William Larsen was kind enough to post a comment to the blog earlier in which noted some of the beliefs upon which he is campaigning. He said:
I am for smaller government, restoring our personal freedoms, actually creating an Energy policy that works, working on identity theft, pension reform, tax reform, not only balancing the general budget, but begin paying down the national debt, restoring our country borders and repealing the Social Security Act pertaining to old age benefits.
His blog is here. If you’re a Republican in the 3rd District but don’t like the thought of another term for Rep. Souder, you have alternatives.
Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to federal government spending is to have gridlock in the federal
government. Even if Mr. Larsen is a deficit hawk, I do not think he will be able to be very effective in controlling the drunken spending that seems to be the inevitable consequence of one party rule. But certainly every little bit helps.
An alternative perhaps, but the local media does not take him seriously. Of course, more than a few 3rd district Republicans would love to rid themselves of Souder. A few years back the former mayor of Fort Wayne, Paul Helmke, took on Souder in the primary. Helmke would doubtless have been a much more effective representative for our area, but the Bush White House intervened on Souder’s behalf. Any serious challenge (in the Republican primary) can expect the same attention.
Fortunately Rep. Souder promised to limit the number of terms he would serve, so the problem should just take care of itself. Let’s see, he promised a maximum of 6 terms with the first term beginning in 1994 and each term lasting 2 years, so if he is a man of his word, the last term will be from 2004-2006. Oh, wait . . . Never mind.
8th district congressman Hostettler made that same promise back in ’92 and we see how well that worked out for them.
Maybe off topic, but I’m curious about his call for a repeal of the Social Security Act. I continue to be awestuck by the Republican desire to create greater competition for the few remaining American jobs left in this country.
Sounds like he would make a good Democrat.
Except for the bit about Social Security.
We hear a lot of talk about cutting the deficit in half. In fact they have talked about it as far back as I can remember. I am 49 years old and I simply cannot remember a surplus year, can you? Who has been running this country, the politicians or the voters? I hear people complain, but do we ever take action?
There are two sets of books our politicians like to keep, the General and Unified budgets. The Unified Budget includes every government expense while the general budget excludes social security and Medicare. Social Security has its own dedicated tax, which by law cannot be used to pay for anything but Social Security costs, United States Code Title 42, Chapter7, Subchapter VII, Sec. 911 (a). Social Security can buy US Treasuries just like you or I, but the money must be repaid. Currently the Social Security Trust fund owns $1.6 Trillion in Special US Treasuries, which is included in the $8 Trillion National debt.
Politicians like to use the Unified Budget because they can show a lower deficit number. For example in 2004 Bush and our Representatives passed a Unified Budget resulting in a $553.6 billion deficit. The problem is they included Social Security and Medicare taxes as well as the interest their trust funds earned, which are dedicated to paying Social Security and Medicare costs, not general budget items. Excluding these dedicated tax revenues and interest payments, the General Budget deficit was $726.1 Billion. Who wants to report bad news to those you represent? We might not vote for them in the next election. Then again, maybe it is us, we simply do not want to hear the bad news and keep asking for more government services.
In 2005 there was Katrina and now we have the Rx Medicare drug program. The deficit this year is going to be what, $800 Billion? Interest on the Debt in 2005 was over $450 Billion or 40 cents of every dollar you pay in Federal Income Taxes. In 1952 only 16 cents went to pay interest on the debt.
The problem is, they could eliminate the unified budget deficit and we would still have a very large general budget deficit. Its time we laid off these fuzzy math politicians for our sakes as well as our children. Can anyone just say no to two more years?
I support repealing the Social Security act pertaining to Old Age Benefits, not the Disability program. The reason is very simple: Social Security was designed to fail. Those who have retired since 1940 paid $2.5 Trillion in taxes. Social Security has paid $7.8 Trillion in benefits and before current retirees pass on they will collect another $5 Trillion.
My plan would use the current $1.65 Trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay a means tested benefit of $1,100 a month to each senior in need. This benefit would be adjusted yearly by the change in the United States Average Wage, which is generally greater than inflation.
The social security trust fund would last about ten years at which time general revenues would be needed to pay this means tested benefit. It would take 37 years to reach equilibrium at which time about 9% of the elderly would need assistance at any given time. The many can easily take care of the few but not the other way around.
The worker would be required to open an IRA style account at a financial institution of their choice where the employer’s share of the social security tax would be deposited. The employee’s tax would never be taken out of the check so that the employee could use these wages for debt reduction, retirement, education, health care, etc. The total controlled by the employee would be about $3,600 per year ($1,800 in the IRA style account and $1,800 left in the paycheck).
If we want to save social security, then each adult worker must send a check today to social security for $87,000, or cut benefits by 40% or raise taxes by 85%. There simply is no painless solution. How firm are you on saving social security?
I am an Eagle Scout and have tried in vain to be fair. However, Social Security is not fair, never was fair and cannot be made fair. I am not going to lie to you about this being painless. This mess we have inherited should have been taken care of decades ago.
A program that pays those born after 1985 just 29 cents back for each dollar of taxes and credited interest is not fair. Americans want value for their dollar. You can buy a value meal at about any fast food chain consisting of a sandwich, fries and drink for about $4.00. If Social Security were a value meal, it would cost $13.79.
Mark Souder refers to Social Security as a “shell game†and supports tax-free Social Security Savings Accounts. Tax-free savings is an oxymoron. We have a $7 Trillion national debt and ran a $639 Billion deficit in 2003. Tax credits reduce federal income taxes; increasing the deficit. This is no different than you borrowing money to pay for retirement.
How do workers save when 90 to 100% of their potential savings is taken from them in the form of FICA taxes?
During your lifetime has the Social Security tax ever been cut? If you think Social Security is not fair to you, will it be fair for your children?
I am compassionate and will do my utmost to make sure no needy senior is left behind. However, we need to make a very painful decision now. You can either declare your independence from Social Security and over spending by voting for William Larsen May 4th, or continue with the same old scam.
Do your own research.
Sincerely,
William Larsen
The Larsen Plan
William Larsen’s Blog
William Larsen’s web site
Social Security: What Went Wrong?
Myths: The Poltical Tool of Choice