Social Security Tutorial

Since Trump suggested that cuts to Social Security are a possibility, social media has been full of people shouting about him "taking their money". It's time for another tutorial on Social Security.

Yes, It's an "Entitlement" 
Somehow over the years the word "entitlement" has gained a bad connotation. Many people think it means "welfare" and they think "welfare" is equivalent to people getting free handouts. However, in government parlance the term "entitlement" describes any program where the beneficiaries have to receive the benefits that they qualify for. If you meet the conditions for receiving Social Security payments, you are entitled to that monthly check. It's true that there are some government programs that pay benefits without requiring previously earning a paycheck and "paying into it", but entitlements also cover such things as farm subsidies and military pensions.

No, You Didn't "Pay Into It"
Yes, you did pay taxes that were earmarked for the Social Security program. However, these funds were not held in trust for you to be paid out when you retired, any more than your auto or medical insurance is. There is not a dedicated bank account, or even an accounting line that adds up your money, money that is yours. If you are working, your FICA deductions are paying for current retirees; when you retire, your checks will be backed by the FICA deductions of those future workers. Granted, the amount of lifetime earnings partially determines what you Social Security benefit will be, but if you die before recouping everything you paid in FICA taxes, you can't determine in your will that your benefits checks will go to someone you designate, like you can with ordinary assets.

No, The Government Hasn't "Raided" the Social Security Trust Fund
This myth is often used to "explain" why Social Security will allegedly run out of money. The Social Security Trust Fund is not a government bank account with all the money collected from workers over the years and held until they retire. Every year until very recently the amount collected in FICA taxes has exceeded the amount paid out in benefits. The Social Security Administration is required by law to convert this surplus into US Treasury bills that earn interest. The annual interest is then paid from the overall budget into the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Trust currently has close to 3 trillion dollars in assets, most of those assets are in US Treasury bills.

No, We're Not Going to Run Out of Money To Pay Benefits
Even though benefits paid now exceed FICA taxes collected, the difference is currently being made up by interest being paid on the Treasury bills from the general fund. Eventually, the Treasury bills themselves will be redeemed and there will be no more interest paid, some time after that the assets in reserve in the Trust Fund will be depleted. It's at that point that some action will need to be taken, but not because Social Security is bankrupt. There will still be an income stream from FICA taxes on those future workers. It is estimated if no action is taken benefits will need to be reduced to approximately 80% of current levels. In order to keep benefits at current levels Congress will either need to statutorily decrease benefits, raise the retirement age again, increase FICA taxes, or pump money into the program from the general fund.

Is the Social Security Trust Fund Truly Separate From the Rest of the Budget?
Yes and no. By law, Congress cannot use a surplus in Social Security to pay for additional spending or a tax cut. Even though the Trust Fund contains what amounts to IOUs and not cash, Congress cannot simply "raid" it. On the other hand, since by buying Treasury bills, cash is freed up for the overall budget. Most of the annual budget deficit is funded by taking on debt. By taking on debt to itself, this reduces the amount of borrowing that Congress has to do to fund the government each year. This also makes the budget deficit appear to be lower than it actually is.

This isn't the whole story, but are some bite-sized morsels to help you understand how the system works and ignore the misleading information.

The Second Amendment is Not a Suicide Pact

The "lobbying" efforts by gun enthusiasts in Virginia yesterday got me thinking about a few things. And "thinking" is the operative word. So much rhetoric about firearms in this country involves knee-jerk reactions and unwarranted assumptions - I personally try to think through my opinions and accept that not everyone who disagrees with me is a bad person.

The first point that I want to make is that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is not as clear as people think it is. One of the things that I learned in an alleged Biblical research organization many years ago is that in order to fully understand the meaning of something that was written many years ago, you have to understand how words were used during that time. This not only applies to the literal meaning, dictionary definition, of words, but the colloquial usage and terms of art at the time. Often a term is so well understood by those in a certain milieu that it is never defined. We also have to contend with the changing situation as the decades and centuries go by. Citizens were not only allowed, but encouraged to own firearms in part because there was no standing army as we know it today. The defense of the nation was undertaken in large part by state militias that were made up of citizens who supplied their own weapons. But does this mean that the Second Amendment restricted gun ownership to state militias? Almost certainly not. Advocates on all sides in our arguments over guns believe that they have the one true interpretation of how the Second Amendment should be applied.

What is not arguable is that we have a problem in this country with acts of violence being committed by people with guns. Hardly a day goes by without someone opening fire in a church, or a school, or some other public place. What is the answer? I readily admit that I don't know what the answer is, however stubbornly refusing to include firearm regulation as part of the solution is shortsighted. Adamantly removing a whole class of possible remedies just doesn't make sense. What happens whenever any regulation of ownership, including background checks and waiting periods is proposed, the chicken littles of the NRA and their allies shout that the government is coming to take their guns, despite there never having been a serious effort to do so. The NRA has also successfully lobbied Congress so that any statistical research into gun violence that might conceivably aid in finding an answer has been prohibited. Information that might help us plot a course toward decreasing the needless deaths at the hands of individuals with guns can't be collected.

So what happens? A state government proposes several laws to regulate firearms. The public, including lobbying groups such as the NRA, have the opportunity to speak to their representatives and express their opinion. (In fact, the people of Virginia have already expressed their opinion by overwhelmingly voting for Democrats in the elections for governor and state legislators; Democrats who were very clear that gun regulation was high on their list of priorities.) In addition to any one-on-one meetings with legislators, advocates of unrestricted, unregulated, gun ownership flooded the state capitol area with heavily armed people who looked like they were going to war. At least one county Sheriff among the crowd announced that he would not enforce any gun regulations if passed, determining for himself that the laws, which had not even been debated, let alone passed, were unconstitutional. I thought we had courts and judges for that.

This is what I see as a major stumbling block in addressing violence by armed individuals: the unwillingness of some segments of the gun-owning population to even consider options that involve any mention of actual guns. If the high-powered lobbying paired with lucrative campaign donations wasn't enough, the now-common protest tactic of marching through the streets armed to the teeth. Now I'm not going to mock these people as "ammosexuals", or assume that none of them had ever served in the military, or belittle the appearance of the ones who appear to be in less than optimal physical shape, but I am going to opine that this type of demonstration is nothing more than an intimidation tactic.

The proliferation of mostly right-wing types to demonstrate carrying conspicuously displayed weapons is something that I find quite scary. We were lucky this week in Virginia in that there was no violence, despite the presence of right-wing groups other than just gun owners. Partly this was due to the lack of counter-protesters. I lived for a time in a small rural town. Gun racks in the back of pickups were not unusual and caused me no anxiety. However, back then if I had seem someone walking the streets of New York, or even Lincoln Nebraska with a military style weapon, or even an openly displayed handgun, I probably would have called the police and the police would have thanked me for it. In the 80's a heavily armed man in camouflage gear in the city streets would have alarmed any law enforcement officer, even if this person was acting within the law. Now, there is no way to know if the guy strolling around the grocery store with a sniper rifle is just "exercising his rights" or is about to become the newest mass murderer.

The NRA, as well as politicians on the right, have warped the discussion so that even considering that part of reducing gun violence involves the actual guns send many gun owners into a frenzy, sending people into the streets to intimidate those that disagree with them and refusing to obey the law. The answers are complex, but addressing the problem of gun violence without considering the actual guns is madness.

Speaker Pelosi Should Send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate

The impeachment inquiry resulted in impeachment. Donald J. Trump was therefore the third president in American history to be impeached. That part is done and is down in the history books, despite one constitutional scholar claiming that it's not "officially" an impeachment until the Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has delayed sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She has said that she is waiting for assurance that the Senate will conduct an impartial trial. She knows, as does everyone else, that a fair and impartial trial just isn't going to happen. Most Senators have made up their minds. Crucially, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said publicly that he will coordinate with the White House regarding strategy. He has made it clear that he will call no witnesses and wants this to be a quick, pro forma process. Some Republicans are arguing that a partisan process favoring Trump is appropriate since, as they allege, the House process was partisan against Trump. So what are we waiting for?

Although she hasn't stated this overtly, surely Speaker Pelosi knows that there is no chance of conviction in the Senate. There's barely a chance of mild disagreement with Trump among Republicans, let alone 20 votes for removal from office. Perhaps she's trying to shine a spotlight on the fact that Republican Senators will ignore the evidence in order to salvage Trump's presidency. If that's the case, mission accomplished! McConnell has rightly stated that it is not appropriate for the Speaker of the House to attempt to set rules for the Senate. Speaker Pelosi has gotten as much mileage out of this that is possible. She made her point, it's time to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Speaker Pelosi should hold a press conference and state that she is transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, since this is her constitutional duty despite indications from Senate leadership that they are not taking their constitutional duty seriously. She should add that she delayed sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate because she wanted to give Majority Leader McConnell the opportunity to assure the American people that there would be an impartial trial based on facts, not blind loyalty.

Do it today, Speaker Pelosi

Nationalism

Nationalism is a crazy thing. If you're a nationalist, no matter what nation you live in, your nation, by definition is always right. And anyone who opposes you is, by definition, wrong...or evil. I don't think it's even arguable that Iran wants to be the dominant power in the region. Of course they do...and so does Saudi Arabia...and the United States. Have they used their military and proxy militaries and militias to get their way? Sure they have. Why is it evil when they do it, but national self-interest when we do it? Why is Soleimani a terrorist when he kills American, Iraqi and coalition military, but no one bats an eye at all the civilian deaths that our military has caused? Not to mention that not only do we pardon war criminals, but our president prevents the military from enforcing any discipline. I'm not in favor of our men and women in uniform being killed, but then again, I'm not in favor of them invading other countries based on cherry-picked intelligence and shady motives either.

Arguably, the first overt move in an Iran-U.S. war was the assassination of Soleimani, but we have been waging economic war against Iran for over a year. Iran was complying with a multinational agreement that prevented them from developing nuclear weapons. Trump unilaterally tore up the agreement and imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran. We are fortunate that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps hadn't started seriously hitting American targets before this. Trump initiated hostilities by cancelling the agreement, Trump escalated the situation by imposing sanctions, and now he's started a shooting war by this political hit.

According to Trump, the Iran Nuclear "Deal" was the worst ever (alongside NAFTA and all the other "worst deals"), even though its goals were being accomplished. Our own intelligence services and international monitors verified it. His withdrawal and imposition of sanctions was supposed to convince Iran to come back to the negotiating table and accept a new agreement more favorable to the U.S., although we never heard what that agreement might consist of. It was obvious to all (even though Trumpublicans wouldn't admit it) that withdrawing unilaterally from this and others would erode any trust that other countries would have  that we would honor our agreements. Iran wasn't predisposed to trust us in the first place, there was no way that they would ever sit down with us again. No one was (or should have been) surprised that Iran started ramping up covert and proxy attacks against Iraqi military, U.S. and coalition forces and international shipping. I still haven't decided whether Trump, influenced by Bolton and Pompeo, wanted this all along - an excuse to bomb Iran into the Stone Age, or he's just that stupid. It's a toss-up.

For now, we get to listen to the crazy man in the White House spout nonsense while his sycophantic supporters call us unhinged and unpatriotic.

Let's Not Forget Impeachment

In case you forgot, Trump was impeached. He was only the third president to have been impeached. If you're a little shaky on how it all works, impeachment doesn't mean that a president is removed from office. It is similar to a criminal indictment in that The House of Representatives has determined that there is sufficient evidence for a trial in the Senate. The Senate theoretically weighs the evidence and either votes, by 2/3 majority, to convict, resulting in removal from office, or acquittal, which results in him remaining in office. We still have not had the Senate trial, so removal is still theoretically an open question.

The recent assassination of an Iranian general is nothing more than a distraction from the question of whether Trump should be removed from office.

According to Trump, Soleimani was killed in order to prevent attacks on Americans that he was in the process of planning - a preemptive strike to save American lives. There are several problems with that explanation:

1. Soleimani was answerable to the Iranian leadership - if an attack was in the works, surely the next general in line will implement the plan
2. Also according to Trump, Soleimani has been planning and carrying out attacks against Americans and our allies for years. Why kill him now?
3. For someone who is now being described as the face of evil, and the biggest threat to the United States in the world today, there's is an amazingly small amount of information about him available before last week
4. Trump has, until recently, been firm about bringing our forces hone from the region and refraining from getting involved in endless wars
5. Trump infamously does not listen to experts, especially not in our intelligence services

I don't believe that there's any other explanation than:

1. Trump is trying to distract from the upcoming Senate trial
2. Trump is looking to increase his chances of reelection by appearing to be decisive regarding national security

The ramifications of Trump's adventurism notwithstanding, he has still attempted to suborn a foreign head of state in an effort to influence an election. He still lied about it and obstructed any investigation into his actions. Despite Mueller finding no evidence of anything that met the legal definition of conspiracy or of any coordination with Russia, Trump still accepted and encouraged foreign assistance. Mueller identified numerous examples of obstruction; the only thing that prevented an indictment on that charge was a longstanding Department of Justice opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted. 

He is damaged goods. Whatever he is attempted with regard to Iran should not distract from his ongoing crimes. 

State Sponsored Assassination (By Us)

There's a reason that assassination isn't the preferred tool of warfare. Rather than serving as a warning, it more often functions as a provocation, making things worse. Despite the claims from the White House that the assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani will make Americans safer, it is likely to be used as a pretext for Iranian action against American targets. If our people are so safe, why are Americans being urged to immediately leave Iraq?

One of the figures that I have heard quoted without question since yesterday is that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of over 600 American & coalition service members. What is this based upon? What is the source? What were the circumstances? It is suggested that these deaths were indirectly caused by Soleimani, carried out be Iranian supported Iraqi militias. When did this take place? I have a hard time trusting anything that the serial liar in the White House tells us and I haven't seen any independent sourcing for these claims.

One of things that I learned via some Google searches this morning was that Soleimani's Quds Force was fighting to defeat ISIL even as we were. Along with the Kurdish militias, the Iranians apparently provided a lot of the ground troops while we provided air cover and aerial bombing. I guess when he was doing the hard work of destroying the ISIL caliphate wasn't the right time to assassinate him.

Assassination.

We didn't kill him on the field of battle. There wasn't even a battle. Assassinating a high ranking official of another nation, especially one that we are not at war with, is in itself an act of war. Congress, not the President, has the authority and responsibility to declare war. The president, in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, has the authority and responsibility to direct and allocate the actions of those armed forces, but not to unilaterally declare another country as an enemy and launch an attack, other than in self-defense.

Of course, Trump has set the groundwork for this action. First, he declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which the Quds Force is part of, was declared a terrorist organization, the first time an arm of a foreign government was so designated. Second, Trump has been characterizing the very existence of Quds Force as a threat that needed to be defended against. Preemptive attacks are not defensive, but offensive.

No one, literally no one, is saying that Soleimani was a good guy, however, he was not a rogue actor, but the representative of a sovereign nation. And Iran, that sovereign nation, is not going to sit by as we assassinate their people. I seriously doubt that Trump has thought through the repercussions of this action.

Assault on Our Embassy in Iraq

Both Republicans and Democrats are comparing the recent attack on the United States embassy in Iraq to the attack in Benghazi during the Obama administration. Democrats are emphasizing that, like the Benghazi incident, an American embassy was attacked and are wondering aloud why there is no outcry and finger-pointing among Republicans like there was after the Benghazi attack. Republicans are emphasizing that there was no loss of life and that the crowd of protesters have ceased attacking, supposedly because of American reinforcements. There are several differences.

The diplomatic building that was attacked in Benghazi was not an embassy, but was a minimally staffed consulate; the compound in Baghdad was a fully staffed embassy with a full complement of Marine security personnel. Libya at the time of the Benghazi attack had no functioning government after the ousting of Qaddafi, an anarchistic competition among multiple militias made for an extremely dangerous atmosphere, Iraq, while not free of strife, has an operational government, army and police force that could support the American military on site. The Benghazi attacks were ultimately blamed on an  al-Qaeda offshoot and were part of that organization's continuing program of terrorist attacks on American targets; the Baghdad attack was in direct response to American retaliatory action against an Iraqi militia whose actions caused the death of an American contractor. The Trump administration blamed Iran for both the initial attack and the protest that resulted in the assault on the embassy.

Democrats are right to question the administration's actions with respect to Iran. They are wrong in comparing this incident to Benghazi, mainly for political reasons. Labeling this as "Trump's Benghazi" invites the response that there was no loss of life, and shines a light on an incident that made the Obama administration and Secretary of State Clinton look, at the very least, inept. They should address this incident separately and avoid links to Benghazi.  While there are significant differences, and the lack of any loss of life at the Baghdad embassy, the comparatively happy outcome is not the result of any strategic genius on the part of Trump or Pompeo, but simply a function of the differing circumstances.

The fact that our embassy was assaulted at all should be concerning to Trump and Pompeo and company. If the reason for the protest is to be taken at face value, Iraqis are furious that one of their allies, the United States, conducted a military operation on their territory. Initially I thought that the retaliatory operation was undertaken without notifying the Iraqi government. They were in fact notified, but we did not ask for permission. Trump believes that the militia attack and the subsequent protests leading to the breach of the embassy's walls were insinuated by Iran. If so, should we be surprised? After a long negotiating process, the United States, along with Russia, China and several European nations agreed to drop economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for them suspending their nuclear program. Trump withdrew us unilaterally from that agreement and reinstituted sanctions. Trump reneged on our agreement without any backup plan and then pointed the finger at Iran for not complying with the agreement that he had just torn up. No one should be surprised if Iran has gone back to taking action to increase its influence in the area at the expense of the United States.

No matter who you want to blame for the incident at our embassy, the blame can be traced back to Trump's "policies" with regard to Iran. Provoking and threatening will only get you so far.