Modern, Postmodern, or Amodern?

A few points of clarification might be in order for those wondering what the fuss is all about in the contrast between the modern and the postmodern (and the amodern, which is really what we ought to be about).

The modern world view takes its perspective from the foundational works of the European Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. One of its characteristic features is often referred to as the Cartesian duality, or subject-object split, in which we (the subjects) enter the previously-existing objective world as blank slates who deal with reality by adapting to the facts of existence (which are God-given in the full Christian version). Many Marxists, feminists, and postmodernists see modernism as a bastion of white males in positions of political and economic superiority oblivious to the way their ideas were shaped by their times, and happy to take full advantage of their positions for their own gain.

Postmodernism takes a variety of forms and has not yet really jelled into any kind of uniform perspective; in fact, it might not ever do so, as one of its few recurrent themes has to do with the fragmentation of thinking and it local dependence on the particular power relations of different times and places. That said, a wide variety of writers trace out the way we are caught up in the play of the language games that inevitably follow from the mutual implication of subject and object. Subject and object each imply the other in the way language focuses attention selectively and filters out 99% of incoming stimuli. Concepts originate in metaphors that take their meaning from the surrounding social and historical context, and so perception and cognition are constrained by the linguistic or theoretical paradigms dominating the thoughts and behaviors of various communities. We cannot help but find ourselves drawn up into the flow of discourses that always already embody the subject-object unities representing in speaking and writing.

When we choose discourse over violence, we do so on the basis of a desire for meaning (Ricoeur, 1974), of an inescapable attraction to the beautiful (Gadamer, 1989, 1998), of a care that characterizes the human mode of being (Heidegger, 1962), of a considerateness for the human vulnerability of others and ourselves (Habermas, 1995), of an enthrallment with the fecund abundance of sexual difference (Irigaray, 1984), of the joy we experience in recognizing ourselves in each other and the universal (Hegel, 2003), of the irresistible allure of things (Harman, 2005), or of the unavoidable metaphysical necessity that propositions must take particular forms (Derrida, 1978).

All violence is ultimately the violence of the premature conclusion (Ricoeur, 1974), in which discourse is cut off by the imposition of one particularity as representative of a potentially infinite whole. This reductionism is an unjustified reduction of a universal that precludes efforts aimed at determining how well what is said might work to represent the whole transparently. Of course, all reductions of abstract ideals to particular expressions in words, numbers, or other signs are, by definition, of a limited length, and so inevitably pose the potential for being nonsensical, biased, prejudiced, and meaningless. Measures experimentally justifying reductions as meaningfully and usefully transparent are created, maintained, and reinvented via a balance of powers. In science, powers are balanced by the interrelations of theories, instruments, and data; in democracy, by the interrelations of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. Just as science is continuously open to the improvements that might be effected by means of new theories, instrumentation, or data, so, too, are democratic governments continuously reshaped by new court decisions, laws, and executive orders.

An essential idea here is that all thinking takes place in signs; this is not an idea that was invented or that is owned by postmodernists. C. S. Pierce developed the implications of semiotics in his version of pragmatism, and the letters exchanged by William James and Helen Keller explored the world projected by the interrelations of signs at length. The focus on signs, signification, and the play of signifiers does not make efforts at thinking futile or invalidate the search for truth. Things come into language by asserting their independent real existence, and by being appropriated in terms of relations with things already represented in the language. For instance, trees in the forest did not arrive on the scene hallmarked “white pine,” “pin oak,” etc. Rather, names for things emerge via the metaphoric process, which frames new experiences in terms of old, and which leads to a kind of conceptual speciation event that distinguishes cultural, historical, and ecological periods from each other.

Modernists interpret the cultural relativism that emerges here as reducing all value systems to a false equality and an “anything goes” lack of standards. Unfortunately, the rejection of relativism usually entails the adoption of some form of political or religious fundamentalism in efforts aimed at restoring bellweather moral reference points. One of the primary characteristics of the current state of global crisis is our suspension in this unsustainable tension between equally dysfunctional alternatives of completely relaxed or completely rigid guides to behavior.

But the choice between fundamentalism and relativism is a false dichotomy. Science, democracy, and capitalism have succeeded as well as they have not in spite of, but because of, the social, historic, linguistic, and metaphoric factors that influence and constitute the construction of objective meaning. As Latour (1990, 1993) puts it, we have never actually been modern, so the point is not to be postmodern, but amodern. We need to appropriate new, more workable conceptual reductions from the positive results produced by the deconstruction of the history of metaphysics. Though many postmodernists see deconstruction as an end in itself, and though many modernists see reductionism as a necessary exercise of power, there are other viable ways of proceeding that remain to be explored.

The amodern path informs the trajectory of my own work, from the focus on the creation of meaning in language to meaningful measurement (Fisher, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2010b), and from there to the use of measurement and metrological networks in bringing human, social, and natural capital to life as part of the completion of the capitalist and democratic projects (Fisher, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010a). Though this project will also ultimately amount to nothing more than another failed experiment, perhaps sooner than later, it has its openness to continued questioning and ongoing dialogue in its favor.

References

Derrida, J. (1978). Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In Writing and difference (pp. 278-93). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2000). Objectivity in psychosocial measurement: What, why, how. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 4(2), 527-563 [http://www.livingcapitalmetrics.com/images/WP_Fisher_Jr_2000.pdf].

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2003a, December). Mathematics, measurement, metaphor, metaphysics: Part I. Implications for method in postmodern science. Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 753-90.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2003b, December). Mathematics, measurement, metaphor, metaphysics: Part II. Accounting for Galileo’s “fateful omission.” Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 791-828.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2004, October). Meaning and method in the social sciences. Human Studies: A Journal for Philosophy and the Social Sciences, 27(4), 429-54.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2005). Daredevil barnstorming to the tipping point: New aspirations for the human sciences. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(3), 173-9 [http://www.livingcapitalmetrics.com/images/FisherJAM05.pdf].

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2009, November). Invariance and traceability for measures of human, social, and natural capital: Theory and application. Measurement (Elsevier), 42(9), 1278-1287.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2010a). Bringing human, social, and natural capital to life: Practical consequences and opportunities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11, in press.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2010b). Reducible or irreducible? Mathematical reasoning and the ontological method. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11(1), 38-59.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.) (Rev. ed.). New York: Crossroad (Original work published 1960).

Gadamer, H.-G. (1998). Praise of theory: Speeches and essays ( Foreword by Joel Weinsheimer, Ed.) (C. Dawson, Trans.). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Habermas, J. (1995). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Harman, G. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Chicago: Open Court.

Hegel, G. W. F. (2003). Phenomenology of mind (J. B. Baillie, Trans.). New York: Dover (Original work published 1931).

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row (Original work published 1927).

Irigaray, L. (1984). An ethics of sexual difference (C. Burke & G. C. Gill, Trans.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Latour, B. (1990). Postmodern? no, simply amodern: Steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 21(1), 145-71.

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1974). Violence and language. In D. Stewart & J. Bien (Eds.), Political and social essays by Paul Ricoeur (pp. 88-101). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

[Via http://livingcapitalmetrics.wordpress.com]

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

~Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

[Via http://theblawger.wordpress.com]

Congressional Term Limits - "Yes We Can Hope for Change!"

Yes, my fellow Americans, there can be reason to hope for our republic.  It is going to require a change to our beloved Constitution, which won’t be easy, but we can do it if we raise our voices in unison and make our elected officials feel the power of this nation which rightfully belongs to us, its citizens. 

“It is a maxim with me, that every man employed in a high office by the people, should from time to time return to them, that he may be in a situation to satisfy them with respect to his conduct and the measures of administration” (Anti-Federalist, Melancton Smith, June 25, 1788 in a speech before the New York State Convention debating the ratification of the Constitution).

Last week I opined that were our Anti-Federalist forefathers to return to our republic today and survey the disgraceful state into which it has fallen as a result of the entrenchment of those occupying seats of power in the House of Representatives and Senate, they would sadly shake their heads and proclaim, “We tried to warn you.”  They were all too aware of Lord Acton’s maxim, “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Although our Congress and President have yet to obtain absolute power (though their insidious tentacles are stretching out in that direction), the first half of that statement is precisely what the Anti-Federalists attempted to persuade their Federalist brethren as the reason for the need to institute term limitations in the newly proposed Constitution.  Consider the statement made by the Anti-Federalist writer Brutus in his essay published on November 29, 1787 regarding what the people had a right to expect regarding the character of those who would serve in the new Congress:

“They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service;….”

To this sentiment Madison and the other Federalists readily agreed; yet they went further in that they actually believed such men would step forward to be the leaders of the new nation.  In fact, in The Federalist Papers Number 54, Madison went so far as to state the exact opposite of what the Anti-Federalists had expressed in their writings:

“A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.  The greater the  proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.  This remark is no less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

This is an interesting statement and admission by one of the leading Federalists of that day.  First, he admits to the likelihood that there will be those who will be reelected repeatedly and will hold office for a considerable time.  However, we now see his error in judgment was in that he only perceived that such would true in the case of “a few of the members.”  Today instead we see men and women elected over and over again until they have spent the larger part of their adult lives in either the House of Representatives, the Senate, or both, and that the “few” are those who are new to those bodies.  Furthermore, Madison was of the opinion in direct opposition to that of the Anti-Federalists that I have quoted in the previous three posts, that there was a greater danger of the newly elected officials to fall into the traps of corruption than those who had been in service for a greater period of time (although he admitted that “perhaps” those long in service might be tempted to avail themselves of the perks of their offices).

In stark contrast to Madison was the opinion of the Anti-Federalist from Massachusetts, John DeWitt, who wrote the following in the Boston American Herald on November 5, 1787:

“It cannot be doubted at this day by any men of common sense, that there is a charm in politics.  That persons who enter reluctantly into office become habitated, grow fond of it, and are loath to resign it.  They feel themselves flattered and elevated and are apt to forget their constituents, until the time returns that they again feel the want of them.  They uniformly exercise all the powers granted to them, and ninety-nine in a hundred are for grasping at more.  It is this passionate thirst for power, which has produced different branches to exercise different departments and mutual checks upon those branches….

Thus habituated to power, and living in the daily practice of granting favors and receiving solicitations, he may hold himself completely independent of the people, and at the same time ensure his election.  If there remains even a risque, the blessed assistance of a little well-distributed money, will remove it….

“… but some of the members, perhaps a major part, will hold their seats during their lives.  We see it daily in our own Government, and we see it in every Government we are acquainted with, however many the cautions, and however frequent the elections.”

As I have asked in the previous posts, I now repeat – as you survey those who populate our Congress today, who “got it right” – Madison and the Federalists, or the Anti-Federalists?  I believe the answer is obvious, and thus leads to the question, what are we to do now?  How can we fix this deplorable situation?  This question and problem have but three possible answers and solutions:

• The ballot box;
• Amending the Constitution; or
• Armed rebellion.

I have listed these three options in the order of preference and ease of accomplishment.  The first is not only the most preferable of these options but also the one argued for by the Federalists and the option that was set in place within the Constitution.  Plainly stated, we should educate ourselves and elect those men and women during these “frequent elections” who are of a mind not to go to Washington to carve out a long career for themselves, but rather who desire to serve for a reasonable period of time and then to relinquish their seat of power to one to follow after them.  As easy as this sounds we know that such is not as easy as it appears.  Today, elections turn on “sound bites”, cleverly produced and polished television and radio advertisements, having the “right connections” with the “right people”, and being given favored exposure by the media.  Not enough of our fellow citizens put forth the effort to delve into the matters troubling our republic and the background of those putting forth their agendas to solve these problems to make election-imposed term limitations a likelihood.

Since this first option has proven to be a disappointment to keeping men and women from becoming the aristocratic body that the Anti-Federalists foreboded, the second option is to put in place the very term limits as a part of the Constitution for which they pleaded during the ratification debates. Making such amendments was provided for in Section V of the Constitution, and as was expressed by George Washington in his farewell address at the end of his second term as our nation’s first president in 1796, it is our right to do so:  “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government.”

As the debate raged during the Constitutional Convention over how to amend the proposed new Constitution, a compromise was reached when Madison set forth the wording of what was incorporated as these opening words of Article V:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress:”

In reading this it becomes readily apparent of just how daunting a task it is to amend our Constitution, and such is how it ought to be.  Since 1789 over 5,000 bills have been proposed to amend this magnificent document of liberty, yet only thirty-three have ever made it through this gauntlet of ratification, and one of them, the eighteenth, was subsequently repealed by the twenty-first.  The fact that the eighteenth amendment dealing with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages proved to be unwise and therefore in need of rejection, shows just how sobering a task it is to undertake the amending of the Constitution.  Such a step must only be taken after very careful and due deliberation of the situation that is sought to be remedied and that all other means of resolution have proven themselves to be unfruitful and impotent.  Such, I think, is where we find ourselves today in the matter of the limitation on the terms of our Representatives and Senators.

That being the case, then, how does this Article empower us to accomplish this task?  There are two basic approaches to the process.  One is for Congress to initiate a proposal for amendment, the other, the clause which was inserted due to pressure brought to bear by the Anti-Federalist George Mason, allows for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention (like the one that framed the Constitution) for the express purpose of amending it.

In the first instance the process begins when a member (or a consortium of members) of either the House or Senate proposes a bill in their respective chamber and persuades a minimum of two-thirds of their colleagues in both bodies to approve the resolution.  As we have seen most recently, acquiring a two-thirds approval by one body, much less both, is indeed a daunting task – especially when what is being proposed is a limitation of the terms of those who must vote in favor of it!  Once this hurdle has been overcome, the proposed amendment is then sent to the all of the States of the Union for them to approve.  The states have the option to either vote in favor of the proposal by their state legislatures, or to approve it by means of a state convention called for that purpose.  Only when three-fourths of the states have given their consent does the amendment then become part of the Constitution.  Although the Article authorizing this process does not impose a time limit, it has been the practice in recent times for Congress to set a deadline for the states to either approve or reject a proposed amendment once Congress has approved it.  You may recall that this was true in the case of the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” which was approved by Congress and sent to the states on March 22, 1972 but with a seven year time limit for ratification, which it failed to meet.

The other option is even more daunting and has never been successfully achieved since the adoption of the Constitution, which is to require Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures call upon them to do so.  This is not as desirable of an option for those of us who are “Strict Constitutional Originalists”, as it is unclear as to the limits that such a convention would operate under.  Scholarship is divided over whether such a convention would have to be limited to just a consideration of the grievances to be addressed that prompted the call for the convention, or whether such a convention would be open to any and all causes that delegates would wish to promote.  If such a convention were to be an open one, then there is no limit as to the mischief that could come about and the harm that could result from unwise changes to the Constitution (as evidenced again in the hastily passed eighteenth amendment).

The only other option open to us is the least desirable of all for it is the option of last resort and the most difficult of all, as it would involve much harm, upheaval and even bloodshed.  This option is for citizens who have had enough of the oppression wrought by these fascist leaders to rise up and forcibly remove them from office in order to return us to the foundation laid by both our Federalist and Anti-Federalist forefathers.  That we have the unalienable right to do so was expounded by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence in as much as it served to justify our nation’s first revolution against tyranny:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Yet this right as expressed by Jefferson is the cause for a tension between our two precious composites that make up the bedrock of our republic – the Declaration and the Constitution.  I say this because in Article I, Section 8 the Constitution counteracts this right:

“The Congress shall have Power to…provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions….”

Clearly, an attempt to require our elected officials in Congress to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or face removal by force would amount to an insurrection, and the Declaration notwithstanding, would be cause for the armed forces of the nation to be brought to bear against those so trying to restore the liberty and freedom promised by these two documents, resulting  in much pain and suffering. 

That we one day may be left with only this last alternative no one may tell, but in order to not find ourselves in this distressful and desperate situation it is imperative that we exert as much effort and energy as possible with the first two of the three options I have outlined.  That this will not be an easy task I readily confess, as we are asking those who have become drunk with their own prestige, power and importance to willingly remove themselves from such a position by approving a bill that would amend the  Constitution to limit their terms of office.  Our efforts and energy then must be directed at bringing as much constant pressure upon those in Congress to do just that, and if they resist, to seek out and find those among us who would be so willing to approve such a measure and elect them to office.

As I stated in the opening of this essay, yes, there is hope for change – a change back to our founding principles by instituting term limitations upon those elected to Congress, but this hope can only be realized if all who love freedom and liberty and our great republic will stand united and follow through on the approach I outlined above.  The clock is ticking my fellow Americans and the time for action is now.  May God help our efforts and favor our beloved republic once more  with the unalienable gifts of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

-Epaminondas

[Via http://anantifederalist.wordpress.com]

Help Tom Soike, a veteran

Tom Soike Needs Our Help

By Mountain Republic

Here we go again. Another veteran is being told that the America he fought so bravely to defend no longer exists. This is a local issue for Mountain Republic and any support you all can show Tom would be greatly appreciated. I will be in attendance at the meeting on February 23rd and will provide a first hand report of the outcome.

——————————————————————————————————-

“We’re counting on public support”

Tom Soike (pronounced soy-key) gave $3,500 from his small family inheritance for the purchase of a family bench at the then proposed Veteran’s Memorial. The Memorial was constructed and one bench was not inscribed. It was Mr. Soike’s family bench.

To date, Mr. Soike has been unsuccessful  in getting El Dorado County officials to allow him to inscribe his family bench with the following: “ God, I’ve tasted your heaven through freedom and fought through the pain of these wars and wondered if somehow the something I’ve given could somehow have been something more.”

Mr. Soike objected to the requirement that, before his bench could be inscribed, he would have to remove the words “God” and “Heaven“. He was later told he would have to remove the entire quote because it is “Too prayer-like“. Supervisor Ray Nutting has scheduled the matter for discussion on Tuesday February 23, 2010 at 9:30am in the Board Meeting Room at 330 Fair Lane in Placerville.

We do not have nor can we afford an attorney. We’re counting on public support. So if you can be there or send a letter of support to: Tom Soike at P.O. Box 129, Somerset, CA 95684. Or email at katlibicki@aol.com. We would appreciate it.

Tom Soike

visit El Dorado County Veteran’s Affairs

Here is Ray Nutting’s email address. bostwo@edcgov.us

[Via http://boudicabpi.wordpress.com]

Happy 201st for Charles Darwin (and Abe Lincoln)

Michael Giberson

It’s the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, which means it is Darwin Day!

Darwin Day is a recently instituted celebration intended to commemorate the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwinon February 12, 1809. The day is used to highlight Darwin’s contribution to science and to promote science in general. Some may believe that Darwin Day also commemorates the passing of those who earned the Darwin Award.

It is also the 201st anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, but Abe was a politician, and more recent politicians have deemed it reasonable to officially recognize him and other presidents with a federal holiday later in the month. No more need be said here today.

So celebrate by testing a hypothesis, doing an experiment, or collecting some careful observations. In other words: Go do some science!

And cake. Have some cake, too.

[Via http://knowledgeproblem.com]

Social Insecurity

Entitlements:  Social Security, is running deficits decades earlier than expected. We’ve been kicking the can down the road. We’re out of road.

USAToday: Social Security’s annual surplus “nearly evaporated” for the first time in a quarter-century last year. The program is poised to be in the red for the next two years; between 2008 and 2009, it saw a revenue decline of $60 billion.

Meanwhile, with the retirement of many in the “Baby Boom” generation imminent, regular annual losses are expected beginning in 2016. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the highest-ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, says the program’s “moment of truth has arrived.”

IBD: As Bernie Madoff found out, any Ponzi scheme depends on a continuous inflow of new cash and new customers or the ever-expanding pyramid will totter and collapse. Social Security, dependent as it was on new workers paying the expanding benefits of retirees, is about to, much sooner than expected.

As Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com reminds us, Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, predicted as director of the Congressional Budget Office in August 2008 that no one needed to worry about Social Security. “CBO projects that outlays will first exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2049,” we were told.

As the baby boomers have started retiring and the economy has collapsed, that day of reckoning is here. The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary finally got around to posting detailed November numbers, and they aren’t pretty.

The combined OASDI (Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance) “Trust” Funds recorded a nearly $6 billion primary deficit for November, the worst monthly performance since records began in 1987. The 12-month OASDI primary surplus was only $9.598 billion, also the worst 12-month performance on record.

Only the fact there will be no cost-of-living increase in 2010 may save OASDI from running a primary deficit this year. But continued economic doldrums coupled with the economy-killing socialization of health care, higher taxes, rising deficits and the still-looming catastrophe known as cap-and-trade may cause our house of Social Security cards to collapse long before sea levels begin to rise.

When you consider just disability income (DI), the picture looks even bleaker. For the 50th straight month, going back to October 2005, the DI Fund ran a yearly deficit, this time a record $21 billion.

At least one part of Orszag’s prophecy is coming true: “Social Security’s revenues each year are greater than its outlays, but as the baby-boom generation (people born between 1946 and 1964) continues to age, growth in the number of Social Security beneficiaries will accelerate, and outlays will grow substantially faster than revenues.”

That trend has accelerated to the point of collapse.

Private, insurance company-run annuity plans are legally required to pay you what was promised, when it was promised, and to maintain assets sufficient to redeem those promises. Social Security is not. Any insurance company CEO that ran a Ponzi scheme like Social Security would soon be incarcerated for fraud.

Opponents of the partial privatization proposed by President George W. Bush cited the variability in the stock market as a looming disaster and probably would say “I told you so” considering the recent market troubles. But at least retirees would still have real money, their money, in real accounts. They wouldn’t be dependent on government IOU’s and the hoped-for contributions of others.

We have a looming disaster on our hands.

Social Security has been called the “third rail” of American politics. Well, this train is running off the rails, and someone better touch it before momma gets thrown from it.

And this from The New York Times: One sound approach would be to link benefit levels to life expectancy, so that as people live longer, future benefits would be modestly reduced while payroll taxes that support Social Security would be modestly increased.

A nice way of saying, less Benefits, more taxes.

I personally have never regarded Social Security as anything other than a Tax.

And when liberals attack me on Social Security for being “socialist” so I’m a hypocrite, I just say back to them: Give me all the money you stole from me and never do it again and I will be happy.

I will succeed or fail on my own merits.

I never get a response to that.

And thus the shouting match continues as the trail derails as to whether it is even derailing to begin with then what to do if it does or how to prevent it if it does, but will it?

:::sigh:::

Meanwhile, The President proposes to increase the money taken from my paycheck.

And I don’t even make over $250,000 a year…

[Via http://indyfromaz.wordpress.com]

Tories f*** up ... again...

David Davis

…they want to “curb the Lobbying Industry”…

Cameron has just jumped into his own mouth with both feet, by proferring an answer to the wrong question.

Everyone knows that the place where ex-Ministers go to (not) die is QUANGOs. These items are set up _/by/_ governments, in order to be given money _/by/_ governments, and then with which they “hire” objects such as “ex-ministers” to _/lobby/_ the very same governments with the objective ov bringing in the very policies that those governments want to see enacted.

If MPs had to be (real) “local” people, standing locally, known by sight and acquaintance to most of their employers (us) and if they were truly disinterested, which is to say: they don’t need the money, then “lobbying” as it is today understood would wither away naturally. Lobbying-power would pass to constituents and voters where it belongs: governments would not need to nurture a galaxy of faux-lobbyists in order to pretend there is “wide public support” for this or that.

[Via http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com]