RE: Reforms: Political Realities

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<
Wrong. Those remaining in SS under their plan would be largely the
working poor. And their SS benefits would go down. That is indeed
what the CATO plan tells us, when we read between the lines. CATO
knows this. If your annual salary is $15,000, the CATO reform is
not a good deal, as it would be if you make $60,000. By the time
the low wage worker pays for life and disability insurance, the
amount left for investment will have a problem matching SS returns.
>>>

So, this means that I will not be able to succeed with my own
money because there is at least one poor person who is not 
succeeding? In other words, the whole ship is doomed to sink
because some people fell off the boat?

Providing a minimal benefit to needy people belongs in a welfare
program not a retirement program. The government already provides
benefits to needy people in other welfare programs. Why must my return 
be negative to support the welfare aspects of this program?

I would be willing to pay more income tax (or a carve out of the
payroll tax) if that is what would be required to keep the
guarantee. All I am asking for is an opportunity to do the
best for myself. Isn't this American?

<<<
You have a naive view of the Federal budget process. The non-defense
discretionary spending amounts to about $300 billion out of the
$1.8 trillion budget. To cut that part of the budget by $60 billion
will have real effects on real people.
>>>

Both entitlement and non-entitlement spending is enacted by the
government through law. What you mean then, is that entitlements
should be off limits to reforms that could be used on other
government spending? Entitlements are off limits to common
cost savings/adjustments just because they're entitlements?
Are the laws governing entitlements unchangeable?

Michael