Thursday, June 30, 2005

Reaping What Has Been Sown

They are quaking in their boots at the DNC right now. Why?

A recent poll of likey voters shows Democrats the big losers. While GOP support has taken a bit of a dip, with 43% of likley voters having a favorable opinion of Republicans, only 38% of likley voters have a favorable opinion of Democrats.

By the way just in case there are those who feel that this is a spiked poll, taken by Republican or conservative polsters, this poll was taken by the Democratic party themselves.

Could this be a case of the Democrats reaping what they have sown? With all of the anti-American- yes, I said it anti-American, rhetoric it is wonder that there is still that much support left. The Party has been taken hostage by their progressive wing, which seems bent on attacking any and everything positive about America just to get at a President they loathe.

The Democrats refuse to break from the extremists in their Party and instead seem to be moving more and more in their direction. On the other hand, Republican moderates, to my chagrin, seem to be growing and moving that Party farther into the center.

In 2003, when the Democratic party was selecting a new House Minoriry Leader, Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford ran against California Congresswoman Nancy Palozi. Ford warned that a move to the left would lose Democrats in the Heartland. Ford was spurrned and we have seen what Mrs. Pelozzi has wrought.

Just a few months ago the Party once again missed a great opportunity to distance themselves from the Progressive Left, in selecting Howard Dean to lead the DNC. Dean has done nothing but attack the president, his administration, the war, the GOP and the people in Red States. Add to this statements by new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid attacking President Bushes Judicial appointments, especially the Black ones, with meritless charges, and we see a pattern.

For the coup de gras, we have Illinois Senator Dick Durban comparing our President and military to the Nazis, the Soviet Gulags, and the Cambodian dictator/Buthcher Pol Pot . Wow, does Mr. Durban really believe that?

All the while the Democrats have yet to propose one piece of positive legislation or action. They are against tax reform, they are against social security reform, against the Patriot Act, against judges, against the appointment of e new UN Ambassador, against gas & oil exploration on our continent, and on and on ........

The Ameircan people are asking, what are the Democrats for? Civil Rights for terrorists? A smaller weaker U.S. military? A larger, weaker United Nations? More taxes and more governement control over all aspects of our lives? Being more sensitive to the French & Germans?

The American people as seen in this and other polls, are rejecting the core values, of today's Democratic Party, as reflected on their televisions, and in other media each and every day.

I would say that this is a definate case of reaping what they have sown. The only question that now remains is: will the GOP show themselves strong and fill the gap left by this failure on the other side? I hope so.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Guest Blog- "IRAQ - an exit strategy"

Dr. Ada M. Fisher

No matter the politics, the USA can’t turn coat and run from Iraq. To leave before that nation is able to defend itself is to set up another rogue nation for terrorist. The USA must stay the course with a different mind-set, which respects Islamic principles and virtues and focuses on rapid deployment of change agents, which will bring about the economic relief necessary to add stability to that nation.

First, though the President states no weapons of mass destruction were found, we must talk about the fact that we did find and remove a major weapon of mass destruction—Sadam Hussein who inflicted genocide on hundreds of thousands of his own people. It is this action of genocide, which is probably one of two internationally acceptable indications for a preemptive strike or unilateral involvement in the affairs of a sovereign nation. The other being the proven potential to annihilate a substantial portion of the world.

Second, we must acknowledge and accept that not everyone is Christian in his or her orientation nor do we have a right to make it so. In all the praying and fretting over the founding of this nation, forgotten is the fact that it was the concept of religious freedom (First Amendment), the need for individual rights and the concept of property rights which are the strong reasons for this country’s defection from Europe. As President Bush acknowledged, no one enjoys being occupied and neither do men and women of faith appreciate being told who is their God and how that God is to be worshipped.

Thirdly, prisoner abuse must be exorcized. Islam to be understood must first be respected for it surpasses Christianity in its members and converts. Islam is a patrilineal religion with much authority placed in the hands of men who exercise authoritarian control over women in the eyes of some. The humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by showing men naked, reportedly attacked by dogs, posed in sexually degrading postures, is bad enough but to have them splayed before an American woman in their minds is the insult of insults. If civilian Iraqi women have been raped and children molested by those acting on this nation’s behalf, under no conditions will this be tolerated or forgiven by many in the Middle East, nor should it be tolerated by this nation.

Heads will and must roll for our national security is being further threatened. To not understand this means looking over your shoulder constantly for we can never be secure against people who are known to carry on wars for ages. We must support our troops but be mindful that privates, corporals and the like who are underlings are responsible through a chain of command which must be cleansed of this foolishness as well.

Fourth, this nation must understand what the VFW notes, the price of freedom is not free.

Fifth, the use of private contractors not accountable to the US government and US Congress for its actions is something that must be seriously examined. We need a military where all citizens share in the responsibility for the protection and security of the nation against enemies domestic and foreign. We may be at that juncture where volunteers alone may not be sufficient to meet our nation’s needs and commitments. If we required national service of our citizens, we would have more accountability for our involvements and our foreign policies.
Had Oakwood International from Richland, NC been given the housing contract instead of non-competitive bids by Halliburton or political cronies, we could have had substantial concrete housing up in 16 days, which can be adapted by the cultures involved as well as finished with the labor and contributory products from citizens of that country. This housing would have employed and still can employ hundreds in Iraq as well as NC where so many of our jobs have been removed. This housing would give Iraq the economic development needed to quiet the disaffected.

Six, Iraq’s oil isn’t the spoil of the victors nor will it be sufficient to pay debts. It’s past time that this nation had a reasonable energy policy, which looks at new sources of fuel and energy as well as conservation of resources. If 10-15 mile per gallon cars is to be continually used, oil wars will be in the foreseeable future.

Ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s public voice has never wavered in his support of the President, nor has his compassion for the people and estimate of the nature of the problems of the troubled Middle East been more on target. Maybe it’s time to let Secretary Powell do what he has done well, be a. top military man for this nation or a United Nation’s envoy to the Middle East.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a licensed teacher for secondary education in mathematics and science, previous elected school board member, physician and was a Republican candidate for the 2002 NC US Senate and 2004 NC US Congress 12th District seat.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

The Ranks Of The NUTs Keeps Growing

I had thought that the Robert Byrd story would have been old news by now, but today I was amazed to see his defenders, among black folks, come out of the wood work. Some of these should know better.

It made me wonder if the ranks of the N.U.T.s (New Uncle Toms) is growing or if people are just going nuts, as in losing their minds.

I posted my blog of yesterday on a chat list that I participate in and was sent a copy of an article by Earl Ofari Hutchinson.

In this article Hutchinson goes far beyond where USA Today, the Washington Post & even the NY Times went in their discussion of Robert Byrd's book.

I have to say that I am left baffled by Hutchinson's article and not sure if he is a NUT or just a nut.

Here are just a few things Earl has to say on Robert Byrd's past. "He's admitted it often, Byrd has come clean and apologized for that sordid episode in his past and he called his night ride with the Klan a foolish move that haunted him for decades."

Poor Robert Byrd. Earl apparently feels sorry for the poor man's having to have suffered.

Hutchinson then goes on an attack of the GOP for most of his article stating that the GOP attacks Byrd because he has been a "Thorn in their side on Bush's war policies." This is followed by a litany of alledged GOP racist practices. Going back to President Eisenhower.

There is a problem, however, with much, if not all, of Hutchinson's accusations. They are questionable at best, and false at their worst.

Here are a few so called GOP atrocities:
1) President Eisenhower is to have referred to black people as Nigras.
2) President Eisenhower is to have winked and told Justice Earl Warren, " that he understood why Southerners would not want their sweet little girls required to sit in school next to some big black buck."
3) President Nixon was to have "routinely peppered his talks with his confidants with deragatory quips about blacks," and enshrined racially tinged words such as "law & order, permissive society, welfare cheats," and others.
4) President Reagan when asked how he would treat black leaders said "to hell with them."
5) President Bush (41) used the infamous Willie Horton add.

He goes on to lambast the GOP for the alledged ties of Trent Lott and Bob Barr to the CCC, and says the GOP tried to keep the the apology on the lynch law issue quiet, "to cover their part in beating back anti-lynching legislation."

Here is the problem with most of this. If it were true and most of this is suspect, at their worst, none of these actions approach anything the Ku Klux Klan did in its past. As a friend told me today, "even if Robert Byrd did not participate in any lynchings personally, if, as he states himself, he recruited 150 members to the Klan and one or more of them did lynch someone, what is his role in those lynchings?"

Beyond that the childishness of this "tit for tat" is ridiculous. Eisenhower called us Nigras, LBJ called MLK "that Nigger Preacher," and it is reported that Bill & Hillary Clinton often referred to us in the N word. So what? Where does this leave us? Both Eisenhower & LBJ are responsible for the Civile Rights Act of 1964. Esidenhower proposed it as the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and Johnson got it passed with the help of GOP Senators in 1964. Tis was done by breaking the fillibuster, of none other than one Sen. Robert Byrd.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson's, and others, feeble attempts leave us with supposedly intelligent people defending indefensable behavior. What does Earl Ofari Hutchinson hope to prove or gain with this? I can only wonder. I hope that whoever is paying his salary is paying him well, becasue he is doing an incredible job or turning crap into gold.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Add One More To The Byrd Dance

Although I have read several articles and blog posts on the release of the
Robert Byrd book today, I have only seen one place that gets close to asking some of the questions I have been asking regarding the Senator's past. ( June 20,2005)

First of all let me say that I am all for forgiving Sen. Byrd, Gov. George Wallace, Jesse Helms, Al Gore Sr., you name them, but I need to know that the confession and repentance is, as much as is possible, sincere and complete.

In Byrd's book and the related interviews to date, he mentines his so-called "short" stay in the Klan, and that he was drawn to the organization because its members were role models, who were a brothernhood of elites, such as doctors, lawyers, clergy, etc..

Back then "many of the 'best' people were members," he says, and Byrd was vulnerable to the anti-Communism rhetoric.

He indicates that his motives were pure and patriotic, but once he got involved in politics, that he cut his ties to them.

But questions remain. Why did Grand Keagle Byrd write a letter in December 1945 to Senator Theodore Bilbo, a Mississipi Democrat stating the following?

"I would never fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

Why, in 1964 during the debate over the Civil Rights Act, did this same Senator Robert Byrd fillibuster the passage of the Act for over 14 hours?

Then of course we have our infamous 2002 "white niggers" comment.

In reading the Washington Post and USA Today articles on this, one would think that Byrd was an innocent, patriotic citizen and that it is easy to understand how one would mistake the Ku Klux Klan for a grown version of the Boy Scouts.

I just have one thing to say that I think will cut through all of this nonsense. Imagine that it had been Trent Lott or any Republican in this situation. What would the discussion have been today?

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Learning To Read- (All Over again)

Some things you just take for granted. You just figure this is how it is and that is it.

Well, that is what I thought about learning to read. I learned my alphabet, vocabulary, and finally sentence structure. Look ma I'm reading. Well, lo and behold, that is appanrently not enough any longer. I am afraid we all need to learn to read in a whole new way in these times.

Last week, I caught a great short piece on the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal website,

informing us that the Senate had proposed and would pass a resolution apologizing for failing to pass anti-lynching legislation in the tragic period of our nation's history between the end of the Civil War & the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There were more that 200 congressional resolutions brought up that would have dealt with the hideous practice, but Senate fillibusters kept that from happening and over 4500 people were murdered by lynching.

Having studied a bit on the history of Senate action in this regard, or should I say inaction, I knew just who was responsible for this. It was Southern Democrats, who used lynching initially and most often as an incentive to keep people from voting Republican. Between 1882 and 1964, 4743 people were lynched of which 3446 were black. Why were most of them black? As per Republican Rep. John R. Lynch, "More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party." Godwin Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 276- Rep. John R. Lynch from his speech in the case of his contested election; Russel' & Russell;1969 (1)

This week, after the Senate voted to pass the new resolution, here is how it was reported on the Fox News ticker. " Senate by voice vote, apolgizes for failing to enact over 200 bills banning lynchings. The Congress passed several resolutions, but the Senate with southern conservatives, used the fillubuster to overrided the passage of the resolutions." Did you catch what happened here? The word conservative was used to replace Democrats. But it was not southern conservatives, it was Southern Democrats, that blocked the passage of these bills.

Why is this so important you ask? After I sent out an email informing people of the word switch, several people told me that they had not even noticed this themselves, but that the next day every paper or report that they saw, which did report the resolution used the word conservatives instead of Democrats. Then today a friend told me that he had shown his wife the article without mentioning anything about the choice of terms. His wife read it and in reading the word Southern conservatives exclaimed, "those Damn Republicans." Yes, that is the point, the Democratic Party has managed to successfully implant negative word associations into the minds of black and many poor whites. The words conservative, and right wing Christian, are all interchangeable with Republican in the minds of many Americans. Unfortunately the words have a negative connotation and thus work in the Democrats favor when used in the right context.

So here in this situation, the very Party guilty of the crimes, is able to shift the blame for these crimes, in the minds of the victims, to the very people who worked to fight the crimes; many of them giving their own lives in the process.

No, simply reading is no longer sufficient. There is a sinister plot that has been carried out against the common man. We must now learn to read in a new way. To read beneath and around the words, and to teach others to do the same. As conservatives our very existence depends upon it.

(1) For an in depth, historical look at the Democratic Party's attack upon Republicans in the South go to: Black History Issue 2003

Barak Obama- "The Next Black Liberal Hypnotist!”

Most of Black America is in a deep sleep. This sleeping nation, within a nation, has been receiving a steady dose of liberal medicine for decades, and now finds itself at the brink of cultural, economic and political death.

It’s amazing how the liberal agenda has poisoned the thought process of Backs and kept us dependent on liberal thought. We have taken the whole cocktail of liberal logic and without asking what the effects are. The bedrock of this cocktail is none other than the blind dependence on Government.

To think that government “programs” can solve the problem of poverty in the Inner City is unfounded. Government has only a responsibility to provide a strong military, infrastructure and the rule of law to preserve freedom. No government is capable of solving poverty. The only thing that can eradicate poverty is economic growth and all the factors that come along with economic growth: Employment, Wealth Creation, Capital Investment. All of these improve the quality of life.

LBJ tried to deal with poverty, with the “Great Society Projects”. Just take a look at the Cost/Benefit and you will see that the costs were greater than the benefits when examining LBJ’s government programs. Now we have a black senator on the Oprah Show championing big government and socialism, and black America is taking the poison all in.

Senator Obama, seems poised to be the chief leftwing puppet, and the next black sage of socialism. I fear for my people who are listening to this liberal garbage. Black leadership should be out supporting capital development, Black entrepreneurs and school vouchers which will reduce the poverty rate in urban communities. When people are thirsty they will drink anything and right now Black America is thirsty. Although they will drink anything that looks or sounds good, the only thing that can truly quench this thirst is the active use of capitalist principles.

Submitted by Jesse Stewart

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Send The Jackson Jury to Washington

If I had gotten fed up (and believe me I was) with all of the hooplah over the Michael Jackson trial, and the endless punditry, it was all worth it to experience yesterday's verdict and the aftermath.

I do not care what you thought about the verdict, guilt or innocence, that jury was awesome. Think about it, these people sat through months of posturing by lawyers, and even worse posturing and showmanship from supposed professional legal analysts and reporters. In the end, or from the beginning, they made up their own minds.

To see that lefitst darling and attorney, Wendy Murphy melt down on FOX was priceless: "What this verdict shows us is that California juries need to take an IQ test so they can know how to evaluate evidence," she shouted after the verdict was read. Like taking IQ tests to vote Wendy? Only those who think like you get to do it? She went on to imply that young children would now be ravaged by perverts since open season has been declared on them by this verdict. Get a grip Wendy.

To me that jury is a model and hope for America and deserves to be cloned and sent to replace most of our officials in Washington D.C..

Think about it, this jury, of all whites with one Latino, from a community where a black man could not possibly get a fair trial, defied the odds and all of the doubters; they gave Michael Jackson a fair trial. Or more if you believe Wendy.

This jury listened to and evaluated evidence and made up their own minds despite the best efforts of analysts and pundits galor.

They were unanimous in their conclusion that the facts spoke for themselves with no need to look to what if, maybe, or to think about this and that. "The facts ma'am just the facts."

They resisted the pressure of feeling sorry for a so-called victim, looked at the facts as presented and obeyed the rules as presented in the judges instructions. They did not need to have anyone explain what these instructions really meant and what wiggle room they had. "The facts ma'am, just the facts."

They did not look at what may have happened before, or what may happen later, they looked at what happened this time. "The facts ma'am, just the facts."

And they contradicted the polls. Only 1/3 of the American public believes Michael Jackson is innocent. These polls like so many others too often reflect the thoughts of the half-informed, the mis-informed or the uninformed, but who think they have enough information to know better than those on the front lines and that their opinions deserve to be heeded.

This jury was confident, unrepentant, and felt good about itself. And here is the clincher- if it is true that they were unanimous in taking a not guilty vote on the first day, and sticking to that, imagine them keeping it a secret all of those months. What, no leaks, no hint? Wow, when is the last time our government acted that way. That is behavior unheard of in Washington.

Think if we had a Congress, an Administration, oh yes, and a Judiciary, that acted like this jury? Maybe we would get some things done and even be happy about it.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Would Somebody Please Tell Me?


For instance,

"Dean last week touched off a flurry of criticism by saying Republicans 'never made an honest living in their lives,' which he later clarified to say he meant Republican 'leaders.' " - from San Francisco Chronicle writer, Carla Marinucci:

Now, who does he mean, "Republican leaders" not making an "honest living?"

Could he mean Senate Majority Leader and Harvard Medical grad, Dr. Bill Frist? Never made an honest living, huh? Frist joined the lab of W. John Powell Jr., M.D., at Massachusetts General Hospital in 1977, where he continued his training in cardiovascular physiology. He left the lab in 1978 to become a resident in surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. In 1983 he spent time at Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, England as senior registrar in cardiothoracic surgery. He returned to Massachusetts General in 1984 as chief resident and fellow in cardiothoracic surgery. From 1985 until 1986, Frist was senior fellow and chief resident in cardiac transplant service and cardiothoracic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine. After completing his fellowship, he became a faculty member at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where he began a heart and lung transplantation program. He also became staff surgeon at the Nashville Veterans Administration Hospital. In 1989, he founded the Vanderbilt Transplant Center. "He is currently licensed as a physician, and is certified in general surgery and heart surgery. He has performed over 150 heart transplants and lung transplants, including pediatric heart transplants and combined heart and lung transplants."

Apparently, according to Howard Dean, Dr. Frist, has performed 150 DISHONEST heart and lung transplants (from Wikipedia encyclopedia).

Or is Dean referring to RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman. According to the Economist, “it is impossible to find anybody in political circles, Democratic as well as Republican, who doesn't think that he's the ideal man for the job [as chair for the Republican National Committee].” Ken previously served as the campaign manager for Bush-Cheney ’04 which political pundit Charlie Cook referred to as, “the best planned, best executed presidential campaign ever.”

So Republicans AND Democrats think Mehlman is the ideal man for the job of chairman of he Republican National Committee...probably because he is such a "dishonest," strategist, as Dean would have you believe. Oh yeah, Howard, Ken Mehlman is a Jew and not the typical "white Christian" of which you claim the Republican Party is most comprised.

Maybe Dean is talking about Vice-president Dick Cheney. Let's check out his "dishonest" credentials: Cheney served as "Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Mr. Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history - Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. military in an age of profound and rapid change as the Cold War ended. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Secretary Cheney was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush on July 3, 1991 (from Wikipedia Encyclopedia)."

Another dishonest Republican -- and this one directed "two of the largest military campaigns in recent history," and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I supposed it should have been called the Medal of Dishonor, in Howard Dean's world.

Would other "dishonest" Republican leaders who "never made an honest living in their lives" include Bush cabinet leaders, Donald Rumsfield, Condoleeza Rice, (former secretary of state) Colin Powell, Alphonso Jackson, Alberto Gonzales, and Elaine Chao?

Democrats, y'all need to quit excusing this guy's ranting diatribes. Rein this guy in -- or put a muzzle on his mouth. How can your leading Democratic spokesman, accusing the opposition party of dishonesty, dare to be taken seriously as he spews ill-thought-out half-truths, lies and hyperbole? All in the name of energizing the base [read: collecting more money]?

And would somebody out there in the major media get as upset as I am about this? The man needs to be held accountable for what he says.

Murdock "Doc" Gibbs
Ph. 972-462-1883
Coppell TXProject 21 freelance commentator

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Dems Can't Hide From Social Security Truth

Ever since President Bush announced that he was making social security reform one of, if not the prime issue of his second term, Democrats have done nothing but attack the idea, and to hope that ignorace wins the day. Ever so slowly, however, the truth leaks out.

Last week USA Today writer Dennis Cauchon wrote a piece in the paper entitled: Can The Rich Save Social Security?

Cauchon reveals what I have been writing about and telling interviewers for some time now, that raising the ceiling on income subject to FICA will take care of most of the deficit and other solvency questions, while creating a fair and equitable situation.

Cauchon says: "If the wealthy paid 12.4% payroll taxes on all their income but kept their current benefits, Social Security's deficit immediately would become a projected $540 million surplus, the Social Security Administration estimates.

"Even if the rich got higher benefits to reflect their bigger tax bite, Social Security would close its long-term deficit by 93%."

So, it is clear here, that the deficit problem is not really that big of a deal. Well, then if the deficit problem, which seems to be the #1 hit song the Dems are singing, and in tune, can be taken care of, where is the problem?

Let's look at another hit song the Democrats are singing. How often have we heard that personal accounts are a scheme to help the rich and hurt the poor? Really? What scheme is that; I ask?

The funny thing about this is that the so-called friends of the poor, like Sen. Edward Kennedy, oppose the idea of raising the FICA ceiling. Mr. Kennedy's oppostion is allegedly because of a "fear it will undermine political support for the program and recast Social Security as a welfare system rather than a pension program." Are you kidding me? Opposed because it might recast social security as a welfare system? Now that is funny, I have never heard of Mr. Kennedy, or most other Democratic members of Congress concerned about any aspect of a welfare system. I believe the first part of his oppostion is more likely the the real reason for their concern.

I thought Kennedy, et, al, were strong supporters of the welfare system. So why would they be opposed to lifting the ceiling? Could the real reason be that they would finally have to pay their fair share and level the field? I think Kennedy is counting on the public not knowing the truth about who pays their "fair share" in social security taxes.

Let's look at the example Cauchon uses, of Tiger Woods, who made $80million in 2004 vs. another person that made $75,000. Based upon the 12.4% FICA (social Security) tax rate used by Cauchon, Tiger paid $11, 160 in Social Security while the person making $75,000 paid $9375.00. As a percentage of income, Tiger paid .014% of his income in FICA, while the person making $75,000 paid a full 12.4% of his or hers. In real dollars that means Tiger earned $79,925,000 more than the person making $75,000, but Tiger paid only $1785.00 more in FICA taxes. That's fair isn't it?

To get an even better idea of what this means, let's reverse the numbers. The 12.4% of Tigers $80 million is $10 million, while .014% of $75,000 is $10.50. Wow, now who's paying their fair share?

Do you think this might affect who could cares more about the issue? Do you think Ted Kennedy, and other wealthy Democrats and Republicans, who make as much or more than Tiger Woods might care more about reform if this scenario were true?

Let's play with this imaginary scenario some more and add to this the fact that under the present system Tiger could not touch this promised retirement benefit until he is 65. If he died prior to age 65 , with no surviving spouse or children under age 18, uncle Sam keeps the entire $10 million paid in annually. That means that, if Tiger should make this income for 20 years the Govt. would collect and keep $200 million of Tiger's income. Is the light coming on yet?

While, as mentioned in the USA Today article, lifting the ceiling on income subject to FICA could create a permanent federal surplus for these funds, there is a secondary and I believe even more crucial benefit to raising the ceiling. Imagine if the wealthy, like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning or Michael Moore were taxed at a rate of 12.4% of their income. Do you think that these people would allow the system to continue to be run as it has been? I did not even go to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. With real money involved, I can guarantee you that they would demand accountability and results. Those demands would fix the system and benefit everyone, not just the rich.

At the the present, however, the rich have no vested interest in the system and, therefore, are willing to accept that it is okay as it is. That is why they can say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." They have no perception of what "broke" is.

Cauchon asks the question, "can the rich save social security?" I say yes, they can. But a better question might be, will they?