to comply with the terms of a tax code that takes 73,954 pages to explain.
Some of our homegrown Socialists such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders should love the flat tax, especially since Russia has it. The Russian flat tax has been so successful that even American politicians have taken a second look. If you analyze the evidence: Russia’s economy has expanded close to 10 percent since it adopted a flat tax. That may not be spectacular, but it’s better than the United States’ growth at just a little better than two percent, and it’s much more impressive than the anemic growth rates seen elsewhere in Europe.
Obviously revamping Social Security and downsizing our tax system will require major restructuring in our governmental business and like it or not our government is a service business, not just a charity. It’s really simple: Money is paid in by the customer, (taxpayer), to provide services to the American citizens.
So what do we need to see on our next president’s job application? First we need a successful doer, not just one with a perfect attendance award. Someone that knows how to cut waste and inefficiency, someone that has had all kinds of business experiences, good and bad. We also need someone that will flex a little when needed, (it’s called business negotiations), but not waver from their core beliefs and above all we need an honest trustworthy leader that loves their country and has a passion and a plan to see it prosper long term, not just with temporary and costly short term stimulants.