Franken: Education, fair taxes key to middle-class revitalization in America

Franken speaks the truth here.

The great dupe employed to the right wing by their own party is that somehow their purchasing power was compromised by liberalism and the government.

The purchasing power of middle America was compromised by deregulation, a clarion call largely of the right political wing. Investment dividends are sheltered under tax law, the financial industry was allowed to speculate, the “death tax” toyed with to the benefit of a few and of course the Bush tax cuts.

We’ve seen this type of thing before. Jones got all those people to drink that poison kool-aid having convinced them against their own self interest of preservation that he had the answers. Their enemy was their supposed saviour.

The amygdala, when stimulated, trumps the cerebellum, at least for the right wing.

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

Jeff,

You cannot possibly be taken serious with that nonsense. Do you really think that deregulation makes things more expensive? If the advent of the internet teaches anything it is that industry without government interference and taxation is both prosperous and affordable in the extreme

Industry without government regulation and taxation is predatory, irresponsible, economically dangerous, and can evenly be deadly.

400,000 people still die every year from the consequences of tobacco products.

Pollution, over-fishing, and global warming are dramatically reducing seafood supplies.

Several miles of the Kalamazoo River remain closed to the public, including residents, because it remains dangerously contaminated from an 800,000 gallon oil-sand pipeline spill, a pipeline that crosses one of the largest freshwater aquifer in the midwest.

We still suffer the consequences of a recession created by private-sector corruption and the fact that capitalism is not a form of government – and made worse by the dramatic upward redistribution of wealth that is bankrupting the consumer base that drives the economy.

“The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucrac­­y. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.”
– Abraham Lincoln

Zera,

Of course we need laws. Freedom is not the absence of all law. What we’re talking about here is the uneccessary burdens placed upon industry that stifle lawful economic activity. The internet is proof freedom works and that freedom is prefered even by those like yourself.

Al – when you look at NCLB/ESEA be sure to take note of what actually is working in other countries. For some reason, Arne Duncan isn’t comfortable looking at countries that require Highly Qualified Teachers and those who don’t use tests to assess staff effectiveness. It seems that Microsoft, Scantron, and other corporations who stand to profit from the proliferation of online classes, charter schools, and endless testing are running educational policy in the US. This needs to stop. We need to see that educational disparities are creating a class segregation in the US and work to end that in every way we can. Thank you for fighting for us!

Social Security (payroll) taxes are the most egregious tax in the world. It’s only paid by the middle class, stops around $106,000. Some who can manipulate their income take dividends over wages to avoid the payroll tax. It’s a fully flat tax, if you earn only $1/yr you pay 7.6 cents payroll tax. You also pay income tax on those dollars that never reach your wallet. And there’s no joint filing, i.e. two earners at 100K each pay payroll tax on 200K while a single earning at 200K only pays one-half the amount.

For 75 years Social Security has contributed to the general fund, reducing other tax rates. Now the talk is these “entitlements” must be reduced to balance the budget and maintain lower taxes on the rich. Social Security has always been a separately funded program and always in surplus.

HG,

What we are talking about is regulations that businesses do not want to comply with – usually because it would cost them money. This has nothing to do with which regulations are or are not necessary. Businesses want to be free to act without restraint, responsibility, or liability.

Computers were invented during WWII to generate ballistics tables. The integrated circuits, that replaced vacuum tubes and made the modern computer possible, were developed for NASA. Computer networking started with such projects as ARPANET, Merit, and NSFNET – all developed primarily by combinations of universities and government agencies.

Kermit (file transfer, Columbia University), gopher (Internet search, University of Minnesota), MOSAIC (web browser, NCSA at the University of Illinois) and others all illustrate that the Internet you know would not exist without government leadership and investments.

Utility companies rolled broadband out to business communities at an uneven pace. Once the business-dense areas were wired, there were delays in reaching outlying businesses – and it took years to reach residential areas. It required a system of fees and subsidies to get broadband out to rural areas where the free market saw no profit in going.

The Internet is a shining example of how government has a key role in creating new technologies, new business opportunities, and new industries.

LAMP – Linux(OS);Apache(HTTP server);MySQL(database);Perl/PHP/Python(scripting software) – all open-source, and all vital to the functioning of the Internet. True technological freedom. Microsoft has actually slowed development of the Internet by injecting non-standard proprietary protocol variants and non-compliant software.

The Internet was conceived, initially developed, and core aspects controlled by the government. But now private businesses want to restrict that freedom with a tiered networking scheme, because they feel they can make more money from it. They threaten smaller providers, businesses, and innovators who do not have the money to pay the higher entry fees. Al Franken has worked to protect our freedom, small businesses, and independent innovators by opposing tiered networking. If preserving a freedom means slowing down a business, then liberals would rather slow down a business than surrender a liberty.

The days of the Internet sales tax ban may be coming to an end as Internet sales undermine state sales tax revenue and states become more desperate. California, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, N. Carolina, …

When calculating if something is “affordable” to the nation as a whole, the secondary costs must be accounted for. Looking only at the immediate and obvious factors is irresponsible and short-sighted at best.

Obviously “the advent of the Internet”, and it’s continuing evolution, has not taught everyone.

Zera,

Very well done.

However, my point is to the internet we know as a product. Without private investment, programmers, and entreprenuers the internet as we know and use it today would not exist. It would not be as affordable or as fast. It would not have developed beyond a limited public use. There is no ignoring the massive contribution of the private sector to the modern internet. There is no ignoring the freedom, innovation, and unregulated market forces responsible for what we know the internet to be.

Social Security taxes flow into trust funds that are by law separate from the federal general fund. These funds are invested in “special-issue” securities issued by the federal government; in other words, the federal government borrows this money which then goes into the general fund, and recorded in the books as national debt.

These “special-issue” securities are redeemable at _ANY_TIME_ by Social Security depending on its obligations to beneficiaries. This is true regardless of the current state of the federal budget; Congress knows this.

Years of irresponsible politics have caught up with us. Because Social Security is a spectacularly successful program, it should be left alone and further strengthened possibly by a small tax increase now and a removal on the caps on which income is subject to taxation. Once the trust funds’ stability is ensured, then we need to demand of our politicians to act responsibly to bring the budgets back into balance with a combination of spending cuts AND increased revenue such that we can start to pay off the national debt including those “special-issue” securities.

What I’ve read suggests there is no actuarial justification for raising the retirement age; people as a whole are not living that much longer.

Social Security must not be sacrificed so that the uber-wealthy can avoid paying their fair share of the taxes that will allow the federal budget to be balanced along with restoring the ability of the federal government to honor its debt obligations which include those “special-issue” securities.

Try as hard as I did, I fail to see what useful point(s) HG is trying to make other than throwing out tea party-esque words.

Though the Social Security trust funds are now in surplus, it was only in the past year or two that payments to beneficiaries have outstripped incoming revenue. Personally, I thought it irresponsible of Obama to declare a one-year holiday on the employee portion of the SS taxes in the vain attempt to further stimulate the economy.

Anyway, I was referring to the LONG-TERM stability of the trust funds that need to be strengthened; it is much easier and less painful to make these small adjustments now than much later. Instead of doing this – and in turn, look out after our own interests, we continue to be distracted by politics and ideology. Why do we still allow this collective self-destructive behavior and dialogue?

Hal,

It’s worse than that. Ever heard of the Public Employee Retirement System also known as PERS? That’s right, public employees can, and most do, opt out of SS for a much more lucrative retirement system paid for by our tax dollars. Yep, you see, not only does the private sector pay for a totally inadequate SS retirment, but also for public employee retirement via our tax dollars. SS is broke because public employees, believe or not, even though they opt out of SS, may still be eligible to draw SS. Unbelievable? You betcha! If SS was simply a flat tax of 15% and everyone, including those priveleged public employees had to participate, SS would not be broke. Better yet, why doesn’t everyone get access to PERS? I’d opt out of SS in a heartbeat for such a sweet deal.

Contrary to HG’s rant, Social Security is NOT broke, having at least $2.5 trillion in the trust funds. What are worrisome is its long-term solvency (which can be easily addressed as discussed above) and whether the federal government can repay those “special-issue” bonds. If the federal government defaults, it will be because of the lack of political will to exercise fiscal discipline – and the political will comes largely from taxpayers – NOT from the public employees or any other group including the uber-wealthy. So again, why are we still allowing this collective self-destructive behavior and dialogue instead of paying attention, watching out for our own interests?

HG’s PERS comments are akin to criticizing private sector employers for offering retirement benefits; after all, that is funded by adding to the cost of products and services that we buy – how dare they do that to us with our hard-earned money? Meh.

A public employee’s services are just as valuable as that of an employee in the private sector. Duh.

Lane,

Wrong. First, the only thing in the SS account is IOU’s. Second PERS is not akin to any private sector retirement in that the private sector cannot opt out of SS.

You’re making a habit of this.

Perhaps HG didn’t see where I already mentioned those special-issue securities being recorded in the books as part of the NATIONAL DEBT.

So HG is suggesting that those participating in PERS should not be allowed to opt out of SS. That means that the government, as the employer, would have to pay that employer portion of the Social Security taxes – and this payment would have to come out of the taxes we all pay. Additionally, public employees are required to contribute to PERS.

Not so black and white, eh, HG? Because the way we fund our retirements here in America is so complex and varied, this forum is too limited – and lacks the necessary expertise to properly analyze what goes on. Tea party-esque rants and simplistic observations just do not cut it.

Very black and white. Taxpayers are already paying more for pers than we would SS for public employees.

Talk about lacking analytical skill.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43498037

Again, it is not that simple, HG. It is well-known that public pension systems throughout the nation have been affected by reduced investment earnings due to the recent recession along with skipped or reduced required payments (largely due to irresponsible politics) causing a shortfall that must be made up to honor existing obligations. Knowing this does not tell me if it would be cheaper for us taxpayers to shift all public employees over to Social Security; for that, I’d need some numbers such as for an employee earning x dollars, it would cost y dollars for PERS and z dollars for SS. Absent this data as a starting point, it would be futile to discuss further given your unfocused indignation.

These numbers also will vary from governmental entity to the next depending on its pension system.

You mentioned that some PERS employees who opted out of SS may still be able to draw SS benefits. This is possible if at different times in their lives, the employees worked at jobs that paid into the SS system; only those earnings will be used to calculate benefit amounts. Or they became disabled. Or their total income is so low that they become eligible for SSI. Yep, not so black and white …

BTW, you can still join a PERS. All you have to do is apply for – and qualify for – a public employee position. Did you know that there are tremendous opportunities with the federal government who is now scrambling in face of the retirement of 20-36% of the permanent workforce in the next five or so years. (the baby boomers)

I’m not interested in public employment. Rather, I’m interested in the freedom public employees have to opt out of SS for a more lucrative retirement and the costs to us in the private sector who not only contribute to our own SS and other retirement accounts, but contribute also to those lucrative public employee retirement accounts.

@HG,

Public employees pay SS out of their paycheck or as part of their benefits package like most folks. Would Jesus lie to protect the powerful at the expense of the poor? Come on, who do you really worship.

Praise Jebus, God hates working people, Amen.

Carl. You’re wrong. I’ve done public employee taxes. Those who opt out have zero SS withholdings on their W2.

HG,

Social Security is NOT broke. It’s one of the most successful programs ever. Even today, it’s still sees excess receipts. Unfortunately, this year the payroll tax was cut 2% as an economic stimulus. I fear this will be used to further promote the idea that Social Security is a problem and related to the Budget and debt issue. Income has always exceeded Outgo and the $2.6 Trillion in assets contributed for the boomer’s retirement is now too tempting to some. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

“Fair Taxes”
Is Al going to expect the poor, like myself, to start paying some taxes.
I get more back than I pay in. All you need is a child or two.

What HG needs to understand is that Social Security maintains a lifetime earnings record for each beneficiary. Only those amounts on which SS taxes have been paid are documented. Upon retirement and the public employee who opted out of SS applies for SS retirement, Social Security will take a look at his lifetime earnings record, count the 35 years with highest earnings, add up those earnings and divide by 35 to come up with an amount which is then used to determine the initial monthly benefit amount. The more years with zero dollars recorded, the greater the decrease in the averaged amount which translates to rapidly shrinking benefit amount. This is assuming he put in at least 40 quarters where SS taxes were paid; if not, then he is not eligible for SS retirement. He may be eligible for SS supplemental income if his total monthly income is so small; even so, he will have to report income and expenses on a monthly basis – just like anyone who is on public assistance. Given this, HG has no case at all in raising all that ruckus.